Leaderboard

The only pushing allowed is this one https://code.wildfiregames.com/D1490

@borg- Maybe we could consider replacing the woman aura with something else if they are workers, I think it's incredibly sexist and I am ashamed each time I need to explain it.

Rumors of his demise have been wildly exaggerated

I vote in favor. Better to take care of it now than wait and risk more issues/higher costs.

What's the rational against a simply villager unit as the main economic unit? I don't completely agree with giving dedicated male and female workers/villagers different stats. In some civs men did a lot of the hard work, but in other civs women worked just as hard or even harder. In most societies agriculture is a family operation, involving men, women and children. So were many other small scale economic activities (and most economic activities were small scale) as well as things like building homes. I'd caution against gender specific stats in this regard, because the stats would probably differ quite a lot across different culture groups. Some of the reasoning behind different stats might apply to Greco-Roman civs, but probably won't apply at all to others. In my opinion, plebs are plebs, and I think gender differentiation only becomes really relevant for higher social classes, politically or militarily. I think it would also be interesting to differentiate laborers/workers/villagers (whatever you want to call it) by using a more slender body type, perhaps even a teeny weeny little bit shorter than soldiers/warriors, and use different walk animations, with a slightly hunched over look, face looking down, instead of straight or up, like the higher ups on the social ladder, who brim with confidence. The lower classes laborers/workers/villagers should have a humble look. Less meat, fish and diary, and a hard life of back breaking menial labour makes them look a little more scrawny than the average "citizen" who would have looked a little more "plump"/less hunched over. ( @Alexandermb, don't know what your thoughts on this are).

@implodedok wrote me on Facebook Messenger: I vote in favor of approving a one-time setup fee of up to 100 euros. What do you say, @feneur?

Looking at https://github.com/JustusAvramenko/delenda_est/tree/master/simulation/templates it seems female citizens are capturable while males aren't and female slaves have different gather rates than their male counterparts.

As is the fact that women have different gather rates, a lower cost, and significantly less health. In Greek society at least, men worked the land and women stayed at home: being pregnant, raising children, milling grain into wheat, converting flax into linen, spinning wool into thread, weaving yarn into textile etc. were all highly time-consuming tasks. You might want to consider replacing female citizens with male workers (which would be historically justifiable) or add statistically identical male workers and let both sexes exist in equal numbers (as is done in e.g. AoK).

They are both named Alexander. But I do think he meant elexis. @sphyrth I am also happy when I see elexis commit things. He maintains a constant flow. I think he is the most active team member of all. He also probably has the most number of commits. Yeah, and we're sorry. I wanted a Christmas release also, but there are too many things to be done before that... I have a list of features I want for A24, borg's mod is one of them, and then there are the tickets on the actual milestone. We try. But I guess elexis would have a much better teamwork if there was a team helping him We all have areas to work on. In the art dpt that would priorizing things.

There is a lot of talk all over the forums. no plan yet. If you play Delenda Est you'll have access to some of those.

I have been making noises I'll reintroduce the Ponies Ascendant legacy sound question as well. Swordsmen are getting a tone down before you ask, were a bit quiet and overcompensated with gain anywho, fishing for opinions again

Post here about any new civ ideas or critique of other's ideas. I have been thinking about what makes a good civilization in 0AD. Ptolemies are a great example of a creative faction, they have some wildly different gameplay options than with other factions in 0AD. I thought another cool civ could be a central asian origin nomadic group. The huns are a good example although they invade Europe later than the 500 BC to beginning of the common era. I am not sure if anyone else has thought of such a civ, but I could not find anything similar on the forums. I think there are a lot of interesting gameplay features that could be put in for the Huns (or whatever group). Mobile buildings. Buildings could have a food or wood (or both) cost to pack them up into carts like the catapults. Larger buildings cost more and take more time to pack up and unpack. Buildings should not be able to train or research when packed. Houses and corrals could have a food cost added like 25 food 50 wood or 50 food 25 wood. Larger buildings should probably just cost wood and mineables like other factions. Fort might be hard to balance... maybe adjusted to a strong military camp type thing 3000 hp? Also the buildings could maybe be built to start or maybe you have to train them from cc. Territory rules apply for unpacking-placement just as for other civs. Units. Huns could be another faction to use the stables to train horses. The huns should have access to a horse archer unit that has similar cost and power as skiritai commandos as well as champion melee and ranged cav and other, cheaper citizen cav. Only siege would be ram unless someone finds another good siege unit for them to operate. Economy. The Huns should be a civ that encourages or forces corrals to be used (I'm not sure which) since they were pastoral. They could have a better corral system plus some interesting not op upgrades. Hopefully the huns would wind up being the least wood intensive faction but not so much that they would be the only option on maps with less wood. They would also require more food thanks to cavalry and food in building costs. I am sure there are other people with creative ideas out there, this one was bugging me so I wanted to see if anyone else thought this was a good idea. Also there could be some very interesting artwork for this civ.

