Leaderboard

Hello, everyone! I've just discovered this amazing game a couple of days before. I want to thank and congratulate you for all the work done here. Also, I want to thank all enthusiasts and people of the community who are not developers but contribute with testing, suggestion and support. Now, I would like to share with you some of my impressions: First of all, I'd say this is the most beautiful libre and driven community game I ever saw. It drove me years back in time when I used to play Age of Mythology. However I didn't felt some comfortable with some mechanics like "soldier citizen" gathering resources, capturing buildings and more. I don't say they are bad, I'm just not used to it. So I wanted to share this impressions and I found in the forum some posts of @DarcReaver from around 2015 saying that the gameplay was broken because of the lack of design and it summarizes some of the feelings I had in my firsts games. I just didn't feel like the game mechanics were cohesive (it's just my impressions, I'm not criticizing your work). Then I saw this topic about game design and it made me feel relieved because you are willing to do a good design and to argument to each other the pros and cons of including features as battalions and so. So, I personally believe in community driven projects and I think you have in your hands something with invaluable potential. I hope we'll enjoy one of the best RTS ever made in few years. I would like to ask if Pyrogenesis engine might be used to make other games in the future. My favorite RTS is Supreme Commander and would like to dream with a future clone of it. Finally, I have some suggestions (little ones and huge) so I guess I'll public other topics. Really, thank you all. This is one of my dreams when I was a little boy.

...I don't know where to start. I heard about this game on the internet and I had mixed feelings about it thinking that is open source and the installer is below 1GB. I started to play and I felt my heart warming with love, I couldn't believe what I was seeing. Dynamic range on archers, different types of armor, the graphic that is similar to AoM which I very like. I still cannot believe that this is real. Dear Devs and staff: THANK YOU FROM THE BOTTOM OF THE HEART FOR THE EFFORT THAT YOU PUT IN THIS GAME. The only regret that I have is that I am poor and because of that my donation will be very limited and small amounts.

Hi guys!!! I come here to discuss a change in the interface of the units / constructions. It's something that has bothered me a lot, for several reasons. You need to leave your mouse over icon for some time, until important information is shown, and even then they are confusing, have poor allocation, letters are small and not have icons. It sounds like something unimportant but it is not, in some other rts games, when you evolve your drives, the drive model also changes, so you know that drive is upgraded, and you take care of it. At 0 A.D this does not happen, so you can not tell if the drives are upgraded, you need to click them, leave the mouse on the icon for some time, and then you can see a lot of confusing information. What I would like to see is something like this: It's something simple and clean, just with a few icons, showing, atack/armors/atackrang. Of course a few more things can be added, and also, the other information does not have to be taken, they can stay where they are. This way it is much easier to see and you do not waste time looking for the information you need. I have seen some players complaining about losing fights and only then did they see that the enemy units were much stronger. And I dare you to say, that some players do not know that this information exists, because they have never tried to leave the mouse over the icon. Age of empires 2 is just one of the good examples we have, it does not have to be identical. What do you guys think? He gave his opinions and suggestions. Tnx

Maybe you need to flip the normals of your faces?

Thanks for your donation, @andy5995! My name is Aviv and I am a member of the 0 A.D. Treasury Committee. I agree that a confirmation e-mail is in order. I believe that people who donate using Click&Pledge get one automatically, but donors who use PayPal might not. Unfortunately, we cannot see donations or directly issue confirmations. Software in the Public Interest, Inc. (SPI) handles the donations for us and only they have direct access to our financial data. If you can kindly provide the sum donated, the e-mail address associated with your PayPal account, and date of donation, I will gladly ask SPI to confirm that the sum was donated. You can do this via private message if you prefer. I apologize in advance as it could take quite some time to get any response from SPI. Last but not least, I have made a new thread in the announcements forum with a copy of the financial report. I have also edited the link in the news post so that it now points there. I thought the treasury committee forum was open to the public. Thanks for letting me know otherwise.

