All Activity

One thing 0 A.D. lacks is a diversity of archer types. I think the current ones resemble longbowmen more, but there are no shortbow units. I like the idea of a short-range ranged unit with higher damage than a longbow. Perhaps, in melee, it could fight with a short sword or dagger. I’m not sure how complex its implementation would be. I think it would make sense not to allow tight formations for slingers if we want to add a touch of realism, but limiting slingers to direct line of sight would make them quite useless. Beyond 0 A.D.’s realistic orientation, let’s not forget this is an RTS, not a combat simulator.

Welcome to the Satta Matka, a dedicated platform for players who want to stay updated with daily results, number discussions, and market trends. This forum is designed to bring together a community of users who actively participate in sharing their thoughts, guessing numbers, and analyzing previous charts. Here, members can freely discuss different Matka markets such as Kalyan, Mumbai, Milan, Rajdhani, and more. Users regularly post open-close numbers, jodi predictions, and panna analysis to help others understand the flow of the market. This forum is not just about guessing—it’s about learning. Beginners can gain knowledge from experienced players, while regular users can improve their strategies by engaging in daily discussions.

Every time i start a skirmish game, the npc attacks me 1 minute in, i couldnt even build barracks but the npc keeps attacking me super early, how do i stop this

I have no idea how formulas work in this game (would like to know though), but along the “simplified realism argument”, I think bonuses should be avoided, they seem to me a sign that the parameters used to reproduce reality are either not enough or are being inefficiently used. I rather have a couple more parameters than who knows how many random bonuses here and there. This keeping in mind that it would be nice to eventually show the relevant info not as a bunch of text like it’s now, but as a given set of icons and values that is as simple and standard as possible. It seems to me that with hack, pierce, crush, block (with a shield), parry (with a weapon) and dodge values, both for attack and defense, most things should be achieved (I don’t see any advantage to organic/metallic armor types, it’s just setting hack/pierce/crush defence values). Also, causing low damage should do very little, as a measure of actual penetration of defenses, to enhance differences, and penalising massing up the wrong kind of counter. Going through some of what has been said, and just as a first approximation: Spearmen: high pierce attack, hard to block, low dodging. Archers: pierce attack, easy to block, basically impossible to parry, hard to dodge. Cavalry: low blocking, high dodging. Maces: high crush attack, hard to block. Axemen: high hack attack, hard to parry. Swordsmen: high hack attack, hard to dodge, high parrying, high blocking if they have a shield. Javelineers: high pierce attack, low crush defense, high dodging. Elephants: very high crush attack, high hack and crush defense, can’t be dodged, can’t dodge. Rams: extremely high crush attack, very high pierce defense, high crush defense, extremely easily dodged, can’t dodge. Buildings: extremely high pierce and hack defense, very high crush defense, can’t dodge. Slingers: high crush attack, low defenses. Slingers should be good against troops that don’t have crush defense, cheap, sling faster and farther than bows (bow damage should decrease more with distance), but have no armor, be unable to form close formations when slinging, should have a straight line of sight (slinging over friendly troops was too risky, iirc), and, most importantly, take a lot of time to train. Regarding their slow demise (they would be around up to the Middle Ages though), certain late agricultural technologies should drastically increase how much their training takes, since they came from a more agrarian background, and besides some early “biconical lead projectiles” tech to increase their pierce damage, they should not be improved much by other techs (around the middle to late timeframe of the game sling technology was historically at its peak, while others kept improving). Going back to unit’s values: archers’ arrows should be somewhat easy to block with shields, they would lose against cavalry, who should lose against spearmen, who should lose against swordsmen (here I wasn’t sure if they should win or lose against archers, I guess it should depend on how much their shield can block). I like the hard to block/parry/dodge dynamic of the mace/axe/sword, going along with the reality that crush damage transfers more through shield and armor, axes are hard to parry, and swords have faster attacks. I have not emulated all possibilities in my head though, all remains to be tested. Javeliners are good against elephants (from a distance), which along rams are good against buildings. It’s a matter of fine tuning to get what one wants, as Enrico Fermi told Freeman Dyson: “with four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk". No bonuses should be needed!

