Leaderboard

I posted a video in Enrique's Topic. but here is another from Metatron channel.

Off topic: Banner carrier units should've in game IMHO.

Easily mass producing units or building structures will always remain less strategic. It might be ok if the mechanics is like BFME. But we want this game to be more realistic! Building CC too far or outside the border makes the game more ugly imo. Even if it’s been done by the ancient civs but if you apply it to the game it becomes messy. It will always results to fast click winners. I’ve posted same issue about structure building too close to enemy borders especially static towers/forts that fires projectiles towards enemy structures as really ruining the game. The game pace needs to slow down. Meaning impose some prohibitive measure of spamming units/structures. Stronghold was once my favorite game but because it’s so easy to produce units it becomes so boring.

Reduce food gathering rates and increase unit train time. Slow down the start of the match. For the barracks problem, if anything you want the batch training bonus to be high, so you don't need to build so many barracks to spam train. You can also make military buildings cost more for each one you build. I do this in DE with Cult Statues, tho I do it with auras, kinda hacky.

I got the idea of change the way the roman army look (animation speaking) and make it more refinated, more like an disciplinated army. The actual legionary use Ready variant and kinda look weird to me being them one of the most important unit of the Roman empire. My plan is to only change Walk/Idle (Maybe run?) with this: Walk: Sword on the sheath Idle: Not done yet but something like this Actual legionary animations

Also i couldn't avoid look that some weapons have variants with some blood MAYBE with a carefull look it could be changed to weapons whitout blood while idle and use the bloody variant while in combat "<variant name="idle" frequency="1">" <prop actor="props/units/weapons/WEAPON CLEAN.xml" attachpoint="weapon_R"/> "<variant name="Attack_Melee" frequency="1">" <prop actor="props/units/weapons/WEAPON BLOOD.xml" attachpoint="weapon_R"/>

Celt is a vague term though. When I went to the British Museum they actually said the term was used for basically everything from gaul to Britain's while that made a lot of different peoples.

I think i should add properly a sheath.

Yeah, that's probably a part of it. Why can't we just have villagers as the main eco unit? Citizen soldiers are still cool, especially for expanding and quick (military) construction in new territory. But they should be terrible at gathering.. I get the impression that a lot of people misunderstand what the term "citizen" means in a Hellenic context (which is ultimately where the citizen soldier concept was derived from, I believe). Citizens weren't the ordinary labour force. Far from it, they were an elite. The aristocracy, quite literally. And they were outnumbered significantly by the non-citizens/local population/farmers/slaves. It shouldn't be compared with todays concept of national citizenship. I just think the word citizen has been misinterpreted.

A better ready stance

Interesting thread.. Ok, I can agree with that to an extent. But late game sweeping up actions get tedious when "defeated" enemies keep creeping back in to the game. Especially if they have huge stockpiles of banked resources. Hehehe, I feel like we could spend an entire thread discussing this I'd argue that the imperial civilisations in the game, although pre-industrial, distinguished themselves from their weaker neighbours through near-industrial levels of production. Roman legions or the Macedonian Phalanx were prime-examples of ancient mass production. Economy of scale allowed them to equip most of their soldiers with quality weapons/equipment/armaments. The ever expanding urbanism allowed a much greater social stratification which also sustained the same educated classes necessary to develop and maintain technologies, like siege-machines. Didn't small but efficient Macedon acquire it's grain form vast, far flung greek colonies? I agree that larger territories are harder to control though. But that also drags out the game if there's no (significant) advantage to controlling such a large area, like being able to recruit more people at the same time. thats really true, you'd need all wood technologies and there are better ways to invest wood into like armor techonologies ( at this point number differences would be less relevant ). Also, as said, a big territory is not easy to defend since a smart opponent could simply stick around and capture your barracks. Having a rock-solid eco or not doesn't stop people from doing this. Can we please agree that building 10 or 20 barracks is totally ridiculous, ugly, and undesirable and not how barracks are intended to be used. 1 barrack should train a battalion of 20 units. Not 20 barracks producing 1 unit each (and game mechanics should be geared towards this). How can you even argue with this? That's really beyond me. It's counterintuitive, in-organic, unnatural and ugly. It's a cheap trick, that's all.

