Leaderboard

Hi, this topic is not used to explain a problem, but a big congratulations to Wildfire Team for the Amazing new Alpha 24! Keep it going! Don't give up!

I would disagree with that statement. This thread is about adding nice animations when the blacksmith is doing something, which is cool. The impact on player knowledge is next to none since you have the global search bar already. I don't see a reason why it must be added to all buildings either. @Stan` I vote you activate this.

It's Sunday! Thought I might be thwarted by A24 dropping and none of the Mods working, so had to improvise a bit! Now you can see how shamefully bad at 0AD I really am! Compare the speed my brain works at with the likes of @ValihrAnt in his replays, it's pretty embarrassing! Ah well!

A Screenshot from Blender 2.92.0 - no problems found until now ...

Not really a market - but a little "Hofladen" ...

Well done @Yekaterina- your match play is really improving massively. I'm sorry we're not going to get to your A23 replays you sent me, but will be in the market for A24 replays really soon. It's only a matter of time until i feature one of your games I'm certain

@nani has updated the mod

The mod is now updated for 0AD Alpha 24, but only for Phase I, i.e. various building aura have been implemented, but coin resource is not yet implemented for A24. From some sources I read, it seems that while coin were already used as currency in 0AD time period, taxation is still raw resources in many civilizations, so my mod can be completely wrong in some regards (Please CMIIW, actual historians). I will do more researches on this meanwhile. You can download the mod at mod.io. The newest version is still waiting approval, so it is not yet appeared in 0AD mod downloader.

Really?? Who was complaining, when and where and why? Obviously it's not a cheat (obviously), so what were the legitimate arguments against it?

SUCCESS!!!! Kind of ... Got the coasts to look wet. But the artifact I wrote about in the previous post is still there.

Stans mod package made it work. And i quite like the metal shine.

