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)?

Agreed, and with 0 being the first alphanumeric of the title, the game is almost always at the top of any list.

nani you should be able to feel that camps are training slower. If you want it to be slowed down even further I can make it so, but at that point the camp would be a bit rubbish. You should also see the decrement in their health bar. Only affecting one camp is a little bit difficult, but I think I can figure it out given some time.

I am just tired of marching my 80 archer/ 50 spear army along parallel defenses in a 4v4 for 20 minutes at a time, only for people to go afk because the turtling is so boring. Everyone has a bunch of archers and are constantly trying to get an enemy to fight under a fort and tower, but no one will because their archers get eaten by towers. You can't attack weak spots because archers will get to the fight before any other unit besides cav, and then even weak spots take too long to break, causing you to be 2v1ed. One problem is stone availability, another problem is that everyone has too much time on their hands. In a23 everything was a race against time, in a24 there is little excitement, little risk, little reward, and little offensive mobility. This late game turtliness and gameplay stabilization is probably the worst problem of a24 and needs to be addressed more, because it covers up all of the good features a24 did bring. You talked about defensive map control, this is the opposite of what Rauls used to do with his ptol colony-->fort--> catapults. The way I interpreted @ValihrAnt's talk of map control, I think he was trying to foster offensive map control.

I agree, I think no matter what course is taken to balance strategies, this is one to be avoided. From what I have observed, adding new ccs in a 4v4 is more common than in a23. But in a24, map control is more about archers than anything else, since they are not only the best for defending individual places on the map but also defending huge swaths of territory, I think the main reason for this is because archers can move to defend any structure in your territory faster than any other unit besides cavalry. I think the popular proposed changes set for a25 could help reduce this problem. Rushing was maybe only a little underpowered as balanced in a23. Obviously, making cc's cheaper sounds really bad as added to the current alpha, as this would cause the map to become fully entrenched and make the game endless even faster than in current a24. changing cc's like this could be a great change, if other changes happen with it.

rome-camp.zip Extract this into your mods folder, activate the mod in the mod selector and restart the game a few times. Take a look at the structure tree for Romans. You should see the camp being able to train rams and onagers.

Yes that's why I uploaded the mod to show people the difference. At the moment it seems like most people would prefer the farmland option, although I am not sure if what I made would be the option they had imagined. Also the second most voted option is to change nothing, so I am not sure what to do with this topic. @Stan`and the rest of the team, is it worth making a ticket/patch for this? Even if it will be probably only a reference for future discussion?

Hi, official PPA doesn't support Ubuntu focal, but you can use this PPA, which supports it: https://launchpad.net/~oibaf/+archive/ubuntu/graphics-drivers/ Ciao

I've started a "TOC". Well, it's not really a TOC but at least a start. I'm not sure yet, where this will lead to, but foremost, I shall spend more time on the review (and maybe some missing translation if there are such). But the idea to have some basic rules for translation is certainly nice - a style guide, so to speak.

I was a little unmotivated to work on the mod but im back at it. Added a new prototype branch on github where you can follow the progress of the next update. Also made a spreadsheet i use for re-balancing units for the mod that you can look into if interested. It will work with a deduction system based on what the unit is wearing as described in my previous post.

I think they only make sense for Hannibal though, historically. And I'd also shy away from heroes training other units. Never felt right to me.

I did.

@king reza the great @nani tell me if this is what you wanted.

I don´t think it needs to be severely. In age of empires the devs gave the Franks civs a bonus that helped their eco by a little and gave them +20% HP to a unit they used only to rush in early game. Such a small change turned a bottom tier civ in the top tier civ. Balance is a super frail thing and even the smallest of changes can make a huge impact on which strategy is preferred.

To be fair, I think this may come down to the fact that most people play DE in single player rather than against other humans. I imagine "the sense of urgency" would be heightened if it's played against another human being.

Thank you. I am also in European Time Zone, 0 UTC, but not in EU anymore I will pm ltms

Roman camps needs siege to be built from them. Otherwise, they are just decorations on enemy territory.

Maybe it would help if the berries looked more like the harvest. Sketch:

Made them bigger and added a decal.

It was very interesting.

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*

At the moment most people generally seem to describe the meta to be some aggression in the Village Phase, practically none in the Town Phase, and more in the City Phase. Ideally speaking there should be good opportunities for fighting during all of these times in the game. With that in mind, there are a few reasons I can think of that have led to this situation. The Village Phase has a wide variety of options with unit compositions. The Town Phase does little to help this and in fact introduces a number of defensive upgrades that discourage aggression. With the City Phase, access to champions and siege make pushes far more possible. Given these points, there are a few ways I could see the phases being more distinct and flavourful through a few measures: In the Village Phase, players should only have access to one melee infantry unit (typically a spearman), a ranged unit (either a slinger or a skirmisher), and one melee cavalry unit. This would help to first of all reinforce the general rock-paper-scissors formula that I believe 0 AD is aiming to represent. Also, it probably would not be overly restrictive at least in my mind. The Town Phase would introduce more unit types and perhaps some key upgrades to allow melee infantry to at least somewhat efficiently counter defences by either boosting attack or capture. At the same time I could see rams being introduced. One important thing to stress is that this would not be an iron rule. If one civilisation has an appropriate reason to have more than just the three, that should not be a problem. Likewise, factions famous for swordsmen like Rome could have that as their early unit while Carthage could maybe start off using Numidian cavalry. The point is that where differences are valid, exceptions can be made. I'll admit that these would introduce some difficulties for balancing, but I think that there is still merit to these ideas regardless of that.

related.

Perhaps an official mod on github (also on mod.io?) With the old works that were part of 0ad one day, in addition to a tribute would be available to future mods or the general public.

My graphics card: Geforce GTX 1060 Not a very good card. I get 120 fps with that screenshot.

My understanding is they never used Sarrissa like Macedonians. And that Carthaginians fought as Hoplite phalanx early on; later becoming more like thureophoroi. About tactics, it seems the Testudo did not exist at the time in general (not even Romans used it yet). Video on the topic (subtitled):

Still working on this. Will eventually make a separate Git repo after A24 is launched. Recently worked a bunch on the Nubia terrains. Compare: