Leaderboard

Thanks for the interest, and I'm sure you have a good interest, but please mind your attitude. It's really hard to take someone serious if they can't present their criticism in a polite manner. Also, to be able to make the most of your arguments it would help if you would try and understand the goals of the game. We'll most likely keep the names as they are, not because we're trying to be different, but because our goal is to teach people about history. It might mean that it's a bit harder to get into, but as the generic name is displayed right next to them I don't really see the issue there. Especially since you're not very likely to be looking at the names at all in the middle of playing, but rather focus on the images. The GUI can most certainly be improved, but it needs someone to do it. Since we do this in our free time we're relying on people being available and having the time (and interest/skill) to do things. So yeah, it needs to be improved, but so far it hasn't been done. If you have ideas for it, great. Though honestly most people have been concerned that the GUI is too big so far, so the needs vary (people might want to play the game on smaller/lower res screens as well). But again, if we had a scaling system that would help in that regard, so it's not a bad idea. It certainly doesn't seem like the easiest thing to do though, so don't expect miracles. The textures might certainly need improvement, but two things to remember: 1) Since we're open source the available source materials are limited. Many sites providing high quality textures don't allow them to be re-licensed, but we need to be able to do that. We do have some old textures from CGTextures which are from before we went open source and are used by special permission, but that permission only applies to those old textures. So many textures have to be created by hand which requires more skill of the artist, which in turn limits the number of available artists who can do it. 2) Not everyone is going to have a graphics card which can make use of the more advanced features, so either we make the game look a lot worse for them (by not having any shadows etc in the textures), or we have to implement a system with different textures for whether or not one is using specular etc, which would complicate things. It might be worth it, but the question is whether the look of the game is improved enough for it to be worth doing. We're definitely going to keep the Citizen Soldier concept. Both because it's something that makes the game different (and not just a AoE clone or something), and because it's inspired by history. Mostly in the sense of armies being based on citizens taking up arms to defend their city state, and in the sense that armies did build more than just tents. It's true that the degree of professionalism in ancient armies varied, but to keep the game balanced we can't differentiate too much between different factions or it would become unnecessarily hard to keep them balanced. Also, the armies got more professionalized towards the end of the period which the game features, and more so in the period which the second part will feature (1 A.D. - 500 A.D.). Plus of course we do have the champion units which represents the professional soldiers.

The concept is really rather simple. If you want to improve something, and you have the time and skills to do so, then just do it. There's no need to go @#$%ing programmers around for doing this or that. You can give suggestions, but since everyone is doing this in his spare time, you can't obligata anyone. And about being open source, that's the beauty of it, there's no way back. I contributed code to the project, and as long as I don't want to relicense it, it's gonna stay open source. Every programmer that ever contributed to the project has a veto on changing the license of the code. Just like every artist that ever contributed to it has a veto on changing the license of the art stuff. So in short, the only way to change the license is to start over. I'd appreciate it if you'd come here with a more open mind. Getting a finished game isn't a very big priority. The artists and programmers contributing here mostly do it because they like to learn stuff, improve their skills, or just like to spend their free time in this group. Making this game work is actually part of the game.

I have asked the SPI treasurer to use the SPI credit card to make this purchase.

I have been looking on the internet and couldn't find any reference to a 500 -1000 siege engine except a ram... Wonder if they lost all their technologies during that period. If you find one tell me.

Zebu08.zip

In-game. I've re-changed my mesh to fit my animations using IK, it's mostly working now so I started working on some animations and will probably commit it sometimes next week once I'm satisfied with them and have touched my textures up again.

Hi Nick Welcome back to the forums. My name is Stan I have been working for a little more than two years to add new content to the game, I'm not in the team for quality reasons but I might be able to answer some of your post. First of all you need to know that Mythos left the community, after a team argument, I don't have much detail because this is intern discussions. Also, Enrique is the Art DPT Leader, and he is quite busy atm. The UI is being reworked by Pureon and the team, If you drop by IRC you might be able to catch up with that. We are currently in release process, so nothing will change for A18 I have been trying to update them, but unfortunately don't have enough time for the anims. Triggers have been added, and therefore made a lot of things possible see http://wildfiregames.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=19093 Not true if you enable advanced graphics, they bend to the wind. We still support IntelHD 3000 and below, so we keep stuff low poly as much as possible. This is a coding issue, see http://trac.wildfiregames.com/ticket/1962 See i ↑ I disagree with you but I respect your point About textures As I said before two artists are in the main team now, so that's very little, if you can provide new textures that'd be nice. Now, we need someone to review them. Also this might interest you http://wildfiregames.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=19546 On a side note, If you want, you can help me improve so we can work together. Browse the art forum thread to see new stuff, and have a look at mods if you have time.

