Leaderboard

The Athenians Above: Miltiades the Younger (left), Themistocles of Athens (right) Above: Aristides the Just (left), Pericles of Athens (right) Above: General Iphicrates (left), Socrates (right) Above: Athenian Citizens (left), Greek Slaves (right) Above: Priests/Healer

The Kushites The Kingdom of Kush/The Kingdom of Meroe (Above left to right: Nastasen, Arakamani, Amanirenas, Amanitore) (Above left to right: Meroitic Citizens, Subject Peoples)

Snapping: Territory decay: Triremes: Roman army camp: Autoqueue: Carthage Sacred Band: Catapult: Embassies & Mercenary Camps Experience trickle: Fishing: Forge: Gathering: Kush Pyramids: Outposts: Palisades: Quinquereme: Resource counter: Map flare: war elephants whales Forge Formations Biomes Iberian Fireship Tresures Barracks Cavalry stables Elephant stable

The current loading screen tips are outdated, both the information, as well as with the visuals. This thread is to make new nice looking pictures and possibly also crowd check the descriptions themselves. Text: https://code.wildfiregames.com/D4107 Give your comment, give better pictures.

I went out again to the hot and arid lands of my country. I went to San Marcos in the department of Choluteca. Choluteca has a terrible temperature in summer. but San Marcos is a mountainous place, many meters above sea level. The weather was 30 ° - 32 ° and at night 16 ° <Reserved space>

The trees look really nice and might have realistic size but I had the same impression like Yekaterina about the size. I think it could cause some trouble because you really don't see whats going on under the canopy (Except changing camera angel, which I believe most players wont do.). Ever fought under a treetop like this? I have the feeling players won't like this trees. Is it intended that it can be the same? Would it make (more) sense to have at least 3 different buildings? I thought about the same. A real city needs a blacksmith, a temple and a marked! Not 3 of one type of this buildings and also not any mixture of 2 of one type plus one another. However, most of the Civs need stone for the temple and stone is what u already need to go to P3. So this change might have a stronger impact then assumed. So far as I know most players avoid building a temple and prefer building a second black smith to go from P2 to P3. People should think about this and test it. It should be a future change and not as a last minute change for a25.

Better take this one out, since it's already the name of a hero.

Seleucid AINames from current (s0600204) sele.json: "Seleucus I Nicator", "Antiochus I Soter", "Antiochus II Theos", "Seleucus II Callinicus", "Seleucus III Ceraunus", "Antiochus III Megas", "Seleucus IV Philopator", "Antiochus IV Epiphanes", "Antiochus V Eupator", "Demetrius I Soter", "Alexander I Balas", "Demetrius II Nicator", "Antiochus VI Dionysus", "Diodotus Tryphon", "Antiochus VII Sidetes", "Demetrius II Nicator", "Alexander II Zabinas", "Cleopatra Thea", "Seleucus V Philometor", "Antiochus VIII Grypus", "Antiochus IX Cyzicenus", "Seleucus VI Epiphanes", "Antiochus X Eusebes", "Demetrius III Eucaerus", "Antiochus XI Epiphanes", "Philip I Philadelphus", "Antiochus XII Dionysus", "Seleucus VII Kybiosaktes", "Antiochus XIII Asiaticus", "Philip II Philoromaeus" After going through various sources, I have only identified this one from the dynasty not yet included (if I am correct - please check): Achaeus the Elder Then there are the so-called frataraka, but I am not sure if they should be considered under the Seleucids or rather under the Persians (but the further names below are not included in pers.json). According to the information at Wikipedia, the frataraka were subject to the Seleucid Empire, so I would assume we might consider adding them to the Seleucid AINames. Baydad (also spelled Bagdates), was a dynast (frataraka) of Persis from 164 to 146 BC.[1][2] Background (also from Wikipedia): See more names under: Do you think it adequate to add (all of) them to the list of Seleucid AINames? I.e.: "Achaeus the Elder", "Ardakhshir I", "Wahbarz", "Wadfradad I", "Baydad", "Wadfradad II" Another thought: Would it be "nice" (and technically possible without too much effort) to show the AINames' faces from the respective coin (if the coin images are free to use) in-game where background info is shown? I mean, when the AI has chosen its leader, maybe the coin face could be shown (like an avatar ). If this is a silly idea, please just ignore it.

