Leaderboard

Attached is a pyromod file of a Kiara bot snapshot at commit 64fa277 on Sep 24, 2021 (for anyone who wants to try it out). kiara-64fa277.pyromod

Units who don't have BuildingAI can't fire multiple arrows (yet).

I would say a javelineer would work fine. Strabo's account is short and could be an example of an emblematic case: Diodorus Siculus mention also that the young Lusitanians were used to plunder other lands to learn the way of war.

@maroder @wowgetoffyourcellphone Thank for the link.

Clicky -> https://github.com/JustusAvramenko/0-A.D.-Alpha-24---Two-Gendered-Citizens

A city that is well defended is defended by men, not by walls. So it does not need walls.

Hi everyone! This seems to be an old post but i got intrigued by the concept of two-gender gatherers. I haven't found the 2-gender citizen mod that people kept talking about so i went and built a little conceptual mod just to see how laborious it would be. I attached the results. I only did it for the Spartans though (since its conceptual). As a whole, the game already has everything it need to implement this (no new art or animation required, well, maybe for the unit portrait icon). As for the question of visibility (distinguishing soldiers from gatherers), it's already very hard to do it by sight alone, and much easier to just area select and work with the unit icons. Also, alt+area select already selects only soldiers (and i believe there is also one for only gatherers, but i can't remember right now). Have fun everyone! Male_gatherer_concept.zip

My two cents as a long time, off and on player: Formations are the one thing I want to see really working above anything else. Formations and unit cohesion were such a big part of ancient warfare that the game really loses a lot of immersion for me in that we see wild mobs of units engaging one another as the default. I would very much like to see formations as the default setting for groups of units. It seems to me that each formation type needs to have bonuses and tradeoffs for units within it. Directional damage would be super. I would very much like to see battlefield tactics become more important, forced even, upon players. Terrain bonuses play a big part of this too. The game is still fun and playable without these features, but I feel that really in the long run the game would be better served if there were more attention paid to how players field their units before, during, and even after battle.

In cost.js you can find the relevant line.

The Iberian faction is very well synthesized with several people who constituted the ancient Iberia . However , following a historical context , the great war that was fought in Iberia were the Lusitanian wars that made Rome tremble. These are the terms in which Strabo refers to the Lusitanians : " The most powerful of the Iberian nations , and among all , longer owned the Roman arms . " - Strabo . So that as with the subdivision of the former " Celtic " faction among : Gauls and Britons. I think it is more justified subdivision between Iberians and Lusitanians . "Those they call Lusitanians are the most valiant of all the Cimbri . " - Diode Siculus . Besides the historical context , reasons abound from the point of ethno - cultural perspective, the Atlantic - western , folk ( Lusitanians , Galaicos and Asturian ) , constituted a civilization itself , which many archaeologists designate " Castrexa " , framed as Proto -Celtic . His way of fighting were very different from Iberians . While the Iberians were generally more peaceful and non- waged guerrilla warfare , leaving siege by the enemy . The Lusitanian constituted mobile military units without the Romans podessem employ their siege tactics ( as they did in Gaul and against Numancia Celtiberian ) . More than that , the Romans persecuted the Lusitanians in surprise attacks and relentlessly . For a Lusitanian there was no greater glory than to die in combat . The Lusitanian weapons were also well above the Romans , so that the Romans tried to copy in vain , his arms the famous Glaudios Hipanienses , yet never managed to reach the Lusitanian excellence. even more terrible was the " Machaera Hispanienses " ( falcata ) : "They make weapons and darts in an admirable Manner ; bury They are plates of iron so long under ground , till the rust hath consumed The Weaker part , and so the rest passe more strong and firm Of this They make Their swords and other warlike . weapons , and with these arms , tempered Thus , They are cut through every thing in Their Way , that neither shield , helmet , nor bone can withstand them " . - Diodor Siculus . The Lusitanians fought on foot and horseback , was his peculiar way of fighting : 2 Lusitanian rode one horse, when confronted with enemies , jumped and fought on foot: " And because They are furnished with two swords , the horse , When They have routed the enemy , alight and join with the foot , and fight to admiration . " - Diode Siculus . The new faction , Lusitanians , could have such a differential in the game , a single horse , mounted with two jinetes , and once in combat units would drop 2 against the opponent .

