Leaderboard

Hi Angen, I see in your profile pictures , that you are one of the designers....so first...I want to thank you and your team for such a beautiful jewel of a Game...0 AD is a dream come true for me....So I want to thank you and congratulate you and your whole team for making such a fun and outstanding game. And to your question... That's a yes....all players will have to fight for resources, so for the relics and treasures across the maps, the same will go for good strategic locations in order to build cities and ports and keep on conquering territories... Most of the locations for those cities and ports will be on locations that represent the real location of those strategic cities and ports across the map as it happened in real history. All players will start with most of the buildings, but not the upgrades, Greeks and Egyptians will start with a wonder... Carthage will start with a super Dock in North Africa with a few trireme and trader ships, and some units made of units from most the Mediterranean and Central Europe, in order to portray them as diversity civilization as the start of the game....because as the Persians, they were... The Romans will start with some 30 units made of Champion swordsmen (Legionaries) Cavalry, a Bimere and 30 female citizens...so they have a lot of units....but they will have to fight their way up against the Gauls in northern Italy and the Italian independent states inside the Italian Peninsula before going after everyone or keeping everyone else for going after them... All in game civilizations will have some advantages and disadvantages base on their geopolitical situation as in real history, forcing each player to think what units to make, where to move it's units in search of resources, and who and where to attack... I want players to think as Kings and generals.... The scenario will have passages across the mountains, treasures, relics, and goals to accomplish for each player before going total war on everybody else.... Expect a lot of sea battles too... I really want the players to fight at sea for resources.... The sea will be packed with them, Islands will have treasures, relics and some will have large resources. I want the scenario to be a challenge and fun one for everyone no matter what faction they choose to play with. The game is for up to 8 players, or for one or a few players against the AL. Everyone can play as The Carthaginians, or the Gauls, or the Persians, Romans or any of the other civilization in a single game or get some friends and play as allies against the Al itself.... My goal as a 0 AD fan is to make a scenario that hold the spirit of the 0 AD engine, and it's designers concept but with a small Rome total war touch to it, in order to make the experience a little more accurate to History and therefore an educational one as well while having fun. As the Ancient History fan that I am, I do really love 0 AD.... And I want to congratulate you so all your team of designers and artist as well once more, for creating this Jewel of a game... The world pandemic running around these days have not been an easy one for me to deal with. But finding 0 AD have made it easier for me to deal with... Your Atlas designer tool is an amazing tool too... It reminds me of the old Age of Empires one...but better, I do really love it. Thank you for your reply and for your contact address... Please, let me know if is ok with you for me to contact you privately, so as soon as I finish the scenario, send you the file, so you can test it, and polish it if you think that will make it better. Once again, thank you so much for your time and attention.

Upon having thought about this more, I think the better way to solve this problem is to offer more military options in P2. Things like the now gone Athenian P2 champs or the Spartan Skiritai, or the now very weak Gaul Naked fanatics. In combination with more accessible military upgrades it should combine to make aggression in P2 more viable and reward good scouting, but obviously would require a lot of effort and change to get there.

Primer boceto para el símbolo ; Inspirado em; Disculpen las molestias*

Buenas ; Aquí un listado de los nombres de caudillos lusitanos que pueden ser para la "ia"(inteligencia artificial); 1."Viriato ";-------------------------------(Virilos ) 2." Cauceno";----------------------------( Kaikainos) 3."Césaro ";------------------------------(Caisaro ) 4." Púnico";------------------------------(Apimano ) 5." Taútalo";------------------------------( Teutalus) 6."Curius ";-------------------------------( Coutio) 7." Apuleio";------------------------------(Apano ) 8." Conoba";-----------------------------( Connoba) (los nombres originales en lusitano son motivo de debate) https://www.ucm.es/data/cont/docs/106-2016-05-03-14.Vives.pdf  https://ifc.dpz.es/recursos/publicaciones/28/40/05salinas.pdf Disculpen las molestias*

Better yet, if we make this possible to "reseed" in the Farmstead. So I have made a kind of 'reseeding' concept for my City Building mod. Basically I made fields to have finite resources (default is 1000 grain) and unit assigned to farm the field will automatically rebuild the field once it is depleted. I cannot create pull request to the mod, but I have tested it and so far there is no problem. I attached the mod below. If you want to test, you can set the resource supply to 4 grains or something so you can see the loop. FarmReseed.zip

For the 45th consecutive Sunday! It's Newbie Rush time! Premiere about to start!

