Leaderboard

That makes sense, and I can see why you wouldn't want civilisation playstyles to diminish options, but there are two reasons I think playstyles would be better. 1. Balance I think that the game really has to make a choice between civilisations that are mostly identical, with only cosmetic differences, or civs that, in some way or other, do end up encouraging different playstyles. Since the consensus on the forums seems to be against identical civs, it seems that civs will have to differentiate in some way. If this has to happen, it's better that it happen in a planned way, so that civilisations don't end up completely unbalanced, and each civ's direction is coherent. If the different playstyles are planned, the playstyles themselves can be balanced without making the civs identical. 2. Options. I don't think that distinct playstyles would diminish the options for player strategies. It might diminish the options available for a certain civ, but it would make more strategies available overall. As it is now, there are certain strategies available to most civs, but civilisations are played in mostly the same way. With distinct playstyles, choosing a certain civ would give you a lot more options for strategy. For example, on a mountainous, rough map, you might want to choose a civilisation well suited to raiding and quick mobility, or you might want to go with heavy fortifications. Or on a naval map, you might want to go for naval superiority, or build a trading fleet to fund a more traditional army. Choosing civs with specialised playstyles would allow any of these strategies, while right now most civs have only slight advantages for any of these plans. Additionally, this could introduce a huge variety for team games. What civ each player chooses could become a much more important decision. One player could go for a powerful economy to fund a mercenary-oriented ally, for example. In short, I think that even if playstyles decrease options for individual civs, they would increase options overall. In my opinion, that's a beneficial trade-off.

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.

I feel a26 could be a great improvement if we are able to add and then balance out some good civ differentiation options like those from @Dizaka and an attack-ground feature for ranged units. Bringing AOE catapults back alongside attack-ground feature would be awesome.

Some general gameplay classes for styles I've thought of, just brainstorming for the moment Defensive civ, slow expansion, resistant to rushing Raiding civ, good at building small bases, very mobile, but weaker in a straight fight Trading civ, good at trading, other economy is weaker, vulnerable to trade chain disruption Seige civ, good at destroying cities and heavy fortifications, weak early game Economy civ, powerful resource production, vulnerable to raids destroying production structures Mercenary civ, good at amassing a powerful army quickly, but requires massive resources Naval civ, good at destroying ships, more vulnerable on land

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

Synergy is an interaction or cooperation giving rise to a whole that is greater than the simple sum of its parts. The term synergy comes from the Attic Greek word συνεργία synergia from synergos, συνεργός, meaning "working together. as part of leading 0 A.D beyond being an AoE clone. You have to give it a certain immersion, in this case an immersion that gives the player benefits and that is an extra mechanic . It occurs to me that civic buildings like the temple and houses augment auras and potentials themselves as in Empire Earth. The temple should not only heal, it should obtain money (metal) since most cultures made donations, this will depend on the culture. But going back to the idea, if a temple is in the same area or territory where there are more than 2 houses, it should give a morale bonus that would translate into greater defense and resistance.(like the bonus of the Iberian monument). The houses should produce a greater concentration of territorial loyalty to the CC.If there is a market and a temple, you should collect income as bonuses. In ancient times temple sacrifices were sold in markets. A armory and a barrack should train soldiers faster. Ideas like that of placing buildings together to make bonuses. There are many buildings ignored in the attacks. And also when creating new settlements or cities.

Fixed. Thanks for the report @Old Roman

I like the idea. It will give them a short edge, not too early and not too late. I think the Romans should have a population bonus. Their manpower was enormous for the time:

