Leaderboard

Finished the temperate fora.

Iberian Elite Skirmisher @Genava55 Opinions on their equipment and the use of colors Notice the green tunic and green pteruges for the player 1 (blue) and orange counterpart for player 2 (red) This was an experiment, I increased the yellow color in the transparency to modify the colors it will produce. I am planning to use this technique in my future textures.

In 10 months of it's publication in mod.io, Delenda Est reaches now 10 thousand downloads... An average of a thousand downloads per month. Congratulations to all involved! PS: community maps mod also available now in mod.io.

If you play the Git DE, you get to preview a lot of cool stuff that official dev version hasn't yet implemented. I like to take all the new stuff added to the game and immediately play with it and iterate and try to get as much out of it as I can to showcase all the hard work of these guys as best as possible. Plus, perhaps my experimentation can be added to the core game or at least inform the team members on how the cool features and assets they've put in their game can be used, and then they decide. You can try out stone quarries right now on the Saharan Oases 2 and 4 skirmish maps. You can also gather food, berry-style, from these gorgeous fruiting Date Palms by @LordGood:

Obviously, I find much value in the past work of the community, but I disagree that all work dedicated to the game should remain "ad eternum" on the vanilla version. It seems to me not only desirable but something to be expected in the context of collaborative work. We could have a repository of maps to be downloaded, but the vanilla version of the game should be curated, refining the maps with each new version.

Hey thanks. I should probably update it................. Whenever it does get updated though it's going to be so much better. Luckily those with the dev version of the game can play updated DE now from Github: https://github.com/JustusAvramenko/delenda_est

The definition of Naval maps is that enemies can only be reached by building ships. On Gulf Of Bothnia, ships are an alternative to land warfare. You won't find a map under Naval where you can attack the enemies via land, at least if you play them the way they are intended to (english channel, corsica, ... one team per island/continent). Square maps are deprecated in Atlas, although I guess Pyrogenesis RTS engine should always support them if it wants to be an RTS engine. Last alpha many square maps became circular, those 2 are the only ones where I don't know how they could work on circular maps without changing the way they were designed. Square maps have 27% more map area than circular maps of the same size, this changes gameplay drastically. Atlas Mountains doesn't have few resorces. Canyon isn't much more unnaturally appearing than the other maps, is it? Mainland, any of the maps with random hills etc. I wouldn't know how to distinguish naturally looking from unnaturally looking maps with tags. Ratumacos is a realworld map, but not condensed? We can let players add their own tags, but the question is which maps we should hide from new players by default. So perhaps it should be a "Best maps" category for the 10 or 20 best maps, and then if players like the game and want to play more than that, they can chose the other filters (but which filters are to be provided).

+1 for iterative updates to maps... (Which is already being done to a degree by people like elexis and his random maps). It's just not a one man job. Scenario maps could even be updated by interested community members (I can't because Atlas is bugged out on mac, always has been for me, on 2 different macs)... Systematically updating the poorest looking assets is a sure way of improving what we already have. No need to delete maps if they can be improved upon. But some maps really do need a lot of improving (more than just assets)... I think all "standard" skirmish and random maps should always pursue the highest level of naturalism feasible. All fantasy/novelty maps should be purged from the main lists, and get their own fantasy category. A lot of people can't stand those kind of maps, myself included. Shouldn't "random maps" be called "procedural maps"? The term "random" is very confusing actually... I don't think alpha 24 is happening any time soon, so it actually offers an opportunity to the artists for a larger scale update. I'm personally trying my best, but I work so slowly... Should be able to do a few assets though... PS: take care of what maps are at the top of the lists, because of the alphabetical order. How many more times do I need to watch a youtube vid of a newbie playing Acropolis bay??? The first map people play should be one of the best looking ones (first impressions matter!). Perhaps with the new cliffs Acropolis bay could be really improved, but I'm honestly even bored of the name... After so many years, let another map take the top position please. Also, some of the map previews are really unnecessarily ugly. Like Guadalquivir for example... Why??? lol... It's like deliberate poor advertising, lol...

Do you also have a version available for people who don't use Steam? And can it be played on GNU/Linux (without Wine)?

