All Activity

So they should have wooden bosses. K, I’ll add them in the future.

You can play all slings, it's not weak, some players do that, but that's not as effective as a mixed army. Playing Britons every day, I find that 40 slingers + 40 javs + 50 spearman is the best combination. Reason: pathfinding + dmg output + snipe Athenians is also better when mixed with jav cav and merc javs. In A27, siege weapons seem quite unecessary unless your enemy is ultra turtle with towers, forts and walls. You can capture CC with any army after they lose, no need for using slings to smash. I find beating their defence army more important than using siege to knock down buildings.

This is what I was doing if image helps: Walls did nothing. It was letting me place walls almost in the water (water line was up side of wall). Maybe some quirk of random map generator

Change for the sake of change is useless. 0 A.D. is already unique in other ways.

Thanks for the report, but the dump difference shows that you have a behavior difference in GUIInterface enabling range visualizations (for attacks, auras, and healers). This is definitely caused by one of your mods (I suppose it's Ricci's "rangedoverlay" mod, but if you're the one OOS, it can be one of your mods). You folks should stop abusing the compatibility checks system, or at the very least test RCs without mods.

If you want to be aggressive, you can be aggressive with CS army. However, you shouldn't be allowed to mass OP army and stay aggressive. OP army is a late game army. This has nothing to do with the build. If you want OP units, you'd have to build an OP building.

I agree 100%. This will also need to be adjusted for the AI, and it will allow it to use the champions earlier (as soon as it builds a Fort). The change is good for historical accuracy. Most soldiers were pretty average and 80% of them had lower-tier equipment. Elite soldiers were kept as a part of separate battalions/legions. Also, new players will adjust better to the gameplay, as the mental image will be: 1) Barracks/Stables are used for citizen soldiers, 2) Forts and other special buildings train champions. I support this for Release 28.

There is a limit when it comes to balancing units civ to civ. It is entirely fine that some civs champions counter another’s. What matters is the overall power of the civ. There will always be bad matchups bad maps for a given civ and that is a mark of good civ differentiation.

Hello, I don't know if you found a solution, or maybe someone else will try to find a solution. But in my case, I use the flatpak solution supported by wildfire games. It works well. you can use the above link given by player of 0ad : or you can run the command : flatpak install flathub com.play0ad.zeroad

They are aware: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2345520

Hey Jan Thanks for reaching out. Unfortunately we only notify maintainers about new releases. We do not have control about what they do with the information. Usually fedora is pretty fast to update, maybe they forgot about it? In any case I suppose you could look up the maintainer and send them an email ?

rated team games.

Melee will end you. Ok, you'd still need melee units. But wouldn't you agree that britons and athens can be played without champions or siege without being up civs because of the slingers?

Very nice! Thank you @Vantha! Works with both A27 and also with SVN (future B28).

First, thank you for having the game published on dnf. I don't use snap/flatpak/etc., so that's my preferred way for installing apps. When I was installing today I am getting 0.0.26-30. 0.27 has been released 4 months ago, but somehow it is still not in dnf. Maybe some deploy job simply failed and publish got stuck... How many days/months of delay vs recent release should user expect when using dnf?

I agree with this, but sadly there is no balance when it comes to champions right now. Some civs just have better champions that counter other civ's champions. If you try to balance all of the champions, people will scream "historically inaccurate" or "boring"

Melee will end you. I would argue that you are not forced into building the fort. If you want to attack early, you push before their fort is up or while they are building the fort. You would have an advantage, because they are investing building labour and huge quantities resources into the fort. Their units would also be in a bad formation and you can melt the builders if they don't react early enough. Since champion spam no longer exists, it's possible to win fights with a CS army + good micro. The champions will just be an icing on the cake for those who had a chance to build it. It would be more attractive to play aggressively, compared to the current meta of waiting for the champion unlock tech then spam broken units. Another idea is we give every civ a special building for them to produce champions from. But that is a lot more work than just moving back to fort.

In general something should be done against the champ masses. Either this, or make a limit on them, or make them require more pop. The nisean war horse upgrade especially puts every other champs in the shadows. On the other side I don't agree with a lot players claiming everything would be OP, elephants, siege etc.. As the game goes on one should be incentivized not to rely on citizen soldiers only. Although sadly one could rely on mass slingers atm..

I would prefer forts not to have a too a central role in 0ad. I actually like having the choice of not building any to go aggressive vs building it if I plan to defend. Putting units trainable in the forts reinforce the need to just build it whatever, and therefor you play a bit more every game with the same build. Regarding balance, I think a framework for balancing should be worked on. It would be interesting to make relation graphs to have clear views on what are each unit role. Below some example with some existing relationship between units in 0AD (A27 stats, they rounded but they are actually real). Power is dps * hp (after converting armor to hp equivalent, so it does take into account armor, thoughts if hack and pierce armor value are different, a decent mitigation is to use the average of the two), so for jav above, it doesn't account for the accuracy gains.

good thinking, but icons cant be too complex either, since then they are hard to understand at a short glance

Thats not an argument. Even if everyone was a vegetarian, the icon for "food" could still be meat, just like the icon for "saving" on your pc resembles a floppy disk, even though nobody uses those anymore. The purpose of the icon is to convey the meaning "food" in a way thats easily understood and requires little space on the screen. A meat icon fulfills both those qualities regardless of whether a player eats meat or not. Or was it confusing for you, because you didnt automatically make the connection "food - meat icon"? A wheat icon would work just as well, so theres no technical reason to change it. Your personal preference is indeed a valid argument, albeit not a very strong one. I find the argument that the icon should resemble the most common food source in the game a lot more convincing.

I had a OOS again. They are very rare though. Here are my logs+replay and riccis. I was observer, ricci host. Both on self compiled a27.1 versions. I was the only one OOS. ooslog_2025-05-24.zip

I don't have strong preferences over specific icon, rather I would just prefer not to have a red "steak" icon all over the place as I am long time vegetarian (please don't laugh). Single icon that combines wheat, berries, meat and fish is probably the best one to satisfy everyone. I have been asked for an example icon... So it could be a pack of wheat, like this one from civ4. If such change (or some other alternative) wouldn't make it to the master branch as a default icon I would be still very happy if there would be an in-game option to use less "meaty" icon.

might run into a spacing issue with languages that have exceptionally long names for "food" and players with small screens, no?

I think l10n folder contains the translations for "Food"