Why not, they are very easy to make being something famous and just some idles/walking animations with shield raised the most hard to do is start from 0 like the siege weapons animations or the horse.

Idle

But, it doesn't really make sense for Gaul either. Gaul had an aristocracy of Kings and princes, and noblemen and such. They had warrior classes. Commoners weren't ordinarily armed. Commoners were a tightly controlled labour force. Their society was a lot more stratified than contemporary depictions give them credit for. The Belgae even had a senate. It's not even certain if Celtic was the language spoken by the peasant masses, or if it was an elite language only spoken by the Celtic overlords. It's been brought up a lot of times, that Gauls models indeed represent village structures, instead of using the architecture of the iconic celtic oppida. It still kind of looks like Asterix and Obelix, instead of Bibracte, Heuneburg or Entremont, and we can only imagine Alesia and Gergovia, and there are many, many more sites like those.

I believe Hellenistic factions were supposed to have slaves instead. (The unit exists at least) It does make sense to me for civs like Gauls. We are not making buildings like those of Lutèce more like some of a small village were you'd better know how to fight if you'd want to have chances for survival. Women did also play a way bigger role before Roman conquest.

In the latest game, I faced an opponent (Persians) with 23 corals, 17 stables and 16 houses..... And this has become normal... It's a broken mechanic, people.. When your army dies it should die, not resurrect itself to full strength in 30 sec flat. There's no strategy, only who can replace their losses as quickly as possible. But I won't bring it up again if people think 23 corals, 17 stables and 16 houses is a good ratio. I honestly feel like I'm fighting a conveyor belt. Ford would be proud.

0abc updated, changes include amongst other things: corrals can be deleted again (there was a typo: "2x4" instead of "4x2") all technology research times are multiplied by 1.5 (to make the game slower paced) all unit training times are multiplied by 2.0 (to encourage keeping your units alive) all military buildings each consume 1 food per 5 seconds (to make barracks spamming more costly) this negative resource trickle rate can result in getting a negative food stockpile (I think it's interesting enough to try it out, although I might change it later) changed silver trickle rates: wonders: 2 silver per 1 second (and no other resources) palaces: 1 silver per 1 second catafalques: 1 silver per 2 seconds more structure auras: 15 m from houses: females +1 crush, hack, and pierce armour 20 m from corrals: workers +15% food.meat gather rate 30 m from farmsteads: workers +10% food.grain gather rate 40 m from storehouses: workers +5% wood.tree gather rate 60 m from rotary mills: workers +20% food.grain gather rate 100 m, 75 m, 50 m, 25 m from centres: civic structures +10% capture points, workers +5% build speed, -5% resource gather speed, +1% movement speed these bonuses combine (so if a worker is within 25 m of a centre, i.e. practically adjacent, it builds at 121.55% and gathers at 81.45%) but do not stack (a worker within 100 m of three centres gets the 100 m aura only once) finally separated builders from workers: females can gather, but can no longer build citizen soldiers can both gather and build mercenary soldiers can no longer gather, but can build champion soldiers can neither gather, nor build many other tweaks I did longer ago and have partially forgotten by now Have a look at the 0abc-readme.pdf for more detailed information.

Diagnosis from afar is going to be tricky - we don't have access to your current changes to see what's what. However... WARNING: JavaScript warning: gui/structree/helper.js line 177 reference to undefined property g_ParsedData.phaseList[0] For some reason, the structree is struggling to build the list of phases for the zora civ. Without seeing your templates, it's hard to work out why, but it's possible there's a problem with how the structree is parsing tech superseding. (Also this may have already been resolved for Alpha-23, as there has been an update to that part of the code since the release of A22.) WARNING: The "Town Phase" technology is not researchable in any structure buildable by the zora civilisation, but is required by something that this civ can research, train or build!</p> WARNING: The "City Phase" technology is not researchable in any structure buildable by the zora civilisation, but is required by something that this civ can research, train or build!</p> Custom phase technologies for the zora? Might be something either isn't using them, or pointing to the phase techs of another civ. Could also be caused by a unit, structure, or technology shared between two civs, one with custom phase techs and one without. Or it may be some other reason I can't diagnose/think of currently. ERROR: JavaScript error: gui/structree/helper.js line 170 ReferenceError: techName is not defined This error is caused by a typo in the structree itself in Alpha-22, since fixed for Alpha-23. (The line in question should refer to `phaseName`, not `techName`). Even corrected, it is likely that a Warning or Error would still be issued here, as an additional consequence of the cause of the first Warning above.

