Leaderboard

Hello, I thought I would share a map for the 0 A.D. community. This map tries to capture an area of conflict between the Romans and Gauls in proximity to the Alps. Please Let me know what you think, as i'm new to the 0 A.D. community. *Updated Map Image* Map Download Xml File: Via Augusta (4).xml Pmp File: Via Augusta (4).pmp

hey guys, I am working on some models for 0AD in blender, so I started modelling animals in the low poly style of 0AD. here is a Saluki I made for desert maps, Its not textured yet, but its uv mapped and will be textured soon, and yes, it will be rigged and animated too. I will also make a Spekes Gazelle for the saluki to hunt, as they were bred to hunt spekes gazelle in the deserts of Arabia, I look forward to showcasing my art for 0AD, and I hope to release my art as a mod sometime, for you guys to possibly use in your maps and ingame. More stuff is coming soon.

Is it possible to make some tiles/textures unbuildable terrain. I'm especially interested in disallowing the building of farms on desert sand. Would make control of certain areas of the map more vital than others.

Welp, this blew up. That is indeed the base model. The model in DE is heavily modified by @Enrique, to reduce polygons, add a plinth, reskinned, etc. I hope you don't mind, but I sent an e-mail to cadnav.com to clear up any licensing issue. I will report any reply to this thread. "Free" is a problematic "license" indeed. Let's see what cadnav says.

well look decided to get off* his lazy butt and do a thing *literally still sitting

I am the copyright holder of original works I post in the Wildfire Games 0 A.D. Art Development forum. I hereby release all original works I uploaded to this forum in the past, and those I will upload in the future, under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.

Fewer

@Tomcelmare yes it's up to @Alexandermb to commit it

I would trust him if it was intended for 0 A.D. vanilla, not so much for DE, which has copyrighted placeholder art. "free" doesn't specify if it's CC0 or if we need attribution or what. Point being I would feel much more comfortable if it were home grown, or at least knew the original artist for attribution.

In my experience, quite often when draining a resource with a storehouse relatively nearby, the gatherers still elect to go to a different drop point, that is closer by line-of-flight but ends up being longer because of the route actually needed to get there (e.g. when a gate is locked, a different gate has to be used). It would be neat if it took into account actual-path in addition to closest drop-off location. If I am totally barking up the wrong tree or there is already a thread for it, I do apologize ahead of time. Thank you. /E.

Hi, I got 0ad fairly recently and i've been making a map in the scenario editor . The map itself works although it isn't complete however I cant find a way to make a preview image work. I tried to add this one in a few ways but can't get it to show up ingame. does anyone have any ideas? thanks in advance

The archery ranges are my favorite buildings so far.

I think that could be done now. But overall I think it would be a bad design choice. Sorry for the Off-topic

Still native, I might sweep through later and either selectively change them/ add variations, or else overhaul and let the native structures remain for rural buildings and split the rest for mapmakers.

And therefor adding more calculation time to each iteration any arithmetic operation takes time. Enjoy the Choice

I'm not sure how the Pyrogenesis pathfinder works, but wouldn't it calculate the "cost" of moving through each "tile" (since IIRC it uses an A* pathfinding algorithm)? If it does that, it would just be a matter of changing the "cost" depending on terrain speed.

@temple was annoyed by that behavior too and had uploaded multiple patches. I'm not sure if there was one for computing the actual path rather than the line-of-sight one however. That could consume quite some performance as our bottleneck is the pathfinder currently.

Thanks for doing so !

It's not inaccurate, it's just not up-to-date.

Very nice. Just care a bit about that civic center at the bottom left, that guy has way less trees than the other civic centers. Perhaps it could just be a 3-player map. But it is important that all players have about the same territory too. Other than that, we could and probably should commit it to our codebase!

@ljf: Congratulations!, you broke the AI I tried your strategy vs 2 very hard AIs in a team. You can even do extra hunting. First you neutralize 1 AI with the cav rush. Then either harrass a bit 2nd AI or better heal and get more cav because it has many men already. Then keep rushing 2nd AI and healing. It takes some time but it's easy. @SirPope: in svn already you can choose AIs behavior. If somehow AI could choose all those magic numbers dynamically depending of the circumstances I guess it would be op.

Different passabilities would require new obstruction grids, that will increase the memory footprint but not the performance I think. But just making units walk slower in some areas would be possible without messing with the pathfinder I believe (and units would be stupid enough to not avoid the slower areas). Though I'm not sure if this would be used by more than few maps (swamp? shallows? sand?).

