Leaderboard

Some limits are functional, e.g. war dogs have an entity limit (of 20) because they require 0 population. Domestic animals ought to have a limit too, to prevent lag: https://code.wildfiregames.com/D3777 Towers and fortresses are already limited by their costs and minimum distance; having an entity on top of that is unnecessary, I agree: https://code.wildfiregames.com/D3778 Why not? You already found the simulation/templates/special/player/player.xml file, just insert: <EntityLimits> <LimitChangers> <Fortress> <CivilCentre>1</CivilCentre> </Fortress> </LimitChangers> </EntityLimits> Locate your local mods folder (see https://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/GameDataPaths ), delete all versions of the mod, then download the newest again.

The citizen soldier concept strikes again!

I voted that it is not abuse. I think that we have to see it in perspective. It is so hard to reclaim your own territory if someone sneakily captures your own CC, temple or tower. So I think it is only fair if you are able to delete it.

I think someone has proposed here in this forum that deleting building should decrease building HP gradually, and I agree with it. This proposal sounds similar. In addition to this idea id also like to add that building deletion should be able to be cancelled. This is useful to prevent accidental deletion and allow opponent to retake captured building and stop the process. Also I think instead of calling it deletion it should be called salvaging since we got loot from it.

Yes, I saw this. My post has some another suggestions and context of a complain.

the concept comes from RoN where there is no such uncomfortable problem of deleting captured buildings, or losing large portions of territory at the cost of losing the CC. in our case is only to reduce the capture points and the HP to a certain point. my proposal is, apart from capturing, before you can control an important building like the CC, you must be able to assimilate. In ancient wars, strategic points or buildings were captured and then the peace was stabilized to destroy any attacker, such as the siege of Jerusalem in 70 AD. in this case(0AD). it would be all civic buildings with the exception of temples, special buildings and the market. military and defensive ones do not fall into this category and should be considered separately. troop-producing ones should be captured separately as well as the fortress. Why? in order to avoid destroying them as soon as they are captured. also if there are a certain number of houses in the radius of the CC perimeter, they should give a "civic morale" bonus, that is, they should give resistance points to the CC. When Titus sieged Jerusalem he had to take the city piece by piece bit by bit, and he had to capture the temple of Jerusalem separately, which together with the Antonia fortress, were the last strongholds of rebellion in Jerusalem. what would happen in 0 A.D while the buildings are assimilated? in 0 A.D the following would happen: not to access to self-destroy the building, after being recently captured. not being able to train units from this building in the process of being assimilated. the territory starts to blink until the process is finished. therefore it is no man's land, no one can control it. In other words, it is moving to a new administration. no one can build anything on it, except for the outpost. you cannot garrison units. how to reverse assimilation? ordering units to recapture the building (preferably killing the initial). in addition to keeping temples, markets and special buildings under control, this would increase the assimilation time by 2x. this is my idea let's look at it as a draft.

Even if you give a bonus vs archer to javelin inf too, not every civilization has javelins, so it will never work. A decent counter system will only work if you remove the collection capacity from combat units. Yes, it is less real and changes the whole concept of the game, but I think it would be a step forward for a.d, because many of the changes are stopped because it also affects the economy.

Carthaginians do as far as I know not have a lot to distinguish themselves competitively in 1v1. Style-wise, they only distinguish themselves with nonviable mercenaries. They do have their apartments which seem cool, but are locked to p2. When you reach p2, the minor advantage that apartments seem to offer doesn´t make a lot of impact(especially not with A24 p2 timings). Therefore I would like to do this suggestion: Instead of apartments being locked to p2, I would like to see apartments being unlocked as soon as you have 5 p1 buildings. So for most builds that would mean 3 houses, a farmstead and a storehouse. It would give a small eco advantage, but only after you reached 50 pop. So it is a nice bonus but nothing over the top. The Carthaginian player still needs probably the 3 houses at the start, which means players still get a nice mix of houses and apartments(because mono-culture is boring). In later stages, Carthaginian players will still build houses if they lack stone or need pop quickly when the are housed. Also apartments in this suggestion no longer count as a requirement for p3. I would like to hear your ideas on this.

