All Activity

Yes. The Roman Onager can loose multiple rocks for a wide area effect. This tech can let Sasanian archers shoot 5 arrows at a time. Ships can volley several projectiles at once. Is there an Issue or Pull Request for it?

I feel like we were able to do this with CWA back when it was historical. We got Ele archers to shoot 3 arrows, one for each archer... but doesnt seem to work anymore. We had to turn them into "building" AI so they were unable to capture, and then it was when there was random fire and not focus fire.

That is probably beyond my time/abilities but I know it has been discussed. I think it would be a great opportunity to enrich gameplay (multi-projectile siege, unique units, ships perhaps).

EDIT: Fixed. It was these lines: range/ and stable/ were missing after I moved those techs to these respective folders.

Parthian tactics is un-researchable even after researching Archery Tradition and Advanced Cavalry for Xiongnu and Scythians.

Choose the 'Removed' option in the player placement dropdown. Maybe not Illyrians, but we have several more in mind. Some of them are quite mature already in mods and can be ported over to base game in the future. For variety, Scythians and Xiongnu seem like logical candidates.

Extended to wherever it makes sense would save headaches. Regarding tribal confederations, it would be nice if the choice tree corresponds to probable historical alliances, usually driven by geographical proximity or customs, resulting in a less heterogeneous and more specialised confederation.

Roman legions drive back German tribes from their lands? Or, are they occupying their lands? Nevermind, doesn't matter. Rome_VS_Germ.zip

Click on the "Barter" icon on the top right. Play "Best for MP" Random map types with Anatolian/Fall/Temperate biomes. Those biomes usually have enough wood. I do agree that the early game is heavily dependent on wood.

Yep, I agree. We can cross that road when we get to it. Imagine AOMR's minor god choice mechanic, but with Germanics choosing the tribes to add to their confederation in each subsequent phase. This could be specific to the Germanics or we can extend it to any civ where it makes sense.

I recommend choosing map type: random for better gameplay outcomes. Within random map category you can find "best for MP" maps which have resources set up according to game design and not purely for map beauty. An additional benefit of random maps is that you can have any number of players you like and any map size that you like.

So, when talking about Germans, the idea seems to be to control a coalition, and one chooses which tribes join it, unlocking different units, buildings, techs, heroes, whatever. I like this, since it would save a lot of headaches regarding what tribes to ignore from them, not to end with lots of civs that look similar (same with Britons and Iberians). I would add that maybe for these factions the “starting tribe” could be selected beforehand (or as a free pop-up choice at the very beginning), not to start with some unspecified tribe. If one in particular is needed for some campaign, this initial selection would be locked, and their name set accordingly (if that’s possible). Regarding the Greeks, it seems a bit more problematic because they are quite fleshed out already (since we know way more details about them), whole leagues would be too heterogeneous. If the problem to solve is that certain scenarios need to consider city-states that are not included in the game, then there could be a generic Greek template for them (I guess the original one is still around). Maybe a bit unrelated but somehow connected on how to prepare certain things for the future: some time ago I’ve read about the “Grand Vision” (adding lots of epochs and factions to the game), which has the issue of how to deal with factions that didn’t exist in certain epochs. Some have mentioned they don’t want to have civilizations separated into eras, others that don’t want Mycenaean Greece vs Byzantine Late Empire. I think a solution is to have a faction epoch graph that would make factions available if they had come into existence by the starting epoch chosen. It doesn’t make sense to start at 400 B.C. with the Seleucids, one would have to choose the Macedonians (or maybe the Persians, that’s why it’s not a tree but a directed acyclic graph), and at the appropriate epoch, given the choice to stay Macedonian or switch to Seleucids or Ptolemies. If Macedonians are chosen, later on there’s the Roman conquest, so one would need to switch to them. If alternative history could be an option, one could choose to stay Macedonian (this doesn’t mean everything goes, Ptolemies in 400 B.C. is not alternative history, but nonsense), but then one would need to make up the characteristics of this faction from a parallel universe. Anyway, although the switch could be done between scenarios, doing it in the middle of a scenario would show that the game can handle these historical changes seamlessly with a gameplay feature. This could be a solution regarding what I mentioned in https://wildfiregames.com/forum/topic/143241-thoughts-on-the-spartans/?do=findComment&comment=750127 about trying to be historically accurate with techs: "Persians and Seleucids would have almost completely different techs, since one completely preceded the other chronologically".

Can you send me a copy of that script? That’ll be useful for me.

Thank you so much! I’ve been trying to figure out what was breaking it, I’ll fix it for version 0.13.

a

thanks to you we have celtic coalition buildings in CWA and if you give us some more ideas (Ill ready your post) we could include more!