Well I'm getting a very strange error when I try to look at the Zora Techtree in game: Every unit, building, and tech for their faction works perfectly, there's nothing that's not showing up and both the town and city phase can be researched at their civil center.

Actually, @Alexandermb, I think Testudo animations would be good to work on too. They currently have none. And then some intrepid programmer can code formation bonuses. Right now, all formations can do is alter movement rates. Not sure why whoever it was stopped there.

That running animation (charge) it looks pretty good to watch in 0 ad.

This scene shows many potentially ton animate. testudo, running, charging.

With increased training times you disincentivize the spam training method. Either increase the batch train bonus or add techs which improve it can incentivize batchtraining.

When I click on the links: Sorry, there is a problem The page you are trying to access is not available for your account. Error code: 2C171/1

I actually really like the batch training benefit as it rewards those who save up and think big. I think all training times just need to be increased for a more realistic gameplay. People will actually care about the well-being of their soldiers rather than treating them like disposable consumption articles. It would also make it much more difficult to defend your base if you don't have a defensive army at your disposal. As mentioned this would probably increase barrack-spam, which is why tying the amount of barracks to the amount of CC's is totally logical. That's the point. The better player wins. Why would the slow guy win? Or why would the guy suffering from crippling invasions win? If you play better, you win harder... Once you've reach critical mass, only an enemy alliance should be able to take you on. No, that's the point, why would the loosing player (A) have an advantages over the winning player? Which is the case now, because controlling huge territory really isn't a good strategy right now. If you loose you loose, not constantly hiding in little corners trying to creep back in to the game when the enemy already controls 90% of the map... That's counterintuitive and inorganic. Scale-advantages suggest it should become cheaper to build barracks if you've already built 10 of them (expertise/experience and such), economy 101.

This would favour players who control lots of territory (and already have the advantages of resources and space), penalize players who're slow to expand, as well as make it harder for players who're under attack, have lost a centre or two, and are now trying to rebuild their army. Let's assume a tiny two-player map; both players have two centres each, player A loses one to player B, the map is too small to build a new one, and suddenly B can produce soldiers three times as quickly. Do you really think A would still have a reasonable chance of winning? Instead of limiting the numbers of barracks, maybe buildings could ramp up in cost, making each subsequent structure cost e.g. 20% more than the previous? So your fifth barracks would cost 207%, the tenth 516%; the total sum of the first five barracks is 644%, the first ten cost 2496% together; average cost of first five is 129%, average of first ten is 250%. A farming household can be run with much less corruption and waste than a large empire. It works great in RoN (which also had resource income limits). Or simply assign a population cost to barracks.

The name of the bonus doesn't really matter (if it's the same the child's overrides the parent's, if it's different both apply). The <bonuses> element has to be put inside an attack, which can be capture, melee, ranged, or slaughter, e.g.: <Attack> <Melee> <Bonuses> <Cavalry> <Classes>Cavalry Ranged</Classes> <Multiplier>1.5</Multiplier> </Cavalry> <Elephantry> <Classes>Elephant</Classes> <Multiplier>0.5</Multiplier> </Elephantry> </Bonuses> <MaxRange>6</MaxRange> <Pierce>8</Pierce> <PrepareTime>750</PrepareTime> <PreferredClasses datatype="tokens">Human</PreferredClasses> <RepeatTime>1000</RepeatTime> </Melee> </Attack> To do that you have to manually add it to the tooltip, e.g.: <Identity> <GenericName>Melee Camel</GenericName> <Tooltip>Counters: 1.5× vs Ranged Cavalry. Penalties: 0.5× vs Elephants.</Tooltip> <VisibleClasses datatype="tokens">Camel Melee</VisibleClasses> </Identity> Not exactly; currently there are three different options available: <Loot>: if a unit is killed it grants these resource amounts to its enemy <Looter>: if a unit kills it gains these resource amounts as additional loot <ResourceTrickle>: this unit passively generates a constant flow of resources for its owner You could consider creating an aura for that (don't forget to include it under <Auras datatype="tokens"> in your unit files). Have a look at e.g. https://trac.wildfiregames.com/browser/ps/trunk/binaries/data/mods/public/simulation/templates/special/player_athen.xml

