Leaderboard

I just committed a tool to easily setup water height for maps. Just select the tool and click on a terrain where you want a plane of water (if you need more precision just zoom in). No need to spend time with the water slider anymore

Well, this being an internet forum I don't think we can require of people to be formal. And I would suggest that if you want people to like you more, the best way is to treat them better than they treat you. Might cost a bit more effort at first, but it will pay off in the long run.

Way looks with that pink glow?

Hmm, seeing as the issue was mentioned to be fixed, and the topic just getting derailed I will close it. Please be kind to each other on these forums.

Thanks, missed that one. Just tried it, but both <Capturable/> and <Capturable merge=""/> cause errors for structures that aren't capturable (e.g. palisades and walls in my mod). [EDIT]: Ignore that, it seems to work indeed; something else is causing errors with wallsets. [EDIT]: D2054, apparently. [EDIT]: now fixed.

The discovery tour for AC: Odyssey will be available this fall. There are some videos about missions in interior places but... I don't think you will like it:

I hear ya.

Might or might not be related: Whilst testing I frequently encounter this: If more information is needed I'm happy to give that -- Just noticed I have more than 1200 replays in A24 in little over three months. -- commands.txt

That lobby tho looks pretty cool to be honest.

(Hopefully this is the correct place to post.) Greek centres (and some other structures) have tiles in front, which looks nice on flat terrain. On elevated terrain, it looks rather weird, though, and those missing tiles look actually quite dangerous: Although not really a bug, it is questionable whether this is indeed what is actually desired. I don't know if there is a list with issues of current actors, but I suppose this should be added; low priority, though.

what do your specular and normal maps look like?

Perhaps have palisades have two upgrade options: Fieldworks or reinforced walls. Fieldworks would be able to be built in neutral/enemy territory and would be faster, but would be far weaker. They would be used in combat, so having archers build some fieldworks so melee troops can't hit them easily. Reinforced walls would be stronger and able to garrison 1-2 troops. Finally, ranged troops should not be able to shoot through walls. Just check on a line: if it passes through a wall at any point, the shot only hits the wall.

Don't join his game, boycott it. And one more report needed to ban

That was +D, try #0ad-dev instead of #0ad if you want to talk to developers. Did you apply any mod? When did the error occur? Perhaps it was something like pressing a key combination during or at the end of the loading screen?

So this is the reason of the customs agent asked me if I spoke Chinese xd https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150721134917.htm

nani wants to be their nani ?

basic_trans if you dont have any specmaps or normal maps I would suggest making a specular map for shiny purposes

When a game starts, press Ctrl+B, shift-click once on metal, then press Esc.

the original video. From popular gif.

@wraitii, @wraitii Please help me and fix it, thank you!

What, your family murdered by tents or something? Looks nice, was made by very skilled artists working like slaves in some instances. Only thing I’m opposed to here is the milking of AC

Playername: TheN00b has quit as soon as typed gg, replay attached. commands.txtmetadata.json

I read fieldfield talking today about having decreasing gathering rates for each additionnal units put in a single feld, was that related ? (it might be someone else but I read somewhere else that historical accuracy is important only as long as it doesn't have a negative impact on the wordplay). Introducing negative externalities/decreasing returns could help to reduce the exponential growth effect. For example, we could also have a lower gathering rate for each additional units using the same storehouse. Then how many dropsites you build wouldn't be just a question of distance to ressources but depends on the number of workers using it (dropsite should then also be balanced between civ). => More thinking = more fun The following isn't related directly to the mod, but it might be considered while implementing changes. I am wondering about how market barter rate are currently determined. They usually seems quite ok in 1vs1 but in tg, they often get crazy/unfair and can easily lead to game imbalances. In some recent games, I have managed to get to barter efficiency close to 300% thanks to Brennus or some additional mines. In the summary attached, I came to choose a strategy in which I would keep the ptolemies enemy player alive as long as possible just to artificially raise metal prices. The strategy is quite simple: 1 - Send army for direct confrontation with the mineral dependant player, it doesn't really matter if it is a good fight or not as long as the enemy loose a lot of units with a high cost in mineral; 2 - keep sending units until the enemy can't sustain the fight because he runs out of minerals (because he can't gather it fast enough or he is running out of it, in both cases, he would turn to the market anyway) 3 - once he doesn't react too much anymore, just turn to attack some other enemy, wishing his allies will send him food/wood in the meantime that he will trade for minerals in order to rise his pop again. As soon as it has some new mineral costly units, come back to put more pressure on him and on market prices. With prices on minerals increasing a lot, you can basically keep just a few women on food (to use for protection against sneaky rams too), delete the rest and leave some men on minerals to gather what you will barter later. The larger your army is, the easier it is to put pressure on mineral prices, and the less units you need then on eco since you get better barter rates, the less units you loose also while fighting because you have a larger army, the less ressources you need to make new units... Civilizations like ptolemies or athens should be very strong in team game, but sadly, they often just end up looking like junkies. Even kushites could potentially become close to fun with enough metal... Changes in the way map are generated could help, this was already said elsewhere. Another fix (simple but maybe only partial too) would be to changes market barter rates determination. Barter rates of different teams should be independent, it doesn't make too much sense that how much ressources a player is bartering affects the barter rate of his enemy. I don't think they are supposed to barter together. I also think that market prices volatility is partly responsible for the sustainability of a relatively small number of mineral dependent civs in the same team game. Markets should offer a way for those civ to hedge themself against map-gen risks. Any insurance should have a cost, but if there is a large need for barter and barter efficiency falls too low, then this cost becomes too expensive in the current version of the game (another S curve needed there??) . Currently, traders seem like an unreliable suppliers to compensate for prices volatility (slow to put in place, hard to protect constantly...). Maybe a few other simple adjustments could be made to improve the game from this perspective, I just gave some ideas above... I was also wondering about a last thing. Would it be complicated/feasible to introduce different land type on the same map ? I do like that currently wood is slowing down units and is preventing sieges from passing. Having some kind of muddy land type which simply slow down all units could introduce a fun strategical dimension to the game. Scooting would give a higher reward, range units would have a bigger advantage in fighting over this type of land etc... eae !!! ...

