Leaderboard

Admin of DDoS service behind 200,000 attacks faces 35yrs in prison! I really hope this is our man, but I guess not. Still good to see how serious this is taken and that people get faced with their actions. 35 years in prison is a serious reaction.

Much of the discussion about differentiating the civilisations in the game is right now focused on small changes to enable different strategies for the different civilisations. But I want to open a discussion here if those changes are not a bit too "small". If we look at other successful strategy games (in the widest sense) be it card games as magic the gathering or competitive online games as league of legends, we see that they enable the player to have completely different playstyles, which is probably why so many people like to play these games -> everyone finds a playstyle they like. For me 0ad is at the moment more comparable to chess; you can play different strategies, but it's still chess and always kind of the same, regardless which strategy you choose. I know that the civs kind of already represent different playstyles, but what if we would really accentuate that? I think vanilla AD could learn much from Hyrule conquest in that regard. So accentuate the playstyles of each civ, but also give them weaknesses through that instead of trying to balance them in every phase of the game. here just some links to interesting videos who touch upon this topic in game design: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXQzdXPTb2A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5Uk13mQdm0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QuKpJTUwwY But to come to an end here, I very much agree with sera in this discussion here https://code.wildfiregames.com/D4273#182067 The thing that would be needed first to do that is a design document about how each civ should play. So feel free to tell me if you agree or disagree on this ( every civ should have a vastly different / unique playstyle). If this was always the goal of the differentiation and I just didn't get the extent of the planned differentiation then please excuse my slow mind. Also independent of your opinion regarding the above, feel free to give your ideas about how to best structure such a collaborative design document creation process, as that may be beneficial nevertheless.

Disclaimer: I'm not a competitive, or even particularly good player. I mostly just play 0ad casually, and I don't have too much experience. That being said, however, I completely agree with this. I think that more gameplay styles would make the game much more enjoyable. Right now, basically all strategies can be done with all civs, with only varying degrees of effectiveness. What I would do to differentiate styles while still maintaining some balance is this: I would give each civ a unique style or bonus, but each style or bonus is countered by another civ's bonus. That way, each civ is unique, while not being overpowered. For a very basic example: Britons raid, giving them strong early attack and the ability to build bases beyond their borders, but are weak in the late game. Iberians turtle, with strong walls and defensive structures, but weak offense. Macedonians have good seige, giving them the ability to destroy defensive structures easily, but a weak early game. The Iberians' defense counters the Britons' raiding, the Macedonians' seige counters the Iberian defense, and the Britons early expansion counters the Macedonian's late game. This is just a basic example, a more elaborate design would be necessary for the game, but I hope it gives a good idea.

Just unloading the healthiest of the type first would be good enough for me

@Player of 0AD "svn update -r r25860" instead of "svn up"

Hola , buenas ; -Me tomé la libertad de hacer las texturas para las unidades de asedio (escalas , ariete y posible "lanzador de piedras")con ayuda de @Lopess; (Además de la textura de la madera para el ariete y las escalas) -Serían las mismas textura para las tres unidades pero , se usaría el ariete Xiongnu como base para las unidades de ariete y escalas lusitanas simplemente ; Para el Ariete lusitano; Cuatro guerreros , dos a cada lado. Un tronco con un extremo en punta. Misma animación que la del ariete Xiongnu. Sería más rápido y barato pero con menos puntos de ataque y resistencia que otros arietes además de resguardar a 5 unidades como mucho. Se reclutaría en la Herrería Lusitana. Para las Escalas lusitanas; Dos guerreros , uno a cada lado. Una escalera . En principio haría falta una animación en la que los guerreros ponen de pie la escalera pero eso solo sería estética , ya que solo hace falta que los guerreros se muevan. Serviría para cruzar murallas, empalizadas u otras defensas, sería rápida y barata pero con menos puntos de resistencia y menos puntos aún de ataque además de solo poder resguardar 5 unidades como mucho ya que sería como una Torre de asedio lowcost (a bajo precio). Se reclutaría en la Herrería Lusitana. Para "Lanzador de piedras"; Un guerrero , de una complexión física más fuerte que las demás unidades. Sin armas en las manos , solo un escudo caetra en un lado de la cadera y una daga en el otro lado, sin capa y con un casco de madera sin penacho o con la cabeza descubierta. La animación serían la anteriormente citada. Reclutado en la Herrería Lusitana. Disculpen las molestias*

