Leaderboard

Right, if we want a game that feels authentic, then battles should primarily be infantry-based, with cavalry on the wings, raiding, and occasionally making crucial attacks that turn the tide. Most "balanced" armies of the time were roughly 85/15, infantry/cavalry. Greek city-states would be something like 95/5, while Persians, who relied heavily on cavalry, might be 75/25. The nomadic civs are definitely the ones that break the mould, with reversed ratios. So, while we shouldn't enforce such ratios, I think we can encourage this kind of gameplay via stats, unit roles, and combat features. Should a Spartan player theoretically be able to win with a massive cavalry rush? Sure! It should be possible, but it should be very hard to pull off, methinks. The opposite may be true for planned nomad civs. Some strats harder than others for each civ. I'd like to see a gameplay like this. Civs good at some strats based on history, but other strats certainly possible to pull off by a skilled player in some situations. Orthodox vs. unorthodox. Of course, it's all harder done than said. Hence, all these mods and balance thread. Just trying to present a theoretical framework for this stuff.

That horse head really needs to be bigger. Even if it's a pony, the head would be bigger. Otherwise, I really really love the unorthodox idle animations you have there. Nicely authentic.

Text should be black, my man.

a22 style. 1 game borg won, i won second and the third one, unfortunately his internet went down. Rly bad luck because i think i could won the last fight of 24cavs vs 17 and 2 slingers with almost no scape, unless he lost some cavs if i remember well. Sometimes happens the network, so sumering very happy for my first victory against borg. Legal guy, he missclicked in the game i won which the rank didnt count, so he made other one and insta loose for that. (if anyone has read until this, it means is very bored) 1.game.zip 2.game.zip 3.game.zip

I think the addition of a roof could be considered part of the upgrade. It's one way to make it easier to distinguish upgraded towers from the ones that are not yet upgraded. [edit] Hmm, actually I might have that backwards. Looks like it's the upgraded tower that doesn't have the roof. Doesn't really bother me either way though.

Yes, i forgot to resize the horse head

I also don't agree with that line of thinking lol.... I believe scorched earth policy were the predominant way of driving out an enemy, especially if that enemy was of a different culture. Capturing is nice, but should never have been made the default! It should be used tactically, to try and take over sensitively placed fortifications. Can we all agree that units trying to capture random enemy housing in the heat of battle is one of the most annoying things in the game. At least if they try to destroy it, there is some damage, even if they fail. If they fail at capturing, nothing happens to the enemy at all... A complete waste of effort...

Cavalry basic Archer Swordsman Spearman

Well to your disappointment it was decided it wouldn't be done because unrealistic. It's perfectly doable right now though. Just adding empty props to everybuilding and using the damage variations would work I think it was to better reflect how good their cavalry was. Don't need to copy everything though 0 A.D. has it's own set of buildings and it's good like that How are spartans going ?

https://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/Mod_Layout has the answers. Adding maps/scenarios.DELETED, maps/skirmishes.DELETED and maps/random.DELETED files (empty, though the content doesn't matter) to your mod should do what you want.

Well, they weren't living siege weapons indeed, but they can most definitely take down simple walls, structures, gates, etc. Still happens today, when wild elephants across India and Africa attack villages, or when they are purposefully used for demolition. @Hannibal_Barca lol, you're right, I stand corrected

While historical background is something we care about, gameplay is favoured over history and in 0 A.D. things have been simplified. Sometimes you just don't want that 100% realistic, historic feel. You want something fun. It's why units can down buildings and many other little features.. I guess that happened often in history too, loot and rape - so must be a good feature purposely implemented

The Romans put Gaul on fire, dismantled Carthage block by block, burned the fields between the Tigris and Euphrates... Major powers often completely wiped out their enemies' ability to sustain themselves, usually by fire and other means of destruction. Territories could only be "peacefully" captured after enemy forces had vacated the place/surrendered, and even then, soldiers would often pillage, loot and destroy just for the fun of it... Which happens very quickly. I find I have to concentrate on not letting soldiers wonder too far from the battlefield because they're chasing women... It's annoying to me, not fun, when soldiers wonder, and get themselves killed, especially in an enemy's fortified area. Why do people think it's ok for a soldier to chase a unit all the way across the map, even in to another enemy's territory, especially when you're still fighting (concentrating on) the original battle. Am I the only one that thinks soldiers should NEVER enter enemy territory unless explicitly told to do so? Perhaps even return to the original position you told them to go to? OMG, the most annoying thing of all... Siege destroying your city walls, and soldiers just standing there trying to "capture" it, and failing miserably, while your walls/fortresses go down. This isn't even a matter of opinion. It's a broken feature that leads to frustration. Modifying the game isn't easy at all, for the vast majority of players that never mod anything at all... The vanilla should be as flawless as possible. Capture is systematically brought up as confusing for new players, and annoying even for experienced players. All that needs to happen is change capture with attack as the default. Why is there such resistance against this logical proposal, that has been proposed so many times before I can't even count??

this may be true with buildings but units trying to capture by default a siege instead of attack it is somehow confusing. modify the game is very easy. The difficult part is to convince others to play with you online with your mod.

Quick update on what's been going on in the discord recently. I've come up with quite a few factions for the game, as well as created a wiki to organize info on the game Currently it's mostly short descriptions of some of the planned playable factions.

Lol, that's something Hollywood actually got right. It would have been used only by the wealthy, but sheer fabrics were definitely produced by both Egyptians and Kushites. They were made from an extremely finely woven linen. Also noteworthy, is that silk was being imported in to Egypt, possibly as early as a 1000BCE, through Persian traders and their predecessors. Kushites also traded heavily with Persians, through Egypt, but I suspect through the Red Sea trade as well.

Awesome that worked out. Next question, can a melee attack be given splash damage? I tried it out but it's giving me xml parse errors.

used the same texture for the helmet

added the faction colour in the arms

I already have a 3d model loader with material support, lighting, a skybox, a 3d camera, basic collision detection, and am getting ready to start on multiplayer.

I would recommend reading the devlog of the developer of the game Banished: http://www.shiningrocksoftware.com/2011-06-01-the-story-so-far/ (and going forward in time), it's got a lot of useful information, both on the process and on more practical decisions as well. If you're going to create a game yourself it's probably relevant to read what it's been like for someone who created it himself (and he finished the game as well, so it's not just "how to get started", but the entire story ). I think the topic is too big for a tutorial though, so learning about the process and what to think about is probably the most relevant

Using the Stylus add-on, I have been able to create an alternative CSS forum theme. It's not perfect, not finished, but at least it features darker font colors and darker buttons/tabs. It might please @GunChleoc (well, I hope). https://pastebin.com/pM09fkvn

For ranged cav discussion, I created this post

Actually the idea is good, it would also increase building capture points. Perhaps one of the purpose of buildings attachments in Sc2 is to unlock more units or to train more units at once trained from that building, another is to research specific technologies in the attached module without being enqueued in the main structure production queue because it is treated like a separate entity. Indeed more civ specific or unti specific technologies available from that module would be nice to emphasize phase 2 from phase 3.

hooray raindrop silos

CC and defense tower, took a turn for the 'military' for the defense tower and plan to do similar for their fortress (fortress should incorporate some tile roofs as well). Harkens back quite a bit though.