Leaderboard

No, it's secret

Between a24 and a25, the biggest change has arguably been unit pushing. This new feature has succeeded in smoothing unit movement considerably, but has made much more than that: it has changed they way units move and look, and the way they approach and engage enemy targets. I always felt like in this regard, mine was a minority opinion, but after discussing with a friend who was much more enthusiast than me about unit pushing, I think we can possibly agree on some way to enhance it, so I will speak out about what I think it's wrong about it. Units interpenetrate basically every time you move them. When you have a whole bunch moving together, they form queues so tight that they look like solid worms of people. In some cases, it may be hard to tell how many soldiers there are, making it particularly difficult to predict how a battle is going to go. It is even more difficult to tell how many soldiers are getting killed, because they are so densely packed in the melee that people dying are invisible inside the mob. Rams can sometime interpenetrate so deeply that two of them may look like there is only one, while they are attacking a building. Choke points are no longer of any real strategic relevance, you have to fit melee units into them to make them effective, and that's usually impossible/unfeasible. And the slightest gap between two buildings allows a whole cavalry army to pour in between in a couple of seconds. Any passage, narrow or large, can fit an army as large as you want. I think it wasn't necessary to deviate so strongly from how unit movement looked before, the new pathfinder is more andanced and effective, but it went too far on this new road. It is ok if a big mass of units struggles to go trough a narrow passage, that's how things work in reality anyway. And besides that, I think the look of battles is worse now than before, less clear and more hazardous. In any case, unit interpenetration is bad and should be avoided if possible. Thank you for bearibg my rant, let me know what you think.

In my opinion Graphic Artists of 0AD have achieved a tremendus success in defining the modern graphic style for modern RTS games. All units, Biome and scaling is better than all other RTS game of this time. In case of music,sounds 0AD can also be regarded as a masterpiece. Gameplay has also improved significantly after the latest release. Although I would recommend beetter AI for FFA single player. Therefore I would deliberately recommend/suggest/support a massive marketing campaign for 0AD in this situation when people are eager to choose a new RTS leader for the upcoming time. Thanks All Artists, Musicians, Programmers for creating an awesome game like 0AD.

A new 3d modelling of Corent, an oppidum with a sanctuary.

@bad player I don't get your sense of humor. And to be honest, I had been thinking you could be a perpetrator seeking a ransom, since your profile name is "bad player" and you found the situation funny.

Buenas; -Creo que cometí un error al usar esa imagen como referencia total de un soldado lusitano pleno , pero si tiene elementos que usaron los lusitanos que se pueden extraer(como la decoración de la vestimenta , el puñal ...). Disculpen el error. Disculpen las molestias*

Buenos días/tardes/noches; -Intentaré ir por partes ,primero , cuando tenga tiempo terminaré las texturas para las unidades y después remodelaré los edificios , para tener al menos una base para la facción y partiendo de ahí ir puliendo errores o añadir mejoras. Muchas gracias @wowgetoffyourcellphone por las texturas . Disculpen las molestias*

Buenos días/tardes/noches; -Gracias por probar el Mod además de notificar críticas y sugerencias. Aunque yo sólo puedo limitarme al diseño y creación de edificios , texturas , mapas ... son buenas ideas que me gustarían implementar para probarlas. -Siga así . Disculpen las molestias*

Buenos días/tardes/noches; -Por la nueva información que aportan (muy buena por cierto) ahora tenía pensado que las unidades de infantería no campeonas tuvieran en fase 3 ; 1)Unos cascos de madera y o de cuero coronados con un penacho además de cubiertos con algunas pieles o capas con textura de pieles que taparían parcialmente los patrones y símbolos de las ropas , sin olvidar unas caetras simples de madera o cuero con algún símbolo regional y unas grebas de algún pelaje. a diferencia de las unidades campeonas ; 2)Que tendrían cascos de metales diversos y estarían reforzados con cotas de malla en algunos casos ligeramente tapadas con capas de textura de lana o lino con algún patrón y unas caetras de madera o cuero con refuerzos de diferentes metales en el centro y laterales además de llevar algún símbolo regional junto a unos zapatos de cuero. (sigo investigando y combinando diferentes posibilidades) Disculpen las molestias*

@andy5995 No. It's important tactical data, and I don't see a reason why one should be able to know. Prevent them from garrisoning, count them going in, or find out when you're forcing them out.