@borg- You're right, removing the citizen-soldier capability of units would make balancing much easier (as you remove the economy part of the equation), but what I really like about 0 A.D. is the citizen-soldier concept. I've never seen it in any of the RTS games I've played before. I think the hard counter system you had in your expansion mod was pretty great for balance, but I also find the soft counter system really fun. It's a tough decision-making process. @maroder Good idea! I'll try tweaking the damage values for siege engines. The catapult would definitely benefit. @Nescio Thanks for the tip! I'll try it out.

It makes sense for women (and men) to have lower LOS while doing eco because you will naturally be distracted while chopping a tree, mining, or farming and consequently less likely to notice a unit walking in the far off distance. I don't see how to say women/men have different vision ranges. I would prefer for LOS to be unified but for the LOS to be decreased when a unit is doing eco. (and maybe a intermediate LOS when a unit is walking/fighting/under attack) Edit: This should satisfy everyone who wants to see far off units when being attacked without creating weird situations where you can suddenly see farther than a unit is "able" to normally see.

Please, you can use the zapotec texture, the orange wall and the straw roofs.

Ok, I will create it. (Retouch)

https://code.wildfiregames.com/D3776

that kind of orange color do you want?

Set graphics to a minimum. Looks still decent. Exit most or all other programs which run on your machine. Even then the game can become laggy, but less likely

I second @maroder, that women should see as far as men do, I think they also should be a bit faster. My friends still make jokes about the fact that last time someone complained about the fact that women are too weak, in response they only got further nerfed.

The feature as-is is intuitive, there is no learning or reading up involved to understand what it is about. So -1 for flags from me. Fixed: woman are depicted short-sighted ...

I think it is an abuse, but I do it anyway. Problem is that conquering is too strong (and buildings are too strong themselves). I'd like conquering replaced with another mechanic like "pillaging", to disable a building and get loot, but without gaining control of it.

With Vulkan our art isn't so slow since Vulkan allows to submit data via command lists - less app/driver time per each draw call. And all this stuff should be supported, have unified interface between new and old APIs.

Why not? catapults were operated by people, don't necessarily attack a lot of wood and iron. Anyway i think i will make a patch to increase the attack of the catapults and a little pierce resistance.

Yes, sorry @letsplay0ad I was going off-topic for your mod and just expressing my thoughts as some of these ideas might find their way into the base game. But if you want to try a different concept to stop turteling, I think stronger siege, which can take down barriers faster, is nicer to play as more limits/ restrictions (even if that mechanic is already in the base game). @faction02 got a good point: imo as long as they don't use fire arrows, they shouldn't really damage siege (except elephants).

I stay with the same. Instant destroying of buildings in a game with capturing mechanic is a flaw. Destroying buildings to prevent its capturing could be shaped in another mechanic. Set it on fire or something.

What I also like about the idea is that we can play around with the times which it takes to turn enemy in neutral and neutral in owned. That would give more options for balancing it out.

me play vs very hard ai petra here, i often used 5 or 6 at the start, switched very early to producing from houses. max batches sometimes (cc or baracks) about (5x) used batchsize 10, also 15 batch.: About Minute 3, already 3 houses, clicked upgrade build from houses (may a bit to early to be better then veryStrongAI Petra): But i saw very top player (1% of all) not use it (build from houses) in the complete game. By split soon and only prod between Barack/CC they and reduce Woman Prod, bec don't need any more. There are some advantages with both. With build from houses you often closer to some resources, more flexible about from where you want build and may faster boom ( right ?) commands.txt metadata.json

1. Put texture while modeling, use the texture map even if it is a borrowed one. 2. Watch out for the ladder it is going through the wall of the house. It's going well for the rest! Keep

yes, is my less sharped skill as modder. im not very good with that.

I can do that, a stone glyph. I make kushite Emblem.

