Leaderboard

lead slingers could outrange archers in the right conditions (up to 300 yards), but only lead slingers. Lead slingers can be reserved for mercenary/champion roles. Stone slingers may have a shorter range (60-80 yards), but they would fill the role quite fine as 'light archers'

We should be sparing with unit counters. Before the soft system it was all some units were good for, everything had a counter applied to it regardless of whether or not it was needed. Good discussions here, I like the involvement.

Indeed. It's like folks forget that this was all thought about years ago. Reintroduce attack bonuses and a lot of concerns like this are taken care of: "Macemen" were rare in our timeframe. But for units like the Mauryan Macedude, just give him an attack bonus vs. "Whatever" class and let his crush damage do its work on buildings. And your concern presupposes that slingers have to use crush attack. They don't have to. Everything is changeable.

I don't want to tediously have to Garrison everything in order to make everything work. The high pop cost already assumes a crew to man the machines

After sifting through the library I've sort of begun to understand how your painters and placers work now. The painters I can mostly understand although I haven't figured out what kind of values it expects for all the params. One thing that does bother me is that the fractal painter seems to expect a roughly circular area when placing. What then would happen if you fed it a non-circular area, like say a long wavy region produced by a path placer? As is it might be difficult to integrate usefully with existing rmgen library utilities. While I'm not sure if that's actually an issue or not, the interface is also nonstandard for painters. The area param should be moved to paint() and the 'nochiasm' param should be moved to the constructors. Beyond that I'd have to play around with it to see what it can do. For 'nochiasm' I can sort of see and appreciate how that works, but it also lacks a 'modify' type functionality like the current elevation painters offer, which is useful if you don't know ahead of time what the base elevation will be (for example when using diamond-square for initial terrain randomization). The placer interface is terrible. In the map you do some sort of weird raw loop to create a "monts" zone and some others which I don't really understand the point of. Reimplementing constraints and things from scratch in an even less intuitive fashion is less than ideal. It'd be better to extend the RandomMap prototype with that kind of stuff. Personally I don't really like how the current tileclass system works, since each tileclass is effectively defined as a random bag of points, which is particularly inefficient for checking constraints later on and also means that a given point may belong to more than one tileclass, which is kind of bad when you're creating a map by painting layers. However constraints are very convenient, or at least the interface for them is (which I've submitted a patch to improve even further). The current (rmgen) implementation doesn't handle slope hardly at all, which could definitely be improved as well. I can certainly see the usage of the road creating function although I can't really tell if it auto-flattens terrain to create a path if there isn't already one, but that would be nice. It seems like something that would need a lot of tuning but it's definitely a cool feature. The existing road function sucks. I cannot really figure out the purpose of the YPatchPlacer, or how it differs from any other sort of placer. Cramming all that stuff in with the TOMap doesn't make much sense. The TOMap should have its own interface, and the placement/road functions should have their own, possibly moved into gaia_terrain or wherever happens to be most appropriate.

attack rate/attack range/speed/armor(type effectiveness)/counter bonuses

It does not. (I know because the Faction-Specific Resources mod is mine, so I've been through the mod.io process already). There will have been an option that allows you to save, but not go live. In the meantime, you can return to your mod's page (https://0ad.mod.io/siege) and select the tick icon in the toolbar (between the pencil and the archive-box icons) to hide it and make it non-live. Alternatively, if you want to stay live, go to your mod file's edit page (https://0ad.mod.io/siege/edit/files/163) and add {} into the "Metadata" box at the bottom. Your mod will still be publicly visible on mod.io, (it might even appear as an option in 0ad,) but it won't be downloadable and verifiable in-game until you get a valid signature from @Itms.

Yes, and that's problematic. Historically macemen were highly effective vs armoured units and slingers vs foot archers (because they could outrange them). However, in 0 A.D. all soldiers have ridiculously high crush armour, which make crush damage units not very effective.

Maybe when workshops are fully implemented? Set it as a requirement for siege equipment construction in the field.

The battering ram came into my camp just taking out fully upgraded defense towers left and right in less then a minute and I had plenty of men attacking it, but is does not make sense that a wooden structure can take out a stone structure while being attack by 10 plus men so quickly?