In the interest of transparency, the Wildfire Games team would like to report on the finances of the project as of 2017-03-31. Until 2016-12, 0 A.D. had funds in three places: Funds earmarked for the project and held in trust by US-based non-profit organization Software in the Public Interest, Inc. (hereafter "SPI"); A PayPal account under the name of former project leader, Jason Bishop (Wijitmaker). This account was a legacy of the time before we became affiliated with SPI; An account on Flattr, a Sweden-based microdonation provider. SPI Earmark for 0 A.D. As of 2017-01-01, the 0 A.D. earmark is USD 29,528.35 (Source: SPI Treasurer's Report). Other Accounts In our "legacy" PayPal account, we had USD 366.30 on 2016-11-30. This sum was consolidated with the SPI earmark in December 2016 and is probably reflected in the account balance mentioned above. We will not be using this account anymore and we have duly removed the references to it from the donation page. On Flattr, we have EUR 842.14 available, which are approximately USD 900. We have removed the references to Flattr account from the donation page and we intend to consolidate these funds with the SPI earmark in the near future. Total In total, we have approximately 30,428.35 USD. Concluding Remarks The 0 A.D. project finances are managed by the Treasury Committee: Erik (“feneur”), Adarash ("MishFTW") and Aviv (“Jeru”). We welcome your comments and suggestions in this thread.

Starting a discussion on how we could improve 0 A.D.'s interface for visualizing unit stats at a glance. AOE2 had a simple system that did this very well, 0 A.D. doesn't. I'm waiting on your thoughts on this subject. I have on idea in particular, though, that I really think we should implement: remove HP count, and replace it by an "HP-armour equivalent" that would simply display how much HP this unit has against a particular attack type. This is because our armor stats make HP mostly irrelevant to actual strength, the real question is "how much of a beating can they take". For example a structure of 2000HP is very resistant against pierce (let's say 80%). Currently you can see that. But it's not obvious that this makes it as strong than a 4000HP structure with a 40% resistance. If we had a representation that was "HP against hack: 3000HP, HP against pierce: 10 000HP, HP against crush: 2000HP", it would make comparing units much, much easier.

Culture of Moche. The Moche civilization (alternatively, the Mochica culture or the Early, Pre- or Proto-Chimú) flourished in northern Peru with its capital near present-day Moche, Trujillo, Peru[1] from about 100 to 800 during the Regional Development Epoch. While this issue is the subject of some debate, many scholars contend that the Moche were not politically organized as a monolithic empire or state. Rather, they were likely a group of autonomous polities that shared a common elite culture, as seen in the rich iconographyand monumental architecture that survive today.

Welcome to the forums i33SoDA No regrets necessary, we do this for free because we love it. Don't feel obliged to donate anything

Más amor para las vacas merecen todo jajajaja vacuna=vaccine Vacuna=bovine literal transactions Spanish

Oh, no Vacuna please...it means vaccine in spanish and also means "related to cows"

And as usual ignoring the arguments when proven wrong and just shift over to a different topic. Debating culture at its best tbh

If i'm not wrong, it is never going to see the light because they need to buy Tolkien's right to continue another game

BFME and CnC official servers were shutdown when EA closed EA Pacific studios and lost the license from New Line to sell BFME games (which was in 2013 I believe). It's still played by a couple thousand players via gameranger and a private multiplayer server though and downloadable for free https://www.gamereplays.org/community/index.php?showtopic=977795) (same for CnC games). So it's the same as AoE II on voobly. It sitll has a very active community compared to other RTS games of that time, with tournaments being hosted etc. Battle for Middle Earth 3 can't come because EA has no longer the License for Tolkien games. SEGA got it now, and SEGA does not make strategy games at all, only Roleplaying games (Return of the King/The Hobbit). So what are you trying to say?

I said that the current does not need to be withdrawn, he can keep all his information, I just like to see only the most important information. Exemple: atack (icon) value/value armor (icon) value/value range (icon) value Atack speed (icon) value move speed (icon) value If the player needs more information, he uses the old system.

I don't know if you noticed, but there are a lot more numbers in our screenshot ... Our attack/defense model is just a lot more complicated with a lot more different parameters, and players need to know that. It might be good to enlarge the area though, so there's no line wrapping

I can help you with a link.

The error of the screenshot seems to be in the sound driver. Did you already try rebooting your system? And do you have sound via other applications? And are both errors from the same person? As they look different.

