Leaderboard

@elexis: Certainly, it's exactly what I plan to do. Rmgen has a lot of fine and useful features. No need to rewrite them. @FeXoR Should be a nice "last chance fall down" if other attempts fail. Thanks... @Servo Thanks for your interest, but there is no random map script playable for now. You'll have to wait a little. I have still a lot of work ahead. Sorry...

The vision range thing has been in DE for months and months so yeah I approve. The major benefit imho is that it makes units easier to control. Fewer things come into view so units chase after fewer things that stray into view.

Hi everyone... Does this remind you something ? Of course, it's Caledonian Meadows shamefully hacked. I replaced here map generation with my own code, and... Maybe you can even play it... It's your fault, you all ! If you were not urging me like that... That's right. tProgress and tRough rule the noise factor attenuation. The problem is you don't need the same noise at large scale and details: you may want high but very smooth mountains, or a rather flat plain with very chaotic terrain. I think I can't deny anymore... Friendly, CalMeadowsHacked.zip

I think that as long as the game isn't a simulator, playing with vision ranges makes game interesting especially when lower vision ranges make the exploration of the map more challenging and despite the unexplored map may feel claustrophobic, once the map is explored having low vision range open the door to more strategies like outflanks and expansion near the opponent territory influence. Also outposts are barely used when units have higher vision range in comparison ( 1 idle cavalry unit on the map gives higher vision range than a garrisoned outpost without vision range extension tech ). Anyway i strongly agree about modify vision range with elevation. I can't get the point of decreasing units movement speed though.

I think a lay-person would think so about Sparta, but that's almost a 180 from the reality: Sparta was a very very conservative, agrarian society. The city of Sparta itself was average in size at best. It's hard to even call Sparta a unified city, when in actually it was a collection of smaller villages which banded together to make a polis. Think of Rome in its very early period, where a village stood on each of its hills and only later unified into one polity. Same with Sparta. Most of its diplomacy with other Greek states involved efforts in maintaining the status quo or by building defensive alliances. During most of the Peloponnesian Wars against Athens, Sparta espoused a defensive strategy, while Athens used a hybrid defensive/hit and run strategy, with wildly aggressive risky campaigns against Sparta's allies which usually ended in disaster for Athens, lol. True, Sparta would besiege the city of Athens every Summer with a force of hoplites, but this force was always too small to actually take the city itself. They never actually attacked the city's defenses and instead burnt crops and farms around Attica. At one point, Sparta built a fortress at a port in Attica. To attack Athens' shipping lanes? Nah, to suck away Athens' slave population. Sparta was very passive-aggressive whenever they went "aggressive." The largest hoplite battle of the war was a strategically defensive measure on Sparta's part and another wildly aggressive move by Athens and her allies. As hinted at previously, this ended in disaster for Athens. lol Sparta hated venturing out of the Peloponnese. During the Greco-Persian War, it took a large amount of haranguing from other city-states to get Sparta to move North and attack the Persians at Plataea. As an example, Athens had to threaten to move its entire population to Magna Grecia in Italy and found a new city if the Spartans didn't @#$%ing get off their asses and assist the Greek alliance. Yeah, Sparta should be this oddly defensive, agrarian civ. I say oddly, because it didn't have a city wall into well into its decline. I think a usurper actually built the first city wall in Sparta. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. At any rate, it was into the Macedonian Age before Sparta built its own walls and that was only because its system of defensive alliances had crumbled and its military system was in shambles. So, yeah, in the game the Spartans should have no walls and somehow have super strong soldiers but only defensively. Hard to emulate this in the game with the current mechanics. I could see Sparta getting a super-uber bonus when fighting in its native territory, maybe easiest to implement with building areas, but getting maybe a slight nerf when fighting in enemy territory. So, in a team match, the Sparta player would play defense, and then provide the extra manpower in a crucially-timed team-based push.

After thinking about it for a bit and talking to the people who are going to be helping me with the mod, yeah, I think I am leaning more towards an original setting over a copyrighted one.

Just write some js code. I think @Lion.Kanzen wanted to do something similar some time ago.

Sorry for the off-topic. Maybe split. I.m seeing like the decision of choosing one heroe giving some kind of little bonus since the start of the game, encouraging specific strategies.

