All Activity

That melee elephants don't profit from melee upgrades does not help, either.

Use masses of ranged units, preferably ranged cavalry. Once the blob of Spartan death comes close, simply run away until you're at the safe distance. Nothing worse than dealing with annoying hit and run attacks, trust me. Keep up with the upgrades as Spartiates have a lot of base armor.

i don't know, but attack take the bonus forge

Spartain Hoplites are a bit overtuned at the moment. Swordsmen should be a cost-effective counter to spearmen, but due to the Spartain Hoplites haveing an 11% faster rate of fire it makes them already almost as good. And with then either the +10% health or the +10% damage upgrade they become a cost-effective counter to their counter. So the default strategy is to not fight them head-on, but to build lots of defenses, destroy their Rams with cavalry and / or swordsmen, raid them, and eventually win a battle of attrition. If your Civ has access to them you can try Elephants, but then they can do the strategy to avoid them and raid your economy instead.

Can it be that the health bonus and damage bonus of promotions are calculated differently? It seems for the elite promotion the health bonus is HP*1.25*1.25 while the damage bonus is Damage*(1.1+1.1). Or to phrase it differently, health bonus affects the current HP, while the damage bonus affects the base damage.

Elephants are currently not that great, so it would be bad to let spear units counter them.

Oh, bonus damage / counters were removed from the game? Sad.

From different civs. So e.g. Mauryas Swordsman have the same stats as Romans Swordsman. But they can still be different. E.g. Romans Swordsman are P1, Mauryas Swordsman are P2, and Mauryas deal +20% in P3 thanks to their final melee damage upgrade. edit: Also flavor. Instead of going to the approach like AoE2 where the many units look identical across Civs in 0AD many units have a Civ-specific look.

That was fast, @Tapothei! Thanks for putting in the effort to learn how to create a PR. You could get a source-code editor like Visual Studio Code to make things easier for you. Also, when creating a PR that solves an issue, you normally want to include this in the PR message like this: "Fixes #8781" I'll try to explain the basic Git workflow as simply as possible. I'm still learning myself, so there may be a few details I’m overlooking. The usual workflow is to fork the repository, clone your fork locally, and create a branch for your changes ( You don't want to work directly on the website for practical reasons). You commit your work and push the branch to your fork. Each contributor works on their own fork. Once the changes are ready, you open a pull request from your branch to the upstream repository, where the maintainers can review it. Also, right now your changes are on the main branch of your repository. `Check this: Normally main should not be used for development. Instead, it is kept in sync with upstream (the official 0 A.D. repository), and new changes are developed in separate branches. Pull requests are then opened from those branches. This is an example of a PR from another contributor, notice his PR comes from another branch, called "lazy-actual-size": This way your main branch always stays clean and can be used to create new branches. Otherwise, if main contains previous work that wasn’t merged, those changes could end up included again in future pull requests. An if you later want to work on something else and sync your main branch with upstream, you may run into problems because git will detect local changes that don’t match upstream. By creating separate branches from main, you isolate each set of changes. This makes it easier to keep main clean, revisit your work later, and work on multiple things in parallel. I also noticed that your PR contains many separate commits. Like this: In these cases, it is usually recommended to squash (git command) them into a single commit. This makes it easier for maintainers to review the changes and keep a clean history of the proposed modifications. I know this might seem completely confusing right now. But if you plan to keep contributing, learning it will make things much easier in the long run.It can take months and plenty of frustration to get comfortable with the basics of git. So if you decide to learn it, be patient with yourself. It gets a little easier every day. Well, I don’t want to overwhelm you any further. You’ve already made it this far, and that’s worth recognizing. Thank you!

NO. KEEP MY ELEPHANTS AWAY FROM THIS! ELEPHANTS ARE NOT CAVALRY

It makes the most sense to give javelin throwers the damage multiplier, but that would severely nerf an already underused, slow unit. The decision to retain damage multipliers against cavalry for spearmen was purely based on balance, to counter the cavalry's naturally greater speed and higher stats. Otherwise, we got rid of counter units in A17, if I recall correctly.

What is the point of having two units with the same stats ?

And how do you do that ?

Thx for the push, also I don't use either of them, I just have my default text editor. This took me awhile to understand(somewhat a partial comprehend)... and now after that it request for checks... man I'm so exhausted...

Unencrypted connections to the multiplayer lobby are now not possible anymore.

LET'S GO! This and some of @Vantha's PRs for campaigns are on my wishlist for things I want to see in 0 A.D. for the next release.

actually is https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/trompetin17/0ad-atlas-in-game/src/branch/main so if you are able to test would be great. you can read more details here: https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/pulls/7803

no need to apologize, happens to me all the time!

oh yeah, sorry i just got lost in my thoughts

Ill take a look! And I agree, with "I think the citizen soldier concept in 0 A.D. actually reflects something that historically happened, something that other historical RTS games do not represent at all because they completely separate military units from civilian units." I was just questioning/wondering why the "male" version of the gender units were so much weaker at gathering resources!

@trompetin17 I realize this is the same branch as the issue I have to test so I guess I have the chance to give it a try of this great project!

you don't know how fast I am... what if I was Darren Jason Watkins JR and like to play video games in my spare time... im pretty sure i could beat Usain bolt wearing 70lbs of classical antiquity armor. I am having fun. You dont like to be questioned do you?

Continuing with the initiative, I mention it so that it becomes visible.

Usain Bolt is pretty fast. So fast that he’d beat you in a foot race if he was wearing heavy body armor while you streaked down the track with nothing but the wind and the finish line between you and him. Also, it’s a game. Have fun

I think the economic tasks performed by soldiers in 0 A.D. can represent the kinds of economic activities soldiers carried out during military campaigns. Foraging, collecting grain from nearby villages, gathering wood for fires, building fortifications, and so on. I think the citizen soldier concept in 0 A.D. actually reflects something that historically happened, something that other historical RTS games do not represent at all because they completely separate military units from civilian units. They were probably not fully equipped when carrying out these kinds of tasks. I have read a bit about this here. I read about this here. https://roman-empire.net/army/roman-military-logistics-supply-chain-history?utm_source=chatgpt.com My source is probably very questionable, haha. I'm not a historian and I know nothing about all this. But discussing these topics is fun and you learn something along the way. =) edit: also i think that actually the champions are the kind of unit that represents a "higher more noble class" of soldier, and that's why they can't do economic tasks. different from citizen soldier that were probably more "common" folks. And also, there were other men that didn't went into fight and those are the civilians