As it stands, Rams and Siege towers behave like tanks on the field instead of strictly siege units, as they ought to be, I would propose a similar fix as is had with catapults and bolt shooters, a vulnerable mobile stage and a painfully slow attack stance. Moving packed siege across large swaths of territory wont be as tedious if we were to just drop unit speed to something more realistic, something we can save for its unpacked variation. Discuss if you would, I have a long standing gripe with rams and haven't played A23 enough to get a feel for how their latest iteration is, so my opinion is likely both biased and outdated.

We haven't for any platform right now, we are testing the next release of Millennium and Terra Magna.

Wasn’t one of the complaints the fact that there weren’t any counters? If we go and re-implement unit boni, then the problem is solved. I never understood why people didn’t didn’t like hard counters.

But that would change dramatically if battalions were eventually implemented for military units. I really wouldn't mind commanding several battalions of 100 units each I know this isn't Total War, but it would be really epic, to increase the scale of battles and simultaneously decrease unit-micro. If performance improvements allow it, of course.

Yes, I'm aware; we've already established Britons shouldn't have archers (and Gauls should). Caesars frequently mentions the Gauls using archers. However, he also invaded Britain (end of book IV, start of book V) and describes several battles there; he repeatedly states the Britons use chariotry and cavalry, spears and javelins, but he never mentions they had archers, bows, or arrows. It's not a fair comparison, it's an exaggaration My intention was to show why I prefer "there is evidence they had", instead of "there is no evidence they had not".

When you register for the lobby you have to agree to the terms and conditions, which clearly states this, so it should not be a surprise. Especially since ours are short enough to read without giving up =) Done (Y)

Units doesn't collide with themselves (can go through other units) AFAIK, that makes the problem much easier. Challenge accepted

@elexis, so you're telling me:

Well, I don't know. Cossacks could easily handle tens of thousands of units without noticeable lag on an ordinary pc in 2001.

@user1 has dealt with this issue so far, I will not intervene If you are telling the truth, we convey our sincere apologies. If you are not being wholly sincere, please state so and help clear this situation up

Sounds like clickbait. lol.

@s0600204 could you please also answer as what is going wrong?

@stanislas69 the broken one is this, but is weird the civ center works whitout the armature file and they don't share any relationship between bones names

Serbian archaeologists find sarcophagus with two skeletons and jewellery in ancient city https://www.reuters.com/article/us-serbia-archeology/serbian-archaeologists-find-sarcophagus-with-two-skeletons-and-jewellery-in-ancient-city-idUSKCN1IW1JB?feedType=RSS&feedName=scienceNews The Viminacium site, near the town of Kostolac, around 70 km east of Belgrade, was a military camp and the capital of the Roman province of Moesia Superior, dating back to the 1st century AD. It had a hippodrome, fortifications, a forum, palace, temples, amphitheatre, aqueducts, baths and workshops. According to historians, it could have been the home to some 40,000 people. So far, only about 4 percent of it has been explored, said Miomir Korac, the director of the site.

It's now fixed. @wackyserious Can you commit the textures you want to commit to the Millenniumad repository ? @Alexandermb Can you fix the corral mud Millenniumad ? Also can you fix the skeletons that conflict with the shark in terra_magna ? I fixed the rubble After that we should be ready for the package and a release. Any idea on @wowgetoffyourcellphone https://github.com/0ADMods/terra_magna/issues/41

True... Well, yeah, of course, but how likely is it really that cave-people used archery, but their descendants somehow forgot it, only to be rediscovered/re-introduced after the Roman conquest, seems odd to me... Sure archery became less important in the face of swords and metal tipped spears, but I'll never be convinced it disappeared completely (not even from battle)... It is indeed incredibly difficult to find a decent reference. But even here we have Neolithic examples from Somerset, which do indeed seem to fall out of use in later times, and were then re-introduced... ?? I personally think they never disappeared... The very idea that they "disappeared" sounds silly to me, but without a reliable reference for archers among British Celts, I won't advocate for archers for the Britons. Either way, don't Britons and Iberians both have slingers, kind of negating the archery issue in their case? So no archers for Britons and Iberians, who have slingers, but archers for everybody else (even if they also have slingers, should just become available in different phases) ?

The main problem with Bowmen starting civs is that any civ starting with skirmishers has the advantage of having strong economy and attack power. Skirmishers high movement speed give them the title of best economy-friendly units. They grant fast expanding, fast resources delivery, fast raids. Usually players reach 60/70 population before phasing up, and 35% of that population is made of skirmishers if available at beginning, which can choose the time and the place for a battle. Swordsmen are effective against rams only if massed (20 sec each to train vs 30 sec each to train), as they are the first target of any ranged unit.

@Alexandermb, here's the brown and black zebu, again, tested with the Sanga mesh so I hope its ok:

So maybe indeed make siege towers specialists at capturing (walls, towers, fortress), but not much more. Build workshop and train engineers to build siege equipment in the field. Engineers have poor defense and attack, but are used/required for building siege equipment. Engineers could carry a small cart with wood, which can be converted into siege towers or battering rams. Artillery should remain as it is. All siege moves even slower, so they can't maraud over the map. Spearman can take out siege as well as swordsmen. Ranged units remain mostly useless against siege (except for the xiongnu ram/uncovered log carried by men, which should go down relatively easily if unprotected by your men)

IMHO, since the AI would be clueless about how to take advantage of the civ's features anyway, I don't currently see the issue with not having a dedicated Storehouse. Players of the mod should, for now, not give the Xiongnu to the AI regardless. Didn't Athens rely on grain shipments from Scythian-held areas?

I'd rather we figure out a way to allow soldiers to build these siege weapons in the field.

It doesn't make historical sense for a ram to have to unpack. They were built on the site of a siege, not transported in a packed form, and once built they could roll around on their own without unpacking. Same for siege towers. Better to make rams unable to attack biological units, and do something else for siege towers.

@Alexandermb, made a zebu texture using a different reference, but I used the Sanga cattle mesh to test, so I don't know what its like on the Zebu: I might try the brown one later

Hey thanks for reporting @feneur @implodedok can you fix this ?

From Sierra?? One of my all time favourites!!! I actually downloaded and played it again recently just for the sake of it. I'm still amazed at the complexity, yet fluidity of the economy in that game. Everything made perfect sense (sort of). It was amazing... Industry, processing raw materials, production, supply and demand, transport, long distance trade, social stratification, even some military, it was all there.... You could reach a population of c. 20.000! It was grande! Of course that was a city-builder... But to be honest, I would love to have that style of economy in 0AD. Like 40 different resources, and you actually manage production, instead of microing individuals all the time... You'd just build an economic building, and available workers automatically take up the job. Leave the micro-stuff for military units/warfare... Would be a golden opportunity to work on the civilian aspect of the game... "Bring cities to life". It would also radically change gameplay, which would make it difficult to convince people of taking such a bold step. Also, I don't think there's enough people here that could do make that happen, even if they wanted to

0AD is a historic game, and the only one of its kind that spends so much attention on historical details, which is amazing in itself, and greatly appreciated by many who can't find this level of historicity in other classic RTS games. The general idea is to stick to what is known about the 500BC to 1AD timeframe. Most of the civilization in this timeframe (and there are many) were inter-connected with each other, if not by war, then by trade, culture and art... Just to show how far flung these ancient connection went: Galatian mercenaries served in Ptolemaic armies, so Kushites may well have faced Celts in battle, its not as far-fetched as you may think... There were Greeks living in Meroë... Galatian mercenaries also served in Seleucid armies and may well have faced armies of the Maurya Empire. Carthaginians allied with Celts and Iberians and Indian mahouts served in the armies of the Seleucids, Ptolemies and perhaps even the Carthaginians, or trained local mahouts, and Indians were also present on the East African coast and even Anatolia.. Numidian cavalry from North Africa was used by Trajan in his conquest of Dacia (Romania), Greek colonists from Phocaea (Turkey) founded the Greek city Empuries in Iberia... Long story short: All the civs in-game knew all of the other civs in at least some capacity, and often traded or warred with each other, or even served side by side as mercenaries in foreign armies (think of Indians, Kushites, Egyptians, Greeks, Thracians, Assyrians and others, in the Persian armies of Xerxes, fighting Athenians, Spartans, Corinthians etc... during the Persian invasion of Greece). The level of interconnectedness in antiquity is often overlooked, or misunderstood... But its absolutely delicious once you start seeing it. The ancient world, from Britannia to China was a giant interconnected network of trade routes, that were often fought over by mercenaries from all over "the known world"... Adding, say, Genghis Khan to this mix, or Montezuma would totally break the immersion, while throwing 15 years of attempted historicity through the window... You can also set matches up yourself so you can go for purely historical map/civ combo or do your own thing (especially with mods, its totally up to you)... I'd agree that a more flexible timeframe would benefit 0AD, and more (historical) civs are always welcomed by myself (especially the Eastern ones), but anything outside of Iron Age Antiquity would totally spoil one 0AD's greatest selling points.

