Leaderboard

Hey everyone, Last month I had the opportunity and the privilege to be interviewed for Scott Hanselman's podcast. You can now listen to it: https://www.hanselminutes.com/810/building-0-ad-a-free-open-source-game-of-ancient-warfare You can subscribe to them. The podcast is also available on iTunes, Spotify, Google Play or can be downloaded as MP3 Transcripts are available here

Admin of DDoS service behind 200,000 attacks faces 35yrs in prison! I really hope this is our man, but I guess not. Still good to see how serious this is taken and that people get faced with their actions. 35 years in prison is a serious reaction.

Players should not start with 5,000 Stone and 5,000 Metal right next to their Civic Center. I understand that not all maps have that setup, but since mainland is the primary map that people play this should be implemented for mainland maps. And most maps :p. Here is why I think the change should happen: For a fair amount of games, 5,000 may be all the metal and stone a player needs for the entire game. That is too simple. Civilizations that use slingers or mercenaries (I'm looking at you, Ptolemies and Carthaginians) have the bonus of having their resource gatherers be protected by the Civic Center. This gives 2 advantages: Miners are protected from early raids Farmers are more easily protected from early raids since you can just garrison the miners in the Civic Center and then ungarrison them toward the enemy. Instead, there should be 1 small stone mine and 1 small metal mine having no more than 500 of each resource, similar to how there are a few straggler trees near the CC at the beginning of a game. Then on the outside of their starting territory should be larger mines, similar to how there are large forests for wood. The challenge of this layout would be increased difficulty of protecting farmers from raids for all civs throughout phase 2. It would favor players raiding food economy. But there are defensive structures and building-layout strategies that can be used to mitigate the danger. (Maybe cost and/or build time of palisade walls could be adjusted to support this change?) This would also make scouting important so know if your opponent is leaving their farmers vulnerable in order to boom or build military faster. Thank you for reading!

It looks like the community maps mod hasn't been updated since a23, so I've made a temporary fork of the project called community maps 2 It's pretty basic, but it gives access to the maps again. And I've run some migration scripts on the maps themselves to make them compatible with >=a24. Though I haven't checked them all for warnings or errors. If you notice any problems, just open a ticket on the community maps 2 repo and I'll try to fix things up; or you can make a PR if you feel like it. The pyromod file can be downloaded from the releases section

This thread has derailed from the start. I apologize for not closing it earlier.

If formations were working there would be a lot of room for differentiation based on how the units are moved around the battlefield. On a separate note, more support units like trumpets, drums, flag/standard bearers, supply wagons, etc would be another way to further change how civs are played. An elephant in the room is that people want to play sometimes vastly different games. For some, they want the game to be over and done with within 20 minutes, some even less. Others might enjoy longer games. Some want a deathmatch with boundless resources. Perhaps a further refinement of the game types available would be one way to branch off the different ideas. I wouldn't want to split the community too much, but like with all games there are different "groups" who play a certain way that don't quite understand how other people can have fun doing something else (like not taking advantage of every last disparity between units and civs). Personally, as someone who has studied ancient civilizations in an academic setting and into my adult life, I'd like to see more attention paid to things like formations, defenses, economics, logistics. From this perspective, terrain and strategy should account for more than it currently does. Ideally there would even be seasonal changes within the game which affect the pace of the match (in the eastern Mediterranean the summer was the fighting season and the winter was farming, in part due to temperature/precip patterns but also due to changes in wind and seaworthiness of the vessels at the time). That said, I don't need free open source Total War clone: the current game is still a lot of fun, I simply find that there are a lot of elements of this game and its genre that haven't been pushed forward much lately. It is too easy of course for someone without coding ability to say what would be nice or not, so I leave this here not to say this game isn't playable, but rather as a general wish to see some refinement on the above.

When designing civs (or redesigning them), I think the focus should not just be on balance, but to make each civ "Favorite Worthy." What I mean is, each civ should have aspects that make it unique, fun, and cool enough to make stand out and make it worthy of vying for the community's "favorite" civ. In a "tier list" ideally it should be a struggle to decide which civ should be knocked down to a 'C'. They should all be clustered at B, A, and S. Some ideas: General Remove champion "unlock" techs and move them back to Fortress unless otherwise stated. Move Heroes to Civic Center unless otherwise stated. All Citizen-Soldiers types in every civ have Rank Promotion technologies up to Advanced. Exceptions 1 type of Citizen-Soldier per civ will have an additional promotion tech up to Elite. 1 type of Citizen-Soldier per civ will have no promotion techs. Unless otherwise stated, all civs retain their current bonuses and technologies. Athenians Retool the "Delian League" team bonus. All allies can train the Delian Marine from their Dock. -20% build time for all Ships and Boats. -20% research time for all Dock Technologies. "Painted Stoa" structure (build limit: 1), which grants the "Greek Architecture" aura (Buildings +20% health). Remove the "Greek Architecture" bonus from all other Greek civs. Heroes trained instantly at the Prytaneion (not Civic Center). Gymnaseion Replaces the Barracks Larger footprint and +20% greater health. Slightly more expensive. Trains "Hoplite" Citizen-Infantry and Champion Infantry "City Guard." Archery Range available to train Athenian Militia Slinger, Cretan Mercenary Archer, and Thracian Peltast. "Scythian Archer" Champion Infantry trained at the Fortress. Britons Chariots Available from Town Phase, after researching unlocking tech. When "killed", the Javelineer rider jumps off and continues to battle (until he too is killed) Slightly underpowered in Town Phase, but has a City Phase upgrade "Reinforced Undercarriage" which makes them extra stronk. Add Infantry Swordsman to the citizen soldier roster, available in Town Phase. Reimplement the Population Bonus special for their buildings, but at +1 population, instead of the old +2. Carthaginians Embassies "unlock" ethnic mercenaries at the Barracks, Stable, and Range. War Elephants have a "Tower" upgrade, which adds a Howdah prop to them. Cothon Shipyard shoots arrows. A fourth hero can be "Xanthippus of Sparta", who specifically boosts mercenaries. A 3rd champion, available at the Fortress: "Veteran African Infantry", a champion swordsman with a mix of Carthaginian and Roman equipment. "Sacred Band" champions still trained at the Temple. Gauls Give them a cheap Infantry Archer, "Gallic Hunter," available in Town Phase. Add Infantry Swordsman to the citizen soldier roster, available in Village Phase. Carnyx Trumpeter should have a "Horn Blow" special ability that temporarily improves attack of nearby Gallic troops. This is automatically done every 2 minutes in battle, but can be manually activated by the player every 1 minute. Iberians Keep the free starting walls, but remove the free gates (just have openings; the player can close them with fresh walls and gates if they wish). Allow the Monument to be built anywhere, even in enemy territory. "Burning Pitch" technology allows players to toggle javelin-throwing units between regular (anti-infantry) and burning (anti-structure) javelins. "Horse Country" tech at the Corral, for another -10% cavalry training time. Champion Infantry and Champion Cavalry can swap between Sword and Javelin. Kushites Give them a free Sanga Cattle at the start of the match. A new "Extensive Husbandry" tech at the Corral makes training animals faster. "Iron Smelting" tech makes Forges and Forge Technologies a lot cheaper and faster. "Iron Exports" makes bartering for Metal at the Market more profitable. Macedonians Barracks New "Royal Barracks" upgrade for individual Barracks in the City Phase. +50% Health to the upgraded Barracks. Can train Elite Phalangites and Champion Hypaspists. Stables New "Royal Stables" upgrade for individual Stables in City Phase. +50% Health to the upgraded Stable. Can train Elite Thessalian Cavalry and Champion Companion Cavalry. A 4th hero "General Craterus" boosts Phalangites specifically. "Naval Arms Race" technology unlocks the "Hexeres" heavy warship for the Macedonians. Mauryas Remove Population Cap civ bonus, but... Citizen-Infantry. Bonus: 0.5 population cost Bonus: -50% train time Bonus: -25% resource cost Penalty: -50% gathering rate Penalty: -50% health Penalty: -25% attack Worker Elephant can construct buildings again. Maiden Guards can swap from bow to sword. Mauryas receive a free Palace at the beginning of the match. The hero Chanakya can be trained in tandem with the other heroes (he doesn't count toward the "hero" training limit) 4th Maurya hero "Bindusara." Persians Keep Population Cap civ bonus. Organic units start out with -15% health and -10% train time. Receive a free "Yakchal" Ice House at the start of the match for a +5% health bonus to units. Build up to 4 more Ice Houses for additional +5% health boosts for each one built. They get more expensive for each one built. Ptolemies "Syncretism" special technology in Town Phase. Allows Priests the ability to build the "Isis Statue" and "Serapis Statue." Isis Statue Short-range Aura: Nearby Gatherers +20% gather rates Serapis Statue Long-range Aura: Nearby Units +10% health "Lighthouse of Alexandria" is a 2nd Wonder Player can still only choose to build 1 Wonder, but the Lighthouse can be built on the shore and gives a large vision range. "Temple of Edfu" would be the option to build on a non-water map. Romans An extra big House available in City Phase called the Insula ("Tenement Building") Population Bonus: 20 (plus house pop techs) Triarius trained at Elite rank (no promotion techs necessary). 2nd Team Bonus "Socii Allies" Allied Soldiers +10% attack within range of a Roman Civic Center or Army Camp. Seleucids Very much the same as they are now, except... Given back their Library. Spartans Team bonus now applies to all Melee Infantry (not just Spear Infantry). "Sysition" replaces the Barracks. "Hoplite" Citizen-Soldier, Champion Infantry "Spartiates," and Spartan Heroes all trained here. The "Helot Practice Range" Archery Range class building Trains Helot Skirmisher and Helot Slinger "Helot Emancipation" technology unlocks the ability for Helot units to upgrade individually to Light Hoplites. New "Helot" support units Cannot construct buildings, but... +25% resource gathering ability over Female Citizens. Can be captured by other players

Much of the discussion about differentiating the civilisations in the game is right now focused on small changes to enable different strategies for the different civilisations. But I want to open a discussion here if those changes are not a bit too "small". If we look at other successful strategy games (in the widest sense) be it card games as magic the gathering or competitive online games as league of legends, we see that they enable the player to have completely different playstyles, which is probably why so many people like to play these games -> everyone finds a playstyle they like. For me 0ad is at the moment more comparable to chess; you can play different strategies, but it's still chess and always kind of the same, regardless which strategy you choose. I know that the civs kind of already represent different playstyles, but what if we would really accentuate that? I think vanilla AD could learn much from Hyrule conquest in that regard. So accentuate the playstyles of each civ, but also give them weaknesses through that instead of trying to balance them in every phase of the game. here just some links to interesting videos who touch upon this topic in game design: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXQzdXPTb2A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5Uk13mQdm0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QuKpJTUwwY But to come to an end here, I very much agree with sera in this discussion here https://code.wildfiregames.com/D4273#182067 The thing that would be needed first to do that is a design document about how each civ should play. So feel free to tell me if you agree or disagree on this ( every civ should have a vastly different / unique playstyle). If this was always the goal of the differentiation and I just didn't get the extent of the planned differentiation then please excuse my slow mind. Also independent of your opinion regarding the above, feel free to give your ideas about how to best structure such a collaborative design document creation process, as that may be beneficial nevertheless.

Hi everyone, I just uploaded a new video on my channel of you are interested. It's a commentary of an interesting 1v1 I had with @ValihrAnt two days ago (we both experimented not common civilization strategies) :))

It's way too early for you to be thinking about a successor, you just got named project leader some months ago. We need you here for at least another ten years. And you can't burn out. Yes, I'm trying to be funny. I like dark humor. But, jokes aside, your role in this project has been crucial, I think everyone can recognize that.

There is "battalion-ish" support now committed. It's rough, but I have ideas on how to improve it for EA's purposes.

That makes sense, and I can see why you wouldn't want civilisation playstyles to diminish options, but there are two reasons I think playstyles would be better. 1. Balance I think that the game really has to make a choice between civilisations that are mostly identical, with only cosmetic differences, or civs that, in some way or other, do end up encouraging different playstyles. Since the consensus on the forums seems to be against identical civs, it seems that civs will have to differentiate in some way. If this has to happen, it's better that it happen in a planned way, so that civilisations don't end up completely unbalanced, and each civ's direction is coherent. If the different playstyles are planned, the playstyles themselves can be balanced without making the civs identical. 2. Options. I don't think that distinct playstyles would diminish the options for player strategies. It might diminish the options available for a certain civ, but it would make more strategies available overall. As it is now, there are certain strategies available to most civs, but civilisations are played in mostly the same way. With distinct playstyles, choosing a certain civ would give you a lot more options for strategy. For example, on a mountainous, rough map, you might want to choose a civilisation well suited to raiding and quick mobility, or you might want to go with heavy fortifications. Or on a naval map, you might want to go for naval superiority, or build a trading fleet to fund a more traditional army. Choosing civs with specialised playstyles would allow any of these strategies, while right now most civs have only slight advantages for any of these plans. Additionally, this could introduce a huge variety for team games. What civ each player chooses could become a much more important decision. One player could go for a powerful economy to fund a mercenary-oriented ally, for example. In short, I think that even if playstyles decrease options for individual civs, they would increase options overall. In my opinion, that's a beneficial trade-off.

Hello. I would like to dispel a few doubts and misconceptions about the mRNA vaccine, since it is a new technology and people might be curious of how it works. First we need to discuss what is DNA and RNA. DNA is a molecule that resides in the cell nucleous and is responsible for storing our genetic information (our genome). It's quite a sturdy molecule and very stable. RNA is a molecule that can be found in the nucleous and in the cell body (cytoplasm). Is a small molecule and one of its main purposes is to convey information (or messages, if you will). It is not as stable as DNA. How do DNA and RNA work in the body? We know that DNA is stored in the nucleous, but the majority of the cell processes happen in the cytoplasm, which is separated from the nucleous (in humans) by the nuclear membrane. So if the cell wants to produce something (protein, antibody, enzyme, etc) using the information stored in the DNA, it need that information to get out of the nucleous. That is where RNA comes in. In a process called Transcription, a segment of our DNA is copied in the form of mRNA (the "m" stands for messenger), which then can leave the nucleous and reach the cell body. There, the information that it contains can be used to produce stuff for the cell. We can say then that mRNA is nothing more than the mailman of the cell, bringing information from the DNA to the cell body. The thing though is that this mailman is short lived and will soon be recycled by the cell. This way, the cell can regulate itself and more easily avoid overproducing stuff. So, back to the mRNA vaccine. Well, we know that the only thing that mRNA can do is convey a message. But what message does the mRNA vaccine convey? It conveys instructions to build a specific protein called SPIKE. The COVID-19 virus uses this specific protein to bypass cell defenses, entering and infecting the cell. Why would i want my cells to build a viral protein? The purpose of vaccines is to train your imune system against a specific invader. But to train they need a target. Vaccines provide the target. Some use inactivated or dead virus, while others use active, but weakened virus. Some even break up the virus in the lab and use only some of its parts. The mRNA vaccine is new because instead of injecting viral proteins in your bloodstream, it inject instructions that will allow a limited number of your cells to produce those proteins, thus providing your imune system with a target to train and practice with. Since SPIKE is THE protein that enables the virus to enter the cell and (so far) is found on all variants of the coronavirus, it was the most valuable target to practice with. Will my cell be altered in any way by the vaccine? In short, no. Because as we've seen before mRNA doesn't last very long in a cell and will eventually be recycled by it. It will stay active for a time, allowing the cell to produce and export SPIKE to train the imune system and then it will be destroyed. If if can just inject SPIKE in my bloodstream, why use a vaccine that makes me produce them instead? That is a great question and it really highlights why this new technology is so awesome. Proteins are hard to produce in a lab. They are formed from a myriad of amino acids and have complex shapes. mRNA, on the other hand, is just a string, like a bead necklace and it is it made from only 4 different molecules. mRNA is easier and cheaper to produce in a lab in comparison to proteins. Another reason is quantity and space. Each vaccine shot has limited space and the more targets we can fit into it, the more practice our imune system will have against it. Each SPIKE protein counts as a single target, but each mRNA can produce hundreds of targets (or more) during it's lifespan. So we can get more quantity for the same space using mRNA instead of proteins. If the mRNA vaccine is so good, why do some people have side effects? In the case of mRNA vaccines, the side effects are a result of your imune system fighting and practicing against the targets that we introduced. The imune system has a pattern of response against invasions. First step is stall the enemy while we gather intelligence, meaning you body will increase its temperature (fever), produce mucus (sneezing, coryza, cofing) and redirect your energy reserves to fighting the invader (tiredness). Although these are symptoms commonly associated with diseases, it's actually our body that is causing them. They might be a pain to us, but they are even more of a pain to the invaders and are quite effective in most cases. This strategy is meant to buy time in order for the imune system to capture and study some invaders in order to produce antibodies against them. So, by taking the vaccine, although you are not being invaded by any hostile forces, you are producing something that the body does not recognize and so it will mount a full attack against it. Since people are different, the intensity of their imune response is also different. This means that some can experience very mild effects will others might not. It's basically like an allergic reaction. If i can also have side effects from the vaccine, why not just get COVID instead? Well, the main difference between a vaccine and virus is that the virus will destroy your cells, while the vaccine won't. If your body can contain the virus in time, then you'll experience some to no symptoms and will be fine. If your body cannot, then the virus can get out of control and cause greater damage to your organs. COVID is specially nasty, since although it starts at the lungs it can migrate to other parts of the body (heart, brain, liver, etc). Any damage to those areas might cause significant health problems and even lead to death. When we look at the situation this way, the vaccine is preferable, even if it has a chance to cause some side effects. TL;DR; 1 - mRNA is not DNA 2 - mRNA can't change your genome 3 - mRNA is short lived 4 - The mRNA vaccine allows your body to produce the viral protein SPIKE (for a limited period of time). 5 - SPIKE alone is harmless. 6 - All COVID-19 virus, so far, have SPIKE and use to breach cell defenses and enter the cell. 7 - By taking the vaccine, you are providing SPIKE proteins for your imune system to study and learn how to fight it. 8 - Then, when a COVID-19 virus enters your body, your imune system will easily recognize the SPIKE protein is has and will stop the virus before it does significant damage to you.

ZERO A.D.

Germans: "That's cute! Grundstücksverkehrsgenehmigungszuständigkeitsübertragungsverordnung."

Version: 1.6.5 (1/Oct/21) boongui_1.6.5.pyromod Compatible version 1.1 (6/Sep/21) for Delenda Est boongui_delenda_1.1.pyromod GitHub repo: github.com/LangLangBart/boonGUI Description for boonGUI This mod is basically a derivative of @ffm2's mod 'ffm_visibility' but with additional changes that I thought would be fitting. Main-Menu: Added cheat codes to the game manual (see also wiki/Manual_Cheats). New background made by @maroder. Camera Added a hotkey to access the view of a unit. Thanks to @Freagarach for pointing out this feature exists (see D3046). In-Game: All fruits are more vivid and easier to see due to the increased saturation and brightness, some have also had their hue changed. Chicken are 50% larger; Fish are red. All player colors are more vivid and easier to see on the minimap. Larger buttons on the right side of the selection panel (see @Nescio D2806 in Phab). The max. number of icons in the selection panel is 32 (8x4) compared to 40 (10x4) without this mod. Larger and redesigned round minimap. The "Idle" button displays the total number of idle workers. Stats overlay with information about the players, made possible by @nani . Added explanation for the stats overlay columns to the pause overlay. Notification with a timestamp for players moving up a phase or completing one. This option can be turned on/off in the settings - see "Game Session --> Chat notification phase". Increased the size of weapon projectiles and the garrison flag on buildings. Added a 3rd option for the "QuitConfirmationDialog". In combination with the new hotkey "Shift+Escape", you are able skip the summary screen (see D3958 @Schweini). Summary: Increased the size, recommend to use a 1920x1080 display Lobby: Buttons below the chat input to access replays, options, etc. Rating dependent icon & title for the profile The layout was a bit changed, see image below. Compatibility & Installation Older Versions Thank you note: Thanks to @mysticjim for feedback and constantly testing. Many thanks to @ffffffff and @badosu for creating the fGod and prodmod. Being good lads, @Imarok, @wraitii, @Freagarach, @vladislavbelov, @Angen and @Stan` pointed me in the right direction on IRC when I got stuck.

I think a "Capture the Wonder" game mode would be awesome. So, on certain random maps, a game setup option would be available to choose a "Capture the Wonder" victory. This is different from a standard "Wonder" victory; it would place a "Wonder of the World" at the center of the map, and the player or team who can capture and hold it for a specified amount of time wins the game. Like a "Wonder" victory, the time duration can be chosen by the game host. The random map script could have a "<capture_the_wonder/>" flag that enables this, so that it can be available on a map script-by-map script basis (some map scripts would probably be unsuitable for this game mode by their design. As an aside: If "Capture the Wonder" is implemented, I'd suggest renaming the standard "Wonder" victory to "Build a Wonder" or something similar. Your thoughts on such a game mode/victory condition? For discussion of possible Wonders, go here:

Yes, I agree, next weekend I implement it.

Hello all. First off, lack of social media updates is a bit my fault. In my capacity for sorting the Social media/PR side of things the plan was to hopefully get at least one large news update a month, with smaller snippets of content to keep the social media accounts ticking over in between. My work and childcare schedule as a result of the ongoing covid situation have slightly squashed my efforts since the release of A25. I think anyone in my particular line of work has been solidly under the cosh since early July. I've had more luck on the Youtube front in that I've been sent some awesome games just recently, so it's really nice that the audience is growing, but as everyone here knows, it's a niche channel rather than a method of actually advertising the game. I'm hoping to strategically coincide the next lot of web and SM updates with the general buzz around the eventual release of AOE4. There will be more public interest and 'buzz' for the RTS genre around this time, so it's a great opportunity to shine a slightly brighter spotlight on 0AD, but always remember - 0AD and AAA games operate in entirely different orbits. And due to the nature of how 0AD works, Alpha 26 is the primary focus of the devs at the moment. The release and the reception to Alpha 25 has been a bit of a highlight for me so far, being that A25 seemed to have a smoother dev cycle. It has been a big eye-opener seeing more of the behind the scenes working of 0AD development and the challenges that everyone faces in making it what it is. So, do expect a big push in the comms/PR side of things shortly. And it's fantastic that people here have suggestions and ideas of their own. I'd say if you have anything, any ideas for publication on the social media, main website news - please do let me know, feel free to DM me And utilisation of the official Youtube channel is something of an interesting one. It has very big pull, the Alpha release trailers, understandably, are far and away the highest viewed 0AD related content on Youtube. Now, unlike the social media accounts, I don't have the keys to the Youtube channel - and frankly, I have enough trouble sourcing the time to maintain my own one!!!!!! But if anyone has really good ideas for the kind of content that should be appearing there, and quite importantly, actually has the time and expertise to help bring it to reality, I'd definitely be keen to hear from you. The nature of how 0AD is made, that being very much volunteer centric, means that big (and expensive) self publication campaigns are very unlikely. This project embodies the DIY ethic throughout - it can sometimes be frustrating and appear to be a limiting factor in why 0AD perhaps isn't as well known and appreciated as it deserves to be. But it's also the reason the game exists at all - that spirit is evident every time you fire up the game and play it.

I set up GitHub repo, link is also in the description. Lots of cool ideas. Definitely splitting the info would be a good solution, either tabs (Planetary Annihilation) or a dropdown (AOE4).

I do actually like how DE treats the Kushites with their pyramids. It is very unique and makes them feel fresh and fun compared to other factions.

For 500 metal understandable, just send goats.

In Delenda Est, the Kushite pyramids are used as Phase tech requirements. So, X number of Small Pyramids required to move to Phase II, and Y number of Large Pyramids required to move to Phase III. Perhaps a point for discussion? Once you build the required number of pyramids, then the Phase techs research instantly. As far as Kushite economics go, I would focus on Metal (Iron Smelting) and raising animals (Extensive Husbandry), for historically-based solutions. I personally wouldn't want their pyramids to have an econ aura, since they really didn't represent anything economic. I feel like they're a religious or social thing, so made sense to me they'd bring about the advancement of your settlement. Just some thoughts.

Be careful to not disregard nice bonuses that doesn't seem to point towards a strategy. It may very well be that someone devices some clever (e.g.) boom strategy with it that we could not think of before implementing it. (As a general comment.)

Hi everyone I played for the first time 0ad around 7 or 8 years ago and then forgot about it. I recently remembered it and had the urge to play it again, I was so positively surprised at how far it has come, really such a beautiful project. I'm happy to be here

Some ideas I had for gameplay diversification. If more experienced players see something that could be better, please point it out so it can be corrected. If players like this, it could be the base for a mod for testing the new playstyles.

Disclaimer: I'm not a competitive, or even particularly good player. I mostly just play 0ad casually, and I don't have too much experience. That being said, however, I completely agree with this. I think that more gameplay styles would make the game much more enjoyable. Right now, basically all strategies can be done with all civs, with only varying degrees of effectiveness. What I would do to differentiate styles while still maintaining some balance is this: I would give each civ a unique style or bonus, but each style or bonus is countered by another civ's bonus. That way, each civ is unique, while not being overpowered. For a very basic example: Britons raid, giving them strong early attack and the ability to build bases beyond their borders, but are weak in the late game. Iberians turtle, with strong walls and defensive structures, but weak offense. Macedonians have good seige, giving them the ability to destroy defensive structures easily, but a weak early game. The Iberians' defense counters the Britons' raiding, the Macedonians' seige counters the Iberian defense, and the Britons early expansion counters the Macedonian's late game. This is just a basic example, a more elaborate design would be necessary for the game, but I hope it gives a good idea.

Hey guys. My mod was never intended to be woke, progressive, or to "right historical wrongs," or to reduce female representation, remove/promote misogyny/misandry, or anything pro/con politically or socially. I just felt it made more sense to have male and female variants of civilian citizens, aka "villagers." That's pretty much the extent. I think it also just looks cooler to have male and female villagers working side-by-side.

I know that this is off-topic forum. However, this is way way way way way way off topic trolling.

I discovered 0AD in 2015. I started playing multiplayer in 2017. I'm still here, not getting bored of it :)) (0AD is the only game I play)

Bit late posting this - happy Sunday, y'all!

the whole point of mainland map is that there is no sea. that's why it's called mainland.

During a 1v1 game with borg , his CC ( and all his ungarrsioned buildings ) starting to become Gaia after i captured a stable touching his cc . This is the first time i see this . I think he used the "snap to edge" feature to build alligned buildings. I destroyed stable on purpose to see if the glitch ends and it did bring back all buildings to borg- again. Was funny but made borg- mad . Watch replay . replay.rar

How did Macedon did _not_ end up there. ^^'

I was thinking in something similar for differentiating civs in three main axles of categorization: "Barbarian civs" = Iberians, Gauls, Britons, Suebians, Xiongnu, Scythians, Huns, Yayois, Thracians, Dacians, Norse, Lusitanians, etc. *"Medium civs" = Greeks of all sorts, Macedonians, Ptolemies, Seleucids, Carthaginians, Kushites, Garamantians, Anglo-Saxons, Zapotecs, Judeans, etc. *(medium sized, medium lifespan, Kingdoms, City-states, "halfway civs") "Empire civs" = Romans, Persians, Indians, Chineses, Franks, Byzantines, Umayyads, etc. T1. Barbarian civs = No army camps or military colonies. Unlock civic centers in P2 (Cheaper civic centers). Can build storehouses, farms and farmsteads anywhere in the map. Also rely on small storehouses and resource wagons (for all resources). Few special buildings (No libraries). Can replenish their troops quickly (can train certain units like Celtic spearmen / Iberian spearmen / Scythian archers (and other equivalents, maybe naked fanatics for Gauls aswell) from houses after a certain technology). Don't require a technology for training women from houses. Can build docks anywhere in the map. Cheaper technologies. Small cheap houses that only grant 5 population bonus. Few mercenaries (and just ethnically / geographically related with them; Vettones, Batavians, Galatians, Celtiberians, Alans, Helvetii, Belgae celts, etc). Weak navy (more focused on transportation and confusing large ships) (more small cheap warships) (few exceptions like Norse). Tribal and more religious / healing technologies *based on Shamanism, Animism, Paganism, Tengrism, etc. Fortresses can just grant "Will to fight" technology and train heroes. More useful wonders. Few to no slaves. T2. Medium civs = Unlock military colonies and army camps in P2. Unlock civic centers in P3. Special buildings (Libraries, Gymnasium, Syssition, special temples, etc.). Medium sized houses that grant 10 population bonus. Can build docks only in terrains under territory influence (whether of military colonies, army camps or civic centers). More balanced navy (with some exceptions). Can build some small storehouses and resource wagons after P2 and after a certain technology. More mercenaries. More mercenary technologies. More useful fortresses (same as T1, but can also train the same units from military colonies and army camps after a certain technology). Have access to slaves. T3. Empire civs = Unlock military colonies and army camps in P2. Unlock civic centers in P3 and after an specific technology that extends 20% of territory effects for all buildings (more expensive civic centers, but a larger civic centers with more population bonus). Same special buildings as T2. More special buildings; academies, courts, senates, palaces, etc. Medium sized houses like in T2. Have access to larger sized (but more expensive) apartments with 20 population bonus in P2. More political units (senators, ministers, ambassadors, royalty, etc). Can build docks only in terrains under territory influence (whether of military colonies, army camps or civic centers). Can build some small storehouses and resource wagons after P2 and after a certain technology. Have more technological requirements and more expensive technologies. But also access to a wider variety; more political, economical and diplomatic technologies. Even more mercenaries. More useful fortresses (same as T1, but can also train both the same champion units from Barracks and mercenaries. Offer other forms of bonuses). Wide use of slavery. ***Of course, not all civs selected in each of these types should match perfectly and rigidly each of those descriptions (for example, Athenians should have access to their Platonic Academy, Huns should have a wider and richer selection of mercenaries, Mauryans should continue with their worker elephants, etc.). And there should be variety even in civs of the same type. But those axles could work instead as a form of classification for the main nature of each civ.

Greetings and happy Sunday So, last Sunday - just before I went off on holiday, I was joined by @Player of 0AD on a live recording of a 0AD match. This was something of an experiment with my regular commentary plus a guest on the show. Massive thanks to the players who took part, it's a shame it wasn't quite the sprawling epic game we'd probably all have hoped for (darn those merc cav!) but as a proof of concept it worked. And Massive thanks to @Player of 0AD- good job, dude, we'll set up another in due course

I played them last night against Norse. (Easy win spanning dozens of archers). Really cool civ. And most of the buildings seem also "game ready". I hope to see one day this faction in the official game. Congratulations

I created a fork of the Balanced Maps mod by @badosucalled Balanced Maps 2 Description: A collection of balanced maps that are especially designed for competitive play Releases The first version I released (v0.25.0999) I just tried to get *some* maps to work. Some maps are still not loading depending on the biome selected. Temperate seems ok. I've done very little testing myself so far. Open a ticket if you notice anything serious

Hey all, mostly out of curiosity I tried to simulate a few different scenarios to find out what parts of the code contribute the most to the lag and should be considered first for future optimizations. As this may or may not be depending on the system the game is played on, I will post the replays here, so that interested people can see if it is the same for them. [EDIT: I updated the videos, but I didn't include all replays yet] lag_test_replays.zip All this was tested with svn rev 25963 and I tried to have between 500 and 600 units for each test. TLDR: Most of the things I tested worked better than I thought, but the main problem on my system seems to be unit overkill, which happens mostly with ranged unit attack _____________________________________________________________________________________________ 1st test: long range pathfinding with one type of unit result for me: not that bad actually very little lag 1/10 one_type.mp4 ---------------------------------------------------- 2nd test: long range pathfinding with multiple unit types (graphic influence) result for me: also good, very little lag 1/10 multiple_types.mp4 ---------------------------------------------------- test 3: melee combat with 600 units | result for me: noticeable lag 7/10 melee.mp4 ---------------------------------------------------- test 4: ranged combat with 600 units result for me: without having a good measurement I would say the most lag so far 10/10 ranged.mp4 ---------------------------------------------------- test 5: ranged combat with 600 units but emphasis on the projectile calculation result for me: nearly no lag 1/10 shooting.mp4 ---------------------------------------------------- test 6: ranged combat with 600 units but emphasis on the overkill factor result for me: huge lag 10/10 overkill.mp4 ---------------------------------------------------- test 7: gathering & short pathfinding result for me: nearly no lag 1/10 gather.mp4 ---------------------------------------------------- test 8: BuildingAI result for me: nothing 0/10 building.mp4

(As of https://code.wildfiregames.com/rP25958 one can also push an item to the front of the production queue. E.g. you're phasing but are rushed and need some units NOW, just use the hotkey and add them, which pauses the phasing.)

Fine... Fine... We could add a lot more depth, if you ask me.

Heres an idea that could possibly be more engaging for the player: Make a new building that is a small training area with dummies and stuff like that. So currently units can be garrisoned in a barracks to gain levels, but that is not very engaging, the player doesn't SEE this happening. So a training area building with say, 10 training posts. Citizen soldiers can be tasked on these buildings and will gain xp while visibly attacking the dummies and training. So then training and level techs can have a place in this new training area that increase training speed or maybe even increase max level. For example, say that you can't train a unit to elite level at the training arena without a city phase level tech, or what have you. Basically its a more engaging way to show unit training as opposed to just hiding them in the barracks, and provides a building specifically for training techs and more accentuates the fact that training is an option for players. Because the fact that you can garrison units in the barracks to train is not really readily understandable to a new player.

I find it good that some civilizations are poor in siege units. Rome is ROME. Is a highly developed civilization with excellent siege capacity. Wall, military camp, long-range siege. To counter them the Gauls can send cavalry raids in ennemy base, attempt to kill the sieges with sword cav. Rome is good design differentiation. Gauls lacks something, but it good too. Gauls has the unit which decreases the enemy attack it is nice and the buildings are faster to build. Good food production in the fields. We can have little idea very easy. Delete all tech for boost monk (druid) on temple and remplace by an unique tech which teaches druids to morally boost their allies. When druide heal ally they boost 20% dammage for 5 seconds of the unit. Very usefull on infantery fight. So we can imagine druide with mounted druid (but produce in temple or in stable if temple is already built ?) If the idea about the druids refused. We can create new unit produced from house. A pillager unit with flashlight and a small dagger, very fragile and bonus plunder multiplied by 3. This unit can burn building, but they are very weak in fight ! Fast moving like a skirmish unit. 40 wood 40 food and the unit pick up ressource at 0.4 Ratio -> it will be well written that this is a poor collection unit.

Arsonist units for celts.

