Leaderboard

I think if an elephant has no problem flipping a minivan, it wouldn't have any problems flipping a wooden battering ram, and completely destroy it in the process. These are the strongest land animals around. As for gates, unless you put pikes on them, elephants can knock them down...

Disregard the link above, that is outdated information (last updated more than a decade ago...). https://trac.wildfiregames.com/browser/ps/trunk/binaries/data/mods/public/simulation/components/Armour.js#L46 If you want to know exactly. Damage strength * 0.9^armour_strength And the whole thing possibly multiplied by some multiplier (from damage bonuses, etc).

I would very much like to see you figure this out, tower mounted siege sounds awesome. I made an attempt with the unicorns in Ponies Ascendant but it never got off the ground.

i always wondered why those existed and now I know and that's real cool

https://www.gog.com/game/oddworld_abes_oddysee - Offer ends in 42 hours

Another day, another stream! 0AD stream will be starting now! Hope you guys can tune in and enjoy some more quality multiplayer games. https://www.twitch.tv/chaffcommandercoffey

Nor does or did the ram can kill elephants in historic battle? Since most decent players ban walls why don't we increase the cost of building walls as well as building time of these walls to be more realistic for use in SP? I think in real battles rams are effectively used once enemies (range)are cleared from sorrounding walls and gates so that manned rams can do their purpose. if you consider all available and playable mods each has its own good feature/s that could really be nice to change the meta. 1. Skirm cavs accuracy changed by user1 is good. Buff the melee cavs attack rate between 2.5 to 2 secs and it's HP nerf between 10 to 20. 2. Use a corral tech prerequisite to train hunters (non or less effective combatants but high carry capacity ) from CC but can be upgraded using tech and combat cavalries (can't hunt) from barracks or stable(more realistic). Numbers limited per Phase or per barracks/stable(2 buildings max per CC/1 for colony) built. 2. Buff attack rate for anti cavalry infantry a bit faster than any melee cavalry. TBH Idk how you arrive at the rating 1.5 x against. 3. Requiring metal on units using metal to fight.

Why shouldn't an elephant be capable of killing a bunch of rams?

The Romans had a saying, "The ram has touched the wall." Meaning, that the inhabitants of a city or town have until the ram touching the wall to surrender, else once an assault has begun you are completely at the mercy of the besiegers. There are some things that I've always found weird that have been mentioned here: 1. Battering Rams killing infantry dudes in one blow. lololol. Why do battering rams attack soldiers at all? They should be 100% for destroying buildings, not mowing through formations of troops. 2. I think War Elephant attack should be rebalanced to be something like 60 hack, 40 crush. They still can be used against buildings, but are really much better against units. Give both a bonus vs. gates.

Since this thread has gone off-topic, I might as well use the opportunity to complain about two other things: War elephants were *not* living siege weapons. (Have you have ever seen an elephant charging head on at a large stone wall? Exactly!) Elephantry had many functions: prestige, intimidation, high and relatively safe look-out posts for generals, platforms for archers to shoot arrows from (walking towers), and protecting vulnerable infantry against cavalry charges and horse archers (horses won't charge directly at elephants and arrows had little to none effect against war elephants); direct elephant charges at infantry formations were risky and rare. (Elephants were extremely expensive and hard to replace, so generals were reluctant to waste them in the melee.) The thing which bothers me most are those free bonuses heaped upon the phase advances (e.g. +10% health for citizen soldiers per age). If anything, they should be the other way around. Hunters, herders, farmers, peasents, and other villagers were valued as troops; they were used to enduring hardships, working in the heat and sun, shortages of food and water, and last but not least, they were eager to defend the countryside, upon which their livelihoods depend. Artisans, craftsmen, merchants, and other city-dwellers, on the other hand, were not interested in fighting for what was beyond the city walls; moreover, all sources agree they were unfit and poor fighters. Furthermore, cities are a notoriously unhealthy place to live, with a significant lower life expectancy, and up until c. 1900 AD, cities required a constant influx of people because mortality always exceeded birth rates. 0 A.D. flatly contradicts reality here, so this was one of the first things I changed in my mod (0abc).

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.

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...

Hmmm, I came across a topic like that a long while ago. I can't say I agree with the reasoning... How many times in history did a swordsmen hack a stone or solid wooden building in to the ground? The answer is never... Swords and spears can't destroy a sturdy structure. How many times have sturdy buildings been destroyed by fire? All the time! Still happens all the time in conflicts around the world today... Fire is the only reliable way to destroy buildings without siege-equipment. Hitting a solid structure with a sharpened stick is a bit silly. Even "stone" buildings like castles are predominantly destroyed by fire, because of the vast amounts of wood that are used in the construction of stone structures (stairways, roofs, supporting beams, scaffolds, stores of wood and other flammable materials like fabrics, barrels, wooden chests, furnitures, oil... Even stone itself tends to crack under extreme heat.

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.

All the modifies done by the blacksmith are visible in the tooltips of the unit ( you have to click on the shield icon under their portrait in the middle panel ). Anyway to be sure to display all the infos i suggest you to go in the Game Options and enable the checkbox Detailed Tooltips. About the women aura:

It does appear like lightdm/SDDM/whatever starts dbus, while just using startx/xinit doesn't do that. And for some reason something (driver/library/etc) uses dbus, which runs into some issue.

I'm not sure why I didn't think to try this before, but I decided to create a new user to try to run it there, and it works. Also, on a hunch I logged out of XFCE, stopped the lightdm service, and started the X server with "startxfce4" in my ~/.xinitrc, and it worked, so it might have something to do with lightdm. Update: Ok, so I tried it with SDDM, and it still won't start. I'm going to try to build it from source and use gdm to see if I can find some useful information.

Because give Lag and needs a rework.

Yes, you can cycle through multiple markets, but afaik, it doesn't give you extra gain. Here's the formula used: http://trac.wildfiregames.com/browser/ps/trunk/binaries/data/mods/public/simulation/helpers/TraderGain.js So it depends on the square of the straight-line distance, with some bonuses like for trading with a foreign market. It is planned however to also take into account the number of markets you pass.