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.

Okay so it's one o'clock in the morning and I packaged three mods. For some reason it would consistently crash on windows but it didn't on linux, so I guess there is something fishy with lineendings or something similar. Possible bugs: There should only be three civs in Ponies Ascendant, but deleted folders do not seem to work. The tweaked Terra Magna skeletons might break the shark and crocodile, this needs to be investigated. Get ready for anything, but please report them here, and only here. terra_magna.pyromod millenniumad.pyromod ponies_ascendant.pyromod

"Hundreds Of Thousands At Playable FPS - Making Of The Black Masses P.1"

Dellingr was the mod for A22 we are working for A23 version. We are deleting mode that aren't qualified for A23.

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.

Caesar spent years campaigning all over Gaul (about 8 years, I think), as opposed to spending probably no more than 6 months in Britain (both campaigns combined), barely going inland at all. His descriptions of Britain including the specifics about the war are far less expansive and detailed. If anything, he says that there is little difference between the British Celts on the coast and the Gallic Celts (except for chariots for example). And a logical fallacy. I wasn't arguing that Britains used the bow because Carthaginians, Ptolemies, Seleucids, Mauryans or Romans, used the bow. I was arguing that they used the bow because their immediate predecessors (yes, partly ancestors), used them, as well as their culturally very similar contemporary neighbors, the Gallic Celts. Yes, of course, but expecting tangible evidence in the form of organic remains from more than 2000 years ago, or written records from a pre-literate society is kind of silly, isn't it? Interpretation of circumstantial evidence becomes necessary in this scenario, and I believe that a "lack of archery among British Celts" is the wrong interpretation. Archery being present, but probably not playing a big role in warfare seems like a much more tenable and nuanced position, than a lack of archery altogether.

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)

Right now we have two distinct unit types, archers and slingers, in game and it works. So why is there a need to merge them? We might as well merge horse archers and cavalry javelinists or bolt shooters and stone throwers. I'm not saying archery completely disappeared, I'm merely questioning whether it was still being used on the battlefield, and asking for a tiny bit of evidence. Let's exaggarate it a bit for the sake of argument: there is no evidence the Britons did not have quinqueremes or war elephants, some of their contemporary trading partners did, so they might have had them as well, we don't know, therefore give the Britons quinqueremes and war elephants in game. True, but the resulting society and culture is very different from what it used to be before the population influx.

@elexis, so you're telling me:

In case this was about clickbait: Wow, 19.333 entities in 0 A.D. rendered at the same time, 60FPS in 1080p... This 1 minute scene on a giant Jebel Barkal map (set 1080p) was rendered for about 6 hours on my computer (until it crashed) and 1 hour on Imaroks computer: It took between 10 and 30 seconds on my computer to advance one second in the match. But the video was rendered targetting 60 FPS and 1080p. We can further increase the number of entities in trailers as long as the CPU or GPU don't melt (it did for bb when creating a trailer scene), maybe to 100k too sometime (but that were overadvertizing the game performance by a factor of 100).

You can only post three messages when you first sign in this is to prevent Korean spammers from making too much damage. @feneur will unblock you when he can. About multiple accounts @user1 Is there any way to properly register them for a family ? Sorry for the inconvenience but there has been a lot of abuse.

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

You're assuming the 7th C BC Iberians are the descendants of the 7th M BC "cave-people". That's a big if. History is not static. People can migrate and a lot can happen in thousands of years. I don't know about Spain specifically, but in most of Europe the "original" populations have been replaced more than once over the past five thousand years. Again, same problem. The Britons were Celts and Celts only started to migrate to the British islands gradually after 800 BC. What others did in Neolithic times is irrelevant here. Yes, they do. Slingers are different from archers, but they can counter them. To clarify, I'm not opposed to Briton and Iberian archers per se, but I'd like to see a reference first. Failing that, I agree it's better they don't have archers until then. I vehemently disagree with your radical idea. Archers and slingers were quite different units. Archers were typically massed and thus quite effective vs massed targets (including cavalry) but also vulnerable themselves to projectiles. Greek sources repeatedly state slingers easily outranged archers and that slingers were loosely organized (they needed space for swinging their slings); they were effective vs archers but vulnerable to cavalry. Slingers could sling anything from large stones of over 500 g (high impact, shorter range) to lead bullets of less than 5 g (too small and fast to see or dodge, highly penetrative, very hard to extract) and everything in between.

