Leaderboard

It would be nice to disable gathering in enemy territory or at least have a cursor mode for that. It was especially annoying when I was trying to kite with a group of archers at some infantry in a wooded area but kept on accidentally ordering them to gather wood.

Look at @Grapjas mod:

Strong support for this idea. There are the players who like the a23 gameplay and want it refined through small incremental balancing changes and there are other players who want to have new mechanics and a different more experimental gameplay style. And it is obviously not possible to do that at the same time. Link to relevant discussion in other thread: So we could have a game setup option called "classic" or "Empires Ascendant" and one that is called "experimental" or "Empires Extended". With this we don't split the community, because you could decide each match, what gameplay you want. Also: one "official" experimental mod is much easier to maintain as multiple small mods that are maintained by different persons and not integrated from the beginning.

Actually the file was renamed to helpers/Attack.js (consistent with the rest and less redundancy in the file path), but the simulation name has become AttackHelper (again consistent). The porting guide is indeed our effort of making modders a bit less angry.

If it's cold in your room, then there is the following mod. Another useless application of our engine: just ray trace a simple scene written completely on JavaScript. The mod is attached, feel free to play with it. 0ad-js-rt-demo.pyromod 0ad-js-rt-demo.zip

Hello Indeed, that very much was and still is the plan for social media going forward. We've had a monthly announcement going out on the website, echoed in the forums and then echoed on social media since I began co-ordinating this, but the plan is that the social media accounts tick over weekly - either pushing official bits of news or echoing any 0AD related news or features, retweeting 0AD stories, etc. Annoyingly, a lot of this has coincided with my house move, which has been chaos, and all kinds of work and family stuff, so haven't been quite as productive with the social media side of it as I'd hoped, but that is about to change. And just in time for A25 as well, it's a great time for it all to come together. Will have a lot more time to react to ad-hoc SM posts, so absolutely, if anything catches your eye that should be shared, please do DM me

Just played 2.5 games with @ValihrAnt and I just want to say that this is going to be a really nice alpha. Amongst other things, I was really impressed by the art team's work and the the programing's team's improvements to pathfinder/pushing. Good job, all. One bug to note, if units' rally point is assigned to a res that isn't available then the units go to the closest available of the same type of res from where they currently are.

Delenda Est? ;P

Muy buenos días/muy buenas tardes; -Ya conseguimos que los modelos de edificios que estoy desarrollando para la "Facción Lusitana" sean compatibles a nivel gráfico e informático con el juego (0 A.D.) ; Muestra ; (Agradecimientos a @Lopess y @Stan`) Disculpen las molestias*

cd 0ad ~/0ad$ binaires/system/pyrogenesis https://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/BuildInstructions#Testing rev. 25782 - get OOS first turn replaying replays. (only caused by diff revisions assume) setting origin/destination markets seems bugged, made 5 traders, set them in motion, moments later, only 3 would continue route, other 2 would have to reset upon each idle. through the course of the match, it did not correct.

Back from some crazy last 3 months of work. Added Farmstead and Storehouse. Will keep adding more a bit slowly, since schedules are clearing up a bit for me.

I checked and it seems fixed for rally points as well anyways. The issue could also happen when you ordered large groups of units to suddenly gather away from their current position.

It is a problem because instead of having units walk to the forest where I have a storehouse units will spawn from the CC and walk to the tree that is closest to the CC, which may or may not be close at to other units, storehouses, etc. Instead they should walk to where I ordered them and then find a replacement tree. It appears this has already been fixed, though. https://code.wildfiregames.com/rP25776 This is already implemented. It shows shows idle units in the bottom left. You just have to pay attention and/or constantly press the period button to select idle units. You can use shift to give secondary orders too.

I am trying to create a unit which is capable of both shooting arrows and using swords to hack if the enemy gets close. How would I achieve this? It would be ideal to switch attack type by holding down control. So basically a multipurpose unit that is an archer and a swordsman at the same time.

Well i would to see each spearman have different stats. Hoplites have big aspis which is way better that a whicker shield used by persian spearmen so hoplite pierce armor > sparabara pierce armor for example. So diferent civs would have to take different aproaches to the same scenario. Another example, tarantine skirm cav could also have better pierce armor than numidian or asian skirm cav that use the pelta.

Musks could kill all but the heaviest of cavalry in melee and still in the few engagements cavalry won , it was not cost effective at all.

Well you would think a guy with a musket would have trouble against a horseman right? Well, in their wisdom the devs decided that the british civ needed to have a jack of all trades unit, normally a simple spearman/ pikeman can do this( is good against cav and can tank a bit) but they decided to make a ranged unit that is tankier than a pikeman and can also take down cav , much like the pikeman. After this, they had to give almost every civ in the game a musketeer type unit and also make another ranged unit that countered musks other tha artilery before release. In conclusion , everyone has a musketeer which can do a lot of things( boring autopilot unit, melee units except for the generic melee cav are useless( very very situational) and units that an extensive melee roster are gimped, therefore the game gets stale very fast as only the cards system and some unique units differentiate 2/3 civs. That is why i don't like how everyone in 0 AD has a spearman.

Shooting arrows until something gets close and then switching to melee reminds a whole lot of AOE3 musketeers, and that is not a good practice. Just saying someone might get the idea to implement units like this in a future alpha.

Mh, this would make sense actually if you're not in a dev copy & the mod writes data. Edit: seeing how you played this with A24, it's definitely 'expected behaviour'. The issue is that the mod shouldn't be writing data like that tbh, but given it's a hack, meh. I dislike the user mod in general and would probably favour doing things differently, but it's not a 'bug' for now.

