Leaderboard

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

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.

Found issue: stupid folder names

The OPs original proposal of having male citizens who gather resources and don't fight is one that seems worth taking seriously. And it passes any realistic test of historical accuracy. Just about all civilizations have had both men and women who gather resources and don't fight. There's variation in terms of which classes they come from, and so on, but the underlying fact of people of multiple genders who gather resources and don't fight is near universal.

What's sad is that in a23 these were not a problem.

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.

I tried to balance this map for PvP play https://raw.githubusercontent.com/andy5995/0ad-maps/trunk/maps/skirmishes/Cliffs_of_Carnage_4v4_8p.xml https://raw.githubusercontent.com/andy5995/0ad-maps/trunk/maps/skirmishes/Cliffs_of_Carnage_4v4_8p.pmp

En théorie je peux le faire, mais je ne suis pas sûr que splitter la communauté soit une bonne idée.

Hey pixel24, Are you the owner of the workplace and/or allowed to play games while at work? And, are you the administrator of the pfSense router and have access to the administration interface or can instruct the network administrator to change settings? If so, then I recommend that the network administrator try this advice in the pfSense software manual in order to support online games. https://docs.netgate.com/pfsense/en/latest/nat/compatibility.html#online-games If these tips don't solve the problem then join IRC (click "IRC Channel" at the top of the 0ad website) during American daylight hours, and I'll help you with troubleshooting while you're at the workplace.

If mods are required for compatibility, then order still mathers, also folder names need to be the same, what was not case here.

You're running out of space already? What are you doing on that? Compiling 0 A.D.?

Yes the option doesn't care about the OS.

I won’t be able to help on the Flatpak side of things, but I’m currently building a .deb backport of Alpha 25b for Debian Bullseye (stable), using the source package from Debian Bookworm (testing). If everything works as expected, I’ll share detailed build instructions here. Or if you want to give it an early try, I’m using this wrapper around mmdebstrap to handle the backported packages generation: Debian backports builder --- It might take a bit longer than expected, I stumbled upon some tricky apt bug in the process…

OP = overpowered What I mean is, it saves you a lot of time and effort when installing software, because it handles the dependencies and build commands automatically.

Lo and behold, this looks quite different now that I changed everyhting from GPT/UEFI to GRUB/BIOS. Let's see how far I come... PS: This machine has an ASUS GT 710 GPU. I'm tempted to use the non-free Nvidia drivers instead of nouveau. PPS: Yep, it goes farther now. So it was not good (in my case) to fiddle with GPT/UEFI.

@Ceres I typed up this document on how to install Arch Linux, KDE desktop and set up Arch dev environment for 0ad dev: Arch install guide.docx Please skip to step 15 if you have Endeavour OS installed already.

If you're a long-time Debian user, and don't fancy learning something new from scratch, why don't you just use Debian Testing then? It is as simple as changing a few lines in your sources.list and there is less chance at breaking than Arch, AFAIK (unless you need/want stuff from Sid, I guess). Updating that once a week is fine, once a month maybe even.

They do that already, but only when it is within a certain range (to avoid having your units spread over all the map).

I was a little bored, so... A concept for the Norse' wonder, Temple at Uppsala: (It still requires; a proper coloring. The tree, chain, pool and runestones. And probably a simplification on its polygons). I designed it both based on the few information available online https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_at_Uppsala (and particularly the artistic depiction https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/df/Olaus_Magnus_-_On_the_Glorious_Temple_Devoted_to_the_Nordic_Gods.jpg, although it lacked of proportion in some parts of the structure). And clearly inspired too by the actually known different models of "Stavkirker" (stave churches). I hope it can be helpful. 1735522378_UppsalaTemple.dae

TY <3

By the way, I noticed a potential issue in a previous post of Ardworix (one more to the list). He claimed the Lusitanians wore black cloths but actually it isn't related to Lusitanians. About it, also Diodorus Sciculus: Actually, he manipulated the quotes for purposes. The whole quote from Strabo should be this (the translation is different but you will see the issue): Bastetania is actually there: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastetania For Diodorus Siculus, the quote is actually about Celtiberians:

@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.

post deleted

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.

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 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).

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).

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

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

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*

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.

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?

Most competitive players are not playing the game often, so it's not being built for competitive players. The fact that we don't have such diverse civilizations is because there is no design plan and someone to command it. I've even started working on it, but it takes a lot of time, and unfortunately I don't have my free time to spend on it anymore, Besides that the part of 0.ad community is extremely ungrateful. You spend hundreds of hours working on various improvements, to find two or three problems/errors and post on the forum all the time when the new alpha is bad. I said several times that a24 was a work in progress and that a25 would be much better, but they continued to talk a lot of crap. Well the "end" result of the work is an alpha25 much better than alpha24 and 23 as I said. Lack of patience is a problem, especially for those who don't move a finger to help with anything. Basically the alpha 24 - 25 was mostly build by me and @Nescio (gameplay/balance), but we're not working on it concretely anymore, so if no one else is interested in this, players are destined to play with these civilizations / gameplay / balancing for many years, like that how was a23 sling + ram.

Do all the factions currently have an "arsenal" and an "archery" building? Do all of them already have their own boats? Maybe after finishing the Umayyad faction it could be a good idea to make a pause and make these 5 civilizations fully compatible with the last improvements and technologies of the A26. (Probably even their respective heroes auras and heroes portraits if possible). And as for making the mod compatible with the Delenda Est (But I have to admit I prefer the normal version of 0AD), I thought of this for their cult statues: Norse cult statue: Rök runestone. Carolingian cult statue: as a placeholder, a Carolingian cross of human size (metal). https://www.etsy.com/sg-en/listing/841381387/triquetra-cross-carolingian-cross-6018-s Byzantine cult statue: as a placeholder, a Reliquary Byzantine cross of human size (metal). https://www.ancient-art.co.uk/byzantine-empire/byzantine-bronze-reliquary-cross/ Anglo-Saxon cult statue: Celtic High Cross (rock). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muiredach's_High_Cross Umayyad cult statue: no idea yet.

I think that there is an argument for introducing a technology for skirmishers that would increase their movement rate. They could start of with just a marginal difference in speed to not make them massively better from an economic perspective. Archers being a wee bit slower seems fair.

I would have to disagree with this statement, because i dont feel like you necessarily have to chose one of them. Something can both be (re)balanced and bring differentiation. Also the pool of people who play this game casually is likely larger than the people that play competitively (as in trying to high on the leaderboards).

worker elephant have been there for number of alphas even able to actually build so it is unlikelyb worker elephant itself is suddenly op unit. agree that possible tactic it opens is op but thats for the capabilities of units doing the gathering

I don't think this premise is right. If Mauryans are currently too OP (which I don't agree with--they are one of several good civs right now), Mauryans are good because (1) they have the best unit in the game right now (archers); (2) they have a higher pop cap than most civs; and (3) they have 75w houses. I've played a lot of games and I have seen resources "stolen" in very few games and in none of these games has actually changed the outcome. The fact that very few players actually make worker eles indicates that the unit isn't OP at all. The most immediate benefit (and arguably the most important too) of the ele is that you are able to start collecting res away from a CC without spending the initial 100 wood. Very few players ever make a worker ele and instead just rely on the initial ele plus storehouses that they build. So doing this would be a major nerf. @nani is right--we should make other civs better with their own unique features rather than eliminating the fun unique features that currently exist.

How about we improve the biome instead, bruh?

I don't think it's possible. Also wouldn't work in nomad mode... @Freagarach

I liked the "God ray" effect from Rise & Fall: Civilizations at War.

A 2v3 map, intended for 2 human players versus the AI. The 2 human players bases are very close together. Updates and other maps can be downloaded from my 0ad Maps GitHub repo. aa2020-1_0.0.1.7z

Nope C'est propriétaire. C'est une des raisons pour laquelle on ne l'utilise pas officiellement.

I think that the idea that we have in mind to develop for the next alphas that the factions must be more asymmetrical as much as possible and they must be balanced as possible.