Leaderboard

As a basic principle, I think it would be good if basic defenses used in P1 looses efficiency as the game progresses. In a23, increase in units HP when phasing up helped to fulfill this purpose. All units were buffed with the change in phases but towers weren't, so they be less effective at killing units. I agree. For palisades, the application of this principle I mentioned was, and still is missing. Palisades are often misused currently since they shouldn't be useful to block sieges but mostly be useful in early game. The idea of a tech available in p2/p3 to allow fast destruction of palisades seems good. A tech that could allow units to destroy extremely fast palisades in late game would work well, especially against palisades spam. So if someone used palisades in early game, he has to replace them by walls to have defenses in late game. Walls are barely used currently. Some players build palisades around them to solve that problem. In a24 (slower training time of units, no hp increase when phasing up), there is a very weak timing in multiplayers (smaller distance to the enemy) when you transition from P1 to P2. You spent a lot of resources and lose some training time from your cc to phase up so a player P1 is often stronger than a player that just reached P2. I have tried a few all-in with 4 to 6 barracks while P1 when the enemy reached P2, they seem currently quite strong. You start fighting with a population lead and usually, the enemy is unable to replace units dying fast enough even if he receives extra resources because he will lack production buildings. If on top of that you remove towers usage when they are upgraded, this weakness is even reinforced. I might limit cc's additional arrows to 10 maximum instead of 20 but keep a garrison capacity of 20. This would not change much the cc's role in early game but it would reduce its defensive usage in late game.

Made them bigger and added a decal.

Because @Freagarach is not into competitive gameplay, at all. And sadly what makes sense for competitive gameplay doesn't always make sense for the other players.

For blocking projectiles: Well, one can still shoot over walls and palisades if one wants to. Main point is to prevent units from freely walking into the settlement/town and to give defenders some time to react. But yes, would be nice, its just performance nightmare

And please note that making projectiles always land (i.e. making them cruise missiles) can be considered terrible gameplay downsides as well. (_At least_ by me and other people I play with.)

The reason to spam palisades is to ruin pathfinders and limit movement of the enemy and make rams spend eternity taking them down. The power in palisades is not health of the barrier, that much I can say for sure. In a23 people had no extra time to sit and build defenses anyway, the game was much more dynamic. Usually only a few strings of walls. Only exception being the roman siege spam, which was a rare tactic and even rarer to succeed. @Dizaka surely you can explain this you are an expert in palisades

Looking at images of such palisade walls, I get the impression that it would not take many strikes from a ram to take them down. Also, wood has leasst strength in shear with respect to the grain. This is the situation of 0ad palisades. If there are no horizontal stabilizers to keep the vertical logs in position then 2 things happen: the absence of one log allows surrounding logs to move more, creating more instability the impact of a ram is not distributed, meaning only one or two pieces of wood takes the whole load of the ram strike. This is enough to justify halving the crush armor of palisades, A ram should probably be able to breach it in 2 strikes. This discussion of historical accuracy and engineering limitations is pretty pointless for these palisades as they are just art-pieces for a game mechanism. We should free ourselves from this thinking, and let us make the palisade walls perform a logical, fun, and varied function in 0ad based off of a gameplay point of view. lets ask these questions: How much do we want small fragments of un-destroyed palisades to just sit and clutter the map and cause bad pathfinding? How effective should spamming multiple layers of palisades be in multiplying the strength of the overall barricade? How does it affect gameplay movement, fluidity, and decisions? I think the answers to these questions can be found in area damage, cost, and build time.

