Leaderboard

Grab a woman and have her attack a rabbit. Auto-explore.

Buffing/nerfing or moving units around to different phases isn't the only way to incentivize aggression. Another way would be to make players actually think about map control. Currently, a new CC is something that you see very rarely. Reducing their territory influence will force players to think about expanding and give more importance to map control. Of course, reducing the cost of CCs would be needed in effect. With all the ideas for offensive options there need to be more defensive options. Giving Military Colonies to every civ would be a positive too. They work as a defensive and offensive option. Secure a vulnerable or important part of your base, or establish a forward foothold if you're the attacker. In general, I dislike forcing players to just pick between set options.

Thanks. Centurion Yekaterina reporting for duty ; ) I will be efficient, as the Romans were.

Just nuke around 75% of the RMS folder. There are a few well made ones and the rest were made with a quantity over quality approach. Even with new graphics, they would still look pretty bad.

What the game needs is a soldier-citizen concept, then, instead of the current citizen-soldier concept. You need citizens (workers), who just happen to fight, rather than soldiers who just happen to work. Then you could create more champions (your "real" soldiers) for each civ and move their availability to P2, along with some weak siege ("dudes carrying a log") P3 has heroes, advanced siege, mercenaries (and possibly extra champs unlocked).

Another solution: citizen soldiers offer very weak attack, champions offer huge attack. Meanwhile make champions cheaper, so the army would be half champions and half citizen soldiers.

It sort of is a valid tactic already in use quite commonly. I use various hashtags in my videos relating to AOE, C&C and Starcraft - essentially anything in the meta data that can associate what your doing with something else that's in the same wheelhouse - so in my case, some of the most well known RTS games. In this case, however, I don't think anything would be more beneficial than 0AD actually being reinstated on Youtube's game list. It does provide a way of grouping content into more valid search results. While it's good if someone inadvertently discovers 0AD whilst searching for something else, it is absolutely critical that if someone searches for 0AD that for the most part, they are served with 0AD content.

Only half-kidding here, but could this be part of our marketing strategy? Choosing thematically relevant AAA titles in the game browser so that those fans may inadvertently click on and watch a 0 A.D. video?

Currently, defensive map control is EXTREMELY easy with forts having the "root" that civic centers do. It's annoying. In a23 if someone forgot to defend their base and sent all units to the enemy their base was toast if someone attacked it. Currently, all you need to do is place a fort near where your army is. This forces the defender to always have an advantage as their building "root" can be located in multiple places with multiple forts. This forces the attacker from being unable to take over bases defended by women, even more so when walls and undefended forts are present. In a23 only Ptol/Sele had this ability (secondary cc's of smaller cost). A24 really promotes turtling and winning by forcing the other side to "run out of resources" or an enemy newbie making a really small/big mistake (that amplifies) which can be picked up on by an ally who went all cav (e.g., enemy border did no walls, pocket from other side sees this and overwhelms with cav).

Yes, this is still problem and a real bugbear. So far, I've raised it with Youtube directly via the help/feedback form provided on the site - however, I would add this was using my personal account as I wasn't, at that time, officially acting in any capacity for 0AD - purely I was raising the issue as a 0AD related content creator. I got no response and nothing changed so I next raised it on the official Youtube sub/r - who pointed me at the Youtube Twitter. I raised it on the Youtube Twitter, by that time using the official 0AD account, and was pointed right back toward the help/feedback form on Youtube! @Stan` - The one thing we haven't done (to my knowledge) is raise it with Youtube on the feeback form using the Official 0AD Youtube Account. I've not got the keys for that as I'm not currently producing content for the official channel. I'd recommend referencing the 0AD Wikipedia entry, and possibly making a few updates on the page to show recent activity.

She really is. Very positive attitude.

I love this Spirit. it is good to have proactive and enthusiastic people.

african-veteran.zip This one allows all heroes to train units. Hannibal trains champion swordsman Hasdrubal trains mercenaries Maharbal trains champion cav. So OP!

Those people have forgotten that there were releases where rushing was far to strong. Then everyone cried nerf rushing. After plenty assorted changes without touching the CS concept we are now at a point were people complain about the reverse. Also unit pushing which I think is part of A25 will have a major impact on the balance of this, so any discussion based on A24 I consider pointless. Basically if balance is completely outside reason after feature freeze do a hot fix adjusting the parameters that were used in the past to nerf rushing, else just leave it as is for now.