Today, I tested the latest SVN22175, and I made these errors at compile time: Error 281 error C2039: 'uniform_real_distribution' : is not a member of 'boost' (..\..\..\source\simulation2\components\tests\test_RangeManager.cpp) D:\trunk\source\simulation2\components\tests\test_RangeManager.h 134 1 test Error 282 error C2065: 'uniform_real_distribution' : undeclared identifier (..\..\..\source\simulation2\components\tests\test_RangeManager.cpp) D:\trunk\source\simulation2\components\tests\test_RangeManager.h 134 1 test Error 283 error C2062: type 'double' unexpected (..\..\..\source\simulation2\components\tests\test_RangeManager.cpp) D:\trunk\source\simulation2\components\tests\test_RangeManager.h 134 1 test Error 284 error C2039: 'uniform_real_distribution' : is not a member of 'boost' (..\..\..\source\simulation2\components\tests\test_RangeManager.cpp) D:\trunk\source\simulation2\components\tests\test_RangeManager.h 135 1 test Error 285 error C2065: 'uniform_real_distribution' : undeclared identifier (..\..\..\source\simulation2\components\tests\test_RangeManager.cpp) D:\trunk\source\simulation2\components\tests\test_RangeManager.h 135 1 test Error 286 error C2062: type 'double' unexpected (..\..\..\source\simulation2\components\tests\test_RangeManager.cpp) D:\trunk\source\simulation2\components\tests\test_RangeManager.h 135 1 test

Someone asked me recently how I manage to make the game look so good in my screenshots. One of the major reasons is I refuse to use half of the assets in the game. If I think some tree models are ugly, I don't use them. If I don't think some terrains are up to snuff, I don't use them. I don't care about visual variety, I care about visual coherence. Just a thought. It's one of the reasons I am so excited about @LordGood new assets here. They're a much-needed update! I'd like to see some of the older/uglier gaia assets updated, definitely! If you would update some of the existing trees , bushes, and rocks that maps already use, then you can automatically make maps look better without touching a single line of map code. Some older stuff that can use updates: flora_tree_tamarix flora_tree_fig flora_tree_olive flora_tree_aleppo_pine (I like the funky and distinct trunk shapes, shame about the texture/canopy geometry) flora_tree_pine (a mix of "generic" pine trees) props/flora/bush (dire geometry) props/flora/bush_desert_dry_a (I use this one a lot on my maps, specifically desert and snow maps, but the geometry of the mesh leaves a weird "hole" in the middle) a lot of the "bush" actors in general. Only the small ones are good as-is (like props/flora/bush_medit_sm and _dry, I use those a lot) A lot of the decorative "stone" actors too. I use geology/stone_{biome}_med a looooot for general spiciness. I hardly ever use the larger stone actors because most of them just don't look any good, lol. If some of these can just be updated, then boom, a lot of the maps that use them automatically look a ton better. Same goes for the existing terrain textures.

COMMITTED: Textures for the Greek Psiloi (Elite) and Athenian Epilektoi

Since these have a slightly high amount of polys compared to old shields keep the old assets for buildings wouldn't harm, even retrieve some designs/patterns to new ones (SVG or black and white siloutte would help). Enabled group 5 with 3 variants, Used design done by @Genava55: Mod with latest changes for backup:Celtic_Shields.7z Note: Remember this is using horse revamped, if this is committed before the horse update proper horse actor will be done.

That would be https://code.wildfiregames.com/D1490

So something like that but miniaturized to be used as a mercenary camp ?

I got a head start on the black pines, could benefit from a few more variations. General purpose tree dump thread

I just saw that the sizes of the textures, especially PNG ones, are HUGE. There is an amazing tool called tinyPNG that can help us fixing that. It uses lossless compression algorithms to reduce texture sizes without losing quality. I tried it on some textures, and their size got drastically reduced : Applying it to all textures might be a great optimisation : lower loading time, but also faster rendering.

I think the cardiophylax is used before the chain mail become common in the peninsula (EDIT maybe contradicted by the finding below thus your choice is still possible): https://journals.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/index.php/jahrb-rgzm/article/download/15319/9194/0 Although, I am not fluent in Spanish, thus I struggle to read it quickly. I see maybe a possible case, similar to some finds among the Gauls, with metallic plaques mixed with chain mail: http://ceres.mcu.es/pages/Main?idt=84147&inventary=1952%2F10%2F579&table=FMUS&museum=MAN&fbclid=IwAR1q1ah0rVBqpm6rOpTAJk15_pv2JI-z3Z076wHAkflNlcmSwkifS37wnQ0 @soloooy0 @Trinketos @Gallaecio @Alexandermb is there someone speaking spanish that can also handle the reading of some academics material on the forum? @av93 maybe? Sources in Spanish: https://www.academia.edu/4182682/_En_los_orígenes_la_metalistería_prerromana_Sautuola_Revista_del_Instituto_de_Prehistoria_y_Arqueología_Sautuola_ISSN_1133-2166_No_13_2007_págs._59-78?fbclid=IwAR3DZX24buTObAFIs0v60kOEimMh3GkPTLmLt5AkIPECuBe8mbXTvhdwpHc http://www.man.es/man/dms/man/estudio/publicaciones/boletin-man/MAN-Bol-1998/MAN-Bol-1998-Barril-Vicente.pdf https://docplayer.es/50850604-La-panoplia-guerrera-de-la-necropolis-de-villanueva-de-teba-burgos.html http://gladius.revistas.csic.es/index.php/gladius/article/download/44/45 https://www.academia.edu/30577570/La_guerra_y_el_armamento_celtibérico_estado_actual