What you call "manspam" its nothing more than a numerical advantage. Using a sneaky group of cavalry for a raid while the enemy troops are busy elsewhere is possible though. While the number of barracks built depends on the time the player wants to wait before refill his army, batches of any size of units can be trained. Formations can be composed by different types of soldiers and can be distrupted or modified with versatility. Imo healers should be indivdual units healing in area and not single targets because they are very hard to micromanage and often they heal injuried ranged units who rarely take damage. Anyway, since the design foresee a battalion refill by garrisoning barracks, i guess that healers role would fall off. Individual soldiers gain exp on the amount of damage they deal to individual targets, imo experience could be calculated by ignoring target armour avoiding pointless complexity. Whenever a target dies, the Exp loot could be shared between units near the killer as far as they are inspired by the successful kill, this would create a sort of chain in exp gaining, limiting the individual promotion as you pointed out. Honestly battalion and formations are similar concepts but, while formations require an higher micromanagement at start for setting up battalions (which increases the skill cap), a pure battalion system will only increase men on the screen.

Played last night and everything was fine. Today I keep getting this error. Uninstalled and redownloaded and installed game and still getting the error. Much to our regret we must report the program has encountered an error. Please let us know at http://trac.wildfiregames.com/ and attach the crashlog.txt and crashlog.dmp files. Details: unhandled exception (Access violation reading 0x00000004) Location: unknown:0 (?) Call stack: (error while dumping stack: No stack frames found) errno = 2 (Error during IO) OS error = 0 (no error code was set) Any help?

I absolutely agree with that part. I don't see the point of veterancy in most of my 0ad games (although I didn't play too much). Don't take me wrong, I like the concept of veterancy but for my game which is spaming spearmen and so, it's useless. I don't care for a single soldier, also I find micromanagement hard for keeping they alive. Selecting hurt units after a battle one by one, send them back, heal them and returning them to the front in most cases doesn't worth the effort and time for me. But I'm concerned of turning into a battalion system. Maybe it's because I don't have much experience with battalions except for Total War and I really think 0ad may be a great game with or without battalions. But I have AoE gameplay very linked to a splitted units system and battalions make me wonder how it will work mixed up with many other functionalities (veterancy, replacement of deads, gathering resources). I just don't see that system in the currently 0ad. I don't say battalion system is bad for 0ad, I'm just not convinced (just an opinion)

Afaik the current game is setup in a way that promotes macro oriented manspam strategies, just like AoE II. So the actual veterancy does not do much for the individual soldier. No proper healing/unit preservation for the unit itself, and it's hard to keep them alive because individual units are ant like small. -> pointless clicking/searching for units -> no fun. And, as a general sidenote: why would somebody want to merge different rank battalions in the first place? And furthermore: Why should individual soldiers in the battalion receive experience? And why should the combat performance vary within a battalion? It should be pretty obvious that a battalion system should exactly remove these inconsistencies to make the game rely less on individual pointless clicking and instead focus on getting the correct army composition without the manspam effect...

Los centros cívicos , los militares, las casas tienen punto de reunión y si usas shift aparecerán marcadas con unas líneas y una bandera cada acción que asignes.

Y más que seremos cuando traiga a mis amigos a 0ad

Unlimited predators "animals that do not give food" tigers, lions, crocodiles and that are more dangerous as well as add consumable animals champions: elfantes, jabalis inmundicia mode commented by Lion.Kanzen long ago very very interesting polar map is similar as I think and relic mode how wor? one relic ,capture 3-5 ,relic need upgrade for move or units in protection ? Like it! Ha -dead winter fok-del warhammer 40k ultimate normal map + mode "survival soft" Wonder 2 options 1: +40 pop 2: regular units veterans Slinger needs to raise the cadence shoots too fast is exaggerated 1second (that do as much damage is good as in most rts but at the expense of cadence firing) Iberians heroes have to have different abilities to make the decision important A hero would do well to make units for guerrilla tactics and flexibility The aura can not think of me as a breakthrough o.o Add caetrati as elite stage 2 leave the necessary information in a post The saving of 50% of iron will also be very useful Athens: ifrates normal aura, no aura formation posible select only military or civilian units equal to aoe3 thx for waching

es mas comodo en el aoe 3 le hare fotos cuando lo reinstale pronto

Can be nice when you test new map, polar sea. That map is a madness.

https://www.facebook.com/0adlatino/?ref=ts&fref=ts

See the slogan.

Thanks for the replay, the nickname is pronunced like you did the the second time at game start, like Lasagna Watching old replays is always interesting, expecially with commentary.