Awesome work

Religion is a matter of belief and rites, understood as a system of thoughts, of practices which found religious institutions and determine the function they perform in society. The relatively recent development of protohistoric archeology, in France as in most countries of Europe, has brought out from the subsoil an important body of documentation that simply did not exist 50 years ago. It will thus be difficult to find, in the sum of works and articles which were devoted to the religion of the Celts until the beginning of the 1990s, the slightest trace of sanctuaries, war trophies, sacrifices and banquets which founded and today structure our knowledge of religious practice in Gaul. The excavations at Gournay-sur-Aronde and Ribemont-sur-Ancre were revolutions in our perception of the religion of the ancient Celts. Many other places of worship and shrines have enriched our understanding of their society since then, but these two particular cases remain unique. Gournay-sur-Aronde is the better known and also the more presentable of these two examples. I will therefore present Ribemont-sur-Ancre first because it is really very interesting and fascinating. Ribemont-sur-Ancre (Somme department, Picardy, northern France) is significant because it reveals the existence of a forgotten battle, which was held in the middle of the 3rd century BC. Since the first exploration works done by archaeologists in 1966, Gallic weapons have been brought to light at the place of what was later recognised as a great monumental temple. They were then interpreted as burial remains later upset by the builders of the temple. We will see further that the encounter of Gallic objects and Gallo-Roman remnants on the same place is not due to coincidence but illustrates the story of a site used for nearly seven centuries. The discovery in 1982 of a strange set of human bones aroused more attention among archaeologists. It was composed of 2,000 bones coming from superior and inferior limbs which had been carefully lined up and crossed to form a kind of cube around a cylindrical cavity which contained burned splinters of human bone. It turned out that such a set had nothing to do with a funeral. More extensive research needed to be done. The bones found in 1982 Fifteen years of excavation were devoted to the study of these Iron Age levels. The topographical context provides interesting information. The place where the foundations of the great Gallo-Roman temple and Gallic remains were found is located in the valley of the river Ancre which flows into the river Somme about 15 km away. Its precise location is on a little hillock on the edge of the plateau. However, it is not situated at its top but slightly lower, on a slight slope which overlooks the valley. This area is actually an alluvial plain, perfectly flat and measuring 500 to 600 hectares. The Gallic site of Ribemont-sur-Ancre, later reoccupied by the great Gallo-Roman temple and its sacred surrounding wall, is located on the upper part, whereas the rest of the Gallo-Roman sanctuary (amphitheatre, thermal baths, residential area) go down in the valley to the river. This was the main motive for a careful archaeological survey of the place threatened by nearby construction projects. The Gallo-Roman temple The Gallo-Roman cult complex The site survey revealed the presence older enclosures nearby dating from the La Tène period, an Iron Age period in relation to the Gauls. Excavation revealed a very well-structured set of three enclosures which appears in the form of ditches and walls made of wood and cob. It is one of the characteristics of built areas in northern Gaul to be organized in such a manner. Agricultural domains, burial sites and fortified places are always quadrangular spaces bounded by more or less imposing ditches whose size corresponds to the nature of the built area. Circular enclosures are rarely found in the Middle and Late La Tène period. The three enclosures from the Iron Age These three enclosures differ architecturally. The square enclosure is bounded by an impressive ditch more than 2 m deep, remaining open, which is not doubled by a fence or a wall. The great trapezoidal enclosure consists of a wall made of wood and cob on which leans a portico on the inner side. The portico is composed of a roof resting on the wall and on posts in the front. The circular enclosure has the shape of a tower, closed by a thick wooden wall covered with cob, more than 6 m high. Inside these three spaces there was no building strictly speaking. But deposits of human bones and weapons allow us to imagine what the function of each of these spaces actually was. The quadrangular enclosure is just like one of the Gallic sanctuaries such as Gournay-sur-Aronde which were brought to light with accuracy for the first time in Picardy. It has the same plan and the same dimensions. The interior space is occupied by what seems to be a sacred wood, a grove about 20 metres wide. But it differs from it on important points: there is no altar in the shape of a large pit in the centre of the space, as it is always the case in sanctuaries. Here at Ribemont there are four altars of a different aspect located in each angle of the enclosure. These constructions were made of long human bones, forming something that looks like copings around little cylindrical wells. Of the four corners of the sacred space, only two were sufficiently preserved. In the eastern part, those who carried out the excavations unearthed a large pile of human bones, but in no recognizable order. But in the northern part they found what they called "the ossuary": an altar built of human bones - tibias, thighbones and humerus for the most part - measuring ~1.6 m on each side and with a height still preserved of 0.70 m. In the center of the altar was a hole, narrow and deep, which was filled with tiny pieces of burnt bone. This is the 2000 human long bones found in 1982, they were used for this construction. The rectangular enclosure is not closed by a thick wall isolating it from the secular world as sanctuaries usually are. Instead, there are strange constructions on the outer edge of the pit, on three sides: north, east and south. They are long wooden slatted cases (50 m long, 4 m wide and around 1.5 m high). They were full of human remains and weapons, set down with no apparent order. Finally, there is no monumental porch opening to the east: on the eastern side, common to the two quadrangular enclosures, the portico of the trapezoidal enclosure is used as a propylaeum. So it is certainly a sacred enclosure but it does not have the characteristic of sanctuaries. The lack of animal bones proves that sacrifices of domestic animals were not made. Reconstitution of a corner of the quadrangular enclosure with the ossuary Another reconstitution of the ossuary The mass grave, which is located in the eastern part of the quadrangular enclosure, is a deposit of 20,000 human bones that belong to more than 120 individuals, all male, young and rather tall. 300 pieces of weapons accompany them. The vast majority of the bones were found outside the enclosure, but some also on the other side of the ditch. But the skeletons, although found partially in anatomical order, were not complete. Many of the long bones were missing, and especially the skulls were missing. In this situation, one thinks of a process as follows: First, a crowd of beheaded warriors with their weapons were exposed on a platform elevated above the ditch. After their dismemberment, their long bones were used to erect the altars. The bones of the body were broken and burnt and finally put in the hole in the middle of the altar. Interpretation of the platform as a trophy and its degradation The trapezoidal enclosure, with the exception of the circular structure which is in its centre, revealed far fewer extensive