When i move my Hero, Emperior ask me to stop dance, when i retreat my hero, Emperior ask me to stop lure, when i put my hero on defence stance, Emperior bans me from his host for having my hero running away

Hello all Loving 0AD, am not nearly clever or technical enough to suggest anything in the physical gameplay to be improved that probably hasn't been already suggested and debated here, but I have some suggestions regarding the experience the player gets at the end of a game. I'm talking about the game statistics. Stats are a bit boring, compared to the action in the game, but they effectively are the story expressed in numbers of what went down and when, displayed in summary form. 0AD does provide multiple pages of stats on the players performances, and when I first began playing (and getting horribly slaughtered time after time) - the stats were a really good visual indicator about what I may have been doing wrong. To be honest, they still are - I've improved a bit, but I'm still blatantly a complete novice, but stats have given me the insight into what I need to focus on and what my opponent did better than me to give them such a decisive advantage (or on the rare occasions when the stars align and I actually manage to scrape an unlikely victory, how the hell I managed it!) While I appreciate the current multitude of stats - I feel there are a few glaring omissions in terms of giving me the full picture. Here is a list of all the ones I feel would be most useful/nice to have; 1) Population Count So currently we have the unit stats which show basically the rates at which the players churned out their population units throughout the timeline of the game. This is handy for seeing just how rapidly my opponent out-produced me, which is super useful (but sometimes makes painful viewing for me!) But I'd really love to the players actual overall population mapped across the timeline. Unlike the unit production stats, this would show the rises, stagnation and falls in population at any given time. I could see how effective attacks were, and where the eventual victor got a critical mass of population over the opponent - or how well or badly they responded to a devastating attack in terms of their efforts at rebuilding. I think it would provide useful data to study, learn from and apply in future games. At the moment if I want to know this I have to watch the replay and keep contrasting the players populations. This is interesting, and I probably would still do this anyway, but I'd love to have easier access to this statistic. I feel this would be useful in gauging how productive my attacks and defences were in a game, and probably highlight a number of times when I should have pressed on with an attack because I was closer than I thought to achieving an unassailable position, or when I didn't attack or defend with sufficient forces and took a costly hiding! I imagine this would probably be the easiest stat to implement into the game as it's just a running total for each player. I've love to have this at my disposal and be able to chart population count alongside the existing stats for unit production and loses/kills. This could probably be expanded to include similar stats for resource count and number and type of buildings. I'd bet there is no warmer feeling inside when you look back at a game and realise that the simple strategic capturing/destruction of your opponents poorly positioned and defended farm led them to running low of food and really screwed them over at a critical point in the game! 2) More In Depth Breakdown of Units Despite all the colourful array of the individual units a player can produce, the stats break it down by workers, infantry, cavalry and so forth. This really only gives part of the picture. I'd love to see the breakdown of how many swordsmen, pike/spearmen, slingers, archers, etc, or the split between ranged and sword cavalry that got produced in a game. And what about women? I know I can calculate the split of workers against the feminisation percentage, but seriously, who the hell wants to do that for fun! Appreciate that this might be a bit more tricky - I'm assuming that the would require a bit more tagging of the data for the individual units, so coding that into the game might be a hell of a lot of effort just to produce a slightly more in depth page of stats - I concede that perhaps the time would be better spent working on the physical dynamics of the gameplay, but it would be great! 3) Kill Stats I suspect this is another thing that would be seen as fanciful, time consuming folly, but I'd also love to get better visual representation of how effective units are at killing the enemy. At the moment I can see how many of a class of unit I've produced - in the broader terms I discussed in the previous point, and I can see the corresponding numbers for the opponent contrasted - i.e. I know how many infantry I produced, how many were killed and how many of the equivalent type of enemy unit were killed, but these stats aren't a true picture. Even though, say I produced 80 cavalry units, and killed 70 of the opponents, those kills will almost certainly not all have been attributed to my cavalry, my infantry probably did most of that, or my heavily weaponised towers, etc. Owing to the sheer number of units, the gradual decrease of health of units due to multiple skimishes with different emeny units, etc, I appreciate that it's pretty much impossible to attribute an individual units death to any one exact factor, so honestly I have no idea how this might be done, but I'd really like some kind of measure as to how effective a type of unit actually was in a game, especially in terms of analysing the strengths and weaknesses of different civilizations and understanding the strategies of a really good opponent in terms of why they were able to slaughter me so darn effectively! I think that will probably do for now, I suspect I could go on, but I seriously doubt that many other people get that excited about statistics!!!!! And of course, stats can be just as divisive as they are revealing - but for me at least, as someone who is always looking for little secrets and insights to becoming a better player, I always appreciate more of them!