Hello and welcome to the forums. The reason we "stick" to this time frame is to be able to properly depict history. If you start adding the XIX century English to a mod about antiquity, that's retarded. Even if you make Britons evolve to that. How much history are you gonna skip ? There are already 13 civs, while it was decided 12 was enough so there is still hope for new civilizations in that time frame. I'm also gonna say we are open source, our art is open source, we are not paid for this, and we do this on our free time, mods included. Also a part II is planned when part I is finished, and part II will cover 0 - 500 AD. I have no clue what you are trying to say here. However Terra_Magna adds Zapotecs, Xiongnu, and the Han Dynasty to the game. A version will hopefully made available soon. If you wanna go medieval, just look at Millenium AD that covers roughly 500 - 1100. If you make your own mods, you can add as many civs in the game as you want.

IMO siege weapon capturability should be removed completely. It causes units to do extremely stupid things and is basically useless since killing the siege weapons is almost always faster, by several times. Also I'm pretty sure that every civ has a ram already, and if not rams then elephants which are basically the same thing just with a different weakness. However not every civ has a catapult, which is more problematic since catapults are basically the only ranged siege weapon and the only thing that can shoot over friendly and enemy units without being blocked by meat shields. Siege towers and bolt shooters don't even qualify as siege weapons, since they barely do any crush damage and take forever to kill buildings.

Swordsmen and elephants take out rams quite efficiently. In an emergency, even women can be used with some degree of success. I agree that its a little ridiculous though, the speed at which unprotected rams take out structures even when a considerable army is attacking them. I understand that archers should have a hard time with them, but its currently not possible/realistic to take out rams with ranged units at all... At least make spearman more capable of dealing with them? Obviously spearmen should be a lot better at taking out a ram (by killing the operaters) than swordsmen, who wouldn't necessarily have the reach.. The current system isn't intuitive, especially not for new players...

I personally enjoy turtling against an overwhelming enemy oftentimes because of the epic last stand kind of feel, but I am starting to think that turtling is kind of OP in most situations (aka when you are getting attacked by a normal army, not 100 very hard ais). I think what makes it so OP is that it is practically impossible to capture town centers unless you have a monstrous amount of soldiers if there are soldiers garrisoned in there. Which means that if you get everyone to hide inside of the town center, then your enemy's push going to be defeated unless they either have a laggily big army or siege engines (which might get killed by the arrows before they can unpack), good luck getting any capture points on a town center with units in it to regenerate capture points really fast and shoot arrows everywhere killing your units before they can even get close to capturing it. This may be because I do not use a lot of siege engines, but even then the above example is *without walls*. I suggest some kind of better siege mechanic, where the player can turtle but their units could get starved out like in real ancient sieges. A way to fix this could be adding in where units consume food (which I think would be good for much more then fixing this, as it just makes sense and means you need to have good farming infrastructure to keep your army fed), and do like delenda est does where farms can be constructed outside of your city borders with a debuff to gathering from them if they are built inside.