The Kushites The Kingdom of Kush/The Kingdom of Meroe (Above left to right: Nastasen, Arakamani, Amanirenas, Amanitore) (Above left to right: Meroitic Citizens, Subject Peoples)

Hey all, I made a scenario map about the Roman Limes (latin for border), more specific the Upper-Germanic and Raethian Limes. The Limes was a Roman border defence and controll system against celtic and germanic raids, consisting mostly of walls, moats, palisades, towers and military camps. The land in the middle of Europe was mostly covered in forests and swamps, what complicated warfare for the Romans. I hope you'll like it Overview (spoiler alert): some references: https://wildfiregames.com/forum/topic/35014-inspiration-for-map-creators/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limes_(Roman_Empire) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limes_Germanicus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castra to add an ingame preview, copy this to \binaries\data\mods\public\art\textures\ui\session\icons\mappreview @Stan`, @wraitii hope you can give me a hand now to make the palisades and towers not lose capture points outside of the territory the_limes_2p.pmp the_limes_2p.xml

As AtlasMapper and I discussed in this thread, we want to create a new scenario map based on the civilizations and the real-world topography of the western Mediterranean. I did a simple sketch about what I have in mind so far, some explanations: blue circles: waterways passable only by ships blue diamonds: waterways both passable by land units and ships grey fields: impassable mountain areas brown symbols: passable hills blue lines: mountain passes and narrow ways around impassable terrain blue crosses: impassable shorelines yellow fields: desert (mainly found in North Africa) horizontal lines: swamp (mainly found in Germania) triangles: forests yellow stars: areas rich of resources (mainly mineral deposits, could also be stone or treasures...) red circles: initial territory of Britons, Carthaginians, Gauls, Iberians and Romans red arrows: primary expansion areas red dashed arrows: secondary expansion areas I think a circle shaped map is suited better than a squared map because the edges would contain quite uninteresting areas in the real world history of the used civilizations. The map should have maximum size (512x512). Regarding balance: Carthaginians, Iberians and Gauls have approximately the same amount of "natural territory" where they can expand to. This territory is protected by water or impassable mountain areas. Britons are quite limited in space, however, they can only be reached by ships making it very difficult to rush them and give them some defensive bonus. Romans do not have much free space around their initial territory, but they have the option to expand into a remote area and they can easily control the Adria, so fishing ships can be protected effectively. Iberians and especially Gauls are threatened from several sides giving them a strategic disadvantage. On the other side, they have the most options where they want to expand to and at least Iberians are protected by their initial walls. It may be necessary to also provide the Gauls with some extra defenses for otherwise help them a little bit. Mineral deposits should be distributed relatively equally over the map, preferably at strategic important places like mountain passes. Stone occurs a bit more often in the southern areas, especially in the desert. However, wood will be more present in the areas north of the Alps particularly forming the infamous Germanic forests between dangerous swamplands making the use of formations quite impossible. Edit: I'm just haunted by the idea to bundle this map with a small mod: it contains pirates, Germanic tribes and Greek colonies as three simple, non-playable factions (using existing models). Pirates and Germani are hostile to all players while Greek colonies are neutral (so trade is possible with them?). Some oak trees in the Germanic forests have a debuff aura affecting Roman soldiers, Carthaginian elephants do have bonuses against Romans, but Romans have bonuses against Carthaginian walls. Roman siege walls are stronger against Gauls which in turn can recruit a special druid at a settlement in Aremorica who gives all units in range OP stats against Romans... Ok let's finish dreams