We already tried PNG lossless compression years ago. See this commit: https://trac.wildfiregames.com/changeset/16386 Notably the cursors went from 4+KB to 1+KB. Ideally it should be done before committing the PNGs to the SVN. If you rather recompress the PNGs already committed, the SVN bloats (including the checkout) because it still keeps the older PNGs (because SVN needs to let you access older revisions) as well the new ones. A better way to improve on game size (also reflecting in the final game download, not only on the source which has PNG but not S3TC textures) is to recompress the audio files, using a proper, updated ogg codec and sensible compression value. For some more info see this:

I was also wondering if they do the modeling in-house or if they mix with external assets from 3D marketplaces. Very weird indeed... The "West" and "East" really lack credibility...

But when you select "random map", then you want to be surprised whether the map comes with 30% map being water, 20% hills, or 100% land? For this map-aera problem, one could make it so that the map area relates to the passable map area, not the total map aera, but not sure if that makes it really more expected. If map authors are good, every map is unique, so the problem can occur with any setting. For example on a map with many hills or water, Regicide is a different deal. That we have a "random map" item to begin with implies the design principle that random maps adapt to the settings given by the user, not the other way around. It actually has been wished that random maps can restrict the settings that the user can chose, for example requiring a specific victory condition or mapsize. Then "random" won't work anymore without reinventing that (random selection from the maps that support the chosen settings. That has the disadvantage that the user can't predict which maps are subset thereof). It's not uncommon in multiplayer games to remain for half an hour in the gamesetup stage to make 8 players (and the other 6 players that wanted settings and left again) happy with every possible setting. So anything that will shorten that period without reducing the setting expectance will be benefitial. Yes, that was bad. I had already removed 20-30% of the forests and there is still too few space. The map author actually said it's the intention of the map that players have to use docks and chop wood. So I still think there is more deforestation necessary before I play that map. They aren't fake. I guess you're asking for tooltip that tells you that you need a merchant to pick it up. Which is just a random bug, that doesn't break the gameplay experience in such a way that it would have to be removed from the "acceptable map" filters. That always happens when there is enough space for a dock but too few space + a dock + a ship passing it. That's the case on about every map that comes with a small river or passages. Might be fixed by making docks not placeable in places where there is only space for a ship. But then players report that as a bug that they can't build a dock there. So eh, not sure what we're supposed to do. Players at least can expect from the size of the ship and the dock that this will be blocking in some areas. For this specific maps the thames can become larger. which I suspect is part of the reason why the "Land" filter is the "Default" one. But all of this feedback is feedback for ship and map development, not for the gamesetup filtering, no? English Channel in particular is one of the better than the worse maps IMO.

My default setting is 'medium'. I don't think it's ideal that the same settings don't lead to the same kind of 'playability'; if I want to play a randomly picked map, I shouldn't have to adjust the settings for a specific map beforehand, since I don't know that this specific map is coming up... I didn't like Dodecanese; no space to build, no land available where I could place a CC. I don't like the fake treasures on Cycladic Archipelago. I really strongly dislike that Archipelago always has fish on land. On British Channel I hated the Thames. And there were maps where I thought my ships should be able to go places, but they weren't. And in combination with having to use the biggest & dumbest units (ships) all the time...

I think the point is about regularities that would not occur in nature. For example the perfectly symmtrical islands and ring on Gear. But roads are manmade, and men can also can create small passages between the canyon. The regularity / radial symmetry is observable on most maps. So at least it may be difficult to draw a line. Kerala, one of my favourites, is also a real world map; that's not the issue.  With realworld map I didn't mean the portrayed location, but the fact that it uses a NASA heightmap. It's not a problem to players who check from the map presented to them whether there is passability, rather than people expecting passability from the geographic design. I guess you are right however, there contradiction that the map design says the map shall reflect the terrain accurately while the realworld terrain has this distinct quality of being passable to ships there, and that this is a quality lost by downscaling (whereas the shape of the terrain is not lost when downscaling). Which would mean adding passages, but that would falsify the terrain shape. So it will be a tradeoff. Last time I checked in multilpayer and singleplayer I could play the same way. And I suppose we don't want to provide a list that is intentionally false in any case. People in the past have decided that naval maps should not be listed by default - probably because players start with the expectation of starting a land warfare game and don't want to find out after starting the game that they started a naval map unintentionally. Regardless whether it's a good choice, I think the filter labels must be clear - "Default" doesn't tell you anything what's in there, "Land" does. (We wouldn't be discussing now what the purpose of that filter was if it had been labeled more precisely.) Map quality is determined by both gameplay and aesthetics, so if we want to sort out the ugly and the weird, we should find a good wording for that. And I suppose it won't be possible without changing the Dropdown to Checkboxes to satisfy the "beautiful" maps by default and "land" maps by default at the same time.

