All Activity

There was a PR that let building capture resistance be determined by the capture attacks of the units inside. Before, it was determined by the number of units, so women and champions defended equally well from capture. Now, since women don't defend at all from capture, a cc with 20 women can be captured very quickly. Players are saying capturing is too easy at the moment, especially civic centers. I do think the second of the two options is good, where civic centers and forts should be difficult, but houses can be captured without great difficulty. @Dakara I'm not sure if you will find someone to play with, but in the community mod current version, women receive a small capture attack and buildings have higher default capture defense.

The problem with you is that we have to argue with someone that doesnt understand that 1 singleplayer is an entirely valid way to play the game if they're having fun 2 people that dont play often still have a brain and can compare unit stats and costs 3 the game should be fun for everyone, not just ValihrAnt and borg Sure, why not make it more expensive than any normal champion, after all its already weaker. Very logical... And then you would have the same problem with athenian marines and spartan hoplites, as after that change they would be cheaper and more powerful than fanatics. Iberians were famous for metalworking aswell, one of the most prominent roman sword designs was inspired by them.

Шукаєте коханням? Зайдіть на наш сайт, де ви знайдете інтимні секрети для зваблення. Тільки перевірені засоби Для жінок, які хочуть більшого Швидке замовлення Відчуй різницю — for-love.in.ua

It's a counter cav specialist unit. It should be fast and dangerous for cavs. It's too strong against infantry. If you truly feel that something needs to be done about it, I'd slighty nerf it's damage against infantry and maybe make a slight adjustment on their resistance and will stil be a very strong unit and useful to counter cavs, which is their main purpose.

Official no, there's a list of them. Let's see if they're still alive.

I'm not talking about a development support server, but a real community for players.

Hello everyone, I noticed that the capture system has recently been modified in the A27. (compared to Alpha 27). I would like to better understand the reason behind this change. What was the main motivation for adjusting the capture mechanics? (nerf the capture resistance) Was it mostly for balance purposes ? Are there any design notes or discussions I can read to follow the reasoning? I’m asking because the capture system is quite central to gameplay, and as a player I’d like to know the vision behind these changes. In the long run, what does the team (and community) want the capture system to be? A strong resistance mechanic (buildings being very hard to capture, taking time, mainly when base is empty capture is a nice decision)? A moderate option where some buildings are hard to capture and some moderate to capture? Thanks you

There's no official Discord. You won't find the developers on Discord. They use IRC. https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/wiki/GettingStarted 0ad-dev on QuakeNet IRC]irc://irc.quakenet.org/0ad-dev. Usually there are some developers in IRC who can help you get started. Next, most development work (code review) is done here on the Gitea. One can look around here to see what things are currently in the process of being added to the game. For further information, check out GettingStartedProgrammers.

We have a rather fitting proverb that comes to mind: "He who won’t take advice can’t be helped". Maybe this trick better stay exclusive to players who can appreciate it (and follow simple written instructions). So, mind telling me which part it is that you got stuck on?

Is this Discord official? I just thought of that! Having an official Discord can multiply the number of users. I read this message (not entirely), it's really full of arguments... I'm not sure all the people chatting here are mature... And would they be the admins of the current Discord? PS: Sorry for my English, I'm French.

I'm not sure that making everyone an administrator is a good idea, an official Discord would be more practical because it could be joined from the game menu, allowing more visibility and a more active community.

The guy who threatened me is a 1100 player, probablly your lvl too. and nobody laugh at me, as you see some are with me in this post.

But players on OP team laugh at you! One host even threatened to ban you on his game if fanatics get nerfed. They think it’s your antidote of your cavalry. The champ really looks good with its attributes no need to nerf, I’ll second on just requiring them metal as probably in previous alpha. I only played this game up to A24 and really did not see much of fanatics being used too often. Now it’s really OP.

Mostly we don't have enough content to post regularly

I don't think walls should cost less. It's going to get awful if that's the case. In the current situation, with a few hundred timbers, you can protect yourself from a disturbing attack quite early. Of course, you won't stop them if they're very motivated, but you'll buy enough time. Building + few palisade and you are ok Stone walls are quite solid and balanced in their construction time. What bothers me most is how catapults are so tanky against melee units. They should melt more if attacked in melee.

gauls were famous for iron and forge ,rome learnt from us are you talking about iberians lol?

The problem in this forum is that we have to argue with three group of people 1 people who never player multiplayer games 2 people who rarely play multiplayer games 3 people who play multiplayer games, but not op games. Only noob games What we say is based on experience and observations and what they say is based on their dreams

Why adding metal is lame? Just add low metal like 50 Then the player in p2 has to send men to metal before spamming them. It make them slow. More ever he has to spend metal for fanas which means he cant upgrade them easily. It causes he not able to make mass fanas

Then you must nerf their champion options and late game farming bonus. Right now they have both strong early game and late game, making the civ generally op

I'd be happy to help post content or manage replies. Got some experience with community pages and keeping things active, plus I check in pretty often throughout the week.

Something like praetorians but less orthopedic and more flexible. No moral system. But a stamina system. (I don't know if that's what you want.)

What it gave me to understand is that the morale system goes hand in hand with the fatigue system. I don't know if we want to implement that part?

I asked Ai, and he literally gave me some tips on how to do it. But he sorted out the programming ideas (he programmed) on how to implement the Total War system in the game. I don't think that's the point of the discussion here. JavaScript simulation // This would be part of your simulation files (.js) in the mod Engine.RegisterInterface("Formation"); Engine.RegisterInterface("UnitMotion"); // Unit definition with extended properties function Unit(owner, position, template) { this.owner = owner; this.position = position; this.template = template; // Total War-style battle properties this.morale = 100; this.fatigue = 0; this.formation = "line"; this.facing = { "x": 0, "y": 1, "z": 0 }; this.combatState = "ready"; this.armorType = template.armorType || "medium"; this.weaponType = template.weaponType || "melee"; // Combat stats this.attack = template.attack || 10; this.defense = template.defense || 5; this.chargeBonus = template.chargeBonus || 2; this.discipline = template.discipline || 75; } // Formation system function FormationSystem() { this.formations = { "line": this.formLine, "phalanx": this.formPhalanx, "wedge": this.formWedge, "square": Tactical combat system // Damage calculation system with tactical advantages function CombatSystem() { this.advantageMatrix = { "spear": {"cavalry": 2.0, "infantry": 0.8, "archer": 1.0}, "sword": {"infantry": 1.5, "spear": 0.8, "archer": 1.2}, "cavalry": {"archer": 2.0, "infantry": 1.2, "spear": 0.5}, "archer": {"infantry": 1.3, "spear": 1.1, "cavalry": 0.7} }; this.terrainModifiers = { "forest": {"movement": 0.6, "defense": 0.2, "archery": 0.5}, "hill": {"movement": 0.8, "defense": 0.4, "archery": 1.3}, "road": {"movement": 1.2, "defense": -0.1, "archery": 1.0} }; } CombatSystem.prototype.calculateDamage = function(attacker, defender, context) { // Unit type advantage factor const typeAdvantage = this.advantageMatrix[attacker.weaponType][defender.armorType] || 1.0; // Charge bonus factor const chargeBonus = context.isCharging ? attacker.chargeBonus : 1.0; // Flanking bonus factor const flankBonus = context.isFlanking ? 1.5 : 1.0; // Terrain factor const terrainBonus = this.terrainModifiers[context.terrainType].defense || 1.0; // Morale factor const moraleFactor = attacker.morale / 100; // Final damage calculation const baseDamage = attacker.attack * typeAdvantage; const finalDamage = baseDamage * chargeBonus * flankBonus * terrainBonus * moraleFactor; return Math.max(1, Math.round(finalDamage - defender.defense)); }; // Fatigue system from movement and combat function FatigueSystem() { this.fatigueRates = { "walking": 0.1, "running": 0.3, "fighting": 0.2, "idle": -0.1 }; } FatigueSystem.prototype.updateUnitFatigue = function(unit, activity, duration) { unit.fatigue += this.fatigueRates[activity] * duration; unit.fatigue = Math.max(0, Math.min(100, unit.fatigue)); // Apply fatigue penalties if (unit.fatigue > 70) { unit.attack *= 0.7; unit.defense *= 0.7; unit.movementSpeed *= 0.8; } else if (unit.fatigue > 40) { unit.attack *= 0.9; unit.defense *= 0.9; unit.movementSpeed *= 0.9; } }; 3. Integration with 0 A.D. Files you would need to modify/create: 1. simulation/components/Formation.js - For the formation system 2. simulation/components/Combat.js - For the extended combat system 3. simulation/components/UnitMotion.js - For tactical movement 4. simulation/helpers/Morale.js - For the morale system 5. simulation/helpers/Fatigue.js - For the fatigue system <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?> <Entity parent="template_unit_infantry_swordsman"> <Identity> <GenericName>Elite Swordsman</GenericName> <Icon>units/rome_swordsman.png</Icon> </Identity> <UnitMotion> <Speed>6.0</Speed> <Acceleration>2.0</Acceleration> <TurnRate>180</TurnRate> </UnitMotion> <Combat TotalWarStyle="true"> <Attack>16</Attack> <Defense>8</Defense> <ChargeBonus>3</ChargeBonus> <ArmorType>medium</ArmorType> <WeaponType>sword</WeaponType> <Discipline>80</Discipline> <FormationType>line, square</FormationType> </Combat> <Cost> <Resources> <food>60</food> <metal>20</metal> </Resources> <Population>1</Population> <TrainTime>45</TrainTime> </Cost> </Entity> 4. GUI for Tactical Control You would need to modify the GUI to include: · Formation selector · Morale and fatigue indicators · Behavior options (aggressive, defensive, stand ground, etc.) · Guard mode for precise positioning 5. Recommended Implementation Steps 1. Start with basics: First modify the formation system 2. Add simple morale: Implement a basic morale system that affects combat 3. Enhance combat: Add tactical advantages and flanking 4. Implement fatigue: Add the energy management system 5. Refine AI: Improve AI to use these tactical features 6. Key Features to Implement · Formation bonuses: Different formations should provide combat advantages · Flanking mechanics: Attacks from rear/sides should deal extra damage and reduce morale · Unit cohesion: Units should fight better when close to allies and commanders · Terrain advantages: High ground, forests, and other terrain should affect combat · Fatigue system: Units should tire from running and fighting · Morale system: Units should rout when morale drops too low

Yeah anims will go OOS if any parts of the model don't have them this is because they are made of many small pieces. Not sure why they didn't get the attack anim or why noone else noticed.

They should have defense and attack bonuses.