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.

I dont know why, but I really wanted to mess with the farm fields to make them look more... used. Civ-specific too! Here's what I got so far, Desert and Mediterranean fields edited from those terrain textures

@Ryze it never did build walls in any of the recent alphas, cause it is not trivial to decide where to put them without blocking itselfself at the same time. So it's just not implemented (yet)

Here is it https://github.com/JustusAvramenko/0-A.D.-Alpha-24---Two-Gendered-Citizens

@Stan` Please take a look at this: The lobby is not displaying any games, so we can't join or host.

Hi! It was creating a mod to test a few things and tried to set the population value of a unit to a decimal number (i.e. 1 --> 1.5). As expected, the game didn't like that one bit XD. I was wondering, can it be done? Would it be trivial or complex (like, in a scale of changing a line or changing several scripts)? I'm just curious. Thanks.

I'm a top 40 player and I build palisades very rarely, walls almost never. So hey, the bot must be clever ; )

I use debian on a desktop. Arch on a laptop. I've found arch really difficult to install and it was a steep learning curve. However, it seems like it was worth it. When doing the installation I recommend you follow the tutorials and write down the commands you use in some sort of document. It's useful to figure out where you go wrong and understand everything more. I started with a regular install of Arch but now it is a raid install on lvm2 that is encrypted. Really happy with it. I think it is actually easier to install 0ad on arch than on debian. I could be wrong but I still can't install newest 0ad on my debian system - just using the 25-rc5-25848 version.

Amazing that it's possible to get a new AI via a mod. Just just tried 2 quick matches vs Petra, Kiara won Thanks for sharing!

for iberians and lusitanians I would put: vetone cavalry with sword then for Iberians: heavy javalier soliferreum champion (similar to the one the Athenians and Spartans had in the A24/24) for Lusitanians: ambusher, light javelin, faster than the "regulars", with a small melee attack. with a small melee attack and not affected by defensive technologies. seems to me the most appropriate due to the description of each one.

You could also chose to update your apt list to use the Debian testing repositories. Changes of an unusable system are still low, due to the time in Debian Sid, but you can still have quite up to date packages (like 0 A.D. A25b). (See e.g. https://www.osradar.com/how-to-change-debian-stable-to-debian-testing/.)

Arch Linux has good performance indeed; you can get access to the latest nvidia drivers quite easily and use custom kernels (I use linux-zen) for even better performance. Furthermore, getting an AUR helper like yay or paru means easy access to a huge database of software packages, including proprietary ones (Zoom, MS Teams, Whatsapp, WPS Office) and testing versions of Windows-only apps. Furthermore, all of the packages you use are the latest and greatest. However, there are 2 major problems with Arch Linux: 1. You need install it via command line interface, so some might find it hard. However, there are so many tutorials on Youtube so it really isn't a problem. If you are afraid of damaging your PC, you can try it in VirtualBox first. 2. It is a rolling release, so it is very possible that your OS will run into errors after some kernel updates. To prevent this from happening, I recommend you update your system every evening to ensure everything is compatible with each other. System update is easy with an AUR helper: just type yay in the terminal and the yay AUR helper will do everything for you automatically. So, I would recommend Arch if you are comfortable with command line interface and willing to spend 15-30 minutes installing your system. Some other OS: Fedora34: Very stable and also up to date software. Easy to set up. However, it is a little bit difficult to install nvidia driver on Fedora and their package manager (dnf) has relatively few software in comparison to apt (Debian, Ubuntu) and Arch AUR. You need to rely on Flatpaks, which may or may not be a good thing. The system will not fail if you forget to update it often. Endeavour OS: Based on Arch Linux, but has easy graphical installer and nice desktop interface (which you can choose during the installation process). It is basically a noob-friendly version of Arch that has all of the features of Arch and some bloatware alongside it. OpenSUSE: has a user repository like Arch and is more stable. However, I haven't spent much time with this distro so I can't be sure. OS to avoid: Debian based (Ubuntu, Mint, etc)- stable, but packages are so outdated! Manjaro, Garuda - so much bloatware! Gentoo, Void Linux - unfriendly to beginners.