I've made a Turkey model to but I'm not great at skinning it. I'm still working that out.

0.A.D Forgotten Factions, i'm glad outdated unit textures are getting improvements .

that game would be hit in 2000

I always proponed to rename "Default" to "Land maps", that's what it's actually filtering for IIRC. If you remove ugly maps from the "Default" filter, then there's no more "Land" filter, but there is clearly demand for that filter. (That's why I had proposed to add a new filter above.) Edit: Filters could also become checkboxes. ([x] Ugly, [x] Land, [X] Naval [x] Scripted [x] Demo)

It's planned to allow players to add banmasks, so that "anti-buddies" can't join ones server (rather than having to ban them after they joined), and also can't join after they created a smurf account (by banning the IPs and VPNs). But offensive chat should not be hidden by one person, because then the offensive chat is still visible to everyone else. It doesn't solve the problem, instead the offensive chat should not be transmitted anymore, for example by someone actually muting the offensive players or more.

Terrain textures are exquisite... Flora and most of the other map assets like rocks are exquisite (those random structures in neutral territory are strange and distracting though). The geometry in those hills is really nice. Timurid faction is indeed very visually appealing, and an excellent choice for civ. Very powerful, but hardly known, which gives them a nice exotic feeling without feeling tacky. I don't like the other two generic civs. They should choose specific civs and try to use some actual references for them... Those fire and smoke effects when structures are destroyed are pretty cool. I absolutely love the naturally generated roads between all the structures. Impactful, yet perfectly subtle, so it doesn't become distracting... It just helps to tie in the base with itself and with the map very nicely. @LordGood & @elexis check out them roads... No input from the player is needed and the result is quite organic looking. With a lot of effort, time, stress and sleepless nights, I'm sure you could achieve something similar, but even nicer looking for 0AD... Doesn't even need to be functional. Just purely aesthetic... As for the rest of the game... The pathfinder/unit AI seems super wonky... I don't understand the resource gathering aspect of the game. Are there any? Gameplay seems a little meh... The way the game progresses feels very weird. I'm assuming there's only a handful of maps and I think their replayability is very limited. The maps don't seem very interactive, somehow.

This is only a temporary roster. If I understood correctly, they want to release an early version not totally finished (mainly updating the texture and the models). I propose to stay on the current situation where the two rosters for the Celtic factions are almost the same.

It's fixed.

I am very much in favor of streamlining the maps in the game. There are currently 90 random maps in the game, of extremely varying quality. Many of them don't really follow any kind of theme, some are generic, some are specific, some are "novelty" maps. I'd rather a game have 10 supremely high quality random maps, than 90 random maps that are "all over the map" in quality and theme, lol. That's not to say that the game should only have 10, but 10 amazing maps would be better than 1000 mediocre maps. Ideally, each map should represent the game at its best. New players booting up a map that looks and plays bad would not bode well for the rest of the map set as far as setting expectations. Part of the problem is that the maps can only (understandably) use the assets that the game provides and the assets themselves vary in quality too. It would be great to go back and either (preferably) update or (unfortunately) eliminate some older legacy assets which are just not up to snuff, then adjust the map scripts accordingly. Some kind of overhaul is needed, definitely. Discussion can be had about how to organize the maps too. Novelty maps, like Snowflake Searocks I think should be organized separately from maps which are highly focused on the game's themes like Jebel Barkal. Just to name a quibble. Sorry, went on a tangent. Hopefully I didn't annoy anybody like @elexis

Removing old maps sounds wrong, placing them under an "old" filter would suffice. Not like they weight much anyway

I can only sign this. Though I tried to give this virtual engagement a more personal note long ago when I desperately tried to arrange a meeting with forum powers I valued a lot. It was all rejected though despite me offering to travel to France. But if we really all have a nice friendly gathering one day, or if we ever meet to plan our world peace plots, then I will also offer drinks to all these amazing contributors. (I am no less serious) The works are all very impressing! not only those by LordGood, but of course he replaces and entire army (and produces shooort great videos that are no tutorial but still have very loud sound that made me feel in dire need of some utilities from the Weasley brothers lal - not to forget these trees that grow as if made for marksmen, tricking interpolation, putting Atlas Cedar on two feet - all at a single day. what a man).

