Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'units'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Welcome
    • Announcements / News
    • Introductions & Off-Topic Discussion
    • Help & Feedback
  • 0 A.D.
    • General Discussion
    • Gameplay Discussion
    • Game Development & Technical Discussion
    • Art Development
    • Game Modification
    • Project Governance
    • Testing

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL







First Name

Last Name

Skype ID

Found 11 results

  1. It was a well discussed topic. But, I want to remind some of the inequality amongst civilizations... 1. Building Time:- As we know, Gauls and Britons have a lowered building time for their weak structures. But conversely this gave them advantage in games. As per history, their knowledge of architecture wasn't well and scientific as like that of others(Romans, Carthaginians, Persians or Greeks). So, it's obvious that their building would be rubble. But, this deduction in 20% building time make them more efficient. Again, most of their structures has a population bonus. But think carefully, did a hut like structure has any access to extension option? I think no, so it'll be better and more balanced if Britons & Gauls have a slightly slower building rate and No population extension option by houses unlike others and also weaker Armour for buildings(20% less). 2. Superiority of Slingers over Archers(Especially) and Skirmishers:- Apparently most of the player would definitely admit that Slingers are the strongest unit in the game. But, is it feasible for Slingers to have more than 1.5 times pierce damage than Archers. A piece of stone cause more crush damage than pierce. So, I think there should a balance between Slingers and Archers. Maybe 7.5 pierce damage for Archers and 8.5 pierce damage along with 1.5 crush damage for Slingers. 3. Superiority of Roman Siege and Persian Rams:- There is no doubt that Romans and Persians had a superior Siege units with better atrack. But, this wasn't spontaneous. This was achieved by a long period of experiment. So, It'll be best to give them a technology(with practical costs) instead of just giving them directly. Along with that I would also suggest to give Carthaginian and Ptolemaic Juggernauts and Heavy Warships an equal Bonus by a similar technology. 4. Unlimited Access for certain Buildings I'm listing some buildings that can be built during game... Persians--- Apandana- 1, Hall- 2, Ishtar Gate- 1 Carthaginians--- Embassy- 2, Tophet- None. Sparatans--- Royal Stoa- Unlimited Athenians--- Royal Stoa- Unlimited, Gymnasium- Unlimited Gauls--- Tavern- Unlimited Britons--- Kennel- Unlimited Mauryans--- Palace- None Kushites--- Nuba Village/Camp- 2 Diadochii--- Military Colony- Unlimited Romans--- Army Camp- Unlimited These all disparity makes some civilization really underdog and some of them really strong. Please fix it. Maybe by giving an option for increasing the number of town phase buildings by 1 for each Civic Center was made and by limiting the number of City phase structures. 4. No Trample Damage for Elephants and Ability of Rams to Attack Organic Units:- This is one of the worst and impractical thing that makes Rams more stronger and efficient than Elephants. As Rams could only be destroyed by hack damage(most efficient and fast). On the other hand, not only Elephants can be killed by Ranged units easily but also they can be easily blocked by any units or women. And so this makes them useless. Again, more or less equal speed of an Elephants as compared to Rams make them more impractical. But, ideally an elephant has a great momentum along with a speed of nearly 40 km/h. So, I think they should have more speed with a continuous movement not obstructed by Organic Units. It'll be also better if we add trample damage for cavalry. 5. Costs for making a Catapult and Elephant:- An elephant costs 250 food and 250 metal and 3 population which is really impractical. Raising an elephant is more costlier than making a Ram. Again, making a Catapult cause not that much wood (400). So, there should be a balance. Again, most of the units first try to capture Bolt Shooters and Catapults instead of just destroying it! So, there should be a mode which can determine whether units will attack it or try to capture it. 6. Units and Faction Requests:- And lastly, I've some personal thoughts that I would like to share. In short--- I) Maiden Guards should not be trained from Barracks. They are elite and special units which only protect Royal persons and so they should be trained from Palace. And please give Mauryans access to Rams. II) Kindly give Chandragupta Maurya and Chanakya a decent hero bonus. And please reconsider the bonuses given to some heroes like Hannibal(a bonus of 20% faster batch time for mercenaries instead of 20% less damage for enemy mercenaries) III) Instead of giving a 20% health Reduction for Archery Tradition, it'll be better if we apply a 5% or maybe 10% health Reduction just like Persian Infantry. IV) Civ Bonuses--- Some Civs have very much helpful Civ Bonus(Iberians, Seleucids, Ptolemies, Sparatans, Athenians, Macedonians, Romans, Gauls, Persians, Kushites) and some have impractical Civ Bonus(Carthaginians, Mauryans, Britons). Please reconsider them. Hope, the authority will consider my urges...