I'll allow myself to bring up another pet peeve. When playing MP, a lot of pro players build a very large amount of barracks. I've played games where my opponent built 15 barracks right on my border, and kept training 1 soldier from each, simultaneously, creating this constant flow of units. Like yesterday, I played a game where an opponent built about 10 barracks (all in the same place) to attempt the same strategy. This is obviously undesirable, and breaks common sense play-styles, like actually maintaining an army instead of treating them as disposable meat bags with pointy sticks. I'm not saying I can't handle those play styles and have destroyed players doing this, but it's arguably even more ugly and annoying than house-walls and "CC-plantations". It's another one of those micro-cheats... Abusing less than ideal mechanics. I'm somebody who hates any kind of limit, but even to me it seems obvious that the amount of barracks you can build should be tied to how many CC's you own. 1 CC allowing the building of 2 barracks, seems 100% reasonable. People building more barracks than they have houses is completely unreasonable. The same applies to the corals. I've regularly seen players build more than 20 corals in a single territory, pumping out legions of pigs and sheep, at lightening speed. Why??? I mean, just don't, you know... If towers have build limits, why not corals and barracks as well. You can't depend on peoples decency to play nicely. They always look for ways to abuse less than ideal game-mechanics, to the detriment of the game. 0AD currently actually favours these kind of "dirty" play styles. Sometimes the devs even cater to these kind of "dirty" demands (like adjusting unit training batch size in the menu, which can increase efficiency, while 99% of the players have no idea this is even possible, or even desirable if you actually want to win. Although Imarok said he's working on a patch that allows anyone to do it in game, anyone doing it right now is effectively cheating in my book (adjusting batch size only applies to the person who adjusted it, before the game starts, definition of cheating, anyone?). Anyway, to bring it back to what this thread was actually about, what do you guys think about the first post? Logical, no, that you can't start construction on a building with an enemy army standing right there. Something like an aura that disallows units from starting construction near enemy units or buildings.

Constructing walls is difficult, and the AI isn't able to cope with this either. Not just people (human players can do what they like), the problem is that the AI has this behaviour as well. As for why, it's because it's the most sensible thing to do under the current mechanics. Which is something I don't like either. I tried out a building restriction in my mod, 0abc, e.g. farms at least 75 m from centres; however, structure distance is calculated from object centre to object centre, and shuttle distance is edge to edge, thus perhaps 40 m. More importantly, the AI continues to build farms as close to centres as possible (which looks even weirder), so I'll probably revert this construction restriction (I don't want to penalize the AI). Apparently the ugly "farms around centres" behaviour is hard coded in Petra. Another idea I have is using auras instead, e.g.: 50 m from centres: structures +20% capture points, workers -20% gather rates 100 m from centres: structures +10% capture points, workers -10% gather rates farmsteads and storehouses might get a slight gather bonus aura (cf. rotary mill) The AI seems to be aware of diminishing returns, so maybe it can also take auras into account, and decide to build farms around farmsteads instead of centres. [...] I was thinking that the CC could be programmed to only be able to store a nominal amount of each resource, like max 200 of every resource. [...] It seems you're talking about two different things. On the one hand, there is 5000 metal and 5000 stone within walking distance of your starting centre on about every map. Moving mines further away to or beyond the edge of your initial territory would be a great improvement. On the other hand, the suggestion to have maximum resource capacities, which worked great in Caesar III and Stronghold. This is an interesting idea to explore (e.g. no buildings mean you can not gather any resources; centres increase every resource capacity by 500 each; small houses increase food capacity by 100 and wood by 50, big houses double that; granaries food by 1000; storehouses wood, stone, metal by 300 each; etc.), although it would mean significantly more micro-management, which is not necessarily an improvement.

