Leaderboard

Based on numerous requests, I went ahead and made a mod to add 2 genders to "Citizens" in the game. It is based heavily on my work on Delenda Est. The Two-Genders mod does not change any stats, only converts the "Female Citizen" unit to a unit that uses Female and Male actors. The only civ that keeps Female Citizens is Sparta in this mod. It is compatible with Alpha 24 and can be tested by anyone with that release. If successful, this may be folded into the main game's repo at WFG's leisure and discretion. DOWNLOAD THE MOD HERE, FROM GITHUB.COM: https://github.com/JustusAvramenko/0-A.D.-Alpha-24---Two-Gendered-Citizens I will maintain/curate the mod and commit fixes for any problems you guys may find. Also, if you are familiar with GitHub, feel free to submit Pull Requests to the link above.

Hot take, but end user software is meant to be developed for, well, end users. You can have the game be a fancy tea party for Devs, but if there are no end users, it's all for nothing. Something to keep in mind before blurting out "you aren't entitled to anything, we made this without getting paid, take it or leave". You might get what you wished for. Developers are entitled to end users, not the other way around. That is of course, if the objective is to build a solid community around the product.

Hi all, the copy-paste trick worked perfectly and instantly for me. Thank you @faction02. For @axi, I found my new user.cfg file in: /home/my_username/snap/0ad/197/.config/0ad/config/user.cfg

The balance cannot be heard by everyone, and that is logical. Each player has a perspective on what op is and what not. Yesterday player Melunises said that champions were unfeasible in this alpha, @vinme and others said no, he insisted that it was. Well that's his point of view, and if we follow his vision then we need to do something for champions. However, I proved to him in two 1v1 games that champions are very possible, so he understood. Balancing is done by the best players for that reason. When there is a constant complaint like in alpha23, slinger, then we know that something needs to be done because all players are complaining, at all levels. Developing open source games is difficult because each person has a "perfect" game vision. Anyway, we are working for a25, today I was talking to @ValihrAnt about some changes that were necessary for a25, and I would like to share. Pikeman and spearman need to have an counter vs elephants. Champion elephants need a hp reduction like 10%. Mercenaries need to cost a little less metal and maybe start at rank 2. Reduce the damage of towers a little or decrease the amount of arrows. Archers needs a little less accuracy, from 2.0 to 2.5. Ranged cavalry need to move a little faster (16). Units need reduction in training time mainly cavalry. 8 women 10/12 infantry and 14/15 cav? It is clear that these ideas are based only on a24. As a25 is built, some values must change.

I've never said you're the problem, badosu, because I do not think it. As for civ differentiation, it used to exist. Now not so much. This is part of why this alpha feels so frustrating--it feels like a step back in many respects. Another major problem is that this alpha works well for 1v1s but can become completely miserable in long drawn out team games. This particularly true with my two other major complaints (turtle is way too strong and unit production times need to be sped up). These complaints I have been repeated many times over on the forum but never seem to be addressed beyond being dismissed. I hope that these issues are resolved sooner than later.

