Leaderboard

MOD IS NOW PLAYABLE. COMPATIBLE WITH ALPHA 24. https://github.com/JustusAvramenko/0-A.D.-Classic-Mode Still a work in progress. Please report bugs and suggest balancing and gameplay ideas. Note: Naval and Unit progression techs (Basic->Advanced->Elite) not yet implemented.

This is my first map ever, so I'm not completely satisfied with it, but it's playable and mostly prettied up. Thanks to Tom for making the heightmap video guide, or I wouldn't have had the inspiration. If I make another map after this, I am definitely going to be making a small map instead. The map isn't balanced terrain-wise, but I've attempted to balance the resources equally between player boundaries. For optimal resource management, I definitely recommend trader ships, as you can get hundreds of resources per trip if travelling from island to island. Faroe Islands (6).7z

I played a match and my opponent resigned, but I didnt get any points. Maybe because of some E/A-error? Pretty sure that the match was rated. I guess this is the right place to post this. Could I get my points, please? metadata.json commands.txt @user1

Hey all, I'm a regular 0ad player. When I'm playing I usually build two blacksmiths and put them in a group select hotkey. It frustrates me a bit that when I queue up several techs in the blacksmiths (I generally have 2 or 3 which I select via a hotkey), the techs all get queued up in the same blacksmith. This irritated me to the point that I wanted to get into the code to understand if this is something I could 'fix'. After struggling to understand how it all works (was just barely able understand some isolated pieces) I made some changes to the selection panel code with the following 'enhancement': Whenever multiple buildings are selected that have the same tech, when researching these techs, the tech is researched in the structure with the lowest queue count. Thus distributing future tech research across the structures in the group that is currently selected. Using the above blacksmith example, if I have 2 blacksmiths in a group select, I would now be able to queue 'iron arrowheads' and 'wooden shield' and have them be produced each in a different blacksmith. I wanted to run this by people in the forum before creating a ticket and submitting a patch since I'm unsure if this functionality is desired.

I've often thought the game could have an "Empires Ascendant" mode, which is what the game is now with territories, citizen-soldiers, etc. This is the mode that is standard for the game and the mode that's used in official campaigns and what is used for ranking in multiplayer. But.... there could also be a "classic" mode where the game plays more like an old-school RTS akin to Age of Empires or Command & Conquer. Building on my "Two Gender Citizens" mod (here: I was thinking of creating such a "Classic Mode" mod for Alpha 24. Specs: Citizen-Soldier concept removed. There is now a "classic" Citizen/Peasant unit for gathering and building, and Soldiers for fighting, with no overlap of roles. Include the Two-Gendered Citizens mod so that the new Peasants/Citizens have male and female forms. No territory restrictions or bonuses. Borders completely removed. Place all Champions back into the Fortress. Rename Metal to Gold. Adjust icons and terminology to match. Make Catafalques more like "Relics" from Age of Empires 2. Capture one, place it into the Temple to get a trickle of Gold. Heroes removed as trainable units (but still remain in Atlas for scenarios and campaigns). Adjust costs and stats to be similar to Age of Empires 2. Archery Range unlocked for all civs. 4 phases, call the 4th Phase Empire Phase. Remove automatic ranking and introduce unit Upgrades (light, medium, heavy). Create an upgrade progression for ships, like in AOE1 (light, medium, heavy). Make Gold the trading and resource, like in AOE2 and AOM. 1 gatherer per farm; adjust farming rate to compensate. Capturing removed, except with specific circumstances (Catafalque Relics, for example). Anything else, guys? ========================================================== MOD IS NOW PLAYABLE. COMPATIBLE WITH ALPHA 24. https://github.com/JustusAvramenko/0-A.D.-Classic-Mode Still a work in progress. Please report bugs and suggest balancing and gameplay ideas.

I was thinking of these how wonderful what do you think? (This idea was put forward by Sundiata) The biggest issue will be the units that I have to make shields, some helmets and textures. I want to give them a standard range of 3/1 libios and berebers with Africans further south. I saw it in a text about the misery in Garama burials (I'll see if I can find the link later).

Gotchu fam. @Freagarach @Stan` action-garrison-turret action-garrison-turret.txt Bonus: Metal and Stone mine portraits: Cursors for the same: Resource icons for the same:

Offence Reporting It is necessary for you to create a post on this thread detailing the incident and including the replay file. When reporting a player, it is mandatory to upload the correct replay. Instructions: Locate replay at Main Menu/Multiplayer/Replays Select replay and note replay file path. Go to path in your file manager, locate the file named "commands.txt" Upload commands.txt to the Forums (account creation required) Tag @user1 Please state your lobby username and the lobby username of the offending player. You will not be notified of the result automatically, you may view the ongoing status of our progress at the bottom of this first post. Find more detailed instructions below:   Progress Report: @Xander12 @gameraj @Nympheuz @raffut1969 @donkenburger @e.v @petiprg

G A R A M A N T I A N S Repository: https://github.com/0ADMods/garamantians This topic is aimed at receiving references and ideas about the Garamantian civilization. References about architecture, names of kings and queens, in addition to units (the chariots of war: D) will be welcome. @m7600 is free to comment and help whatever you want, I believe that the Numidians already have their topic, we can comment on them there. I am willing to help in whatever way possible as well.

Adds more trees and animals (we have whales and fish) and gaia structures, if I were you I would also play a bit with the color of the sun and its position. Congratulations on the beautiful beginning.

