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.

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

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.

These no longer can counter archers because 1 archers can kill them quite quickly and 2 no more splash damage :I. The best siege against archers right now is siege towers. So in a24 Rome has worse siege overall than ptol.

Anti-Ranged as their general role. Anti-Elephant and Chariot as their niche role.

@Lion.Kanzen Thank you for finding and showing me that patch, it is great to see the discussion behind the change. I think most players agree that the ranged/melee balance is much improved this alpha, but that ranged/ranged balance is much worse. I also don't think the turtleing issue can totally solved without reducing archer walk speed, but many more people will agree with me on the other argument for speeds: skirmisher>slinger>archer. That being the inability of every kind of infantry to outmaneuver archers.

Why not just reveal the whole map for a certain duration rather than targeting specific units. Espionage levels for each phase. Delayed pay now/capture intel both nice ideas.

Might want to look at the commit which introduced it

The right approach to that question is perhaps to look at the different possible variables at play. Namely, there is defence, damage per second, mobility, and range. All of these are then considered in relation to the cost and necessary training time of the said unit. Fortunately those last variables are constant in most cases. Generally speaking a unit should be able be decent with two of those categories to be potentially worthwhile. Honestly the difference between archers and slingers is more or less a false dichotomy; they had similar roles. It's trying to figure out a niche for the skirmisher that is a bit tougher since their lack of good range, defence, and mobility make their high damage output harder make use of.

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

I think increasing palisade costs is a good option. Just looking at it you would see it requires alot of logs to build it. Besides, the palisades have a rock foundation, it should be accounted for. Up the wood price by quite a bit (triple?) and make it also cost stone 1/3 of the wood price. In this example the price for this length would be 588W and 196 stone. Numbers are just examplary though.

Buenas ; Aquí les dejo algunas actualizaciones de los bocetos; centros urbanos lusitanos edificio especial-Castro de élite lusitano edificio especial-Sauna lusitana edificio especial-Verracos (Son un toro , un cerdo y un jabalí-en orden de izquierda a derecha) Disculpen las molestias*

Hi, give Skirmisher infantry and cavalry +5m range for rank 2 and +10m (from base value) range for rank 3.

In the long term, what about a "resource hotkey" which toggles between normal view mode and a "resource view mode" where resources are highlighted? That would combine both realism and visibility...

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

Feel free to adapt the tutorials, make more. I'll see what we can do, but no promises AOM AOE 0 A.D.: Empire Ascendant

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.

(LetswaveaBook and Yekaterina with the ninja!) Yeah, after some thought, I guess you are right. Just put a binary override onto the collision test of MissileHit() in DelayedDamage.js. Best practice would probably be to add an "always hit" tag to ranged weapons that would control this behavior. That way, if for instance someone wanted to make a Myth style total conversion using the game assets, they would have an easy time re-enabling projectile simulation. I don't think updating the visualizations is really necessary. Individual projectiles are hard to see anyway, and clear misses should be pretty rare if projectile speeds are fast enough. It would be much weirder to see arrows bending to track their targets.

Central limit theorem

Yes, familiar with most of those - looking to retweet and share a few on the Social media platforms shortly, especially that last one - I've had contact with him in the context of my Youtube channel, he's really sound guy and is pretty taken with 0AD.

That's definitely doable with a mod and simple to do aswell. The only problem would be a visual one, it will look like the projectile missed, when it was actually registered as a hit.

What do we want the role of palisades to be? Because if they can be destroyed easily by both siege and melee, and they don't really affect ranged troups (because they don't), then what's their use? They are just a nuisance, only effective to disturb the pathfinder and attract the fire of idle enemy units.

I have an idea: add a P3 tech in the siege workshop which gives rams/siege weapons hard counter against palisades. Or I can even add it by default. Units shouldn't be able to hack down palisades easily because palisades are still quite thick and strong compared to human arms.

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

[Usual disclaimer that 'WFG' is not a thing and this is just a bunch of people giving some of their free time] We don't have particular plans to address this, mostly because the people currently active are mostly devs who work on other things. That being said, we are stretched rather thin in terms of lobby moderators. It would make sense to have more, but as usual things aren't so simple, because giving moderator power to people implies trusting them, which implies knowing them somewhat.

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.

Does profanity lose its power when certain letters are replaced with similar symbols? This is an extremely hard problem to solve. And let's face it, Nazi rhetoric is way worse than 90% of words you can say no matter how clean the language is. First of all profanity isn't that big of a deal. Secondly separate profanity from slurs. Then try to police that. Much larger platforms and communities have had to resort to good old fashioned human intervention to do so.

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.

The problem with this reasoning is that you can twist it to justify about anything. A community needs rules just as a society does. BTW I am kind of annoyed of the inflationary use of the word "-phobia"/"-phobic" for any kind of disagreement whether it is coupled with fear (the actual meaning of that word) or not.

@user1 maybe a fix for A25? still unsure why saying "I played @#&#036;% that match" gets you muted/kicked yet a literal player named nazi exists and is online as I write this (amongst other ethno nationalist garbage in the lobby chat)

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

I think intel might be the least beneficial in village phase, while also it would be less realistic for a village to pull off an espionage mission as for a city. As proposed by others above, increasing the cost for each use might be the better solution.

I don't see how extending it to all support units is a nerf, when before all you'd be able to see is the position of some trade routes and whatever the trader happened to be walking by. At least if you extend it to all support units you could see the position of his key mining operation or something to that effect (in DE, bribery is possible for all Support units and Citizen Soldiers). You can use bribery multiple times as long as you can afford it and get multiple bribed units feeding you vision. It's not supposed to be some big game changing effect. Just possibly give you some actionable intel. If the first bribe doesn't give you much, bribe again. Maybe it's currently too expensive for that, and cost needs looked at in conjunction.

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

I always say that profanity-phobics make profanity necessary. As long as there are people offended by it, there will be a need for people to provide the required offenses. But yes, consistency, or the lack of it, is a whole other story.

Wth...