All Activity

Some formations should give an advantage to the defense and others to the offense. Testudo vs missile firing. Phalanx similar but less protection and some attack 2% more maybe Close formations should have bonuses against falling arrows and other projectiles. Syntagma and Anticav would be bonus to the attack against cavalry. Closed formations should penalize movement and open formations should favor it. The Persians were to have a unique formation, which would serve as a shield and barrier to the enemy of archers.( Protect the archers) It would be a composite formation. https://archeryhistorian.com/persian-archery/#:~:text=Persian Archery %26 Battle Tactics&text=They would release arrows%2C and,units would form their lines.

There is still at least 2 different bug with formations that I haven't been able to have clear way to reproduce yet too. 1. is units acquiring random targets when pressing Halt in formation, ex: a building even if clearly there are units nearby, or attack units far away. (happens when there are a lot of entity around so i guess it's because of some optimization stuff) 2. units sometimes freeze/dance salsa endlessly in formation. Else wise, formation are already very very useful without bonus already, for unit placement, and to fight efficiently. I know some will consider bug too but it's actually nice that units can cluster up while in formation.

There is a need to normalize the formations.

@real_tabasco_sauce 1. "units don´t actually fight in the formation" wrong, if you put your troops in front the enemy´s units they will fight while maintaining formation. 2. The battle formation exist to be an advantage in battle, no one chooses battle formation for cosmetic but for win. 3. Bonuses are not rare in this game, for example range bonus: ir you build a tower in high ground, it´ll have more range. I don´t see how complicated the solution I´m proposing is.

units don't actually fight in the formation, and selecting a formation over another just for the bonus and not for the formation of the units is gimmicky. I think formations are fine to remain as-is for organizing troops and for cosmetic reasons. There are more straightforward ways to address the issues you raised, like some speed balance and diverging the different roles of units.

Well, that´s the point of add battle formation bonuses. You will have an advantage in the game if you use it.

My only problem with "sticky" formations is that the enemy is often not using formations and now you have 20 guys in your formation focus-stabbing 1 of the enemy's guys at a time. Formations like desired are much better if all soldiers on both sides are in formations as well. so you have formation vs. formation.

We gave them bonuses in Historical via aura. My understanding is currently formations don't quite work, you cant attack in formation. So the only way to apply bonuses is through auras. Hopefully it is something that will get looked at and implemented in the future. Its a great idea!

Ritualistic Exercise sounds great

An interestic point of 0 A.D is the battle formation of most of the faction in the game: Phalanx for Greeks, Testudo for Romans, etc. But, does not exist are battle formation bonuses, wich is a drawback because it´s necesary. Melee units die very quickly againts ranged units, witch make very hard to invade enemy city and forces the player to use specific units like cavalry, rendering melee units useless. The necesary solution is implement battle formation bonuses for each faction in the game, add defence bonus againts melee attack to Phalanx and testudo formation, and add defence bonus againts ranged attack with a shield wall formation. Here an example of Celt shield wall formation:

See also: ticket #6760

I dont think its a "strict violation", but your goal is to obfuscate the code so its harder to determine what the mod is actually doing, which kinda goes against the concept of free (as in freedom) software? I think?

Prevent it from being able to use multiplayer for that.

Yes. market would signal suspicion. Still very niche scenario, FFA with 0 spec. Rare. Not a giant problem. If suspicious, watch replay after and expose cheater to rest of players(ik ofc huge hassle and no1 will care anyway prob). Obv a fix would be nice.

I don't test stuff when I'm playing. I test it when I am spec. I don't have enough apm to type code and play simultaneously

V02 is only a bug fix version. It should work now. It works in my one player replay and in the initial replay on which I set it up. Thanks for the report.

Can confirm. Made a short replay just doing it and its not recognized. I tested the mod on a multiplayer replay where it worked. I will check whats different. It is running though and detects 30s afk for example.

I just installed the mod, activated it and then I checked out a singleplayer replay where the market exploit was tested. But I couldn't see that this exploit was recognized...

Yeah, the other players may also just like to test out the market glitch now (or something else). And that is annoying to the other 7 players. One could still have games where all mods are allowed and games where one can play the game without having to worry the other players are "just testing something".

I mean, A26 is done. Lol I'd say allow renaming in single player

It should work also in singleplayer replays. Rapid fire alarm could be triggered false in mp replay if the game lags online but not offline since the turn time is not logged. Or did you maybe work around a trigger?

The topic here is not quality of code or variable names, but code obfuscation. The point in the license is Section 1 "source code". GPL authors clarify that "[...] Obfuscated “source code” is not real source code and does not count as source code. [...]". This is not sufficient to be compliant with GPL3, and not sufficient to qualify as FOSS. Obfuscated code violates Freedom #2 of Free Software as clearly explained here. But besides the "legal" part... if you are a developer who cares about free software (as autociv does), then you will also understand that distributing source code made intentionally hard to be understood is contrary to the purpose and principles of Free Software itself.

It can be ruled out for all cases because it's not the host that's relaying messages. I would like to test some features for mods or even future patches in practical conditions, i.e. a 4v4 game. If mod signing prevents me from testing and editing the patch on the fly then that would be annoying. I like the most recent versions of your Oddity detector. It flags out afk players and automation users in a non-offensive way

It doesn't work in singleplayer replays?

Of course wrong accusations are bad. I heard some that were too wild too. On the other hand this described cheats are cheats and methods we know of. I would not rule out that e.g. players reveal the map. The oddity detector itself is also just a workaround. If we had something better, like mod signing, I'd drop it since it monitors the players. I made a trainer mod based on autociv for a26 once. It was nice for spectating and reviewing build orders but could be abused easy. That's why I dropped it. This can also lead quickly to information overload. Best method for players atm. is just to play with trusted players which is also annoying. The only cheat we can rule out is reading the enemy chat if the host is trusted (as I understand it atm.).