Please teach me, but I must warn you that my school censors a lot of stuff and Phab might be one. I will go home after 1 week or so.

We could make it so heroes can unlock the training of different units as long as they live.

I think it might be cool if we coupled this with making expertise in war a trade of tech,where expertise in war is 300m but gives you original training times. So now you have to chose between either lightning fast reinforcements or advanced rank mercenaries. I think both could have their charm. And once a game you could of course first train the lightning fast and then upgrade those you already have. I think this would be cool. If you have a super rich ally he could help you out at a hefty price, since they aren´t cheap.

Yeah, Yak, it has to be generic. Like "Alien Warrior" or something.

New update: camps can research a tech which increases max arrow count by 5, increases health to 2250 and increases max garrrison. rome-camp.zip

My belief is that making it so that it takes time to switch from gathering to attacking mode for soldiers would help with balancing citizen-soldiers considerably. Because then each 'variant' can be considered sort-of-in-vacuum. I'm not sure 'hardcoding' strategies is the way to go, but maybe, you know. That being said, don't expect this to get in A25. I think the target for A25 will be to fix the most egregious issues with A24, so players are happier with the current state of the game, before running into an experiment that tweaks a core concept like this.

Yes , I very much resonate with Gurken Khan. Healers don't do their job in A24. The SVN version of A25 has not fixed his yet. I am just as frustrated as Gurken Khan if not more.

https://code.wildfiregames.com/D1851

Just the component that defines that an entity (e.g. tree) holds some wood that can be gathered. As pointed out somewhere in the forums, this is already fixed in SVN. I feel you in its annoyance. You can right-click on the "none-formation" (as mentioned in the tooltips) to disable the automatic formation thing. Yeah, that might feel strange. Are more people feeling like this?

I'm actually just getting into a24; so I hope y'all ok with me suggesting things for a25 before I switch to testing it. Queuing actions: It sucks in a24, please revert it to how it was in a23. For example, when I order units to build a house and then cut wood, and then I change my mind and want them to build another house instead of cutting wood, I could previously order them again to build the first house and then the second; if I do that now they build the first house and then still go to the woods, not building the second house. Move orders: It majorly sucks in a24, please, please, please revert it to how it was in a23; don't know how many units I lost because it's such a disaster. And I'm doubting the common sense of the people responsible for that and if they ever played the game with those changes. Why is the Box formation the standard for move orders? Why on earth would I ever want that? If for example I wanna get out of range from some hostile towers, instead of just moving their butts my units now do stupid huddling and sorting and then maybe move out. And it always goes back to box formation! Even when I told them I don't want that friggin formation. And when I tell them I don't want that stupid formation after the move order, it cancels the move order! AAAARRRGGHHH...!!! Aggressive healers: Could healers with aggressive stance please not run away just because they caught an arrow? What's their aggressive stance for? Naturally I run 'em in packs, so their running away just makes everything worse. And how about their priorities? Could they prioritize hurt units (<x health)?

Hi, I was wondering if the implementation of a auto-explore function is feasible and if there is any work going on this direction? I found this: but this thread is too long and is pretty much dead! Would anyone but me be interested in this auto-explore feature? Thanks!

This is a proposal for a new unit for the Carthaginian faction. African Veterans Generic Name: African Veteran Specific Name: ? Class: Champion Infantry Spearman? or Swordsman? Hacker Armament: Spear? or Sword? Ranged Armament: None. Appearance: Armed and equipped with looted Italian equipment Garb: Tunic and lorica hamata Helmet: Hellenistic era helmets Shield: Roman scutum painted with Carthaginian symbols Figure(s): - History: Garrison: 1. Function: Heavy infantry. Good for holding the main battle line. Special: Trained by Hannibal.

; ) Disclaimer: I don't go to this school ; ) ; ) ; )

Currently I have heard ideas about: Changing CC cost and influence P2 Champions Nerf Archers and palisade

Thanks I'm afk now I'll look tomorrow.

For random you can do that. But for scenarios I suppose we need a new tag.

