All Activity

No, that would be far too complex - what I have in mind is more a wrapper tool that helps defining the map/game/player characteristics, then hand over to the real Atlas for terrain sculpting, but then help placing entities, particularly walls and palisades (as a start) and visualizes that in 2D and a simplified 3D map. I am trying to use the new tool with Atlas in a kind of "pair-editing" (the tool only looking at and manipulating xml, Atlas basically everything). Atlas is very powerful but appears complex to me. The new tool is an attempt trying to reduce complexity where possibly without actually taking away Atlas powerful capabilities. A delivate Confirmed: convert_again deletes the copy and regenerates it from the untouched source, wiping any replacements. Please wait for a yet another version 1.9.2 .... (also saw a lot of documentation flaws that needed fixing). (thus demonstrating why short release cycles can be dangerous even with a lot of (automated) testing.)

I added a replacements for things on a map, then I went to the convert tab, and clicked output, and it said there were fails. I then go back to the findings tab, and it undid all the replacements I put in

Like your own version of Atlas?

Undermining/countermining seems somewhat represented by direct infantry attacks on walls already (I see @Grautvornix just beat me to it). Adding it would be worth it only if tunnels/terraforming are somehow added to the game, but this doesn't seem a big priority to me, all things considered. What really needs to be added/improved first is the ladder/siege tower unloading on walls, and the fighting on top of them, without making walls even more obsolete, and that last bit is the tricky part. For starters, ladders should make units climbing them more vulnerable, and siege towers should be extremely slow, but I think none of this would be properly balanced without wall towers automatically shooting, which is something that was removed in the past already, I guess because spamming them was too OP. My view to balance all this is that walls shouldn't include wall towers, but instead wall segments should be upgradeable to towers (I use this word for both current sentry and stone towers) that shoot automatically (imagining thermals would damage engines), for a more appropriate cost. Spacing limitations between towers would of course be considered. I know it seems this adds micro, but it really doesn't: one has to build towers behind walls anyway since wall towers are useless without a garrison, which is a waste of units and micro, and this should just improve what's already automatic. In conclusion: wall towers should be removed, while walls and towers should be better integrated, with towers and gates automatically doing anti-engine fire damage (additionally having attested catapult towers is something I already proposed), with garrisoning improving all this. Posted ranged infantry on the top of walls would shoot (like now), while melee infantry would fight unloading enemy units better.

@Asher Please see the latest release 1.9.1 in the first message of this thread (the onyl functional change). There are other changes inside as I am also preparing a second tool to prepare, support, manipulate and visualize Atlas maps. The two tools post-atlas and the new one share common components hence the update of atlas-common 1.4.0 package (I actually should rename that to make clear this is not linked to the actual atlas tool in 0AD). I'll publish a first version of the new tool shortly in this part of the forum.

Instead I would like to suggest walls that can be walked on (mechanics: moving garrisoned soldiers sideways replacing the next empty slot) towards the area of attack. Then, there could also be a successful attacker moving along the wall in the same way - garrisoning a wall segment from a siege tower or a ladder (and only from those) could be possible with a certain probability.

My amateur "historians" opinion: Isn't the typical infantry attack on walls somehow representing kind of an undermining? (frankly, you may hit a stone wall for a VERY long time with a sword, a spear, or arrows, even with an axe, but without ny thing breaking ewxcept your own weapons.This is why city walls were so successful until the late middle ages, I believe.)

Perhaps it could unload them slowly. It would be cool to have battles on top of walls like in total war but that would take a lot of work.

Yes

Hi, Let me start by expressing how much I love the unit motions. The inertia aspect bring more depth to the units, and with the newly tweaked values, it's a good balance between realism and unit control ability (also micro). I especially love the turns cavalry make. that really gives the vibes of medieval cavalry going for raids. The unit animation sync needs to be handled though, so that the stop-animation syncs with units stopping, by that's a minor thing. As for the elephants. O.M.G. That thing is so fun to play. Elephants pushing and trampling units is so fun, and I wouldn't be surprised if this changes births a few elephant lovers in-game. The infantry units having different values from cavs and eles makes the most sense to me, tbh. It gives infantry agility, and tighter controls which their qudra-pedal brothers can only dream of. I'll try to recruit more testers for this and see how people feel about this in general, but I for one really love this and hope this gets pushed in the next alpha. Cheers.