I was playing with some friends, and we got a bit tired of needing to build a market to get a upgrade and then seeing what my other teamates see. So i tought: "maybe theres a mod that already have that tech (cartography) researched from the start. Maybe you guys can help me out. Sorry for my bad english.

Returning to the old train times is something that has been requested by quite a few people. Rotation times have also been unsatisfactory for some and the ranged infantry move speed equalization has been reverted, but not as extreme as it used to be. This mod is here to test out these changes, see if players would really prefer these changes and also avoid surprises in case of backtracking, because as a24 showcased there can be many unexpected side effects. The rotation times are only changed for citizen soldiers, so champions, heroes and siege still take a while to rotate. The train time increase in a24 was to reduce spam. In my opinion, it only increased spam as the meta went from 1 early barrack to 2/3. Equalizing ranged infantry move speed worked to make archers unpunishable because if they were caught out of position or overextended they couldn't be punished. Changes: Citizen soldier train times back to A23 values. Rotation times for citizen soldiers lowered. Archers 0.6 lower move speed, skirmishers 0.6 higher move speed. Archers 0.5 extra spread. New version: messed with rotation times slightly, gave archers the 0.5 extra spread they have on the release version to see how it fares in combination with them moving slower. RotationTrainTimes.zip

Hi Everyone, I am working on a map project with the Atlas editor for 8 players or against the AL. I named the Scenario 0 AD Empires at War, and this scenario cover the period of 300 BC to 250 AC, In the Mediterranean and Central Europe during those times.... The concept for this scenario is to put all players close to the Geo political situation of each of the main 9 civilizations of the Mediterranean and Central Europe during that period. For example... The Athenians start in Greece and have all the buildings including a wonder, so the Egyptians as well....but can they keep it??? Because they are surrounded by other civilizations that have some new advantages to take on both... Or you can play as the Gauls...in their case, they are surrounded by other hostiles tribes, and will have to defeat them all in order to expand, same for the Romans, who start with a strong army, but a little city in the center of the Italian Peninsula, and will have to deal with other Italian states in their borders before taking on everyone else... Those are just examples of the Geo political situation of those civilizations in the scenario. Each player will need to conquer a couple of Buffer states close to their National borders in order to expand and fight other players. I am looking for players with experience, so they can help me with suggestions and map testing... I am new at 0 AD...got the new 24 version of the game a few months ago, I already played a few games with the AL to learn the ropes... But it is the scenario editor what really got me hook , because of all the beautiful scenarios and art that can be created with it... I am a lover of Military History, and specially the classical age... And 0 Ad as game have become a dream come true for me... I love the game..... Here is a preview of the whole map for the scenario, I have been working on it for 3 weeks and is not ready yet... I am adding a lot of stuff, from relics and secret passages to fauna according to the different regions of the map ... The Map is a gigantic one by the way pack with small fauna details. Here is a panoramic picture of how is looking so far, all comments and suggestions are welcome... Thank you all for your time and attention.

will be more easier to do with upcoming version of blender 2.93 https://wiki.blender.org/wiki/Reference/Release_Notes/2.93/Grease_Pencil

It would mean that during the Village Phase unit production would be effectively capped. The Town Phase becoming a greater priority of course is one side-effect that it would have. The point is that unit spam during the Village Phase is a thing, and merely increasing training time has not stopped it. I would go for a different approach (like the change to the barracks mentioned).

The reason that the spam exists is attached to the fact that barracks can carry out virtually an identically economic role as they can to a military one. If units trained at a barracks started at an advanced rank or had a gather rate penalty, both of these would make the barracks a risky investment to commit to early on from an economic standpoint. I have pointed out before and can make the same point again; 0 A.D. has extremely fast training times for their units compared to games such as Age of Empires 2 or Starcraft II, the latter of which is already considered a quick-paced game. If we want to reduce the spam without changing the economic functions of the barracks, simply having a cap of 1 barracks during the village phase would do the job; it would have other effects undoubtedly, but it would "fix" it.

I love the concept... The Scythian where one the most significant civilizations of their times and made outstanding warriors, specially their cavalry.......By the way, how cool is to find another Kings and generals channel fan as me. it is nice to know I'm not the only one that love and follow that channel. Thanks for sharing.

