All Activity

Hi Thalatta, may I recommend to you the following thread?

AFAIK it happens sometimes. Just try again in a few hours

what happened to the gitea CSS, it's now a basic html page for me!

-Petra doesn’t seem to know that blades must be used against rams. I started playing a few days ago and won in very hard difficulty by leveling the AI’s continent using only a bunch of these unrealistic rams. -It also didn’t try to use transport ships, I guess because there was a land possibility, since on an island scenario I’m pretty sure the AI did it. That would have made things so much more difficult. -Also, it doesn’t send full armies as fast as it could towards the end, it kind of gives up. It should build way more military buildings to spam armies. -It should use more fields, traders and whatever to support the previous point.

I actually see it the other way. I like that units don’t constantly evolve into completely different types — it keeps the game grounded and focused more on tactics and positioning than upgrade chasing. The rank system still gives a sense of progress, just in a more subtle way, and it fits 0 A.D.’s historical feel better than the typical “unit line” upgrades.

Hi everyone! My name is Sophie, and I’m based in the USA. I’m really into gaming, which is why I joined this forum — to connect with like-minded people, engage with the community, and learn from your experiences. I’m excited to explore different discussions, share ideas, and grow my knowledge here. Looking forward to being part of this great community!

I'd say Stan answers the question pretty well right below the orginal poster. I don't really think 0 A.D. is similar to AoE. But i'm not really interested in the discussion either way tbh. I'm not one of the developers btw and comparing an open-source game in alpha state to finished commercial releases is a bit funky too. You could make a mod implementing changes you want and if you need help with how-tos i'm willing to help when i stroll by the forum.

It's not clear to me that most people prefer simplicity over realism, maybe that's the case in this forum but certainly it's not for the people that have told me they didn't continue playing this game because it wasn't that different from AoE (which then in part seems to explain https://wildfiregames.com/forum/topic/121875-why-is-the-0-ad-community-so-small/, although maybe I'll post what I think about that later on). I told them it was work in progress, maybe I was wrong. Rome II Total War had amazing graphics but failed in part because they dumbed down many things compared to previous titles (besides initial bugs). And what about those who like Crusader Kings and similar? Way beyond the scope of this game, I know and I agree, the point being that not everyone is how you state they are. It's not about making a "simulation", like some complain when people come, propose something, and then leave having been brushed off because what they said drifted too far away from AoE, it's just about trying to consider what other simple games have successfully implemented, but if that is indeed not welcome, then well, it isn't

I tried Autociv for A27 in R28, and the hotkeys works je, je.

I'm not really interested in your suggested changes to be blunt, besides the mod being in a bit of a backlog state. Furthermore i don't think most things in grapejuice should be in the main game because most people prefer simplicity over realism, which is fine and a perfect way for a mod to fill that niche.

It's also possible to switch backend in the options. Are there other affected applications?

Here: https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/src/branch/release-0.28.0/ You probably looked at the main branch of the repo.

That's better! It's just not stated in the description I read (it mentions only structures as having the re-arm aura). Has this made melee more prevalent somehow? Or more considerations like the ones I've mentioned might be needed? I like your emphasis on realism (it's also my philosophy, doing it in a simple way to solve problems that otherwise would exist, instead of proposing bad and unrealistic band-aids). A few comments: -Regarding your priest rework, it's a good idea, but also some civilisations had field surgery (but should be done hand-to-hand, not by hand-waving like most games). -Field camps are great, but I see field surgery might render them useless. Field surgery should heal up to a percentage. Or better, check the next idea. -Wounded state is great, but maybe it should be way clearer to see it. I would use 3 health bars, a green bar (over a lighter hue of same color) to represent minor wounds (automatic healing, accelerated by surgeons anywhere), a yellow one for moderate wounds (with penalties, and healed by surgeons inside structures), and a red one for severe wounds (with more penalties, automatic draining, and healed by surgeons anywhere only up to start of yellow bar). -Regarding ammo, I wrote extensively in this thread about supplies already. -Your unit rebalance does what must be done… I’d be disappointed if the base game is so much different than that. -I don’t like the word “champions”, it sounds medieval, but it’s game jargon. I’d have done it with 10 ranks, like Total War if I remember correctly. -Secondary weapons are great, it would be nice to also have a button to control them. -You introduce Spies Networks, which is nice, but I’d go as far as making Spies part of the game. They would spy on statistics, and look to the other player like one of their own units (attack own units should be introduced), so it would be fun to imitate what his units are doing, or just set on following some army. He could disguise as basic enemy units, and garrison enemy buildings to hide. I’d add the possibility of hiding in places for units in general, under trees for example, to conduct ambushes. Spies should also be the ones conducting bribes, and maybe trying to open doors. Many things could be considered (assassinations, arson...). -Charge attacks are good, the more relevant abilities the better. I hope many of these concepts (and more) make it to the base game eventually... I don't understand the apparent prevailing philosophy of having yet another AoE clone (when the 0 A.D. Vision Document states the opposite).

Development continues on the game while we finalize R28. If you want the latest on R28, check out the release-0.28.0 branch.

I checked out the latest 0ad source code from gitea repo and I saw that we are on version 29, not 28. What happened here? Where is A28 and why are we skipping it?

Usually happens because you have vertices without weights.

Hi @AlexHerbert, I am not a MacOS user, but let me know if you would like to request a specific feature. This goes for anyone, I am currently porting autociv to A28 and please let me know if you have any ideas!

