Leaderboard

There are so many Hellenic civs for one reason, because the Hellenes were very influential, and the addition of the Thebans will probably be necessary in order to properly do a campaign in the future.

If you want people to take this demand seriously, try drafting a unit and building list for your faction. Tell us how they play and what they do. What are their strengths? What are their weaknesses? What do their units and buildings look like? Where are they actually from? And most importantly, how did they impact or communicate with the other civilizations of this time? To walk in here demanding an "African civilization" and claim that anyone who does not agree is racist and a fan of slavery, is extremely lazy and insulting to a lot of the artists and programmer who have been working on this project. I'd like to note that 0 AD is open source, you are entirely free to create whatever faction you want in game and then show it off.

I mean lithobolos and ballista are underpowered, but oxybeles and mainly scorpion are seriously overpowered. Scorpion have a excellent attack and range, better than ballista against buildings, and of course it has against infantry ans cavalry. It makes ballista a no used unit because its function is better asumed by scorpion. I mean scorpion must have less range (90 m) and less attack against buildings, being a infrantry sniper, but with less rate of fire, because it's actually a machine gun: five scorpions can destroy a whole army. Ballista and lithobolos must have 50% more of attack against buildings and about 100m range, but being no usable against infantry, with a poor attack against it.

African civilizations would be a cool addition, but unfortunately it is not so simple. All the work needed for the graphics would have to be done, along with historical research and etc. To make an entire civilization is a lot of effort.

It is fixed in r16281! Sorry for the inconvenience!

..so, what about "rotundatus" ?

I recommend Ρόδος / Ródos(Rhodes in English), where is famous for Colossus of Rhodes, one of the Seven Wonders of the World. The Siege of Rhodes (305 BC/304 BC) was one of the conflicts in Battles of the Diadochi. And Rhodes is also renowned by "hic Rhodus, hic salta", a quote from Aesop's Fables.

I think it may depend on what civ is being used. Some are civs are poorly equipped with siege units to tackle structures (although every civ has good units against structures). Ranged siege are almost worthless. I used 10 powerful ranged siege units against a single fortress. Due to the issues with unpacking / auto-repacking and lack of room, I lost all ten before I could take the fortress down. Meanwhile, my citizen soldier infantry and elephants took down several fortresses and major sections of wall in short order. So I do agree that the ranged siege weapons intended for buildings need either more range, more attack, or both. However, that doesn't fix the issue of units destroying structures too fast. [edit] ranged "siege" units, not just 10 ranged units

Did you hear that? Something happened, didn't it? (More seriously: r16276. Small resolutions aren't supported yet, and that will not be fixed for A18. Apart from that try to break it and report back, else have fun with it.) And again a huge thank you to s0600204 for both creating it and letting us merge it!

WOAH...Hold your war chariots on this topic fellas. I just played a 2 hour game where one guy was turtling with tons of fortresses and archers.....this creates two problems because: 1) I could not build any siege units (unless you count war elephants) 2) The catapults of my ally did almost no damage to his forts My two recommendations to make late game faster: 1) Make ranged siege much more effective against forts OR increase their range, which will force the defender to need to counter attack. 2) LEAVE damage of non-siege units VS forts UNCHANGED... PLZZZ... The reason why there are many castles in the world standing today is because they were historically impossible to attack without siege weapons... this = no fun for RTS Given this last experience, lowering the damage of non-siege units versus buildings would make the game go even more slowly. If you get caught without units to defend a fort, it should fall quickly. I hope the developers give this some serious thought. Late game play is already horrendously slow due to fortress spamming.

I think that there's too many greek/hellenistic civs. It's harder then to add more civs if you don't want to reduce differences between them.

See, this is kind of why I jumped the gun. It's the insinuation that most people apparently believe that Africans are a primitive sub-species. Bringing social/racial/historical issues into something which is supposed to revolve around developing a game kind of gets my goat. We're really all here to have fun discussing the game 0 AD. The game's design, its historical aspect, the coding in the game, all that fun stuff. Whereas I don't necessarily disagree with the notion that it would be interesting to see under-represented civilizations included in the game, I do disagree the angle from which you're approaching the problem. You come with the idea that Europeans are evil because they disregard African history and because they had slaves hundreds of years ago. That is why I felt like reminding you that Africans themselves participated in the triangular commerce. Slavery itself is a terrible, terrible thing. NO ONE is questioning that. NO ONE here is pro-slavery (even though it still exists today, mind you). Historically speaking, no country or culture is really innocent of slavery, it's important to remember that. History is history, it should not be forgotten and it should be respected. However the actions we take today shouldn't reflect what happened in history. "He hit me, so I hit back". That sort of thing is silly. I'm French yet I have very good relations with German people. Yet France and Germany have historically been at each other's throats for centuries. Hence my reaction; it might seem distasteful to you or others, but I don't believe I'm completely in the wrong. Nor am I trolling, I am serious when I post my views. This post turned out longer than I had originally anticipated, sorry about that. tl;dr a new civ might be nice and all but I think the civs we already have need some working on either way.

It's ok, I just want to encourage you to think one extra time before posting