Leaderboard

I played a bit, here are my thoughts: - rating system is way too easy to cheat, all u need to do is launch second instance of AD or use your friend to resign on purpose. - apart from that ranking system is not developed at all. something like in league of legends would be great fit to this game - This is quite good RTS game but lobbys are empty. Bad marketing i guess? - about 40% of people joining your game are lagging so much that they make game impossible for you. next 30% are leavers. so you are left with 30% of small playerbase if you want to play. gameplay: - everyone plays the same. they rush machines, 200 slingers with 48 ranked attack range, and some pikes for first line (to stop u from reaching slingers), basically SPAM. its annoying honestly. this game is battle of slingers and eventually archers, but usually just slingers. theres no single player that won against me that didnt spam slingers. apart from that its good addicting game

Absolutely leave them empty - the game will fall back to the original English when something hasn't been translated. If you just copy/paste the English text, it will be harder for you to find them later when you do want to translate them.

I think limits like that should be avoided if possible. They usually feel quite arbitrary. Instead, the game should be balanced such that it simply doesn't make sense to spam just rams. They already have a very effective counter unit: sword units will deal with rams with ease so if one expects the enemy to deploy rams one just needs to field sword units to counter them. Champion spear units also deal significant hack damage in addition to pierce, so they can deal with rams too.

Let me upload myself here.. my cousin still banned and he bugs me twice a day

I don't see anything wrong with that. Each has different limitations and strengths. The ram is powerful in melee, it can even defeat (or gravely wound) the mighty war elephant, while the catapult has no chance against elephants, or cavalry in general. The ram is also much more manoeuvrable (no pack-unpack) and effective at destroying buildings. On a side note, the ram is quite powerful against troops also, so much so that there are a lots of discussions whether it's too overpowered or not.

Yes but people see further than 80 meters or whatever the standard vision range is. And a meter in game is not the same as a real meter proportionately.

The hoplite is the classical example of heavy infantry; I doubt anyone is going to disagree with that. However, warriors (I avoid the term soldiers, because it implies a salary) typically had to provide their own armaments. Most were young and not rich, they had shields but often lacked body armour. Greaves were uncommon too. Only the oldest and wealthiest actually had the stereotypical, very expensive, bronze muscle cuirass. You see the same in the early Roman Republican ("Polybian") army, with the hastati, principes, and triarii. Likewise, it's highly unlikely all phalangites would have the same body armour. Many different types of armour were used in the Macedonian army. Alexander's hypaspists were the elite, they could afford the classical muscle armour; I'm not saying all of them always wore one, but it's certainly possible they normally fought as traditional hoplites. Finally, 0 A.D. is a game, and has to generalize some things. Alexander's cavalry sometimes fought on foot, and pezhetairoi (ordinary phalangites) occassionally fought with javelins instead of in a pike formation. I think it's both unnecessary and undesirable to try to implement this.

