All Activity

Well, from my perspective (single player only) I would answer "yes and no": - Yes: it would have quite some historical references. The resources would go back to gaia. - No: - This would leave no choice to the besieged player wiht a single CC to recover eventually and counter attack. Also, resources are with the player and not with the building. So, if the besieged player has multiple CC and only one is under siege should he also loose resources? I believe no. We do have a gradual change of ownership of any building that is under siege (surrounded by troops if you tell them to capture instead of destroying it). I believe this models more or less what you had in mind, but nothing happens to the besieged player's resources though. So - again - from my personal perspective, I regret, but would not be in favour of that proposal.

Indeed, the community is too MP oriented (many times at its own peril) for something like this to fly, and in this case, it's actually understandable. The only way I see this working is for people not to care about wining but ranking, and getting more points when wining with weaker civs, but I just don't see it happening.

Not true. I (and most here are surely better than me) have no problems beating an Aggressive Very Hard AI, and I almost always do it only with infantry, which shows the harder levels need to be even harder. The only problem I've seen is that the easy levels are too hard for newbies.

I guess the best comedy just writes itself!

I think people will understand you because people use misnomers. I'm just saying I think it's confusing to say "turreted" when the ship has no "turrets" (the ship towers), or when troops can only be "turreted" in the part of the wall that has no turrets, and not "turreted" in the actual turrets. The problem is that, as with many other things in this game, the person that called that action "turret" had no idea what that actually meant. But a small one, ship towers were not really meant to increase range, but to be in a better position to rain missiles on enemy decks (usually they were the same height, with the exception of the quadrireme, which commonly had two levels of oars instead of three). That is different from the question of your poll. You asked "should being able to put units on the deck of the ship be just a mod, or part of vanilla 0 A.D.?", and my answer is obviously yes, for many reasons, but eventually, not necessarily right now, this has not been properly tested, nor is being yet done with what should be the main purpose in mind: boarding. So these things should start as a mod, and only after quite some fine-tuning, be implemented in vanilla.

Hi guys, I'm wondering if you think it's a good idea to make it so that a civic center completely surrounded by the enemy should slowly start losing resources (kinda like the city is starving) Because when Rome was going to capture Carthage; they surrounded the city and attacked only after the city was starving. This has happened a huge amount of times in history, I only gave one example.

Sounds good.

Better, but less hard. The only way to beat the hard AI is get like 50 rams or elephants just send them. I think the towers-fortresses should not be as destructive, that way using normal-champion soldiers is encouraged. That would mean the rams and elephants would have to be weaker, but I don't see anything wrong with that.

Frankly, I don't think that we should do that. Not argueing from history but from the gameplay perspective: For a game that offers different civs, these need to be balanced so they all remain a valid option to be chosen by the player. Any "less capable/less valueable" civ would simply never be chosen and we can remove it from the game. But all this while having different characteristics so that specific strategy might be beeded to win a game, e.g. Kush against Rome.

NO, I'm saying that they should be fully covered regardless of what happened in history. (this is the only time you can make an exemption like this)

So, it seems there is a dispute whether it should be a mod or pull request, so I made a poll that ends at 12:00 on the 16th

Just clarifying, you are saying I should say "posted on deck" instead of turreted, because people think I mean something else? So, maybe if the bigger boats (like siege ships), could have the range bonus, but arrow and ram ships don't Yah, that makes sense, harder to hit a moving target, or harder to hit something when moving. Maybe I could make a mod or something that does that

The problem is that forums have been abandoned, as developers nowadays mostly interact through social media and Discord. We used to have a more varied internet.

Are you saying that culturally they were more dressed?

By "turreted" I guess you mean the people on deck (even in cases where there are no real turrets there, I've stated many times around that this is an misnomer, and that "posted" works better in general). What I said is about the people on deck, so we are talking about the same thing. They shouldn't have a range bonus, unless there's an actual tower in the ship (which only the bigger ships have), and shouldn't be too much anyway. In theory yes, and have more range, but its accuracy could be reduced, since the ship moves. That's why catapults were used in the bigger ships, not only because of more space, but stability.

Yes, maybe champions and cavalry units sink, but all others can swim The range bonus is for the turreted units, not the boat. Or maybe I don't understand what you are saying, could you explain please Shouldn't it do 200 some damage then, like the bolt shooter does I agree, I think the more you garrison, the more fire power it should have at close range

Why? That would deviate from their representations, wouldn't it? Why do you want to either cover or remove women (either these units or proposed Heroes) from the game? Shouldn't the game be even closer to those representations? If not, why, exactly?

I said 0ad should give them more clothes in the game.

Here a commentary on what has evidence and what seems to be "modern iconography's insistence": https://stefanosskarmintzos.wordpress.com/2012/01/16/the-thespians. Given that campaigns took place mostly in summer, I don't think all black would have been a smart choice under the Greek sun. Which is sad because they do look nice

Where is your proof? Look how they are represented: Maybe they should look more like that in the game, what do you think?

No, you aren't. You can also read a few comments back:

I was wrong about the direct Greek genealogy, it is weird how under these circumstances the Carthaginians fashioned a lot of their architecture after Greek and Roman designs. They even fought using similar formations as the Greeks. P.s thank you for correcting my error.

I'm only aligned for making a historically correct game, can you honestly say that what I have said is wrong? what is your proof?

I think some nations should be made significantly better than others; this would be based on the accomplishments each civ made in history like Rome might get a rating of 10, and Kush would get a rating of let's say 3 ( this is not exact ), and the rating would impact the performance of the civ during the game.