Leaderboard

New version released, available on the first post. Changes in this version: Reverted all champion changes, due to extra metal mine spawns being entirely random. This means that very often 1 team will have a considerable advantage, due to having access to extra metal. I've even played multiple matches just in this balancing mod where one team had only 1 or no extra metal mines at all, while the other team had safe access to all other metal spawns. Also removed the champion tech unlock change. Additionally I've lowered archer damage by 0.1P from 6.8 to 6.7, changed around War elephant cost to have higher food than metal cost and also slightly lowered catapult aoe damage. Version 5.0 changes Champion cost and unlock tech back to old cost Citizen archers: 6.8P to 6.7P War elephants: 225F and 225M to 300F and 200M Catapults: Splash damage radius: 10m to 7m

Since I'm evidently not the only one, I've decided to write a mod to display “armour-health equivalents” (i.e. the amount of damage they can take) instead of armour and health in the in-game tooltips: What I did was replace the A24 gui/common/tooltips.js getArmorTooltip function with: Do you think it is an improvement?

It's an excellent start for discussion which will lead to the point of view we consider (random list: [single player, multiplayer, lobby multiplayer, history, realism, code]). For example it was suggested that gauls and/or brits could use druid for attacking. - history? - gameplay? - balance? - realism? - code? I think you forum people have the answers! (I also think that at this point what started 20 years ago could only survive with mods. Multiplayer lobby player should have their mod, something handled by a lobby admin with a message inviting to use it. I don't know if they do that, but that would be good for us.)

Should be better to have a bonus split between navy and economy: example Allied Warships −15% construction time and Allies +10% barter sell prices. Simply to avoid useless bonus on land maps. Since Caesar emphasizes the training of Gallic youths as druids in Britain, it seems a historically coherent bonus. It is simply the healers that are useless currently in the game. The Gauls weren't in technological advance, they weren't "retards" or "primitives" like 19th century historians portrayed them but they weren't in advance in regards of the others. A few elements of their metallurgy were really innovative but that doesn't make them the best ironsmiths. Actually the thing that had huge impact on nearby populations was: - Slave trading, they were really selling slaves at a competitive price. - Selling weapons, especially swords and scabbards (found in Spain, Italy, Crimea, Thracia etc., even in foreign cultures). Selling adornments, like fibula. - Strabo talks about them exporting resin, pitch, honey, wax, amber, salt, woolens and leather products. - Mercenaries. That was one of their main asset.

the version should be a23b, not a23. it should be in ubuntu repos unless ubuntu is old. wiggle the connector in and out while playing audio

Currently 0 A.D. has the following team bonuses: Athenians: Allied Warships −25% construction time. Britons: Allied Healers −20% resource costs. Carthaginians: Allied Markets +10% international trade bonus. Gauls: Allied Structures −20% technology research time. Iberians: Allied Citizen Javelinists −10% resource costs. Kushites: Allied Elephants −20% resource costs and training time. Macedonians: Allies +20% barter sell prices. Mauryas: Allied Temples −50% resource costs and building time; Temple technologies −50% resource costs and research time. Persians: Allied Land Traders +15% trade gain. Ptolemies: Allies +1.0 food trickle rate. Romans: Allied Citizen Infantry −10% training time. Seleucids: Allied Civil Centers −20% resource costs. Spartans: Allied Citizen Infantry Spearmen +10% health. As you can see not all team bonuses are equally good. The Macedonian bonus is simply great; the Iberian, Ptolemaic, and Roman bonuses can be quite useful in early game, the Persian later on, the Seleucid on large maps. The Briton bonus seems rather limited (who trains healers?), the Athenian is only useful on water maps, the Kushite only for civs that can train elephants (a minority). Maybe some team bonuses ought to be replaced. Other thoughts or suggestions?

100% In practice I guess the correct answer is less than that since the icons for the existing pre-made ones can be redone (and maybe could be different from theme to theme, not sure), and a future update could change the system, but in general we can use or not use as much or as little as we want of it. As for what to use or not, I don't think I should make the decision, but I want to add my opinion: I personally like the possibility to show that I agree or appreciate something without having to take up unnecessary space or go off-topic. I do think that it should be limited to positive reactions though, for negative reactions to have a positive effect (if all you get is "I dislike this" you are unable to change or explain whatever it was that caused the reaction, so all the reaction would lead to would be to make the receiver sad) they need to be expressed in greater detail (preferably phrased more politely than "I dislike this" as well for that matter), so my preference is to keep it to positive or at the most neutral reactions. All reactions are neutral or positive in terms of how they affect the "reputation" (i.e. the little number next to the plus symbol underneath your user group and avatar), but it's of course up for debate how they affect the one receiving them, so I wouldn't say it has to be the way things are now.

