Leaderboard

People don't seem to realize the generosity of these devs giving us a "free" game that is almost as playable as AOE, and not too far from that game as far as content and depth. Are you entitled to everything in life ? Why isn't giving us a "free game" that is playable enough ? Just be patient,and enjoy the journey of the development of this beautiful gem,and yes it will be a gem because it is unique,detailed,and enjoyable. Patience is a virtue

He must have noticed that he didn't have to pay to download the game... When you don't pay for something you have no basis for making demands.

In 1v1 the Briton civilization has: - one huge advantage = you can get to max pop (build your full army) sooner than any other civ - one huge disadvantage = poorer units, if you build your army and do not immediately attack, your opponent will be able to build his own full army and will defeat you as he has better units Because of this, Britons are very much like zerg in startcraft. So this is the strategy when playing Britons: build a lot more units a lot faster than your enemy, and when reaching 150 population urgently attack. If you fail that attack you lose, if you delay that attack you lose, if you are not the first to reach max pop you lose, if you do not know how to use many but weak units in combat you lose, and so on. Note: if you are a beginner today, follow this guide and you will reach a high score simple because there are also a lot of beginners that make huge mistakes. You need to memorize this build order, and always play it on normal Mainland map and configure your building batch size to 2: 1 - with your initial 4 women build granary near berries 1 - with your initial 4 soldiers build warehouse near wood 1 - put your horseman to collect food from chickens/sheeps near cc 1 - put your cc to train 6 women and set rally point to berries 2 - send your dog to go near the enemy base 3 - make the 100 wood upgrade from granary, that upgrades the berry gathering rate 4 - keep building women and send them to gather wood, your cc should be constantly training 5 - when your pop is 21 build a house 5 - use your dog to find an enemy woman ans harras him. Try to kill one woman, sacrifice your dog without regrets 6 - when you reach 24 pop now build slingers instead of women, pay attention to build a house whenever you are getting close to your pop limit 6 - build a tower near your berries, you need to defend against enemy harrass 7 - when your horseman has finished collecting all chickens send him to scout (see opponent building location) and then harass opponent (killed a villager) 7 - when your stone is depleted, train again women instead of slingers Since a 1v1 game should take somewhere between 20 and 25 minutes, the steps above are roughly your first 7-8 minutes, that makes it about a 3rd of the game. It should be memorized. Now comes the second third of the game: In these 7 minutes you need to achieve these goals: - have 9 full farms, meaning 45 women - advance age (500 food and 500 wood) - reach 150 population, out of which 45 are women and 105 soldier - have at least 3 barracks The third and last part of the game is your attack: you leave 10 soldiers to collect wood, and your 45 women to collect food. Thus you have 95 soldiers with which to attack. 1 - your goal is to ruin his economy = capture houses, kill women, capture unguarded barracks. What does it mean: 1.a - avoid towers of fortress (he will not have one at this moment if you played correctly) 1.b - it is very useful to know where his buildings are, thus you can attack form behind, where ha has houses or farms or barracks/blacksmith/marketplace without towers nearby, you gain this info in stage one, with your horse 1.c - he will pull his soldiers form collecting resources and use them to defend. Thus he has no more economy this is why this attack is so powerful 1.d - you have 150 units, out of which you attack with 95 soldiers. If you play it correctly, since any other civ does not get bonus population from his warehouses/etc, he will only have 110 population, out of which half are women, effectively you outnumber his soldiers 2 to 1 (or maybe just 3 to 2) 1.e - you keep your army together, while he has to pull his soldiers from different spread out places. If only a part of his army attacks you at one point, you have effectively a 5 to 1 superiority 1.f - your army composition is 3 ranged units (slingers or skirmishers) for each spearman 2 - your barracks and cc must keep training soldiers, so that you get reinforcements in combat 3 - proud opponents cannot believe they have lost so they will try some weak attack on your base with a few troops. Use those 10 soldiers gathering wood to defend 4 - if game drags on, advance last age and build yourself a fortress - if it gets into an attrition war, you have lost Most important notes on combat (this is what happens in the third part of your game): - your army should be 1 spear for every 3 ranged, so a 75% ranged units ratio - range units battles end up very quickly and you should devote your entire attention to them - the moment you need to pay most attention to is this combat moment, when your army engages his - the one who has his ranged units close together wins against the one with dispersed units, worse even, the one whose units move in a line and attack one by one - do not let your units run towards your enemy, as his ranged soldiers will kill your units one by one - put spearman in front of slinger, as spearman move slower they will spend most of the battle moving instead of doing damage - slingers do the most damage per second - in the heat of combat, moving instead of doing damage is wasteful - attacker will lose if he sends his army to an equally large army that is standing together still - put your units to most aggressive stance (they will engage any enemy), just to avoid useless movement during combat - never fight combats where your opponent has the same amount of army as you. Always attack only when you outnumber him. Retreat when he has the same or more. - the ideal situation when your army stands still grouped together, on aggressive stance, and he attacks you with his smaller army. Many people will attack you with roughly equal (slightly smaller) armies composed of better units. This is a psychological defect of the human brain that is very hard to resist. Easy win as moving close to you will kill 15% of his army before doing any damage. - never fight in range of towers or fortress If you follow this build order (I will update with timers and exact builds, maybe make a 1v1 commented match to explain) there is nothing he can do to mediate your advantage, thus you will only lose if you make some combat/late game/get greedy mistakes. Stay tuned for more, I will be adding and editing this post.

I decide to upload here this video to help noob/low/medium level players to obtain a very good population boom in a short time. Here you have a gaul boom with: 300 population in 14 minutes Will to fight at minute 15:30 All main militar upgrades within minute 15:30 (all armor upgrades, all ranged fight upgrades) Wonder (without upgrade unluckely) All main economy upgrades (all wood upgrades, all field upgrades, berry upgrade, 2° stone and metal upgrade) 4 Barracks total (maybe in late game you can make more) No team bonuses, as you can see in the screenshot I decided not to train more than 57 women and make some men at beginning to counter a possible small rush. At the end my army composition is 30 spearmen + 62 skirmishers + 62 slingers + 4 rams I'm sorry for the upload inconvenience, but I didn't notice my microphone was on so I had to delete some embarassing voices xd

Thanks, but that's more of a side suggestion, very helpful advice though!

haha woops. Yeah that's mostly texture stretching like WhiteTreePaladin pointed out, but it ought to be closed shouldnt it?

You could use the hotkey "freehand position". Right Drag: With units selected: when the mouse is released, the units will spread out on your drawn line. Same modification options like normal move command.

Formations in 0 AD are amazing, however i have two suggestions that aren't far fetched and would greatly improve the game. 1. Units in different formations cannot move in separate formations. If I want to have my cavalry form a wedge, and my infantry form a phalanx, that's fine. But the problem occurs when i want to move them both in their formations. If i try to move them, they either just assume the no formation position, or they mix into a formation that includes both units (eg: closed order, forced march, etc) I should be able to have my infantry in a different formation than my cavalry, and move them both at the same time 2. Line formation One of the common formations used by the Romans, Macedonians, and other civilizations during that time period, was the line formation, this formation was just a long horizontal line of soldier, meant to intimidate and/or circle and entrap the enemy. This is currently not a formation in the game, but it would be great if it could be. I realize that any size-able army's line would be much to long to have any use, so each line of units is 50 units long, this is still very long and enough to circle and trap an enemy, while not completely hindering the use of this formation. if all 50 spots are filled in the first line, it makes a second line, and so on. I really think that these mechanics would greatly improve the game and would love for them to be implemented.

Art and re-enactment of Hellenic armors, even the Mycenaean period. https://www.facebook.com/HellenicArmors

Ooooh, we disagree I wasn't being an apologetic when I was a kid reading genesis. I was used to the literal interpretation, but when I read it for myself, it didn't make sense to look at this ancient text as something literal. If you're a little familiar with ancient Egyptian religion for example, you'll see that the gods all represent ideas. The stories are just for "kids", but the deeper knowledge that was studied by the priests included mathematics, astronomy, architecture, medicine, philosophy etc... I definitely think that a lot of people interpreted it literally, but those people were commoners, and their interpretations nearly irrelevant, considering they were not the ones producing this stuff. Mystic knowledge is past on between initiated individuals, not through the entire population. Priests were the "scientists" of the ancient day, and the knowledge they possessed with regard to the movement of the sun, moon and stars for example, was used to determine the calendar (when do the rains come, when to plant, when do eclipses occur, when do certain comets pass). We take these things for granted today, but more than 99% of the population today wouldn't be able make such predictions without consulting the news, who in turn consult astronomers among others... Ancient religious texts like the bible are chockfull of parables and metaphors... Stories sometimes borrowed from other cultures. The accuracy and exact sequence of events in the story is not nearly as important as the underlying message it conveys. The plebs might tunnel vision on "miracles", but theologians aren't interested in supernatural events, per se, they rather seek to see the relevance of God in the everyday natural world. The mystics and deeper truths behind religious texts are rarely understood by the masses. Take the Quran for example, with its mathematical literary composition and structure. It's insane... Meanwhile most people can barely do math in the first place, let alone recognize it in a religious text. Most of these religious texts started out as oral traditions. This means that the keepers of those traditions knew the entire text by heart! Meanwhile most religious people can't even be bothered to even read their religious texts in their entirety, let alone memorize it... Also, ancient Greeks were a very diverse bunch. Again, I don't doubt that a majority of the population probably took these stories about gods and titans and monsters and what not literally, but Ancient Greece also produced some of the finest thinkers of the ancient world, laying the foundation for Western philosophy (and the god of the philosophers). I believe Socrates and Plato, for example "rejected the Homeric image of the Greek Pantheon". Not to say they were atheists, but their views on theology can hardly be described as conventional. Neither were they unique to those individuals.

We can add in the list of purposes of the lobby privacy policy that we may publish anonymous statistics covering all active users. This is not an issue since the published result will not contain personal data, but we have to disclose it to the users since the calculations will be based on personal data. In order to help, you can contribute scripts that crunch the data and generate the stats. We cannot share actual data for you to crunch them, but you can create a local lobby with dummy accounts (for instance in a virtual machine) in order to generate a database that you can test your scripts on.

Indeed. Like you, I think it is related with very old fears resulting from events during the end of the Ice Age. People don't realize how much it was different at this moment, with gigantic rivers flooding most of the valleys. https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/03/channeled-scablands/ http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/04/original-brexit-how-tremendous-ice-age-waterfalls-cut-britain-europe And there is not only indication in the Black Sea for a sea level rising, but in the Persian Gulf too. https://www.world-archaeology.com/world/asia/iran/persian-gulf-the-first-migration/

I wanted to ask this for some time, and this looks like a good place to ask it. Why are the Celtic civilizations considered to be the best? It seems like (after watching some of the videos posted on this forum, I don't play MP myself) that in 90% of the matches one of the parties is either Briton or Gaul, but often both. Sometimes you also see Ptolemies but other Civs are truly rare to be seen. So why are the Celts considered superior for competitive play? Is it the spear + slinger + skirmisher combo that is so effective? (The Ptolemies also have this combo, maybe that is why they are also considered good). Are slingers really the key to victory? According to my limited historic knowledge, slingers are supposed to be cheap auxiliary troops, not a battle deciding factor. AFAIK the Successors have a much more diverse army, both the Seleucids and the Ptolemies have almost every unit kind available. But I have not seen even a single match with Seleucids played.

There are two "narratives" that some may interpret as two separate accounts. If they are separate accounts, they are rather complementary. The first narrative covers the overall creation and provides a timeline. It mentions each element of creation and states that each is good. At the end, mankind is created as both male and female; it then states that this is "very" good rather than just good. Considering that the creation of mankind was considered "very" good, the second narrative provides a follow-up and focuses on this in detail. The ordering in this section is less consequential because everything is related to humans, and no attempt is made to provide a chronology like the first section. Here things are introduced when it is convenient to bring them up in relation to the main topic, the creation of man. Except for the portion that provides extensive landmarks for location of the Garden of Eden, it's difficult to read more than a sentence here without the word "man" appearing. There are a few sentences about plants which are presumably included to introduce the Garden of Eden as a habitat for humans. There is also a very small part on animals which was included to show that there was no mate available for Adam. This led to the creation of woman which completed the creation of mankind. The first narrative could be seen as independent, but the second narrative would be rather incomplete as a full creation story. There are no references to the creation of light, darkness, celestial bodies, or even the creation of the earth itself.* Plant and animal details are sparse. There is no mention of the sky (except to say that rain had not been invented yet), or any water creatures. (The lack of sky or water in the discussion is likely due to humans being land dwellers.) The second narrative's major omissions lead me to think that it was intended as an addition to the first part rather than a separate, standalone account. *The beginning of Genesis 2 can easily be seen as a continuation of the first narrative. It can be difficult to determine where the second narrative actually begins as the first flows so gradually into the second. In Genesis 2:4 there is part of a sentence that mentions the creation of the heavens and earth, but it is either the conclusion of the first narrative or a reference back to it due to the wording: "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,..."

The next frontiers in research on submerged prehistoric sites and landscapes on the continental shelf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Nicholas_Flemming/publication/324746001_The_next_frontiers_in_research_on_submerged_prehistoric_sites_and_landscapes_on_the_continental_shelf/links/5b97dceb299bf14ad4ce0e03/The-next-frontiers-in-research-on-submerged-prehistoric-sites-and-landscapes-on-the-continental-shelf.pdf

anytime something asks me for email i know it will send me... SPAM !!!

No you were not joking You just changed your mind after you noticed you were rude. Be nice,smile,and enjoy

Probably not a bad idea - at least some precision should be set. Trees are an issue. Will probably take quite a bit of effort to fix that. (The pathfinder is being worked on.) The only "solution" for now is to chose maps that either don't have as many trees, or have trees in dense clumps so that the pathfinder doesn't get confused. (Should greatly help with performance too.) The door is fine, but the door opening has slanted walls, so it looks like it is a result of texture stretching. I'm not sure if this is intentional or not because the base of the tower also has slanted walls, but it does look a bit odd.

You are free to advertise the game around you, to gather more developpers.

As I said in a previous thread, there is a hypothesis that Basque and Iberian languages are related. Basque has known some evolution to unify the dialects in one language. But the structure of the language and the etymological roots are definitely pre-indo-european. I think it is an acceptable compromise for the game to use it for the Iberians. And anyway, the Celtiberians had a different culture with a different language.