Brave browser has an option to continue playing after locking the phone. Same for Firefox.

I didnt know about this. Thanks! Well, there's no accounting for taste.

I proposed something similar with coalitions: Personnally I would prefer something enabling the possibility to have unique units, techs and buildings through the tribes chosen. Coalitions are how historically the "barbarians" and the small nations were able to defeat massive empires.

What you are asking can't be reasonably done. It's not about doing a statistically validated poll, but what one reads (I can read plenty in three months), and perceives when taking up the game (maybe this was too long ago for you and many), after all, this thread started with "several posts that suggest that the current Petra is too difficult". That’s a start for something, and everything else I keep reading here, on Reddit, etc, makes it valid for me, considering the gap between Very Easy and Sandbox has already been mentioned before. And it's not that I don't care that some are having a positive experience, it's that that doesn't indicate there's no problem for some. Regarding pacing, as I've mentioned, it's a fact that production times are much faster than in other games, as discussed in the link I provided from this forum. Regarding speed of the game itself, I see that as less relevant than the other two things, but I do still think all this is mostly cosmetic, since once you choose the Competitive Preset, it just stays there, and one would use that for everything. Why do experienced players care what the default setting was at the beginning, if it's clear what the accepted competitive setting is? There’s no breaking of what already works, it’s all under the corresponding Preset. Actually, besides cosmetics, I also proposed the addition of levels, which was also mentioned by the OP. To summarise, I think the difficulty levels should be (for Aggressive, while for Balanced and Defensive rushes should be tuned down even more) something along these lines (or whatever approximation possible): -Sandbox: as it is now. -Extremely Easy: no rushes, small armies and defenses. -Very Easy: small rushes, medium armies and defenses. -Easy: medium rushes, decent armies and defenses. -Normal: decent rushes, large armies and defenses, comparable to other games, no warning should be needed. -Hard, Very Hard and Extremely Hard: only now large rushes, huge armies and defenses, EH at least as hard as SC2 brutal (or whatever is possible), VH and H more or less equidistantly filling the gap down to Normal. For hard levels, yes, for easy levels, no. It's like all difficulty levels seem clustered somewhere above the usual Normal, but don't reach as far as SC2 Brutal, which is not that brutal considering I'm far from being a pro, yet managed just fine.

The inevitable conclusion it isn't that AI isn't hard at all. It's actually rather too easy, but the vanilla content 0AD offers isn't optimal for casual or new players for leisure games, nor for learning. There are some work in this area already like : https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/pulls/8861 https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/pulls/7785 Also a good foundation for making campaigns more immersive: https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/pulls/8614 We can thanks @Vantha which is the main dive in these areas. I recommend trying mods, such as Delenda-Est, hyrule-conquest and a tone more already ported and coming up for R28, that are just 2 clicks away for players to get a great load of content from. If you want to not be a multiplayer try-harder, you do have many options that doesn't involve trying to beat the hardest level of AI possible actually.

When the playback stops because I closed Youtube / my browser I can just go to my phone's media overview (swipe down) and click play. The video now plays in the background / when my phone is locked. Or I use an app like PipePipe. Why would you even want that? That sounds horrible both from a usability aspect (tiny video on an already tiny screen) and for your brain (nuke your already shrinking attention span).

