All Activity

Indeed, they are broken...

It says is "one of the strongest units in the game," so good to know this. Did you tried Olympics?

Since I was told that “creating a dedicated post for a specific feature” is a good idea, as is including “diagrams or mockups to make communication with other community members easier”, I’m going to do that for my idea of how to better deal with selections, formations, groups and battalions, explained here: In summary, selections automatically define battalions, which override groups and can be disbanded by breaking formation, making all these concepts unintuitive and entangled, when they could be useful and independent. I proposed for battalions to be defined and selected with ctrl+alt+number and alt+number, respectively. I mentioned battalions to appear as a box surrounding group icons, but I’m going to invert that since battalions are a more “compact” concept than groups, thus icons will be battalions and boxes with labels will be groups. The following figures are edited, I did not code anything Figure 1: this is how battalions would look like, with battalion 1 for hoplites and battalion 2 for javelineers. Battalions must have exclusive definitions since their function is just to treat the battalion as a unique unit. Each would have the little flag, and the icons on the left are representing them with their number. A formation has been set for them. Figure 2: this is how 3 groups, group 1 for hoplites, group 2 for javelineers, and group 3 for all of them, would look like. The boxes around each icon with a label indicating the group they belong to are shown on the left. The icons themselves don’t have a number because in this example they are not part of a battalion. No little flags. No formation is set here, but it could. Figure 3: this is how battalions 1 and 2 belonging to group 3 would look like. A formation is set for the whole group 3. Clicking on the icons would select the battalions, while clicking on the label would select the group. The label is thinner but one could smash the cursor against the side, and when a label is there no sideways movement should happen. Right clicking on icons or labels would disband battalions or groups, respectively. Figure 4: same as before, but if one were to use alt+formation instead, for each battalion to acquire that formation. The same could be achieved by forming each battalion independently, but it would be slower, particularly when having a lot of battalions in a group. Figure 5: splitting battalion 1 into battalions 3 and 4 to better show the advantages of the previous concept. This is how Total War games work. It would be good if 2 digit numbers were allowed, not to run out of single digit ones (for group labels maybe they should be written vertically). Figure 6: now to something TW games don’t do, groups inside battalions. Battalion 5 has been defined for all units, with group 1 for hoplites, group 2 for javelineers, and group 3 for all of them. When a group doesn’t include the whole battalion its label should be shown on the right. This is useful to sometimes have different parts of a given battalion do different things, for situational flexibility. This is the last case, the following figures are considerations and variations of this. Figure 7: to show its versatility, this is what would happen if group 1 includes more units, mostly Skiritai in this case, and group 3 includes more units besides battalion 5, mostly surgeons in this case. Clicking on the label 1 besides battalion 5 could select the onscreen units from group 1 belonging to that battalion, clicking on the Skiritai could select the onscreen units of group 1 not belonging to that battalion, using alt would also select the offscreen units, and double clicking any group 1 label would select the whole group 1. Similarly with battalions, clicking once on battalion 5 with label 1 would also select the onscreen units from group 1 belonging to that battalion, but double clicking it would select the whole battalion 5. Figure 8: an option or alternative to have for Figure 6, show an icon for composition of the subgroups. This also increases the area for clicking them. They don’t need to have a number 5, because the parent already has that number, and it would be redundant, there cannot be sub-battalions, by definition of what a battalion is. There can be subgroups of subgroups, just that for now they would appear as new groups (just as 1, 2 and 3 appear here, 1 and 2 being subgroups of 3), but there could be another way I’ll describe at the end. Figure 9: an alternative of how to represent Figure 6. I like this more, but wanted to show more intuitive things first to be clearer. Figure 10: final figure, using the previous concept, with the icons for composition of the subgroups to expand the area to click them, and considering that more units, mostly surgeons, not belonging to any battalion, belong to group 3. With this fleshed out representation there could be an alternative way to represent subgroups of subgroups and so on, just by attaching them horizontally (vertical multiplicity of icons and labels for parents will also increase, but I doubt anyone would need so many subgroups). I hope this was clear and be considered as a possible way to comfortably use groups and battalions at the same time, and if there's a weird case you think this wouldn't work let me know, it would be fun trying to figure out what the representation should be.

Ah yes, it seems they did use tight formations, I mixed that up with what I read about the Iceni.

One idea could be a more beginner-friendly way to identify lag issues. There’s already the top-right message and the F11 overlay, but not everyone knows how to read the overlay.

This would be ahistorical.

Royal Battle Priest (Healing & Terror focused) It puts the lotion on its skin or it gets the hose again. Rain Lord (Economics focused) Night King (Speed and Technology focused) Jaguar Lord (Combat focused)

So, I'm trying to make some maps, but I can't access all of the terrain options in the terrain tab. There is no way to scroll through them or switch between pages of terrains, meaning that about half of the terrains (Cliff, Special, and who knows what else) are inaccessible to me. Does anyone know of a way to access the terrains? I'm also opening this as an issue for A28, even if it doesn't get fixed till A29.

It's R28 But you can start porting your mods, there won't be big changes anymore breaking compatibility.

So, is there any idea of how much time is left until A28 become the current version, i.e. replaces A27 on the main website, and I have to port all of my mods over to it? And, when that happens, what changes will I need to make for my mod(s) to work on A28, if any? I know that A26-A27 had some changes, specifically regarding the simulation code, what stuff is changed for A28?

Will do. I think leaving the fortress and arsenal out is a good choice, since (being somewhat of a noob player still) I was losing to the AI when it was building fortresses, and since I disabled siege weapons from being trained (which again, I Iost because of them), arsenals are somewhat useless. I'm testing the AI on some friends of mine, who are also noobs, so I'm actually getting a pretty good idea of what is too powerful or too weak. Which AI? Mine, the custom Hyrule ones I wrote, or Petra?

Thanks! It's a bit inconclusive, someone says "On "normal" difficulty the AI does indeed use ships to transport troops", and I was playing on "very hard". I think the map is the issue, it was the Isthmus of Corinth, once I took the isthmus itself the AI would smash against my defenses there, no attempt to cross the water by ship.

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).