Looking at all of these cool mods. Aristeia: Bronze Age, Millennium A.D.: Middle Ages, Terra Magna: Classical Age civs from across the world, and of course my Delenda Est. I am struck with a grand vision for 0 A.D. which could be spectacular. 0 A.D. Epochs Imagine, if you will, a 0 A.D. which spans the breadth of the entire pre-modern age. It's already happening with some very high quality mods, but what if eventually it could be made official? What would happen is that during game setup, the host (or single player) with a check mark system could select the different eras or "epochs" from which civilizations can be chosen. The host could choose only Classical epoch for an historical match, and then players could only choose the civs (like Athenians vs. Achaemenid Persians) with the Classical designation (in the civ.json file for modders and devs), or the host could choose multiple different epochs, allowing for some interesting ahistorical matchups which span across time (New Kingdom Egypt vs. Ptolemaic Egypt for example). Some civs would span multiple epochs (Rome, Egypt, India, Nubia, China all easily spring to mind), with epoch-specificities (the "Late Antiquity" Romans would be different from the "Classical" Romans who would be different from the "Medieval", ie "Byzantine", Romans course). While other civs, like the Thracians, would be relegated to only 1 epoch. In this way each epoch will have its own unique civs, while you can see a pattern of historical change with the long-running civs like the Romans across epochs. 0 A.D. Epochs could be truly epic in this way. How to implement it. Each Epoch can be added separately, in different subsequent releases when the civs of that epoch or mod become acceptably complete. Let's say the current "Empires Ascendant" roster becomes the core group of civs for the "Classical" epoch. Once Terra Magna is close to complete, its civs can be divvied up according to historical relevance. The Han could be added to the "Classical" epoch, while the Zapotecs can be added to the new "Late Antiquity" epoch. Likewise, Delenda Est's Principate Romans can be added to the "Late Antiquity" epoch along with any new "Part 2" civs, like the Sassanid Persians, Huns, Visigoths, et al. Just debut a new epoch with at least 3 new complete civs for some variety. New civs can be added later, perhaps one or two per alpha/beta release. What would be needed from the dev team is the UI code to allow this and then choosing when a mod civ is complete enough to add to the official Epochs roster. The Potential Epochs and Civs (for dreaming) Bronze Age Babylonians Egyptians (New Kingdom) Hallstatt Culture Hittites Minoans Mycenaeans Nubians (Kerma) Phoenicians Sea Peoples Hebrews Trojans Others Classical Age The current Empires Ascendant roster. Chinese (Han) Parthians Nabataeans Scythians Thracians Xiongnu Others Late Antiquity Romans (Principate; Trajan, Hadrian, et al.) Chinese (Jin Empire) Germanics Visigoths Marcomanni Vandals etc. Persians (Sassanids) Garamantes Huns Indians (Guptas) Japanese (Yamato) Zapotecs Others Medieval Anglo-Saxons Arabs Byzantine Romans Bulgarians Franks (Carolingians) Chinese (Tang Dynasty) Indians (Cholas) Mayans Mongols Norse ("Vikings") Ottoman Turks Poles Crusader Kingdoms Others Could maybe expand into the Renaissance, with the Aztecs, English, Incas, Spanish, French, Mughal Indians, Ming Chinese, wealthy African kingdoms, etc. Gunpowder wasn't overpowered yet. Still had lots of melee and heavy cavalry. Any actual roster doesn't have to be nearly this extensive at first. It can start small and get added to as modders add the civs they would most enjoy working on. It's completely doable, as modders will want to keep adding civs to the game for many years. The dev team can curate and make sure the civs don't get too crazy and unbalanced, but the large part of the work is done by modders.

Hello, After playing as the Roman Republic and then the Greek cultures, the Successors, and Persians I felt there was a lack in troop variety for the Romans. To start I think the Roman Republic should have a slinger unit. Use of slings was fairly common across the Mediterranean including Italy. Right now I feel they are lacking a good longer ranged defensive missile unit and the Velite really doesn't cut it for me in static defensive situations. Javelin armed skirmishers are meant to be more aggressive and annoying to tempt enemies to break formation and pursue them to their peril. Also, I think it would be neat if the Roman Republic had an alae system. Perhaps this can be reflected with an alae barracks or camp that allows them to select one of an allies elite units to train at a greater cost. The ability to train these elite units should go away if the alliance is broken or gained when an alliance is made. Or maybe just expand the types of non-Roman Italic troops they can train. Maybe Lucanian hoplites, Campanian cavalry, Etruscan axe men to list a few. Anyways, I love the game so far and look forward to its continued growth. Silly Cat

Yep, that would be good. At the moment, we have Old Irish for the Britons, which is not correct, but the best that could be done at the time.

just played some game vs Iberian and see how ram getting complain. I think most siege weapon need to add a turn rat and mini-rotation circle,except your stuff getting pull as a cart could have a smaller rotation circle. i just got my siege cart unpacked (running pass) 2 hit destroyed by a ram .it hit it in front first and when my siege moved be hide the siege ram it turn a full 180 and strike the second time....totally unrealistic ,i think aoe2 also got this problem but their ram run much slower and attack very slow. siege tower also need a bit changing(I read some post said people complain playing it like a tank),I actually ok with playing siege like a tank ,I remember watch some old documentary the first tank in the world was basically a mini siege tower (using metal and engine ).It move so so slow that walking is faster and only have a few machine gun on it(seem like was mark i tank after google search),as long as bullet(arrow) cannot kill the person inside and you can slowly move while shoot back(arrow),it give enough value for them to keep making better version... I think we living at modern time find a better use of siege tower then 0 a.d people.changing the turn rate and rotation circle thing should fix that too(all siege unit is too agile).btw why on earth archer range is shorter when I load them inside siege tower??? also warship range seem bugged? it said 70+ but it was much shorter....am i missing miss read the unit data? adding some new tactics to ram user?give ram a charge ability that run in straight line and do like 20% more damage,but lower 10% damage(your guy inside the ram need to catch some breath) for next 5-6 hit(u have a total lose of half a attack damage from 500%[6hit] to 460%[6hit]) .front load damage always good and you get to melee your target faster ,the only problem is you need a straight line to use it.

