Leaderboard

There is a small interruption in our lobby server today, on no day other than friday the 13th! I can assure you it has nothing to do with bad luck though. In the past month we've been migrating Wildfire Games services (the website, forums, the autobuilder, irc bot) to a brand new server. Because we've been suffering from a lot of downtime lately, due to all kinds of different issues, we've decided to move all services to one central, reliable place. Today we've moved the lobby service to the new server as well. So presumably this will be last downtime for a long time (*knock wood*) for the multiplayer lobby. :-) The lobby is currently working without issues on the new server, however the DNS for lobby.wildfiregames.com may not have updated everywhere yet with the new IP address. If the lobby server isn't working for you at the moment, please be patient; it should start working again within 24 hours at most.

You are wrong, because 0 A.D. balance was just fine until the skirmishers and Javelin Cavalry became unbalanced. And then the balancer threw out the whole scheme instead of adjusting the stats of those two units. Some will say that the Swordsman was overpower for Romans because they were buuld from Civic Center, but then why did not try just moving it to Barracks and put spearman at Civic Center instead? Some units have good archers? Move them from CC to barracks. In fact, move all soldiers to barracks except spear infantry (so all civs start with the same basic citizen soldier). Not difficult decisions. The overlapping counters scheme that was design by the wfg founders was brilliant design that had vision, something current designer seem to lack. Whwere is the well thought design document for this "balance" branch? What is the design philosophy? But this whole thread is pointless, because there are balance shattering gameplay feature still not in the game yet. I will go ahead and leave you now to argue over the balance of a 60% completed game.

Well, it has been sort of balanced against Alpha 17. (at least I worked on that)

I think there should be self-counter units for each class, that are good for massing against their own class, but are somewhat less effective against everything else. There should also be some neutral relationships, where a unit neither counters nor is countered by another unit. Here's a short draft of a possible set of counters: Melee Infantry: Spearmen are anti-cavalry. Strong attack against cavalry but somewhat weak armour.Swordsmen are an infantry self-counter. Medium-powered attack and strong armour for taking out other infantry.Ranged Infantry: Archers are anti-infantry. Good damage for picking off infantry but weak armour that offers little protection when put into a melee battle. Vulnerable against melee cavalry that can close in quickly.Skirmishers are a ranged self-counter. Even weaker melee armour than the archer but strong-ish ranged armour, which makes the unit more effective when massed. Should be able to take out an equal group of archers without suffering too much damage. Also has weaker attack so not effective against melee infantry.Slingers should be considered as light siege units. They still have the same weaknesses as other ranged infantry, but are slower firing, higher damage, and reasonably effective against buildings in the midgame where proper siege units aren't available. They should be quite inaccurate to make them ineffective against cavalry or small squads of units.Melee Cavalry: Sword Cavalry are anti-ranged. Not quite as strong (armour & attack) as its infantry counterpart. Instead uses its speed to be a counter against infantry archers and skirmishers.Spear Cavalry are a cavalry self-counter. Higher damage against cavalry and weaker armour than its infantry counterpart.Ranged Cavalry are an interesting interruption in an otherwise nice balance cycle. Archer Cavalry are a more mobile version of the archer. Slightly less powerful than its infantry version but has increased mobility that allows it to escape melee units.Skirmisher Cavalry are a more mobile version of the skirmisher. Slightly less powerful than its infantry version but has increased mobility to escape melee units or chase down cavalry archers.A few additional notes on some relationships between units. Swordsman vs Archer: Swordsmen will destroy archers if they get within melee range, but otherwise will be picked off as any other infantry. Should not counter either way.Cavalry Swordsman vs Cavalry Archer: Same as above.Cavalry Spearman vs Cavalry Archer: Same as above.Cavalry Skirmisher vs Infantry (except skirmishers): Will win purely because the infantry won't be able to get close enough. Should not counter either way.Cavalry units should always be beaten by their infantry counterpart, but not by a wide margin. They should be a bit weaker (attack & armour), because they make up for it in mobility.Edit: Maybe the role of Skimishers and Archers should be switched, and the archer given a range bonus to provide a more sensible and strategic counter.

Hey guys, I just reached 500 views on my channel, I know it's not much but it makes me quite happy to be honest ^^. It motivates me to continue seriously my videos. As I said earlier, I plan to make various types of videos from now: - Focus on map, play on special map like Naval - Some multiplayer games 1v1 and 2v2 - A Random game : I play on a random map with random civ against random very hard AI and just let the viewers enjoy this amazing game. If you have any suggestions/idea/proposal of the kind of video you would like me to make please tell me here, I'll start a list. Alex PS: I don't know how to code/program so I can't contribute with the development of the game but if I can help players with my videos I'll do my best

Problem is, Most of your suggestions is where we had most of our problems last time. Too many overlapping counters. Swordsmen and archers are good example. The counter circle NEEDS to be a circle, you can't have units countering each other, it just results in broken gameplay, and weird balance issues. Generally it should be ranged>infantry>Cavalry>ranged With little variations inbetween. It won't work, there's too many different civs and differering units for differing civs, so factions with poor spearmen will get rekt by civs with great cavalry, so on so forth. Soft counters is the only way to make so many different factions balanced, hard counters work in games like starcraft (which, don't do it, because there's too many different units to have a great circle of balance)

Yep, that's the plan. I first started with 12 videos (one for each civ) showing basic build orders and from now I'm gonna focus on two things: - maps (I already started with Naval maps) - multiplayer games (I'm waiting for a18 to see if there is less lag)

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

Very enjoyable videos, Aleksu!