Hello everyone, @chrstgtr @Dizaka @bbgotbanned @PistolPete @cobrakai@badosu I have seen much frustration with the new alpha and it is much more worrisome than archers and eles being slightly too powerful or metal being too valuable. The problem is 4v4 gameplay pacing. I have been talking to players I often do 4v4s with recently and have been formulating my response to this for some time. This is what I believe to be causing the endless 4v4s we have seen so much recently. One point of concern is that these stalemates can happen even when teams are moderately imbalanced. I am sure you have all seen stable vs unstable systems. A stable system has forces built in to return it to its original state if it starts to move. An unstable system has forces built in to push the system away from its original state if it starts to move. I give the example of a ball on a hill or in a valley: In an unstable system (top of hill), any motion of the ball will compound and the ball will accelerate. In a stable system (bottom of valley), the ball will roll back to the bottom after being nudged. Go to attached to see diagrams demonstrating stable vs instable systems (page 1). In a 0ad 4v4 application, one team can try very hard to beat the enemy and either their efforts will "snowball" (grant more successes) or it will be costly and not achieve much. In an unstable 0ad 4v4, a team who wins a battle can expect to win in their next few engagements unless they make a mistake or their enemy gets clever, usually this leads to a victory overall. In a stable 0ad 4v4, a team who wins a battle does not see a "snowballing" or "compounding" effect on their next fights, and you can expect the game to return to the original situation. In 0ad, an unstable situation makes things that are slightly overpowered (like slingers in a23 or eles and archers in a24) seem very OP; in addition, it makes the teams seem less balanced than they may have been. Often in a24 4v4s the situation after 20 minutes is stable. This means a team has to work very hard to win even if they have some serious advantages. I have made some graphs depicting the stability level of 4v4s of different alphas (23 and 24) as they progress in time from 0 minutes to 1 hour. I include examples of what players might see at particular times. Go to attached to see a23 diagram (page 2) In a23, for a balanced game, it could be quite intense due to the moderate instability of the gameplay most of the time. Go to attached to see a24 diagram (page 3) in a24, after a brief period (17-21 minutes) of high gameplay instability, a balanced 4v4 can stabilize and become endless. This way, 4v4s either seem super imbalanced if they end around 20 minutes and seem gridlocked if they last any longer. I am not sure what causes this behavior in 4v4s. But I will list some of my suggestions in bullet points. map gets fully built up so there is no unoccupied land ( all 4v4s have been played on same map size as usual a23 4v4s). This seems to make movement and flanking attacks very hard. This matches poorly with tower and fort defensive buff. metal runs out for all players quite quickly, even if it is evenly distributed. This means more lethal options like rams/eles/champions are harder to get. Somehow, it is easier for players to rebuild all the way (idk about this one but I saw it quite a few times) I hope to get at least some people agreeing with my assessment and adding some extra detail as to what is causing this gameplay quality problem. The endless 4v4s truly are frustrating and boring. I think there are many great changes with a24, like stables, blacksmith changes; people like to point out problems, but I think this issue is the only serious gameplay problem with a24. If we can find what is causing this issue we could have a 0ad that is mildly unstable. A mildly unstable 0ad means for the duration of a balanced game, it seems like either team can win at any moment rather than a stalemate, which makes for an intense and fun game. Some players had similar frustration and I am hoping I am being accurate for those who did not put a finger on how to describe it. I think a revert to a23 would be very sad and a last resort situation, considering what a leap some features are, and how much awesome work went into the new alpha. (Also, please excuse my handwriting, I know many other people grew up with other alphabets and have better handwriting than me :I.) 0ad Stability Charts.pdf

Archers Overpowered? 10 archers vs. 10 skirmishers Units start 60 meters apart (archer max range) Theory: Skirmishers under fire as they have to approach by 30 meters Results: 6 archers left (all fully healthy) Observations: The archer range was decisive here 10 archers vs. 10 skirmishers Units start 30 meters apart (skirmisher range) Theory: Skirmishers can attack immediately, archer range nullified, strong javelin attack strength should even the odds Results: 1 archer left (full health) Observations: Remove archers' range advantage and things even out considerably; archers still slightly better, probably their attack interval advantage 10 archers vs. 10 slingers Units start 60 meters apart (archer max range) Theory: Slingers under fire briefly as they close to within 45 meters Results: 6 archers left (avg 75% health) Observations: As the slingers cost less abundant resources, this isn't a very good outcome for slingers 10 archers vs. 10 slingers Units start 45 meters apart (slinger range) Theory: Slingers can attack immediately, archer range nullified Results: 1 archer left (10% health); 3 archers left (avg 20% health), 3 slingers left (avg 40% health), 1 slinger left (50% health) Observations: Remove archers' range advantage and things even out considerably; After the first test was so close I moved some units around slightly by about 1 meter. The fact that results came down to a 1 meter placement tells me they are pretty much balanced in combat against each other. Is this desired? 10 archers vs. 8 cavalry swordsmen Units start 60 meters apart (archer max range) Theory: Cavalry under fire for 60 meters; melee cavalry should be archers' natural counter Results: 7 cavalry swordsmen left (avg 80% health) Observations: Unsurprisingly, the archers were massacred. This is a good balance IMHO. 10 archers vs. 8 cavalry spearmen Units start 60 meters apart (archer max range) Theory: Cavalry under fire for 60 meters; melee cavalry should be archers' natural counter Results: 7 cavalry swordsmen left (avg 80% health); identical results to cav swordsmen Observations: Unsurprisingly, the archers were massacred. I thought the cav spearmen would perform a little worse than cav swords due to their slower attack interval, but it didn't work out that way. This is a good balance. 10 archers vs 10 infantry spearmen Units start 60 meters apart (archer max range) Theory: Infantry spearmen in theory should fall prey to archers; we'll see Results: 6 spearmen left (avg 85% health) Observations: Surprised by this outcome. Archers were massacred by spearmen, probably because of the spearmen's double health. No spearman died until the last 10 meters of their charge. 10 archers vs 10 infantry spearmen Units start 30 meters apart Theory: Infantry spearmen in theory should fall prey to archers Results: 9 spearmen left (avg 75% health) Observations: Unsurprised by this outcome given the 60 meter tests, but this still doesn't feel right. Very unbalanced toward the spearmen. 10 archers vs 10 infantry swordsmen Units start 60 meters apart (archer max range) Theory: Infantry swordsmen in theory should fall prey to archers, especially since Results: 8 swordsmen left (avg 80% health) Observations: Archers were massacred by swordsmen, when it should have been the other way around since the swordsmen were under fire for the entire 60 meters. Conclusion I don't think archers are overpowered per se. At least not on a unit by unit basis. Their range does seem extreme though, and they only cost food and wood, so in a meat shield situation or raiding situation the results could turn heavily in their favor.

Please report any bugs you find here or on Github(preferably) and feedback is greatly appreciated! grapejuice_r12_a26.zipgrapejuice_r12_a26.pyromod

boonGUI User interface mod for the RTS game 0 A.D. Everyone can follow the development, contribute to discussions, report bugs, suggest features or even make pull requests. Install Choose your preferred method GitHub git clone https://github.com/LangLangBart/boonGUI.git Linux: ~/.local/share/0ad/mods/ macOS: ~/Library/Application\Support/0ad/mods/ Windows: ~\Documents\My Games\0ad\mods\ Pyromod Drag and drop the file over the 0ad start icon or double click it. The mod will be unpacked and placed in your 0ad mods folder ZIP Unpack it it in your /0ad/mods/ folder Launch 0 A.D., click Settings and Mod Selection. Double-click boonGUI, click Save Configuration and Start Mods. Troubleshooting If you get errors/warnings after upgrading, delete the existing boonGUI folder and install the mod again. If that doesn't help, just post a message here or on GitHub.

If I look to the survey, I think we need a compromise. People like @nani, me and some others see the greate chance to improve the performance by a not realy noticeable visual impact. Be able to chose a number means the complete choise for everyone. But I totaly understand the other faction who say that they only want to have a on/off switch because of complexity. There are people who have difficulties chosing the right options. So I want to suggest a drop down menu. Three options. One for corpses off, called "performance optimised". One for corpses on, called "quality optimised", and one option with a corpse limit of 100 called "balanced".

All issues (except colors) have been taken care of. Y'all can Fetch origin and test.

Massive update! Video covering most things: Untitled.mp4 DETAILS: * Added most official WildFireGames skirmish maps to the mod, to be played with player position randomnization (and everything else in this mod). Arrows, slinger & ballista stones, and bolts now have a (slight) trail. Redone flaming arrow/javs and siege particles (it was a fire trail, now it's more fireball with a smoke trail). New building: Field Camps. Available for all civs. They can only be build inside neutral and enemy territory (max 3). Max 10 (12 for some civs) can be garrisoned. Units will slowly heal while garrisoned and the heal can be boosted by garrisoning priests/doctors/surgeons and even more with the new added tech "Quick Thinking". The camp/tent can be destroyed easily even be a decent army of regular units, but cannot be captured. Reworked priests. They can now build (and also help build, with reduced effectiveness) the new Field Camps and can now attack, with weak power. They can no longer heal units on the battlefield, they instead now boost healing done in field camps. Limit = 6. Units now enter a wounded state when their health drops below a treshold. They will receive a movement and attack speed penalty while in this state. Units in this state will receive a bandage icon on them. (Originally @wraitii' s idea ) Some general changes to units: All units move a little faster. Slingers, Javelineers became slightly more accurate, archers slightly less accurate. Slingers received slightly more attack speed and damage. Ranged champions and heros now have the same attack speed and accuracy. Archers including hero's and champions: Attack damage is increased but they now shoot much slower, are less accurate, and take longer to aim. (Logic: Some bows require considerable amount of power to draw, especially longbows) Ranged archer cavalry (incl hero & champ) now have less range, accuracy and attack power compared to ranged infantry archers but higher attack speed. (Logic: Cavalry archers actually used lighter bows than infantry) Champion and hero archers aim/attack faster and have more damage (like usual but tweaked the numbers). Hero archers have the same aim/attack speed as champions but much more health (unmodded) and damage (tweaked). * A few skirmish maps are not included for randomnization for this mod for various reasons with them mainly being: The map is more a scenario type of map (extra units/structures). There is not much point in randomnization if the starting positions are or nearly are identical (or symmetrical), and would otherwise need slight modifications for the mod. Look for the maps with my mod logo on them, they are the ones that work with randomnization. Updated original post download links and very soon after this post it will be updated on mod.io and also ingame->mod selection. Ty all on IRC dev chat for answering questions

Just to chime in with my opinion: I barely play anymore, because a24 just feels dull and boring, as civs are now all (more or less) the same. I really liked the kind of differences between the civs before. Aside from that the most annoying changes for me are the sounds as well and the reduced movement speed of units.

@ValihrAnt@borg-We need to think less of stats balance in themselves and more on unit roles. In this case the melee role as meat shield or archer counter is preserved, it's still effective. The problem is that skirmishers now can't fulfill theirs (infantry support). So thereby I think buffing skirmishers in general in such a way that they can actually handle archers is better than nerfing archers, otherwise we just get back to that state where an army of 20 archers take ages to kill a single spearman.

Compared to the apha 23 have you noticed any delay in the orders of the game? Shift action, shift put several units to be formed? Thanks for your feedback

Agree with this. Don't think this one is necessary with spearmen getting an attack bonus vs elephants. Can maybe reduce their armor values by 1 as they now get affected by blacksmith armor upgrades. So initially they'll have less armor than in a23 but after upgrades they'll have more. This would require a very hefty increase in food cost then. I wouldn't fight against a small nerf. I agree with a nerf on archers. For infantry damage or accuracy, or a bit of both and for cav archers accuracy. Yes, early cavalry are much too weak now and pretty much are only useful for trying to harass berries. Yes, a return to the old values or something similar is necessary. I was happy to experiment with the changes, but upon figuring out the meta more it's just simply a step back. I guess it also depends on how you define spam. In a23 making 1 barrack for a faster uptime or 2 for a stronger eco approach was the norm. Now the meta, atleast in my experience, is to plop down 2/3 barracks in p1 and spam from there as resources come in quicker than they can be spent otherwise. For me that fits as an increase in unit spam. On a tangent, I suppose another reason for doing more barracks is that the 2nd level economy techs have become more expensive for less gain and it's more efficient to just spam out units in p1 and skip straight to p3, while getting the techs on the way up. Not getting the phase up hp bonuses also makes it super risky to phase up early now. In higher level games it was something that was already being punished, especially by @borg-and @Feldfeld , and with those bonuses gone it becomes super dangerous for no real gain.

Here again the problem is that many of these were not problems before. I will make posts in the other space (although, as I have previously pointed out, the one instance in which I did this several players, including myself, all posted saying the change was a bad idea yet the devs moved forward with the change anyways). An overarching theme here is that many players feel that a large portion of the dev team doesn't listen to players' concerns and feedback and the replies from many devs on this forum only reinforce that feeling. But I will try your way one last time.