@wowgetoffyourcellphone I'm in love with your (retextured Ptolemaic?) Kushite cult statues in DE I didn't notice them before... Thank you!

Very High*: Low, which is close to what they used to look like for me: *I really think there should be an Ultra High setting for those with good cards, if only for cinematics and screenshots.

Yes, threads on this forum tend to do that It frustrates some people, but I think it's important to get regular feedback from people who aren't super intensively playing, or developing this game every day, to get a fresh idea of what the current first impressions are, as well as "documenting" recurring requests and pointing out obvious stumbling points. The current role of citizen soldiers vs dedicated eco workers, for example has come up so many times I can't even count. So has capture vs destroy. These concepts really don't need to be mutually exclusive. They can be beautiful complements to each other. The other thing is that we really need more proficient coders to work on this project, and when looking at the original design documents, they're pretty good. A lot of stuff is actually planned, but need work. That's another reason why I think this constant feedback is important. So that the devs can see what the community desires the most, for future releases. Anyway, having resources "stored" at specific sites, like a "storage-yard", and having a maximum resource-cap on these storage-yards seems super interesting, and could add crazy dynamics to the game.. Destroying or capturing enemy resources by taking their storageyards... Yes please Currently, you could have 1 woman, left, but still have access to thousands of units of every resource, and technically restart your civilisation from these "banked" resources. But where are these resources banked?? Is that single woman carrying around thousands of logs, and hundreds of tonnes of stone, and "metal", plus a few thousand baskets of food (that's surely rotten by now )?? This is one of the things that actually unnecessarily lengthens the game. If your resources go down with your town, you'll be easily defeated. But if you magically transport those "floating" resources across the map and restart your civilisation from scratch, except you have a ton of resources now, the game could theoretically last forever. We could even have transport-carts, like traders, to shuttle resources from dropsite to storage-yard, or storage yard to storage yard. You could even let it be done semi-automatically. All you have to do is recruit transport-carts and they automatically transport resources from the dropsites to the nearest storage-yard. Now the game starts looking like it has an actual economy/supply chain. If any of the devs are reading this, please forgive me, I know I'm crazy, but 0AD potentially has so much to offer. I see it more like a platform than a standalone game. It can really go any direction it wants to. There's millions of people out there who would die to play a game similar to banished, with actual battle mechanics and good historicity, and 0AD totally has the potential to deliver this kind of hybrid. Pure RTS with a veneer of city building and economy management. The trick is to keep it intuitive/not too complicated. It's basically what everybody (yes, the whole world) is waiting for. More than world peace, this is what people want... Has anybody ever played The Settlers III? An old-school classic RTS game, with a full economic supply chain, and real time battle mechanics, and it's not too complicated for kids to figure out either. Was a super fun game. Every single resource (and there's a lot) are visibly produced and transported around the map by the workers. The level of logic, detail and immersion in the economy is just sumptuous. 0AD can offer a lot of the immersive elements of a game like that without braking the core gameplay (although more resources will probably mess with the current play-style), the Settlers III was played in much the same (macro) way 0AD is now. Build a base, set up an economy, train an army and conquer your enemy. It just has a much more mature economy/resource management aspect. eco units are automatically controlled by the AI, you just say what and where to build and your workers start building. You have direct control over military units though, like 0AD. Don't be put off by the 90's graphics, this game was delicious. Please pay close attention to the explanation. How the economy in this game works is simply amazing! And this for a game from 1998