  2. Probably one most adapted unit. Partisan (more iconic) Late- Sassanid
  3. My idea is to make a mod during the triple alliance war (I want to do it because I like the history of Latin America, and because I am Latin American :v) What do I have to modify in the game to make this possible?
  4. Well, the main aim of this topic is not to make a discussion of why techs trees could be filled. The aim is making a collective resource for devs or modders, if they want to augment the number of units of units for civs, reducing the uniqueness of the rosters, but making them easier to balance (I'm for a asymmetrical balance, and the difference could be done in other ways, but as I said, focus the thread into filling the rosters). I'm not saying that we should add or not this units. At first I would use fast and superficial sources. Later If I have time or somebody does it, I would post better sources. My proposition is to make the design historical based, but not 100% accurate. For every proposal, a short argument or source. Not unique units, mainly common units and mercenaries (try to stick to historical mercenaries used for the correspondent civ) based on existing roles. The format is: role (based on existing ones): Concrete name Justification: and explanation if needed for supporting sources Source: Athens: (Fast) swordman: Ekdromoi Justification: It was a champion unit for the Greek civ before the splitting (now replaced by the Athen Marine). Could be the same that Spartan commando (c-s) or Gaul Fanatic (champion) Spartan: Slinger Justification: Spartan used slingers in their armies, for sure as mercenaries, and I don't know if they were also native soldiers. I don't know if were the helots who were used as slingers, like in Total War. Archer Justification: The same. Could be also Cretan mercenaries. Source for both them: https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130703083325AACyja2 Pikeman: Periokoi pikeman Justification: by the III century b.c, pikemen were used by spartans. Now there's a scenario-editor only unit, and has been debated to give allow to train them by a reforms tech Sword cavalry: Hippeis cavalry Justification: Convention: most of the cavalry of the game, if I'm not mistaken, used javelins as a main weapon to fight infantry (unless chasing routing units or light infantry) and sword as side weapon, but devs give sword cavalry for most civs. Source for Cretan archers and pikemen: https://books.google.es/books?id=RLr8CwAAQBAJ&pg=PA29&lpg=PA29&dq=tarantine+cavalry+sparta&source=bl&ots=A-XsoU1zQ3&sig=I_smyZXsIO_j_SkVhaPBSDsATUM&hl=es&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjI0NDXlpTXAhXSFsAKHfcSCHUQ6AEIaTAL#v=onepage&q=tarantine cavalry sparta&f=false Gauls: Swordman: Justification: as it says in the original design doc, sword were used by celts, but mainly nobles. It could be used a narrow viewer to make them available as c/s Archer: Hunter Justification: Vercingetorix reunited hunters with bows to fight romans. Could be implemented as mercenaries, like Delenda Est. Britons: Swordmen: Justification: the same as gauls. Mauryans: Infantry skirmisher Justification: mauryan infantry was almost all made by light infantry, and used javelins Source: https://weaponsandwarfare.com/2015/11/10/the-mauryan-empire-military/. This source also says that mauryans used catapults, ballistas and rams! Slingers: Source: https://books.google.es/books?id=jpXijlqeRpIC&pg=PA30&lpg=PA30&dq=mauryans+slingers&source=bl&ots=RAdEwmEWZ6&sig=WyBgQ390GEkRCEiD3cw9auarmR0&hl=es&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiVoOaEm5TXAhWBoRQKHYjJBx0Q6AEIVDAK#v=onepage&q=mauryans slingers&f=false Persians: Slingers: Justification: Polybius said it, (II a.c) Source: https://books.google.es/books?id=C4A7DgAAQBAJ&pg=PT314&lpg=PT314&dq=Achaemenids+slingers&source=bl&ots=L5lL7a0O9U&sig=WdDtshe_OXpO5sfZxotqNcOZy1M&hl=es&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjuk9f_m5TXAhVEOxQKHbCBAS8Q6AEISDAI#v=onepage&q=Achaemenids slingers&f=false Iberians: I think that are pretty complete (in historical terms). But: Sword cavalry: Justification: Convention: most of the cavalry of the game, if I'm not mistaken, used javelins as a main weapon to fight infantry (unless chasing routing units or light infantry) and sword as side weapon, but devs give sword cavalry for most civs. Macedonians: Spearman: Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Macedonian_army wikipedia Republican Romans: Pretty sure that the roster its historically correct. Normal spearman could be used, not only triarius if wanted. But probably there's a lot of room for auxiliary units. Spearman: Rorarii Justification: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rorarii Sword cavalry: Justification: Convention: most of the cavalry of the game, if I'm not mistaken, used javelins as a main weapon to fight infantry (unless chasing routing units or light infantry) and sword as side weapon, but devs give sword cavalry for most civs. Carthaginians: Infantry skirmisher: Libyan skirmisher (citizien-soldier) Cavalry spear: Lybian or Carthaginian spear cavalry Source for both: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Carthage#Formation_and_structure Sword cavalry: Lybian or Carthaginian sword cavalry Justification: Convention: most of the cavalry of the game, if I'm not mistaken, used javelins as a main weapon to fight infantry (unless chasing routing units or light infantry) and sword as side weapon, but devs give sword cavalry for most civs. Lazy to do romans auxiliares and successors. If somebody have more sources and units, I will add them!