Niektb reported to me not long ago that my chinese buildings were having strange normal issues as you can see below. This as nothing to do with textures, but that means your AO is wrong. How can it be wrong. Well you maybe forgot to triangulate your mesh, or have too much UVs. The game reads the two first UVs of the mesh. If there is three, and the last one is the good one, that won't work. I also noticed that sometimes the game doesn't like the smooth option. So how to fix this ? Make sure you have two UVMaps only and that the mesh is triangulated correctly (To be sure, export it in the game and import it back) PS : If you never saw this it's because your graphics are not set to high. Search for the user cfg and replace the code by those lines : gentangents = "true"gpuskinning = "false"locale = "en_US"materialmgr.PARALLAX_DIST.max = "150"materialmgr.PARALLAX_HQ_DIST.max = "75"materialmgr.PARALLAX_VHQ_DIST.max = "0"materialmgr.quality = "10"particles = "true"pauseonfocusloss = "true"postproc = "true"preferglsl = "true"renderactors = "true"shadowpcf = "true"shadows = "true"shadowsonwater = "true"showdetailedtooltips = "true"showsky = "true"silhouettes = "true"smoothlos = "true"splashscreendisable = "false"splashscreenversion = "0"userreport.enabledversion = "0"userreport.id = "e012e183767f1423"vsync = "true"waterfancyeffects = "false"waterrealdepth = "true"waterreflection = "true"waterrefraction = "true"windowed = "false"

Ok stop pop limit, I don't see the problem with that if are good planned and tested my worry is more like the simplification of only mass soldiers and the inflexibility if they can go as indiviso if the user wish that. @Grugnas have a point with this matter. In other treat. Mostly fan base don't like the BFME style that for me is similar to pretorian, a game focus in combat but repetitive, but with a bunch of fresh mechanics.

Amphibian Hoplite - Attack Synchronization

Anavultus - Disjunction I also have the same problem on how "Grugnas" should be pronounced.

@jeru Thanks for the response. Yes, I'll send you those details in a PM.

I understood everything you said and every time you post I answered and mostly I give situation. Pop hack- is still related to gameplay. I said I can make more units like in BFME just to have more fun surpassing the allowed 200. I even did it on RoN when I played assasin with 7 Hardest AI I was able to make or produce including conversion +|- 300 in 200 pop cap. Everrtjme an RTS game have conversations you can make/have more units beyond allowed and if you're playing AI on infinite hours you can have more units and more fun. Like AoE2 I did so many conversations against 2AI and still controlled/won the game. Btw never did BFME AI ever destroyed my castle. And all my barracks/stable units were promoted to highest level. We talked more about BFME because that's the same mechanics on units that you are trying to impose on 0AD and I gave so many scenarios but you never reasoned out with logic at all. Always not true, this and that. Not even giving a situation which if it can make 0AD much better which could be considered by the developers. Only this is good or blah blah blah without any substance at all!