archaeological remnants. They are also of a different nature. They are essentially animal bones, leftovers of food, and a few iron weapons discovered in a bad state of preservation. These remains were lying on the ground surface and therefore were badly preserved. They have to be related to the construction at the location where they were discovered. Porticos surrounding the wide space of the enclosure probably hosted men who shared meals. Such enclosures, significantly larger than the sanctuaries, were repeatedly discovered in the north and centre of the Gaul, and have the same characteristics. The circular construction in the centre of the previous space is the most unusual: in the Early La Tène period, the circular plan, used previously in necropolises, was no longer used. This laying out is strikingly monumental. It is a totally closed yard with an opening in the form of a small door made in the enclosure wall. The wall in wooden posts, covered with wattle and cob, was likely to be 6 m high. It was covered by a coat of clay, thinly smoothed and adorned with engravings. The interior of the space was almost empty. The remains of a paving made of sheets of flint were found there and, above all, a gigantic ditch, in every respect similar to hollow altars of sanctuaries. It contained extensive archaeological material: human remains of about 30 people, animal remains, ceramics and iron weapons. Similar material was found in the ditch of the foundations of the wall, where it was spilled, once the construction had been entirely and carefully taken down. The plan of the enclosure, as well as the material which was found in it, leads us to think that it had a funeral function. Reconstitution of the three enclosures in the landscape (not all elements are visible) This architectural complex at Ribemont is, at the present time, unique in the archaeological literature. It shows undeniable similarity with a well-identified laying out, composed of a sanctuary, an enclosure for banquets and a funeral enclosure. In spite of that, its general function is not obvious. We have to question the very specific archaeological material which was found there. It is composed, for the most part, of human remains (23,000 bones) and iron components (around 10,000) coming from weapons, elements of harness and of chariots. Animal bones and pieces of ceramics are much rarer than on any other contemporary site. They cannot be found anywhere in certain areas of the site. For example, in the square enclosure and at its periphery hardly any ceramics were found, and the animal bones are remains of horses which were treated in the same way as human bones. Both the nature and the dating of the metallic remnants show great homogeneity and coherence. Most of them are objects which date back to the Middle La Tène period. However, in the trapezoidal enclosure there were more recent objects (Late La Tène period) close to older finds. The state of the weapons is also significant. Generally, they do not present mutilations specific to offerings that can be observed in sanctuaries: they were not ritually bent or twisted. But they show traces of blows, undeniably caused by use, or during the battle in this case. The study of human bones gives even clearer information. All the remains belong exclusively to male individuals, more specifically young adults. Their size is rather tall as it corresponds to that of our contemporaries. At least 508 individuals have been determined, but the original number would have been much higher. Indeed, most human remains were not discovered in the form of entire skeletons but in fragments: chests, pelvises, limbs, hands, feet, necks, a lot of bones scattered here and there. No cranium was discovered. The cervical vertebrae discovered show that the heads were systematically cut off with a knife from the corpse not yet fully decomposed. An important number of bones bear marks of blows of different natures. These marks can be classified in two categories: those which were indubitably caused during a fight (blows of swords, impacts of spearheads, essentially) and those which are attributable to post-mortem dismemberment. There is no doubt that we are dealing with a warlike population. A selected human sample appears: young male adults, rather tall for that era, of strong constitution and well-fed. Not only were these men gathered together to make war, but it seems that it was their primary occupation: they were fed and supported for that and they didn’t have to achieve difficult tasks in the fields or in the craft industry. The weapons that were discovered near these warriors (sometimes still in a functional position on the remnants of the corpses) show they were actually used once. No attempt was made to repair them, which would have been possible. They also tell us the approximate time in which they were in use, around 260–250 BC. A few weapons from Ribemont-sur-Ancre The presence on the same place of such a large quantity of human remains and weapons can only be explained by a warlike event of a huge importance. What is striking is that the floor levels of the exterior border of the sacred enclosure which brought to light the large majority of these remains were preserved only on one tenth of their initial surface. Therefore, the number of human bones and weapons should be multiplied by eight or ten to have a better idea of the initial quantity of these remains. Consequently, the number of combatants could have included several thousands. This raises several questions: Where did this battle occur? Who were the belligerents? What were the causes for the conflict? The question of the localisation of the battlefield has been left unanswered up to now. But there are some elements. The first clues are given by the human remains. Their high quantity and above all the relatively well-preserved anatomical connection between the bones suggests that they could not have been carried over a long distance. Feet and hands still had their phalanxes, rib cages were still in place. Environmental studies carried out on the deposits of human bones and weapons tell us that the event occurred in the warm season, probably in summer (after the beginning of the harvest), at a time of the year when corpses could not be easily preserved. Remains of weapons and other accessories lead to the same conclusion: they were probably not moved over a long distance. The most realistic hypothesis is that the battle took place at the foot of the installations intended to commemorate it, i.e. on the vast alluvial plain lining the river Ancre on the west side. There, it was possible to develop a great battle front and above all to use fight chariots, hard to handle on an irregular ground with heavy slopes and on a muddy ground. The particularities of the sacred enclosure suggest that a part of its layout (the sacred wooded area) must have had a role in the way the winners conceived the battle. From this place it was possible to watch the fights, and they could imagine that gods protecting the people were settled down for a moment in the existing copse around which the sacred enclosure was built. The identity of the two opponents is revealed by the history of the place and by elements of the archaeological material. The great architectural complex built on the slope of the Ancre’s valley was intended to celebrate a victory which took place at the site itself, or very close to it. If the victors were not on their own territory, if they were invaders or if they got into their neighbours’ lands for a punitive war or a plundering operation, they would have been content with the building of a simple tropaion (a heap of weapons or a symbolic ephemeral building). The complete opposite occurred: a monumental and lasting building marked the place. Furthermore, it was regularly visited until the Roman conquest. So we