Leaderboard

much more relevant (in my mind at least): to this day women gatherers still have lower vision than males. this is quite absurd, and clearly has no historical justification, there's only a gameplay motive, but effect on gameplay is actually minimal, and some times even paradoxical, like women not seeing archers attacking them.

Tbh female players are more concerned about lobby harassment than 1 gender citizen...

This has gone a bit too far. 1. 'Female citizens' in 0ad are UnitAI + template.xml + actor.xml. They have nothing to do with real women whatsoever. So there is no sexism involved since we are dealing with purely AIs. 2. If you make 'male gatherers' , then someone could ask for 'female soldiers'. But if you implement that, you see women killed on the battlefield, then they will protest because women's rights have been violated... So these people will never be satisfied... 3. Women rush can be an effective strategy to delay your opponent. I don't see why the creator of the thread just sprays in a random criticism and never returned to check out the the mod. They have not returned since November 2020... No other female players have had this complaint, nor are the interested in installing extra mods to make the AIs more politically correct... This led me to suspect that whether this Crea is trolling...

It looks like the community maps mod hasn't been updated since a23, so I've made a temporary fork of the project called community maps 2 It's pretty basic, but it gives access to the maps again. And I've run some migration scripts on the maps themselves to make them compatible with >=a24. Though I haven't checked them all for warnings or errors. If you notice any problems, just open a ticket on the community maps 2 repo and I'll try to fix things up; or you can make a PR if you feel like it. The pyromod file can be downloaded from the releases section

This is overblown. One's suitability to join the army on campaign was often predicated on economic status and age. Middle class Greeks and Romans did serve in the infantry, but lower peasants and those too young and too old often did not. A certain number of upper class citizens had to provide cavalry for the army, but those were often the sons of the landowners and serving in the cavalry could be avoided by being willing to supply additional horses. Often a campaign did not necessitate a "full call-up" of available manpower either. Full call-ups usually only occured during times of severe national emergency or siege. Athens could only field 10,000 hoplites from a population of 30,000 citizens and 100,000 non-citizens for the "national emergency" Marathon campaign. And Gauls had a warrior class, separate from the peasantry.

Looks like a kind of männerbund and it would explain why there is a stelae among Cantabrians depicting a warrior with a wolf-hood. Männerbunde are generally associated to wolf or dog in Indo-European societies. I suggest the Lusitanians should have a special unit called Lusitanian young or Lusitanian raider. It could be simply the standard javelineer unit but with a bonus of speed. Which by itself would be a pain in the *** and a good advantage if given at the start.

Hey guys. My mod was never intended to be woke, progressive, or to "right historical wrongs," or to reduce female representation, remove/promote misogyny/misandry, or anything pro/con politically or socially. I just felt it made more sense to have male and female variants of civilian citizens, aka "villagers." That's pretty much the extent. I think it also just looks cooler to have male and female villagers working side-by-side.

Since as of now I only played a23, I may not be the best to talk on this subject. I only want to have this uniqueness (that, as you say, exists in KenWood) preserved, as it is indeed fun to play. I want to test a25 but if the civs are copypasta of each other, I'm a bit wary that the improvements to the game come at a cost too high for my taste.

Anything that has actual historical accuracy should be added, yes. About archers, from what I read there is a serious misconception on what musculature is necessary to use a military bow of the period ; Katniss Evergreen would never be able to wield one with the muscle mass that she shows in the movie. So barred historical precedents of female archers, no, popular culture should not be the basis for including them in the game.

Sure why not. I am still wondering why there is such a pushback when this doesn't change anything about the gameplay. Not more surprising than any other change. This is a point for discussion. Watch out, this argument may come back to you in the future lol

Yeah, this is how I feel sometimes when I see nice ideas for the game shatter at the rigid mind of people.

Buenos días /tardes/noches; -Texturas para unidades de infantería ligera lusitana en fase 3 , provisionales; (las texturas inferiores de pelaje son las capas, además de añadir textura para grebas y cinturón) Escaramuzador lusitano; Espadachín lusitano; Hondero lusitano; Lancero lusitano; -Cualquier sugerencia , crítica .... serán bien aceptadas. Disculpen las molestias*

@LienRag, please consider giving a try to a25, feedback on the current version would be a much better base for potential improvements What we all want (well, I guess this is what we all want) is to improve the feeling of uniqueness in the future releases, not that each of us stay "stuck" on a good ol’ build that will no longer evolve.

I put this map, along with the others me and @Jammyjamjammanmodified/created, into a mod. So now it's simply a matter of installing the pyromod file listed at https://github.com/0ad-matters/0ad-maps/releases Any maps from my other forums posts that you downloaded and put into user/maps/random or user/maps/skirmishes can be deleted after the mod is installed.

(I really like the constructive way you discuss this, a real example! ^^ )

I actually don't think they contradict each other. The only reason on what happened between a23 and a24 happened because it appears that (1) conventions in the simulation weren't standardized and (2) archers needed a lot of fixing as they were unusable. However, a23 had a good balance of uniqueness, imo. Right now, what I am seeing is we're going with a25 where slingers/archers/skrimishers are more balanced and now the civs can be "topped off" with their uniqueness. It's a shame of what happened to Ptolemies (no-wood buildings, requiring more time) but right now there is a really pretty close to being a good base for all civs/strategies. Generally, I'm excited for what will be happening in the future. However, gotta complain and make sure voice is heard on what my opinion is on current uniqueness of civs. Also, macedonians need a lot of love. Rome could use some of it too. (talking about siege)

Fine by me, but the whole thread comes from the fact that these two objectives apparently contradict each other. And the important point for the game experience is that Civs are unique, so when balance goes against uniqueness the point that makes the Civ unique should stay and balance should be sought by other mechanisms (like sets).