If you want to be more efficient, You need to learn / I need to teach you how to make patches. Because usually what goes on the forums stays on the forums, as long as there is no patch. Then when it's on Phab, you can get borg- FeldFeld Valhirant and other devs to validate your patches

Yes true. I just find it a bit much that there is the random option in the random maps category and also the map unknown, which is also kind of a random choice. That is confusingly random.

"Arena" category for special or "just for fun" maps that don't generally fit the historical or geographical theme of the game?

this is very well done and gives me the option to do my old A23 tactic with ibero now, if they put it in the A25 it could be a lot of fun hahahahahahaha

I think copyright

You like Star Trek as well? I was almost unfriended by some Star Wars fans when they saw me watching Star Trek. I don't know why but they seem a bit too extreme for me. There is nothing wrong in liking any one or both of the shows.

Alternatively, have citizen-soldiers and female citizens have the exact same worker stats, but the citizen-soldiers are now weak fighters. They're only good for maybe holding off a P2 champion rush or something for a short time and supporting your champ&merc expeditionary force.

As I see things, we allready have the tools for creating booming/rushing/turtling gameplay Booming: the unit that does this are women. Turtling: This can be done by building towers and citizen soldiers. Rushing: This could be done by cavalry or p2 champions. The thing is that though we have the tools for it, it does not work out like this. That does not mean the citizen soldier concept is flawed, but rather that our citizen soldier concept is ill-balanced.

Slaves are unlocked when you build a Market, so perhaps I can move the Market to village phase. Villages have markets, after all, and phase requirements in DE don't rely on building classes, but rather amount of buildings regardless of class (type).

I'm happy to code in falloff damage as tool for modders to experiment with, but personally I don't think its going to end up being a good fit for EA or any of its spinoffs without major changes to unit AI. Right now ranged units want to start attacking enemies at maximum range, and they will stay at maximum range unless their enemies move towards them or their player orders them to move closer. That means, with damage falloff, ranged units default behavior will cause them to do minimum damage, and additional micro steps are required to make them become effective at their intended role. That would be fine for an RTS in the Blizzard style, but for Ensemble Studios style games (post AoK) I think low level players expect units can be left unsupervised without completely negating their combat performance. But, I could also be wrong about that! It might be a question of fine tuning parameters. I mean, technically the situation I just described already exists with the projectile-spread mechanic. However, either no-one minds, or spread is currently so small and units pack together so tightly that at normal engagement ranges that it's not an issue. Anyway... re: linear vs exponential model: I am leaning toward the exponential. I think elevation range bonuses (and target leading) is going to make linear damage falloff complicated. Exponential ironically should be simpler.

Or you can mix ranged and melee in the same group, perhaps little legions of 20 men each.

Everyone uses control groups , i personally like to put both melee inf and a dozen or so ranged troops in group 1 in battle line since the game puts melee troops , specially champions in the front ranks and ranged inf in the back , i also put cav with group 2 in collumn formation since from my experience their pathfinding seems better and their collision is marginally lessed.

Happy to help. If you have any other suggestions tell me. I used the ptol model for the soliferreum. The unit does 26 pierce, 1 hack and 2 crush. Not sure if that is a little bit op

Very good idea. Let's get started: which points have we decided to change and how? I think I can easily merge a few of my mods to make a big community one.

If there is someone who is rated above 1400, I would be open to try a mod with that person and test balance. So if you see me around in the lobby, you can ping me. It is not that I have a problem with people rated below 1400, but I feel that the result would depend on the difference in player skill instead of the mod features.

There are few steps Identify all the maps that are unfinished / broken and make a list Delete or update those maps. Identify textures that need to be replaced with the new ones from delenda est. Write a script to update the pmp files with the new texture references Write a script to update the js files with those new textures. Commit the new texture files Make sure their resolution are consistent eg no more than 2k for diffuse and norm, spec could be smaller like 1k Make sure they are named properly and adjust the scripts accordingly Update the maps Identify sub par props and make a list Delete or update those props. Consider support for Lods. (Optional) browse the map packs around (eg balanced maps), and propose some new maps updated with the new textures.

Yes, reforms sounds good. Sacred band units vs. Hannibal veterans and elephants

It will be a beautiful addition to the Carthaginians!

Temperate Terrains on a new map I call Gallic Highlands The Belgian Bog map using new Temperate terrains A reimagined Lorraine Plain map using new Temperate terrains How a jungle map (here using the India set) can look