Question. In DE, if I were to add a Lusitanian merc for the Iberians, what class of soldier would be the most iconic to use?

Since he was Roman perhaps it might be better to use one of the Lusitanian chiefs who sided with Sertorius as hero; that is assuming any of their names have been recorded.

Hi Ceres, apt pinning is possible but risky if you don't know first precisely what you're doing. If you're not in a hurry, you can wait for a bookworm's backport of 0ad, it will come sooner or later. If you're in a hurry, you may use the flatpack or snap packages of 0ad, which are up to date, until bookworm's backport of 0ad is ready. It would be separated from the Debian packages if you want to compile yourself a version from the repository for testing purposes.

Those are not mercenaries but auxiliaries, that a detail but it matters. Anyway the Lusitanians ARE NOT in Ategua, they are not throwing fire darts. They are with Pompey's sons in his camp. This is even explicitly told when two Lusitanian brothers flee the camp of Pompey and surrender to Caesar, reporting information said by Pompey's sons. The Lusitanians were with Pompey's sons, not in the town of Ategua. You were wrong, you can simply move on. Change your tone. If you mean my proposal, following one made by @Duileoga, to follow a successive variation of the body armor with experience, this is simply a standard in 0AD. Most civilization follow this simple rule. For example, the hoplites for the Greek civs do not have a body armor at the basic. Each unit have three experience levels with a model associated. Basic, Advanced, Elite. It is important that the player can easily catch the change among his troops and among enemy's troops. The most common for the basic is to have no body armor. The Greek hoplite do not have a body armor, it doesn't mean he is not a heavy infantryman. I think you are overreacting here but whatever. If you want organic armor for the basic version, I don't care. I am not against.

I think that's what they're shooting for, but I think the style misses the mark. With every icon using the same 2 colors (black and yellow), any "clarity" achieved with the simplified shapes is made moot by the new lack of distinction. Players need icons and buttons to be distinct at a glance. AOEIV's and other games icons don't have this.

A good design choice in my view. I also like Dawn of War 2.

The Stalfos The word Stalfos has its etymology in the ancient Akkalan language, and refers to bones of once living creatures. In modern times the term is applied loosly to almost any undead abomination and monstrosity. As a political entity, the identity of the Stalfos has changed just as dramatically as all the kingdoms that have risen and fallen across the history of Hyrule: due in part to the undead being the servants of many fighting lords and necromatic powers. HISTORY The origins of the rituals and practice of animated skeletons is lost to time. Many Hylian scholars agree that necromancy had its origins west of the Gerudo desert at a time when dragons still ravaged the land. In the ancient lore of the Gerudo and Akkalans, necromancy was common practice during the Ancient Age in the far west of Hyrule. The Kingdom of Ikana and Cobble Kingdoms were famously destroyed during the height of their necromancy practices. Many cults to the forgotten god Mudora practiced necromancy rituals deep in the Gerudo Desert. After King Nohans' conquest of Hyrule, the Ancient Akkalans enforced a complete ban on all forms of necromancy and thus the practice faded for hundreds, if not thousands of years. Petty necromancers and Gerudo Kings have occasionally tried to revive the practice over the centuries, with little luck. In modern times there have been stories of Stalfos appearing in larger numbers than was usual. Whispers of necromantic powers returning the Hyrule are not uncommon. Indeed, there are forces at work that wish to revive the long forgotten arts of cheating death. NECROMANCERS Without a master, most undead simply wander without any clear objective. Shambling Stalfos and ReDead zombies can be found aimless in the darkest corners of Hyrule, remnants of a long gone necromantic age. Should these horrors ever fall under the power of a necromancer or mage with enough skill, they could be used to wreck untold havoc on the world as a fearless horde of soldiers that feel no pain and no remorse. PLAYSTYLE The Stalfos have a very distinct gameplay structure that deviates from many other factions. The Stalfos are not creative by nature, and cannot construct new buildings or train new units. Rather they can only transform dead material into what they currently need. In terms of structures, the Stalfos must capture pre-existing ruins on a map and by ritual transform them into the buildings they need. Should there be too few ruins for their purposes, the Stalfos can expend many Rupees to unearth a new set of ruins at a target location. Once these ruins have been dug up to the surface of Hyrule they can convert them into the structures that they require. As for Stalfos units, they accomplish expanding their army by collecting the corpses of their victims and converting them into the forms they need for battle. This is represented by the "Bone" resource, which replaces food. Bones can be harvested from any dead organic creature, as well as graves found on some maps. If a Stalfos player has a unit that can directly raise the dead, they can instead instantly turn corpses into new units. For more details on the Stalfos Heroes and their unit roster, check out the spoiler below: HEROES

ZERO A.D.

Yeah, it kills me how good ideas for this game constantly get put on the back burner because 1 person has some minor quibble. Were male villagers in Age of Empires ever confused with soldiers? No.

Yes, ire seems more realistic, or perhaps we can favor the gameplay and the freedom of the player to allow the dock to be done in the middle of the map without water, for me it is not much different from making many fields around the administrative center without respecting whether the area is fertile, if you have a farmstead close by or something. A simple copy and paste of conventions that came from old rts games. And not the 0a.d. he is not a city builder but he values a verisimilitude that in my opinion should be taken into account.

Building farms around the CC isn't some immutable law of the Universe or something. It's simply based on positive and negative incentives (and the lack thereof), which can be changed.

If we're making an historical game about building cities and fighting wars, then building farms in the middle of town doesn't make "gameplay" sense anymore than than having triremes fire cruise missiles, even though that might be "better gameplay" to some people. Good. The game is still in heavy development. I know you're a good player and you like the way things are in the game, but frankly this game's past and future development is measured in decades. The developers need to build a game for the future, not for how some people liked it in one of its past alphas. You're just going to have to adapt to change.

It's not about hyperrealism, I don't propose that people need to build an exact copy of ancient Rome. It is about the fact that the starting area around the CC is already extremely well defended, without having to use any actual defensive buildings. As @LetswaveaBook said, the farms are build in a fortified area, which is at the moment always the outside of the CC. But why not actually giving the player the choice? If you want to go for a boom you don't have to invest in defensive buildings and take the risk. If you want to be more safe and turtle at the beginning of the game, this is now a more viable options, because there is not already free defense build into your CC. There is additionally the visual aspect. Our CCs are nearly as strong as fortresses in terms of shooting arrows ect. but they look completely different. Nothing indicates that they are actually used for defense/military, they mostly look like civilian buildings (see picture below). Yes, I thought that might be a problem. The quick fix would be to give an starting storehouse and a starting farm at the beginning of the game, to avoid situations where you spend all your resources and have no place to store new ones. Example comparison, Left side standard build order, Right side my build order with the proposed changes:

Nope, but I wanted to put the other options there too, to be thorough. I don't have a preference for any. Yes! Must have escaped me. I will change it once I add the new justifications. Thank you for pointing it out. Yes, ναϝός is attested. I will change the suggestion. Not very much. I have a grammar and I have had done some minor translation work for my own stuff, but I know more Georgian than Phoenician, and that's saying something. I will work on this stuff (and the Celtic stuff) on the weekend, since I have a busy week. Will make the changes then.

(D2126) For switching between specific and generic names as primary. Can easily be extended to actually not displaying the secondary. Edit: extended.

Hi. Let's remove dropsite ability from the Civic Center. Why would I propose this? Forces building storehouses and farmsteads from the start of a typical match, introducing the concept early. Refocuses the Civic Center on its primary purposes: training citizens, upgrading your settlement, and claiming territory. The player places new Civic Centers for optimal territorial claim, rather than as a forward dropsite which more often than not is not an optimal territorial claim. It's a soft encouragement to place farms around the farmstead instead of around the Civic Center. I can get rid of the "Civic Spaces" farming penalty. I know that there's also the defensive benefit to placing around the Civic Center, but it's a step in the right direction here.

Thanks Got the temperate field