AI banter: The (enemy) AI sends scripted messages during the game: aggressive/arrogant when attacking, Valiant/confident when defending, begging/pleading when near defeat. Could be a nice space for some creativity and humor. Could be (partially) civ-specific/historic. Since it's "just" written sentences (taking only few mb's), we could have hundreds of them. Lot's of variety. Everyone in the community could come up with some Messages along the line of: "By Jupiter, I'll have you flayed for this" (after a successful raid on a Roman AI) "Carthago Delenda Est" (anytime a Roman AI attacks a Carthaginian player) "Vae Victis" (after Gaul AI destroys a Roman CC) "I'm sure we can find a way to settle this little squabble somehow" (when AI is near defeat) "By the gods, have you no mercy?" (when killing AI women) "I will erase from memory, your very existence" (when big AI army attacks) "Your walls will not protect you from the might of Ahura Mazda" (when Persian AI sees your walls) "You're town looks like it needs a remake" (when AI attacks) "Zeus will not abandon us" (when attacking a Hellenic AI) "Just because you do not take an interest in politics, does not mean politics won't take an interest in you" (when you refuse an alliance with Athenian AI) "The only true wisdom, is in knowing you know nothing" (when Athenian AI utterly destroys a player) “Spartan woman are the only ones who give birth to men” (When Sparta AI attacks) “He is richest who is content with the least, for contentment is the wealth of nature.” (random, passive Athenian AI) “I count him braver who overcomes his desires than him who conquers his enemies, for the hardest victory is over the self.” (Hellenic AI when defeated) "I shall make Egypt taste the taste of my fingers" (when Kushite AI attacks Ptolemies) "where they make a wasteland, they call it peace." (When Briton AI is defeated by Romans)

Hey all, I recently discovered this game last week when browsing YouTube. I was very impressed with the overall mission of the game and the fact that it's open-sourced, community-based, and free to play. Just wanted to give my two cents regarding my experiences thus far. The good things: I love the time period the game takes place in as well as the historical accuracy. The attention to detail down to the artwork and translations is amazing. I also like the uniqueness of military units that perform economic tasks as I have not seen this in previous RTS games. I also enjoy the scaling (e.g the size of the triremes relative to the infantry) and the attack animations (zooming in on phalanx is awesome). Things to improve: Obviously this is a work in progress and there's still much room to improve. The one thing that irritates me so far is the way the units move; it seems choppy and unnaturally fast, especially the cavalry. The animation during their movement also appears unnatural; they look more like insects scuttling over the map than galloping horses (watch AOE 2 cavalry running for a comparison). I have read the planned change logs and know that trampling will be worked on in the future, but I hope they also improve the unit speed and animations. A central lobby for multiplayer will obviously be a huge addition as well. The only shame with such a community base is there are relatively few people working on it and I know any changes take time. Anyway, really love the work so far. I know that the next release is supposed to happen too as well as a mod service and look forward to the upgrades and improvements.

We need discuss first how balance that, we have a patch in progress with secondary attack between ranged and mêlée combat.

Diplomats? What would be their task? In a23 we have nomad on all random maps (besides survival of the fittest)

Changing the Loot/er code should be easy, but not sure how to implement the garrisoning if it's not a treasure. Players often look at resources of allies, then decide how much donations are needed. But if it takes a half a minute or longer when one is suprised by a fight, then it might be hard to coordinate. If the unit has to travel, it might be too dangerous to transport. That might be considered a feature, not a bug, but I'm dubious.

A good point to have in consideration. That's the players ask to mostly RTS. Empires Apart is a good example. polish mechanic adding feature is a good thing if helps to macro.

So basically Treasure unit moving from one CC to another. The only downside I see to it not needing to be garrisoned is that it can be abused by people putting friendly units near each other CCs. It could work with a ship version too though a unit from the shore would have to come collect it and there is no way for the enemy to intercept that.

First of all we want wraitiis patch in D11. It's nearly ready to commit even. The sooner we think about coop mode, the better. We should speak of campaigns instead of restricting us in advance. It's like with Atlas. If you start creating a map in atlas, you're stuck with that forever. Can't relocate or resize too well and if you do, there are issues coming up. It's one of the reasons why I'd like to use random map scripts that possibly use atlas maps as a basis for that. I will need some more months working on the old planned projects. But after that I will probably dedicate myself to campaigns. After some years of playing this game extensively and watching numerous documentaries on our civs, the history is more interesting to me now and I'd like to transport that amazing experience to the players. Will be a shitload of work however, IMO about 10 levels per civ, probably much more for Romans if we want to cover the history well. But then we also need narration, a little year number in the GUI, possibly dialog interaction and beautiful maps as level selection screen. Anyway, just the things I wish for that will take probably one more release before we can dedicate to that.

@Pureon @LordGood