Thems cliffs are the hotness.

https://code.wildfiregames.com/D14

add variations, dirt and all kind of a real ground it could have.

They are nice but they are missing details so they do not look very realistic.

Some time ago I made a turkey for my mod, I do not know if they also use it in terra magna for the zapotecs

I have edited some maps, this one is a play on Sporades Islands, download it and reply if you all like it. Sporades Islands Update.xml.7b89f62b1f016a6b.xmb I recommend moving your new file to the ".cache" file then "0AD" inside of that then to the "user" then "maps" then "skirmishes " and leave it in there. Hope you like it!

abandoned village and date orchard by a dried up oasis. merchant caravan spending the night

This looks like a good mod can't wait for it to be ready!!!

Given I’m barely entering new tree territory and don’t even come close to Cretan numbers, I think we’re still at manageable weight

Advanced rank helmet variation:

My highlights of the text: - Little evidence of bows and slings: found arrows are for aristocratic hunting. But probably used by low class infantry. - Scuta used only in north-east of Hispania ·Warfare model - The first were one made of individual heroic aristocratic soldiers, followed by companions and low classes. (Spears and some armour). - Later was displaced by a standardization of the equipment suggesting a close line formations, but not in a Roman or Greek degree. - The warfare changes when Hispania became a Roman-Carthaginian war field and the use of the natives by both armies: introduction of bronze helmets (Monterfortino), Oval shields by Punic influence (not by gaul), lighter spears, more javelins and the development of the Iberian cavalry (before he riders dismounted to fight at land). Iberians never used spear cavalry and boecian helmets (although they were depicted like this on coins). They used military standards (flags). The author also say that Iberians used mostly a warfare of heavy infantry, light infantry as support and cavalry, saying that it was more similar to the Roman that the traditional stereotype of hit and run and guerrilla warfare: for example Carthaginians allowed native troops to fight in their native way with their original equipment, and there are accounts of Iberians holding the line as heavy infantry., against heavy Roman infantry. The author says that the Iberian revolts against Romans failed because the leadership and organization, not because lack or inferior equipment or tactics. - Finally, the Iberians were absorbed by Romans, and the native equipment disappears, including the falcata. Caetrati (javelins and round shield) would made by a Roman demand, because their army already have heavy infantry. ·Warfare aim - Never was the destruction or the enslavement of the population, but sacking and later the subjugation of other cities. Honour was individual, and not for the state. There was the devotio, soldier bounding to other noble, to the death. · Defensive structures: Were more deterrents than for defending from formal sieges, and outpost existed. About culture and language There are some cultural essentialism here. And in to some extension, there's some need it, because this is a game and there's a need of a generalization, for depicting the civilization but also for gameplay. But: But trying to establish a vague continuum between the differences in Hispania in the past and the present in a so long time (in part argued because climate) isn't very solid. I said that as a grandson of Andalusian and Galician people, with Catalonian fathers. Team have stated before that Euskera isn't correct. You may be right, as far as I know, that the current Euskera is a standardization with a lot of invention (what language isn't?): but using a Latin idiom like Catalan is worse: maybe it could be tried to replace the modern Euskera words for old ones, or use Celtic in absence of Iberian words or language. An option has to be chosen, and it's clear that both are wrong, but trying a non-latin language seems the best option. BTW, I'm a defender of the option of showing only the names of the structures and units in the user language, not in the native one, there's a patch somewhere. But there will be the problem of when the units get audio for orders. About gameplay As other said, the problem with the "barbarian" civs are that we have their depictions by their enemies, and weren't centralised states with a more homogeneous culture, social structure and warfare. But I support your idea that a better depiction could be made, relegating this Iberians for the east Mediterranean coast, and adding some more Hispanic civilization. The problem is that the team made an agreement of not add more civilizations (although broke by Kushites), and there're a some interesting civilizations that could be added before, because gameplay (Scythians), cultural diversity or geographical diversity (African and Asian civilizations). If we made a little concession to cultural essentialism, and knowing that every single tribe can't be added, we could make a division of: Iberians, celtiberians and lusitianians. If there are good enough materials and references, my suggestion would be make Lusitanians, for the "iberian" (better Hispanic) skirmisher civilization. Celtiberians could be campaign only.