Leaderboard

I'd rather it be like once you click the City Phase upgrade a window pops up with choices. You choose from the 3 or more heroes you have available and then that hero appears at that Civic Center once the City Phase upgrade is complete. That choice can come with a hero, special technologies, and/or any special abilities specific to that hero.

One day I was looking through the structure tree and I saw that the Indians had a very unique gameplay feature that has potential to make interesting "sub playing styles" for different hero units, similar to in civilization 6 where each leader is like it's own subfaction. I saw something game changing, how the edict of Asoka pillar could only be built if you are playing with Asoka. It may look small, but the potential to have leader-specific buildings/units opens up a whole new untapped gold mine for gameplay richness. One of 0 AD's strong points is how every faction is unique, unlike in civ where each civ only has one unique unit and building, and it would open a new way to play if each hero unit had it's own unique gameplay as such. For example, imagine if a player decided to play as a faction, and they had their normal unique gameplay style for using that faction, but then they would have the strategic choice of choosing which hero to play, as each hero would have it's own playing style more then just it's auras/small bonuses and standard combat stats, but it's own unique units/buildings you can and cannot build when he is alive as a small example scratching the surface of the potential. I feel this feature would make the gameplay even more rich and create more new playing strategies.

I concur, we need 1.0.10+, see BuildInstructions: (actually it seems findPlugin method was introduced in 1.0.10, see gloox changelog, so previous versions not only have connection problems, but aren't compatible at all) And Ubuntu Trusty has only 1.0.9: https://packages.ubuntu.com/trusty/libgloox-dev I believe I used Trusty when working on #2305 , but I probably compiled a newer version of gloox from sources. So either find (in ppa or somewhere) or compile gloox 1.0.10+ or build 0ad without lobby.

I created a repo for a Stunnable component but never got around implementing it. Could be in Health.js too I don't know.

Thanks @Alexandermb! It’s good!

Of course this will have to be added edited by @Itms and @Prodigal Son in their documents. If it is to be included of course. But to me: A Stunnable entity is an entity that instead of dying when its health reach 0 just falls down on the battlefield. When friendly units arrive nearby a bar charges with a given timeout and if they stay around for enough time the unit goes back to life. If you don't stick around the bat discharge to 0. This ability will be configurable. The timeout will be variable, and the unit can have a limited or an unlimited amount of revival for potential scenarios. An entity can be optionally dropped on knockout like a grave. The bar charging could be a bar or stars filling up as long as the feeling of progression is conserved.

@andy5995 @stanislas69 thanks for the help, it worked on non root user.

> i am new to linux... You should only try to run it as a non-root user. Please see https://askubuntu.com/questions/16178/why-is-it-bad-to-log-in-as-root On Linux, it's best only to use root for system administration. Please post the contents of your /etc/apt/source.list

Indeed, like in Age of Mythology or Age of Empires III.

congratulations

Version 2 for Alpha 23 is up. Thanks @Itms and @stanislas69 https://0ad.mod.io/delenda-est

Please tell us what you've tried step-by-step, and then paste in any errors that were output at the end.

Likely because you are root on Kali Linux do you get any sort of errors ?

I've been thinking about the damage and armour system of 0 A.D. EA. Maybe this was discussed already in other topics or there are future plans that I'm unaware of. Feel free to enlighten/dismiss me. Anyway this is my two cents about the above mentioned damage and armour system in 0 A.D. EA (EA in the reminder of the post). Currently there are three damage types: hack pierce crush And, conversely three armour types (for each of the listed damage type). Each unit deals some damage in one or more of these damage types and has armour values for all three. The damage types dealt by the unit reflect some realistic approximation of the damage caused by the unit's weapon. This system, while it's more realistic, has some weaknesses. Some examples: Rams should be practically impregnable to range unit attacks. To achieve this its pierce armour is huge (99%). This achieves the desired effect as all ranged units have piercing attack (some have piercing and crush but the ram has very high defence against crush attacks as well so this doesn't cause a problem). But it also has an undesired effect: rams are practically invulnerable to spear wielding units, as those also have piercing attack, which is highly unrealistic as rams would be very vulnerable to all melee attacks. In real life attackers would not go and try to hack the wooden parts to pieces but attack the people moving it who would be vulnerable to attacks in the confined interior of the ram. Pikemen should be very hard to tackle in close-combat. To achieve this it has very high hack and piercing armour levels. But this also results in being very hard to kill via range units as well. While this is desirable to some extent its unlikely that real pikemen were as good at defending against range attacks as they were defending against melee attacks, due to having a smallish shield. In general this system makes it very hard to implement a proper counter system, which in my opinion is highly desirable for an RTS . The reason is that a unit's ability to defend against range and melee attacks cannot be detached from each other. Increasing one, in some cases, will increase the other as well, also discriminating against particular weapon types, leading to absurd situations, like the tank-like ram that some civilizations simply cannot defend themselves against as they have very limited access to sword infantry/cavalry. I think there are two ways to fix this: Go all the way with the realistic system. Instead of units only having three armour levels, take other aspects of a unit into consideration: its shield (or the lack of it), its ability (skill) to defend itself from melee and ranged attacks. Pros: Can be very realistic. Fine-grained definition of unit's strength/weaknesses, units behave as you instinctly expect (knowing their historical role). Cons: Complicated system that is hard to implement and model mentally. Lots of numbers to juggle, one could say it doesn't really fit an RTS. Elite units tend to become strong all-rounders, prime candidates for mindless massing without any tactics or strategy. Go the Age of * route. Units either have melee or ranged primary attack and have melee and range armour levels (maybe a third for siege/crush). Pros: Very few numbers to juggle. A unit has HP, speed, an attack and two armour levels. Easy to build a good counter system that forces players to carefully consider the composition of their armies. Easy to build a mental model of. Cons: Can be overly simplistic at cases. I personally prefer option (2) for being simpler and for already being familiar to people coming from the Age of * universe (of which EA is member in some sense). What do you guys think? Feel free to add additional options or add/dispute the pros/cons on the presented ones.

This is all remedied by removing the pierce attack from spear units. "Hack" isn't supposed to represent some kind of difference between puncturing and slashing, it's supposed to represent "Melee" attacking. Remove the pierce attack from spear dudes and then you don't have to have highish pierce armor for pikemen. By removing the pierce attack you'd necessarily have to increase their hack attack to compensate and now they're better against battering rams.