@Thalatta I’m not dismissing the negative experience that some players may have. What I’m saying is that it’s very difficult to establish that this negative experience is representative of every(or considerable amount) new player’s experience. I agree that the AI needs to be improved. Ideally, it shouldn’t rush under certain configurations. That’s something we all know is pending and difficult to implement. But that’s very different from wanting to modify the game’s pacing in its default state. I haven’t seen this kind of engagement approach in other RTS games. What I have seen are in-game tutorials, ranging from basic mechanics to complex build orders, along with campaigns and achievement systems, challenges. Establishing a slower pacing as the “normal” baseline would be a substantially disruptive change, and accepting it would require very solid evidence. Not just a handful of reports you might find on Reddit or that show up here from time to time in the forum. Furthermore, you will always have dissatisfied players. You can keep searching and maybe find 100 or 200 reports online about this issue. But is that sample representative? That’s roughly the same number of players who play multiplayer every day. The same group you’ve described as a minority (and I agree that’s likely the case). So those 100 or 200 reports should also be considered a minority, shouldn’t they? So, one thing is making the AI easier, and another is changing the game’s pacing. I think changing the AI’s default difficulty from Normal to Very Easy Defensive would be a positive change in this regard. Even so, without a basic guide to the game’s military and economic mechanics, it’s very likely that a new player will lose their first few attempts, for the simple reason that they don’t understand how the game works. I’ve seen many newbies build 50 farms with 100 civilians (people clearly coming from AoE). You have to give new players the tools to understand how to play. And if many of us recommend that people read some guides, it’s simply because the game doesn’t provide that kind of (good) how-to in-game. You should also care about those who are having a positive experience, they’re proof that something is being done right. I think you’re drawing conclusions far too quickly for how little time you’ve been here. Have you seen the developers play? Do you know them? There are all kinds of contributors: some play very well, others are complete noobs, and some, I think, don’t even play at all. I hope that over time you’ll come across other perspectives and have experiences that will lead you to see this differently. Casual players don’t necessary need the game to be slower; they need in-game tutorials and campaigns, they need guidance. It’s not about “making it easier so they stick around.” It’s about teaching them how to play, giving them content, storytelling, and engagement. And this is missing, not because of some “experienced-player corporatism,” but because there isn’t enough manpower to tackle tasks of that complexity and scope. There’s no need to break what already works; what’s needed is to improve what works and build what’s missing. Changing the game’s default speed to 0.8x is not a cosmetic change at all. It’s a significant design decision. Alright. I think it’s a good idea, and I’ll open the PR as soon as I have some free time. Basic PRs like this tend to be resolved fairly quickly, whether accepted or rejected. Btw, I don’t think you’re trying to impose your ideas. I just meant that some of them are based on assumptions without solid support.

My takes on TEAM BONUSES https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbTjnx3sNX0

In Normal 0 A.D., same, after a couple of lost matches I realised one had to hurry, and since then Very Hard wasn't a problem. When the AI was improved recently, again I lost a couple of matches, and realised I had to play even better, so the following few matches I've won on Very Hard (set always on Aggressive). But it seems some people just can’t do this as easily as we can (I just hold back because I don’t like to confront a game like I’m on cocaine, I just step up as it's necessary). Regarding SC2, I went straight to Brutal, and yes, a couple of Protoss scenarios took me the whole day, but I knew what I was going against, and this is kind of my point, it’s all about expectations, and not only 0 A.D. Normal is not normal (I don’t think one should read a guide and watch some videos for it, and, yet again, there’s a warning in the game itself), but apparently on Very Easy people are getting rushed. This should not happen, there’s a clear gap between that level and Sandbox, and not because the AI is smart, but because it makes rushes, and this is the core of the problem with the easy levels, which might be trivial for you and I, and for many others, but I don’t want to lose sight of those who have some RTS experience and have their expectations on what those difficulty levels should actually mean. Most of the rest of your answer is just dismissing their experience, do negative responses cancel their opinions? Do positive reviews brush off those who are frustrated? Is it not fast-paced for some, even when for others that’s a conditional thing? I don’t care about those who have a positive experience, good for them, that’s a non-issue, I worry about those who seem to be left behind. I got those links in 5 minutes, I could keep going and you know it, so let’s not waste time on ignoring an issue that’s there. I don’t necessarily say it is deliberate, it could well be accidental, which could be because this is a game made mostly by gamers that like the genre so much (this is, being quite experienced in it) that are willing to volunteer to code to make it. There’s a lot of knowledge about gameplay and balance, but this, seems to me, has shifted game too much to their preferences. I feel a “corporate” game tries to take more into account casuals and total beginners, because selling it really matters for them. So, I think there’s tension between what experienced RTS players want, and growing the game, for which I think is vital to consider what casuals and total beginners can actually do without delving into guides and videos, which, unsurprisingly, they are not going to do, they just want to play a game as they have played others. My proposal is just a cosmetic thing, how the game is presented out of the box, given that I think there’s plenty of evidence many are getting frustrated (which, again, doesn’t contradict that many are not, as I know is the case). The 0.8x speed idea is also mostly cosmetic, so I’m not sure why it would be so terrible (and with upgradeable Achievements one would be motivating people to play with Competitive Presets, which is the concept that wraps up everything), although I wonder if it would make infantry and cavalry speed difference more relevant (particularly if cavalry is made a bit faster, but these are unrelated gameplay discussions). For all I care, batch training could be made more advantageous, and there could be techs improving this even more, to replenish late armies faster, my worry is what happens in the early game (early for newbies! that's not 5 mins, that could be at least 20 mins), particularly on the easier difficulty levels. I never coded in JavaScript, but have done it in many other languages. As I mentioned somewhere else, I don’t like to do PRs, at least for now, because I don’t like to overload what’s already there, and, contrary to what you might think, I don’t want to try to impose my ideas, but to discuss first and see if there’s agreement on if there’s some merit to them.