All Activity

I've just done a little demo, and you are correct. They don't have an animation for attacking. Sadly, the team is on a tight schedule and often these issues creep up. Sometimes, new units are introduced and some of them are missing animations. The most famous historical case being the Mauryan War Elephant.

For correctness's sake, Temple of Apademak is the Kushites normal Temple. You can check the specific and generic names of the Temple in Alpha 23. Never mind, It's the same name in the latest alpha. I'm just trying to be smartass here and failing.

Is it possible for someone to check the animation for Auxiliary Cavalry Spearman. While playing I got the feeling that my ally was doing nothing but eventually saw damage being done so I reckoned it was just the animation of this unit when attacking is just the same as when idle.

Walling in 0ad is costly in both resources and the mental capacity required to make sure they are actually sealed. palisades and stone walls need to become easier to seal and place if they are to become more impactful on gameplay. I've had moments before where palisades were remarkably successful in protecting my base from large amounts of cav in p2, but its quite rare to see palisades actually accomplish what the player envisions when they are built.

Optimal farm placement in Imperia Vetera. Farms yield about the same food as the most upgraded ones in AoE2. Persians get a bonus 100 food per farm.

@Dunedan @user1

Oh right, you meant impassable mountains, not regular elevations/hills !

On top of what TheCJ said, the elevated terrains give ranged units and towers an additional range bonus, so they can shoot further. The projectile trajectory is calculated using a real physics model which ignores air resistance. Complicated terrains confuse the pathfinder of units, which give archers a huge advantage as they can shower the confused enemy melee and javs without taking any damage. You can build walls in neutral areas to protect your bolt shooters.

Some terrain is impassable in 0ad. by building a house right next to it, you extend the natural barrier of the mountain with a barrier of houses, thus requiring less resources and build time to block off a certain entryway.

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).