can deduce that the very inhabitants of the place decided to erect this tropaion to commemorate the defence of their own territory. The name of this people is known thanks to Julius Caesar: they were called the Ambiani (Caesar, BG 2, 15, 2). This name was later given to the civitas which, in the 1st century BC, occupied the region whose centre was marked by the Somme valley. Thus the victors of this forgotten battle were the Ambiani themselves, or their ancestors, before they got this name. They may have formed a particular pagus of this civitas. A Gallo-Roman inscription discovered in front of the great Gallo-Roman temple of Ribemont mentions the name of the local population, although only the ending of the name – viciens – remains. The identity of their opponents is given by several gold coins. They were found among the remains amassed around the sacred space. These coins are all half staters or quarters of staters imitating the stater of Philipp II of Macedonia. Their origin is set in the west of France, in the region where the Aulerci Cenomani are said to have lived. So they prove that the defeated were strangers who had travelled 300 km to the northeast. It is obviously more difficult to ascertain the reasons which triggered the conflict. Nevertheless, a few pieces of historical information lead us to form a hypothesis. Caesar, on the basis of some information provided by the Remi, writes that the Belgae, a population which includes the Ambiani, came from Germanic territory and settled down in northern Gaul “antiquitus”, “in times past”, that is to say at a time previous to one that cannot be fixed precisely by human memory, thus two or three centuries before (Caesar, BG 2, 4, 1). Archaeological research confirms population movements in this area between the 5th and the 2nd centuries BC but on lesser distances than those suggested in Caesar’s text. It seems that these peoples stopped off during rather long periods, and that the first Belgic populations settled in the southernmost regions, as far as the Ile-de-France, while the last peoples had to content themselves with the northern regions. So the Ambiani may have arrived at the end of the 4th century BC or at the beginning of the 3rd century BC. That is also suggested by the pottery found in the circular building. It differs radically from the contemporary ceramics found farther south, for example among the Bellovaci, and presents, on the contrary, huge similarities with finds from the north and in particular from Belgium. It can be argued that the coming of a new population along the Channel and on each side of the river Somme, which was one of the commercial ways linking up the British Isles to the centre of the Gaul, overturned the political and economic balances of western Gaul. The Veneti and their Armorican allies had carried out commercial exchanges across the Channel for a long time. The coming of Belgae, many of whom had crossed the Channel to settle down in southern Britain, probably worked against the interest of the Armorican peoples. The high number of combatants excludes in any case the idea that it could have been a simple settling of scores on minor issues. Armoricans lost more than 500 of their men, or, in all likelihood, many more. The Ambiani, on their side, had to deplore only about 30 (minimum number identified) or, at the very most, about 50 dead. This ratio, which seems out of all proportion, is usual in antique battles. It seems that the army which was the first to surrender endured the biggest losses during the fight. It is possible that a large number of prisoners were added to the dead. For the Gauls the fight was similar to an ordeal or a sacrifice given to their gods. All the remains returned to them. The battlefield was carefully cleared of all that was lying on its surface. That is one of the main reasons for the difficulty in identifying the places of the battles of the last centuries BC, and this is exactly what Livy and Posidonius relate: The Gauls began systematically to cut off their enemies’ heads. It was the first gesture they carried out at the end of the battle (Livy, History of Rome, 23, 24; Diodorus Siculus, Historical Library, 5, 29, 4). According to Posidonius, it is likely that warriors, during the battle, proceeded to this gesture, at the risk of being killed by their enemies. The discoveries made at Ribemont confirm the technique of cutting off the heads described by these authors. All the heads were carefully cut off with a knife by those who were brave enough to become their owners. According to Livy, this operation took a long time: in the case held up as an example, it required a complete day. It was only later that the rest of the remains (acephalous corpses, weapons, horses and chariots) were collected. But that could not be done immediately. First, the place where these remains would be ultimately consecrated had to be carefully arranged. Meanwhile, it is possible that human remains and horse remains were gathered on the spot, so as to be protected by tarpaulin. Vultures and crows, since the beginning of the battle, had been watching out for their prey. Yet, the summer heat sped up their decomposition. If the bloody corpses – most often bearing wide open wounds – would had been attacked in addition by birds of prey, dogs and foxes, they would not have been transportable. As stated earlier, it was urgent to arrange the place that was to receive all the remains of the battlefield. Maybe this was done even before the beginning of the battle. The choice was a little wood in the middle of pastures and cultivated fields. The Ambiani army may have decided to settle down there to wait for the enemy. In any case, they had to draw the sacred space around this little wood before the time of the confrontation, maybe to accomplish a first religious ceremony in honour of the gods, so that they might give their support to the warriors. Indeed, the ditch surrounding the sacred space and the four cylindrical cavities had time to fill in lightly before the remains reached the place. It was necessary to build the repositories for the battle remains as quickly as possible. They were of two sorts: the first would receive the remains of the defeated enemies and the others those of the warriors of the victors. In the first case, long cases which were erected on the exterior side of the sacred enclosure. As they were not real victims sacrificed especially for the gods in their sanctuary, they were exposed outside the sacred space, exactly like the offerings that can be seen in contemporary Gallic sanctuaries, hanging on their walls outwardly. In this case, the quantity of the remains was so important that they actually constituted the enclosure of this space: there was no wall, but only boxes that marked the contours of the place. The remains of the Ambiani warriors deserved another treatment: they were the bodies of real heroes whose funerary treatment should match their status. That’s why the enclosure where they were to be deposited adopted a circular plan. Thanks to the poet Silius Italicus, we know that Gauls believed that the souls of warriors killed on the battlefield joined directly the celestial heaven if their bodies were eaten by scavenger birds (Silius Italicus, Punica, 3, 340–343). So this operation had to be done quickly and in the best conditions. This explains the very strange shape of the enclosure, the form of a high tower totally closed to the men and the terrestrial animals. It is plausible that the bodies of the 30 or 40 heroes that were carried to the place were set down in the enclosure on the paving, exposed to be eaten by birds and other animals. They were probably left in this state for a few weeks, until there was nothing left but bleached bones. The distribution of weapons and metal furniture in the charnier constituting the sacred trophy

Still advocating to remove priest heals because it's pure unneeded fantasy in the way this game does it . Even IF you want to refer to biblical times these miracles have happened, they never ever happened during war or active combat but always outside of it. But this probably won't get any traction because many comp players use this mechanic. Just put 10+ priests inside box formation on flee formation and watch the literal magic happen (also very much a form of dancing btw). Out of combat healing (AKA resting) i can get behind. I think this could be way more creative. Like, make players be able to build a relatively weak camp of tents they can build inside neutral territory where units can "rest" / heal up but has 0 defense on its own in addition to temple and barracks / CC healing that's already present.

Thanks; I think I can fix that; give me half hour or so.

Iberian Walls is to OP for a bonus start. Maybe extra HP to CC, extra arrows or extra garrison capacity

IMHO, you should not know the enemy civ (if 'Random'), until you either see or click on an enemy building or unit. For instance, the civilization and name should say "Unknown" for my Iberian opponents here: Until I've either seen or clicked on an enemy unit or building (whatever the devs prefer).

https://trac.wildfiregames.com/ticket/6076

No intention, i just did the majority with what i had problems. Langbarts stuff looks good, just include that or change in that style whatever you like. Tbh. i didn't even play one game in a24 yet, just did a bare minimum a24 update here.

It was here, and I thought there were more people against it

@feneur know maybe. My understanding is that it was done to show their defensive and otarcist nature. I believe it's somewhere on the design document See also https://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/ArtDesignDocument#CultureHistoryandRealism https://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/Civ%3A_Iberians#CIVBONUSES http://docs.wildfiregames.com/design/ Actually it's on every single skirmish map. It's a skirmish entity. For Random maps you're right, it's part of the code.

Suggestion: differentiating the civs with deeper changes in the mechanisms of gameplay similar to Age of Mythology, Warcraft III and Starcraft 2. People generally object that there are too many civs for this. Counterargument: Grouping the civs by similar features and each groups having different mechanisms unique to their groups. The civs inside the same group could have also a few moderate differences like actually in A23 and A24 or like it is in the majority of AoE2 civs. Goal: having real different gameplay experience from switching to another civ. Note: this has nothing to do with previous suggestions proposing to make the game unbalanced on purpose with tier-list. I still think the game should be balanced. Examples of group (this only an illustrative example): Bellicist civs: Romans, Macedonians, Spartans Inheritor civs: Seleucids, Ptolemies, Persians Far-away civs: Maurya, Kushites Thallasocratic civs: Carthaginians, Athenians Barbarian civs: Britons, Iberians, Gauls Example of unique mechanism: the inheritor civs group could have a unique free building at the start because they have prospered in a territory with a very long story. Or a bunch of free houses because there were a lot of prosperous cities on the territory they acquired.

This is something I really want to see removed too. (It's hardcoded somewhere in the map scripts.) Iberians certainly didn't build better walls or more frequently than anyone else historically. Sure, civilizations are rather similar to each other and should become more differentiated, however, differentiation for the sake of differentiation and at the expense of realism, no thanks. Let them start with a monument instead, that should already give them a defensive advantage (and also help the AI).

I didn't reference borg, feld or vali's involvement. I think their work towards balance changes in Alpha 24 is a really great start. Perhaps not perfect of course, and there's always room for improvement, but it definitely seems like an overall improvement from the looks of it, and I'm glad they were so heavily involved. I was responding to you, and then went on a tangential note to emphasize some things that I don't think get emphasized enough. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but when these opinions include that we shouldn't have walls, that the game plays too slowly, that we should increase turn rates again (potentially reintroducing dancing on non-hero units), architect elephants (elephants building), that the game benefits turtling etc, then I feel compelled to point out that those opinions are at odds with what most players think is enjoyable, and are opinions too heavily biased towards competitive play only. Don't get me wrong, I really don't disagree with everything you've said. But complaining that a game now takes 25-28 minutes for example, just sounds really weird to any non-multiplayer. Most of us don't play this game to get it over and done with as quickly as possible... By the way, I think unit rotation speeds look and feel fantastic now. Anyway, on the point of civ differentiation I agree, but as already said, we'll probably see more of that again in Alpha 25. But why focus on these random things like walls for the Iberians (why do they get walls, of all people?). Free houses for Ptolemies (why should they get free houses, of all people). Why should only Macedonians have arsenals? I'm personally in favor of differentiation through unique tech trees. Let most or all civs get the same basic techs, but then add a level or two of unique civ-specific techs that are actually rooted in the history of that civ, not this random stuff. Anyway, I'm not trying to single you out or anything like that. It's nothing personal. But the game also gets feedback here on the forum, on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Mastodon, the official Youtube channel as well as comment sections on random Youtube videos about 0AD, comment sections on random internet articles about 0AD etc. If we cater too much to these hardcore MP desires from a number of individuals, we also risk alienating a large number of players who have often complained that the game actually plays way too fast, to the point of being stressful and overwhelming, and if you pay close attention to the lobby, even there you will see plenty of games that are far less competitive in nature, being played by people who just enjoy hour(s)-long games building and experimenting and exploring and fooling around in a way that would make pro players laugh out loud, but they are an important part of the demographic as well, and there's nothing that stops us from catering to both. Clearly it does, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion. It's just that your opinion isn't the only one we have to take into account. There are probably hundreds of thousands of 0AD players each with their own opinion of where the game should go. Of course. You seem to underestimate how many opinions there are about 0AD. Your opinion, nor anyone else's can be taken as a design document. People don't just automatically agree with someone because of who said it, even if you're a top player... Most players aren't top-players and their opinions matter as well, so you'll always have to elaborate on the argument you're trying to make and defend it. That's normal in any discussion.