While you have good evidence and the argument is sound, I would personally see it a different ways. First, Sparta was not unique in being formerly a collection of smaller villages that banded together. That is typically the way that ancient urbanisation occurred in Greece and Etruria. Considering its centralised government, it was just about as unified as cities like Syracuse or Athens. While Sparta did not offer the most aggressive policy in the during the Persian Wars, its habits changed following the Peloponnesian Wars. Much of the time it kept itself busy enforcing oligarchic ideologies on city-states and even heading campaigns against Persia. Definitely this changed following the Battle of Leuctra, but they even had their shot at rising to power through the work of Cleomenes III... which was promptly crushed. Regardless, my hope is for an open-ended design of how players can adapt their play-styles. Definitely there is a focus to Sparta; it is an infantry-centric civilisation, but my hope is that despite that fact, it would remain a potent force that does not always necessitate a passive strategy.

Would be useful for tech choosing between more than 2 options. Also, with this way it could be implemented a mercenary decision design in Carthago, choosing alliances, instead of building only 2 embassies.

I love the sharp cliffs but I can't find in the code where they come from and why they don't show up in setBaseTerrainDiamondSquare generated heightmaps While over all your approach looks similar to Caledonian Meadows I'd love you to try and find your own way of creating a playable map from this beautiful and realistic terrain EDIT: Reading through the code a bit more the cliffs seam to come from "tProgress" specifying that finer details keep a high offset until the threshold? (I'd make this one an argument BTW). And you recalculate the mountains to be rougher in the tour, very nice! You also use e.g. some height limits from Caledonian Meadows so I guess you have roughly read through it already

That would be really usefull for regicide.

@Sundiata Since we can't order archers to attack zones, it would became really complex to use them in dense forest areas. While in reality they could just shoot in the sky and let the arrow drop.

27. For programmers you don't have to formulate an official application thread in the correct subforum but you can if you want. Here is it how it goes. You start making diffs for tickets you can find on trac (trac.wildifiregames.com) or create your own for instance here it could be Cleanup of the Aura Files Names (we avoid big cleanups because it's a pain to review so split it by thematic) And then you upload that diff to Phabricator (code.wildfiregames.com) and wait for review. Once it's accepted it will be added to the game. Once you have made enough contributions you might be offered a position.

I have my inspirations, some original ideas too. Will likely draw most of my inspiration from Warcraft, Warhammer, and Undying Nephalim's Hyrule Conquest canon. All three of which I am infinitely more familiar with than GoT and Conan lol. But we can talk about ideas all day, actually doing it is a different story altogether. I'm still modelling donuts and coffee mugs trying to learn to use Blender

All cavalry now have 50 more hp than infantry, thus in late game civs with no archer cavalry will have more chances to stand to their great range and hp. While skirmish cavalry are an "upgraded" version of skirmishers with more hp, damage, range and mobility, Spear cavalry should be strong against ALL other cavalry only but less effective against infantry, matter of fact sword cavalry is much stronger against infantry units as intended. Decresing their attack rate will make them stronger vs infantry too.. I should try different combinations of attack values to fit with 2.5 to achieve the same result they could have already. Also notice that in Vanilla version cavalry spear weirdly have less attack range than sword cavalry, matter of fact in this mod Spear cavalry has more attack range and their its seem more natural thus realistic. Actually I'll consider to add 10 hp to skirmish cavalry, but what struggle me is that the strength of javelin cavalry will be too high in late game ( they gain more hp per phase up ) despite their attack max range reduction. ( 10 hp isn't a big change though ) I recall testing cavalry and actually spear cav seemed to win against skirmish cavalry, but if those 2 type of cavalry can be somehow "equal" it will still be an improvement. I am still of the opinion to have spear cav as counter of other cavalry. I will make some tests though. That's what I noticed. By having barracks as prerequisite to train cavalry, we can have diversification of civs already from the first minutes because of their barracks costs! The idea is to allow some civs to rush slightly faster than others because of their barracks cost: e.g. Celtic barracks cost 300 wood and build faster than any other civ, this means that they will be able to build barracks asap ( even at start of the game! ) and train cavalry to raid, on the other hands they will have to use all their wood and the rush will be delayed a bit more, while other civs have the barracks cost splitted between wood and stone but they build bit slower than celtics giving the chance to ANY civ to defend against a possible cavalry rush. E.i. Persian cavalry stable is the prerequisite for persians to train cavalry and its stone cost makes rushes easier to perform, while Roman cavalry is too easy to train because roman barracks cost 100 wood and 200 stone making the spear cav rush much easier than skirmishers. In @wowgetoffyourcellphone Delenda Esta mod all barracks cost stone and that's something i really liked, and i kinda share the opinion that all barracks should have at least a part of their stone cost. This may make sense. Seems like units in Aggressive Stance won't attack units further than their vision range, matter of fact more than often war dogs stay idles on the battleground and I guess it is because of their short vision range. What i have done in this mod is to decrease all infantry units vision range from 80 to 40, cavalry units vision range to 50 and archers max range from 72 to 60. In this way they will be able to shoot at max distance only in phase 3 ( because citizen soldiers gain +10 vision range at every phase) making the usage of outposts more tactic in order to help archers into having higher range at early phase. Still I am not sure if i should change spread according to the new max range and let units aim be less accurate though.