Hi, long-time RTS/TBS and real new 0ad player here. I was looking for something to supplement my FreeCiv addiction when I stumbled across 0ad. WOW. I generally don't bother reading forums, let alone sign up and write on them. I'm making an exception for this obvious labor of love, this thing of absolute beauty, this already eminently satisfying game. This is exceptional. I'd like to share some thoughts as an utter n00b, hoping you might gain an insight or two from the perspective of one recently completely unfamiliar with the game. I know not with the ways of your forum, so forgive me for posting in the wrong place. PERFORMANCE (FYI for possible optimization only, not whining): My system: Toshiba laptop, Win10, 2.60 GHz CPU, 8GB RAM, Intel graphics adapter with 2GB video RAM. I've played V21a Ulysses only. I have only played single player against the computer - that's my thing. The game generally performs very well on my system until I have "a lot" (150+?) of units, when there starts to be some "skipping" and video loss. Garrisoned units don't contribute to the effect. It seems better when fewer units are on-screen. Generally speaking, given the work it's doing and the graphic intensity, what's surprising is that it performs as well as it does. (Although, does my laptop ever get hot!) I have encountered one or two occasions where the game became unplayable as a result. Restarting and recovering a saved game helped for a bit (possible RAM plaque build-up?) Large sacrifices to the gods of war generally helps a lot too. I'm sure it's well known that the game won't survive the Windows 10 screen-saver in full-screen mode, and frequently does not survive it when in a window or minimized either. Save early and often. ARTWORK There are not enough words to describe how beautiful this game is. The attention to accuracy and detail is incredible. I'm not even going to try. PLAYABILITY As a newbie it took me several attempts to survive the AI on Very Easy. Believe it or not, even on Very Easy, this game is HARD until you play it a few times. The best learning resources I found were some random YouTube videos that gave me the basics of how to control units and so forth, and then... world history. Which is suddenly a LOT more interesting than it was way back in high school. "How do I keep the AI out of my nascent village? Well, let's see what worked back in the day in real life. Hmmm....." I can now pretty regularly win against Very Easy, but still generally get slaughtered on anything stronger. I humbly suggest a clearly-labeled and easy to find Forum section specifically dedicated to new players like me. There are great starter maps (and other brilliant maps that would completely overwhelm newbies). Point them out. Give some simple strategy suggestions (put your defense towers INSIDE your wall, you fool!) Link to a good YouTube channel. Post some demonstration replays of the first phase of the game. That sort of thing. The in-game "Manual" is useful, but... Is there a Wiki? Maybe link to that? I understand how to play, but (just for example) I don't yet "get" traders, trade routes, and how docks relate to markets. (I'm not looking for an answer to that question per se, just pointing out that it's one of many things that ideally would be easier to look up.) Formations are obviously still a work in progress but they look fun. You can put boats in formation but they get REALLY confused. The few bugs/oddities/issues that I've run into I won't list in detail here. They are minor. SUGGESTIONS I want to build roads that make people move faster (my own and my opponents). I want Roman roads to be better than those of other cultures. When I send a unit on a route (with or without multiple waypoints), I want to be able to check back later and see the route where I sent it. I frequently select a group of buildings from which to launch units. I'd like to be able to reselect the same group quickly to recruit more units. (Oh wait, I think maybe I can...) Water as a resource. Irrigation historically was vital. Clean water was essential for advancement. And I have boats, I want to be able to get them to inland cities (maybe). I want to be able to irrigate my fields from nearby water sources and otherwise improve the lives of my citizens by building things like canals, irrigation ditches, viaducts, you get the idea. :-) FINAL THOUGHTS I have a bunch of saved games, 'cause I'm that guy who saves everything. Do you want them? I'm thinking they might be interesting both from the standpoint of "here's what a newbie does", and because after victory, I like to return my troops home in formation, which could give you interesting data on how large formations of mixed unit types are working. So, yeah, so far all in all, LOVE IT. Thank you. Really looking forward to what's to come.

I must agree in part, but for example if you kill a woman carrying 10 wood you will gain 1 of each resource and 10 wood that the woman carried plus your soldiers will gain experience per successful hit resulting with being promoted and having higher stats but lower gathering rate. The only downside is that the unit has to stay near or inside a temple in order to regen health, but this can be avoided with cavalry which has a really high food gathering rate while hunting and it can be used as advantage when massing cavalry and get as many animals in the map in order to have a discrete vision of the map. Consider that it may result hard focusing the already damaged unit when many other are around. Building a stone wall may be a solution but it is aviable in phase 2 and it requires a resource gathered at a slower rate compared to wood when talking about soldier citizens, plus building a wooden wall may be faster but can be risky because you could lack on wood and be forced to train women in order to pump up the wood production and being vulnerable to possible scouts and cavalry raid. Not talking about traders in a "walled" game because it is an entire chapter apart. I agree that using soldier citizens isn't worth for early attacks, thats why cavalry is nice for slowing enemy eco down, since they can be used for corrals when wood is abundant or for hit and run attacks just to annoy enemy and slow down his economy in order to prevent a possible wall. Indeed a game can be won with more strategies: a player could focus on sieges / elephant training, champion spam or building civic centers around enemy lines in order to prevent gim to gather further resources and force him into resign. None force you to booming as said above (constantly training 1 unit at time is more worth in terms of eco growing in my opinion but extremly hard) and the batch size change is an interesting feature since it allows you to optimize phasing, eco growing and units choice. F.e. 2 players could reach different goals because one trained per batches having time to comulate resources while the other constantly trained units and, since the sieges are the most impegnative to fight for units... guess who'll have advantage? Indeed number supremacy is better than quality. In some games some units have different population cost despite the effectiveness thay may have (f.e. in starcraft demolisher costs more than a marine but marines are easier to mass and they counter demolishers despite their price / stats), but this is a too wide discussion since 0 A.D. games haven't a standard population cap and finding a balance or any other concept that fit any population limit is really complex and since as you said "balance can be achieved", a citizen soldiers system can be reasonable.