Maybe I misunderstood, but there's a decent amount of variety in Hellenistic towers, including both square and round towers as part of the same fortifications (like the round towers of the gates of Perge vs the square towers on the rest of the wall). They both seem capable of housing artillery (bolt throwers at least): Sorry to sound contrarian, but Archimedes-tech-level Greeks were smashed by Romans, Parthians and Scythians. Of course we don't have Parthians and Scythians yet, but one day, one day, when we develop those civs we'll finally be able to check those pesky Greeks Either way, I think it's perfectly fine, even preferable, for the Greco-Roman civs to stand out in terms of artillery/siege and anti-siege. Those were some of their specialities and it makes those civs unique in that regard. Giving non-Greco-Roman civs Archimedes level tech would make those factions feel less than genuine. Just give everyone battering rams and be done with it. When and where there is evidence for more complicated siege equipment, then yes, let's do it, if not, then nah... Not really, no. The argument for siege equipment among the Mauryans and Kushites is based on their written histories which mention them in both cases. The freestanding towers are just a standard RTS convention but as i indicated, I don't think this should be extended to artillery towers. Let them be unique.

I guess we could hack the Phenotype to switch sounds also but the attack effect would only be cosmetic cause we cannot change states on the fly (also would break balancing,) One thing that could be done is offer multiple options to player for the tower to upgrade to. That would be more of @borg-'s area. Not all of civs have those towers I believe.

Should be doable. The problem is all the example shoot straight, if you rotate the building it would shoot through the wall ^^ Bigger windows won't change that

Made it a bit faster tweaked the impact particle. @LordGood Thoughts ? Not yet @Freagarach working on something like that.

It seems Javelin cav was mostly used by Iberians, Numidians and Celtics to taunt or soften the front lines, I am not sure there's a mention of this particular interaction.

no. Cavalry was used because was fast, with charging scared enemy that would flee and create gaps in ranks because lack of discipline, range cav could fast appear release projectiles and go fast to safety to out of range. so no really bonus specificly against basic ranged infantry

One question, historically make sense javelins cavalry have bonus vs ranged infantry?

Play the mod.

I think the slingers sounds great. I just think there's a little too much echo in the impact noise, as if they're slinging in a large hall. I think the spearmen sounds sound great as well. I just think there's a little too much bass in there, as if they're fighting indoors, or the recording sounds slightly muffled or something. There's a very unpleasant sharp whooshing sound produced by the swordsmen (5:13 ish) and it appears again at 18:04 where you clearly hear it screaming through the other sounds. It sounds too shrill. As you said, the impact noises need to be done. I'd love to hear what the game sounds like when the changes complete. It definitely sounds promising, but I'm not a sound technician and someone with some sound expertise might have something to say about harmonizing the sounds so that they work/sound well together.

@HMS-Surprise can you spread the word so people give feedback ? Thanks ! @borg- @ValihrAnt @Feldfeld

I'm sure @wackyserious could help in this department. It's just a thought though. Would be cool to have because it provides a good visual indicator for the role of those units. Makes sense. So champion cav is still useful against citizen spears (especially lower ranked ones)? I think spawning and/or capturing slaves is not a good mechanic. Seems too un-immersive and will result in super weird micro (separating newly spawned or captured slaves in the middle of a battle doesn't sound like fun). If we could eventually develop mini-civs we could have map-creeps as well as a conquerable location from where we could "acquire" or buy slaves. Slaves should be really cheap, but also super weak and should work very inefficiently.

thats sounds good for a immersive perspective however we would lack some good textures for differentiate some of them.