Come on. My point is that it has been read and it has been dismissed (actively and/or passively) by devs on the forums. Maybe I and others didn't go through the proper medium, but why would we if we just get told we're wrong by every dev that is on the forum? Devs can't say we need feedback from players and then say that the feedback is substantively wrong when they get the input. Just like devs can't say we need feedback from players and then say feedback is procedurally wrong and doesn't count because it isn't written in the right place.

This is honestly the best take I have seen throughout all the debate. That may have been a problem in the past. But it clearly isn't a problem now. And if you read all the compliant threads on the most constant theme are players, many of whom have been around for a long time, making complaints or constructive criticisms to which the devs basically say shove it--you are wrong or it is too early to conclude that. There are obviously some large, unaddressed complaints out there. And with each day more players that I talk to seem to enjoy the game less and less. Some have all but disappeared. It would be wise to address these concerns or at the very least actually engage them. Yes, people are playing a24 (myself included) but has anyone actually asked the players that are online day in and day out what they think of the alpha compared to previous iterations? This is honestly the best take I have seen throughout all the debate. That may have been a problem in the past. But it clearly isn't a problem now. And if you read all the compliant threads on the most constant theme are players, many of whom have been around for a long time, making complaints or constructive criticisms to which the devs basically say shove it--you are wrong or it is too early to conclude that. There are obviously some large, unaddressed complaints out there. And with each day more players that I talk to seem to enjoy the game less and less. Some have all but disappeared. It would be wise to address these concerns or at the very least actually engage them. Yes, people are playing a24 (myself included) but has anyone actually asked the players that are online day in and day out what they think of the alpha compared to previous iterations?

I guess there's some confusion with terminology. I'll make it simple: if you can test the gameplay/balance changes for the next version you can provide feedback that it's less fun and avoid issues with the new release. Does that make sense?

How many people actually still play Alpha 23? Serious question. Controversial opinion, but I'm inclined to think that these strong reactions from certain types of players mean that we're actually moving in the right direction. There's definitely still a lot of room for improvement, but that has always been the case for 0AD. Either way, there are always going to be these kind of reactionary responses... I've seen them with almost every Alpha. Alpha 23 was just around for so long that some people got overly comfortable with a broken meta. Even dependent on it. Also, about the archers, the fact that they need to be paired with melee units (meat-shields) to become truly effective is a good thing, right?? Once a sufficient number of melee units reach them, they cut through them like butter. I even saw someone complain about OP archers while he was just massively outnumbered by them... And complaining that everyone has rams is like complaining that everyone has spearmen... Some unit types are more generic by nature.

¡Eso parece una buena idea !, perdón por la última confirmación, fueron algunas actualizaciones bien pensadas. Creo que el mejor lugar para continuar las conversaciones es aquí, evitando así dejar el tema del tema de civ zapotecas.

Explico lo que hice: En el mod hay muchos de los templates base que tiene 0ad por defecto y estan desactualizados, lo ideal seria crear unos templates propios que extiendan de los originales para no tener que esta actualizando los del mod constantemente. Los archivos dentro de maps/random tambien los tuve que quitar por que causan conflictos con los originales. Los archivos de session.js y session.xml pasa lo mismo. Actualice los paths para que todos cumplan con la nueva estructura de carpeta y he simulado varios juego, ya son jugables los Zapotecas y los Toltecas. Falta agregar el nuevo edicio de "arsenal" a las civs, ya lo hice para los zapo y tolt Has aqui mi reporte joaquin (perdon por los acentos, no lo tengo en el teclado )

Personally I think we can keep the skirmisher's attack constant but increase the skirmisher health point to 75 - half way between archers and spearmen. This would highlight their superiority over archers in shorter range combat while keeping them inferior to spearmen in melee combat. In terms of slingers, I think the current A24 attack and defence stats are appropriate; they were not very strong historically as they were often recruited from the poorest citizens due to low cost. Therefore we should lower the cost of training each slinger to compensate for low attack and armour. A sensible cost would be something like 5 stone and 20 food and 10 wood each. Alternatively we can also reduce their training time, so mass formations of slingers can be deployed to counter enemy catapults or towers.

Thanks for these tests and the explanations. Some players have tried similar tests too. The results from this type of test are interesting, but I find it hard to build robust conclusions out of them. For example, if you change the starting position of archers (archers concentrated in one spot or archers surrounding the enemy), results can change significantly. The power of archers also comes a lot from microing them (hit, spread and escape). Obstacles plays an important role too (buildings through which you can teleport, forests, palisades/wall...). Balancing the range advantage of archers is quite difficult. If melee units can provide a reasonable counter, nothing prevent a player with archers to make melee units too. And since cavalry units do not play the same economic role as infantry, I would guess the most relevant test would be slingers versus archers and slingers versus skirmishers which are the units with similar role in game. The corresponding numbers found seems off by a large margin to me. Archers are now also a decent counter to both catapults and bolts if they are not well protected too. Skirmishers/melees do a terrible job at protecting sieges against archers. It is now hard to use catapults to destroy a fort protected by archers. Unbalance between civilization with or without archers get worse since mauryans and persians can get archery tradition on top of other upgrades and benefits from population cap advantage which make it easy to outnumber the enemy. I do not mean that balancing this would be easy since the current balance is the result of aggregating many other changes (units speed, rotation speed, no hp increase with phases...). I would like to emphasize that the problem is not to be minimized

Know how there is a "max gatherers" stat? There can be a "max attackers" component. For structures we can make it rather large, like 80 for a large structure. But for units we can reduce it considerably. We can base it largely on footprint size. So, melee attackers attacking a target won't mill around and run around trying to get to the target if too many are tasked to the target, they will find a new target instead. And then also, archers will seek a different target if too many are already targeted. We could even go a little more granular with it and divide it up between melee and ranged max attackers.

I definitely want that, I'm one of those who like the rain ... the rain of arrows against the enemy.

Christ. @m7600 I love the trees and decor.

The lucky Clover.

Ancient patch: https://code.wildfiregames.com/D880

@wowgetoffyourcellphone @Nescio

Before it was very easy to rush that makes the game extremely boring a single strategy, they got used to just playing the same thing for three long years, it was a mistake not to have launched in Alpha before so that they get used to all the disasters. The Archers are pretty badly balanced but the elephants I think are a nightmare.

I want my Gauls naked as well

The building doesn't know what you want to train, you must first train some units and then if autotrain is enabled for that building it will autotrain them again. (saying it will start to trains the same units again)

As opposite to concerns about game data (units stats...) that's more a concern about code. Those type of concerns (even if they intersected) should really be treated separately. I don't want to participate more in that topic, I just wanted to precise some things so that the initial author of the topic is not misunderstood.

Feel free to improve them: https://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/Localization.

See the responses below from devs (just from this short 3 page thread). Not trying to call anyone out but I don't see how the problem at this point is players not communicating their grievances. Also, compare these response to where many players have made very specific complaints with very specific suggestions for improvement (in this thread and others), which were either totally unaddressed or just labeled "wrong." Complaints exist. How are these being constructively addressed?

or only show the helmets? Less gpu intensive, less violent, easy to count.. Or maybe other props like sword/shield? I just don't know what to do with the units without those things

That's the idea Lack of player feedback is the biggest issue with the development process imo. There has been a major improvement with player involvement on a24, but there's still room for improvement. Making a weekly update that includes the new changes would be awesome, or at least in an alternate lobby/installation.

works without problems for me. Even the translation into german is correct. The only thing i am noticing is that in the pictures of the units, the color of their faces not always match the rest of their skin tone. The face of the Athenian women (first picture) looks very pale for example or the face of the Iberian? man (third picture) is very dark, compared to the rest of the model.

It is random. Sometimes you will randomly get a batch of all men, sometimes a batch of all women. All support units use orange. I didn't change anything about that (and won't in this patch). Easy fix.

I agree. I wouldn't mind a "casual" UI and a "competitive" UI.