My take for now: Units overlapping is not a desired outcome of the pushing logic However, it is quite a bit harder to prevent it and actually make pushing work and/or pathfinding work. The pathfinding benefits of pushing outweigh the cons of units overlapping I don't know if I'll have time / how much time I'll have for A26. Possibly little. So I wouldn't expect this to get much worked on. It's possible that there could be tweaks to pathfinder.xml to improve things. Do you mean that e.g. A24 already had problems with this or are you talking about the A24-A25 SVN version?

user.cfg is a generated file, based on default.cfg and overrides in local.cfg and later in-game changes of those properties. You may edit user.cfg but honestly backing up or deleting for a reset are the only actions I'd take on it.

See this and this

Thank you so much! Please allow me collecting some useful settings adjustments here for further reference (and maybe discussion, too ). These are settings that cannot be changed in the game settings menues but in user.cfg. Under Windows 10, it's there: C:\Users\<username>\AppData\Roaming\0ad\config\user.cfg The values shown below are proposals I found in various posts in the forum. I have not tested them and recommend that you backup your user.cfg before changing it Zoom and scroll speed: view.scroll.speed = "200" view.zoom.default = "200" view.zoom.min = "3" view.zoom.max = "900" Attacks (some people might consider swapping hotkeys for attackmove and attackmoveUnit): [hotkey.session] attack = Ctrl ; Modifier to attack instead of another action (e.g. capture) attackmove = Ctrl ; Modifier to attackmove when clicking on a point attackmoveUnit = "Ctrl+Q" ; Modifier to attackmove targeting only units when clicking on a point (should contain the attackmove keys)

Here are the list of all the Config values I could find in the C++; Note tinygettext.debug is in that list https://trac.wildfiregames.com/ticket/6333#ticket but not in default.cfg Don't think you can. Copy pasting from a text editor will work though. In general you should use user.cfg /** * Namespace priorities: * - Command line args override everything * - User supersedes HWDetect (let the user try crashing his system). * - HWDetect supersedes mods & default -> mods can mod hwdetect itself. * - SYSTEM is used for local.cfg and is basically for setting custom defaults. */ enum EConfigNamespace { CFG_DEFAULT, CFG_MOD, CFG_SYSTEM, CFG_HWDETECT, CFG_USER, CFG_COMMAND, CFG_LAST }; void CONFIG_Init(const CmdLineArgs& args) { TIMER(L"CONFIG_Init"); CConfigDB::Initialise(); // Load the global, default config file g_ConfigDB.SetConfigFile(CFG_DEFAULT, L"config/default.cfg"); g_ConfigDB.Reload(CFG_DEFAULT); // 216ms // Try loading the local system config file (which doesn't exist by // default) - this is designed as a way of letting developers edit the // system config without accidentally committing their changes back to SVN. g_ConfigDB.SetConfigFile(CFG_SYSTEM, L"config/local.cfg"); g_ConfigDB.Reload(CFG_SYSTEM); g_ConfigDB.SetConfigFile(CFG_USER, L"config/user.cfg"); g_ConfigDB.Reload(CFG_USER); g_ConfigDB.SetConfigFile(CFG_MOD, L"config/mod.cfg"); // No point in reloading mod.cfg here - we haven't mounted mods yet ProcessCommandLineArgs(args); // Collect information from system.cfg, the profile file, // and any command-line overrides to fill in the globals. LoadGlobals(); // 64ms } As you can see, user.cfg is loaded after local.cfg overwriting all the changes. The dev.cfg file is used to detect a development copy. From a quick glance it has two usages 1) Allow developpers to save maps in the current mod rather than in the user mod 2) Allow to use the long string locale in the game to test if the text fits everywhere.

Yeah, that is arcanist being a @#&#036;%. Please download the icon manually and put it in the correct place. Sadly can't do much about it. (When committed this issue is gone)

Bring back A23! Seriously though I think this would be a great addition to the engine. I can see it being used for the 1866 mod.

https://code.wildfiregames.com/D368

@Stan` Should this be adopted for vanilla a25/ future versions? It seems to be more realistic.

Hi @Stan`, it's a bot I made in order to test my Res Gestae mod. By the way, it's called Catilina, not Catilini.

Re: @Micfild Yes, javs have higher armour for the case that they need to approach slingers or archers without melee units in front. However, even with higher armour, they will still lose, though they won't get massacred like in vanilla a24. Thier dps is high enough to make them the best choice for head-on battles. Re: @wowgetoffyourcellphone What weapons are these Cav Scouts using? Re: @andy5995 If you want to play with Catilina bot in vanilla, please do keep a copy of the version you have. It's made for testing purposes only, so its parameters are not optimized for vanilla a25. Since more features (like new techs, units and civs) will be added into Res Gestae, it's necessary to make Catilina adapted to these features - it's very likely that the future versions will not be compatible with vanilla. Since there will be a lot of extra work, I would not make a separate project. Also please have look at @Angen's Kiara bot, which has superior algorithms and I suppose it should always be compatible with vanilla.

Oh nice I hadn't heard of Catilini

I am skeptical of this kind of illustration depicting a bronze cuirass of the 6th century, a Monte-Bernorio dagger of the 4th century and a Montefortino helmet of the 3rd century BC. Furthermore, if the issue is that the Iberians are currently mixing everything from the Iberian peninsula, doing the same for the Lusitanians will simply be doubling the problem.

Brescia, Italy )

"It is in any case clear..." means basically "em qualquer caso, é claro..." You claimed it is a coin from Hispania, but this is not. You never replied to my argument so I assume you know I am right and you were wrong. The coin is minted in Rome. It is a widespread denarius, mostly found in Italy. You see a barbarian figure, it could be the case but it could be any kind of barbarian. Thracian for example, from which we know they used lorica squamata. Thracians fought for the Macedonians against the Romans, so it would be much logical for a coin minted by Gaius Servilius Vatia. All depictions from the coins minted by Servilius familly suggest icons and images from the Eastern Mediterranean regions. Not from the West. Because it contradicts you, you label them exotic? That's not helping you. You said Diodorus Siculus not Strabo, but whatever. Strabo's account actually confirms that the chain mail is rare. And Quesada-Sanz is entirely correct on pointint out that none have been found yet (predating the Caesarean era). The point of Quesada-Sanz is to say it is more probably a linen or quilted armor. Strabo's Geography, Book 3, chapter 3.6: At any rate, the Lusitanians, it is said, are given to laying ambush, given to spying out, are quick, nimble, and good at deploying troops. They have a small shield two feet in diameter, concave in front, and suspended from the shoulder by means of thongs (for it has neither arm-rings nor handles). Besides these shields they have a dirk or a butcher's-knife. Most of them wear linen cuirasses; a few wear chain-wrought cuirasses and helmets with three crests, but the rest wear helmets made of sinews. The foot-soldiers wear greaves also, and each soldier has several javelins; and some also make use of spears, and the spears have bronze heads. Now some of the peoples that dwell next to the Durius River live, it is said, after the manner of the Laconians — using anointing-rooms twice a day and taking baths in vapours that rise from heated stones, bathing in cold water, and eating only one meal a day; and that in a cleanly and simple way. The Lusitanians are given to offering sacrifices, and they inspect the vitals, without cutting them out. Besides, they also inspect the veins on the side of the victim; and they divine by the tokens of touch, too. They prophesy through means of the vitals of human beings also, prisoners of war, whom they first cover with coarse cloaks, and then, when the victim has been struck beneath the vitals by the diviner, they draw their first auguries from the fall of the victim. And they cut off the right hands of their captives and set them up as an offering to the gods. And this account is specifically about the Lusitanians. You like to rely on other tribes to make up a Lusitanian roster but the ceramics you are relying on are from Valencia in Spain.

