Leaderboard

"thx, didn't know how the spread changes turn out. I wondered what less than 1 changes mean. Having no cavalry units in village phase looks okay to me. Perhaps make them all depend on a cavalry tech, which itself is auto-researched when town-phase is reached. (or make all cavalry depend on the town phase if that's prefered). You will find a solution." If there arent any cavalry at the first age, and if cavalry id only available at age2, it finally aims to kill the rush on 0ad. Rushing without cavalry is not a rush, or at least a really bad rush, infantry just walks too slowly... By the way, a RTS game where you cant rush, is in my opinion a bad RTS game. The fact you cant prevent or disturb the evolution of your opponent economy is huge mistake, cause rush is , to be short, the most important strategy in RTS game.

I'm currently the only one working on the SpiderMonkey upgrade and I'm not at school at the moment, so that shouldn't be a problem. There will probably be a project at work which will require a lot of time soon, but there have been other projects in the past and I should still have enough time to complete the upgrade for Alpha 18.

They were moved temporarily to a git branch to avoid merge conflicts, but they will not be removed forever. So it's ok to keep discussing about these balancing changes

Again, using Numantine reconstructions as reference.

Related to battering rams. If you can garrison people inside the battering ram, why the battering ram does not gain mov speed? atk speed or a slightly damage. I see this as common sense, if you put 5 dudes inside it, they will help to carry the ram, and move it. Or i'm wrong?

I've tested again on the Maurya Sandbox scenario and I was indeed able to reproduce it. I think there are several problems here :- Firing range upgrades do not cause vision range upgrades. A mauryan archer that has a firing range of 50 will get a firing range of 60 after tech upgrade, then 64 and 68 after rank upgrades, but will keep his vision range of 50 all the time. This makes the firing range upgrade pointless, unless you play without a fog of war. - I went in the firing range of a persian archer, then moved the unit out of one or two meters back, the persian archer kept firing on it, even though the two units were out of each other's vision range. - I attacked a persian archer (range of 50) with a maurya archer (range of 60). When the arrow hit him, he moved ten meters to the target, then stopped. He waited to be hit by a second arrow to fire back. This, in my opinion, is probably related to an other bug I've encountered, units suddently stopping in the middle of their task, even if it's a task automatically given by UnitAI.

If we so wish, we can afford to push it to after A17 because (among other releases) A17 already has a number of performance improvements. With the school year starting after/around A17, it's going to be much harder to get algorithmic speed improvements in A18. It could be argued that moving ESR 31 to A18 would actually be beneficial.

A brutal fortress in a beautifully made map, Mediterranean Cove:

I agree with Zak, hotkeys are important. At least the important buildings should get a hotkey. Maybe you could copy the ides of aoe. b (build) + building hotkey (b = barracks, c = civic centre, f=fortress, h=house, s=blacksmith and so on). to skip to a building would be the building hotkey and spacebar to centre the map. Addition to the third suggestion: add in a sign (like I II III) or change the emblem colour in the top bar. Just as an additional hint for the players. Is there a techtree implemented? If yes, how do find it?

Solved! So I have cleaned it up with default cleanup setting but it doesn't work, so I cleaned it up again with all the options checked and suddenly it works. Thank you!

