Leaderboard

How about differentiating camels from cavalry? A proposal: https://code.wildfiregames.com/D3735

hello friends, I have made a mod to play battles with 0ad. No need to focus on economy, just choose your preferred unit types and start playin battles. characteristics: 1. No unit can gather resources and build any buildings. 2. Female units can only build Civil Center and Palisade walls.(only one Civil Center at a time) 3. All units and blacksmith research are available from Civil Center. 4. Units produce instantly. 5. Technologies research time also Zero. e.g : ai does not works so multiplayer is only option. have fun and make suggestions. Mod Name : BattleMod. Mod File : attached. Installation : just download, unzip and put it in the mods folder. battlemod.zip

I apologize if my comment on the other thread stating this sounded toxic, but you cannot disregard that this is the reality at the moment. I also don't want to make absurd changes for no reason, I stated why I would like to see these changes and I tried to argument why they seem appropriate to me for a game which main feature is that it is open-source and closely based on history compared to other RTS. An alpha version does mean that there probably will be changes, which will change the current meta. Which is hopefully for the better and if not, then the next version should try and fix that.

I would like to debunk an argument which I heard here and bothers me greatly. It is the argument of ¨The game is still in alpha.¨ To me this argument has some toxic value implying that we can make absurd changes and not bother on whether it benefits the game. As the game is in development, changes will naturally occur. However argument shown before does not give a license to (extraordinary) changes. I would advocate: Extraordinary conclusions require extraordinary evidence, or applied to here extraordinary changes require extraordinarily strong arguments.

If we're making an historical game about building cities and fighting wars, then building farms in the middle of town doesn't make "gameplay" sense anymore than than having triremes fire cruise missiles, even though that might be "better gameplay" to some people. Good. The game is still in heavy development. I know you're a good player and you like the way things are in the game, but frankly this game's past and future development is measured in decades. The developers need to build a game for the future, not for how some people liked it in one of its past alphas. You're just going to have to adapt to change.

WIP - "Holzfäller" at work ...

It's actually because the dev team doesn't want to hear whinging from a loud vocal minority. The vast majority of players would adapt just fine. I would think you'd want to learn new build orders and strategies based on a changing meta and evolving gameplay, but apparently not. "Fortune favors the Mundane."

I don´t have any experience on earlier alphas that is worth mentioning, so I will not go into history. First of all, we need to consider the worker elephant is a great asset at the start and is a kick starter. I think a setup like 0ad shares similarities of the exponential growth. If one player need 95 seconds to double his population and the other 100, that might not seem to be a lot but after 1000 seconds the economies will differ by a factor of 1.6 Also it is the full packages that Maurya got, a great eco with the worker elephant, good archers, the ability to build elephant stables in p2, strong swordsmen and +10% pop cap. In previous alphas they had similar bonuses, but the other strong civs dropped a lot. On the same time the environment shifted hugely in favour of Mauryas as suddenly archers and elephants used to be a burden on a civ and now these units are a great asset. Also the meta became more defensive which meant that players are more likely to take advantage of the 10% higher pop cap .

My point is that no one actually knows how this will change things. But we do know that it can change gameplay a lot. It will be harder to protect fields. It will slow down gameplay a lot because you will now need to build a farmstand on the outskirts. Sentry towers and palisades won't be great at protecting fields at the start because those take res and time (which you will already be short on) and have their own deficiencies (i.e. a sentry tower can be quickly captured if men aren't closeby to engage in the fight; palisades can't stop archers' arrows) In short, it forces a radical change to gameplay to fix what is essentially an aesthetic problem. If players really want their cities to look "real" then they can still build their fields on the outskirts. There are also smaller, more incremental changes that can be made to encourage more spread out farmlands that don't entirely disrupt the current meta (i.e. Vali's suggestion of reducing the number of farmers). But changing the entire gameplay meta to fix a small problem like this doesn't feel wise.

First of all: Thank you for taking part in the discussion. I see people voting for the option to keep things as they are now, but no one who has a strong disagreement to this proposal has cared enough to say what exactly it is that bothers them about this. Regarding your concerns: Yes, when looking at any of the options on their own, they would lead to fields that are very hard to defend, but that is not how this needs to end up in the next alpha. At the moment most players maybe build one or two sentry towers in phase one and palisades are mostly used to obstruct siege in phase three. One option to balance the proposed changes would be follow up patches that make these structures actually useful for defense in phase one (which is their original purpose afaik). So make sentry towers cheaper and palisades strong against a p1 rush, but weak as soon as the other player is phased up. My attempt at balancing is here (not as a proposal, only as food for thoughts): https://wildfiregames.com/forum/topic/38007-increased-realism-mod-and-random-unrealistic-changes My point is that there are lot of options to include this change without having to cripple the gameplay. If it would help this discussion I can also propose a list of other possible things that can be used to balance this, but that seems like it can lead off-topic very quick. On a side note: I actually thought that the fact that these changes reward aggressive play and rushing (maybe even with infantry) would be a positive thing?

