All Activity

TOTAL WAR ♥ doble wall anti siege tower and bye bye for you idea you need to set up some things, a wall is max 16 people and garnison tower is 20 , so 4 units will be out for no reason. A total war or strongold system is the best, but a lot of changes ahah , if you have to ungarnison the wall after in the other direction is kinda too much micro for a little efficient, tower wall should work like a stair. Also increase they cost for balance it or reduce their arrow number

I'd also want to have turret restoration patch merged/improved

It would also be nice when they are weaker/capturable from that side.

Not crucial to the features of a Siege Tower, but I think their model needs updated. Perhaps 2 or 3 different Siege Tower models, or the player starts with the generic wooden tower, but with the 'Armor Plating' tech their actor updates to an armored Siege Tower which has a civ-specific look (same goes for Battering Rams for that matter).

I think firstly that walls must be made more useful and less buggy before another countermeasure to them (new Siege Tower features) is implemented. Walls need: 1. Environmental Snapping, such as to (very important) cliffs and impassable water edges, and to objects such as stone mines. 2. A health/cost/buildtime rebalance once they become more ubiquitous in multiplayer. The balance here will be crucial. Perhaps they should be slightly OP in most situations so that countermeasures such as Siege Towers (and other things? Undermines?) are warranted in the first place. 3. (not crucial) I'd like to add Sally Ports, which are like narrow "gates" but only allow one unit through at a time. So, they allow your units through and are more defensible than gates, but are allowed much lower passable bandwidth (and only let soldiers through, not civilian units, elephants, or siege weapons). Battle for Middle Earth II had these and they were nice. 4. I think the way archers "unturret" off of the wall is goofy-looking. Furthermore, which side of the wall they ungarrison to is not immediately clear nor easily controlled (if currently even possible at all?). We should fix this somehow. Maybe we can animate units running laterally across the wall's parapet to the nearest wall tower and ungarrisoning from those.

I can take care of it. Do you want your old posts to be deleted as well, or are you ok with them remaining?

You should be able to review translations now.

I was thinking about this at work. I don't like the idea of walls being useless because of a siege engine and that you'd have to garrison men inside the walll all the time, but i think the idea has promise. I was wondering if we could make walls big enough that units could move them. Defenders can get through the walls through wall towers that are upgraded to be entrance stairs. You can garrison mele units on the wall in order to shoot down at attackers. Then when seige towers attack they just drop units on the wall and then you can have a fight on the wall with the melee units fighting to get into the town. You'd kinda also seriously buff the walls so they couldn't just be destroyed by soldiers, but it may be a good idea.

I personally think that this particular idea is a bad one, as it means that walls (already kind of useless) become even more so, as a single siege tower can ungarrison 20 units over enemy walls. A better idea might be the suggestion earlier in that issue, to add a capture attack to enemy walls by the tower.

see: Issue #2038 ([PATCH] Let units from siege tower ungarrison over walls) Design Input is needed on above-mentioned Issue over there at Gitea. A patch from 13 years ago exists, but rebasing might be complicated. @Itms set the Milestone to Release 29, so maybe some folks are ready for some task force work. @ShadowOfHassen, @Atrik

Ask an administrator or a moderator via Direct Message.

The Discoveries That Proved Historians Wrong About Rome

Hi, Following up on this — I hadn't received a response from the translation leads I reached out to, so as suggested, I'm reaching back out here to see if we can find a solution. Thanks!

You are right. Roman "August 2" (a.d. IV Non. Sex.) wasn't August 2 in actual solar time because the pre-Julian Republican calendar was infamously uncalibrated at the time. The pontiffs had been delaying their civil dates by roughly six to eight weeks in order to avoid intercalary months. The war actually occurred in mid-June or early July 216 BC according to astronomical study that matched the equinoxes and the time of Apulia's grain harvest. The leap-year problem under Augustus is the only small error in your remark; it occurred much later and had no bearing on 216 BC.

My unsolicited two cents on the date (anniversary) of August 2, 216 BC. The Gregorian calendar (current) has been in effect since 1582, but not all Western countries adopted it that year. The Julian calendar was in effect from 45 BCE, but initially the priests incorrectly calculated the leap year (every three years, not every four). This error was not noticed until the reign of Augustus Octavian (probably 5 CE). So, this is where you need to be careful. The date August 2, 216 BC is therefore a proleptic date for both calendars. Of course, before Caesar's reform, there was the Roman calendar. The problem is that it was terribly confusing. Partly because of the structure of this calendar (the unusual length of the year) and partly because of the changes being introduced. Then there is politics – the priests interference to lengthen or shorten the year – which influenced the election of two consuls. In summary. If a Roman chronicler wrote the date: August 2, 216 BC, we don't actually know when it was. In the solar calendar, "when?" is interpreted in relation to the vernal equinox (today is March 20). If a historian were to write that the spring equinox occurred on (and then provided the date) and that the battle took place on August 2, 216 BC, we could refer to that. And so the disputes between historians and astronomers continue. Researchers check to see if a chronicler might have mentioned what phase the Moon was in at the time. They try to find other chroniclers who recorded that moment in their calendars. In short: The anniversary of this battle cannot be celebrated today, in the year 2026, on August 2. What should be done? Establish a Julian Day (JD) for this battle. Next, determine the Julian Day (JD) for the vernal equinox and try to match it to today's date. Best regards. Postscript Some historians believe it should be assumed that this occurred in June, not August.

I think there is already a random map generator, it's the random maps category I think there is already a macedonian campaign someone made floating out there. I know @Vantha has been getting all the coding stuff in place for a new tutorial that would be exactly this except I think it'll have four scenarios. I think all the features you requested @lilypoppy are in the works, but if you wanted to get started on your own campaign it wouldn't be too difficult to start, write out your story, start making the maps. When the rest of the features get added there may be some light scripting to do but then it'll be ready!

Would a random map generator be possible? Or a mod maker?

The battle of Cannae is 2241 years old! The anniversary passed three days ago on August 2, 2026. To mark the occasion, I wanted to share an excellent recent documentary on the battle by the channel Invicta, featuring the brilliant Dr. Adrian Goldsworthy as a guest.

There is also https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/issues/8964

Something like this is planned iirc, but the Atlas is built off of some very hardcoded software, and needs a complete redesign in order to add new features. Both things are in the works though! https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/pulls/7803 Objectives and events should be in the next release https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/pulls/7785/files, dialogues as well https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/pulls/8614, and as for the others, those are just trigger scripts (like your first point). This is technically planned, though it probably won't be in the game until R30. However, if more players push for it, then maybe it can be in R29, that's up to the WFG team (of which I am not yet a member). You're 100% right about these, and as you can see, they should be in the game soon-ish. Until then, I hope to see you around the Forums more often, and maybe even creating a few scenarios (triggers really aren't hard once you learn how they work).

Hello, since I haven't been using this account in quite a long time and don't want my personal information to be out there, I would like to know how I can permanently delete this account

Ah. I'd say "eff AI altogether" but I don't know if it was discussed for code explicitly.

I think OP used AI to write a job posting to hire a free intern to use Cursor (an AI coding agent) to fix bugs. DId we just talk about generative AI for art, writing, and music or did we talk about it for coding too?

I think lowering the attack of damaged units is possibly more worthwhile. Still allows retreating, but might smooth the snowbally Lanchester effect. Needs thorough testing, and possibly comparisons with other existing games.

I believe there's a consensus to not include AI generated content in vanilla; that's different from what OP did. (I couldn't sensibly summarize what OP did here, though.)