You just have to comply with the 0 A.D.'s licence(s). 0 A.D. is released as open source: you can freely use, copy, modify and distribute the game's source code and data files, as long as you include attribution to Wildfire Games and let anyone freely modify and distribute any of your own modifications to the game's files. For other mods you have to look at their licence(s) e.g. here is the licence for the 0abc-a24 mod on GitHub made by @Nescio. WIKI There are some wiki articles you can read: wiki/Modding_Guide wiki/Mod_Layout wiki/ModdingGuiAndSimulation wiki/ArtDesignDocument existing Mods I also took a look at a small existing mod (e.g ffm_visibility mod or custom rating) to see how there mod is built. This helps to better understand how a mod is structured. Some total-conversion mods are: Hyrule Conquest, Delenda Est or 0AD City Builder. IRC Recently, there was a user in IRC #0ad-dev who asked the same question and @Stan` explained it to him, might be useful for you. Here is the link: 2021-01-29-QuakeNet (look for: "17:14 < nephele> Stan: staaaan, how to mod 0ad"). It might also be a good idea to join IRC (#0ad-dev) to discuss things more easily, most active devs are in the European timezone. Forum There are some sub forums that might interest you e.g. Game Modification or Art Development. If you encounter problems there are many people on these forums that can help.

Lopess, the developers are doing an awesome work and we agree on that. Also, if I am talking about those "negative" changes it's because I love this masterpiece and want all its good for the future. See my words more as suggestions than criticism to the wonderful job done by those great persons who did, for sure an achievement to be congratulated. You are probably right but the in my humble perspective, a big percentage of people would like to play a23 only with some of the new a24 improvements. Maybe, we could launch a vote to see that deeply but as i said, it's only from my perspective. And if a such vote reveals that mainly the players prefer a24 (which will surprise me a lot), if think the losing margin will follow the way of the democracy. The most effective way to show those opinion variations is to do a vote on all the newly implemented features to see how effective is each one from the perspective of the community. A such vote could be by the way, a kind of guideline for the developers. A guideline to follow whenever they can so the game will progress as intended by both the majorities of the community and developers. And further, it would even be interesting to make a such vote during the early testing of new versions to avoid those divergences of opinion in the future. Grapjas, maybe PhyZic was too far in his words.

I was surfing the web, trying to find some free 3D models for my mod when I found this site: https://www.smk.dk/article/digitale-afstoebninger/ The site is in Danish, so I have to use Google Translate. So SMK (Gallery Museum of Denmark) 3D-scanned some of their collection and released the 3D models free of charge (CC0). We still need to reduce polygon and paint it, I guess (I'm not skilled in 3D modeling). It's okay to use Public Domain object for 0 A.D, right?

Seems it was more of a fortnight. Will add things tomorrow. I managed to make a custom keyboard layout for my Windows with better deadkeys, so now I can do āēīōūȳčšḥṣžřŵŷṙ easily, no more ^ shortcuts. Also a custom Polytonic keyboard to type koppas and digammas ϜϝϘϙ.

Developer 1: "What advantage do we give the Persians?" Dev 2: "Stable buildings!" (weak joke)

I believe they mean something like this https://www.google.com/search?q=cliff&oq=cliff&aqs=chrome..69i57j46l2j0l2.1058j0j7&client=ms-android-huawei&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#imgrc=19jPkdZ4ek21fM is not easy to create if not impossible

I love the way walls are placed. Another thing I've noticed about a lot of RTS games, that 0 A.D. may be getting wrong, is that maps in other games are largely open space, allowing a lot of space for the player to build without the frustration of random trees or rocks blocking the way. Now, in Delenda Est I fixed this by allowing trees to be built over (the tree is removed). It just needs the tree to turn red when the building preview is waved over it and it would be feature complete. Also, maps in other games tend to have maybe 3 or 4 main terrain textures for that map and that's it. 0 A.D. currently may use way too many terrains per map. It's something I'm trying to fix with the new biomes, reduce the number of terrains, make them super textures so they can take up more of the terrain grid with less repeating pattern.