We (Me @OmriLahav and @Samulis) Have something coming. Stay tuned.

I think it looks pretty great.

So I've been quiet since the first release, but I have been working on the next version. Updating to version 0.24 is going nicely, albeit slowly since I'm also adding new stuff. That said, I have a question: is there a way to have a unit gradually gain xp by itself, the same way that certain units gradually regenerate HP?

But it does. It makes gameplay sense because it will be very hard to defend fields that are away far from the cc in the early game (and possibly late game)e. This change will entirely change the meta. Frankly, it doesn't take a long read of the forums to realize that big changes like this aren't always appreciated or that big changes like this don't actually improve the gameplay. There isn't anything stopping you from building fields away from the CC if you so desire.

Thank you @Stan` for help fixing the problem. THEBANS ARE NOW ON MOD.IO AWAITING APPROVAL https://0ad.mod.io/theban-greeks

My original idea with 'Cultures' is that each 'Culture' came with a set of features or bonuses, and that a civ could be a "member" of more than one culture. So, Seleucids could be of the "Greek" culture (Theatron structure and "Hellenization" aura, plus a set of armor techs in the Forge and spearman bonuses) and the "Persian" or "Eastern" culture (a trading bonus and cavalry bonuses). It would show that cultures can and do meld. Carthage would have a "North African" culture (North African War Elephants) and a "Semitic" culture (Mercenary and Naval bonuses), each culture bestowing a set of techs, auras, buildings, or bonuses. A civ with only one culture would then be allowed 1 or more unique bonuses to that civ.

I'd think then it would be better to load up a list with check boxes so you can check (or uncheck if checked is the default) which biomes you want.

a macabre idea is in my mind, that they (Elephants) end up turning into food, in other words: huntable for enemy troops, I mean for the enemy is feasible get food if this units is outside of territory like if was a wild animal and turn it into a source of food.

Instead of trying to cripple the maury ele we could also add equally unique units for each civs so they have more variation. I'm sure the 0ad historians would have some interesting ideas, then the balance team could integrate them to the unit composition of each civ.

Download to test: https://github.com/JustusAvramenko/theban_greeks Ready for testing! Works with Alpha 24. Adds the Theban civilization to the game as a playable faction. They include 3 new heroes, 2 champions, custom actors, a fix for the plumed Boeotian helmet, 2 special technologies, a team bonus, and more! Will release on Mod.io in 2 weeks or sooner if all the bugs are ironed out!

This topic is for suggesting the creation of custom in-game menus that better suit each civilization, as well as improved unit/building thumbnails and mini-map. I've created two examples of this:

Military developments in the 'Late Iberian' culture (c. 237-c. 195 BC): Mediterranean influences in the 'Far West' via the Carthaginian military (in English) The article covers in fact much more than simply this period. https://www.academia.edu/1473558/Military_developments_in_the_Late_Iberian_culture_c_237_c_195_BC_Mediterranean_influences_in_the_Far_West_via_the_Carthaginian_military_in_English_?email_work_card=title

Some recent TGs have led me to re-evaluate some civs. Most people think that archers are OP, therefore they tend to choose archer civs. This makes anything which can effectively counter archers also very strong (by reverse psychology). Pikemen + skirmisher can counter archers. 60 pikemen vs 60 archers: all archers die and 35 pikemen survive. 30 pikemen + 30 skirmishers vs 60 archers: all skirmishers survive, 13 pikemen survive. Siege towers wipe out archers Hence, civs with access to siege towers and pikemen are also strong civs. These are: Ptolemies, Seleucids, Macedonians, Kushites. Ptolemies and Kushites rely on mercenary skirmishers but Kushites can replace the infantry role with cavalry and Ptolemies can use slingers or camels instead. Since Kushites also have access to archers this can catch the enemy out by surprise, in addition, Kushites have the potential of playing many surprising strategies, which makes them particularly strong and versatile. Ptolemies are very easy to boom with and the eco advantage is not negligible, therefore they should be a top tier civ as well. Macedonians are not weak be any means because they also have siege towers and the Rhomphaiaphoros for anti-siege. Just because the siege workshop isn't unique anymore doesn't make Macedon any weaker. Due to the high proportion of siege weapons the Macedonians have low food demand, which means being able to delete more farming women and making more soldiers in late game. (6 fields is enough for Macedon whereas Ptolemies need more than 11). Macedonians can also pull out unexpected strategies which is also devastating to the enemy. Their pikemen can quite easily counter Mauryan archers and skirmishers can take down incoming elephants. Seleucids can combine archer cavalry, siege towers and elephants in a deadly attack. Use siege tower to take out enemy archers/skirmishers, archer cavalry to snipe melee units and defend your towers, then crush the buildings with Asian elephants boosted by Seleucus Nikator. Romans: consular bodyguards OP. They are also able to defend against any attacks.

I agree. The problem with Mauryans is having both strong eco and strong military capacity. If we nerf either one of the two aspects then it would be balanced.

I also think that this is not great. But at the other hand, kushites are already so strong, so please don't change the Blemmyes, at least don't give them cav archers... Further differences currently: - the Blemmyes can receive the mercenary upgrade tech - they are faster to train - if javelin cavalry is your strategy, you can unlock phase 3 with the help of these buildings ; )

So with all of this, I would say that a middle ground is possible. People like turtling; it's a staple of the RTS genre, and if people want to farm in the safety of their protective shell, perhaps they should not be overly penalised for doing so. That said, I would still say there should be ways to encourage people to use other areas due to increased output at the risk of being raided in those areas. In addition, there could be a few benefits to realistic urban planning around the Civic Centre. This all could help encourage better map control and more thought with building placement; all to say, I think that there is a compromise to this whole matter that is not too extreme.

There is a bit of that it's true. But also silence or inactivity is not consent. Just because I didn't implement stone quarries in the game doesn't mean I'm okay with units mining a stone by being around (I am mostly, but I think it could look better with https://code.wildfiregames.com/D2372) I think it's important to mention there are two types of devs, some are working on the engine, and some are working on the game. When I started the whole balancing PM and this community of advisers my goal was to leverage the community into getting more involved with the developpment because there is not enough people to do both and there are actually more people working on the engine than the game, and we need to keep the engine improvements in order to support better new player hardware else the game won't run at all but we also need the gameplay developpers because else there will be no players anyway. Point is, not every dev has the knowledge or the skills to do the balancing. Just putting everyone in the same basket is not productive. There are a lot of types of developpers. And we don't have the kind genius that can do everything. So let's help each other instead of tearing each other apart. PLEASE.

And again I cannot believe I have to explain this--devs should play the game and interact with players. Forum posts and comments that exist apart from the actual game only are important insofar as those posts/comments reflect actual gameplay/player experience no matter how self-important those posters/devs feel they are. Again, I'm not trying to indict the entire development team as there is obviously a lot of great work that is done and this isn't a pervasive opinion held by all the devs. But the attitude expressed above is simply toxic.

To be honest if Maurya is still a weak civ then no one would complain about the worker elephant. The problem is Maurya is too OP with access to both Asian elephant, rams and sword cavalry. If we can strengthen other civs in terms of eco and remove the population bonus then that would be balanced. I remember back in A23 Valihrant only ranked Maurya as a mediocre civ, and I agreed with him.

While I'm not necessarily opposed to realism, I remain unconvinced the proposed solutions are improvements. The easiest option is not always the best one. I don't particularly like it fields are placed around civic centres, however, I already can (and do) build farmsteads at the edge of my starting territory and place fields there. I fail to see what's gained by forcing fields to be moved away.

A problem that bothers people since years: https://trac.wildfiregames.com/ticket/4342 and https://wildfiregames.com/forum/topic/20406-changes-in-farms/ Yes and they will loose badly because the current meta punishes this layout. True. It will change things, but without trying how they will play out we can not decide if these changes are good or not. As I said, there are also other options how this could be balanced and I really do think that with the right option we don't have to sacrifice gameplay. I am not opposed to trying out incremental changes as Vali's idea.

Ya reinstale el juego y me funciona perfecto. Gracias!

plz download the latest file. it has been updated and old version were deleted and replaced with latest stable codes. battlemod.zip

Many Many Thanks to: Freagarach Langbart Stan

We have a bug that makes it so if a mod was enabled but the game is no longer compatible (e.g. version update) the game might still try to load it. As far as I know the only way to delete a mod is to delete it from the My Documents folder on windows.