That's false.

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.

i really think that ram should not hit human.... how on earth u can hit human (maybe only capable if that human is stuck cannot move.hitting elephant is find since it so big... btw i always wonder which catapult is the real? the AoE catapult got wheels the move and shoot without unpacking,and it throw a curve line....the catapult in 0 ad is pushing the stone... I actually like to use ram (mostly playing race with elephant ...it somewhat like ram but could die to arrow)it totally OP if you mix elephant and ram together catapult and blot shooter only do little damage to building you need to take an army to protect it. I really like feeling holding a ground outside enemy town and slowly break the wall catapult also have no fire damage is that added? or just planning feature) Ram is actually more toward surprise attack capable since they move fast(too fast.......) and no need to unpack...no sword cavalry really gg furthermore I want to ask can we give bolt shooter arrow more visual? I know about being realism(i love that too) but to measure how well those arrow and bolt work ,we need to make them a bit more bigger(a mode option maybe?) being able to mount them on wall would be prefect too

eae em borg- (3) vs (0) Jofursloft borg- vs Jofursloft.rar

Including a large number of civilizations but separating them into epochs sounds rather arbitrary for me. For instance, the Early Middle Ages have a lot more in common with Late Antiquity than with the Late Middle Ages. Of course, one could subdivide them into shorter epochs, but then you'd also have more cut-offs of factions which belong in multiple groupings. Besides, these epochs are heavily eurocentric. Furthermore, some might prefer geographic groupings (e.g. only Indian civilizations, but none from Europe or elsewhere) rather than chronological ones. A more sensible approach would be to put all factions into separate downloadable mods (one civ, one mod), giving people the freedom to decide for themselves which ones they want to install and use. It would complicate multiplayer a bit, though, because players have to have the same mods active to be able to join a game.

I had thought of this too, but crucially you aren't advancing the civ through the ages in a single match; the gameplay still focuses a civ onto a specific era and aesthetic.

Your suggestion reminds me of Empire Earth.

Surely a texture fix can be committed without violating the European Empire's directives?

I don't see why would that make the game unbalanced. Those civilizations that don't have catapults have rams. Each civilization has an effective mean to level an enemy base. Some have more advanced siege capabilities than others, just like in history, but this is called differentiation not unbalance.

Numantia

Carthage

I like the direction of this discussion Or discarded completely? It would be nice if factions are diversified by historical merit, instead of this arbitrary stuff like Iberian starting walls or free houses for Ptolemies, which is very unhistorical, weird and feels like a cheap attempt at "diversifying". Ptolemies could have all sorts of bonuses ranging from higher pop-cap, higher income from mines, higher agricultural output, higher income from trade, more specific mercenaries, etc, all historically based. But free houses that take longer to build? Nah.. Cheap houses that take less time to build, maybe... Same for Iberians... just give them cheaper walls if you must, but I don't even really see the logic in that. Iberians could have higher income from loot, and coral benefits, on account of the cattle rustling and raiding (hoping that cattle becomes a thing in the near future). Anyway, yes to moving mines further It has bugged me for years as it also messes with your town planning (who would allow mining in the town center anyway?). It's so claustrophobic.. Turtling should be viable, but it can also be simultaneously nerfed by placing resources further away, and preventing farming in the immediate vicinity of the CC. This would allow you to effectively wall a built up area, but if you're being sieged, you'd eventually "starve" because you don't have access to resources. Right now you can farm while under attack as if nothing's going on and the starting resources usually last long enough to have a mini-trade route set up within you're walled area. Which is silly. Stronger, more expensive walls seems to be the way to go. They become more useful (with gates being the weak spots), but become less viable to spamming because of increased cost. Another thing I've been meaning to bring up in regard to trade and how the current mechanics could be improved: Currently markets generate the highest revenue if you place them furthest appart. Ok, seems reasonable, right? Not really... It results in people placing markets on the edge of their territory, away from their settlement. So now we have a situation, were people are farming in the town center, and building markets in the middle of nowhere. It should be the other way around. How? Simple: 1) A hard exclusion zone around the CC, which forces farms towards the outskirts of your territory 2) Profitability of markets is determined by 2 factors: relative distance to each other (like now) AND, how many houses are within it's radius. 1 - 10 houses represent respectively 10 - 100% market profitability. So the amount of resources a trader caries is determined by the market they're coming from (how many people "live there" and how far away is it) Bonus side-effect: people actually build up relatively concentrated satellite settlements (for increased income) with natural looking farmlands on their outskirt, as opposed to the classically awkward low density RTS-sprawl all over the map.