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.)

Well let's be fair, the counter scheme was kind of weird. This simplifies things greatly, it's kind of like a fresh start. Whether or not it's bad, I don't know. I personally didn't like the old ways of doing things and I'm liking the general direction that sycthe is taking. I mean, if you could give me reasons why the last unit set made sense, I might be more able to agree with you. ;p

I think that if people want to have a constructive discussion about these things, we must first define the roles of each and every unit. As in, what role do we want the units to have. Are melee infantry units supposed to backbone of an army, with ranged units getting a support role? Or do we want the ranged units to be the backbone? Similarly, Cavalry units should act as mobile shock troops, however are they supposed to be too expensive to be used as units by themselves? Playing on unit cost is something which can be done as well to balance out units, it's important to remember that. I wouldn't mind going back to units which only cost two resources, by the way. (edit, why are foot companions so slow in the current build? )

Seeing those old posts reminds me of how much thought and effort has gone into 0 A.D.

Hi juanjo, Welcome. This game has the aim of being historically accurate. Since gods are only mentioned in stories rather than physically appearing they had an impact on society (and that's in the game in form of temples and priests) but never physically appeared and/or directly intervened. So they will not get part of the original game. However, you are free to build a mod including gods.

I think non-crush units should not be able to attack walls. Either that, or walls need to be a lot stronger. Regular units can tear through them pretty quickly. I can't find a valid use case for walls currently. They just aren't worth the time to build them. Fortresses should probably also have a technology that increases their HP / defense dramatically. Just some observations.

I mean lithobolos and ballista are underpowered, but oxybeles and mainly scorpion are seriously overpowered. Scorpion have a excellent attack and range, better than ballista against buildings, and of course it has against infantry ans cavalry. It makes ballista a no used unit because its function is better asumed by scorpion. I mean scorpion must have less range (90 m) and less attack against buildings, being a infrantry sniper, but with less rate of fire, because it's actually a machine gun: five scorpions can destroy a whole army. Ballista and lithobolos must have 50% more of attack against buildings and about 100m range, but being no usable against infantry, with a poor attack against it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only imperial civilizations coming out of Africa during our time frame (600BC-1AD) were those of Carthage and Ptolemaic Egypt. Kingdoms like those of Aksum came later. Lack of information on these empires is also a hinderance.

Please calm down one notch both Roland and iNcog. It's a lot more likely that your opinion will be considered if your opinion is what is being presented and not arguments about other things/why your opponent is wrong. Also, I did not say that a lack of information was the only reason. The (to my knowledge) limited knowledge makes it harder though. Personally I think we have too many civilizations already, but thankfully this isn't my game, but a collaborate effort, so my opinion is only a limited part of the whole (and I have to bow to the majority/those who actually work on implementing things). What's actually more important is the time needed to create it. I believe I told you this before, but that's pretty irrelevant, the main thing is that I'm now: It's a lot more likely that a well-developed mod will be included in the game than that arguments and accusations are going to encourage anyone to work on something.

Why bother with new civilizations if the current ones aren't even finished? No kidding, there are enough possibilities to make a mod featuring a civilization. That happens too with the Chinese...

The only enhancement I can think of is the option to repeat the current production queue.

Putting 0 A.D. on Steam has come up a couple of times, for example here, and here. Unless the team's position has changed, the perspective is that bringing 0 A.D. to Steam would require a more mature version of the game. The current work-in-progress state of the game might be detrimental to the public's opinion, which could hurt the long term prospects. I don't think it's ruled out for a (near) final version of the game.

Queuing more than two batches in a go is a mistake either way.

Unless you need every unit trained individually (which would require a ton of clicking), then batch training should work. You can have as many units queued as you want, no arbitrary limit of 24, etc. Just hold shift and each additional click on the unit icon will increase the count by five units. Let go of shift and the batch will begin to train.

I don't think that the current gaul buildings are too far different than what you have posted. Also remember that the artists like to make their mark with stylistic choices that are probably not always accurate 100%. I think it would help them if you maybe did a presentation of each gaul building in the game and show what you would change about each one to make it better. For the lether armor, that looks great. Good idea. Nice reference.

The resources are marked per directional trip, therefore 90 means 90 there and 90 back.