Gave it a try in SP. The AI doesn't build any houses or anything else for that matter, so not a challenge. Territory is still mentioned in different places like tooltips.

It depends what the line-of-sight radius is supposed to represent in the gameplay metaphor, which in turn depends on what units are supposed to represent. If a unit's LOS represents a person's individual sensory perception range, then it would not be desirable as it is quite possible to come under attack and not know what is attacking you. On the other hand, if this is what LOS wants to simulate then it does a pretty poor job of it. In the real world vision range is primarily limited by obstruction and secondarily by resolution. There is no absolute limit on an individual's vision-range except in rare atmospheric conditions. Alternatively, perhaps each unit represents an entire company or brigade and their LOS represents their command-level region of awareness. In that case I think revealing attackers in the fog of war is desirable. A company may not know the disposition or intentions of all the other units in their vicinity, especially if recon is not part of their battlefield role, but the whole company is likely to catch on pretty quickly when lead and iron starts flying. They may not know the exact details of where each attack is coming from, but they'll still have a general idea of where and what the enemies are (so long as we are still talking about ancient warfare). Likewise, you could say each unit represents an individual and their LOS is their actionable region of awareness. In that case revealing attackers in the fog of war is desirable for the same reasons. A spearman might easily be able to see an enemy archer walking around 200 m off, but there is nothing he would reasonably do about it. He might not even inform his chain of command if his job is not to be a sentry. Thus the archer is invisible for all practical purposes. Once that archer starts shooting at him though, you can bet there will be a response regardless of if he can actually see the enemy's position.

Also do not know if you know but Gimp just released new minor version https://www.gimp.org/news/2021/03/29/gimp-2-10-24-released/

0 AD has TvTropes page analysing popular tropes found in the game. https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/VideoGame/ZeroAD Feel free to add or edit the page as I think some of the tropes are outdated.

Github mod link: https://github.com/wltonlopes/garamantians

I got a lot from this discussion: But we can open a new one. References are always welcome, I'm creating everything in a single blender file, which facilitates changes and improvements in the 3D models.

You might also deduce from the reaction of the unit in which direction is the attacker. Since most units with low line of sight (women, traders, fishing ship, priest) will flee in the opposite direction from the attacker by default. It might help for navigating dogs in the enemy territory. I wonder if this should be enabled for buildings, especially palisades/fields, which don't really have vision in the first place. I see most comments about units but not so many about structures...

Bonus: Fixed Wood portrait

Great, thanks!

1v1 matches can be rated, if the option is enabled. The host can enable/disable it. Unfortunately team games are never rated

I don't see why this shouldn't be desirable. An alternative and/or complement could be a hotkey to cycle through the buildings of the same type as the currently selected one.

Most of all can be done if someone does the coding. Well, this suggestion doesn't seem well defined in the first place. For instance what happens when shuttling resources? Does patrolling give a bonus? There are plenty states to think through. Then the premise is questionable. Harassing does most of it's damage by forcing a reaction or even overreaction. How does slightly increased vision range of woman change anything here? DE has some outposts around the CC at start, so vision is guaranteed anyway. Something I actually wouldn't mind in vanilla. If added increased vision range for woman wouldn't change anything. Last but not least, this is a rather complex feature just to make it a tad easier to snipe a woman or two between minute 3-6. Reducing the default arrow count would be more effective.

With D1958 (a.k.a. turrets) nearing its completion, can I request a few icons, please? action-occupy-turret (and its disabled variant) (this is a cursor) occupy-turret leave-turret For use in https://code.wildfiregames.com/D3773.

"Hannibal, what's your favorite football club?" "Barca!"

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

I used to book bands for a local venue. One night I thought I'd booked a Queen tribute act, but instead a group of Skiritai Commandos turned up in full armour. "Who the hell are you guys?!!!" I exclaimed. Their leader just looked up and said, "We are the Champions, my friend!"

Eles são divertidos e estão quase completos em suas estruturas, talvez eles poderiam ter uma chance no aristeia mod. They are fun and are almost complete in their structures, maybe they could have a chance in the mod aristeia.

@BoredRusher isn't wrong, maybe the wording is. There was a huge amount of gameplay changes late in the development cycle. Lot of changes in a single release are bound to cause some displeasure. I understand the eagerness to get everything in last minute when the last release was long ago so hard to blame the "balancers" for this. But less could well be more and something to keep in mind for a25. Another point is most of those changes seem to be based on gut feeling. As the involved people are pro or at least knowledgable players gut feeling produces on average decent results. Let's say 80% good 20% bad for arguments sake. Out of the 20% one or two brain farts will inevitably mix in. Bad changes are always a lot easier to notice and are what agitates people. Getting hostile towards people pointing out what they do not like is similarly toxic. A poll won't work. My impression is the effects of some of those gameplay changes aren't even well understood by the "balancers". Having people with even less of a clue vote will make things only worse. Well, you could at least blame the community at large instead of the few where things go wrong. @BreakfastBurrito_007, the "stable system" is partially intended, no more bonus for advancing civ, no exponential growth of economy techs, the changes to techs in forge etc. There are even plans to reduce the territory influence of city phase. To use your analogy, it's not yet a valley, more like flat ground, instead of a hill as in a23. I agree that those changes brings it's own slew of issues.

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

Please respect each other, criticise the game and its development all you want (though if you actually want to increase the chances of your opinion being considered -- doing so in a polite and constructive way is a good idea), but this forum is no place to mistreat other people.

It would be more of a place of rest and defense, but, not a barracks, it would be like a temple more or less, healing the units.

Some more.

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.