Yeah sure just not like next week Well it complaining about a missing mud file in the packaged version. Sure. You need to add the rudder while you are at it. It's better to not rely on whatever is done in the public mod. Notice I added a few skeleton files to make sure none was missing. Also it's better to let my script handle the making of those than to make them by hand.

@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

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) ?

There is a difference between "having archery" and "using archers in combat". If it is attested they did, then yes, I agree they should have bowmen in game. Be careful, it is perfectly possible the Iberian cave art was not made by Iberians. "Iberian cave art" (dated before 3500 BC) is cave art located on the Iberian peninsula; the "Iberian civilization" is that of people who had Iberian language(s) (dated after 700 BC) as their native tongue. There were Celts and Celts, and there can be huge differences between them. Find me one attestation for the Britons specifically and I'm happy.

Building on this, maybe showing the match info in the loading screen would be useful. These quitters are more and more frequent, and it's annoying as hell. A complete loss of time. I think the situation is getting out of hand with only manual reporting via forum. Some possible solutions that come to my mind: If a player disconnect from a rated game, game is paused and cannot be resumed while he is absent. If a player is disconnected from a rated game for more than a certain time limit (say 1 minute) he loses and points go to the other player. Maybe have an indicator for each player of number/ratio of unfinished rated games that he's hosted, so we can avoid playing with quitters.

And I've just written a mod to show my suggestions: siege.zip Feel free to try it out yourself A very good question! Because I had no idea either what would happen, I play-tested how 0 A.D. would handle it. It turns out the unit training is paused as long as the trainer is garrisoned; a sensible solution.

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.

@Lion.Kanzen

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.

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

Not sure which civilizations you consider, but I'm sure they were invaded by rome.

I have seen guys invading just with an "army of rams", like 6 rams, and the opponent with something around 60 men cannot contain them... In age of empires it was quite easy to destroy a ram with cavalry or swordsmen.

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.

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem delendam esse.

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)

I would like the wars in the middle east to end.

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.

Make doors from gates a separated entity with less HP so can be destroyed first and open an small way of entrance, this would allow players to attack a well defended city whitout needed a lot of rams or siege weapons

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.

Yes, 0 A.D. is quite similar to Age of Empires, as are Command & Conquer, Cossacks, Empire Earth, Rise of Nations, and many other games, which is probably unavoidable. Citizen-soldiers, capturable buildings, and territory are rather minor points. There are just two fundamental differences: 0 A.D. is free and open source (and available for many different operating systems) and can thus be adapted, modified, or serve as a basis for future games. 0 A.D. has been in development for years and is unlikely to be finished in the forseeable future. Those looking for an end product might regret the second point; personally I think it's actually the greatest strength that the game is in constant development and will possibly never be finished. 0 A.D. can always be changed, updated, improved, and expanded, unlike commercial games designed for profit, which have to be released at a certain date and won't be changed afterwards. Yes, 0 A.D. is far from perfect, I'm the first to admit that. However, keep in mind it's still an Alpha. Nevertheless, the game is already playable, enjoyable, and modifiable, which is simply great. We should be grateful for everyone who has contributed in the past and for everyone who's currently helping to improve the game. Yes, 0 A.D.'s “Empires Ascendant” default distribution certainly has to be improved. However, different people have different ideas, and in group projects such as this it's often quite hard to find concensus on how to change the status quo. Far more important than the actual content (art, factions, templates, unit statistics, etc.) are the efficiency and performance of the underlying engine and the need for a capable and flexible AI. Everyone who watches https://code.wildfiregames.com/ can see that every day several people work on improving the game. Undoubtedly many persons have left over the years, but others are still contributing, and new people are always welcome. As long as that remains the case, progress is constantly made, and 0 A.D., which already is a great game, can only get better.