Good news still on this front: I've increased the flexibility of the system so you can play with 3 more settings, and fixed an issue so it's possible to have units push each other more, so things should death ball _less_. See https://code.wildfiregames.com/D4098 which I've merged. I'll still take player input during Feature Freeze, but I expect these new settings will be overall more satisfactory.

simulation/templates/template_unit_infantry.xml file has "structures/{civ}/elephant_stable" instead of "structures/{civ}/elephant_stables" in its build list. simulation/templates/units/ptol/camelry_scout.xml has an aura of "camel_stench" which should probably be "units/camel_stench".

I've been wanting to change it for a while. Along with the page's design adding the ability to scroll through tips + for sp to wait before starting the match. There is a thread about a redesign somewhere.

For the 50th consecutive Sunday (allowing for the one that was a few days late while I was moving house) - I have a Sunday replay for y'all! We're closing in on the first anniversary of 0AD Newbie Rush, 83 videos in total so far if you include midweek games, free 4 All's, tutorials and mod features It's been fun and plenty more to come.

That is actually a good idea man

The Spartans Above: King Leonidas and his "Battle Frenzy" upgrade Above: General Brasidas (left), Admiral Lysander (right) Above: Unused hero Agis III (left), Cleomenes III (right) Note: I might add Agesilaus as a 5th selectable hero and use the left-hand portrait Above: Queen Gorgo (left), Spartan Female Citizen (right) Above: Priest-Healer (left), Helots/Slaves (right)

As mentioned on #0ad-dev, Phacility (the organisation behind Phabricator) is winding down operations, and - as of June 1st - Phabricator is no longer being maintained. Announcement: https://admin.phacility.com/phame/post/view/11/phacility_is_winding_down_operations/ Upstream task: https://secure.phabricator.com/T13654 We're self-hosted, so the only impact on us is that existing bugs, security vulnerabilities, and so on may/will remain unpatched. (They claim to no be longer accepting bug reports, and have stated a plan to decommission "Discourse", the site they prefer people use to submit reports.) There does appear to be a group that are considering forking Phabricator and continue down their own path. Very little news (as of yet) about how the "big" users (e.g. Facebook, Wikimedia, Mozilla) will be handling this. IRC where people are discussing the fork: #phabricator on libera.chat Select excerpts from the above IRC: https://d.i10o.ca/tmp/phabricator-future/ Chat room for discussions: https://temp-community-phab.zulipchat.com Shared document where things for the fork are being documented: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YxQ_JGdhWYPSdoaI_m1TLzwbGLZdtOD7ux2SVL263Ow

I think a great way to nerf siege towers would be to make their arrow output equal to a fully garrisoned tower. Unless I am forgetting, siege towers have 10 arrows when fully garrisoned. 6 arrows instead of 10 would be nice. Also, improved pathfinding may make it easier for melee units to properly damage the siege towers as they retreat, which, in a24 is usually when melee units get stuck around each other w/rotation.

Yeah, you need to patch it, or wait for tomorrow.

With this feature soldiers move much more smootly, meaning that in those situations where you would use formations in a24 to smooth out your men, you don't need anymore. On the other hand, formations still move in a clumsy and rigid way that loses a lot of time, and brings no advantage anymore.

Just the eagle itself is not OP because it has almost no attack and can be shot down easily. A unit carrying it, however, means more protection and so it is OP.

I agree, that would favour Carthage and Kush too much over the other civs. lol you are too underrated. check out my new rating system here: https://wildfiregames.com/forum/topic/42429-proposal-new-rating-calculation-system/ I need you to check my maths

I mean, it wouldn't be a huge deal to just remove 3 ai names per civ. They have plenty others.

They have a good mix of citizen soldiers and mercenaries, plus War Elephants. Kind of like a mix between Ptolemies and Macedonians. Republican Romans are based on the Punic Wars era (aka "Polybian era"), during the 3rd and 2nd century BC. The Imperial Romans are based on the high imperial era of the 1st and 2nd century AD.