Hack = melee. In game context. It never made sense to give them a pierce attack. It only muddied the waters.

It would take 5 mins to make a mod and test it out. Could even be added to the mod.io list and let players, you know, playtest. That was one of the selling points of making modding so integral to these alpha releases right? So balancing work could be done by hundreds instead of a handful? I reiterate that it is my opinion that fine tuned balancing discussions are worthless at this juncture, unless there is some kind of gross imbalance. The question is whether battering rams are grossly imbalanced (I think they are). So, let's make 2 "official" balancing mods. One where the battering ram speed is reduced, and one where they can't attack soldiers. Get people to test them out and then they can report back here. That's the real way to "balance" these things. Another mod could be adding @borg-'s flaming arrows idea. Or you can play Delenda Est where battering ram speed has been reduced for over a year and flaming arrows have been implemented for a couple civs in some circumstances for a long time too.

Garrisoned rams can be good for a sneak attack. Two unprotected rams are quite easy to destroy, so it can make the enemy send just a few units against them, which can turn out not to be enough when you ungarrison. If you expect the enemy to defend with women or infantry spearmen, skirmishers might be the best units to put inside. If the enemy has lancers or sword horses near, I'd go with spearmen instead. The trick is to ungarrison the rams at the very last moment because your units can block the way to the rams and, if you are lucky, the enemy units will try to go around them while getting killed. Slightly different use would be in bigger attacks where it can help you hide how big your attack is. Ranged units tend to be quite vulnerable to tower / fortress arrows, so it's perhaps favorable to keep them protected inside rams until you need them to fight. Just beware, from my experience, it's quite easy to forget about the units you put inside rams. Happy ramming. :-)

Hi, I've been playing 0 AD for a while and if there is a thing that I like the most is the feeling. The @#$%ing and great feeling. What is that? Is the "music-environment-faction specs" as a whole. I mean, the feeling is specially good when I play as Celtics. The music, the nature, the forest, the animals, the sunlight effects, the feeling like you are playing like a real celtic town is really good. I really enjoy 0 AD for that, the maps are very detailed and you can feel the ancient environment in your game. For that I would like tell you few points I really like of the vanilla 0 AD: 1. Citizen-soldiers: I LOVE every soldier can work and every man contribute for the success of the town. Not like just soldiers in stand-by doing nothing more than just live. Please don't make case to delenda est mod... 2. Music: Love it. 3. Maps: Skirmish maps are awesome. Treasures, and more maps with some villages or mercenary camps will be yeah! If you allow me to say some things that I think could improve the feeling could be the following: 1. higher grass: Im not sure about how can this be made but I'd like to see grass textures more like real grass, I mean higher and let the wind move it. 2. changing light through the day: dawn, mid day and sunset lights all in a game would be nice. 3. Can we see more birds in the sky? 4. More animal life... that's why I love savannah maps... lot of animals. I mean in the ancient world... animals ruled and animals sounds... 5. A bit higher buildings... more realistic 6. roads, similar to EEII or just for the feeling... 7. bridges, like EEII too 8. More music and more detailed maps... more flowers, grass, water, animals, weather, sun, buildings, totems, ruins, altars, stones, roads, this is the ancient world, we must feel that era. No more for now, I love your work 0 AD team as soon as a can I'll contribute. Nice day.

Those are modern terms, yes, but they are perfectly applicable to warfare in Antiquity. Light and heavy refer to the function on the battlefield, though, *not* to their body armour. Light infantry are auxiliaries, irregulars, skirmishers, etc. whose purpose is to harass the enemy, do raids, chase down fleeing troops, etc., kill at range, but avoid melee. Heavy infantry are troops who fight in formation and engage in melee. They form the core of the army and the outcome of the battle is decided by them. It's very lopsided, though: the side whose formation breaks are typically massacred, the victors can survive with minimal casualties. Medium is rarely used but refers to troops that could simultaneously serve as light and as heavy troops, without having to change equipment. To simplify, light means ranged and heavy means melee. (It's a bit more subtle than that, of course; spearmen and swordsmen often had javelins; archers and javelinists often had swords. Again, the terms refer to their rôle, not their armaments.)