For Slaves, maybe spawn entity on death could be spawn some slaves based on buildings such houses and civ center. Civ center: 10-15 Male Slaves. Houses 2-3 Female Slaves. After being destroyed the house spawn a capturable on sight gaia entity slave. This could be good for force early game rushes attacking houses of the enemy in order to get some early slaves and economy boom.

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no" ?> <actor version="1"> <castshadow/> <group> <variant frequency="100" name="Base"> <mesh>props/weap_arrow_front.dae</mesh> <textures> <texture file="structural/kart_struct.dds" name="baseTex"/> <texture file="structural/kart_struct_norm.png" name="normTex"/> <texture file="structural/kart_struct_spec.png" name="specTex"/> </textures> </variant> </group> <material>player_trans_parallax_spec.xml</material> </actor> By <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no" ?> <actor version="1"> <castshadow/> <group> <variant frequency="100" name="Base"> <mesh>props/weap_arrow_front.dae</mesh> <textures> <texture file="null_orange.dds" name="baseTex"/> </textures> </variant> </group> <material>basic_trans.xml</material> </actor>

About infantry: Spearmen: medium health, low/medium attack, medium move speed, medium hack armour, high pierce armour, bonus 4x vs cavalry. Very effective against all cavalry. Great unit to protect ranged units and absorb damage from a distance. Win fight solo vs ranged infantry. Swordmen: Medium health, medium/high attack, high move speed, medium hack/pierce amour, no bonus. Very effective against melee infantry. Win fight solo vs ranged infantry, but lost fights if enemy have spearmen, example: 30 archer + 30 spearmen win vs 30 archer + 30 swordmen. Good unit for quick attacks and flanks. Pikemen: High health, low attack, low move speed, high hack/pierce armour, cost ADD +10food, bonus x5 vs cavalry. Very effective vs all cavalry. Slow but high damage absorption potential. Win fights against spearman and lose against swordsman. Ranged infantry are not protagonists now. These are secondary units that should be used in combination with your infantry or cavalry. In large numbers can cause very good damage. We can still add techs or some smart bonuses to make them more important units throughout the game, like flamming arrows for example.

Of course. But as long as it has a good reason Not removing one sexist thing to replace it by another Indeed

It was exactly the same as I thought. I made the templates yesterday and some tests. Spear cav: Good armour, low move speed, low/medium attack, medium cost, medium health, have a small bonus against other cavalry. Win fights against light cavalry, and can do good damage against light infantry, very vulnerable vs pikemen/spearmen. Sword cav: Medium armour, fast move speed, medium/high attack, medium cost, medium health, no bonus. Naturally wins fight vs skirmishers/archers cavalry (not as effective as spear cavalry), very powerful against light infantry, vulnerable vs pikemen/spearmen. Skirmisher cav: Low armour, very fast move speed, medium attack, low cost, low health, bonus vs support units. Lose against other cavalry but can inflict good damage in large numbers. Well positioned can cause good damage to light infantry. Archer cav: Bassically the same status as an infantry archer.

Always thought that for emulate slavism, units should have in the loot propierties a slave point value, so you can train a percentatge of killed units (if every unit killed is one point, training one slave should cost 4, so a 25% of killed units could be slaves). Now with the possibility of exclude certain resources from the trading pool, this is more viable. But I suppose that this is a little bit offtopic

Thanks. I fixed the twitter link at the bottom, and sent them to the printer. Should have them for next week. Thanks a lot for your time @Lion.Kanzen

Also the bonus/penalties of woman and man. I'm sure that slaves were used both for both genders to mine and build, for example. From a gameplay POV, the aura is a big load to performance, @Stan`? Also is very micro intensive to place women to men clusters to make them work faster...

Would you like me to replace arrows by laser bolts ? The actor you are looking for is props/units/weapons/arrow_front.xml

One could pass the type of attack from the Attacking-helper to Health.js TakeDamage, then via Reduce and HandleDeath to CreateCorpse and one could select a attack-specific animation there (at "// Make it fall over"). Note that this will not be able to specify which kind of projectile (arrow, boulder, stone) would be the COD.

