Leaderboard

I don't know which hardware you play on, but the renderer and UI fixes from a14 to a17 were a real improvement for me on the side of general lag. I'm looking forward to the new pathfinder because the lag pikes still remain, but everything's not negative, and the devs are doing a great job. I agree on the fact that stuff like charging and trampling, delayed damage and spreading, secondary weapons and formation bonuses should be implemented before we can have a proper idea of the different units' strengths and weaknesses in the final state of the game, and balance them accordingly, but right now some people want to be able to play the game in its current state, and they are making the balance changes for it. Why whould you try to stop them ? If they are able to quicky balance the game now, they will be able to do it at every gameplay change, I have no worry about it. And they're not delaying the progress of the game either, not more than modeling new civs is delaying development : balancing the templates and implementing new features into the engine are different kind of jobs.

go play league of legends or smt m8

Ok I've read the design documents and the Rock Paper Scissors rules to check if current units are doing their job and how to convert most of the previous hardcounters to softcounters, but softening the counter. As for the ram issue all crush armor should be reduced for units in order to the slingers to deal more damage to armored units. The ram should then do not much damage (maybe 5 or 10) but get the according bonus against buildings, like x10 to x20. I studied only basic units and haven't tested yet the new values but it will be my next actions. The goal is not to have a full balance by tweaking values by 1 or 2, but have relative consistency between values and unit "expected" use. And also show what I'm doing for anyone to point me going on a wrong way (and save my time ). Then there is the case of mixing. So here it is, unit type by unit type with the following format Unit type (civilizations having them) Old hardcounter data Current observations in alpha 18 Short term suggestions: what I should do to match counters and/or rebalance Melee infantry Pikemen (Macedonian, Ptolemies and Selucid) (+ Persian and Maurya in design document) Slow robust melee cavalery killer, weak cannon fodder Counter melee cavalery, countered by cavalery spearmen and archers Pikemen have strong armors but low damage compared to other infantry. They have a bonus against cavalery. The main traits are implemented but their slow speed and same training time and cost than regular infantry makes them underpowered. Due to their slowness they are soft-countered by ranged units. Pikemen are the main infantry unit for Macedonian, Ptolemian and Selucid. They are mainly a robust front line to protect support range units from melee attacks, especially melee cavalery but won't give a strong attack force. They do not appear along spearmen and it is a civilization choice between the two. Design document describe Persian and Maurya shield bearer as pikemen, they are currently spearmen. Short term suggestion: set the same speed as spearmen (7.5) to make them more efficient at collecting. Their lack of damage already compensates their high armor. Long term suggestion: maybe their armor could be given by syntagma formation at cost of very slow speed for Macedonian, Ptolemies and Selucid. Persian and Maurya could cost a bit less and be faster to produce without access to the syntagma bonus. Spearmen (Athenian, Spartan, Carthage, Britons, Gauls) (+ Persian and Maurya in actual state) Almost like pikemen. Spearmen are the main infantry of most civilizations. They are like the reference melee unit, with pikemen being more defensive and swordmen more offensive. They do not appear along pikemen and it is a civilization choice between the two. Short term suggestion: not much things as pikemen are set up close to spearmen. Swordsmen (Spartans, Carthaginians, Iberians, Romans, Seleucids, Mauryans) Counters skirmishers and spearmen Countered by archers and cavalery spearmen. Swordmen are the enhanced version of melee units but are less effective when fighting cavalery. They cost more than spearmen but deal more damage and move a bit faster. They were given a drawback being a veteran unit at start reducing the collecting bonus from their speed. These are between citizen soldiers and elite soldiers. Spearmen and skirmisher hardcounter is stil slightly there by being stronger and faster, but also against all infantry. Could be countered by archers if those are faster than skirmishers (already the case for mounted units). Cavalery spearmen could counter them if they are globally a bit tougher (but also more expensive). Actual speed is 9.5 which is the same as females This is the main Iberian and Roman infantry. Short term suggestion: nothing Ranged infantry Skirmishers (all except Ptolemies and Maurya) Ranged support troop, strong against lightly armored units, counters cav archers and cav skirmishers. Countered by foot archers and swordsmen. Skirmishers are hit'n run units. They would support melee infantry in troop and harass opponent when independant. They are lightly armored and advance quickly. Doesn't counter archer cavalery for now. Short term suggestion: nerf damage (set to 12), set speed just a bit faster than regular infantry (set to 9.0). This speed allows swordsmen to catch them on the long run. They could gain something like 2 slash and 3 pierce armor due to their shield, to be more armored than archers for countering and cheaper than cav skirmishers to counter in mass. Archers could hit'n run them (this removes hard counter mounted archers) Archers (Athenians, Macedonians, Carthaginians, Persian, Ptolemies, Seleucids, Maurya) Counters swordmen and skirmishers, countered by swordsmen and sword cavalery Archers are like a skirmisher variation, with less speed, more range, less damage but more fire rate. This is globally an alternate ranged unit with more range but less power Short term suggestion: boost speed to 10.5 to be able to hit any infantry without fireback and counter skirmishers. The lack of armor makes them vulnerable to any mounted attack and would retreat to stay out of range. Slingers (Gauls, Britons, Athenians, Macedonians, Carthaginians, Iberian, Ptolemies) Effective agains heavily armored units and buildings Currently an alternate ranged unit with crush damage, making them somewhat good against buildings. Short term suggestion: reduce pierce damage to 7 Long term suggestion: as heavy armored units are slow and mostly melee, they could be given a slightly good speed (9.0) but short range, with high crush damage (which was generaly low for everyone). Pinned down by skirmishers and archers and swordsmen because of absence of armor (being ranged or fast enough to go close range while they are shooting). Spear cav is countered by cost-efficiency pinning them down. Cavaleries Spear cavalery (Carthaginians, Iberians, Macedonians, Persians, Ptolemies, Romans, Seleucids) Strong against infantry. Counters swordsmen and skirmishers, countered by pikemen, spearmen and archers Spear cavalery has decent armor and damage. But less than infantry (except HP). It is the fastest cavalery. Short term suggestion: could have a better armor (at least 5/5) with slightly less speed making them the slowest cavalery (speed set to 16). More than infantry to get in range rather quickly but lesser than other cavalery. The general stats make them a very good but expensive melee unit. Should cost at least 100f and 50w, maybe some metal (25 or 50). Counter by archers is removed, slingers could be more resource efficient to pin them down. Sword cavalery (Athenians, Britons, Gauls, Carthaginians, Mauryans, Persians) Quick strike force, counters ranged infantry, countered by spearmen and pikemen Sword cavarery has rather small damage and armor with rather high cost Short term suggestion: should have good hack damage (6 at least to be as efficient as infantry) and speed (20) so they could rapidly take down siege weapons and light armored or isolated units but have themselves light armor (2/2), making them not a good choice in open battle versus organized infantry. Skirmisher cavalery (all except Iberians) Fairly against every infantry, counters archers Like infantry skirmisher, does high damage with decent range. But it is the slowest cavalery. Short term suggestion: good speed to be one of the best hit'n run even if pierce damage make them useless against siege weapons. Reduce damage to 12. Soft counter swordsmen cavalery by being cheaper and running after them (20 speed). Soft counter archers by going quickly in range and having more HP and damage. Set armor to 2/3 for shield. Archer cavalery (Persians, Ptolemies, Seleucids) Good against non heavily armored infantry, counters cavalery skirmishers, countered by skirmishers Like foot archer, has very long range and decent damage, but no armor at all. Short term suggestion: reduce damage to 7 to match infantry. Set speed to 22 to be the fastest cav and counter cav skirmishers. Add even more spread to reduce effectiveness of hit'n run (2.4). Counter by skirmishers is removed, it is the hardest unit to deal damage to but also doesn't do much damage with fairly high resource cost.

0 A.D. is not just a war game, but rather a warfare/economy game. Some people define games which deal only with the actual battlefield activities Real Time Tactical games, as Strategy does include a bit more than just the fighting. On a related note: in my experience most related games which have come out in recent years do focus on the tactical side rather than the bigger picture/having economy as well, so personally I'm glad that we try and do a bit of both

Did you build the game? If not, you need an autobuild after r16315 to get the fix (r16325 for instance). It only fixes window resize or fullscreen toggling issues, if you're reporting an issue just by moving the camera, then it's a separate bug.

The Ptolemaic Tessarakonteres, or Juggernaut, was more along the lines of a floating fortress than a conventional warship, and Heavy Warships, mainly Quinqueremes, will be able to double as siege ships when garrisoned with siege weapons. Ramming functionality hasn't been implemented yet.

I really like the models. I agree with you all but i really think the buildings should be colorful, alot of people think their buildings looked like ruins but they were actually colorful, mostly red back, the color has just faded away and cant be seen today. Anyway i made this historical correct house some time ago. i don't know if you can use it. but you are welcome to use it and change it or whatever. (Would love to see a central american civ! ) mayanhouse.zip

What is the difference on the boat's power between putting cavalry, infantry or ranged units in this boat ?: Swords cavalry wont help as far as i've heard How do women garrisoned on a boat affect the boat ?: they wont shoot arrows i dont think only in civic as far as i understand Except dock's upgrades, what other upgrades affect boat ?: none i dont think theres more - Does attacking a boat from front or from the side change something ?: when i play it looks like it shoots more arrows when its sideways to the enemie im not sure though. - Which civ have the strongest boat ? and the weakest ?: i think they are pretty even though some can carry more at the same time, not 100% on that one either. Else you can always test in scenario editor, thats what i would.

This is what i could find C:\0ad\binaries\data\mods\public\simulation\components/trader garrisonMultiplier *= 1 + GARRISONED_TRADER_ADDITION * garrisonedTradersCount / 100; C:\0ad\binaries\data\mods\public\simulation\templates\units fishing ship <ResourceGatherer> <MaxDistance>4.0</MaxDistance> <BaseSpeed>1.0</BaseSpeed> <Capacities> <food>50</food> <wood>20</wood> <stone>20</stone> <metal>20</metal> </Capacities> </ResourceGatherer> I'm sure someone can give a better answer though.

Sea warfare is primitive yet, is enogh developed. A bunch of archer can defeat easy a big ship. The ships working light a siege tower, add units increases arrows to the ship. Is the only thing I know about them.

Hey, As zippy said watching videos is a good way to improve, I also put mines here if you want to have a look. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCjMIlqRx48mSLOQo98VygJQ

I must update this! Even tho it's true that an only rangeds army wins against an all melee army, a mixed one can beat an all rangeds one( while retreating from melees, your rangeds will take damage from your opponent ones, so that doesnt work well).So mix your army! We can sleep easy, thanks scythe

The whole system was convoluted and required new players to memorize an extremely complex web. Some of the counters were also puzzling (archers countering cavalry spearmen but getting countered by cavalry swordsmen, skirmishers countering cavalry archers but not cavalry skirmishers, cavalry archers and spearmen countering each other, etc.) Some civilizations simply hard countered other civilizations (e.g. swordsmen countered the majority of the starting greek and gaul roster, archers countering the majority of the starting roman and iberian roster, etc.)

These civs have been proposed before and so have many others, that's the easy part, in fact a lot of people want to see their region/ancestry represented. It's up to someone putting in the work to research and design them, and most importantly take the lead and follow through with the project long-term I guess what I can add from an 'inside' perspective: we're not looking for new civs to implement, it will be more than enough work to finish what we have already (some have been of the opinion we have too many civs - when I joined the project, we were only planning 6 civs for part 1! Former designer/lead decided to bump that number over time, but we're not in the position to continue that trend now) Adding a civ is definitely a lot of work, not like a week long project but months/years. That shouldn't dissuade anyone but rather challenge them if it's something they want, but it does need a leader. Check out all the work that went into making the Mauryan crowd-sourced civ a success. One thing is the topics seem to be forgotten, maybe someone should organize proposed civs with links to the topics, for reference and to prevent them being forgotten if they aren't bumped for a few weeks?

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.

It's ok, I just want to encourage you to think one extra time before posting