Can you post an example model trying to get glow working? Even if it's just a cube, and not only the actor XML, but all the files associated with it, so we can test. It could be a bug, a model error, a config error, it's certainly not an effect that gets much testing.

The zebu model for the Ox cart is now rigged. Animators feel free to animate I also added vertex groups. Don't know if that will help. EDIT : This one is the right one : Zebu Rigged.7z

Hello 0ad people! I write to highlight some concerns i have about the actual autofocus (aka "how soldiers select their targets once enemy is in range, if we dont focus manually with a right click"). Our unit will now "attack the closest enemy in range"-------> this is the autofocus we have now Problem this autofocus has is that when 2 big armies ( of rangeds units) engage a fight, many arrows or javelin will be wasted on "overtargetted" enemies. Imagine 2 armies consisting of 5 rows of 10 soldiers facing each other: just doing 1 step forward to the enemy with a random dude of yours, and the whole enemy army will target the poor bold soldier------> 50 arrows on 1 soldier is a big waste of arrows This is a scenario that always happens by accident, and a smart dude once found a way to draw all the enemy fire becouse of this (mr wesono's dancing trick) Ans this is the main problem of autofocus. Now imagine the same 2 armies, but nobody does a step forward, there's no enemy unit to draw all attention on himself. Does the autofocus work well in this situation? Each of the 2 armies pool of potential targets, is the enemy frontline. So it means that if we have the 2 armies of above ,5 rows of 10 soldiers, it means that 50 projectiles will be divided between 10 enemies. If both the armies consist of the same type of unit the autofocus , even if not perfect, will do his job well, since both the armies will have and suffer the cons of this system in the same manner, cant argue about that. What if one army is made of skirmishers and the other is made of archers? Just taking a look at the stats of the 2 type of units may give you an idea of the problem. Skirmishers: 20 pierce, 1.25 rateo, 24 range, 50 health Archers: 7 pierce, 1 rate, 72 range, 50 health (These are the stats of the 2 units in SVN and very likely to be, in a18) Ok, now some visual imagination again, two 5x10 armies facing each other, one made of skirmishers, one made of archers First shot of the two armies, will target the enemy frontline, meaning that each one of the 10 dudes of the frontline will get 5 enemy arrows/ javelins 5 arrows= 35 pierce (0 pierce damage wasted each tempo/shot) 5 javelins= 100 pierce damage( 50 pierce damage wasted each tempo/shot)* ( these stats show clearly how more skirmishers wouldn't help firepower! While more archers would help: sweetspot for archers being between 7 to 8 arrows per target, for skirmishers 2 ½ arrows! It would take huge amout of microing and a tons of clicks per second to take the best out of skirmisers, splitting them and spreading their firepower, while archers kind of need no microing at all. Not to mention that while you split and position your skirmisers, they're being attacked by archers) If we take the range variable out (each unit is in range of everyone of enemy's unit when the battle starts), skirmishers win and save almost half of the army, despite the wasted pierce damage. If we dont take the range variable out( each unit is not in the range of any of the enemy's unit when the battle is engaged), like most of the real play situation, archers win by far.( if you try this situation in the atlas you get a similar outcome of in real plays: even tho units dont get microed, and im talking about skirmishers particularly ,in the atlas, a good skirmishers microing is easily countered with an intelligent placing of archers in engagements) And here comes another problem: assume a bunch of skirm have to deal with a bunch of archers. If the archers are divided in small groups, far from each other, skirmishers are hopelessly lost. If they engage one group at the time( not splitting skirmishers) they'll have to walk miles to go from a group to another, since archers have HUGE range. Those walks give a great advantage to archers. What the skirm guy can do is try split his skirmishers, wich is very hard since ranged battles start and end very fast, and the archers dude can simply retreat his group of archers if enemy splitted skirms not evenly, so if you try to approach with 7 skirm one of the group of 5 archers, the archers simply fall back: archers army loses 5 soldiers, skirmishers army loses 7, trying to chase. If the 7 skirmishers focus on something else, archers come back in battle fast , while skirmishers will have to walk to engage another group. To solve this last problem, a new autofocus wouldnt be enough ( it helps in more straightforward battles, like 2 big formations facing each other) (This is a problem of skirmishers in general, also skirm cav suffers similar issue, they're too weak, once they get close – by to shot, they're half dead.) And also, trying to mix your army of skirmishers with melees is useless, since low range of skirmishers make them very bad at supporting melees (unlike archers...) Ok, hope you got my point.( archers are OP ) Hope i wont write a new post once i'll have tested slingers well enough x) I completely trust scythe's work, but maybe giving skirmishers some armor wouldnt be a bad idea( they also wear a shield, they have a free hand unlike archers, giving them more armor seems sensible and right to me). Archers have uber range, slingers have less 24 range, but kill buildings and have some more damage, skirmishers have 48 less range, have high damage but less ratio( if they had more armor it could be an even scenario? ). If you think i'm missing something, just let me note this, i'll be glad to be proved wrong and to give more clarification if necessary. Mario.