I think that's probably the point raised by this thread: how to give civs more "flavour" beyond the basic rock, paper, scissor dynamic? As you describe in the example, it doesn't really matter which civilization you choose, you can simply ammass champions to make your army stronger and invade your opponent. I think that's what lies beneath the feeling of uniformity among the civilizations. They're carefully balanced together, but in the attempt to make them even they're more or less replaceable from one or another. Now, I'm a completely casual player and I enjoy the game as it is already, so I have no complaints. But I find the discussion very interesting and one of the things that can potentially increase the longevity of the game! Maybe the options that can be explored shouldn't be only exclusive to warfare, but could encompass other game dynamics. - Scythians are definitely a good example on how to bring a unique flavour of gameplay to the civilization. - But I also personally like the idea of a "trading civilization", that can be built specifically on trade and less from conventional forms of income. Protecting the caravans would then become a particular meta playing in this civ and add a new layer of difficulty - Another civ (Chinese maybe?) could instead get bonuses from farming extensively, but this would require also a lot of territory control on the map - A civilization strong on mercenaries can have a stronger army than the counterparts, but needs A LOT of resources, so you have to make sure to sustain a florid economy to use this potential to the fullest - On the contrary, a rush civilization may have cheaper and weaker units, but this gives the advantage of the big numbers. Maybe the can have the advantage of a cheaper/quicker expansion to other territories, so they can rely on map control in the middle/late game. - Other civs may rely on population bonuses for big numbers and others on social/culture bonuses with moral boost if they fight in their own territory (or some unique aura units like, idk, a priest or a standard bearer?) I'm just basking from previous ideas here, but I find some of them quite interesting to shuffle the game and make it less linear, depending on which civ you chose. Some civilizations have already their uniqueness with some special buildings/units and maybe is more a matter of making those small differences even more obvious, so is less about micro differences between single units, but more in broader, macro terms on how each specific gameplay will unfold. In that sense, I've found AOE 4 interesting from the sneak peek I've seen, with the choice of specific buildings to pass to the next age. It gives exactly that feeling of a deliberate strategic choice. Another game that comes to mind is C&C Generals, with the choice between generals in the beginning, and their respective "doctrines". The roast of basic units and counter-units was always present, but each general gave a different "extra" that made the game extremely variegate even by playing the same civilization. So yeah, maybe civilizations in 0ad could simply have that role instead.

This is overblown. One's suitability to join the army on campaign was often predicated on economic status and age. Middle class Greeks and Romans did serve in the infantry, but lower peasants and those too young and too old often did not. A certain number of upper class citizens had to provide cavalry for the army, but those were often the sons of the landowners and serving in the cavalry could be avoided by being willing to supply additional horses. Often a campaign did not necessitate a "full call-up" of available manpower either. Full call-ups usually only occured during times of severe national emergency or siege. Athens could only field 10,000 hoplites from a population of 30,000 citizens and 100,000 non-citizens for the "national emergency" Marathon campaign. And Gauls had a warrior class, separate from the peasantry.

much more relevant (in my mind at least): to this day women gatherers still have lower vision than males. this is quite absurd, and clearly has no historical justification, there's only a gameplay motive, but effect on gameplay is actually minimal, and some times even paradoxical, like women not seeing archers attacking them.

Buenos días /tardes/noches; -Texturas para unidades de infantería ligera lusitana en fase 3 , provisionales; (las texturas inferiores de pelaje son las capas, además de añadir textura para grebas y cinturón) Escaramuzador lusitano; Espadachín lusitano; Hondero lusitano; Lancero lusitano; -Cualquier sugerencia , crítica .... serán bien aceptadas. Disculpen las molestias*

aI made a mod that implements my proposals on formations. I think the improvement is stark, here's a preview: Some detail: Assignment of units to formation places This is already very similar to the current algorithm, the only difference is point 3.2. I tried hard to introduce it, but, for simple that it sounds, I can't seem to make it work. Sorting the array doesn't seem to have any effect, I noticed it's always the same units that take the farther positions, those left out by the others. I'm attaching the js file with attemted edits. Also point 2 has seen an improvememt, similar to the one dealt in the next section. Rotation movement This had the greatest impact, in particular the second point. Makes formations a lot more usable I think. First point is dealt as in my last post of June 30. Column formation This was easiest. Not much to add about it. Further considerations and questions - I did quite some code refactoring, as much as I thought it would be acceptable. External use of some function may break, although it seems unlikely to me. - I'm not sure I respected coding conventions either. - Formations now don't get formed anymore in the mean direction of their members. - Browsing Formation.js history, I was startled noticing that actually my proposals are nothing new and already where in the engine some time ago (rP14292, rP14300). I'm not sure what to do with this information. - How is LoadFormation supposed to be used? - The only way to make formation turns more natural than this, is to change how entities turn around obstacles, so that they do not do it on position, but rather sliding around the corner as they turn. The improvement would be evident for formations, but would also be noticeable for rams and cavalry. I'm not sure where's the code for that. - I can keep making improvements if you like, my goal is to make formations good looking, and also reasonable even for competitive games, and I'd like my edits to go in the main game. (edit/clarification/license: I renounce to all rights on my work on the mod and agree to the legal disclaimer) Formation formation-mod-proposal.pyromod