Yes, yes, yes... This would make units behave much more logically/naturally. Right now they are all indeed berserkers, lol! This Berserker attitude often messes up my stealthy tactics, and "non-agression policy" in my early game. "But just put your units in defensive/passive/ stand ground": no thanks, those stances are 1 way ticket to getting slaughtered. I like my soldiers to defend each other no matter what, not be picked of one by one or be kited to death... But that doesn't mean they should chase uncatchable enemies across the map when I leave them alone for half a minute.. "If you don't like fighting in early game, use ceasefire": no thanks, it's very gratifying to see your enemies slaughter each-other while you try to maintain peace. Peace should be earned Yes please... A total disregard for town aesthetics is currently the way to go if you want to win a MP match. Building a town with a logical/natural layout is totally penalised right now.. In fact, experienced online players ridicule noobs for their "sim-cities".. When a logical town layout invites ridicule, that should be a red light. yes please, I'm trying to make a map according to these considerations. I like a lot of those mechanics from DE. They're much more logical/immersive. I was thinking that the CC could be programmed to only be able to store a nominal amount of each resource, like max 200 of every resource. Then the CC can still be used in very early game, or emergencies or when setting up a new territory, but the moment you want to train 5 units at a time, or build barracks, you're going to have set up storehouse and farm to store more resources. When CC is full, you'd get a message like: "CC stores are full, build a storehouse to store more resources or a farmstead to store more food" Would be so nice. We really need this, I think. Having 100% of dedicated eco units being women makes me cringe. "But, but, what about citizen soldiers?" people watch too many movies, I think... 300 was a really terrible movie people... Absolutely terrible... Really bad... Even propagandistic... Read about Helots, and realise every single civ in the game had a similar civilian plebeian population. Warrior cultures where all the men are fighters don't exist outside of hunter gatherer communities... It's a Western romanticism that doesn't have any place in a historical game, imo... Even Celts had a huge non-combatent civilian population... Uhu..

I've been wanting to bring this up for a while, but there are so many little details that could be changed, that I want discus them in a single post/list. Anyway, for now: It's really awkward that you're able to start construction on a building within range of enemy units/buildings. It's kind of an immersion breaker, and borderline cheating, in my book. Tower-creeping is so, ugh.. Basically taking advantage of a less than ideal game mechanic, I think. Both, building a tower/fortress on your enemies' border within range of your enemies' buildings/units as well as starting construction on new structures when you're base is already overrun is just, ugh... Like sending 30 guys to rebuild a destroyed CC when the enemy army is still in your base??? Ugh... Sorry for all the ughs There are many of these "micro-cheats" that take advantage of less than ideal game-mechanics and pathfinder issues, like using 1 soldier to lure an entire army in to a kill box. Or pressing the halt button every couple of seconds while in combat, so that all the soldiers are reassigned to the most nearby target (this should happen automatically). It looks horrendous to see an entire army cut to pieces because they obsessively chased a single unit, passing an entire army that's systematically cutting them down. There's a lot of this weird advantage taking. For example: Supposedly pro-players don't use walls. Nonsense! All these so called pro-players are building "house"walls" instead. What in the actual "explicative". Why would a row of houses stop an army? You just go through the backdoor, and exit through the front. Or crawl through the windows. O just kick through the wattle and daub or mudbrick house walls. But it's a little ridiculous that civilian housing provides an effective wall. Just use the actual walls... You know... Plus house walls look really ugly... Ugly like building farms around the CC (an illogical AoE convention), for easy garrisonability of women and skimping out on wood by not building a farmstead (which really should be a pre-requisite for building farms, or even gathering food in general. Why is the CC used as a storage yard, when a storehouse is one of the earliest structures you need to build anyway??)... I derive no pleasure from defeating an enemy like this, and "pro-players" destroy "noobs", because the noobs don't know about these "faulty" mechanics. How is that fun? A lot of the "pro-players" depend on the ignorance of their opponents to win... This is supposed to be a strategy game, not a take-advantage-of-mechanics-that-new-players-can't-possibly-know-about game, because this stuff is not clearly written down anywhere. That's cheating, i.m.o... At least, their should be a strategy and tactical guide that explains the mechanics that should be looked out for, like: diminishing farm returns, embedding women with your workers, and the effect of experience on gather rates, garrisoning ships with siege and units so they actually become effective, never using formation when fighting, the effectiveness of kiting, the amazing efficiency with which women can take out battering rams... Those kind of things... Ideally, you should have easy access to this info in game, like a question mark button with each unit/building that brings up a pop-up message explaining all the specifics about that unit/building.

Salute. Another great model by Micket. The only thing I changed: applied location on the armature. Walk animation (sounds weird): This is work in progress. There are some problems but I think it's better then other cobra walk animations I've made. I'll choose the best animations for death, attack, and idle and will try to make preview tomorrow. Any suggestions are much appreciated.