This is something that was never implemented in the new sound manager, but was a desired feature from the start, so it should be implemented there. Every sound needs limits on how many times it can be played simultaneously, even battle sounds, and some like UI sounds should only play once like you propose.

I think he expected a flat surface to glow even when the sun is up, like any alien techno

onager

I'm going to make it simple to test. I'm going to use publish it on google play in the alpha area, using my own account and with a different package name to allow wildfiregames to publish it using the real package name when the game will be production ready. People who want to test it, they need to do the following steps: join https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/wildfiregames google group. I just created it a few minutes ago and I really like to give it to windfiregames sysadmins, so sysadmins please send me a mail or PM and I'll pass you the ownership.after you've joined wildfiregames group, hopefully you'll get a message from google play when the package will be published (I upload it a few minutes ago, but it takes some time until it gets published, so please be patient!). This is the link to testing packagefollow the instructions from that link.A few words about its status: You need a device with GLES 3.0 or better.You need a mouse because, currently, is not touch friendly at all. Sadly I have no idea how make it touch friendly ...Even now it looks stable (no more crashes I hope) don't forget that the game runs very slow even on high end devices.If it crashes, I need the logcat from your device!I don't think I'll have enough time to update to than once in a week and only if there are changes that matters.

Skirmishers have already become OP early game in A18 imo. They are too fast (almost as fast as cav?!?) and can badly out micro any melee by hit and run. There is absolutely no point in building early spears/pikes/swords now except to protect against flanking attacks and absorb enemy arrows. As a player it is my job to adapt to the balancing. So my previous complaint about nerfing melee is likely premature and something I should investigate more. However, my next point I believe goes beyond a simple decision to build more of unit X or Y. I think it fundamentally makes the game less fun. Buildings are too strong/melee are too weak vs buildings. Towers have essentially become mini-fortresses. Whoever can expand to new resources with towers first in phase II wins. It completely voids army macro strategy. For example, player 1 distracts player 2's army with smaller force . Player 1 flanks player 2's CC/infrastructure with cavalry. From here, Player 2 has two options in A17: Option 1: Retract army to save CC/fort/females or other infrastructure Option 2: Push into Player 1's base to also destroy Player 1's infrastructure The single option in A18 is: Option 1: Build 5-10 spears from CC/near by barracks to destroy flanking force or just wait because they will probably die anyway from arrows. In A17, as a defender of said CC, I have learned to do what I can to make sure a flanking attempt will result in heavy losses for my enemy (close by spears, towers, some spears in fields). In A18 the only thing I need to care about defending is expanding my front line until phase III and then it's a race for siege engines. Flanking will sadly become a strategy of the past and in my opinion reduce the creativity of managing armies vastly. For people complaining about CC rush with Cav. Learn to defend your CC, or at least make sure the enemy suffers heavy losses during the attack. For people complaining about infantry destroying forts/buildings too quickly, learn to position your army correctly. This is the way it should be. Buildings should fall quickly without any army to support it. This design decision encourages turtlers (mass towers + forts). Anything that favors turtling over unit numbers and tactics is plain and simple, bad design that makes the game less dimensional. "Historically" arrows bounce off stone and swords are dulled by it. But we are playing a game here guys!! While I understand that historical accuracy is a high priority for this game, it should not retract from the fun of playing it.

More videos, guys try to support these guys, they publicity us free and shows the game to others http://youtu.be/8ZGlCm3nEgw

Those are the original foundations, so if they need some work that's not the job here

I made one single patch @Wraitii, that should help instancing. Drop Propped Foundation.7z

Update: Thankfully, we are now we are paying for hosting directly from our SPI funds using an SPI credit card. The first installment of 157.98 EUR (appx. 171.33 USD) came out of my credit card on 18/01/2015. I am asking the rest of the Treasury Committee for permission to ask SPI for a reimbursement, plus wire transfer charges, which, according to my records, are 22 USD. Total: 193 USD. Thanks.

New pig, new wolf icon

Well... the wheel was already widely available... So... we can say.... we're taking some artistic license?