Leaderboard

I created this little python script to autogenerate skeleton files from dae files, which will hopefully be a timesaver for artists. https://github.com/StanleySweet/0AD-Skeleton-Generator

Yes, i would like to support the projects with ideas or models. and actually i have an idea i used on my millenium version: as the nords where carpenters and they work hard on every single ship they had made, i did a template to make the infantry swordsman construct the drakkars on the shores like a dock, but i don't know if the IA will know how to work with that.

@Lion.Kanzen In game screens with variants and specs and files if someone wants to use them for any purposes. Skeleton file was made with my script. public.7z

Loose Criteria: Faction must be from a Civilization in its Classical Peak (500 B.C. - A.D. 500). Since we're here, it's interesting to note that the Greek Factions are divided among City States, and the Celtic Factions are similarly separated by geography. The rest of the factions are based on a nation's ruling dynasty/empire. I mean, they didn't divide Rome (or maybe Italy for that matter). If you're going to add a Roman Faction, go DE mode: Roman Kingdom, Roman Republic, Roman Empire... or should we? Can we have an Western Roman and Byzantine Factions?

Just looked at the code, the Actor Editor indeed hard-codes the public mod, though you might be able to manually open a file from another mod. They should show up (if the mod config is saved (enable the mod, press the save button in the mod selection screen) in Atlas though. (Also the Actor Editor is broken on *nix #1553, so removing that hard-coding (and making it use the vfs like mentioned in a commit from 2008 (r6395) would be nice if someone is inclined to work on that.) As for the icon issue (and I guess a few other questions) having your mod in a public repository or something can be quite helpful (as debugging remote and blind is quite hard most of the time). (Also keep asking questions, this helps a lot with figuring out where documentation could be improved (also feel free to do that if you find something lacking) and it tends to expose bugs or limiations.)

Hi I was just wondering does anyone know if 0 AD will add more factions? Or another time period like the Dark Ages?

The short answer is no for vanilla 0 A.D., Empires Ascendant. The modding community is quite strong though, which is what the previous comments are eluding to.

You can, however that just restricts being able to place the foundation, not the actual construction of it (see the Mauryan Worker Elephant for an example of that).

Adding only ResourceGatherer but not Builder will do that. Since you inherit from some unit template you will most likely need to disable them by using <builder disable=""></builder> . As for restricting what buildings a unit can build, no there is no way to do that currently. If you really need that you should open a ticket on trac. (I suspect the actually needed changes to restrict building to only those present in the Builder list shouldn't be very complicated.)

I think it should be possible to capture walls when they are no longer in a player's territory.

How nice it is if walls and turret within a specific CC radius can be assimilated when that CC is captured. If empty wall(or unfilled fully)/turrets can be occupied by any it would be very interesting and could be deterrent to abuse. For single player mode the AI should occupy walls and turrets(if they build) or enemy can't occupy it if any of two adjacent turrets is garrisoned. I noticed too that foot units can garrison turrets(or even towers maybe) from any angle. The foot units should be able to come in by way of the turret door only.

I think you might be able to take some clues from this template: https://github.com/JustusAvramenko/delenda_est/blob/master/simulation/templates/units/imp_infantry_swordsman_b.xml

Hope to see there, @Alexandermb

On my YouTube channel, it seems that the 1vs1 series between Butcher and Finch has been very appreciated by viewers (even with a clear difference of level between the two players). If you guys have more 1vs1 series, I'd be happy to cast it (please borg send your 1v1!)

As always. See DE. Lol

Not to mention they can't be captured.

If you want elexis, I am ok to play in multiplayer maps that don't have few chokepoints easily wallable, for example mainland, with stone wall allowed, and actually use the wall, to see if their ban is only a tradition that is not relevant in a21. It can be a good test. it would too be interesting to know if we should ban putting multiple layers of wall. Consider, too, that it can be interesting for a player to wall a building, that is of course unrealistic. With walls allowed, you can for example circle with walls a 2nd CC if you don't want to spend the stone and the time to circle the area, which you would do later. They would still be very vulnerable against slingers in a21, and likely ranged siege (catapults) in a22. But it would "add" them HP against rams for example, and prevent capture, for not much of stone added. This example and multiple layers of walls can be considered abusing, so you should discuss allowing it or not.

IMO with alpha 21 walls became well balanced (at least the best balance Ive seen in a number of alphas). They can be built quickly and provide a good defense as long as one can defend vs siege engines. While it is true that they don't keep an attacker out if the area isn't completely walled, they are still useful to stabilize areas in the frontline, for example building a wall around a newly built civic center or mines in that area (so that enemies will be deterred from wall turret arrows and towers don't hit the mining units). Dragging on the lategame is their job, but an enemy that is an actually better position can tear down those walls very quickly with siege engines (1 ram is still faster than 50 swordchampions).

In the pictures below I ctrl-clicked to attack the cc. The top row shows what usually happens, with units in the back walking around to their place on the ends. But in the bottom row I ctrl-clicked a second time while they were walking around, and the units stopped in place and started attacked the cc. So the units in the top row are definitely in range, but for some reason they walk around to their position on the square before they start to attack. I think currently units are within range if the center of the object is within range? And maybe that's going to be changed in D13 to if any part of the object is in range? That's my understanding. In the first case, the units should line up in a circle around the cc, and in the second case they should line up in a circle/square hybrid, in straight lines parallel to each side, but then 1/4 circles around each of the corners. Playing around in the editor: Archers actually line up in a circle like they should! Slingers and skirmishers line up in a square like in the picture. Hmm, playing around more: Attacking a barracks instead of a civic center, slingers will line up in a circle too! But skirmishers still stand in a square. Skirmishers will stand in a circle to attack a house though. So maybe it has something to do with how the building's "radius" (whatever that means) compares to the unit's range? I'll make a ticket for this. For the other things on my list, I searched for old tickets that mentioned them, and only made a new ticket if I didn't find anything.

My questions: Will there be turtle formation, phalanx formation (with pikes used as some protection against arrows), wedge formation .... , which would give some bonuses to units (better protection/worse attack and vice versa? Will archers be able to fight melee (British Longbowmen were quite well known for that skills). Perhaps I want too much things, but stamina and different speeds for walk/run/charge would be welcomed. Also ability to patrol on walls could be cool.