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*

... (double post deleted)

(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.

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!

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 ?

hi i did try the last svn version and saw some market sale-buy boxes are missing. ps: I like the new one-click formation feature for the army.

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

I disagree. They depict women, which is why there is a transfer of the meaning and depiction between the ai and the real world. We give things meaning through the words we attach to them and through the way we depict them.

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.

Play against an Iberian AI, or on a map which offers walls by default?

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

The AI's have never built walls or palisades in any version so far,automatic placement of the wall is not a trivial logic problem. Enjoy the Choice

If anyone is still interested in this, I have made a playable map(as a skirmish map though) for Alpha 25 using demo map and information from a sketch by @Palaxin WesternMediterranean.zip

We can discuss the matter, but the only real way to test how things balance the meta is to test it out with a mod. So I made a mod. I think the tech should cost 500 food and 500 wood, if you can´t guess its name, you can check the mod below. I do consider the starting metal as a problem for p1 mercenaries, so therefore they should be limited by some tech. I agree with you on the fact that a tech to unlock mercenaries could be useful. I added some things to the mod to support aggression. Features of the mod: •wood gather rate reduced by 0.10, food gather rate reduced by 0.10 (This means women/cavalry get ¨cheaper¨ and citizen soldiers stay at about the same ¨cost¨, which should encourage people to make more women/cavalry and that would favor aggression). •speed upgrade for cavalry is reduced in cost to 200f,100m. This might be useful for cavalry rushes. From an economic viewpoint it means that 10% speed is about +10% gather rates at long distances. The 100m is left over after doing the p1 wood/food techs. So the speed upgrade tech seems to be worth it if you have around 15 cavalry. •I like the concept of age of empires 2, where you getting to the next phase means a significant step in military power. Therefore I added +10%attack/health to all soldiers once p2 is reached. •Mercenaires need 48seconds to train in p1 for infantry and 64 for cavalry. In p2 these times get reduced to 2 seconds and 2.66. • Infantry mercenaries cost 35 food and 45 metal and cavalry mercenaires cost 60 metal and 60 food. •Expertise in war costs 250 metal and need 20 seconds to research. It now triples the train time (This means that you can train mercenaries very fast, until you decide you want to scarify train rate for military power). • civ specific changes about mercenaries(Athens: +10% metal gather rate in p2, Carthage: can build an Iberian embassy and mercenaries in p1&expertise in war, Kush: can build an Blemmye camp and mercenaries in p1, Macedon: Suited for cavalry rushed and can train mercenary cavalry in p1, Ptolemies: Fantastic eco and Ptolemy 1, Seleucids: start now with an extra mercenary swordsmen and military colony is as fast at producing mercenaries 2 times and researching expertise in war). •Misc: archers have 2.5 spread and Persian axe cavalry in p1. I also reduced the metal cost of p2/p3 eco and blacksmith techs to make them more accessible and to provide more metal to the players. I did test the mod in 1v1s and it seems that for Carthage and Kush, you can get about 20 mercenaries out before minute 10. From my tests, I tend to conclude that these changes allow you to get sufficient numbers of mercenaries to deal a really good blow as at this point the opponent seems to have 40-50 citizen soldier scatter around his base. What I tested was a strategy where you only produce 1 barracks and aim click p2 when you have 80 to 110 units. Once you are in p2, you can produce a lot of mercenaries very fast. Then you research expertise in war, which gives coupled with the +10% attack/health bonus some very strong units. I suppose it really allows for a deadly early p2 attack when you opponent is late to p2. (Also I played a 4v4 last night from the pocket position as Britons. I rushed the opposing flank with cavalry and 12 slingers which was effective and it seems show that passive pockets could get to see their allies destroyed. I have to remark that one player was 1700+ and the receiving end was mid 1300s) Each of these modded mercenary civilizations will affect the meta in different ways. I would like if there would be some players that try these features in player vs player. Any test results would be appreciated. mercenary_mod.zip

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

I'd think then it would be better to load up a list with check boxes so you can check (or uncheck if checked is the default) which biomes you want.

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.

I don't think that the gameplay should change that much. The game is already great, so changing the mechanics can be anti-productive - as we've seen in A24. Better improve other aspects of the game, for example performance or the User Interface (for example its not possible to save and load multiplayer matches? that's rather bad) At the other hand, I've gotten some revolutionary ideas to differentiate the civs which really should be implemented: - All civs except the macedonians lose their siege workshops and train their siege weapons from the fortresses - all civs except the mauryans lose their elephant stables and train elephants in the fortresses - all civs except persians lose their stables and train that cavalry in barracks - mercenaries can collect resources just as other citizen soldiers. and their costs change: from wood and metal to exact what citizen soldiers cost, with the exception that 25 food is replaced by metal. That would turn mercenaries from small anti-siege taskforces to units which can actually used as regular army part! Plus, There would be an additional possibility to diversify the civs: Ptolemies could train mercenary skirmishers in phase one and the slingers in phase 2.

When I play 0AD and my mom walks in:

Master Yoddha: "Fall all your buildings will!"