24. How large are the map size tiles? 26. Is it possible to have more than one technology requirement to enable an unit? 27. Personally I appreciate the support and advice I've received here on the forums, and I'd like to do something back. Is it possible to make some minor contributions to the official game? If I were given permission to edit the files, something I could and would like to do is applying a more systematic approach to the naming scheme of shared researches, special technologies, and civilization bonuses, because currently it seems rather haphazard and could be improved, similar to how it's done with team bonuses and auras. I do have some experience with programming (e.g. C++, python, R), mark-up (LaTeX, XML), and version control (git) languages, but not with trac; however, I believe I could learn how to use it, with a proper introduction.

EDIT: Strange, it seems to be working for my other faction (Hylians). It plays the theme then randomizes the music. For the Gerudo though it just loops the first track. I wonder what might be going on. EDIT again: Very weird, I changed the names of some music files and it seems to be working for both factions. I wonder if perhaps there might have been something wrong with the .ogg file. Oh well, at least it works now.

Yes, i think we all agree on reducing vision ranges. I had also an attempt already at https://code.wildfiregames.com/D76 But from these trials, i think that: - we should change ranges of range attack accordingly (except maybe for catapult, no units would have range exceeding vision at that time) - we may have to decrease a bit walkspeed, otherwise reducing their ranges will make ranged units more vulnerable And i now believe it would be much better to first start with a "cleanup patch" which would not change any values, but replace them all using relative templates: choose a basic Vision and RangedAttack Range (possibly different for Units and Structure, i don't know) and make all changes in the templates relative to it. Then we (or mods) can easily play with different settings and understand the changes, while currently everything is dispersed in tenth of templates files.

He has an excellent commentary. Shame about the production value though. Makes the game look super ugly.

Some screenshots of the animation's test's, still need to do some adjustment's.

This one best fixes that the game can have, so you put more effort to exploring. and one thing I ever say... more technologies, takes eesition to improved the faction is almost important as how you use military tactics. so this affects the meta. Is incredible, but the good things are ever in the details.

Nice thread! Any random realistic modded map that can be downloaded and playable? I dont mind unbalanced map especially if playable in DE mechanics since it will be easier to gather resources but preserving the initial beauty of your main base. I prefer maps like Danubius, Alphine Valleys or Corinthian Istmus or any maps with heavy on Gaia units and mercenaries. Lag is not my concern too coz I can play up to the slowest speed possible.

I'd go for this. In heightmap rectangularSmoothToHeight() would do the trick. I at least can't tell the shape of the smoothing (rectangle) with the default window function (Paraboloid). The transition is quite smooth and leaves the general terrain shape intact. With a strength of 0.5 to 0.8 it should still create a suitable base.

Oh I like unconventional maps with chokepoints too (contrary to many lobby players). Using existing rmgen calls on top of your library was just an idea to improve the results of maps, not to replace your lib.

I see where you're coming from, but I think it would be inaccurate to what I'm actually going for. Most of what has been done so far is talking about ideas. Seeing as I'm very new to modding, it could be a while before we see any results (I'm a really bad procrastinator ) As for the legal issues, I'm not very concerned. I'm surprised more people are kicking up a fuss about this mod than they are about Hyrule Conquest. Nintendo is pretty infamous for rabidly moving to shut down anyone who dares come close to their IP. From what I've seen, Blizzard isn't as strict. The idea of making my own IP is intriguing, however. I'll think about it.

I have another question. I've made a mock-up of a feature I really want to include in my game: The idea is that at the start of a match it shows four heroes to choose from that unlock specific units and technologies. Is there anyway this sort of feature is currently possible or a way I could go about implementing it?

> I'll probably try disabling the hardware detection completely, but at least to me this doesn't sound like a real solution You can write a bugreport linking to this topic at https://trac.wildfiregames.com/, but as long as you're the only one affected and noone cares about the performance database, killing bugged useless code sounds perfectly fine to me.