It does seem like a logical progression. P1: Citizen Solider -> P2: Citizen Solider + Champions -> P3: Citizen Solider + Champions + Siege. Then every phase has new options to attack and break a defense.

Hey guys, Thanks for considering my comments, and it is great to hear the changes in store for fortifications and archers. @ValihrAnt has a great new mod out that brings back ranged unit speed differences, not as severe as the differences in a23 but enough to make a difference. If you guys are opposed and/or not sure about the changes we can arrange a 4v4 or 3v3 to test out his mod and see if we think unit speed differences help or hurt the game. My theory is that since archers are great for defending buildings and for big battles it should be hard to simply cover your territory in towers and forts and be able to defend each one from an attack. Not only have towers and forts been buffed of range and HP, they have enabled/enforced wide-area turtling not seen before a24. It used to be that a fast and powerful attack on a weak point in defenses would lead to a large and urgent threat to the base and economy, but now it results in a 2v1 encirclement of archers/spears. My hopes for a25 are that p3 fighting is as dynamic and exciting as it was in a23, but with the good changes from a24 such as blacksmith and general melee/ranged balance. The changes should encourage movement, maneuvers, and risk taking, not resource hoarding, turtling and endlessly waiting for the enemy to attack you so you can use your local defenses to win that battle. I agree, I think if rushing is a viable strategy, then the games are less likely to reach that endless and inalterable state I have talked about. I think we should definitely still consider the mechanics that cause the game to reach such a stable equilibrium too. Do you guys get what I mean when I say things like inalterable/over-stabilized game state?

Minimized != paused. Also we don't always know when a window is completely invisible. Also we had crashes on some cards when we do or don't draw to an inactive window.

My point is it shouldn't use any resources when minimized

Back to 12 second training timing for cav? A21 is 10 second, and it rush a lot no ?

It's not static, you can move your camera while paused, you can use UI while paused. To fix overload one might enable V-Sync or use FPS limiter. If it's all enabled then the hardware isn't good enough to handle its current graphics settings.

fortifications are already being nerfed significantly. archers too. I don't like the idea of slowing them down and I think their speed has been leveled with other ranged units for good reason.

In my logic, if units move faster then the time spent traveling to your opponent is less and that would reduce to economic cost of being away from work for some time. I think the main issue is not the speed, rather it is that the unit with most range(=area it can control) is also the most useful. Reducing archer speed to 9.0 will not make a big difference in my view. I do think the strength of defenses is an issue. Without p3 there is no realistic way to take a garrisoned opposing tower.

That's because it was not packaged correctly. The mod.json and the folders should be at the root of the zip not in a subfolder. On windows you need to create the zip from inside the folder not by right clicking on it.

Well there is matchsettings.json next to the user.cfg. But they are used in memory and go through C++ code

Yeah I'm not against it. I didn't read the ticket no sure what the problem was

I think the problem is that the game keeps rendering the static image when paused (Because i can use that to test options quickly) @vladislavbelov

See https://code.wildfiregames.com/D1217

Well that means compiling is a dead end and its one of the files in binaries/data/mods/public/shaders. Or possibly a combination of both. If you could install svn on the guilty machine you would'nt have to compile at all.

Dude, I'm running out of outlandish superlatives to use in my titles! I'm having to delve into the perfectly, linguistically correct - but slightly risque sounding ones now!!!

I suppose yeah as long as it works enough for the game to crash https://trac.wildfiregames.com/log/ps/trunk/binaries/system/pyrogenesis.exe?rev=25356

They don't either. It's basically the same as there is no integration whatsoever.

It's possible and ir could make sense however you're gonna have to rebuild a lot more things than just the game.

Well it's not supposed to work at all. See https://trac.wildfiregames.com/ticket/1088

Nope. Well you could by tweaking the shaders do some stuff but easily no. Or one needs to add another prop around the base of all buildings.

An attempt was made.

@wowgetoffyourcellphonecould you open a ticket on the repo and ping "Jammyjamjamman"? He does all the coding for it.

@m7600 use this material And bake emission instead of AO ao-as-emissive.blend

If you want to proof that the gamma function for factorials actually works, you will not only get an integral by parts after doing partial integration, but you will even apply a proof by induction on it. So those who were think ¨Ah, @#$%¨ actually are a bunch of pussies.