The mod has an ammo cart unit that resupplies other nearby units.

Solution found: 1. Try to force start 0ad once from the terminal with options (Cite vladislavbelov) $ 0ad -conf=rendererbackend:vulkan If 0ad window appears then it's an OpenGL bug. Proceed to the next step. 2. To fix this permanently, add to your user.cfg this line: rendererbackend = "vulkan" Then if you run 0ad again (using any calling method), it should use the Vulkan engine. 3. If there are still additional errors, you can force debug output by adding this list to your user.cfg then run 0ad: renderer.backend.debugcontext = "true" renderer.backend.debuglabels = "true" renderer.backend.debugmessages = "true" renderer.backend.debugscopedlabels = "true" renderer.backend.gl.enableframebufferinvalidating = "true" renderer.backend.vulkan.debugbarrierafterframebufferpass = "true" renderer.backend.vulkan.debugwaitidleafterpresent = "true" renderer.backend.vulkan.debugwaitidlebeforeacquire = "true" renderer.backend.vulkan.debugwaitidlebeforepresent = "true" renderer.backend.vulkan.deviceindexoverride = "-1" renderer.backend.vulkan.disabledescriptorindexing = "true" Explanation: Due to the recent Nvidia driver updates on Linux based OS, there are some OpenGL rendering issues and 0ad is one of the affected applications. If you force the backend to use Vulkan renderer then the bug is bypassed. However, you must ensure that your Vulkan layers are installed correctly. My Vulkan packages: lib32-vulkan-icd-loader 1.4.335.0-1 vulkan-icd-loader 1.4.335.0-1.1 vulkan-tools 1.4.335.0-1.1

@Perzival12 I made some changes to the Petra bot and committed it to the A28 code. Perhaps you can check it out there. Aside from that, there already exist some harder versions of AI bots around the forum, please have a go at digging around. Some may be outdated so require porting forward. For the easiest level of AI, it would be a good idea to add back P3 and all the advanced units + structures, but really decrease the aggression level of the bot. What kills the human noob is not the late game units but the frequent early aggression. On a separate note, let me know how well the AI bots perform with Hyrule Conquest

Well, nothing has to guarantee that a formation will be kept in the heat of battle, it’s just mostly for initial positioning. "Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face". How much a formation would be kept could depend on unit experience for example. Also, I was thinking about formation-inclined civilisations like the Romans, for others like Gauls I'd remove lots of strict compact formations. And maybe in some cases some could be added after some research, if historically relevant. All this would enhance the differences between civilisations and the tactics that have to be used for each. But one wouldn't even know they are there unless using modifiers while choosing formation, it would be totally optional. Edit: and the panel wouldn't change size, what it's shown just switches between either formations, arrangements or priorities.

I think there was a feature called "Attack as formation" in early alphas, there is still cadavers of it in the code. I'm not entirely sure but I'm guessing it was meant to do what you are imagining here : the formation keep a certain shape, even while attacking. Well I guess wasn't to successful. I think blobbing is a necessary evil in most cases. However some formation abilities like charge (picture cavalry wedge formation charging) and brace (picture infantry forming a spear/shield wall) would be nice to have at some point, and those would introduce behavior that could delay/reduce blobbing. We are kind of far from this at the moment thoughts. First we'll have to introduce support for managing battalions. Although it would be a good nice-to-have, it seems unlikely to be accepted to have such additional panel in the game, it's a bit complex relative to what you have for the rest of the very minimalist gui of 0AD.

I totally agree that formations should exist and be improved, but they would be more useful if units were more solid. Many times I get many units at the exact same place, which looks really bad, as do blobs fighting blobs. It unnecessarily cheapens the game and destroys immersion. Regarding formation order... Can't these be an option for the player? What if one could press ctrl+formation to turn the formation panel into an arrangement panel, showing the possibilities you have mentioned, for the clicked formation. One could alternate between arrangements for the chosen formation, and if done with ctrl it would turn the arrangement panel into the formation panel again. For example, to have hoplites and javelineers form in close order, first javelineers at the front, then behind, one should press ctrl + close order to form in some default arrangement and open the arrangement panel, and then if needed one chooses ranged infantry on the first row. When wanted, one chooses them on the second row, and they switch places with the hoplites. If done with ctrl, the panel would also switch back to the formation one (the default arrangement shown now being the last one selected). Unit symbols have to be clearer, I’d make hollow squares for infantry, triangles for cavalry, rhombuses for elephants, and circles for the rest (support), with a dot in the middle if ranged (Edit: actually, filled instead of dot could be better, and melee/ranged symbology could be switched, depending what's more intuitive). Different colors would help. I’d also rework “stances” (the ones below formations) a bit, units take too long to return to their positions. Edit: ugh, only now I noticed that you also want to deal with Heroes, Champions and Citizen-Soldiers... the problem is that they could be any kind of unit mentioned before. Combinations are needed. Well, shift+formation and shift+arrangement could open a... "priority" (or whatever) panel for this, with their ordering being indicated by other icons, like star, cross and dot, respectively. Ctrl+priority could return to formation panel, and shift+priority to arrangement panel.

@user1 knotchtheviking quit a rated game when he was losing. Attaching game files here. metadata.jsoncommands.txt

That's the anti AI filter, usually refreshing a couple time works.