Main Menu -> Tools & Options -> Settings (or was it called Options?). Or copying stuff from default.cfg to user.cfg at wiki/GameDataPaths if you're into that. But mostly try to disable GLSL. If that doesn't already solve it, I'd rather investigate where it crashes. It should be possible to debug pyrogenesis.exe in Visual Studio (wiki/Debugging), so that if it crashes, it would show you the line where it does. From that we can decide what it probably wants. If that site is too lengthy and if debugging over there isn't straight forward, Stan might answer which buttons to push. About numa, there is numa.h: The more relevant question is how it's used. One could check using svn blame or git blame which commits introduced these lines to find some context or check the code. I guess its only used for the performance database. It's only relevant if it has something to do with the crash, so just check the crash.

I'd also favor a general vision range reduction and increase with age 1 and 2 (plus a technology in age 1 to increase the vision range). Hannibal was not decided yet. @mimo had similar plans right? So perhaps we can get Grugnas to create said patch(es) for Alpha 23 and start agreeing on vision ranges based on screenshots and reviewable patches (that don't have any other balance changes)?

What do you think about renaming this topic to something like "Who would like a fantasy mod?" There isn't a clear cut border between which posts belong to a Warcraft mod discussion and which belong to a more generic discussion, and seeing as there aren't any details/work done on the mod already I think it's probably better that way I would suggest staying away from specific intellectual property though; it's really easy to break the law there. Better to do some generic fantasy mod Orcs or elves or whatever general things can't be copyrighted after all =)

Focussing on the historical uniqueness of each civ is the perfect way of diversifying the factions. Every faction has their own character/culture/history, and using this in terms of architecture, units and technologies offers so much potential for gameplay and aesthetics.

I love the game though the current mechanics make the game quite one/two dimensional and imo really needs overhaul. Since I mostly enjoy single player mode I have no problem adapting to anything except some realistic mechanics and animations. When it comes to multiplayer problems arise not because the game is not playable but rather players preferences. But if the development teams mindset is already set on a very specific mechanics then it's really hard. Though suggestions can change some views but it's really hard because individually they are also like us maybe(gamers). The development imo should have started with the factions and what strength this faction should have historically then give them bonus. This bonus is very important in the very early stages of the game and must be useful and felt between 1st and 2nd phase. If they have unit strengths give them tweaks later. Faction should be classified as either economic, military, defensive, and/or aggressive. For Spartans I don't even know their history except some on movies but I would classify them as aggressive and military and give them more loot bonus.

Oooh, cheers very much for posting my video here! I was going to say hello to all the 0AD community again now that I'm getting back into it with Alpha22, but I suppose this is as good as anything! I look forward to doing a whole load of games for you guys here & getting them on youtube. Soon enough I'll also be setting up my twitch stream for when I get back into the multiplayer. So keep an eye out! Well done to all the devs for their work on the new alpha, the more I check it out and play games, the better it gets! It's awesome, really. ^^

To report the exact messages, open interestinglog.html in your web browser and copy the contents into your bug report. The location of the logs varies by OS, see GameDataPaths. A screenshot of the message is less desirable as compression and scaling artifacts obscure the text, and you may not see all the errors. It's very useful if you can remember the steps to reproduce the error.

after checking a lot of angles and following the bow direction, i found that this is the most suitable animation for the arrow fire at 90 degrees the bow, start clipping all the path to the pose with the horse, or the arrow, clipping the head.

i'm testing with 2 quivers positions ranger attack 3 the basics Hip right Back Hip left 2 experimental quiver reverse hip arrow already on hand for a better example Arrows on hand quiver reversed hip

If you want, you have Wesnoth and The 9 Age as open source lores of fantasy.

I've investigated the stacktrace further and now know less than before. Looking at the revision log of apic.cpp, Janwas was probably the only one who knew what this code does exactly (and N/A). The line calling from the windows code into the unix code was added by r8951 with the commit message " Add some more stuff to hwdetect, because there can never be too much". Maybe we have found an exception to the rule So you could try to delete this one line from the stacktrace that induces the crash (i.e source/ps/GameSetup/HWDetect.cpp 313) and compile the game with a free edition of Visual Studio 2013, see BuildInstructions. scriptInterface.SetProperty(settings, "numa_numnodes", (u32)numa_NumNodes()); I don't see anything using that numa_numnodes property (perhaps the hardware database server won't like that property being missing, but that'd be unrelated). Alternatively, the entire hardware detection code could be cut off by adding a "return;" as the first statement in RunHardwareDetection(). As far as I know, disabling the hardware detection code won't reduce your ability to play (you might have to test which graphics settings work with your graphics card and driver at worst).

I'd give skirmishers a bonus vs. ranged cavalry

Hi FeXor Thanks for your interest and appreciation. I created here a new topic to stop polluting your thread. Friendly,