Hello everyone! I've been reading a few forum threads recently, discussing a myriad of issues and balancing suggestions for 0AD, that is, OP cav swordsman, OP mercs, Metal abundance, Elephants being very good at taking down walls, to name a few. To that point, i would like to make 4 small suggestions in an attempt to deal with those problems. I'm aware that some of these suggestion might have flaws, but even if they just help inspire people to come with other solutions, i'm happy. I'll divide this post in 2 parts. The first one will only contain my suggestions, while the second one will contain my reasoning. Have fun! ===================================//================================= PART 1: SUGGESTIONS Population Cost: Taking women as a baseline 1 pop cost: Women and Healers: -> 1 pop Citizen-Soldiers and Mercenary infantry: 1.5 pop Champion infantry: 2 pop Citizen-Soldier Cavalry -> 2 pop Mercenary Cavalry -> 2 pop Champion Cavalry -> 3 pop Boltshooters -> 2pop Catapults and Rams -> 3pop Siege Elephants -> 5 pop Metal Distribuition: Maintain number of Metal mines, but reduce the Resource Amount from 5000 --> 2500-3000. Crush Damage: - Decrease crush armor on organic units: From 15 --> around 5 and add crush armor increase to both Armor and Shield Upgrades (like 0.5 increase instead of 1, so the neither will be crush preferential) Exemple: Hack Armor 1: -> +1 Hack armor +0.5 Crush Armor Pierce Armor 1: -> +1 Pierce armor + 0.5 Crush Armor - Increase Crush armor of some buildings (those that have high Hack armor): From 3 -->15 (79% damage reduction) - Give Siege units (Rams and Catapults) a bonus vs Buildings to offset the new armor values. Palisade Walls: Increase Hack Resistance: 5-->15 (79% damage reduction) Increase Wood Cost: 14 --> 30 (to compensate for the higher resistance) PART 2: REASONING Population Cost: The main idea is: the stronger a unit is, the higher it's maintenance cost (armor gets rusty, swords get blunt, spears can break, etc). The better the equipment, the higher the maintence. This way, soldiers and mercenary units have a higher maintenance cost than the women unit (who are just gatherers) and that is reflected in a higher pop cost. Same for horses, champions, siege units and Elephants. From a balance standpoint this should also remove a bit of power from cavalry rushes without removing it as an option, (since the player will have to build more houses in order afford the same amount of units he did previously). Metal Distribution: This is meant to force players to expand more in search of metal, since it's a very important reasource for late game units. It will also reduce a bit of the abundance of metal without reducing the number of metal mines, giving more expansion options. Might even encourage people to start trade routes earlier. Crush Damage: I haven't seen anyone complaining about Crush damage specificaly, but i think there is room for improvement. Currently crush is treated as "anti-building" Type of attack. This way buildings have low crush armor, while humans have high crush armor. The problem with this approach is that it limits what you can do with crush. In my opinion, there is no real reason why humans would be so resistant to crush damage in the first place. Clubs, slings, maces, can crush bones, burst organs, crack skulls and so on, even with armor (if you hit'em enough times). As for buildings, again, there is no real reason why a building would be weak to maces, slings or clubs. So it having low crush damage makes little sense to me. Buildings are indeed weak to siege weapons (catapuls and rams) and therefore those units should have a damage bonus vs buldings, instead of buildings having low crush armor. This ways we can make units use crush damage more liberaly without fear of breaking the game. This also helps against Elephants being able to take down stone walls and forts with ease. Elephants are strong, but they are not siege weapons. They can stomp units (crush), skeewer them with their tusks (pierce) or whack them with their trunk(crush), but they have limited usufulness against stone walls. Palisade Walls: Palisade walls are defensive structures, made out of sturdy wood and are hard to take down, specially with swords (chances are they will blunt before the wall is taken down). So for the sake of realism, i'm suggesting a significant increase in the Hack resistance of wooden walls. In order do make it difficult to spam them in the early game, an increase in their price can help with that. If there is a need to make them more fragile, my sugestion is to lower the hit point of the wall instead, or slightly decrease the Hack resistance, but not by much. ==============================///==================================== Well, those are my suggestions. What do you think?

@Player of 0AD lol I knew that was coming

I kind of expected many people disagreeing with this which is why I want to have this as a very open discussion, so please rather comment than click on the confused smiley. Just as an example of a unique playstyle: the nomadic Scythians in DE are much fun to play

Moving some champions to p2 would be a fairly easy thing to do, so now the question is which champions should be moved to P2. I could give suggestions myself, but I would first give other community member the chance to put a suggestion. I hope that this approach makes it more interactive.

I've added The Limes to the community maps 2 mod.

Crush, Hack, and Pierce attack types do not have to conform to reality. Simply speaking there are plenty of abstractions as is. Swordsmen for instance dealing hack damage in the case of the legionnaire makes little sense as the gladius functioned primarily as a stabbing weapon. Likewise spearheads could oftentimes be used for cutting, as represented by medieval treatises on the matter. The terms hack, pierce, and crush are merely lovingly face-lifted from Age of Mythology. Yes, the terms generalise and are unoriginal, but they kind of work (outside of the fact that spearmen and pikemen suddenly become worse at demolishing buildings and destroying rams).