I will need a specific civic center template to train villagers and slaves and a scout.

I'm going to "steal" some of the Celtic and Iberian buildings and some of the corrals.

Is it possible to reuse 3d elements from other buildings in the game?

tu idea del emblema es de un escudo? veo que el original tiene textura de madera.

@Nescio Thanks for catching that! @maroder The base game has minimum distances between towers and civic centres to prevent abuse. The minimum fortress distance is in the same vein with the same logic. However, I do agree that a sort of "attrition" mechanic would be interesting, but I think it would be better suited for another mod since it's an entirely new mechanic. @alre I'm with you now. That idea sounds pretty awesome for civilizations that have multiple choices of ranged units to allow them to choose between a "boom" or "defensive/preparing for war" strategy. The only concern I have with the "intermediate" type being applied to skirmishers is for civilizations like the Spartans that don't have an alternative ranged infantry unit. If I could figure how to reconcile that, I'd definitely try your idea. @Radiotraining and @hyperion I agree that hard limits are undesirable. My original intention was to have the number of fortresses you could build be equal to the number of civic centres you had (ie: a castle for every city/village/town), but I couldn't get it to work. @borg- I prefer the soft counter system, but if there's no alternative, then your suggestion is probably the way to go. The value changes proposed are also interesting. I'll look at those. @Player of 0AD It's a soft counter system, so the system encourages you to do so and rewards you if you do follow it, but exceptions can be made if you have superior population, tactics, micromanagement, resources, technologies, etc. Also the goal is to reward diversity the most to allow for a variety of strategies and approaches over the "one-trick pony" tactics. @Thorfinn the Shallow Minded That's a good idea. It would also encourage use of melee and cavalry units. I will look into that. @faction02 Indeed. Some of the changes here are made with the intention to prevent that sort of abuse. The next step is testing and refining. Then making more changes as necessary, and repeat.

Unfortunately, I would say RIP catapults, you will not be needed in a24. Mass archers are doing a good job at countering you (especially if they are not supported by archers). Yes, I was mostly talking about late game turtling indeed, I have nothing against early game turtling as you define it. I should have been more clear about the definition of the problem. I am currently watching a nice game illustrating the problem (I missed the money shoot, the red rams just destroyed a cc next to the fort at the front that was built next to it and lot of fpre palisades art was already destroyed ). If I try to schematize the gameplay I have observed in this example: Step 1: choose a civilization with archers tradition for op range Step2: build towers/fort + anything that will prevent sieges from moving forward (palisades are great since you can put many layers in a tiny space). Step3: wait for the enemy, he will need about 6 sieges to do something with his push* (meaning that he has 18 soldiers less on eco or fighting).Your soldiers should be able to handle easily the enemy army with the help of towers/forts. Once this is done, you can take care of the sieges that might have only be finishing to destroy the fifth layers of palisades if you have done a good job with your palisades. I can also spoil the end of this particular game for you but I assume you can easily guess . The minimum distance trick would only have move the fort at the front somewhere else since it was next to a cc, and the one at the upper right. I would therefore admit that it doesn't really address the main issues that are illustrated in this screenshot. *I would guess 6 is a good average observation. You need to make quite a lot of damage to destroy the enemy defenses fast and since you need to mobilize your army to protect the sieges the opportunity cost of making a slow push is high. 6 rams or elephants allow to destroy palisades layers faster and spread them toward the many towers that you have to destroy while also allowing you to loose a few if needed.

Honestly I could see the swordsman being purposed as an all-rounder, having a lot of pierce armour but lacking some of the ability to properly chase. Another change I would like to see is reducing line of sight, making it lower than even the maximum range of archers or slingers so that having a screen of units in front would be necessary to maximise the potential of the ranged units.

Yes, it is my preferred system, but it cannot be applied to 0 a.d. For 0 a.d I would use only necessary counter. How I think balancing for the future: Melee infantry with the same movement speed as ranged. This would already significantly help melee units to be more effective. Javelin cav/inf - It must be a unit with extremely high damage, but very vulnerable, changes that I would make: Range 30 > 24, Pierce Attack 16 > 20, Pierce amor 1 > 3. This makes them very strong with some melee unit in front, but the cavalry and also the melee infantry are more vulnerable if they are without a meat shield. It also makes it more durable against archers. Slinger - No changes. Archer cav/inf - Decrease accuracy 2.0 > 2.5. Spearmen inf - Should be more effect in battles. Pierce attack 2.5 > 3.0. Swordmen - Must be lethal when reaching your enemy, but more vulnerable to projectiles. Increase Hack Attack 5.5 > 6.5, decrease Pierce Attack 5 > 3. Pikemen - it must be very effective against melee infantry and cavalry, but very weak against ranged units. Increase Hack/Pierce Attack to 3.5, Hack Armor 10 > 8 and decrease Pierce 10 > 5. Spear cav - No changes. Sword cav - Bonus 1.25 vs ranged infantry.

Mauryan maiden guards: "That's cute!" They cost 80 food, 60 wood, 80 metal. Why don't they cost 90-60-90? Lol

I prefer the system ranged > melee > cav > ranged. For this to work, the skirmisher cavalry must have a bonus against ranged infantry, like https://ageofempiresonline.fandom.com/wiki/Sarissophoroi

Hi! Nice improvements overall! Loved the change on hp of structure, it looks more consistent now. If I may add, as a random player I don't mind too much a hard limit on fortresses (it always bugged me to see them sprawling everywhere in some maps, it takes away a bit of realism sometimes) but I agree that is may be not the prettiest solution. If I can share an idea for a soft limit on turtling: I thought that a way to simulate a resource penalty during a siege could be a food trickle for garrisoned units. It could make sense realistically, as if your troops are sustaining a siege they should slowly depleting your resources and it could add an interestic mechanic for sieges, as you can take down a city through starvation and you kinda force who's turtling to move forward with their troops to challenge the stalemate (or sustain a heavy cost for a prolonged defence, that's also a choice ) I never tested such idea so I'm not really sure how it can play out in the game and if it makes sense or is consistent with the general gameplay, but yeah, they are only my 2 cents

I like your reasoning, that's a solid AoE rock-paper-scissors. I was suggesting some other mechanics that you can find, for instance, in Total War games. Having played that, I can assure you that you can have a game that's both realistic and a lot of fun (although with some spectacularization, in that case). Realisticity is not really opposed to gameplay. In general, the ranged>melee>cavalry>ranged cycle can stay valid, but skirmishers would be an intermediate step between melee units and archers/slingers. They would be quite weak against archers and specially strong against melee units, and also more resistant than archers against cavalry. If we want to go even more realistic, there are further considerations that we can do, that involve the usage of shields and their size. Skirmishers were underpowered in a23 when they were faster (although they were appreciated for economy) and I don't think we can put them on the same level of other ranged units anyway. I think the best solution is to give them a different caracterization altogether, like booming or forest ambushing, so that they won't be like an handicap anymore. Furthermore, (I'm speaking to devs now) be careful not to nerf archers too much, or slingers will be op all over again.

I only meant a small one, very small one..... such that people don't put their fortress just right next to the cc.

Hello, Quick remarks about regicides : Due to the A24 elephant heroes change they are now able to destroy CC during phase 1 on a regicide game. I attach a replay from Dakara to illustrate this point. DakaraRegicideReplay.zip Extra heroes in regicide games : I figured out that some civs can have access to "new" heroes not trainable in normal game. Macedonians 4th and 5th heroes : Kushites 4th hero : Some heroes can start with a horse or without. Example : About balance : Starting with random Heroes providing huge or useless bonus can severely impact the balance of a game (for example compare Indibil and the Kushite hero above) Also starting with a cavalry or infantry or elephant impact the hero safety : Elephant heroes can't be garisoned Infantry and Elephant heroes are easy to snipe. Cavalry heroes can kill all the economy of the opponent at the start of the game. -> In order to balance regicide games: is it possible to provide a similar hero to each civilizations ? For example a cavalry hero with better resistance and less attack than standard cavalry heroes and with no bonuses. And this specific hero don't stop the possibility to train a standard hero during phase 3. This would be even greater if this can be set as a game option, Standard Regicide / Balanced Regicide (Yes random games are still fun)

This idea feels a little bit complicate, but there is something I like about it: Now conquering a cc is really not more difficult than just destroying it, because if you damage it enough, with a bit of micro you can save it and conquer it easily, with a massive advantage, compared to just destroying it. I don't think this is a good thing for the game, so I like the idea of enforcing a period of assimilation before the cc is useful to the conquerer.

I stopped playing 0ad for 2 months or so because of the ddos. I started playing again since release and the ddos still there..... My internet was suddenly gone for 3-5 minutes in 2 teamgames I played today. I think this @#&#036;% isnt going to stop ever. Its so sad that such a nice game as 0ad with the A24 release(Yeah I like the new version) is unplayable because of the ddos.

Necroposting... Or I should update and make a new one what do you think? __________ How is it is one of my initiatives with which maps become much more attractive than what we currently have. I propose to experiment with our most boring maps the mercenary camps.(borg suggested this as well). Having said this in passing, we must first of all draw up a list of the most boring maps with no strategic value. I still don't know what those might be. One of the advantages of mercenary camps is being able to recruit exotic troops. For the date Alpha 24 beginning of Alpha 25, The elephants, the archers along with Mercenaries who use swords, They are one of the units that cause the most imbalance and what is most desirable to recruit. Then making a gamut of ideas go brainstorming It would start with the areas and cultures for the mercenary warriors. For example: Desert area or desert biome: Egyptian camp, Kushite camp, Nomadic desert camp. Mediterranean biome: Mercenary Camp Mediterranean, Which may be composed of Cretan archers, Balearic slingers, mercenary hoplites, Italiaot mercenaries. Temperate biome: Celtic Mercenary Camp, Germanic Mercenary Camp and Mercenary camp of the steppes.

what iS tHIS? me likey

As far as I understand, the one moderator doesn't care whether non-africans are being called soulless monkeys either. And the other moderator seems to have jumped in after a certain amount of BS had been exceeded, not because of the specific content. But I haven't been there and precisely for that reason that I have better things to do than trying to get 120 random people in a room to become happy with each other. There's a difference between defamation and hatespeech. The latter is often defined to be anything that makes anyone subjectively feel uncomfortable and thus something we must strongly oppose if we believe in free speech. Someone could say your message offends me personally, whatever it is, so you should go to jail. Calling for violence and defamation is more specific and also a criminal offence in countries where free speech is in the constituion. You are right, it's not an edge case. With 100k of lobby accounts and 10k of them being used every month, someone is toxic on the lobby chat every day. Point was that it's impossible as a moderator to not getting shat at on a daily basis for moderating too few or too much and that this just results in moderators being even less willing to donate their time. I think just because a moderator did not chose to policy speech, doesn't mean that he does condone that speech. Sometimes I wonder if it wouldn't be better to have a platform where there is no authority, so that toxic messages are only attributed to the person who posts them, not to the person who didn't policy them, i.e. a more peer-to-peer platform, or just removing the chat feature from the lobby altogether. At least I didn't donate my time to such bullshit anymore. As a moderator I have received enough of such accusations to stop joining this room. And no, I'm not being convinced to give other people moderator access who promise to ban a lot more violently for their personal definition of hate speech. It often ends up in being the same kind of offensive behavior but under opposite sign, and will lead so just the same accusations. When I think back about the people who have offered themselves as a moderator and how they behaved in chat later, I'm glad they didn't get moderator access. So yes, I agree that a mute would have been appropriate in this situation, but in general, Wildfire Games should enable players to play, but shoul avoid putting themselves in a situation where they are responsible to make 100k players accept each other.