All Activity

can always try out CWA where these changes take place p[retty quickly. But also if you are playing mostly cav, catas in particular and you put in formation to move,t hey move at the speed of the slowest unit in formation, so then he would stay with the catas and move at their speed.

SPEED MISMATCHES with Seleucid Heroes: FIRST ISSUE - Seleucid Elephant Hero (Seleucis I) He moves at 9.0, but he boosts Elephant movement to 10.8, so he can't keep up with the elephants he's boosting. There is still some advantage to having him boost the elephants for local movement, even if he can't keep up, but I think it would be overall better to increase his speed to 10.8. SECOND ISSUE - Seleucid Cav Hero (Antiochus III) This one is more debatable. He moves 18, which is the standard for Hero melee cavalry. However, in 0.28, Seleucid Cataphract speed has been nerfed to only 14.4, and Jav Cav speed is 16.2, which is the fastest cavalry unit of the Seleucids. So the Hero is always outrunning the units he's supposed to be boosting by a ridiculous margin. Historic context: Possible solutions: 1. Do nothing. Keep everything the same. 2. Keep him as a melee cavalry hero, but nerf his movement to 15 or maybe 16.2, matching the jav cav. This would reduce the issue of him outpacing the cav he is commanding, but it might be strange for him to be unique melee cav hero with a slower speed. 3. Instead of giving him "spear cav" speed, create a new category of "cataphract speed" and use this to justify the reduction in speed. 4. (my suggestion) Change him to a jav cav hero, and lower his speed accordingly. While the historic record most strongly suggests that he be a melee cav hero, I think there's enough diversity in his history that you can justify him being a jav cav hero. It would also be cool to have a javelin cavalry hero, as I think he'd be the only one.

Thanks for the replies. For me this bug is more severe. I opened and then subsequently had to kill the process to exit 50 times in a row. In each instance I was not able to successfully start the application without the bar and broken buttons. I then tried the Alt+Enter and it seemed to work. I have tried it 5 times now and each time it worked so far. I guess now that I am aware of this issue I can work around it but in terms of bugs this is a bad one for new users because you are stuck right after starting, can't progress to access any menus and can't even close the application.

I want to bump this issue. I'm not sure if it was a deliberate decision or not, but the loss of the Roman fertility fest perk takes away some interesting gameplay strategies. It makes the Roman more plain.

looks nice! Would be cool if it plays a @#$%-a-doodle-doo sound when the rooster crowing animation is starting

It happens to me every now and then too, and what I always do is press Alt+Enter twice, which disables and enables full screen again, for me that fixes it and is quicker than restarting the whole game.

Of course they are important, when the developers made them so essential to the game. Let's look at economic technologies. At one point or another, you will want to research all gather speed upgrades, with the exception of lvl2 Stone gathering (if not slinger civ) and Wheelbarrow. Otherwise, your workers are so slow, that people are metagaming 100 pop in 10 minutes games for 11 years now. The original developers knew this trade off was artificial, so they gave you efficient workers from the start of a game. When they introduced technologies, the techs came in pairs, and they were cheap. The point was that the techs were just a path you chose to follow, not something essential to your build. Just played a longvgame with a retro version of 0 A.D. It's so much more focused that it's basically a different game.

Committed the first draft of the Guptas I need ideas for: 4 heroes and their bonuses Unit references (for textures) Mercenary Unit ideas (at least 3) Unique technologies Civ Bonuses Team Bonus Catafalque

If it is already shown when hosting a game, it shouldn't be so hard show it for example when you click the name in the player list... Lol is not new, some people can be very OP programmers, if that is the case, and you want you created or developed is used by people you must consider UX

@user1 Hello, again, Unfortunately I encountered another similar situation. The player warlock2 left a rated match after realizing he was losing. Again, although the game awarded me the victory, the rating points were not granted, presumably because he had already left the match. My lobby username: MelodyNelson Offender username: warlock2 commands.txt metadata.json

I need to correct myself here: #7166 (Option to only allow signed mods for multiplayer games) by @Dunedan.

Well, it’s not as simple as it seems, since it’s very easy to pass one mod off as another. You just need to change one or two files and that’s it.

I like that suggestion and couldn't believe there isn't already an Issue for that on Gitea—at least, I didn’t get any positive search results.

I don't use them so I unactivated them and solved, for me..