I work on a similar mod, and I have started with the Mauryas. Some ideas I am testing. Temple can be build on neutral terrain, but does not project a sphere of influence Several new Temple technologies (not necessarily unique to the Maur): Aura around Temples that increase worker gathering and building rate; Temples grants structures +x% territory influence radius Historical reasoning: It is claimed that Ashoka spread Buddhism and interlocking of religion and economics / state Stables and Elephant Stables switch places Historical reasoning: According to sources I have read elephants accounted for about 20% of the empire's "cavalry"; enough to use some leeway to make them gameplay-wise more relevant, and make the Civ more unique Visha Kanya can be trained in the Temple Only trainable after researching a tech? Are one or both of them trainable in P2? If Archer is trainable in P2, P3 tech to increase poison damage Swordwoman has a damage bonus against heroes Still trainable in Palace? Give all Maur heroes an aura that buffs Visha Kanyas? Historical reasoning: According to the folk lore Visha Kanyas were young girls who were administered various poisons and antidotes to make their bodily fluids toxic, and then sent out to assassinate influential targets by being intimate with them

Shameless self-adulation: All changes of the above mod will be in 0.29, btw. Better GUI: You have a better structure overview in the main menu, and it adds more hotkeys. You can also use it to "cheat" if you want to. Haven't tested it, but this seems to be good: This makes the differences between Civilians and Citizens more noticeable, as currently male Civilians and Citizens use the same voice:

French =B

public Litterally, a must-have.

Also Spanish =B

In my case, I was pleasantly surprised by:

What is clearance? It is 0.8 for most units. Roughly regarded as the size of a unit. Reference: https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/src/branch/main/binaries/data/mods/mod/simulation/data/pathfinder.xml#L58 Clearance as full width In the calculation of pushing, each unit is first considered as a 0.8 × 0.8 square. Then the radius of the circumscribing circle is 0.8 × √2 ÷ 2. Reference: https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/src/branch/main/source/simulation2/components/CCmpUnitMotion_System.cpp#L78 Clearance as half width In regarding unit as obstruction, each unit is considered as an axis aligned 1.6 × 1.6 square. Reference: https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/src/branch/main/source/simulation2/components/CCmpObstructionManager.cpp#L305

:B https://www.youtube.com/@titovicent1952

I think there is a misconception here. Country (or countryside) doesn't equate to farmlands. The semantic flexibility of the Greek ἀγρός (agros) hinges on the shift from a functional unit to a geographical zone. The meaning diverges based on the narrative focus: it either refers to "farmlands" as a collection of tangible assets and wealth (emphasizing what a person owns), or it refers to the "countryside" as a rural region (emphasizing where a person is, which is often the case in the New Testament). This distinction is most visible when the singular is used to describe the "open country" surrounding a settlement; in these instances, the word ceases to be about farming specifically and instead serves as a spatial contrast to the urban center. Essentially, the word transitions from a private asset (singular field/plural estates) to a public landscape (the rural surroundings). See: https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry=a)gro/s In the Gothic Bible, there are several references to fields, contexts that unambiguously refer to fields in an agricultural sense, whether in the plural or singular. For example, in Matthew 6:28: "And why do you worry about clothes? See how the flowers of the field grow. They do not labor or spin." In this passage, the Gothic Bible uses haiþjos, the singular genitive of haiþi. It is the ancestor of the English heath and heathen. https://www.wulfila.be/gothic/browse/text/01/06/28.html#S1097 Therefore, I insist, weihs designates either a village or the country in its geographical sense. Not farmlands. If weihs was translating the word 'farmland' or 'field', it would have been used at least once in that sense. There are about ten instances where the Bible unambiguously mentions one or more fields. Similarly, that's why current translations of the Bible distinguish between country and fields.

Mmh that sounds like it could have adverse effects.

https://youtu.be/EUNYxijiRLQ

For structures: a Greek "embassy" type thing for Persian. Units: a Greek mercenary spearman, a Greek mercenary swordsman.