  5. Please use this thread to report any issues with the new unit meshes and animations commited recently. It was a big commit so it may have some stuff that needs fixing.
  6. This is similar to my Gaulish buildings topic, but this is more detailed. Hi, so once again I come with suggestions for the Gauls, as I still feel they are one of the less detailed civs. Units Currently, they have the cavalry skirmisher, spearman, slinger, foot skirmisher, cavalry swordsman, elite longswordsman and cavalry elite spearman. I was wondering if perhaps one more unit (although this may affect the balance negatively) could be added, swordsman (I think it was Bataroas in EB). Basically, he'd be the same as the spearman, but has a short Gallic sword (this may be unnecessary as there is already a cavalry swordsman). Another thing is for the spearman and cavalry swordsman. When leveling up, they go from clothing, colourful clothes, chainmail. The Gauls actually had a type of Linothorax and they had leather armour, which could both be used for stage 2. Gallic Linothorax. http://leuki.pagesperso-orange.fr/vaevictis.html These re-enactors use both Gallic linothorax and Leather armour. 4 types of Gallic Leather Cuirasses, this image is from the research from Total War Rome 2. Buildings In the other topic http://www.wildfiregames.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=19377 Gaulish Buildings, I already posted pictures on the types of buildings, but with less detail. Most of the following images are from animated reconstructions of the Celtic village near Bundenbach and animated reconstructions of the Hallstatt town Heuneburg. These are from more eastern Gaul, and a different era, but still Gaul nonetheless. Their buildings wouldn't become less advanced. An animated picture of Heuneburg, notice how most of the house have a similar pattern; long, single story but with a sharp, tall roof varying between wood shingles/thatch. Another animation of Heuneburg (this time a different animator) but still similar, the houses also follow that pattern I spoke about. The walls were exclusive to this area, they were made of mud bricks. So adding this type of wall wouldn't be that accurate. House and storehouse respectively in the village reconstruction near Bundenbach. Drawing of what Bibracte might've looked like. Besides that, currently the walls are fine (they look like the Kelheim type gallic wall) but it's a bit annoying that the fences on top look so crude, Celts were great carpenters and there's no reason they wouldn't be able to make a nice fence. The Civic center currently looks smaller than that of most of the other civs. The Barracks and blacksmith are fine. That's all I can think of now, I may add more.
  7. 0 A.D Mod Introduction to Antiquorum Antiquorum is a large-scale modification for the game focusing mainly on historical authenticity and completely reworking the games unit roster and balance throughout the phases. These additions add a whole new aspect to the game and would allow more variation in game battle compositions as well as overall strategies for certain civilisations. Currently, I'm working on this onerous task alone, but if you are interested in helping out you can contact me. Feedback and constructive criticism are welcome as well! Gameplay Changes The mod will focus on slower gameplay, adding a more diverse and strategical look on the game. Random maps will most likely be prominent in the mod seeing as I want scouting to stay important. Starting metal and stone mines will be placed much further away from the civic centre most likely. LOS will generally be much smaller than the base game. Unit Roster & Unit Creation Changes Overview Civic centres now only train women/villagers and the very basic unit of most factions. The Spearman. Certain civilisations might have exceptions. The barracks unlock several early units you would expect from a barracks and cc in the main game (not all!). The barracks cost has been increased. This gives players a more significant choice of economy or military. It also makes raiding with cavalry a much more viable strategy in the game. Light cavalry is much cheaper now. New Slaves fully implemented to all factions, created in the market (Have a finite life span). Numerous new units added to the game. Unit Class/Structure After reviewing the situation with my mod, I have decided to follow a Unit structure much like @wowgetoffyourcellphone's proposal in this thread (Did not quote here to save space): 1. Slave - Their sole use is for the economy, if possible, male and female versions. Possible short lifetime? (Can't build?) 2. Citizen/Villager - Much like the basic villager in the main game, a possible aura that gives nearby slaves a gathering bonus? 3. Citizen Soldiers - Normal barracks military units generally used for attacking, can also build military structures. Have the same aura as citizens. They do not gather materials. 4. Champions/Trained Soldiers - Trained from city phase buildings (<<<< There might be exceptions). Professional/Trained soldiers with a sole purpose of fighting/capturing. 5. Heroes - Very minor changes (balancing etc.). For the most part will stay the same as the main game. +. Extras - Mercenaries may vary, sometimes fitting in the citizen soldiers category (Maybe their own since they will not be proper citizens), Champions/Trained soldiers, and possibly even slaves? Quick Note: If you have any ideas for a new unit to be added to the game, please visit this google form and fill it out! This would be Hugely Appreciated, Thankyou. So hope you all enjoyed this little teaser! Look forward to heavy updates! Cheers,
