Leaderboard

Not all units add attack to buildings. That's settable per building. But normally, every ranged unit and every infantry unit adds arrows to the building. So a ballista in a fortress adds arrows (it's ranged), a swordsman adds arrows to a fortress (it's infantry). The main category that isn't included are the melee cavalry units. The most notable exception to this general rule are the quinqueremes. There only ballistas add arrows (or rocks) to the fire rate. The number of arrows per unit added can also differ per building. Like in the defense tower, you have a tech that adds 1.4 arrows instead of 1 arrow per garrisoned soldier there (if I remember the numbers correctly). The range, and the strength of one arrow is fixed per building. Having all this info inside one tooltip (classes that count, number of arrows they add, ...) used too much space. So we opted to just show the rate after garrisonning. The auras indeed are mostly working. Except those of the new civs (Ptolemies and Seleucids) might be missing in our latest release (and might have quite un-specific tooltips). And they're not very powerful as I just implemented them as examples. Hoping some balancer would come by and make them interesting enough to use, but not overpowered. I prefer underpowered auras over overpowered stuff. As they're very civ-specific, and overpowered auras would just give a big advantage to one civ, and make the entire game unbalanced. When they're underpowered, they're just not used. We're also looking into a way to visualise the range auras. There's an example visualisation for the Athen temple, but it requires GLSL to be seen.

Oh whoops I thought this was a given Jan, you, and I are on the hosting committee. In order to be on their, we must disclose contact info (which we already have internally) in the case of an emergency. We're the ones with server access and manage the whole list of services, maintainers, etc. All the other details like each service and whatnot will be made in a bit. I was waiting for a vote from us before I go ahead and make the forum for that Thanks for the reminder, yes that is part of the protocol. We will investigate more in-depth as migration continues. The first test case is the IRC bot for specific reason, so we can see how it all turns out. The only thing i have an issue with is the forum, but there many many many things that can be archived. I personally favor replacing IPBoard with something FREE and less cumbersome. But we've used this for years so migrating now would be rather irritating. Good idea!

Fixed. What do you all think about giving the CC either more health or more garrison capacity. Other bugs I will take care of: Fortress Obstruction boundary Infantry swordsman costs wood, not metal (sorry for the triple post) Here's the report from jhamlett, my brother (and avid 0 AD fan) whom I asked for an opinion.

I gave the one from the picture a try, I think it's a lot better like that. And credible xD EDIT: I forgot the picture, silly me!

I can't vouch for scythe's intentions beyond what he said: trying to make the game more fun, more strategic. I will say from my reports that we do seem to be on slightly different pages, but we have had no real discussion in the team about gameplay, and even less consensus. The only consensus is that A16 seems broken. As for me, I have played the game at 1x speed, at 1.5 speed, at 2x speed (at different alphas but the feel stayed similar), and I feel 2x speed is somewhat what I would want. However it gets really, really frantic. So I think simply having units move faster will give the proper impression of speed while not speeding gameplay up. I will however ask everyone to remain civil, and absolutely refrain from vague personal attacks.

Nothing about the next version can be confirmed yet, we need to finish the first version first