I tested Dakara's & Yekaterina's proposal in my sandbox. My findings: Javelinist attack to 32 P, speed 2.000, range 20 -- Good changes IMO. Slower attack means units no longer look like they are having seizures! 32 attack hits like a truck, but doesn't seem game breaking. 20 base range might be a little short. It definitely underlines the idea that these guys are not just off-brand archers, which is good. Less good is that they almost feel like weird melee-infantry with such short range. 25 may be a better compromise number. 25 +5 range per rank would sweeten the deal IMO. Javelinist HP to 75 -- Way overpowered! 75 HP javs annihilate archers, and every other unit type I tested them against. That's way too much meat. If the intent is to make javelins tanky, without massively changing their role, I'd suggest a different idea... Javelinist armor to 5 H, 2 P (which is +4 H, +1 P compared to their current) -- I think this is much more in line with the visual depiction of their gear. Those small light shields would not be so great against projectiles, but they would be excellent for parrying sword and spear strikes. I think the balance effect is better too. In combination with Dakara's changes, these javelinists have a strong anti-melee flavor, both as a tank for other ranged units and as a DPS source in themselves. This seems to have been the intent with their base stats as well, but now it is accentuated. And against archers they still lose by a respectable margin, which I think is right.

Los edificios aún no tienen decoración porque todavía sigo con la investigación sobre utensilios , armas y otros materiales históricamente y estéticamente correctos (con sus colores y formas correctos) Disculpe las molestias*

Okay, so it would be over my dead body. I have an idea that might work, without much extra work.

Note that you can do exactly the same with stone walls. I've seen some crazy wall design over the years That's no so hard. Just edit binaries\data\mods\public\simulation\templates\template_structure_defensive_palisade.xml and add: <DeathDamage> <Shape>Circular</Shape> <Range>30</Range> <FriendlyFire>true</FriendlyFire> <Damage> <Crush>600</Crush> </Damage> </DeathDamage> Note this will damage everything around it. (units, buildings etc.)

One could try adding area damage to rams, to see how that affects mass palisades.

They're main use should be blocking projectiles imo. Same goes for stone walls, but because stone walls are higher they should also block cata projectiles. Currently this doesn't work but hopefully in the future. As a secondary feature; yes, they should be exactly that:

Personally I prefer having some spread. Consider projectile mass, drag coefficient, kinetic energy of projectile at launch point... Arrows are lighter, so they fly faster but also experienced more air resistance. Stones have smaller kinetic energy but large mass + not really affected by air resistance.

.antipalisade.zip This is the mod: Melee infantry have 5x hard counter against palisade Champions have 10x hard counter Rams have 5x hard counter (can knock out palisade in one hit if you researched the crush upgrade) Test it and see if any other changes are wanted

Hello, i test the mod tonigh . Maybe we have to nerf a little unit big range like arrow and slingers for balance.

Right. IMHO foundations should be invisible to other players until the owning player starts building it.

Could foundations be made invisible to other players? I always liked that approach better.

why is it that the "WFG bot" will not allow me to use certain curse words in the lobby in a friendly context with other players (consensual, jokingly), yet this is allowed? if you're going to police for that, at least prevent this. presumably you can use the same over-zealous set of "bad" words for usernames/games too? this is one example of many, many I've come across in a relatively short time of playing (less than 3 months), including several references to Hitler. thx, and congrats on an incredible game.