This is a very interesting idea. So this is like mixing RTS to city building genre games, where player only define regions (residential, industrial, etc) and let the game populate it... or depopulate, depending on your economic condition. Although deciding on player's level of control is important here, lest the game could play itself without player's intervention.

Indeed, even with @Boudicaperformance, it was always going to be tough 3v4, but it was a stunning spectacle. Lets hope the mods start working properly for A24 and get back to this kind of action real soon

Right click the Pyromod -> open with -> select Pyrogenesis.exe - once you've done that, you can activate it like any other mod in-game.

You did.on the forums That little demo was how far it got.

Yes the difference is that units look near the resource they were gathering and not near their own position when the original resource is depleted. This does lead to the issues you've noted. This change was introduced somewhat by accident a little over 2 years ago, to fix a much larger bug (introduced by unrelated changes), and basically (though I did notice the behaviour like 1.5 years later) neither I nor other people thought necessary to change it for A24. In hindsight, it's probably annoying enough that it should have happened. All I can say is "shame". It adds a bit of micro to the economy, but to be honest I don't think it's _horrible_ in the early game, you have nothing else to do, and then later on you can plot storehouses as needed. Regardless, it'll definitely be fixed in A25.

Well, basically the problem went away as suddenly as it came up. I sure hope it does not return. Thanks for helping me out nonetheless!

Nice work!

That's why we don't have siege in military camps now, Romans soldiers became retards and cannot construct it XD. That's why we don't have siege in military camps now, Romans soldiers became retards and cannot construct it XD.