Here you go: A24: ArmourHealthTooltipA24.zip A23: ArmourHealthTooltipA23.zip

share the mini mod pls

About tooltips, there were discussions long time ago with mainly two schools (and people switching from one to the other): - emergent behavior with a lot of stats (damage types, spread, ...) in the templates. - gameplay orientated templates (hard counters, classes). The idea with the first thing is that you don't have to learn how to play while in the second you just learn the basic rules of the game. A simple example is with the spread: - a stat which vaguely do something we could call "physical". Firing in a zone with some kind of spatial distribution then checking if there is something at that place... - a stat with just the probably to hit. Then if you have decide to hit, it hits. Showing the first thing in the tooltip appears completely useless. Showing the second thing in the tooltip appears completely useful. At some point, there was some kind of hybrid design with diverging intents. I really think that in such kind of game, you should not display all those stats in the tooltips and keeping them in some kind of encyclopedia, structure tree, hardcore extra tooltips panel or whatever. ;-) And that's a really interesting comment because you will find more than 5k players complaining about that stat!

Oh right, I've found the thread. Thanks for writing it down, I honestly think there isn't more than like 5 players who know what the numbers really mean. On a side note, I've been with this game for so long that I even remember when this OP armor system got introduced.

Because armour is a power exponential law, differences in armour levels are more consequential then they might seem. Take, for example, the house; the tooltip shows us: Armour: 20 hack (88%), 30 pierce (96%), 3 crush (27%), which although true is somewhat misleading. The difference in hack and pierce is 10 levels, between hack and crush 17 levels, and between pierce and crush 27 levels. Another way of phrasing this is that 1 crush damage is equivalent to 6 hack damage or 17.2 pierce damage. I doubt many people would have guessed this from the current tooltip, so maybe we should have a tooltip that displays armour-health equivalents (i.e. the total amount of attack damage it can take).

That has been committed by @elexis earlier this week (rP23399).

Why not. Could be a discount in wood and metal, Gauls made a few type of pre-manufactured bars, easier to trade and to process. The other thing interesting I see is the invention of the reaper by the Gauls: There was a lot of mineral resources in Britain, it boomed during the Roman Empire but mostly because the resources weren't exploited before (Romans have bring hydraulic mining with hushing). Although, yes Britons were good with tin trading, good at working with bronze and gold. Since there was some trading and merchant connection on the Atlantic facade, maybe a bonus especially for maritime trade. Otherwise, a huge part of the Iron Age society there, was cattle and pasturing.

They were a major source of gold and ivory. Also iron, slaves, cattle and exotic animals. They always had far flung trade connections and traded in luxury products. So you could give them some kind of trade bonus. A higher rate of metal income from trading? They also built deep wells and water reservoirs to farm and keep livestock alive on the margins of the Sahel. A higher rate of food income from trading?

The flaw with the Briton team bonus lies in the healer. Healers alone are simply purposeless unless there is a secondary purpose provided. I personally wouldn't be against the idea of them converting units, but I'm sure that alternate options; priests served many roles that could be represented such as a simple aura that improves attack or improves gathering speed. The list goes on.

A friend recommended 0AD to me three says ago. I've been dipping into it. I'm pretty impressed. I speak as a former senior dev on Battle For Wesnoth, so I have a better idea than most what's required to produce a game like this. Some of you might recognize me for...other things. Well done, everybody. I partiicularly like the attention to historical detail; I can recognize authenticity in the costumes and architecture. This kind of collaboration - attracting more talent than any single proprietary shop can afford to hire - is one of the strengths of open source. I'm expecting great things of the eventual 1.0 version.

(cleared)

Our current followers, January 14, 2020: Instagram: 97 Mastodon: 99 Twitter: 3580 Facebook: 11,840 That's slightly better, and it's nice to see the appreciation for Mastodon, an open source alternative to the big social media sites. But we can still do a lot better than that. Come on my fellow forumites, let's push those numbers!