My convention would be Spear cavalry They represent shock cavalry, altough not all spear cavalry of all civs would fit this rol, mainly only the eastern civs. -bonus against infantry, they should shred light infantry. - the slowest and heavy armoured cav Sword cavalry A unit convention. As others have said, sword was mainly a secondary sword when riding. - fast cavalry, can catch ranged cav, but not so armoured. - soft counter to light infantry, bonus to other ranged cavalry. Maybe they could lose against spear cavalry one to one, but could be cost effective against them.

Lancer can defeat infantry and light cavalry except anti cavalry like pikemen. But im talking about heavy champion lancer. The Hetaroi or Companion cavalry and all Hellenistic lancers share this shock function or role. In AoE series AoK and AoM. Is anti infantry unit. Lancer in mostly of cases is anti infantry because. Their weapons. Lance (Kontos, Xysthon) alternate weapons (sword, mace or bow) Their armor. Full, partial. Shock cavalry, the hammer and anvil tactic.

That is on point, sword would be used as a secondary weapon if the lance broke or the rider lost his mount. Also, apart from the other points already mentioned (chasing retreating units, scouting, attacking light infantry) on many battles of the antiquity they were used to great effect with the anvil and hammer strategy, heavy infantry attacking the front lines while the cavalry would circle the flanks and attack from behind. If I am not mistaken I've read that 0ad has logic with regard to lower armor when attacked by the flank, I am not too sure if this is actually implemented though. If we were striving for historical accuracy though we would have a very hard job to make it real, as it would require heavily nerfing skirmish units, they were used just behind the frontline to taunt the enemy, get a few kills before armies clashed, or the flanks. Slingers had an even less preeminent role. So I would avoid looking at drastic changes at a first iteration to improve balance, just making it better than the current state would be a huge accomplishment. If we were allowed to dream though: - Archers and skirmishers could have a limit to how many throws they can perform and then get a cooldown, this would drastically reduce their abuse. - Flanking generates an aoe morale effect in which units would have a more drastic armor nerf, reduced attack speed or similar - Your favorite civ trivia: roman soldiers throw a pillum (a javelin shaped weapon) and draw their gladius (sword) or use it against cav, macedonians can have sarissa wielders (greatly increased armor in formation, abismal walk speed), etc... - etc...

I was thinking of the full path to a specific file e.g. '/binaries/data/mods/public/art/textures/skins/bolt.png'. I spend some time now looking through files in 'binaries/data/mods/public/art/textures/skins', tried something, didn't succeed and finally lost interest. It probably wont help much anyway. On my test i had to slow down and zoom far in to see if the texture of the bolt actually change.

@Lion.Kanzen did you respect the A5 size ? When putting it on website for printing I have irregular borders... I think it's longer than the original... Also missing a dot at the end of the description, Wildfire Games should have caps And I have no more electricity XD

If possible, take spearman cavalry and pikeman attack speed to a realistic level, at this moment the spearman cavalry attacking animation is too slow because of the attacking speed.

I think in the real world the primary weapon of melee cavalry has always been spears/lances. Swords were a secondary weapon: when the spear broke, or was dropped/lost, close quarter mosh pit style combat, or when the unit was dismounted making the long spear unwieldy for 1v1 combat. I think dedicated "sword cav" is mostly a game convention. In antiquity cavalry was primarily used against other cavalry, scouting, and chasing down retreating/fleeing units. They're particularly useful for their speed and manoeuvrability, exploiting weak point in the enemy lines. They perform very well against lightly armed units. They perform very poorly against disciplined heavy infantry. If the cav is armored, they can perform well against ranged units. If not, they're very vulnerable to missiles.

thats actually pretty easy to achieve, if decition is made i am willing to create a patch for unitai

You need to replace the generic arrow by a laser beam and that's pretty much it

One has a warmer palette than the other, takes a trained eye to see these things lol