Good assessment of the problem as always. But I don't think this proposal will work. The reason why players boom the way they do is because small rushes aren't effective enough or quick enough. Players can boom women until they make a barrack to make men. If a rush comes at that point they can fend it off with production from the CC/barrack. And if a rush comes before a barrack is up then the rush is so few men that it doesn't do enough damage and can easily be fended off with just a few men being produced from the CC. The difference in men and women training times also make women much more effective since they are both cheaper and quicker produce, so rushes have to kill a lot of women to be effective. I also think this proposal would actually backfire because most players will do the boom and reach late game earlier (because of better women) at which point they can punish players that slowed themselves by rushing. I think a better solution is to make rushing less economically costly, so rushing players aren't so far behind booming players. I think this can be done in three main ways: Increase loot for kills: this will make good rushes much more effective since you will have a better eco because you rushed. It will also punish bad rushes, which is the way it should be. Most importantly, this won't change the incentives for players to make more men early just to fight off rushes (i.e. this means rushes are still possible because players' won't turtle from the start without any penalty). This is my preferred change. Increase men's gather rates and/or decrease women's gathering rates: The change in rates would need to mostly occur with wood. This means that rushers would have a better eco because they had more men than women early. But, as I said above, this will also result in some people making men for the sole purpose of fighting off rushes, which means booming will still equal turtling. Make women and men's training times the same: This will mean women are less effective at booming, so rushing won't be as costly from a unit production time. But again, this will also result in some people making men for the sole purpose of fighting off rushes, which means booming will still equal turtling.

Divide the citizen soldier unit class into two archetypes: 1) The "commoner" light infantry/cavalry which will be comprised of all the ranged citizen-soldiers, plus any melee citizen-soldiers not equipped with a large shield or substantial body armor during their Basic rank. These guys can be left as they are. 2) "Landed" heavy infantry/cavalry is everyone who is left. They get their economic utility soft-nerfed by having their resource carrying capacity reduced by 50% and their movement speed reduced by 3. However, to make it up, they get +10 pierce armor on top of whatever they have now. Voila! The problem is solved but citizen-soldier concept remains intact.

Dedicated workers could possibly have technologies in later phases that boosts their output; that could ensure that they would be more efficient workers in the late game but not make them a go to unit in the early game.

That's my point. Most TGs there will be no action until the 15 minute mark because aggression just isn't viable due to booming being unpunishable as it's effectively the same as turtling. It makes the game quite boring.

(Just an Idea) There could be a special category for balanced maps for 1vs1 competition and normal maps for players who don't care about feature symmetry etc. who just want to play a beautiful map with lots of things to explore.

TTS would probably be good for visually impaired players, but I don't imagine there are many of those given how visually-driven RTS' are. Not sure why one would prefer it other than that, as most people read text faster than it is spoken (at least for romance languages). Edit: for things like civic centers under attack and so on, there are sound effects intended to help you identify those already without being as intrusive as a TTS voice. While I potentially support the idea of a voice chat in lobby and of course in multiplayer games, I don't quite understand how the game (or any other system) would calculate "player position" as shown in your example. There are no "player" units in the game, it's not an RPG or FPS, it's an angled top-down RTS. Would it be based on city location? If so, players would spend almost all of the time hard-panned left or right which is not comfortable in headphones, and it would offer a massive unfair advantage to players when trying to find an enemy in the first part of the game; the human ear is sensitive to stereo field changes of less than a degree, so it does not take long to locate an exact position even behind unexplored map. I think it would be better for players to simply be mono, or perhaps locked in a fixed place panned slightly based on which side of the map they are on. Honestly probably the simplest solution might just be to have some sort of integration with a 3rd party voice chat solution like Discord or Mumble or something... that way all that would need to be implemented is a way to add an optional field for users to enter their handles or similar callsign, no need for actual audio infrastructure in the game. I'm not even sure what a built-in voice chat could do any better than such pre-existing solutions.

I agree with Thorfinn the Shallow Minded here. We can allow training such champions from the Syssition from the town phase since practicing for war is so important for Spartans. This would also make them a stronger civ than they currently are.

Historical details don't explain why the Spartans lost their phase 2 building for champion creation. Why not giving them such a building back plus the phase 2 sword champs and the phase 3 skirmisher champs?

can hardly find any games recently maybe its just me.any recommendations for good rts es? ik sc2 am thinking of getting impossible creatures,ik aoe.

That also means Hyrule (I don't have the files anymore) and the Korean mod I made I have to reupload... great.

The attack plans and general plans. So it only has the current state but not the new movesplanned for the next turns.