*sigh* Spilting hairs now? It applies. Here's an extreme case of where the inverse actually has more practical application than the orignal statement would have: Have you heard of a VHS tape? Seen one? Held one in your hands? It's obsolete, and it died a very ugly death. Very few people refused to switch to DVDs in favour of keeping to VHS granted, we could keep both. But the question is, is it a good idea? Not anymore. A dual DVD/VHS is less optimal than a pure DVD player. It doesn't even sell that well as a product. And who wants to hold 500 VHS tapes and 800 DVDs when one could hold 2,300 DVDs on the same amount of shelving instead? A person with a quite different set of priorities. That personal choice is perfectly fine to exercise, but we're discussing a product to "sell". I don't like to see a product with so much potential to end up being mediocre and forgettable just because a diehard minor fanbase refused to give up something in exchange for a better diverse cast to pick from. If it's solely an indie game that you're not planning to distribute more than 25 copies for a circle of friends to enjoy. It's not necessarily a waste of such potential because it never had much to start with as an objective in the first place. "I would say it's more like a café keeping a type of cookie on the menu, even if it's similar to other cookies, and even though shelf space etc limits the number of different types of cookies. Is it a good idea or a bad idea? I'd say it depends on whether or not enough people like having access to that type of cookie. And the same applies to the factions in the game, do enough people like to have that variety in the Hellenistic factions? And is it possible for them to be different enough to make them interesting to play?" @feneur, I concede to your point. Your analogy of a cafe with cookies and its corresponding analysis is absolutely spot-on! I felt that the mild diversity of the Greeks were a waste that could have gone to adding something Chinese with radically different characteristics, strengths, weaknesses. Or even a Viking faction that would serve better than Athenians as a naval-based faction with strong harassment ability. (Although, off the top of my head, I would say Phoenicians would be a more suited civilization in fitting the time period while the Norse/Danish should be set aside for the sequel instead). The Greeks could serve as the "chimera" factions with multiple pathways. Wouldn't that serve as an interesting faction to consider? (Probably hellish to balance out in the gameplay, I'm afraid), but do you see why I feel like this question of whether to uphaul the factions or not should be answered with an yes?

The inverse applies as well: to keep something just because one doesn't want to add something doesn't seems like a good way to go. It's like holding onto a cookie inside a jar and not willing to let it go even though the hand is having a hard time getting out the jar's opening. I am aware of two problems that a developer typically will face during a project's lifetime. Feature creep and lock-in. Eliminating extraneous features during the development process is essential to avoid feature creep which could easily spell doom for a product to fail becoming something above mediocre. Lock-in is the inverse danger of being inflexible with an old feature that tends to plague people who are successful in avoiding feature creep. If someone says that it's possible for the two to hit a developer in the same project, I agree with the possibility. I however view one side as being too inflexible and other as being too flexible for the sake of the project's quality output. So I consider them as being the relative opposites to each other. Those two problems are twin sides of the same coin in the sense of dealing with a feature.

Very well... if it goes down to this... let's do it. 1 & 2. Weak rebuttal. Get something legitimate to shove into your next post please. The onus is on you because I already explained what I consider as poor taste, but you have nothing substantial to counter that. Having 1,800 posts in your name doesn't mean anything to me. To make a counter-point, you need to use an actual point in response to my point. 3. You might want to reread my post in its fullness. Or better yet, reread the second quote you used from my post. The rationale the devs used for closing off suggestions for additional factions suggests that a certain upper limit of how many factions they would like to see in the game has been reached, and it will not be exceeded (presumably). To introduce a higher level of diversity without raising the limit would then require some of the current factions to be sacrificed. I had hoped that my oringial post would've been enough to make that point sufficiently clear. Your response made it obvious that I was sorely mistaken. 4a. Don't you think that having an overlap between the Greek civs (in both stats and appearances) would weaken the uniqueness, making it a bit silly to claim that the Greeks are different from each other just much as the non-Greeks? So to wit, the actual answer is that there IS a degree of lesser uniqueness among the Greeks as opposed to the rest of the factions. You can argue about the magnitude, but not the existence of the variance. The lesser uniqueness (or slightly lesser if you must insist) makes the Greeks a logical target to streamline into a smaller number of distinct factions in order to set aside enough room for a more unique faction from a different background to enter the game as a de jure official faction (not just a modded-in faction). 4b. If a mod adds even more factions while keeping the original ones, the uniqueness becomes even more blurry with or without paths, period. Your point is what? Mine is that sacrifices are necessary to optimize. 5. "Chill out?" Try making your rebuttals less inane and certainly less flat-out rejection "because I say so and I'm such an important member of this forum". It sounds that way to me and in truth, weak counters in a debate is insulting me. On a different footing, I don't mind someone disagreeing if he has a good proper case to make.