Sadly a poll on the forums would probably be really biaised.

I don't think bands/sets are necesary. As long as there is a "basic template" for damage and bonuses based on "history" there is still place for uniqueness. If people want a balanced 1vs1 then they should play the same standard civ for 1v1. However, I think civs should be balanced and unique so that there isn't a preference of a certain civ that dominates multiplayer.

I got it to work with https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Netboot#Installation_with_efibootmgr You might need to change the timeout https://linux.die.net/man/8/efibootmgr

Yes, use rufus to flash the image is the most reliable method. Choose to write in UEFI or mbr mode (just not dd). If you do it right your USB should be named something like ARCHLINUX_2021 Then boot into UEFI mode if your PC supports it. I am making a tutorial video on how to set up arch for 0ad, please stay tuned!

Sorry man, but that is what I initially thought. Again, a poll would be informative.

Then why not have Civilizations for balanced multiplayer (they don't need to be so many, actually if people want perfectly balanced multiplayer they can just all play the same civilization) and other Civilizations for fun (that would not need to be reduced to the 8 actually available in vanilla) ? As you wrote, it can be done as "sets", and even have some historical background to it, as actual civilization tends to standardize their military equipment and tactics after they get beaten by a superior enemy... So have a "Roman Imperium" set where all civilizations will keep their distinctive skins while getting the roman roster and technology tree ? (minor variations available if they are not unbalanced) Also, Civilizations being unbalanced is not necessarily a problem if there is not one Civilization constantly superior to others; it can even be used as a handicap game (giving the best Civilization in a match or a team game to the lowest ranked player).

If there are slaves in the game, slave revolts should definitely be a possibility... What would be strategically interesting is to have the probability of slave revolts depend on which civilization you confront : especially, slaves would not revolt if their masters are attacked by another slaver civilization, but when the ratio of troops around said slaves favor a non-slaver civ (for example, Maurya, if I read the discussions well) then a slave revolt would be likely to occur. Also, have some heroes (Danaerys T. ?) raise the probability of slave revolts (against their enemies) in their aura. Maybe even have cruel heroes that raise the probability of slave revolts in their own civilization as long as they're alive ?

https://videos.pair2jeux.tube/c/play0ad/videos

I think most of the units in ponies ascendant are females if not all.

In most 0ad games of multiplayer, women are the unit that is produced early when a player wants to boom. Players who switch to citizen soldiers or cavalry earlier will have slower population growth than those who stay on women longer. Keep in mind that women are only slightly slower on wood and most eco for the first 7-8 minutes of typical 0ad game is food and wood eco. To make a long story short, women are nearly equal economic units to CS in the early game, so the balance between economy and army is something players are careful with, especially in the beginning of a match.

Thanks for the info. As someone who likes to turtle and then in the late-game enjoy the feeling of crushing through the lines of fortifications of my opponents (even if just an AI), eventually having it implemented will be amazing

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

I tried the res gestae mod and showed some of it on my youtube channel. So if you do not check the mod out yourself, you can get an impression here: https://wildfiregames.com/forum/topic/56618-res-gestae-mod/

Pyramids actually did affect their gamestyle. Most good kushite players built a pyramid around/near metal/stone and then also built their farms around this pyramid. Usually, kushite farms are built in such a way that they are within the range of the pyramids. That change would be awesome though. That's what I'd like more of for civ differentiation. The only issue I see is that currently pyramids count towards p3. Being a p1 building I guess they won't count?

Sometimes I feel like calling it free to play seems to imply there is something to pay anyway :P, maybe the lag is the price.

Right. IMHO foundations should be invisible to other players until the owning player starts building it.

My original idea with 'Cultures' is that each 'Culture' came with a set of features or bonuses, and that a civ could be a "member" of more than one culture. So, Seleucids could be of the "Greek" culture (Theatron structure and "Hellenization" aura, plus a set of armor techs in the Forge and spearman bonuses) and the "Persian" or "Eastern" culture (a trading bonus and cavalry bonuses). It would show that cultures can and do meld. Carthage would have a "North African" culture (North African War Elephants) and a "Semitic" culture (Mercenary and Naval bonuses), each culture bestowing a set of techs, auras, buildings, or bonuses. A civ with only one culture would then be allowed 1 or more unique bonuses to that civ.

The lack of units in the fortresses bothers me too. But without a doubt we must add new ones and not go back to the Alpha 23 because it is a setback in a lot of aspects, Although a24 also brought small setbacks to some civilizations. But in the absence of deficiencies we can move things and create new things for strengths. I think that the type of units that can be created in the fortress are for the defense of a city or a position (a perimeter). Then they would be units that serve to defend fortresses and maximize defenses. Basically anti siege units. And trash units ( to bulk faster the army) some auxiliary units.

If you don't want luck to play a minor role don't use random civ or random map. Also winning or loosing is a minor matter as long as the game is fun to play.

Master Yoddha: "Fall all your buildings will!"