That leads to a bigger question by and large since a number of heroes are represented in AI names already (See Persians). I personally don't have a problem with that.

@wraithii I appreciate your dedication, and based on their description the new parameters seem like great additions to the tool kit. I must tell you though that, in my testing, the new dials aren't producing much of a noticeable effect for me. I've even tired turning everything up to double digits, and while a few units on the edge of my groups have begun wandering around where otherwise they would remain stationary, as a group they are pretty much behaving just as before. The only parameter with a clear effect is Clearance. Forgive me for asking, but in your own testing are you sure the pushing feature is working as you intended? I think by far the most likely explanation for these discrepancies is that I managed to corrupt my test installation somehow; but there's an the off chance I might be helping you find a bug... So I thought I'd better speak up Edit: Actually looking at your screen shots on the diff, there is very clearly something not working right with my installation. I'm having teething problems with using SVN it seems. Pay me no mind.

Did you like the new random civ options?

Right, depicting all 3 structures. D3994 is already accepted should be in for A25. Yes, one generic tip for formations, biomes and heros instead of individual tips. The patch D1730 (4/Jan/19 - Scroll through loading screen tips) is old but still works.

Honestly, I still don't have an opinion, but I believe that the name in Zapoteco is more "cool" and unique.

I really like the idea, I believe they fit well as a Xiongnu unit, by the way there was already a debate about it. However I remember that there came the idea of putting a human unit using the bird, I believe this makes it a little more "realistic" instead of a super intelligent bird.

Why is this poor kid still on A23? We need to update the apt package manager; debian-based users would still be playing A23 when A25 is out

Yes that is exactly what I was thinking! I almost named the unit 'D'derridex' Romulans are my favourite civ

Thinking about either adding tips for all the biomes or removing the savanna one. Opinions?

The multiplayer lobby is currently plagued by rated games being quit rather than finished resulting in artificial rating manipulation. No explanation is needed as to why this is terrible. I looked through some posts on the forums regarding the topic and some solutions and why they wouldn't work. All of them ended somewhere close to "Who actually disconnected cannot be reliably unless WFG hosts dedicated servers". Which isn't quite true. This is basically a text book Byzantine fault problem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_fault. A somewhat good enough solution can be implemented into the lobby without much changes, and without dedicated servers for rated games. However, any solution to the problem would need at least 3 entities. And also, it is assumed that no more than 1/3 would be up to any shenanigans by manipulating game states and lying to the "arbitration" service. Long story short, 2 players and 1 arbiter. A proof of consensus mechanism needs to be implemented to ensure three nodes are in sync and knows what is going on. I think a decent start would be to just seed a pseudo-RNG that is deterministic with a value agreed upon at game start. Note that turn hashes cannot be used since the current value need to be computed by a bot that does not run the simulation, if turn hashes are used and mismatching values are sent, there is no way to determine which hash is correct. This isn't actually Byzantine Fault Tolerant, but that doesn't really matter since if the client kept on lying, once the game ends, the worst thing that could happen is two mismatching reports being sent to the ratings bot. However, to successfully do this would be a not so easy task if someone cared enough to do, they can just as easily implement an auto clicker to play the game. Technically, it would look like this: arbiter: Another WFG hosted lobby bot. Both players send the next RNG output to the bot, the bot queries its own RNG, and if all three values match, life is peachy. If one value doesn't match, the arbiter, and the player who sent the matching value are correct, and the other player is incorrect. How is the quitting problem solved? Once the game ends, and both players send the game reports, this information can be used to solve the trust problem. Currently, when one person quits, upon game end, only one game report is send to the ratings bot which ignores the game if both reports are not identical. With this implemented, the reports from the player who was in sync with the arbiter would be deemed correct. Can't the proof of consensus be "I am here arbiter" every Nth turn? Not really. This would allow for players to fool the arbiter even if they quit. To be fair, even this allows for it to someone who is both smart enough, and determined enough. The solution is to implement a true byzantine fault tolerant consensus method, but I genuinely think this is overkill. How hard is this to circumvent? To circumvent this. Nefarious actor needs to patch the engine to send the expected value regardless of whether they are in a game currently or not, and upon game end, send a falsified game report. To make it more tolerant as said above, a more secure consensus method has to be implemented. On the top of my head, a solution is to reseed the RNG with the simulation hash at certain intervals. Once the values get reseeded, unless the client has been computing the turn hashes, they wouldn't get the next value right. While this solves the fooling problem, it also creates a new problem. This highlights the flaw in this whole thing. If 2/3 of the system cannot be trusted, the faulty entity cannot be determined. If a game goes out of sync, there is no way to find the flaw since none of the turn hashes sent can be verified. The reseeding part relies on two players sending matching hashes. This isn't a regression per se, but its still annoying if OOSes are weaponized. Can it be more resilient? Yes, in 1999, the "Practical Byzantine Fault Tolerance" algorithm came out. It is extremely fast. With this state machine, the three entities can process player commands and generate simulation tracking alternative hashes that do not depend on actually computing the simulation state. However, since there is only 3 entities, and the problem can only be solved if 1/3 or less entities are nefarious, so OOSes cannot be reliably solved. However, notice that this cannot be solved even with dedicated rated game hosting. </useless crap no one reads>

