Leaderboard

Well I figured I'd show Ordona Province's Units and Heroes, I've not gotten the glow shader yet so I just fooled around with really high bloom effects for the sake of screenshots until I get it. Here's all the details of their units roster, as well as some screenshots:

Hello PSD file in below URL https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1MLMY-VRjlCkvRNcIYLVtUKrviuNKNleY?usp=sharing

If implemented to a full extent textures will change. And maybe the ground too. It can also be imagined that water level would be replaced with icy terrain. Adding a snow variant for unit and buildings should be doable too. I'd like to add Aurora borealis to the game but it should be done with shaders.

I spent last 2 of my evening on the implementing of the addition light system in the pyrogenesis to find implementing bottlenecks for new objects. And I found some places, but that's not the topic. How additional lighting system looks: Fully dynamic lighting. And all light sources can be attached as props (i.e. to bones): "May the Light be with you..." But what restrictions do we have? We have 2 main: The lights can't throw shadows, because performance (we can implement it, but only few powerful videocards can handle it). There can't be many light sources in one place (at least for low videocards and since we don't support deferred rendering). Because shaders have own restrictions, particularly uniform sizes. But probably it's not the real problem. So I have a question: do we need additional light sources in near releases? Would it be real useful? P.S. I found strange normal values for some model, it should be investigated (probably the shader problem).

If you are interested by older roman history ;-) By the way, the Roman kingdom is very old 753 BC–509 BC and is probably not very different of the Etruscans kingdoms. Maybe a general suggestion to add the Etruscans should be more appropriate.

Since when did "heroes" release reforms while they were moving around the battlefield with their armies? And furthermore, what's the point of a limited area aura for i.e. metalworking on villagers? This essentially forces unit that is supposed to tank damage on the battlefield (and costs a ton of resources )should stay near some villager women to make them collect berries faster? Yea sure... There's just no logic behind that. If heroes are to be taken as "historical" the mechanic currently present is crap. Just make 3 "commander type" heroes instead, chooseable via pop up screen at a certain time of the game (i.e. when the first city gets access to phase III) and this then either unlocks a couple of passive bonuses and/or unique technologies that the other "heroes" have no access to. Alternatively bind this mechanic to cities and actually create a concept around this. Or at least something that is slightly original ...

The next time it crashes, please post the mainlog before you start the game again. (Each start of 0ad overrides the old mainlogs)

Imo the boudica pic look good but kind of clashes with the art style of the game and rest of the updated hero portraits.

Removing micro in the multiplayer so skilled players cannot defeat unskilled players as easily? Skill gap in multiplayer being bad for the game? What!? I do not think you get the point of multiplayer games... Removing a feature because it is used by skilled players to defeat less skilled players so everyone would be the same skill level is... I have no words, I am speechless.

Hi guys, "I figured out the problem", lol It's not ranged units that's the real problem. It's actually the melee units themselves that are the problem! They don't have a directional defense, nor can they make use of shield walls. Many ancient armies fought in formations, especially heavy melee infantry formations were usually the core units in pitched battles. Because they often carry shields, they weren't as susceptible to missile fire as they seem in current games like 0AD. Let's face it, shields are purely cosmetic in 0AD, and as long as directional attacks and directional defence aren't developed, we're always going to run circles in this ranged vs melee discussion. An infantry unit (with shield) being attacked from the front by archers should be able to stand his own very well. But should be very susceptible to ranged attacks from the sides or from the back. This implies real tactics, not dancing units! Currently phalangites for example fight out of formation more than 90% of the time, and considering formations are broke, putting them into formation is a recipe for disaster. I don't need to stress how ridiculous this is.. Melee infantry will never properly come into their own until formations and battalions (and their implied benefits) are fixed and implemented, as well as directionality of attack and defence. I think it's frustrating that there are people who think dancing units are just fine, and there are people that think lack of battalion systems and decent formations isn't an important issue, especially with regard to these kind of discussions.

Yes, I agree. Ranged units are always accurate and the arrows are super fast. It would be nice to see the arrows flying and coming from the top. You can not generalize that. First of all it depends on the civilization you play. Not all civilizations have archers and even fewer have archers as champion units. Most of the African and Asian factions have good archers. So, basically it is a cultural thing if a civilization made use of archers. All faction went through a research phase, which means somebody looked at units to include, that is the reason why some have archers and others do not have them. Second, there is always a certain military fashion. Sometimes soldiers with long spear and shield where in fashion. Other times heavy cavalry or soldiers with short spears where in fashion. However, the fashion lasted until somebody found a new and better approach. For example, the phalanx Alexander used came out of fashion after him, but was again the thing in the late middle ages and renaissance. Third, you mentioned Alexander and Darius III. Both of them had a military background and experiences with a certain fight style. Alexander used the soldiers he had to his advantage. However, the key part in the Battle of Gaugamela was Alexander's tactic and the use of cavalry. Also, the fact that he himself was leading the army gave his soldiers a moral boots. With other words sometimes the tactic and psychology is the key to winning a battle. Sometimes, the circumstances play a more important role. If you play against somebody who uses a lot of archers, then use armored cavalry to kill his archers. Every unit has a weakness, every player has a certain style on the battlefield and every player has experiences from the past. In conclusion, using archers or not depends on player, civilization and a particular game. So, if please review your comment and describe in more detail on which map you played and which civilizations played against each other, to get a better understanding of your exact problem. In addition, it would help to answer the question why you feel that archers are to dominant in 0 A.D.?

And a screenshot to show off some of the new range visiluation markers used: Attack range (javelinist): narrow line. Economic aura (woman): zigzag. Regeneration aura (temple): chain of crosses. Healing range (healer): crosses with regular distances in between.

That sounds pretty cool... Daco-Thracians, mmmm.... Considering eagle hunting is most prevalent in Mongolia today, the Xiongnu should definitely have this ability if implementable (Chinese sources mention the practice), and there seems to be evidence for Scythians practicing it as well, making it a perfect general Nomadic civ trait, to help mitigate their lack of farming. Seems to be another thing women excelled at. Female Eagle Huntresses: I don't see why? They weren't 100% horseback all the time. But when they campaign, it was all horses, so I think that created the impression they literally all ride horses all the time. In very general terms: even when migrating, there would have been a lot of walking involved as well. They have slow moving animals like sheep, goats and cattle and their carts don't usually travel at light speed either (and would need regular pushing, and pulling). Don't forget the old folk, pregnant women, and babies. Families and clans would usually have a highly mobile component of riders and a less mobile component: the household and the rest of the family. Everybody also forgets that they ruled over sedentary populations as well (Northern China, Tarim Basin, Sogdiana, Black Sea Coast etc). Especially at their height (Huns, Scythians and Xiongnu), the wealthier families/clans/tribes, whatever, had access to a lovely array of slaves whom I doubt would be given horses. Cavalry having a building ability reminds me of the Maurya elephant being able to build by itself. How did that ever pass the review? We were arguing about elephants' "siege" capabilities, meanwhile some of our elephants are freakin' architects, engineers and construction workers all in one, as well as being a mobile drop-site on top of that... Of course, for the Nomadic civs, I'd change my mind if dismounting units ever becomes a thing.

Well I got all of Ordona Province's buildings done

Just as smiley said, the big issue was GDPR and the bad timing with holidays. It was difficult to work around an issue that needed an expertise nobody had at first. But we're getting there, and we fixed more things than we originally planned in the re-release. Thanks for your patience