Now how do we get the pathfinder to be aware of the terrain effects this has been on the wish list for ages but the pathfinder is not fast enough yet one of the reasons for the lag in unit movement and formations not working right. Enjoy the Choice

Sure I understand. I'll try to look for the original models as I have no way to contact him. If the license is compatible I'll commit it. If not we'll I'll wait for someone to come up with another version.

Suggestion more buttons in lobby as hidden, always visible or disabled bar below chat input as seen in screenshots and code on: https://code.wildfiregames.com/D1055 This would give option to open last summary, replays, structure tree and options gui f.e. from lobby Please discuss

I think it is important to keep the basic counter of cavalry versus archers versus infantry. But then within each of those groups there can be another Rock-paper-scissors system. Slingers versus javelins versus archers. Swordman versus spear and pike versus ax or club. Another way to look at each group is one unit is most specialized, for instance the slinger is the best at killing infantry but the most vulnerable to cavalry; a second unit is somewhat all purpose or resistant to the basic counter, for instance javelin throwers could be less vulnerable to cavalry than other range units and swordmen could be better against archers than pikemen are. I would avoid using artificial counters; I prefer the type of armor and attack a unit has making it happen naturally in most cases. If the javelin infantry has high pierce armor and low crush armor it will naturally be good against archers and bad against slingers, for instance. That would be an especially useful change in A23 since it would make the foot javelin a counter to the javelin cavalry, who is currently good against just about everybody. I'm making a mod to implement these ideas.

Shorter Btw i used as camel gather meat this:

Arab, not Arabic. “Arabs” were the only ones who fought from dromedary camel back in Antiquity, although neighbouring peoples also used camels as supply animals. The word has shifted its meaning too. Before the 7th C A.D. Arab was the demonym for all nomadic and semi-nomadic desert peoples and tribes; those we now call Bedouins, Nabateans, etc. were called by others and called themselves Arab in their own time. And in the Quran (Koran) Mohammed frequently fulminates upon the detestable Arabs (meaning the Bedouins, who were not interested in converting to his monotheistic movement). Nowadays Arab means someone who has Arabic as his mother tongue. Arabic is derived from the Arabian Peninsula, which derives from the Arabian Desert, which came from the Arab (peoples). To summarize, “Arab” is nowadays an ethnic adjective, “Arabian” a geographical adjective, and “Arabic” a linguistic adjective.

Happy New Year! 0abc has been updated again: Ships cost 0 population Fishing boats are limited to two per dock Merchant ships are limited to five per market Warships are not limited but consume a significant amount of silver each 30 seconds Centres have +20% build time, health, and territory influence radius per phase; furthermore: no phase: base cost is 500 wood; 25 m and 50 m auras enabled; no silver trickle rate village phase: +500 food cost; 75 m aura enabled; grant 1 silver per 7 seconds town phase: +500 stone cost; 100 m aura enabled; grant 2 silver per 7 seconds city phase: +500 metal cost; 125 m aura enabled; grant 3 silver per 7 seconds metropolis phase: +500 silver cost; 150 m aura enabled; grant 4 silver per 7 seconds Upkeep: Military structures consume 1 food per 7 seconds Lighthouses consume 1 wood per 7 seconds Libraries consume 2 silver per 7 seconds Harbours consume 1 food and 1 silver per 7 seconds Fortresses consume 1 silver per 7 seconds Warships consume silver, mercenaries consume silver, champions consume food Fanatics no longer benefit from armour technologies Females can no longer be trained at the centre; houses no longer count towards town phase requirement; unlock research requirement is removed, females can always be trained at houses Changed a few civilization bonuses from autoresearched technologies to permanent global auras Various minor edits As usual, have a look at the 0abc-readme.pdf reference document for more detailed information. For your information, I tried it out and subsequently reverted it, because if units are garrisoned on top of the gates, the doors are permanently gaping wide open (even if you command it to be locked).

@LordGood

I might make hellenized versions of all of these

It's pretty obvious, actually. But

The ability to outrange defenses has been the crux of AOE siege since the original. Not because it does a particularly large amount of damage but rather forces the besieged to take action instead of hiding behind his walls. This is part of the reason I hate rams so much because taking appropriate action isnt so important as having the right units at the right time, and still taking heavy building losses regardless. I also disagree with the siege catapult damage buff because it has the exact same effect. at the end of the day I'd rather employ strategy than brute force, which is really what my current beef with siege boils down to