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 think we should stick with historical accuracy as much as we can. If there are sources for female soldiers I'm perfectly fine with incorporating them. Already there are some, although I think there is some artistic freedom taken. If there are sources for female leaders I also think it's good that we include them, like we already do. I don't think this game is able to depict ancient societies in depth, so I don't think we should try or present them as something they never were. I'm still in favor of having male and female villagers, as I believe that's historically accurate.

In 0 A.D. all civilizations have exactly the same basic structures: a house for population, a farmstead for food, a storehouse for other resources, etc. This is basically inherited from Age of Empires, which had a granary (for fruit and grain) and a storage pit (for fish, meat, wood, gold, and stone). Age of Empires II had three structures, a mill (for all food), lumber camp (for wood), and mining camp (for gold and stone). Age of Mythology broke with this convention of all civilizations having the same buildings: The Greeks have a granary for food and a storehouse for wood and gold. The Egyptions have a granary for food, a lumber camp for wood, and a mining camp for gold. The Norse have a movable ox-cart for all resources. The Atlanteans have citizens that double as builders, gatherers, and dropsites and for economic technologies they have an economic guild. The Chinese have a storage pit for food, wood, and gold. This worked great and gave each civilization a different feeling. In principle 0 A.D. could differentiate civilizations by giving them different structures too. With four resources there are already 15 possible combinations for dropsites: a single structure: food+wood+stone+metal two structures: food, wood+stone+metal food+stone+metal, wood food+wood+metal, stone food+wood+stone, metal food+wood, stone+metal food+stone, wood+metal food+metal, wood+stone three structures: food+wood, stone, metal food+stone, wood, metal food+metal, wood, stone food, wood+stone, metal food, wood+metal, stone food, wood, stone+metal a structure for each resource: food, wood, stone, metal Other combinations are possible too (e.g. food+wood, food+stone, food+metal). And combined with the house, corral, and market one can get many more possibilities. Of course, not every single faction must have completely unique structures, it's perfectly fine for multiple civilizations to share similar structures. However, the point is there is no compelling reason why all civilization should continue to always keep exactly the same basic structures. Currently there is a great desire to see 0 A.D.'s civilizations further differentiated from each other. However, the current proposals can fundamentally be summarized as “the same basics + something unique”, which means they'll remain quite similar to each other (as is the case in Age of Empires). By varying the basics instead one could easily achieve a more different feeling for each civilization. What do you think? (As for implementation, someone should improve the AI to use the (already existing) DropsiteFood, DropsiteWood, DropsiteStone, and DropsiteMetal classes instead of Farmstead and Storehouse.)

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

@Ceres Do you need me to show you how to install arch? Or can you install it by yourself, using other tutorial videos?

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

Settings > Options > Game Session > Wounded unit health

I believe (not an expert, but I read some vulgarization) that in most societies of this time, all male citizens (i.e., not slave) were supposed to be able to fight in a war if need be ? If there are societies where there were non-slave citizens without any fighting skill, definitely yes the game should represent that fact for their in-game civilization (and it may be an interesting differentiation point to have woodless citizens that do not suck at mining), but apart from that there's no point in creating yet another anachronism. Also, if it's possible to represent slavery in a strategically interesting and not totally icky way, that could indeed solve part of the problem as women would basically disappear from the workforce and as such from the game (save from female priests, traders and champions). But I'm not convinced by the ideas presented so far (and haven't tested Delenda Est)... Another option would be making women's tasks (like weaving and spinning) more prominent in the game (but of course only if there's a strategic impact, not for gaining woke points). I don't have many ideas on how to do that in a meaningful and interesting manner, though.

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

Absolutely agree, also because we don't actually know if all the men that we see in the game are actually men or they fell themselves to be women. What I'm saying is that we should just make this a bit more inclusive (that in this case means also more realistic), just because having only women and not men farming fields doesn't make sense (as much as having only men at fighting makes sense).

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.

Well, male gatherers make more sense, historically, than female soldiers. True, but then that would then be turned into the Citizen Rush. Agreed there. I would just merge the two-gender citizen mod into the base game, so you don't have to install a mod.

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 kernel is a sort of a bridge between hardware and software. It is the very basic core of an operating system. Xanmod is another alternative linux kernel that is better optimised than the default one. It doesn't matter too much. The idea is, if you install Arch, you can choose which kernel to install by yourself, so you won't end up with one that you don't like and spend hours compiling a new one. For other Linux distros, they give you one by default. If you like their default one, that's good, but if you don't, then you need to compile a new one and reinstall the kernel. This process is very tedious on some distros.

@Ceres My understanding is with the modern CPUs encryption doesn't decrease performance. However, it may be bad for SSDs as they'll get "used up" faster. I haven't had an SSD die yet. The raid I use is software raid (on desktop, don't have raid on arch laptop). My motherboard supports raid but needs special drivers to setup (works with windows) but that won't work with linux. I use the nvidia drivers on both, desktop and laptop. The lvm I did more for personal knowledge with multiple reformat for the arch laptop. Attached are the "commands" I use to install arch. I'm using IWD on arch to manage wireless networks. Makes life so much easier but was difficult to setup due to a need to mask wpa_supplicant since it sometimes auto installs on full system upgrade (took a while to figure this out). The links in the file direct to the tutorials I used in addition to the arch wiki. Arch Install.pdf

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?

Special things don't mean diverse game-play. Kushites had their pyramids for a while, but it did not affect their game style. So here comes the example of https://code.wildfiregames.com/D4280 which is something that affect the style of kushites. Not by adding something special, but by empowering what we all ready have. There are more examples like this: Naked fanatics: They are totally unique and you can produce them. There is no reason to produce them though. Gauls also get the trumpeter. Athenian Council chamber: You get an unique building to produce heros (I admit, somewhat similar to Gauls, Spartans, Persians and Mauryas). However you only touch the building to train the heroes and maybe you get a tech there. So it is a building with hardly any meaning in the game. Maybe allow it to train (some) champions would be nice or give it a territory root as the Persian and Mauryan palaces have. All helenistic factions get the Theatron: Not that anyone really would consider building them. I would suggest adding them to p1 with cheaper cost and lesser effect (10% territory boost). Once you get to p2, you would be able to do an upgrade to get the full territory boost. It might also open some possibilities for theatron related bonuses. Colonization: This is a unique tech, that you most often don't find any place for in your games. Reducing the price of this technologies to 15ow,150m might create a nice option. Pillars of Ashoka: This could help to diversify the Mauryas, but unfortunately there is currently no reason to build it. An idea would be that if would increase the speed of traders and grant experience to healers withing the range of the pillar. Mauryas: They get something unique of their champions and it deals a lot of crush damage. It is not the the elephant, but mace champion. It is unique, but nobody bothers making it. I think this is because human units have to much crush resistance (Reducing crush resistance might also mean that other units need to be rebalanced. Note: Kushite macemen also suffer somewhat from this problem). Temple of Vesta: When I play Romans, I tend to forget that it exists. If we made it more potent (larger aura range), it would be more of a defining feature Cavalry diversity of Persians: The persians have an amazing number of 6 different cavalry types in their stables. The fact that this diversity is not really used makes this a shame. So balancing all cavalry to give each of them an unique place could help. It would also help if Chariots and Cataphracts were unlocked with the same upgrade (also goes for Seleucids). Finally Kushite mercenary camps: If you want to double down on diversity, you might want to reduce to cost of these camps to 100w,50m to put an emphasis on their uniqueness. So there you find a way to diversify all factions but Britons and Iberians. For britons the was a woad technology proposed in A24. Certainly the Iberians are all ready diverse. I think we could do better in terms of diversity if we only used the thing that we all ready have. Also we could improve our heroes and I welcome any suggestions on

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.

I really don't understand until today why the two gendered citizen mod was not added, I believe some civs, merchants and priests could also be of both genders.

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.

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.

It would be helpful for maps with random biomes to have the option of excluding 1 or 2 particular biome, for example: Mainland, Not Savanna Mainland, Not Snowy Mainland, Snowy or Alpine or Autumn

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.

Maybe, just maybe, we could use the cultures? Have the cultures use different kind of structures. E.g. the Greek cultures use X and Y, the Celts use Z.

Thank you for the feedback everyone! @badosuI made some changes to the map, chief among them: widening all the paths. I've added a 2v4, 3v4, and 4v4 version to the GitHub repo (Cliffs_of_Carnage_xvx_xp.xml, etc)