Hello everyone! I had an idea that would be easy to implement and might make traders a more interesting and less predictable economic unit to use. At a given point in the game, the resources available for barter in the market have different values. Most often metal is by far the most valuable, but this appears set to become less extreme in a25. In alpha 23 traders were not even considered in 95% of games due to the fast paced gameplay and need to be ready for fighting at all times. In a24 barter rates immediately slam to value metal, further disadvantaging people without metal mines. This seeks to bridge the gap and make market gameplay a big improvement on both. If traders got more resources for each pass when they were trading for the most valuable resource, this would (maybe) make some economic sense because traders would want to take more value on each trip and this would be found in the most scarce resource. For example's sake (the values can be changed) a trader gets 100 of each resource when barter rates are equal 100:82. This is the default setup when no one has bartered, I call it the equilibrium rates. If someone barters all their resources for metal, the value of metal goes way up and now each resource is 100:1 with metal (maximum disturbance), this means the trader will get 100% more metal than before. Ideally, each addition of disturbance past equilibrium rates has a smaller and smaller affect on the traders. This is so that the effect is both tangible on small to medium price fluctuations, and not insanely profitable for large price deviations. The relationship would be proportional to a curve like the example attached where the x axis is a measure of barter price disturbance for a scarce resource and y axis is profitability of the scarce resource in barter trade. I chose the curve as an example just to show the behavior Im looking for. Possible benefits of the mechanic: sometimes rewards for the risk of putting metal into traders around 15 minutes instead of upgrades or champions or siege grants flexibility in strategies requires some micromanagement/ at least paying attention to prices. lessens the problem of certain resources being overvalued. I remember some civ has a trade advantage, this could be a little trick that they are good at. Serves to counterbalance barter rates and allow them to reach equilibrium sooner. Makes market decisions much more complicated. Do I barter everything to get traders so I can use the good trade rates I created? No, because you wont have a short term army and someone with excess metal may use the barter rates you created to trade their metal for other resources to mount a huge short term attack against you. I think this mechanic would be super dope. I don't see any downsides to it that can not be eliminated by adjusting relationship values. I feel this will make trade economy less hands off and more interactive and skill based. I am excited to hear what you guys think!

Bug in mod. simulation/data/civs/jude.json: "Template": "units/jude/cavalry_javelinist_b" but real file is units/jude/cavalry_javelineer_b.xml

what switching some toggle, like pressing f6 or something, a pink square, or anything visible for that matter, appears under all animals and fruit trees/bushes? edit: just seen stan' work, very good! they are not only visible, but also very nice

"when a man with a javelin meets a man with a bow, the men with the javelin will be a dead man"

I like the sand-color that makes the berries stand out. IMO, as long as there is some color differentiation between "map green" and "berry green" it is visible.

This is indeed looks like a rebranded rotary mill, vastly different from farmland in DE as in one of the poll options. If you'd called it building wells with an irrigation aura I wouldn't have been confused. The issues I raised are with the farmland concept which is vastly different from what you did. "Farmlands" is basically attaching a fertility value to terrain (per tile for instance). This doesn't only allow farmlands but could also be used to reduce yield in deserts or on top of rock. Wow had to settle with a hack in DE because proper support for this feature is lacking. Reverse importing this hack is something I'm strictly against. On the other hand the concept sounds interesting and can give map makers another tool to create unique content but needs quite a bit work design and implementation wise. Having prerequisites and restrictions are different, requiring a phase or tech like gunpowder to build cannons is fine. Restrictions on unique entities in history like hero or wonder aren't an issue either. Making houses dropsites or CC not being a dropsite are fine from a discoverability point of view. Whether people will like it is an other question.

Thanks, but please do not copy AOM and AOE; we can make much better models than them.

My opinions after testing out git version of A25 on 12/5/2021: 1. Very good graphics improvement, very sharp and well optimised indeed. 2. Please change the model of the berries. They are still difficult to spot amongst the green background. If the artists @Stan` @Lion.Kanzen can make berries mostly blue or red then that would be much easier to see. 3. Would be great to see some more campaigns added. 4. Tutorial could be more helpful if there is a cavalry unit involved, and if we start with a noob-friendly civ like Britons or Romans. Spartans are OK I guess but Syssiton and Skiritai commandos might confuse some nubs, and they are hard to master.

i understand the idea but /mute with nani mod is ok

Bit of an odd one this week!

I won't fight that last statement. But the main game comes with pre-cached visuals, while they need to be cached on-the-fly for the development version. That can take a while. Not minutes though. (And @Stan` reads better.)

Another idea to mitigate people abusing palisades for path finder would be to prevent people stacking them, like tower. For instance, it would still be possible to circle your base with palissade but not possible to stack 2/3 palissades walls next to each other. Not sure if I am super clear

You got one correct here, but not in the way you think. You need to switch to release debug.mp4 The debug build is barely used, because it runs with 0 optimizations. It also runs extra checks, which make the game slower.

Why do you think this would be bad in term of gameplay? From a competitive aspect of the game, it would make more sense imo. As I see things, the more randomness, the less competitive the game is. Moreover, as we saw in a24 turn time has a significant part in making rush hard to execute, no turning time implies dancing etc so this randomness leads to other gameplay issues. But I also realise that I am really biased by my previous SC/SC2 gaming experience, so glad to hear other opinions like yours

@Grapjas @LetswaveaBook I think friendly fire for all units would be insane, and would force people into pure ranged vs ranged units which would be a drama imo. But for the sake of keeping things into scope, please let's open another thread for this topic

raynor.zip This removed all spread. Haven't changed melee yet

Do you mean removing the random spread element from projectile targeting, or are you talking about removing ballistic projectile simulation for ranged attacks entirely? (The latter would be like the system used in the StarCraft games, where ranged attacks launch a homing projectile that are guaranteed to hit .) It's an important distinction because zero-spread projectiles can still be dodged by dancing.

I was thinking of embassy.

The largest ship ever built is a 40 built by Ptolemy IV. It was about 128 m long, a good 17 m wide and had a height from the waterline to the tip of the stern of a good 24 m.The crew consisted of 4,000 rowers, 400 seafarers and 2,850 marines. The traditional description of this ship suggests that it was a catamaran ship. However, the distribution of the rowers over the assumed three rows of oars is unclear. The known length of the ship allows for 50 oars per row. It is therefore likely that the rowers will be distributed on both sides of the double-hulled catamaran. This would mean 1,000 rowers per hull side, i.e. 4,000 rowers in total. The 50 oars on one side could then have been manned with 20 oars in a Thranite-Cyclite-Thalamite cycle. This is the most believable solution today. The upper deck spanned both hulls and thus had a correspondingly large area to accommodate the combat crew. However, these large galleys had no tactical value and were militarily and economically unjustifiable.

I think it's interesting that they stop shooting arrows while they are upgrading but the hitting them and progress being stopped or lost is too much. Let's keep in mind that towers aren't very hard to destroy and rams and catapults aren't affected by them. In addition, the normal thing is precisely to go against the towers with rams, elephants or catapults so that people do not die, so the towers would practically lose all effectiveness, given that there are 5 technologies to investigate. And if they are in the game it is also to serve some purpose, otherwise it is silly to keep them. On the other hand, it is true that they can become too decisive in a 1 vs 1 in which the players are next to each other on the map. It is not the most common thing, but if this happens it can become decisive who starts to make defensive towers on the border. Not so much to prevent resources from being taken, even, as to have the border open so that no buildings can be constructed. Maybe I would reduce the attack distance range of towers in phase 1 or their ability to destroy foundations, because you practically have to leave all the way to your main city for your oponent.

Sentry towers and palisades should be valid option to turtle in P1 but should be very weak as soon as the enemy has phased up. Maybe a P2 tech like "fire arrows" would be nice, which is especially an anti palisade / sentry tower tech.

It's hard AOE did something similar. It must be adapted to the culture. In Spanish Quique or Kike means Enrique. Or Negro means Black color.

I agree. it is used in social political language. It is a form of blackmail to force you to accept certain globalist policies.

Perhaps we can create a filter for new usernames and game names: Compare the name to a blacklist of offensive vocabulary If blacklisted vocabulary is in the name then ban. This way direct profanity as shown above will be eliminated.

la escala del edificio central es algo como esto. algo asi vendria siendo

el tamaño y proporcion estan bien, algunos detalles son muy avanzados me gustaria ago asi. estas no me gustan.

Haha yes, it's just ideas

I find government corruption interesting, my country knows very well about it.

If you don't see the issue you are likely a part of it.

I sort of agree, as alluded to when I referred to the WFG Bot in the lobby as "over-zealous," but here we don't even need to open the can of worms of "What is profanity?" and I actually made the mistake of bringing this up. Regardless of the WFG Bot's policies and set of policed words, I think the behavior I'm highlighting needs to be prevented—again, regardless of and independent to what is considered "profanity." It's beyond that.