Hi there! I am working on a mod that adds mercenary stuff (currently working on the "Ten Thousand" for the Persians). I probably wouldn't make that great of models for units and structures, would someone want to help by making the models?

@Obelix this is exactly what I was referring to - keep the discussion going - and sorry fo the wrong threat (bit off-topic) just spawned another idea...

I mean, that I don't see teams for players in the overlay

i.e.

Is this work around because of some coding limitations? Naively, I would think of normal bridges (the Persian was a particular case) as a structure that behaves like the port and the wall: start on one shore, finish on another (under certain depth/lenght limits), and the construction animation doesn't have to be that accurate (none is)... maybe there's some problem about walking on top of it if done in this way?

I don’t see any relevance in this line of argument. Proto‑Indo‑European dates back to the Neolithic; its origin is probably around 4000 BC, which means it is even further removed from Proto‑Germanic than Proto‑Germanic is from our modern languages. In this situation, we’re comparing things that simply can’t be compared anymore. The purpose of this discussion is to try to understand what vocabulary speakers of Proto‑Germanic might have used to refer to their settlements. The Cimbri migrations took place around 100 BC. I don’t see the point of going back that much further. And if you want to talk about the reconstructed PIE form *ḱóymos, it did indeed yield *haimaz in Proto‑Germanic, but it also produced κώμη (kōmē) in Ancient Greek and káimas in Lithuanian, both of which can be used to refer to a village. Kōmē is precisely the form chosen to designate the first phase (village) for Greek civilizations in the game… So it’s a bit inconsistent to criticize that choice on the grounds that the older PIE form doesn’t necessarily refer to a settlement. That’s really stretching the argument, and I don’t see the point of it. In your message, you criticize me several times for relying on place names that date from a few centuries after the Cimbri period, but in the end, you are constructing an argument based on reconstructions of a language that predates Proto-Germanic by several millennia. Once again, I don’t understand the point of your message. I never said that Old Norse or Old English was older than the other. I’m simply saying that the source you used (Lehmann) suggests that the word þurpą originally referred to a farm, and that the meaning “village” appeared later. In this discussion, the only reason to use medieval Germanic languages is to understand the semantic evolution of words from Proto‑Germanic onward. The context we’re interested in is Proto‑Germanic. In Old Norse, as in Gothic, the word derived from þurpą seems to have preserved its original meaning, that of a farm or agricultural estate. This supports my initial point: the meaning of þurpą in Proto‑Germanic must have been “farm.” And there is no doubt that Old Norse preserved the meaning of “farm” or “agricultural estate.” This is very clear in the poems of the Edda, especially in Hávamál and Vafþrúðnismál. In the Danelaw and in the earliest written records from Denmark, we see that þorps refers exclusively to secondary settlements that depend on a larger primary settlement. In those cases, þorps can refer both to hamlets and to isolated farms. We see the same thing in medieval Scandinavian law codes: þorp retains the meaning of “farm” as well as “village.” There is, however, a notable case in medieval Swedish law where þorp still means specifically “farm” in Old Swedish, which seems to have preserved this original meaning even longer. The evolution of the Germanic languages clearly shows this semantic shift from “farm” to “village.” It’s an understandable shift, since it follows the same pattern as Latin villa, which eventually gave the word “village.” I have taken the time to demonstrate that studies of place names generally indicate that -Heim was used in the oldest layer of place names. Without exception, these studies show that there were several periods characterized by different dynamics in the rules governing the naming of new settlements. It is clear that the trend involving -Dorf emerged relatively late, and this precisely explains what we observe in the various Germanic languages. There was a semantic shift that accompanied the social changes that transformed Germanic societies.

merged

@ThalattaThanks for this great idea for the Persians! We had some discussions a while ago about building bridges and could not really agree on how the bridge would be supported. Now if we could define a special ponton ship that can be linked in, say, up to 5 segments, then we might be able to create a bridge. And it can be destroyed like any other ship. Question is only how we could offer this as a possible option for path finding (topic: "objects you can walk on")

That would be awesome! I've been and hope to be adding more wonders and a capture mode would make good use of them.