Hello, Thanks for the opportunity to share with you. I hope this gets to someone that can actually read it and do something about my suggestions. I have been playing these types of games for many years and I can tell you what people have always wanted and wished for in theses games. I am not a programmer so I don't know if this is possible, but if it is and you do it you will have the best game of all times. So here is the suggestions: 1. Have the game adjustable as the game is being played. Example. If you have 4 players and it is set for 2 versus 2 teams you can change the diplomacy to be 3 versus 1 and so on as the game is playing. You can be allies at one point and then change it so you are now enemies. Put the player in control of who is who and what teams are changing. You should also be able to set and change the AI-team (Computer settings) to aggressive, advanced, defensive and so on throughout the game. This changes the diplomacy, strategy, and computer/player game statistics to give a more challenging and extended game playing experience. If you are easily winning then you put two teams against you and now you are being challenged again. Or, You are losing and make a deal with another team to become an ally and now you get back the upper hand and both teams win or the tides change and now those two teams go out at it for the final battle in winner takes all. I would play with this idea so even the computer can ask for help and set it up so that exchanges in assets or even personnel can be exchanged and bartered to change the tempo of the game. This again is in the control of the player be presetting the parameters. 2. Allow for the game to reset 1, 2, 3 or more times the assets during the game (trees-wood, Stone, Irion) Again let the player decide the amount so to be equal and spread across the map for all teams. This allows for extended campaigns and battles which I can tell you many people want. Playing with this setting allows for more diplomacy and more strategy in playing the game. 3. Since the computer ultimately has the advantage make it so the player can exchange during trading/bartering any good/asset 1 to 1. Example: 1 food for 1 wood and so on. This again allows for the resources to be extended and spread out to maximise the game. This should be set up so it can all be set by the player when playing the computer or another person as they agree to the battle terms. Normally, if played well you will have plenty of food but little of everything else as the game progresses which causes the game to end by default (not fun!). Changing this setting allows you to spread out your resources allowing for diversity and longer more extensive battles. Controlling your resources and trading wisely helps extended and even the playing field against the computer. 4. When fighting the other team allow your team to get the resources or part of the resources from the building as you destroyed them. This is another way to extend the resources and help prolong the battles. This should also be a setting for the player to set for each game. 5. Make for more weapons as the game progresses and major points or accomplishments are made. People always like a wide variety or warriors with different skills or fun weapons that can be used to change the tide of the war. I hope this helps give a general idea. I could write much more but you guys are the experts. I can tell you now that if you do this this game will be the all time winner for Real time reality games. One last thing, I tried to make some maps and had fun doing them but they would not work in the game. The maps would have been great for many players and the more setting the better for players. I really hope you are successful in this game and I wish you the very best. Please feel free to contact me for more info or clarity on the subject written in the blog post. Thanks for the time and opportunity to share my ideas for everyone to enjoy. You guys are the ones that make our ideas a reality and then everyone gets to enjoy it. Thanks so much.

Hello @Love The Game , welcome to the forums, and thanks for the nickname. Let me answer some of your points Allow people to change teams: You can already do that in the game. It's in the top right corner, you can change the diplomacy between players if the team aren't locked. Allow people to reset resources : That's a bit harder since people might have built things over said resources... I get the point though, but I guess it could be better fixed with an improved balancing. Allow bartering to be independant from the game: I'm not sure this is a great idea, I like the fact that every player selling resources makes its value plumet. Usually to compensate this you use trade lines. Allow people to gather resources when killing enemy stuff: Again, that's already into the game It's called looting, and you get a few resources back when you kill enemy units and buildings. Give more variety to units and weapons: That's something we are working on, I'd like techs to after those as well, but it's needs new code that wasn't written yet Let me know if I can help you with that, we could use mapmakers

Ah i see, its like Total War Attacking when the unit is pushed back, it looks good, but remember the attacking animations are generic of rall kind of entities, buildings, horses, ships etc. Would be weird having the infantry react in that way from a non existent attack of a building for example. That however would be good if it could be a small space between attacks to have an animation of reaction of being hitted.

Comparisson of the jogging animation ive done with the actual ingame: Right animation is perfectly suitable for this song:

Making off a high stab animation: Part 1: Main Concept Part 2: Trying to clean the frames while being constantly interrupted doing the animation. Part 3: This animation was purely done with imagination and looking only the blender file. Hope this could help others while doing animations, specially atacking ones being this and death animations one of the hardest to achieve. Steps: Main concept sketch of the animation poses you want to achieve Adjusment of the bone positions and cleaning of the unused poses. use Shift + E between 2 key column to achieve a 50/50 bone positions between each bones, for achieve a smoother transition. Enjoy!. Keep in mind that i try to follow both Realism and Actual attacking animations motion with the tecnical limitations that come with both blender, armature, and 0 A.D. Engine. Gif of the final animation: