All Activity

Sure; but more importantly, fix the Temple of Amun not expanding territory... (if this isn't already fixed in a27, I mean)

Yes, that's a problem. Historically people didn't fight like that because the one who didn't get in formation would be wiped out easily by the one who was in formation. That's what we should try to reproduce - if I'm reading Devereaux's Acoup well, the roman formation had swordsmen stabbing the enemy if they had an opportunity, then retreating to the formation. We could have something like that for some formations I guess... Also and as I mentioned many times, historically one of the main reason for formations was to keep morale. So only when we'll have a morale system will we be able to have a good formation system. Side note : IIRC Devereaux also stated that the modern recreations of shield walls pictured above are not really how a shield wall was done historically.

Is the formula for that available somewhere ?

How does that work ? I've never understood how terrain (and especially elevation) could be used for defense...

As written above, they do when you garrison them on walls. But alas they die quite quickly there - that probably should be buffed in a way or another. Maybe with an option to have them automatically garrison in the wall towers once they lost half their hit points ? Archers on walls are a historical thing, and in-game they're nearly unusable without too much micromanagement...

How do you do that ? I mean, loading and unloading is easy of course, but I've never been able to make a trader resume an interrupted trade. I only can select a new origin market then a new destination market (both of which could be the same as the previous ones) which then makes them lose whatever resources they were trading and go back to the new origin market to load some new resources.

I wasn't thinking about bonus, but about AI : put the vulnerable units behind melee ones, close gaps, have the fast units engage the cavalry and the strong then come and destroy them.

@user1 Malavita disconnected a rated 1v1 game when his cav attack failed. Attaching the game files here. commands.txt metadata.json

So there are now: https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/pulls/8293 https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/pulls/8294 https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/pulls/8295 This allows to use GTK on pure Wayland builds of wxWidgets where "Alt" works as expected and the others are in preperation for wxWidgets 3.3/3.4. The cause for the "alt" issue root lays in https://github.com/wxWidgets/wxWidgets/issues/22325 , guess we could work around it by directly depending on gtk (which I rather not) or check if it's possible to upstream a patch.

Formations do not currently confer bonuses, so while that is a nice idea there is currently no method for application in that manner. So until something alters that, bonuses will have to coded onto the units themselves

That should be addressed by specific anti-cavalry formations (again, as it was historically).

Light melee cavalry needs to be faster than ranged cavalry. FTFY. Ranged cavalry, being light, should certainly be faster than heavy cavalry. If we make disengaging from the enemy quite costly (as it was historically) either in time or in blood (the choice between the two options being made by the player through specific formations), then we can have light cavalry engaging the ranged cavalry and the heavy cavalry coming behind them to finish the job. Is it difficult to implement Charges mechanism with cooldown timer after use ? That would allow even light infantry to somehow counter ranged cavalry, and more so for champion cavalry.

If they have a toggle for their behavior after being out of ammo "go fight in melee/go reload" then no it's not too micro-intensive. They could even have toggles about what to do after spending half their ammo : keep firing until no ammo/lower their rate of fire (with lower rate of fire should come better accuracy).

It's probably the best way to solve the problem, yes. But I wouldn't have it replace the different stances, rather parameter what each stance means (like in "passive" stance, do the unit flee at first attack or after having lost 10% hp ? does it go to a safe distance from enemy units and then stand idle, or go back to its task once it's out of range of the enemy ? In "aggressive" stance, how far do they go from their allied units ? Do they pursue someone who is faster than them or not ?). Also, we could use work formations for Citizen-Soldiers : go work as a group, and if one member of the formation is attacked, they all fight back (but if someone not of their work formation is attacked, they keep working).

I noticed that too, and I kinda like it. Way less micromanagy that way - you only need to keep your unit/building alive, not to care about how much it will cost you (beyond the repair time) to repair them.

Ranged units cannot die too fast to (mêlée) cavalry. Cavalry are supposed to bring havoc to ranged units if they get to them. If you don't want your ranged units to die to cavalry, don't expose them to cavalry ! What we need though are formations dedicated to interdict passage : where units would engage enemy units in a way that is maybe less destructive (reduce number of strikes by 2 or something) but prevent the enemy unit to pass through the formation. That would both make protecting ranged units more sensible, and remove the situations where your troops are between a building and the enemy coming to garrison in it, but they still are able to garrison...

Reporting user Malavita for quitting rated game. 2025-08-17_0007.zip

Not sure whether that's still useful to answer it now, but yes they can. And it's very frustrating when on the same map (I believe that this happens in the skirmish islands map) some are reachable by horsemen and some others are one pixel too far in the water so aren't reachable but that fact can only be learned once you've sent the horseman there...

Definitely agree about the speed reduction, current cavalry is way to fast on screen, you barely get any time to react to their coming and going

That is a rather cool perk. I would be in favour of a negative multiplier as an interesting alternative to a positive one. Adding positives takes us closer to Age II levels of Spear/Cav counters, and I would prefer we did not have that degree

Seems to be the best place to re-mention this, the Roman First Cohort Legionaries are missing their legionary keyword and subsequently are not being affected by the Centurion century manoeuvres bonus. Which is quite the nuisance at times when your centurions outpace the units they are supposed to be commanding. I was told a few months ago this was an error, so am hoping for a fix eventually

@Fabius there was already a precedent for that, so it's possible. Elephants had a "Stench" aura in the early alphas. What that actually meant is they had 50% additional damage reduction from cavalry attacks.

Digging through the old discussions, I've struck a gold mine. Here it is for some developer nostalgia https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PxeSahVf5J6h32jy2iqTHlnogtQSHPocXKqNSspyMUs/edit?tab=t.0

What about a damage reduction bonus that has spearmen take less damage from cavalry, a reverse multiplier if you will, specifically for melee cavalry. Eg does 0.75 damage against spear/pike troops.

Thx that fixed it. Always forget that git lfs :D.