To be honest, adding Sucessors while having the 3 separate Greek factions and then announce that "we are not open to further additions" is poor taste. I would call it very poor taste especially when it's barely a large difference between those 5 factions altogether except for "which is more powerful or effective" etc, so forth... My point to the devs: I understand that it's not ideal to continually add more and yet more thereby overcomplicating the inevitable task of rebalancing all of the factions at some point. What should have been done was that the Greek-like factions should have been streamlined into one or two factions to make room for a better idea of diverse factions. The Gaul faction should have been removed from the game (since we have the superior Britons which could stand in for the Celts as a whole with some modifications). Edit: One way to maintain the minor variances among the Greeks/Sucessors... IIRC the Seleucids had an interesting choice in the barracks when I recently had tested out in a quick skirmish, but I remember something along the lines of picking either maintain their native military development or to adopt Roman reforms. It gave the player either a strong Inf/weak cav or vice versa. This would work out for the streamling quite well... when picking to play as the Greek (or more accurately the Hellenic/Hellenistic) the player would've a chance of picking from mutually exclusive options that would've worked as "go as Occidental or Oriental, etc... even Land or Naval". There can be some rationalization for making a mutually exclusive choice. The Celts would be easier to give two options to develop into Britons or Gauls, but it's possible to have 3 to 4 (or maybe 5 but doubtful) paths for the Hellenic/Hellenistic faction. I apologize if my idea seems to be not expressed well, but it's a more viable way of reflecting the diversity in the Ancient times.

ok today we have a heavy bounce of new user by streaming by Mayorcete gaming ( @Revan Shan) Youtube channel. In less than 24 hrs they have... many of them I answer in my own language other invite to Join with us to his troubleshooting. I'm Happy guys to see a Youtuber with over 111,000 subscribers in Spanish .and two videos with 2 hours of gameplay. the game is becoming popular. can be nice call for help, because not all users know how can be contributor. some few minutes an guy asking : how contribute with voices...

Of all the proposals in this thread, the one that strikes me as having the most potential is upgrading individual buildings, and making the upgrades of the civ center very significant, so that they have the feel of advancing to a new phase/age. One of the main reasons I like this proposal is that it increases strategic diversity. For the game to be strategically interesting, there should never be just one right answer. So we should not think of building upgrades as "leveling up" but rather as choosing a direction for research/development. This would provide for a kind of tech tree for buildings. Some examples to illustrate the possibilities: Civ center starts as "village center" and can be upgraded to "town center", then "city center". Barracks start as generic "barracks" which can train basic but poor units (spearman, archer, mounted scout), but once the player has at least one "town center", they can upgrade the "barracks" to either an "infantry barracks" or "archery barracks" or "cavalry barracks", each of which can only produce it's particular style of units, but the units are much better quality than units created at a generic "barracks". This is the generalist -> specialist progression. The player of course has the option to not upgrade a barracks, so as to retain the diversity of the original building, but will have to make do with poor units. Or he can upgrade all his barracks to infantry barracks if he wants to do an infantry-heavy strategy, or he can build several barracks and upgrade some to infantry barracks, some to archery barracks, some to cavalry barracks for a combined-arms approach. "Farmstead" can be a generalist structure that can serve as dropsite for hunting or gathering (but not farming), but once a player has a "town center", the farmstead can also be upgraded to either a "mill", which can only receive berries and farming, or a "corral", which can produce herds and receive meat of any kind. If the player wants both, they will need to make more than one farmstead and upgrade them individually to different things. Historically, the market can be thought of a crossroads where both goods and ideas are traded. "Marketplace" can only be built once a player has a "town center" and can do basic goods trading (as currently implemented). But once a player has at least one "city center", the "marketplace" can be upgraded to either an "emporium" (trade center which specializes economically, giving better exchange rates, available techs for traders, etc.) or to a "debate school" (which specializes in academic knowledge, giving research bonuses across the board, allowing cross-cultural advancements like the Carthaginian embassies, etc.). Building tech tree options can be mutually dependent. For example, the basic generalist "blacksmith" (which can do a little of everything) can be upgraded to a "forge workshop" (which allows even better armor, etc), but only if a player also has an upgraded barracks. If they only have an infantry barracks, the forge workshop will only be able to do infantry upgrades. If they also have an archery barracks, the forge workshop will also be able to do archer upgrades, etc. Or instead of upgrading to a forge workshop, the player can choose to upgrade the "blacksmith" to a "siege workshop" (which can build/upgrade siege weapons), but only if they have at least one "debate school" (the idea being that academic knowledge allows for the math and science knowledge necessary for building siege weapons). The phase/age idea can also be diversified by forking the upgrade tree of the civ center. For example, the "town center" can be upgraded to either a "city center" (which focuses economically and academically, allowing buildings like the debate school and giving increased productivity to villagers working within its radius of influence) or to a "citadel" (which focuses militarily, giving defensive bonuses to nearby villagers and soldiers, but not unlocking key economic/academic techs and buildings). Again, this would provide strategic choices for the player. They can go all military (but their military won't have great diversity and sophistication) or all economic (but with some military disadvantage), or probably develop one town center into a city center and develop forward town centers into citadels, thus benefiting from both sides of the tech tree but at increased cost in time and resources. Obviously all these ideas are just brainstorms and the names and details need great refinement. But the examples illustrate the diversity and interest-factor that could be added to the game. It also opens the door for a more interesting economy side to the game, which several people have noted is a bit lacking. Is this idea worth pursuing? If so, I might work on a basic tech tree proposal. Feedback?