Yeah, I was experimenting with it: Yes, square for each R5G5B5. It's possible but more slow, as on each frame you need to do a lot more work for rendering. Just generated by a script. We don't have a blog, so I just post some of my local stuff on the forum. It's impossible without performance loss at the moment. Cleaning up the cache should help, because there should be no other relation between mods.

You are oppening a colossal can of worms with this idea.

Sorry but you are objectively wrong about that. There are some extremely simple algorithms that would do the job (see my edit). But I think what you are trying to say is that it would be non trivial to design an algorithm that will switch between weapons competently in every tactical situation. (Which is true.) However you are approaching the problem wrong. It is not the system designer's job to produce a ideal algorithm that will work perfectly in every situation the players and modders can put it in. It is the job of the gameplay designers to design units that play well within the capabilities of the UnitAI, and it is the players job to adapt their micromanagement decisions to the programmed behaviors of their units! And this is not a new philosophy for 0AD, even in the existing design of the UnitAI itself. Units don't optimize their attack targeting to focus down glass cannons, or to avoid overkill. They generally don't even prioritize closer enemies over more distant ones, or units that are actively attacking them over those that are not. They just single mindedly pursue the first enemy that enters their field of vision. No one complains about it because 1) they are used to it and anyone who couldn't deal has left 2) the unit design has adapted so these sub-optimal decision processes don't affect the game much.

See: https://code.wildfiregames.com/D368 for a possible implementation.

I think you are going to make life much more difficult for yourself if you insist on making this feature player controlled. You will have to have a whole discussion about key-binding conflicts, and some people are going to complain about having to do extra micro to optimize their units' combat performance. (These are irrational objections, but they will likely carry the day regardless.) However the mechanic can be supported with minimal new coding and discussion, provided the unit ai is the one deciding which weapon to use. In fact, it is actually possible for a unit to have and use multiple attacks in unmodded 0AD right now, but only in a very specific circumstance. Currently units with both melee and ranged weapons defined in their template will always use the ranged attack, unless the ranged attack is restricted against their current target's class (or apparently if the target's class is a more preferred class for melee than for ranged). In that case they will switch to their melee (provided it is not also restricted). So the mechanism for a unit to use different attacks in different circumstances is already there, we just need to add additional logic for establishing attack preferences in different situations. (And add animation variants for the melee/ranged attacks to the actor files.) Edit: and the additional logic I propose is as follows... Prefer to use weapons that are within range of the target, over those that would require moving to use. If no weapon is within range of the target, switch to the weapon that is closest to being within operational range.

@Thorfinn the Shallow Minded Or maybe a more general 'forced click on ground' mode; pretty often when I try to order units to go near/between buildings I find myself trying different zoom or angles so my cursor doesn't get caught by the structures.

I pinged @psypherium

I support the idea of letting players actively chose which mode they want to play. In A24, people complain how one thing is bad. I don't really understand it, because if it is bad, why not solve it by a mod? Also I think in the lobby it should be convenient to switch mods and try out different things.

Very likely to happen at some point in the future - it's mostly already possible. I'd call that likely to happen. These two are far less likely. They have large pathfinder implications and are actually difficult to implement in a way that makes sense. Projectiles are somewhat bugged out for a number of things. I don't think any of this is likely to come soon. Based on A24 experiences, experimenting too much in any given future alpha is unlikely. If we want to depart from the current gameplay, we'll have to ship two mods. --- IMO one thing we need to do is expand the rosters. It's too limiting that some civs are missing some fundamental unit classes, because it makes a counter system extremely awkward. If all civs had archers and javelineers, for example, we could actually specialise them. But since that's not the case, we're stuck in limbo.

FYI the current autoqueue will re-use batch training if it's been setup. Yeah and it doesn't have the situational awareness to adjust the batch size appropriately depending on any outside factors.

I've updated my diff https://code.wildfiregames.com/D4148, it makes essentially 2 changes to the Best for MP maps: On 1v1 small, same amount of metal but slightly more mines on the map to avoid situations where you have _nothing_. On 4v4 medium, expected metal goes from 90K or so to 140K. That's still less per player than you'd get in a 1v1, but it's a _lot_ more. I expect this will make 4v4 more playable overall. Planning to merge soon.

Idea for an Illyrian swordsman, by Joan Francesc Oliveras Pallerols: He writes: "Illyrian auxiliary warrior at the service of Alexander the Great. The Illyrians were an ancient people that inhabited the north-west of the Balkan Peninsula, along the Adriatic Sea. They were regarded as bloodthirsty and warlike people, influenced by foreign peoples like the Greeks or the Celts. Illyria was also seen as a land of pirates. A contingent of Illyrians accompanied Alexander the Great in his conquest of Persia, after he defeated an Illyrian revolt when he succeeded his father." https://www.artstation.com/artwork/nQ0P2o

in the text he mentions the Paeonians.

Illyrian Pirates. Illyrian Light Cavalry https://europabarbarorum.fandom.com/wiki/Illyrioi_Hippeis_(Illyrian_Light_Cavalry) Getae (Number 2) it's a shame I don't know the Cyrillic alphabet.

Libyan Skirmishers

metal is different from other resources. 50 metal is not worth 50 wood in a game of 0ad. The mining rates are slower than wood and food. And most importantly, metal is a limited resource, which is ok, but it means the things you buy with it must be consequential. This is why I don't like mercs costing metal (a side note). so 25 spear cav are cheaper than 5 cataphracts