All Activity

@OutisWalking on top of walls along their extent while being a bit protected could indeed be an interesting side-effect. Which brings me to a (most likely stupid) question: A soldier positioned on a wall has some protection against enemy fire. I the same soldier is behin that wall, does he have the same level of pretection, more protection, or less protection? From my simple mind I would guess being behind a wall shoudl provide more protection. Most likely implemented as expected. Can anyone confirm, please?

Yeah I've updated the scripts and ported that mod to test. I need to publish 28.1 on mod.io

That looks very well

I use formations only to group my army better before the attack. Note that there are some serious bugs with formations. If you add an unit that is very far away, the entire formation stops and waits for that unit to get near. Also, if you attack move with the formation active, only some of your units will move in to attack.

About formations, I almost never use them because when you order your soldiers to attack the formation automatically disbands, no matter how far away the enemy is. It would be nice to either: A: make it so that formations must be manually disbanded, otherwise they fight in formation (at least some formations should work like this, like the Phalanx) B: units stay in formation until an enemy is in sight, then they disband (not historically accurate for most formations, like the Phalanx).

Wait, was this updated to R28?!

Git is trolling me again. Wanted to PR this fix for rally points errors. rally.diff @Stan` thanks for the port.

They shouldn't be deleted automatically. The uninstaller needs to ask the user if he/she wants to remove the config and data files. Maybe the user will want to install the game later, so preserving config is beneficial.

That long Sorry for the delay, should be fixed now (thx for the report) glad people are using it.

2v2 team game, playing as Carthage. Map is Corinthian Isthmus. 2v2_M_Cath.zip

I don't know yet, @Stan`If they already made it as a mod and are ready to maintain them, it may work out better in the long-run. For me to update everybody's maps that already exist in the mod every time a new version of 0 A.D. is release might be too much at some point. But these are cool maps, indeed.

I know you have OCD for formations,I just can't prove it that aside, this is a very smooth very nice movement of formations. I have a stigma against using formations mainly because of (obviously) that "dumb troops keep going ahead and die" bit also because the formations are feel so,so SO un-smooth this is also historically accurate,as one of the main points of wedge formation is that the one ahead will be the captain, and the ones behind simply need to follow his lead and move exactly as he does, therefore being almost instantaneous "command orders" of that era

I think we can look into the game Stronghold for some guidance or maybe ask them how they did it.

The prospect of bridges is great, but the prospect of walls you can walk on is awesome.

I didn't put much thought into it, honestly.

Screencast+from+2026-03-24+01-51-27.webm Would be nice along with some charging mechanics.

Dacians, Nok: Interesting facts:Based on my internet research, horses in sub-Saharan (Except for the Sahel and Nile regions) Africa only became widespread several centuries after our time, the other African civilizations either possessed scouts, heroes, and merchants with oxen, or they would be like those of America, with runners. ----If anyone has different evidence, please send it to me along with references. , Lusitanos.

darn AI, I love it as much as I hate it lolIt was supposed to be a Portuguese creature; I got the reference from @Duileoga. And yes, it has the skin of a feline from the Iberian Peninsula.

I don't think it was. Cc @vladislavbelov @hyperion

There were a nuber of discussion is the subject e.g. the one below, but it seems to be quite complex to implement. My sugestion is to create bridges as a structure like a wall (with very low height) and the properties of a field (you walk on it and can cross it). Bridges need these properties: they need to be buidable - animations will be needed (builders cannot step left and right to the bridge unlike building a wall). Question: where should we allow building bridges: on map-defined points only (as in settlers IV) or everywhere? (I'd rather opt for predefined points as a start - simply to avoid that one clutters the entire naval map with criss-cross bridges that block ships. they need to block pathfinding for ships while they exist, and not anymore if completely destroyed they need to enable pathfinding for land objects while they exist - and not anymore if they are damaged to more than a percentage to be defined (or completely destroyed?) they need to be destroyable (ships only or also land-based siege engines? If ships only, which ones?) they need to be repairable by land forces - animations will be needed I anyone could come up with a test implementation as a mod on one test map, this would be phantastic! Unfortunatly, I am more or less illiterate in programming...

I do like it, but how would the animation look like? Your ship would be placing itself alongside the enemy ship that does not / cannot flee (anymore) - why? wow? Woudl there be some time indicator, like when capturing a building? Does the ship being attacked fight back? If so how? Arrows? I am afraid we might need to make some action visible. All this would be more convincing if we had the soldiers (proportional to the actual number of pax) visible on board which is even more complex to achieve. Or should we define three boarding levels (10%, 50% 100%) and three animations with 3, 5, or 10 soldiers visibly acting? Then we could gave the a similar aniumation as when conquering a building. I am afraid there is no really simple solution. So basically we need to discuss in greater detail what it would take to implement even partially. My preferred solution would be to start with a single feature (like indicating payload level - how many soldiers are on board). This might alreadya be useful, independent of implementing more of the following. Then we would need a manoever (or player action) that immobilizes the enemy ship, and then a takeover indicator including counter attack (!) an then finally change of ownership/command or deflection of the attack. What could that be? Sinking your ship? Self-sinking the enemy ship (like the pirates in Asterix comics ), the enemy conquering your ship?

You break a good chunk of the hotkeys doing so btw. Very likely you'll also have errors. A safe alternative is to remove : function autociv_showBuildingPlacementTerrainSnap(mousePosX, mousePosY) autociv_patchApplyN("updateBuildingPlacementPreview", function(target, that, args)

building phases already are a technology. So what you can do is add a technology field to the requirements list: "requirements": { "all": [ { "tech": "my_technology" }, {"entity": { "class": "Town", "number": 3 }} ] },

Maybe, but did the britons (or iberians?) have leopards fur? ( I adore these pictures, just could not resist splitting hairs a bit...sorry!)

I love your emblems/shields - but this one has some sort of ivy plants growing on it? Looks very nice, but there is one thing puzzling me: This is typically indicating the civ is long gone and the jungle ist starting reclaiming its grounds. At the time we are putting the game Maya were still thriving I thought?