The best fix to the problem of some players using mods against players not using mods, is to make the mods currently enabled visible to everyone when a player joins the match lobby, perhaps as part of the “username joined” message. Then the host of the match can ask the new player to disable said mods. Additionaly, the ability for the host to ban certain mods, or ban mods altogether, or only allow certain mods, might be useful (of course this would take having a list of every possible mod, or at least knowing the name of the few mods you allow). Finally, maybe players can only join a match if they have the same mods as the host and as every other player, though I know that this already kind of exists, and has caused @Emacz some trouble.

I wonder if people who use this Counter-Strike mod also come up with those familiar excuses? "Okay, but this is available on the internet and open to everyone. That means it’s not cheating. Go download it yourself." "A lot of other people use it too. Why are you criticizing me? That means you have a personal problem with me." "Aiming is repetitive and unnecessary anyway. I’m actually improving the game. I help new players get used to the game faster." "This isn’t a cheat, it’s a mod." "You can aim with a mouse too, there’s not much difference. In fact, the other day someone killed me just by aiming normally with a mouse."

I disagree completely with this. Techs are very imprortant to the game, and imo they should be cheaper so they can be researched earlier in the game, when they actually matter. Also, quickly clicking on a tech to queue it does not in any way slow down my economy and training, since most of the time you can just sit back and wait for units to be trained (and using rally points makes this even easier). The game should have lots more techs, or at least every civ should have unique techs rather than renamed versions of the same tech. This would go a long way in making each civ feel unique btw.

Same. Occasionally I’ll just disable the ai so I can build a perfectly defended city, who the gardens and monuments, and then switch to to the enemy player and do the same.

@user1 Hello, Player Sol_Hunter left a rated match after realizing he was losing. Before leaving, he also falsely accused me of cheating too, which is completely untrue. I have attached the replay for your review. After he ragequit, I located his last two hidden soldiers in the corner of the map. Although the game awarded me the victory, the rating points were not granted, presumably because he had already left the match. My lobby username: MelodyNelson Offender username: Sol_Hunter commands.txt metadata.json

My lobby name: Birkebeiner Offender lobby name: Elenore Quit a 1:1 rated game after 16 minutes without resigning, started hosting a new rated game right afterwards, refused to explain @user1 metadata.json commands.txt

@GufraMirtol Could you try to add the following line to your user.cfg (it lies here: /Users/{YOUR USERNAME}/Library/Application\ Support/0ad/config/): borderless.fullscreen = "false"

This is a small mod I made that creates a work elephant unit for the Kushite and Carthaginian civilizations, who can train it at the elephant stable. It's not meant to be historically accurate, but more for fun, as I like the idea of the ancient North African civilizations using elephants for work as well as war even if I'm not aware of any historical evidence for it. I will admit the building animation is a bit buggy, as the elephant's ears always bunch up during this animation. Only way I know this could be fixed is if the African elephant models had their own building animations instead of using that of the Asian elephant, but I am not yet at the stage where I am able to animate meshes for this game. african_work_elephant.zip

UPDATE 0.5.0: Added compatibility with game version 0.28

"The point of my posts is not to have a lot of techs, but to make things more historically accurate and interesting, so people that are attracted to that (which I think should be one of the magnets of the game) get more pleased and curious than when reading generic or anachronical names." This is what Classical Warfare AEA is trying to accomplish!

@Deicide4u Well, I'm not really adding techs, now for Spartans I'm mostly renaming and removing, and adding a very few to compensate, I think they'd even end with less techs than they have right now. I’m also kind of overshooting with ideas, so there’s somewhere to take from if needed. The point of my posts is not to have a lot of techs, but to make things more historically accurate and interesting, so people that are attracted to that (which I think should be one of the magnets of the game) get more pleased and curious than when reading generic or anachronical names. Regarding a “small number of generic techs and from there build upon each civ's strengths”, I agree in the sense that it would be too confusing to have tech trees that are too different between civs, but that’s not my intention. Hopefully when reviewing other civs the tech tree will converge to something common with a few differences, although many want to differentiate civs even more, to which I agree, as long as it's not confusing. On the other hand, maybe having a lot of techs could allow for civs to be played in a few different ways (and aiming at getting most techs would be a mistake, at least competitively), and also, under certain limits, would be good SP content (which I see as vital to grow the game).