Leaderboard

Hai there friend`s from wildfire and around the world. Im a new player and user to the game, i have extensive experience with RTS games since AOE1. im currently learning Analysis and Development of programming in my country National Service for Learning (SENA). im a Systems Technician and im looking forward to give my two cents of knowledge to the development project in here. i´ll be looking for new content and tutorials to begging my journey with you all! thank`s to the wildfire games people that realeased an awesome game in open source for us all the lover`s of "REAL" RTS ancient warfare games! see ya all around. pdt: if any of u guys have a youtube channel with tips, tutorials or just media to share with... send me link`s ill appreciate it!

I mod the game as it is.

IMO this a bug in the AI and thus should be fixed there. It would be nice to be able to paint passability in atlas as terrain textures and elevation. I don't think invisible objects are to be used for that.

Flaming arrows make even less sense, throwing a rock at a house is going to shatter tile, plaster, splinter wood and chip stone. To make something as uncommon as flaming arrows and make it a common technology would be a disservice to the games intended historical accuracy. That should only be an Iberian skirmisher tech

Hey guy. I remove the Greek architecture auto-research tech for Hellenic civs. Instead, I make it a aura, and then I make the Stoa show up in skirmish maps. As long as the Stoa stands, the Greek Architecture civ bonus is given to the player. This is part of my quest to give each civ a unique thing at the start of the match. The Stoa is achieved with a skirmish object -- default_stoa.xml. Some civ already have unique things at the start, others do not. Athenians: Stoa Britons: War Dog Carthaginians: ? Epirotes: Stoa Gaul: Druid Iber: Stone Walls, 1 free sheep Macedonians: Stoa Mauryans: Worker Elephant Persians: 1 extra free cavalry unit Ptolemies: ? Romans--Imperial: ? Romans--Republican: 1 extra free swordsman Seleucids: 1 extra free cavalry unit Spartans: Stoa, 1 free Spartiate Thebans: Stoa

It's a wasted building otherwise, they get siege walls, not lime towers. I don't think it would be too op

They are really weak against units wich deal Hack damage (swordmen for example, champion spearmen or slingers are not so bad at it too). So the attacker and the defender must do strategic/tactical choices.

The battering ramms are too powerful. 2 of them can destroy 1 civ center and a few towers, still having more than half hp. And that is without the upgrade. The resistance and/or hp should be lowered, but the attack is ok since it's a close-range siege.

The tier idea would need more fleshing out, which is more work, and possibly a real headache to actually balance in the end. I do like the permanent death idea too, though I'd want to see it paired with rebalancing of heroes (at a minimum giving Iberians some temporary bonuses).

We have a trac / wiki http://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/GettingStartedProgrammers

Haha. A simple side-note just hijacked the thread. The patch I was referring to was that the slingers' crush damage was nerfed. I believed that it it was overpowered, and I think that the developers considered it too. The slingers' sieging ability is still there, but not as strong as before. Come on, guys. Even people in history didn't slash fortresses with swords just to take them down. fun > realism. But what about the counter system? Do you like it when it's more tactical? Or do you want the hard-stats counter system back?

I was thinking of removing heroes from the base game anyway in DE and replace them with Officers and Standard Carriers, who replace much of the hero functionality. The game would then just use hero for Herocide, scenarioes, and campaigns.

Players use capture by default. Slinger siege dudes never made sense. Give archers a flaming arrows option instead.

Mostly the "permanent hero death" option will lead to focusing heroes when they are on the frontline (and they have to be there, otherwise they are of no use). That will mean that heroes will die soon somewhat often, changing the gameplay somewhat. I believe this will add a huge use case for healers, not only with regards to the hero elephant. I'm not convinced by distinguishing heroes in tiers, as they should all be equally useful, just with different applications. Losing a hero will be detrimental for the rest of the game, but it won't be the end of the world. The more I think about it, the more I like this option.

@jeffnz: SVN takes care of only updating changes. It doesn't matter how long it was since you last checked out You can "SVN ignore" the binaries. That way they won't get updated when you update 0 A.D.. You will need to recompile when something in the C++ part changed. Otherwise there should be no problems.

I would assume he means that he wants to be able to jump backwards and forwards in time in the replays. Whether it's feasible to add a full timeline or maybe some way to jump say a couple of minutes back and forth will have to be seen, as far as I remember when it was last discussed it sounded like it was quite difficult as the game needs to basically recalculate everything when you move back or forth in time. So something might be included, but as far as I know it's difficult.

Sounds pretty much like #4153: If someone has a way to reproduce this bug quicker than replaying the 22 minute replay in that ticket, please post it!

I think thats why the second option is better. By putting some kind of limitation on retraining, players are forced to care more about heroes. Currently we have heroes that can even be sacrificed when low on health because the "only" consequence of losing one is the retrain time. Still, I don't think it is a good idea to go to the other end of the spectrum and say that once a hero is dead, the hero is dead. Maybe it is a bit silly using historical figures as heroes if they can come back from the grave, but I think finding a space in the middle between "who cares if my hero dies" and "I better protect my hero from any harm else I lose the aura forever" makes more sense. A timer preventing you from retraining the hero for a certain period of time, plus increasing costs per "resurrection" makes a lot of sense to me. ___ This is just something to think about, I'm sure it isn't new either: One could even grade the heroes for each civ in order to guide balancing: The lower tier hero is cheapest, has a lower retrain cool down time, and has a global aura. Global auras can be kept at a lower strength simply because they are always on, everywhere. The middle tier hero could be like the best heroes we have now, but weakened a bit. So instead of +5 attack, for example, it goes to +2 and is a proximity aura that is always on. The highest tier hero would be quite expensive, but have multiple auras that have timers, more like Warcraft 3 or something. They could be things like +10 attack for 30 seconds, -20% building capture points for 10 seconds, +50% healing rate for 30 seconds... things that if timed right could change the course of a battle or help your army keep moving after a battle. *Note: low middle and high denote the amount of micromanagement necessary to gain the most benefit from the hero. Also, there should be some consequence for a hero being mounted or on foot. I do like that each hero is supposed to represent something unique that they remain known for for 2000+ years later. I think each civ could have unique hero attributes even with this grading system. For instance, Athens could be: Pericles, low. Lower temple cost, construction bonus, economic gathering rate bonus (or) barracks train speed bonus (Funeral oration inspiring citizens to fight on). Themistocles, middle. Lower ship training time, increased ship speed, +2 attack constant aura Iphicrates, high. Increased armor +1 or +2 constant aura. Auras with timers: Increased unit speed +25% that lasts maybe 30s; -10% enemy unit health for 15s (rumor of Iphicrates' "tactical cruise" to Corcyra led the Spartans to break off their siege before his highly trained and well drilled fleet even arrived)

I'm well aware of the advantage of women, it's just that if you build nothing but women you have no defense against an early rush. This was a problem with the AI in earlier versions - you could make 5 ranged units, send them + the 2 you start with, and it was game over. They'd kill the workers, the you could park them just out of range of the CC and kill any units that emerged. Making mostly women early makes sense, but you do need a few soldiers to counter that tactic.