I think we can implement these dudes into Empires Ascendant as well.

I suggested Yinyang because of the rebalance focus. Anyway the alpha names don't respect the old etymologies of the words (I pointed it out before, page 2). Furthermore, the whole idea of using letters like W, Y or Z is a problem in regard to ancient names and alphabetical order. At the end, instead of a cool idea it becomes pedantry.

Check out the ones in the Delenda Est mod. They might be useful or applicable. Many of them don't use the new terrains and trees though, so I might have to update DE's as well.

lo mas importante esta subrayado, las lanzas mas ligeras pero afiladas y el uso de 2 soldados a caballo y como mantenían el caballo atado al suelo, asi como el uso de estribos y puñales dentro de los escudos 227-Texto del artículo-233-1-10-20110202 (1).pdf

https://code.wildfiregames.com/D4097

From the title, I thought it would be this:

warbird.zip Here is the mod. Only Iber and Rome have access to it for now.

I think metal is generally a problem in a24, no?

What do you think about this loading screen? I can delete the pink stuff if you want but what do you think about just the more plain background and the less scratched parchment?

I miss paired techs...

A version for a25 is now available for download on 0ad.mod.io (v0.0.25) Thanks for your work on that, @Jammyjamjamman!

Proposal - Zapotec rulers of the Preclassic Period, early classic. ( AI player names) The current names are PosClasico (1300-1520), In this proposal there are only attested names from preclassic to classic (200 BC - 550 AD) It's not perfect but it's much closer. - 200 B.C. (5 Alligator) /// Chantino ///Gaayu’ Chilla - 400 A.D.- 550 A.D. (8 earthquake)///Monte Albán ///Xhono Xoo (11 Rain)///Monte Albán ///Chii ne tobi Lape (4 Alligator )///Monte Albán ///Tapa Chilla (13 Soap plant )///Monte Albán ///Chii ne chonna Piya (5 jaguar)///Monte Albán ///Gaayu’ Beedxe (13 earthquake)///Monte Albán ///Chii ne chonna Guela Fonts: http://www.famsi.org/zapotecwriting/zapotec_figures.pdf *There are a few more names, I will consult my pdfs and leave this post. *The translations for Zapoteco are mine, from online content, I believe the numbers are very "up to date" if someone has more contact with the language even more with Proto-Zapoteco would be of great help.

@Ceres this patch: https://code.wildfiregames.com/D4075 @Stan` @maroder please approve!

We can leave it at the letter Y, because it is such a good source of memes an puns. Why? Y. (the sound of it) Other considerations: Y-axis (since there are so many mathematicians and scientists playing this game), Y-chromosomes etc decent names starting with Y: Yurya, Yelizaveta Or I wouldn't mind if you just use my name.

I prefer "Tessarakonteres" to be a special tech for Ptolemies (Heavy Warship +25% health, +2 projectiles; or something).

This is a more accurate model of the Tessarakonteres: The current one we are using for it is actually the Leotophoros