"If a player leaves half way through a game": 1.) This player should gain a "leave" (statistic for his account, or a loose independent on the games outcome). 2.) (Since this might cause anger against the voting players - who didn't do anything wrong in the first place - it might be better to just skip this) A choice window could pop up asking if the game should end as a draw that only is accepted if all players of the "non-leaver-side(s)" accept it. For the mates of the leavers a "give up" choice could appear and, if accepted by all those players the game ends (if no draw accepted with victory for the non-leaver-side) 3.) The AI should take control over the left players faction if no draw was excepted and the leaver side didn't give up (so the game continues). If a player leaves in a game that's always a hard decision what to do. 1.) The player should be "punished" for not playing the game he "silently" accepted to play by joining it (counts for the player as leave/loose) and potentially destroying it for the remaining players. (An "unstable" connection sadly can't be an excuse here because that player should be considered responsible for his connection also) 2.) The remaining players should be as less effected by this as possible (which is quite hard) without taking the win from the "non-lever-sides" (though potentially from the leavers allies - not much to do about this). So the AI should not be an "extremely hard" one for example (In fact I think it should be voted upon by the "non-leaver-side(s)" which AI is put in place). In short: A leave, however caused, counts as "give up" (to prevent players avoiding a loose by plugging their connection). I'm not that sure if a satisfying solution for the remaining players can be achieved at all. Some examples: - The game just ends as a draw: Players can avoid loosing by plugging - A loose for the leaver, otherwise a draw: A 3 vs. 3 game lost would only count as one loose for the 3 players (So plugging is still a "rewarding" behavior) - A loose for the player and continue the game without an AI/with an AI voted upon by the non-leaver-side(s) could be used by conspiring players on opposing sides - A loose for the leaving players, continued game with a fixed AI: The outcome of the game (if undecided before) now depends on the strength of the players (If weaker than the AI the AI grands an advantage to the leavers mates, otherwise a disadvantage) ...and so on.

I'm a little bit uncomfortable with the roof on the parts where the lateral walls are extended to the front, where the roof makes a "T" shape. Maybe those parts could be a little bit taller or shorter in height, so the roof is not on the same plan as the main roof. This is just because the intersation of the tiles textures look weird to me, but it's not a big deal. And maybe the building could look a bit more majestic. It is supposed to be a wonder, with alleged religious and military purposes, and from the picture it looks a bit like a giant granary. Apart from that the building is good, and suits the iberians perfectly.

Played svn this afternoon, did some games... Seems for the moment good. Really really appreciate ! "Things could be balanced further by removing ranged cav from Phase 1 and giving every civ a Phase 1 melee cav instead. Or look at ways and unit combos in Phase 1 that keep a simple rock/paper/scissors dynamic (that does not mean give every civ the same starting units, but look at different combos that can work; some civs have historical considerations too, they are important)." i have some ideas about the cav problem, at first age. first, having melee cav for all civ at age1, could be a solution, but would create some problem... just see romans: actually, take macedonians, make 10 cav , and go on the roman opponent and he's done -> romans only have skirm inf and sword inf, so almost impossible to counter. i think a good solution would be to increase the cost of the cav, more especially one of these 2 cost: -pop cost : that is to say that 1 cav unit, count as 2 in the population. it will necessarly involve more houses, so an undirectly increased cost of these cav. By the way, the rush would be later (need more time to mass the cav), or still so soon, but with less units. -ressources cost: something as 100food 60wood per cav could be good. same reasoning that for pop cost. Actually, playing with the units stats to have something balanced, isnt necessarly the good thing to do, in my opinion. indeed, reduce skirm cav stats to prevent an op skirm cav rush in age1, would necessarly involve a useless skirm cav in age 2 or age3. Unless some considerable stats improvements, available in the blacksmith. About the problem of the farm rushing, some people want to have skirm cav almost useless to destroy farms... i dont agree. indeed, in reality, a melee cav or a skirm cav, its the same: you've never seen a soldier on a cav destroying a farm with his weapon. So, i see 2 options: - farms cant be destroyed at all. So the rush only aims to ruin the eco, more especially the units, and why not some buildings -houses...) - farms can be destroyed, but not by skirm cav weapon, or melee cav weapon, but by the horse in itself: a cav could destroy a farm, just by passing on it. seems more realistic than using a weapon, and the problem " skirm cav can destroy a farm without being damaged.. bla bla bla" would not exists anymore, cause the skirm cav would have to act as a melee cav.

Rebuilt on an island after the sack by Nebuchadnezzar's army, Tyre flourished as the prime Phoenician city-state, ruling the waves, and setting up colonies as far as North Africa. Alexander's armies laid siege in 332 BCE by connecting the island to the mainland via an earthen causeway so that his army and siege towers could reach the rich treasuries within the palaces and temple complexes throughout the city.

Oppidum Avalon is a large Iron Age Brythonic fortification. Situated on a hill in the middle of a vast swamp, the Romans would surely be 'bogged' down if they dare lay siege...