Or (on user's choice) ungarrison units with 100% health or with highest rank (the latter, as units gain ranks when garrisoned). Or is this nonsense? @Stan` @wowgetoffyourcellphone @maroder @Yekaterina (just asking for more thoughts from further people, without any specific preferences )

Honestly, I would. I'd be interesting to see what balance could be made with early p1 rushes w/ Merc cav being thrown in. They handicap resource gathering, so depending on game you can or can't go all in.

I'd also add that adding more mercenaries to p1 would be good, imo. Adds the opportunity to go for a different strategy. P2 champs, imo though, should be the same as just p3 champs skill wise.

I just continued the habit of posting very mediocre youtube content about 0AD. I hope this strategy gives some food for thoughts on team game strategy.

Since metal isn't abundant on all maps I'm very skeptical about any reduction.

I think this makes sense.

come on, it's not about who's better, it's the magnitude. they are about equal when factoring the bonus, sword cavalry is like twice as good otherwise. at now noone makes spear cav if they can make sword cav instead, it's not like any nerf can only result in the opposite situation. mmh not sure. we know of cavalrymen using spears for dueling since antiquity. the bonus makes sense.

Yay works with everything at all times.

2GB ram will struggle a bit... Xfce will run fine but not sure if 0ad will... KDE is equal to XFCE in ram consumption by default. However, there are more settings and widgets which can increase or decrease the ram and CPU consumption.

Pamac is a GUI for pacman, but I don't really need it (was just an example), as I'm confident in using pacman on CLI. BTW, doesn't yay not also work for ArchLinux repo (and Aur)? With regard to the desktop environment, I'll stick to xfce, as it's extremely performant even on my old PC with (at the moment) only 2 GB RAM. KDE is (to my recollection of several years ago) too much cluttered with too many settings possibilities and drawing on the resources, but maybe this has changed since then. For the time being, I'm quite happy with EnOS (thanks a lot to you for pointing it out in the beginning, besides pure ArchLinux!) and will set everything up, so I can test 0ad from svn etc. I'm typing this from Firefox 92.0.1, which I find cool as with Debian I was always used to live with some older v78 LTS of Firefox. Cheers!

Having sword cav be your mainline cavalry unit doesn't make sense historically.

You can download A25b source code from git as well. Just do 'svn up' and it will take you straight to A26 Z---- ehehehe

Another point: stick with the default flavour unless you know the difference between other flavour and default. Git is all source code for sure so will take a bit longer to compile and download. But it is more likely to work even if teh default aur one or repo one is broken. I recommend yay helper instead of pamac. Idk what pamac is lol.. I use pacman as default repo fetcher then yay for Aur.

@Ceres If you use KDE, I think you can create a system monitor wideget on the desktop to monitor it constantly. You can also install neofetch and neofetch some stats. That way you can show swap memory, system load and temperature.

Of course you can install it on a HDD but the performance will be poor. My approach would be, connect all drives, then somehow free up 30GB of space on one of the SSD. Let's call it /Dev/SDA1. So install base system and grub here. But when formatting disks, do it manually and mount root folder on Dev/SDA1/. Then, format Dev/sdc (big HDD) as ext4 as well and mount it as /home. That means your files will be stored in Dev/sdc but system program will be on Dev/SDA1. This way you get fast performance and big storage.

Oh, that's why I've not been ddosed during the last days? : )

I am interested, but I used the content of @Palaxin, so I think if he also agrees then it can be added.

During A24 I used SVN for playing with the development version, and since A25 is out I just use the SVN version to play A25....

Currently I have Alpha 25a. Installed via SVN, on Linux I'd like to update to 25b. What I know is that one can update the version with: svn up cd build/workspaces ./update-workspaces.sh -j3 cd gcc make -j3 But I believe this will not give me A25b, but a newer development version. Thats not what I want Is there a different bunch of commands which will change it to A25b instead? @Stan` is there a simple solution?

The "stone thrower" could be a "slinger" class unit, but with higher attack, slower attack, and shorter range. Just one suggestion.

5 pop elephant seems like a good idea to me, because it effectively deters elephant spam. Let champion cavalry take up 2 pop instead, 3 is a bit too much. Citizen soldiers should take up 1 pop. I agree with lowering unit crush armour as that unlocks a new variable we can play with. Just give siege weapons 25x hard counter against buildings. Buildings with high armour also means no more chopping down CC with Merc cav. I don't think palisade walls should be improved. They should be nerfed. Agreed, maybe increase cost or train time.

For an earlier wonder could have a sort of burial ground; with a tumulus and decorative stones near it.

for now what I see that needs to be adjusted (by the mod) and add in phase 1 women, slinger, spearman, cavalry javalier phase 2 swordsman, javalier, cav spearman, cav lanceman mercenary cav sword and ambusher/guerrilla (only javalryman and melee) without defense upgrades scales? phase 3 sword champion, mounted champion cavalryman (fire cav) siege rams, (catas/onagro, bolt, Sertorius) heroes: Cauceno, Viriato and Sertorius team bonus: 1: metal cost to be reduced to champion troops. (less op) 2: that technologies and phase change have a reduced cost. (plus op) add Frisian fields to Iberians and Lusitanians, to make enemy troops slower and damage the siege. mercenary blade cav vetons to iberos and soliferrum more or less is the summary of what i would like to see in the next version of the mod the theme of unique technology, that is related to metals and that name the mineria del rio tinto plz it is possible that the translator troll me ....

Made by @wraitii https://code.wildfiregames.com/D4117

I suggest you to break down the implementation in different steps and to stay simple for the first steps. Aiming directly for 25 units would be a bit difficult. Including a rock throwing unit would require a new animation. ---------------- To be viable, the civilization would require at least: - new male and female citizens - javelineer - slinger - spearman - swordsman - light cavalryman - heavy cavalryman (spear or sword) - two champion units. - two unique techs - a civilization bonus - three heroes At first you can reuse models from the Iberians, like the caetra and the falcata, and change only the texture of the body.

Some pictures of height-based texturing using a script I am planning to do a good amount of tweaking, but if someone (@Player1) can't wait to test the map himself in Atlas, here are the files: WesternMediterraneanDemo.zip - Have fun! BTW what do you think about square vs circle map shape? A pretty big problem is the shoreline because of the limited resolution of the 8-bit grayscale heightmaps. The topography heightmap says the grey areas are under water, the bathymetry (ocean floor) heigtmap says they are above sea level... I probably need to combine them with another source

So here we go! The map will actually look like this (just a shore prototype, still need some work, especially with mountains): So it should cover the area you are expecting. Size 512x512. About your schema, it's a bit surprising to imagine land unit coming by feet from morocco to spain, or from sicilia to italia, but well, it is up to you. Actually, these areas are very close to each other as you can see on the screenshot, so it will be easy to set up. Anyway if such very small areas doesn't fit your need, you'll be able to adjust them very easily, even after the 3D model will be done: lowering only a few squares to allow land units to pass is really easy. But I'll try to do it by myself. About the mountains, I will draw them from real maps, so it will be some natural walls to units. I just have to set up the right height for them. But there should be more passages ways than you think, if we respect the reality (eg. units should be able to pass from italia to france by the south of the alps), but again, it might be easily modified to fit your gameplay needs, if you find it relevant. About the swamps/forests, you'll put them by yourself. Setting the whole netherland, north germany, and south denmark under the swamps it a little bit rude for these countries but again, if you find it fun, it's up to you. There will still be natural rivers there. It should be easy to expand them into swamps. As you can see, the 3D models (boths west and east) should be ready when you'll be back, in one month. I have some important recommendations, however: You'll obviously start by completing texturing. But then don't head directly to put units and buildings everywhere. Even if you have a scenario in mind (whatever if you plan to use triggers or not), first complete the map in a skirmish mode. What I mean is just some CC from each factions, to easily test the playability of the map. I'll put some on the 3D model, and I'll deliver the map as a skirmish. You'll need to add and balance the resources, forests, etc. This way, you'll see the features of the map, in term of relief especially, if you need to improve some road, block some access, etc. You can even simulate battles with AI only. This way you'll realy realize how the game will go on this map. If you put already units everywhere, you won't be able to easily see issues, and if they comes from the land, resources, or units. Modifying textures and land will be a pain, too. From the skirmish file, you'll be able to easily resave it as a copy and work on it as a scenario without any problem. That's an important advice I should tell, because I did make this error. Proceed step by step, you'll gain some time in the end. But for now, think about your thesis