Leaderboard

Winning Rododactylos would be hard, but I suggest Alpha XVIII Rubico. The Rubicon river it's famous for the latin phrase "Alea Jacta Est", that means "the die it's cast". I think that fits cause 0 A.D have been developped long ago and there's no turning back considering the efforts and I think that a Beta it's near. Also I think that you would finish the game.

Wow this escalated quickly! Sorry for my angry tone in the beginning btw - not to belabour any point - it would be hard to explain the cause of it. Anyway, I see that there is indeed some serious interest. I'm in for a mod.

Hello everybody, my name is Michael, I'm from Poland. I'm following 0AD development since few releases. I'm great fan of AoE 1 and I'm happy that Wildfire games is creating rts that's similiar to AoE series in ancient timeline. I also really like things like unit formations, directional bonuses etc. as I'm big fan of realistic battlefield. I was member of few modding teams and one game dev team (Bluehell Productions) as texture artist. BTW: You can check out my artworks here: http://kesepton.deviantart.com/gallery/

Quick design issue: I've noticed that in svn currently the game has a tendency to wildly rotate the camera when you use a two finger "swipe left/right" gesture on a trackpad (which is done often when you try to select stuff in a box). I think this should be changed before A18. (may have been posted before, I haven't checked everything)

Exactly, I'm not thinking in gods like Age of Mithology with mythological units and powers, I think about the inspiration that people had, an this is historical. For example, sometimes some celt warriors fought naked because they think their gods protec them, or the famous viking berserks that ignored pain. Not to mention crusaders and jihads.

Well... I'm on it (like on many other things) We need a wood tile texture a hay roof texture and armors. In the current state of things I dont have the skills to do it... :/

This reminded me a lot about something I posted 10 years ago. I'm not able to make the thread visible for you (it is in some private staff forums), but it might be a fun read for you if a moderator could move the thread. http://wildfiregames.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=1064

The idea is more or less to release it faction by faction (not a strict rule though) but we don't have enough manpower to actively develop 3 mods consecutively so the releases are not on a very regular base.

+1 for Rubico, really great idea (albeit a little less "funny" than Rododactylos ;-)).

Very well. The Kushite-Nubians, according to zophim's list, is one of the proposed civs for the Aristeia mod. Lion has provided information and references above about them, and there's also an older thread concerning them. Zophim even put together a rough design specification that can be found in PDF format in this post or M$ Word format in this one. It makes sense to use work that's already been done as a starting point; so unless you have a different african civ you particularly wish to see implemented first, I advise you download one or both of zophim's current design specs (as I don't know if they are entirely identical) the M$ Word version as it's more complete, read though it, and make suggestions. Further african civilisations can be considered once the Kushite-Nubians are nearing completion. Edit: After looking at zophim's design specification documents, it appears the M$ Word version is more complete.

A burial site is a great idea for a wonder for this civilization. I suggest using the "Kiviksgraven" burial site, which belongs to the Nordic Bronze Age. Although this article about the monument is in Swedish, its abstract is in English, and it has a few pictures. Here is a picture of the site: And how it looks from afar:

Spearmen weren't killing cavalry well enough; counter was increased to 3x in r16313. Spear cavalry currently have very bursty damage. Over time, their damage output is approximately the same as sword cavalry.

Idk. We might see

Hello Michael, do you by any chance plan to contribute ?

I think the Thomas Theorem applies here: If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences. In other words: When men believe in gods, there are real and physical consequences. On the other hand, looking at Europe right now, I'm happy for every little space where gods don't play a role. Even if that place is called 0 A.D.....

This is a very interesting idea. As Lion.Kanzen mentioned, the deities' bonuses could be justified by being due to psychological effects; and there is also the fact that priests also often gathered actual practical knowledge about elements of their deity's portfolio, so that for instance priests of a fertility deity would probably have good knowledge of the seasons and etc.

for me is more about psicological benefits in units like total war than a mythic or mythical, in total war the buildings gives some bonus for example moral be in our game can add some boost in stats

You have to play on the attributes given to units if you take away the multipliers they have. You could have a hard counter system like it was done in Aoe3; that would get you very fun unit interaction and micro. In fact when I first got into 0 A.D. about a year ago, I was for the use of a very hard counter system. My arguments were very similar to the one you just gave. However that direction isn't the one taken by the 0 AD project, the way I understand things. I'll come back to unit stats as a way to differentiate units. We can look over a basic example. Let's imagine that we have an archer unit which costs 100 resources. It does 10 damage every shot and it fires once a second (10 dps). It has 100 hp. Now let's take a swordsmen unit. This unit also costs 100 resources, it does 10 damage every second (10 dps). Let's give the swordsmen 200 hp. Which unit is better? The archers with their range or the swordsmen with their health? The answer isn't clear cut, really. If you engage 20 swordsmen vs 20 archers, the swordsmen should win easily. If you have the archers hit and run consistently, the archers might win, however it will take time. Time is a resource in an rts game. You also can't use hit and run when you're defending a position (civic center, resources or map control). Arguably, even if you give the archers more dps than the swordsmen (13-15), the swordsmen would still win a straight up fight due to their HP. This is without multipliers. The strength of the archer resides not in the fact that it is a cost-efficient unit, but it resides in the range it has. If we look at things more broadly, we realize that it's possible to play on the strengths that units have to balance them out. Ranged units can be given range, dps and poor HP. Melee units can be given dps and strong HP. Ranged units caught in a melee fight will lose straight up. Ranged units which act as support for friendly melee units can help turn the tide of the fight. Basically, by playing on the different attributes which units are given, you can give them a certain niche role. A unit which is correctly used in that role will do well, a unit which is mis-used will quickly die. It's kind of like the Mutalisk in starcraft. In Zerg vs Terran, using your mutalisks to fight in a straight up fight is generally suicide. Yet you won't hear a single Terran player who says that mutalisks are a bad unit. Mutalisks were given mobility and damage output. The role they then serve is that of picking off high value targets, workers, cutting off reinforcements and obtaining map control. Mutalisks have no multipliers to help them do extra damage to certain units, yet they still serve a niche role and they're very fun units for that purpose. The same can be said for the Marine. You can easily replicate this in 0 A.D, I modded the game a bit on my own to give units certain attributes like the ones I described, the results were quite interesting. For example, you could give skirmishers high attack, but low attack frequency. The overall dps that skirmishers have make them bad in straight up fights. However, they could hit and run units quite well due to their high attack. This made skirmishers soft-counter melee infantry units. However making an army with only skirmishers would inevitably lead to defeat. All of this can be done without the use of multipliers and I think that this is what scythe is slowly but surely working towards. It's for the purpose of micro that I would like ranged units to always hit their targets. As I've said before, this may be a game where the time setting is set in the Antiquity, but it remains a game. In an RTS, you want your units to be reliable. I don't personally believe that ranged units missing their targets adds anything to 0 AD as a game. I see 0 A.D. as an RTS with huge potential which is in development. I don't quite see 0 AD as a historical simulation. Of course, nothing is wrong with having different views and I respectfully acknowledge your point.