I feel like Stances could be simplified. Specifically the number of existing stances reduced and the remaining stance behavior tweaked and a few other behavior features rolled into stances, rather than being presented as separate features. I think the (selectable) stances should be: Aggressive: Attack anything that comes into sight. Defensive: either attack anything that comes close, or attack and pursue anything that attacks them first. Stand Ground: Do not move, even if attacked. Will attack back if possible, but will remain in position. Removed: Violent: The difference between this and Aggressive is not intuitive and really not all that impactful. Passive: I can't really foresee a player choosing for his units to not fight back when they are being stabbed. 'Stand Ground' is the more useful stance. Other stances that exist, but aren't selectable (aren't shown in the UI because they are more like 'behaviors' than stances): Avoid: For most females who are attacked, skittish animals, etc. Others? These are behaviors/commands that could be either grouped with Stances or grouped near stances: Scout: Clicking this will send the unit scouting around the map automatically (but at reduced armor or some other trade-off for reduced micro). Units will also use the Avoid stance behavior. Conceptually, this used to be seen as a separate feature, but I think it could be grouped near or with stances quite easily (conceptually for the player). Search & Destroy: The unit will roam the map with 'Attack-move' as its motion behavior. Useful in late-game to find those last remaining enemy workers. Conceptually, this used to be seen as a separate feature, but I think it could be grouped near or with stances quite easily (conceptually for the player). I think doing the above would make stances more useful and impactful, while removing a couple of superfluous choices for the player.

Have you tried to play "Savannah Ravine" with the celts ? Celts need a lot of wood (for buildings, especially), and forests are small on this map. As you can't afford to spend all your wood in farms (the enemy attacks very early and often, you need towers and strong troops quickly, and to advance in phase as fast as you can), sheep are definitely the best option. One funny tip for oases maps (where the enemy's economy is focused on one point of the map) : expand fast and surround his territories with yours. Once he has consumed all his resources and sent his last army crash into your walls, you can feel the sadistic pleasure to raze his whole city to the ground with just a few units. Mwahahahahahaha. >:-D As the terrain is not tiled like in old 2D strategy games, rotating a building can help to put it in confined places. It' helpul when you want to defend an acropolis, for example. An other point is that when units come out of a building, they always come out from the same side, and rotating a building can help if you don't want a unit to be stuck between structures (even if I think this behavior should be considered as a bug). As Enrique said : that's what the scouts are for. ...And the outposts. City's line of sight is quite small in this game, so outposts are quickly essential to react quickly enough to repel attacks.

Since 0 A.D. is a historically based real time strategy game, I guess you won't be seing anything like magicians in it - since there is no proven evidence of any magician, wizard or witch and their abilities. We try to keep quite near to real history, as long as gameplay doesn't require otherwise. For fantasy stuff, you'll likely have to wait for TLA

Will terrain be able to be blown up as in Aom with the asteriods?

Collateral damge please! so when you have a heap of archers shoot into a crowd they do damge to units the arrows hit if its not their target. like when you turn collateral damge on in aom It makes archers sooo much more effective! and realistc. allied damage should be optional for offline but online shouldnt be used, unless those settings are made by the host so everyone gets the same settings.