All Activity

Buenos días o tardes: -Aquí un pequeño avance; Lancero hiberni (infantería leve) -¿Qué opina? Disculpen las molestias*

thank you for the info. I'll start from the top: Renders to decorate for the campaign menus. Is there any requirements/suggestions/desire?: Stylo AoE or older games (camera angle, painted style)? Objects? (book, sorrow, bowl,ancient bottles) / essential items? Quantity? is there a guide line/story to follow?

Example of combat with a halberd.

tweaking the naval system. VID_20261006_040347.mp4

There are 2 things we don't have in the game. Renders for the campaign. Stylo AoE or older games that used them to decorate campaign menus. The other thing is actor modeling and new models. And the other thing is combat animations. We don't have animations with two-handed swords or unconventional weapons. Animations with Halberds

You should check https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/wiki/BasicAnimationImplementation and https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/wiki/Basic3DImplementation depending on how technical you are. Do you have prefered means of communication ?

Thanks to Lopess's feedback, I've improved the models' textures (at least, I think so).

I made a more stylized version. Is the coin round or slightly misshapen?

I came across these things the last couple of days. Some error while playing, but nothing bad happened: The lower description can't be read because of the drop-down menu, and when hovering over selected map, the lower description given is from other two maps: video(1) (online-video-cutter.com).mp4 It says "Unlocked in City Phase" when I'm in City Phase already, the requirement is instead the tech being researched: Pikes seem to go through stone walls (Philip's reforms were good, but chill a bit): Forgot this one, there should be more space available in the lower description:

is a very high level that you have.

An aspect or feature that I think wasn't mentioned yet: Many (bigger) games use a rubberband AI. So on easy modes it's tuned to always lag behind you, and even "normal" means there is still a slight lag to cater to gamers' psychology. So AI difficulty settings shouldn't be done with resource handicaps or bonuses (alone) (but surely could be another optional setting). Basing difficulty setting mainly on this will mean drastic changes whenever the actual AI algorithms are improved. That's really not a good "dependency". (Also, what wasn't mentioned yet, how good the AI is in 0 A.D. also very much depends on the map, in my experience. With special resource situations, usually scarcity of wood, it has great problems.)

The problem would still be the same: only one route is worth using at a given time. Retreating to the next longest route is putting a band aid to an exposed femur fracture

Congratulations, you are very talented! Obs: The correct link uses lowercase letters. https://www.artstation.com/margab

Good point, thanks! Sorry for my ignorance on MacOS... happy that you are testing it!!

Si vis pacem, para bellum. (That phrase fits well)

Ok, use command if using macos, now it is working. Maybe if you could wrap the text on the tool tips, because they extend out a long distance

Of course you are right, but what if the outermost market was destroyed? Then the traders would just not know what to do and stop operation. Instead they could use the next trading post. Probably this is taking realism too far.

here is my portfolio https://www.Artstation.com/Margab I'd like to help with props/characters/environment

Thanks for your response! Glad to hear that, I therefore eagerly await those welcome improvements, so that the game gets once again like before and as enjoyable as it used to be...

War and Peace makes me think of Napoleonic wars because of Tolstoy's book, obviously I think a better possibility would have been "Global Conflict". But, following the Latin or deity names other mods have (Delenda Est, Endovelico), the one that comes to my head is "Para Bellum".

Ah, forgot to mention it: to emulate local trade, Markets could also give a trickle. I think this could be an alternative to "limiting the number of Traders considering total enabled route length" to justify their expansion (garrison/ungarrison cooldown could still fix the other things). Best is, with simple rules, to generate something interesting, obviously.

Thanks, I’d really like to see improvements to flying objects, especially those that fly at high speeds.

Yes, but the point was that there are worse problems with trading routes to begin with, which could be solved by limiting Traders per route, and if one wants to make them go to other Markets, that would be harder to analyse. I tried to do it already anyway, for example I thought one could have many Markets, and to reduce micro, the Market screen could show a map with all possible routes, and one would enable or disable them (if some went through enemy territory), Traders taking any enabled route from any Market equiprobably (all to reduce micro, I wouldn't like having to click for every Trader every Market, sometimes more than once if they get disrupted, like this just one click would put them on the allowed network). Still, limit on number of Traders and gains with route length have to be such to have what I think is the ideal algorithm: Markets homogeneously covering the available area, the more Markets the better, but up to certain limit, in my case related to the total amount of Traders one is willing to have. This last bit is hard to get a grasp on if Traders travel to many Markets, that's why just bouncing between two Markets was more than an acceptable simplification to understand the maths, all things considered. Not that it's impossible, but working algorithms are the important bit, after deciding what characteristics for sure people want to be present. To try a working algorithm with random walk, Trader profits could be independent of route length, and Markets have a minimum separation (because of lack of diversity in products and clients), this way they would homogeneously cover the map in hexagonal patterns. Since I don't like hard limits (that's why my Suggestion 56, "Separation criteria", proposes a more flexible approach to Fortress and Tower minimum separation), another possibility could be that the Trader profit has a maximum at the Market separation wanted (long routes have more risks and logistical costs, reducing profits). This would also cover the map in hexagonal patterns (if possible, profits could be indicated when placing the Market, same as height bonus is indicated for the relevant structures). Limiting the number of Traders considering total enabled route length (keeping their average "density" constant, and to disable routes one might need to get rid of some Traders first) would still be needed to justify expansion (on top of all this a trading garrison/ungarrison cooldown could spread Traders better and remove any teleportation exploit in general). No, and even if you could, it would be way less profitable than making it oscillate between the two furthest points, which is the reason of my post