A direct way down and up to replay pallas would be the best in long term. Up: In bulk and with some save rails (e.g. no games under 4 min., no special setups for test with unlimited resources). Down: In bulk, also with conditions (of players where I lack replays). The current zip way over the web interface is limited AFAIK in the number of games and the user would select these games by hand currently. What I described here was more peer to peer and easier to mod. A "share replays mod" could look like this: In the lobby one could have a new button "share replays" next to the others (host game, join game). Instead of the normal game setup one would have the normal setup chat, no game/map setup, but conditions of the games one would like to share. E.g. 4vs4, 3vs3, over 4 minutes etc.. With mod setting "incompatible" and only buddys able to join. That way RangerK and I could sync our data bases without wfg beeing involved (except of the game displayed in the lobby). Both would benefit the LocalRatings mod

Is that something worth adding to replay pallas ?

Then we should have countermining as well since there should be a way to... well... counter it.

Another option could be undermining. It was used by the more technologically advanced civilizations too. Probably easier to do than ladders (just a guy with a pickaxe).

Like this? (next release will have it) =============================================================================== == isles-r28 <- pack.zip output: C:\x\mods\isles-r28, 12 files copied mod.json: ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- maps/scenarios/greek_isles.xml renamed gaia/flora_tree_oak -> gaia/tree/oak (3x, r27) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- maps/scenarios/delta.xml renamed gaia/flora_tree_oak -> gaia/tree/oak (3x, r27) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 maps: 2 changed, 0 needed nothing; ... =============================================================================== Result: no failures left - ...

Ladders are a common early siege method. It may be a good way to compensate for erm... less complex civs in case siege tower has a prominant role for others.

Aside from the Helepolis at Rhodes i'm not sure armored siege towers were that common. i think some factions could be able to uprade them to have artillery and to have rams (current model could be used for artillery siege tower since it has the firing port) Helepolis could be unique to Macedonians, a heavily armored tower with artillery (very expensive and you can only build one).

As for their use, it does seem they were used more as archer platforms at first but starting in the Hellenistic period were ocasionally use to climb walls. Ladders would be perhaps more common for climbing (although probably more difficult to animate).

Could you add dividers in the console in the convert tab please, so you can easily determine what goes with what map

post-Atlas V. 1.9.0 is now available (please refer to the top of this thread to download). Fixed interlock between post-Atlas and the game when accessing the same archives Analyze tab: Player balancing information (staritng resources per player) fixed map enlarged preview Findings tab: fixed more replacement rules now also including actors and props double click to open "fix selected" window (thanks @Asher!) a mod's templates can be replaced with the game's own. (thanks @Asher! Please let me know if you find any bugs, or if you have more ideas and suggestions

I should make an art task for more siege tower models. That way folks can post up some references. If we're going to go through the trouble of creating more siege tower models (which we should), then perhaps each civ's siege tower should look somewhat unique. I also agree to giving it to move civs. We need to make them more useful and less buggy, but that doesn't mean they can't have them yet.

On that topic i think Romans, Carthaginians and most Greek civs could have Siege Tower too (current model as placeholders, maybe new ones later).

Tried to have it fixed in the next release. Here is what Claude commented: "Isn't letting me pick a replacement". Most likely those templates are supplied by another mod installed on the tester's machine. Then they aren't missing: they show up as one "N templates … come from mod X" finding, and there was nothing to replace. Choose replacements…, and a double-click on that finding, now offer to replace them with the game's own templates, chosen one by one in the usual table. The other possible case is an actor (a model placed directly, actor|…): the message now names those and says to replace them in Atlas. It's still worth asking the tester which mods they have installed. Yes, indeed, switching from Findings to Convert means pushing the convert button (or selecting the tab or the menu). Finally, when everything is finished, there is the output button (I don't like that button labelmyself but was not able to come up with anything better yet. "Do it" doesn't look so fancy and repeating "Convert" might be confusing)

I suggest using 2 or 3 differently-colored "smoke" textures/particles to give the mushroom cloud some visual depth. Also, for Mars, you could definitely start with the Nubia terrains.

I don't the the tool likes these "|". So if the template is actor|flora/trees/pine_animated.xml, it says "manual edit in atlas" Also, the big button says "Output" in the convert tab. Is that intentional?