My work on the water_high.fs shader is done; and it is released as a mod together with the "metal shader" (metal and skin, really), and the terrain shader that reins in ultra-bright textures and adds anisotropic ambient light. All of that as a package is available as a pyromod package in this forum post: The "water patch" is also updated by itself here: https://code.wildfiregames.com/D3603#157271 So, getting back to the new shader work, as I was saying many posts ago, what remains is really very little, and I'm going to include it below, though it's probably subject to change; none of this is compiling yet... // Main algorithm begins. vec3 incident_spec_RGBlight = incident_specular_light(v3_mod_normal,gndColor,Mat_RGB_diff,Obj_RGB_ao,RGBlight_bnormSky,Mat_SpecularPower,reflecting_ground ); vec3 fresnel_refl_color = SchlickApproximateReflectionCoefficient( is_metal, eyeDotNormal, 1.0, IndexOfRefraction ); vec3 incident_diff_RGBlight = incident_diffuse_light(gndColor,fresnel_refl_color,ao_color,aniso_amb,normal_hits_the_ground,rayDotNormal); vec3 color = specularly_reflected_light( Mat_RGB_spec, fresnel_refl_color, is_metal, incident_spec_RGBlight ); color = color + diffusely_reflected_light( Mat_RGB_diff, incident_diff_RGBlight ); // Main algorithm ends. #if USE_SPECULAR_MAP && USE_SELF_LIGHT color = mix(texdiffuse, color, specular.a); #endif color = applyFog(color); color *= getLOS(); gl_FragColor.rgb = mix(color,sqrt(color),1.0/3.0); // Re-gamma implicit de-gamma. } What I want to do next is dive deeply into the routines I never described or justified before. I call your attention to the fact that I have four functions that sort of work together. Two of them are for incoming light, namely incident_specular_light() and incident_diffuse_light(); and two "outcedent?" light returning functions, namely specularly_reflected_light() and diffusely_reflected_light(). These four functions are the heart of the shader. It is immensely useful to separate diffuse from specular completely, and it is even more useful to separate incident light RGB, material RGB reflectance, and reflected RGB light. Incident light multiplied by material color equals reflected light. You can add or mix light values; and you can mix or intermodulate reflective values; but you cannot mix or add a light and a reflectance, even if both are "RGB". This is why I like to tag my variable names with RGB or RGBlight... RGB alone stands for a reflectance, a material attribute, and its channels must span from 0.0 to 1.0, as materials can't reflect more light than what light hits them. But RGBlight values can go to the millions; there's no theoretical limit. Now, if you are not familiar with computer graphics, you might be asking "incoming specular?!?! ... Isn't light just light?". Yes: In the real world photons leave light sources and travel at the speed of light to meet their destiny by knocking an electron somewhere, and along the way get reflected diffusely or specularly, and they would not know the difference after it happened, never mind before. But a simulation of photons bouncing around is called a "photon mapper" and they are very good for some things, such as baking ambient illumination in complex scenes, but they make terrible solutions for real-time computer graphics. Heck, even slow and ponderous ray-tracers aren't photon mappers. What most computer graphics does is go the other way: from the eye to the light; yes, backwards. It is far cheaper to do so. And the difference between a real-time shader solution, and a slow ray-tracer, is basically the number and quality of bounces. Most real time graphics I would say computes "one point one bounces". First bounce being diffuse or specular. The second bounce is done where it is cheap to do by some humongous hack; and it is usually a diffuse second bounce from a diffuse first bounce; specularity be dammed. Add to that environment cubes and ambient occlusion bakes, and all together add up to about one tenth of a second bounce. Ray-tracers can go 7 bounces deep, if you are sure you'll live forever. But so we go from the eye, through the pixel in the screen we are rendering, into the virtual 3D scene, and hit the point on an object we are displaying currently. At that point we reflect this (backwards) "eye ray", bounce it off the object, as if it was a mirror, to see what direction we should reflect specular-ly. Once we know the direction, we can add up light coming from that direction; and that is what I mean by incident_specular_light(). Diffuse light coming to the eye from that point on the object does not need a reflection direction; it only needs to compute light arriving to that point from any directions, and how they angle relative to the surface normal. So, this sum of diffuse light from all directions is the incident_diffuse_light(). There's a few tricks to all this that very few shader programmers get right. For example, incident diffuse light includes environmental (ambient) light, and light from any light sources, typically the Sun. Now, say we have an algorithm to compute where shadows fall... those are computed from the Sun, so it makes sense to switch incident Sun light on and off as per the is_in_shadow() test; but it would make no sense to modulate ambient light by shadow test. That's not a mistake commonly done; but one mistake very commonly done is to modulate specular reflection by the shadow test, and that is a terrible mistake that looks awful, but few people can tell what's wrong with the rendering. Imagine you are in a room, looking at yourself on a mirror, and sunlight is hitting the mirror. Now your room-mate comes and makes a shadow falling on the mirror. Does that affect your image on the mirror? Of course not; it is only if the shadow falls on you that your image in the mirror changes. Some shader programmers are careful about that, and yet fail to be careful about a deeper subltelty: It would be a mistake to say that the is_in_shadow() test has NO place in the specular pipeline. Why? Because the specular pipeline includes two things: Environment mapping, where you read the pre-baked sky color that should be reflected, and Phong shading, where you add the Sun's reflection. The Sun's reflection will NOT be there if the point is in shadow. Another VERY tricky part is where the specular and diffuse pipelines sort of get joined at the hip, and that is with two-layer materials, such as paints, plastics, skin and green plant material. It may seem hopeless to try to separate them given that light that refracts into the transparent layer bounces off the underlying opaque material and then wants to come out again, but part of it is reflected back down, to bounce and be colored yet again by the opaque base. However, the multiple attempts at refracting back out can be accounted for by a single factor to multiply diffuse reflection by. In traditional Fresnel modelling of glossy paint, fresnel_reflection_factor = getFresnelReflectivity( ray, normal, n1, n2 ); fresnel_refraction_factor = 1.0 - fresnel_reflection_factor; Most people leave it at that. What I do is, when I'm in a hurry, fresnel_refraction_factor = fresnel_refraction_factor * fresnel_refraction_factor; Why? Because it takes as much effort for light to refract out as it was to refract in, assuming a specular bounce, of course, but what better can we do? Well, we CAN do better by considering that light that bounces back in gets colored again by the diffuse color base, and makes another run for the surface; so you have an infinite series, and if you solve it it becomes a very simple fractional formula. For a simple example, 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 .... = Sum[x=0~inf]{ 1/2^x } = 2 But anyways, my point is that you CAN pre-calculate the fresnel factor for diffuse from a light source, as well as for diffuse from the environment map, and the two pipes don't need to exchange data between them. In the next posts I will discuss each of these four routines. Why? Just so that there is documentation on them somewhere to be found. Unlike C and C++, where you are encouraged (in most communities, anyways...) to write a lot of comments; in glsl you are not so encouraged, since the file is compiled on the fly, at runtime, by the videocard's driver. Too many comments would increase compile time.

I haven't read all 148 pages here, but a quick look reveals much interest in trading and deals and more complex inter-civ relationships. Here's an idea that might make a transition to more complex things easier: Implementing Free Market forces. Presently, your role as a player is as a (benevolent) dictator. You decide how many men and women will be born, and what their jobs will be. But just as there are currently "mercenaries" available, though they do not yet charge you money, like mercenaries would, by definition, but this could be fixed, you could also have entrepreneurial farmers that spring up when food is low (and presumably price is getting higher). The same could go for weapons production, training of mercenaries, and research. Doesn't have to be one way or the other; it could be a mix of government and private industry. And the mix might have a default number for each civilization, but be amenable to change through player actions. I'm not talking about a full economy; just about entrepreneurial, private industry actors vetting for government contracts, presumably. So, say, if you manually start a lot of farms, entrepreneurial farmers never happen; but if you let the food run low, then you see private farms popping up. Same for private barracks. Same for "research centers", which might be a new type of building where all the research that any other buildings can do is reflected all in one building, BUT where you cannot order what to research, it rather happens by itself, more slowly, but for free (they manage their own budget); --or in the future you could pay a price to request a research direction. Also, these buildings could have hidden gems of technologies not available in any of the government buildings. Private houses could also pop up when food is plentiful.

#6074

Update: As probably all of you know already, the landing of Perseverence was a complete success. Not that it was glitch-free... There are debris that come out with the parachute deploy that were not supposed to be there... Something broke off the spacecraft; probably not too important. Also, when the heatshield falls away, it carries with it a spring it wasn't supposed be carrying away with it, but no harm anyways. And how do we know all this? Because unlike previous missions, this one was programmed to take video of the whole descent and landing, and we have the video, and it's awsome. But it was supposed to also record sound, but the microphone failed. But the back-up microphone is apparently working, and we got sound of Martian wind. Anyways, here's a video by this great science video youtuber, Anton, with a rough update of what's up with Perseverence: If you need to see the few things that went wrong with it, check out Scott Manley's video on it: And here's a long-awaited update on Schroedinger's Cat, by Science babe Sabine: --not that I agree; this "Superdeterminism" stuff sounds like a joke to me. Why do people keep trying to come up with new "interpretations" when Bell's Theorem already *proved* there's no need for anything beyond what QM equations describe?

Works on a24 now

Okay, I think I got it; hope it works. Includes metal and skin detection. Metal is enhanced by matching hue of diffuse and specular and ensuring that diffuse saturation is higher than specular's, but not much higher; and that specular value is higher than diffuse. Skin is enhanced by adding partial Fresnel specularity to it, of low gloss (skin is colored in diffuse, but shimmer-reflects white), and by adding a hack to make it seem like it gives a hint of red translucency. Unfortunately, skin and metal are very hard to distinguish by color, and sometimes they cross into each other. Also, patches of grass and other things may detect as skin, or as metal; but they don't look bad; just a bit shinier than they should be. Something no other shader has is a mega-hack to compute specular occlusion. That is, figure out if a sight ray reflecting off a shiny surface should reflect sky, or an object nearby. The common wisdom is that you need real time ray-tracing to get specular occlusion. Well, I got it to work based on the baked ambient occlusion. If you look at shiny pots or shields inside shady patios, you can see a limited reflection of sky on them that keeps facing you as you turn around the building. Also included is the latest water shader, with more realistic Fresnel specular and refractive factors, and with a hack to make coasts look wet. The terrains shader detects soils or tilings that are too white, and tones them down while increasing contrast. Ambient occlusion (ambient light self-shadowing) of buildings is better displayed. The material xml files are changed, in fact, to standardize the gain for ambient occlusion bakings to 1.0, rather than have manually adjusted gains everywhere. Also in the terrains shader there is a blue-tinted upward bias on ambient light, as most ambient light comes from above, and has a blue tint due to atmospheric scattering. For perspective, there are many shaders out there that do things like Fresnel; specular highlights, environment mapping and whatnot; however, they need to be told, via textures, what to do. The peculiar thing about this metal and skin shader is that it figures out what to do without being told... It's a way to enjoy a tiny hint of what will be coming next, without the work of adding new textures and all that. If there's any problems, shader not compiling, whatever, please report it to this thread. You may need to turn all the graphics options to maximum; I haven't even tested it non-maxed-out. metal_shader_set.pyromod

@Stan`@Alexandermb@wackyserious@Mr.lie@Sundiata Blender 2.92 is released https://www.blender.org/download/releases/2-92/

A very strange opinion for a historical RTS, imo. It's also empirically true that the vast majority of players aren't competitive multiplayers, but casual players who love to build walls for a variety of reasons. Anyway it's clear that the game's balance still needs some work, and that civilizations need to be diversified more, but as I understand, that was always in the works. Alpha 24 was just a first big, and necessary step towards addressing some longstanding gameplay issues, laying a foundation for future work. Also, the lobby isn't exactly an official discussion platform for game dev. I can understand it's a good place to get some quick feedback from competitive players, but if your serious about development, you should use either the forum or https://code.wildfiregames.com, so that whatever is discussed is archived and easily retrievable and reviewable. Lobby discussions are far too perishable, and probably too biased towards competitive play. I mean, I'd hate to wake up one day to a 0AD without walls because I missed some random lobby discussions. Just my two cents.

This is an alpha release (after 2 years), not a monthly gameplay patch for a Gold-released AAA game. Expect large changes.

Everybody whines when alphas change significantly but players always adapt and learn to like it. Many people paved the way in a24 for future balancing with more frequent releases. We are lucky this time borg and nescio hear our cries about balancing

I was featured in Robin's video here: Had to admit some of my moves were cosmic.

Thanks for commenting this game! Was actually tough to be 2v1 on my side, and supporting a bit the other team. I could have done better. Instead of going to Crypto, should have get down WeirdJokes on my first attack, maybe, not sure.. Anyway, I felt bad loosing with @Boudicaepic performance! GG to team 1. The title could be 3v4

Slightly late this week!

I think Nescio is a practical man that likes practical things (No offense meant) Having player dependant cmpVisual sounds complicated :/

Why would you prefer another status bar to a beautiful animation though?

Even simpler: don't show the civ in the diplomacy panel :p

autociv is not yet compatible with a24, therefore there are no building hotkeys at the moment.