All Activity

That's a good description of when the message appears but I agree that using the word rejoin in a situation when the user joins the game for their first time is misleading. The game used to be translated using Transifex, but when I last tried to make an account there it was quite a pain.

0 A.D. is changing stereotypes!

Okay. Battalions seem like they could be a good idea, as long as they are OPTIONAL. Replacing individual unit training with battalions is not a good idea, but being able to turn a formation into a battalion (or a group of units into a battalion) seems like it would grant a lot of new features, while being unique.

Okay, so what is the Total War vibe, then? Why does Total War use battalions? Why not just have hundreds or thousands of little dudes running around individually? It's because battalions give the opportunity for greater control for the player, including directional attacks, flanking, charging bonuses, fatigue*, morale*, formation bonuses (and weaknesses)... all of the things that make ancient warfare interesting. You can have the benefit of 1000 soldiers vs. 1000 soldiers battles, but with easier player control and combat dynamics. You'd have a couple dozen entities (battalions) to manage in that example instead of 1000. For all those people who desperately want an 'ammo' feature*, battalions make it easier to do. And it would be less like Total War and more like Battle for Middle Earth 2: *Fatigue, Morale, Ammo aren't 100% necessary, just easier to implement and manage if desired.

Merged the posts.

No the meaming is that the game started without you, and they are no longer in the lobby game setup

When I join an already running game I see the text: Which kinda implies that I had previously been in the game. I don't know if the intention is that this should only appear to players who are named participants in the game, OR if we can just change the translation. Line 366 in gamesetup_mp.js If it just needs a change to the translation to change rejoining to joining please point me at how translations are done and I will have a go myself.

@Classic-Burger Please don't spam 4 posts in a row, there is an Edit button. Also, back when forums were the golden grail of internet discussions, that was called post-farming. Another thing, you should calmly collect your thoughts before posting anything. For example, you are constantly calling 0 A.D. a clone of Age of Empires. While that may be true in general part, it's a fact that this game has some unique features not present in Age of Empires. Features like Citizen Soldiers and capturing, Even the lack of a feature can be feature. For example, the lack of clear unit upgrade paths. Once again, as an author of this thread, don't spam post. It looks really bad and it makes me scroll more.

I think you need to modify the engine. I'm not sure.

https://interactivepasts.com/civilized-barbarians-in-0-a-d/ Another article.

Being a clone of another game seems to be the case, I suppose. Show me a recent design document.

Battalions can be useful if it helps to create features such as directional attack bonuses and formation bonuses.

Well, select a scenario map from the map selector and play it. Sorry, what am I missing?

Indeed pathfinding may be one of the main issues of bridges - walking on objects could be done with fields already (as they represent buildable objects) but finding a single entrance and exit while actually walking on water (denied area) may not be so simple for pathfinding. Again - in settlers 4 or 5, I remember you could build bridges only at pre-dertmined sites that neeeded definition in the map itself (defined entrance and exit points). Actually, should it be possible to build a bridge everwhere you want? This might be an interesting feature like blocking ships from entering or leaving a river or even denying access to a beach (if building a U-shape bridge)?. A bonus of freely positioned bridges could be that they could be possibly built on land as well (zero height above terrain) and would then be called "roads". I guess that would be a completely different game then.

Thing is, I was never able to play a scenario - how is one supposed to do ? When I choose a scenario in the maps, nothing triggers.

So it should be a parameter somewhere, in order to make it work for everyone (those who like you want to control finely the repair actions, and those who'd prefer it to be more automatic).

You already have that option, and it's on by default when you install the game.

It is a major feature, and there are posts discussing it from A23 era, so it should have been implemented, or at least been a mod, by now.

As I said before, formations should just be turned into battalions, with a bit of Warzone 2100 unit grouping added.

I'm not the one who proposed adding battalions*, but the benefits from my point of view are: - streamlining formations, allowing us to tie formations to battalions, - implementation of battalion-specific bonuses for units that can form a battalion, - de-coupling gatherers from front-line units. In the long run, this will enable us to do all kinds of "battalion-specific" combat roles, allowing players to choose between stronger army or stronger economy. The units that are gathering resources obviously won't belong to any battalion, and they will, for example, need to drop-off resources in order to form battalions. Furthermore, individual units will be weaker than units in a battalion, - more opportunities for strategic positioning, decisions on when to attack and with what, etc. - implementation of a "shared experience pool" between units in a battalion. All units in a battalion will share the combat experience, and when an unit from a battalion dies, its experience is shared between the surviving soldiers. Cons would be the massive changes to the game's meta, and the cost of implementing all this.

@Classic-Burger I can explain why a sheet with a bunch of ideas doesn’t translate to an equivalent bunch of gameplay changes/features. gameplay changes should fit into the scope and style of 0ad, be compatible with existing features, not introduce unnecessary complication, while enriching gameplay. For example, users may suggest realism features, like capturing wild horses to give the player a 1-time discount on a cavalryman. However, that would conflict with other features, like siege speed, hero HP, as 0ad is not an exhaustive simulation. if every idea we came across was implemented as is, 0ad would be quite a mess, wouldn’t it? One other thing is that these changes require people’s work to get them over the finish line. So arguments for a new feature should either convince a dev to take up the task, or the arguer should try it themselves. And that means you may need to modify or walk back the original idea to get more people in agreement.

What is the point of formations? Or more precisely, what are the motivations behind this wish? It seems to me that the motivations are mostly cosmetic. To give a total war vibe.

Pathfinder and units walking on objects. It's not easy.

@wowgetoffyourcellphoneN Within gameplay, we need a conceptual game department that decides to improve gameplay, not just balance. People who contribute ideas and people dedicated to programming improvements, gameplay improvements and that the way to get new features. Many ideas never progress beyond a sheet of paper with ideas.

Los incas del siglo III d.C., al igual que varias ideas del mod, me hicieron cuestionar ciertas cosas jajaja