@Lopess @Duileoga Been trying out the mod some more. Some great stuff here. Hope you don't mind my thoughts and suggestions! Textures Since the gray "stone wall" texture is used so often (on nearly every building), it would be worthwhile to create a larger section in the texture sheet (or a whole new texture sheet) with various sizes and resolutions, so that you don't have to keep stretching and compressing the texture in the UV mapping. This will help with "texel" size. This is the most obvious with the City Walls, which uses the same texture, but with UV mapping attempts to make 3 distinct sections of different size. In the end, it just looks stretched. Same goes for the hay roof texture. This texture needs the most improvement. Probably replace. Same goes for the stone texture use for such buildings as the Wonder and the Temple. Textures already in-game that you could use \textures\skins\gaia\ slab_medit.png stone_aegean_01.png stone_india_01_norm.png stone_india_01_spec.png stone_scandiv_template.png stone_scandiv_template_norm.png stone_scandiv_template_spec.png temp_stone.png stone_scandiv_template_norm.png stone_scandiv_template_spec.png temp_stone_b.png stone_scandiv_template_norm.png stone_scandiv_template_spec.png I thought the look of the floor tile texture could be improved. Either UV mapped to be smaller (thus increasing its apparent resolution) or just replaced with a higher resolution texture. A lot of the unit textures don't have player color enabled. This is important. The roof tile texture for the Sauna is too low resolution. Again, this is all about trying to make every texture look the same resolution in the final product (texel size). Buildings I suggest to remove the wall from the Farmstead. Just have the 3 round huts, plus Farmstead props and the farmstead decal all the other civs use. It'll look nice. Castro I think this can be a Wooden Fortress (400 Wood), but available 1 phase earlier, in Town Phase. It can then be upgraded to a Stone Fortress (+300 Stone) in City Phase. The Mercenary Dock, aka Punic Port Model needs fixed for some reason, it looks very weird in-game. The model is a bit overly complex. Could be toned down a bit with so many structures. Archery Range Could use one. lol That's all. Houses Could use smaller dirt decals. Stable Could maybe follow the "horse butts" convention. Walls Maybe both Iberians and Lusitanians could get free walls? Need to animate that Wooden Gate. Wonder Perhaps more like a sanctuary rather than building a "mountain"? Same for the Temple. Attached is a texture sheet sample idea, sourced from legit sources (cc0 or from the game):

Your own reference says "it is in any case clear"..... the other coins feature other representations that are not Roman either, or at least not just roman, as you yourself mention. As for not seeing, or ignoring, the figure of a "barbarian" in the representation on the left, we see that someone has problems with their eyes.... of all sorts, even if they ignore everything that has already been said, specifically about the currency in question . Liria's ceramics are even clearer. Although, in all tribes of Celtic origin, scale armor is registered, but in the Celtiberians and Lusitanians they are not.... they are some kind of cloth armor. The reference you make: It expressly contradicts Estrabon, as I've already said, but you completely ignore it. Between Estrabon and these "exotic" theses, to say the least, I take Estrabon. or.... let's figure the Celtiberians and Lusitanians no longer with lorica squamatas, but with some kind of cloth armor... !

how @Ardworix I believe that the three Lusitanian heroes should be: Cauceno, Viriato and Sertorius. with Sertorius, you could add Roman siege engines and Roman ships in phase 3. also the "Lusitanian ambusher" champion of phase 2 would be very interesting and useful, also the Frisian field (for Iberians and Lusitanians) created by @Duileoga for equipment bonus I can think of 3 options: 1: that the cost in metal be reduced to champion troops. (less op) 2: that the technologies and phase change have a reduced cost. (more op) 3: regular troops and mercenaries should have a lower metal cost. (regular it would be interesting to add some mention to rio tinto, or in the name of the equipment bonus or some bonus/technology, unique to the faction.

I wish I could like/thank the first post again, after the update! These kind of calculations are really interesting!

I have been testing the mod, I like how the Lusitanians are thought, it is well thought out, the last defense of women, the Vetons mercenaries can give quite fast support, now come the bugs found. 1: you start with javeliners and swordsmen, but in the cc you can make: slingers and spearmen, something is wrong. 2: in phase 1 you have access to all infantry, is it too much? 3: precision bolt technology in the arsenal, but they can't have catapults, or rocket launchers. 4: the phase 2 KAI darsena (Phoenician allied) only costs 200 wood, it should cost some metal or stone more... 5: in barracks you can't make elite swordsmen and for their special building you have to use that technology and the same with the elite cavalry. soon it will be a big faction and I need it in the game, the equipment bonus could be something related to mining or lowering the cost of metal, troops, technology or both. depending on how it's done, could any unit of champions be upgraded to phase 2?

Before, to be clear, I'm not talking about anything new. Archaeologists and historians, such as Conde de Clonard, in his work "Album de la Infanteria Española" of 1861.... in this way he already portrayed the "lusitanians" (Celtiberians and turdetanos). Clonard's main source, as well as that of other historians and archaeologists, to portray the Lusitanians, Celtiberians, Cantabrians, as I mentioned earlier, are the records on Roman coins depicting warriors and weapons used by them, in addition, of course, to classical texts. The "recent" archaeological discoveries, such as Celtic ceramics, statuary, ex vows, etc... are also important sources, and that corroborate others, for the representation of Celtiberian clothing and by desideratum of the Lusitanians, since they use the same weapons and costumes. Here are the images that follow representations expressed, in Celtiberian ceramics, of warriors wearing scale armor: Even more expressed, in particular the Lusitanians use of the lorica scale, is a coin from Servilia dated to the year 127 BC, which depicts the fight between two knights. The use of a double-edged sword, of the "antenna" type, denounces that he is a warrior from the Celtic area of Iberia. Even more representative in this are the traditional side braids, and wearing scale armor: As for the squamata loric being of Roman origin or not, I maintain that it is of Celtic origin. In any case, ad argumentandum tantum, even though it was of Roman origin, its use by the Lusitanian and the Celtiberians has been proven, as is the case with linothorax (this one, yes, of Mediterranean origin). The portico I referred to, as far as I remember, is from the Augustus period, in reference to the victory in the Cantabra War, and for that reason it bears weapons, such as the caetra, and the gladius hispaniensis, undoubtedly of Galaic origin, other weapons are in reference to other conquests, and that can correlate the squamata loric among which, it is a possibility.... as well as galaic, it is something that cannot be discarded. Even though it is the victory of another people, it denounces and corroborates, once again, that the squamata loric is not of Roman origin, but of Celtic origin.

You claimed this several times but the reliefs you used as references are those: Those reliefs are dated from Augustean and Tiberian periods. Those kinds of monument generally mixes the weapons from various foes and the reliability is low. For example multiple Gallo-Roman monuments depict amazon-like pelte alongside other weapons. Furthermore, even if this was indeed weapons taken from the Cantabrian wars, I wouldn't say that the Romans took the lorica squamata from the Lusitanians.

Echa un vistazo a este github con el arte y el concepto de Duelionga que ayudo a organizar los archivos. https://github.com/0ADMods/Lusitanians_civ

Si, bueno, pero, colocaría como la 3a fase, guerreros doblando armaduras más pesadas, como la malla quota y la lorica squamata, bien como cascos de bronce (montfortinos y calcídico celtibérico). Otro bueno modelo es este: Una observación personal que noto es que muchas de las representaciones, en términos de apariencia, retratan a los lusitanos con barbas, pero los pocos hallazgos arqueológicos, registran a los lusitanos con bigotes, trenzas laterales y cabello largo.

Brasil, São Paulo

Caxias do Sul, Rio grande do Sul, Brazil. Luiz buratto, 55

You guys can scoff all you like, but based on what I'm seeing and reading I'd lay even money that AoE4 is going to be a game that dictates the expectations and mindshare of 0 AD for the next 5-10 years. Let's talk about the good things they are doing: The game runs smoothly in a performant, modern, 3D engine with serviceable graphics that will almost certainly improve over time thanks to patches and modding. The gameplay we've seen preserves most of the complexity of AoE2's timeless systems, while also adopting a much more asymmetric roster of civilization designs. (Some of these new civilization concepts might significantly expand the design space of historical RTS.) It explores some interesting micro-gameplay concepts. History RTS tends to fixate on projectile dodging and kiting, which are high skill floor and low ceiling, so having a high profile game try to showcase something else is good. AoE4 has faster matches and tech progression than a lot of games in its space. Military buildup is also fast and action looks like it will start early. This is a nice concession to the reality that the people who grew up with this genre are now adults under a lot of time pressure. Non-rush games don't need to take 50-60 minutes to resolve. The game is doing some really interesting things with contextual doodads around buildings. The game's ambient sound design is reportedly superb - although there is clearly still room for improvement. (ding ding) It is releasing in a finished (or nearly finished) state on October 28, 2021. This is all amazing in my book. I'm not sure good enough to usurp AoE2's e-sports throne. It might not even be enough to prevent it falling into semi-obscurity like the other entries in the Age series. But for 0 AD it will do one thing that is tremendously important: demonstrate that it is possible to make a high quality, modern re-adaptation of the AoE2 design philosophy. AoE4 is (in all the ways that matter to a broad audience) what 0 AD is supposed to be. It's the promise this project was sold to us with, and it's coming to you in a few weeks from the hands of a bunch Microsoft MBAs who are more interested in this quarter's profits than making great games. This stings to anyone who believes in FOSS, but the answer is not to nurse our insecurities. It's time to start taking notes. What works and what doesn't? What should 0 AD copy and what can it improve on? Can Wildfire use any of their design research to break out of its multi-decadal development pace? These are important questions, because if AoE4 is good (or even just pretty good) 0 AD will have to change its sales pitch to remain relevant. "Sort of like AoE4, but antiquity, and you get what you pay for" will not cut it--particularly if mod support is coming.