Maybe she could have a white dress red highlights ? Or the converse.

I kind of agree. A couple goats and sheep could easily replace chickens and be better for gameplay. I was thinking chickens could be cosmetic anyway, or perhaps a "Chicken Coop" tech at the Corral could spawn a number of free chickens.

This regardless of any other points is something that should be seriously considered. I could see another alternative be to have chickens be replaced with something like sheep provided that the food count be the same.

It's not just historical reality, it doesn't make any sense at all.

The problem with that one is that it is designed for HD+ resolutions. At least Gomez's design fits our ridiculously small 1024 min resolution. @Sebastián Gómez I tweaked it a bit:

I agree that we can change dropsites for individual civilizations, but I have to admit it doesn't sound so exciting, instead it could be confusing for players switching civ often. I propose we combine changes in dropsites to other big economy changes, so that the difference is more enjoyable, and we should make similar civs have similar ecos, so that the differences are easier to remember. Some possible economic changes are: - slaves - buildings that are free but take more time to build, like a23 ptole - dedicated builders - economic buildings like a23 brit mill - fish traps - ship dropsite - variations in the use of the corral or the market - currency - economic role of temples or priests I think these choices should be taken when reworking individual civs, so that they have sense to that culture, and combines with the other gameplay aspects of that civ so that it's fun and also reasonably balanced.

The good thing about starting with a mod first is that mods are insanely easy for people to try out and test your work. A mod directory is pretty easy to set up too. Just a thought. I really like your initial concepts.

I meant it was introduced in Age of Mythology, and then abandoned by the Age franchise.

Which is exactly why my original proposal was to split the civiv center functionality (see top post). Defensive buildings do the defense, the farmstead is for storing food and the storehouse is for storage other resources. But it seems this is not the preferred option, which is why I included other options in the discussion. To the problems with petra: this is a second problem that needs to be fixed. If its worth it depends if you like a more realistic city layout. There are some people who would like that (again, see top post) but also people who are ok with the current unrealistic layout. I am just wondering why so many areas of the game are closely based on history, but the standard build order involves that the heart of the cities are turned into one giant farming area. And again: the goal is not to make the game hyper-realistic. With the right solution we don't have to sacrifice a fun gameplay. The goal is to find a solution that is fun, but looks better/ and is more realistic than the status quo.

Let's neuter Maury (worker elephant) like Romans were neutered (catapults/encampments). Better yet. Delete all civs and copy/paste Britons and rename all units with unique names. This way no civ has a unique advntage over another - in the name of balance. If anything, @wowgetoffyourcellphone has a more reasonable suggestion.

Not really a fan of the feature either, i get the "reduce micro" mentality (although i dont support it), but i feel like there should be limits. This is just another way of dumbing down gameplay. Multiplayer is about skills and organizing/micro is a part of that when it comes to RTS. However, since manual batch training is still considerably better im not really against it personally, but only if the tool is available to everyone in the base game and the autotraining is not able to autotrain batches of units, only singles. I still like the effort you put in though.

Suggest a two subfaction system in which will be split into Traditional and Reformed, like the Seleucids in Alpha 23 but better. For the Traditional, the player should choose Leonidas, Brasidas, or Lysander as their main hero; the Reformed Cleomenes and the fifth hero (Nabis?) Traditional units Perioikoi hoplite Helot skirmisher Helot slinger Perioikoi podromoi Skiritai hoplite/swordsman Spartan hoplites, two can promote to Olympic champions Theurophoros skirmisher → Celto-Iberian skirmisher Thorakites → Lucanian/Celto-Iberian swordsman Mercenaries: Symmachoi (allied) hoplite Symmachoi cavalry (spear or lance) Cretan archer Reformed units Reformed Spartan phalangite Skiritai skirmisher Skiritai swordsman Tarantine cavalry Reformed Spartan hoplite, can promote to Royal Spartan hoplite? Gastraphetes Mercenaries: Symmachoi theurophoros spearman Symmachoi cavalry (spear or lance) Cretan archer Symmachoi thorakites swordsman That way, the shift from perioikoi citizenship makes sense and there are no longer two kinds of pikemen. If still insisting on the citizen/champion pikemen paradigm, then instead of "Perioikoi" and "Spartan", how about "Reformed Spartan Phalangite" and "Thorakites Phalangite"? Elite gets 1/3 chance to wear a cape. Anything else?