  8. If you're going to produce locked battalions from the barracks etc to reduce lag then embedding a priest, Archer or champion in the battalion is possible. For a basic battalions take your spear men (Or what ever) into blender clone them 10 times in two rows of five. Run the animation to check they look right. No clipping allowed. Add some loiter changes to one of the clones to add interest. Add a single hit box/ bounding box and center of rotation. Export as a new unit. Add a single damage bar. If it falls to 10% have that group unit despawn and spawn 3 or four lone spearmen. Who knows? They may still win. (Who are we kidding!) For a mixed unit of melee/ ranged formations. Clone a row of guys with shields or pikes and a row of guys with ranged weapons behind them. Off set them so they are not shooting their shield bearer in the back of the head. Add the bounding box, hit box etc. For a self healing unit add a priest to the back row and require the temple as the prerequisite for the formation. When destroyed the priest is one of the surviving single units. I can think of a few other formation combinations but you get the idea. Instead of players and AI spamming an ant train of hundreds of single units it's ten compound units (same total cost) with more hits and damage or number of attacks. Some being elites with healers in them. For facing add a second hit box offset to the rear so melee units attacking from the front don't "reach it" and make that immune to ranged weapons. A flanking melee unit will be in hit box to hit box contact with the back box and that triggers extra damage and other responses. I.e. The battalion might take extra damage. and spawn three or four individual units fighting for their lives in the back. ==================================================== Remember I can't see or read code so while I can see how to do it I can't code it. Don't all shoot me at once.
  9. I like Persia faction though, I have few suggestions to improve gameplay. 1.- Persia and many Empires of the time won battles by numbers more than having a real strategy, so my suggestion is: that basic foot troops, to have maybe less attack and health but be cheaper in order to mass them. The immortales able to be trained in the barracs, cheaper and less effective. link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Iran#Achaemenid_Era My base for this are the many wars with greece, 1 hoplite is worth 2 or 3 persian infantry men due the training and the equipment they had. Also It is known that immortals received its name not for beeing "immortals" but if someone was killed he or they were replaced by others. "Herodotus describes the 'Immortals' as being heavy infantry, led by Hydarnes, that were kept constantly at a strength of exactly 10,000 men. He claimed that the unit's name stemmed from the custom that every killed, seriously wounded, or sick member was immediately replaced with a new one, maintaining the numbers and cohesion of the unit" link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immortals_(Persian_Empire) 2.-Where is Mardonius? xD I like the actual heroes except Xerxes, but they were all kings while Mardonius was a General a brilliant one. 3.- Scythed Chariots, first were 3 men as far as I know, 2 men where charriots from egypt and where smaller, so my suggestion is that chariots can shot bolts while moving, with a penalty of acuracity, horse archers too, second to be faster than infantry but slower than horsemen, though already, third to be able to cut people in half with the blades (in a way to speak). 2The scythed chariot was pulled by a team of four horses and manned by a crew of up to three men, one driver and two warriors. Theoretically the scythed chariot would plow through infantry lines, cutting combatants in half or at least opening gaps in the line which could be exploited." link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythed_chariot All this maybe difficult and complicated but I and many others really like this game, and really want to aid to improve it.
  10. Hi, I was wondering if anyone could answer this question I have: Is there a way to modify the game to make slain units remain above ground for the duration of a match, as opposed to slowly sinking into the ground after they die? Specifically, I was wondering if there was a file (or files) to modify in the public 0AD game folder in order to perform the above. Thanks!
  11. Currently, unit template files have a translatable field called Tooltip. This field, as far as I’ve seen, may contain the following information: • Unit classes (recently prefixed by ‘Classes:’). • Units that this unit counters (prefixed by ‘Counters:’). • Units that counter this unit (prefixed by ‘Countered by:’). • Unit description. In the XML, these are differenciated by line breaks. What would you think about providing separated fields for each one of these? • DisplayClasses (as opposed to the class names used in the game logic) • Counters • CounteredBy • Description Pros would be: • Easier to keep consistency between tooltips. • Ability to use a different font or text style on different elements. • Ability to reorder the elements in the interface easily, without changing all XML files, nor affecting translations. • Ability to show a different combination of these bits of information in different contexts. • Easier for translator, as they would only need to translate the "Prefix: <data>" strings once, and the rest of the strings will have a decreased size. And I honestly cannot think of cons here. Also, if you agree, should I let you do this yourselves in master, or should I do this myself in my i18n branch? Or should I maybe write a patch against master only for this?
  • Create New...