I think beyond uniquess there should be at least 2-3 viable ways to do the different play-styles (Edit: Note, I'm a fan of games that average about 22 mins of playtime and, sometimes, go for 40+ in a very rare case - but with constant battles and few boomers). Note: I'd also split Camels/Horses into Camels/Calvary with Camels getting a bonus vs horses, especially close combat camels. However, strongly weak vs infantry. Britons: Quick phasing ('instant' or cheaper phase upgrades) p2 rams (b/c rams are only siege) p2 heroes Cheaper puppies (p1) and puppy champions (p2) Ability to upgrade skirmishers to skrim cav OR skrim chariots. p1 chariot skrimishers that are non-champion. Skrim cav are p2. p2 champions Chariot Priests Gauls: Start with a mounted priest p1 sword cav (even w/ bonus) instead of skrim cav p2 rams (b/c rams are only siege) p2 heroes p2 champions p1 fanatics that are less expensive ability to upgrade skirmishers to skrim cav OR skrim chariots Can build spear calvary in p2. Mounted Carnucos Cav Mounted Priests Spartans ("Walls? What true man builds walls?") p1 skiritai spearmen in p2 skirmishers in p2 p2 rams (b/c rams are only siege) p2 heroes in p2 upgrade skiritai to cavalry skiritai no walls, no palisades (like in a23) skrimisher chariots captured barracks in p1 can build spearmen/skrimishers. Mauryans (Elephant exhibitionist civ) regular javelineers 2, 3 and 4 population elephant archers (see atlas - could be buildable seperately or by individually 'mounting' archers) 2, 3 and 4 population elephant javelineers (elephant skrimishers - 3 and 4 pop as above could be buildable seperately or by individually 'mounting' skrimishers) 2, 3 and 4 population elephant spearmen (non siege elephant, similar to archers/skrim8shers on mounting extra units) 2, 3, and 4 population elephant priests (yes, lol) elephant hero does a bonus Macedonians: p1/p2 arsenal p2 upgrades in arsenal p2 siege tower p2 heroes AOE tech for ranged catapults in arsenal Remove the sword champs. Current champions counter fine. +20% bonus vs athens/sparta and 10% debonus vs rome. Romans (No palisades civ, vulnerable p1 and/or p2 b/c stone walls expensive. Basically, a civ that can entrench in a forward position but has issues defending hometown.): Encampments produce catapults and bolts. Units can be transferred between encampments if encampments are within XYZ of each other's range. Remove arsenal from buildings Put all arsenal upgrades in fort and ecampment buildings Building of fort enables upgrades from encampments and fort. If you lose fort upgrades to siege not possible until a new fort is built. Add AOE upgrade to catapults No palisades (don't need 3 types of walls). Siege walls include palisades properties and current properties. Siege walls more expensive. Regular walls more expensive (e.g., their roads allowed enemies to traverse their lands quickly) On Roman influence areas enemies, allies, and romans (all units) move 15% faster. Seleucids Add more cavalry diversity phase 2 elephant stable Camel swordsmen AOE tech for ranged catapults in arsenal regular chariot buildable in p2 that can be upgraded to champion chariot Chariot Priests Iberians Let them build walls connected to starter turrent. Somehow this doesn't work now. p2 heroes phase 2 rams (b/c only has rams) cavalry swordsmen (see atlas) in p1 and champions in p3. Iberians need cavalry swordsmen. They should be there. Mounted Priests Athens: Champions from barracks. Use current champion buiding for another purpose (make that the barracks equivalent?) Archers are non-merc Sword cav in p1 AOE tech for ranged catapults in arsenal Carthagians: Merc buildings in p1 Merc units in p1 AOE tech for ranged catapults in arsenal Civ that shines in p1 and p3 but has a dry spell in p2 basically. Sacredband units give a +10% dmg boost to nearby units but not other sacred band units Ptolemies: Old no-wood dynamic returns Skrimisher mercs buildable in p1 Heroes buildable in p2 Expansion building buildable in p1, including all mercs from building Camel swordsmen and spearmen AOE tech for ranged catapults in arsenal Kushites: Merc buildings buildable in p1 Merc camel clubmen Persians All non-champion calvary units available in p1 (including non-champion chariots - buildable from CC and stables) Return of the chariot archers that are non-champion (but leave champion chariot) Mounted and Chariot Priests

Tell me Blizzard didn't have playstyles in mind when they designed the civs for Starcraft. Tell me Westwood didn't have playstyles in mind when they designed the civs for Command & Conquer.

I would like to see a mid-game "Spartan Phalanx Push" be just as viable as an early game "Britons Slinger-JavCav Rush." Spartans wouldn't be locked-into that strategy, but their military would be generally geared towards it. As much as Macedonians would be more geared toward a late-game combined arms approach, and Persians heavy on cavalry and Mauryas relying on massed archers, augmented by War Elephants and Chariots later.

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.

ZERO A.D.

I want that... and Arsonist unit.

Romans didn't employ many mercenaries during the epoch of the game (though, they did do it from time to time; Balearic Slingers and Cretan Archers for example). About half of their armies were made up of Roman citizens, and the other half made up of local allies (local to the theater of war; the Pergamenes and Rhodians in the East for example, Numidians in North Africa), and their Italian subjects (the "Extraordinarii" were picked from this group). Later, the Social War in Italy would force Rome to make all free Italians into Roman citizens, increasing manpower for the legions ten fold.

I feel this might go to far for sparta, but I like the "make him ride a horse" upgrade idea for some civs. Could you please elaborate on this one? Is this a new merc? @Dizaka I think these are great ideas overall, and I like the vision for each civ. There are a couple things here and there that seem a little op.

Well, it would make their playstyle more predictable, but it wouldn't and definitely shouldn't make their choices obvious. As @Dizaka wrote, each civ still needs to have multiple options and strategies, they should not be one trick ponies.

In my mod units have a "Strength" property that determined the damage it does. So each weapon had its standardised properties, which were multiplied by the strength. Champions would be a bit stronger, but moreover stay at the same strength for longer (Stamina).

I know that we are all looking to diversify civilizations, and I think it is great to focus the civilization on what they do best. However, I think we should avoid narrowing the options available to that civ. Britons, for example: The problem with this is it would make player behavior predictable. I prefer giving britons a great early game, and an average late game. If I can sum up my views on civs in one sentence it is: civilisations should not have playstyles, civilizations should have options, players should make the playstyles. Does this make sense? I think it is good to give each civ a few things they are great at, but not limit player choices because they feel the need to do what is "best" for that civ. I give an example of a bad civ for uniqueness/options balance in a25: Carthaginians. Carthage has one strategy that is "the best", it is almost impossible to counter. Uniqueness should come from unique options and not entire unique strategies.

Yes, that probably wouldn't be a very good design choice, it would probably be better to have more than one civ per gameplay style/strategy. The concept I was trying to illustrate was that different playstyles would counter one another, and that each civ would be optimised for a certain playstyle. The counters shouldn't be so powerfull that it's nearly impossible for one civ to beat another that counters it, but it should provide a difficult challenge.

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

You'll have to garrison a spy in the structure for that.

I've seen quite some videos on A25 already and what I noticed is that (not very suprising) no-one uses the new ability to push an order to the front of the order queue, hence I thought I'd make a forum post about it. Since https://trac.wildfiregames.com/changeset/25020 it is possible to push an order to the front of the order queue for a unit. We all know how to use (by default) <Shift> to queue an order to be executed later. However, one can also set a hotkey to let a unit execute an order NOW and then continue with the previously set orders. An example: You are gathering wood with a few ladies, but are close to getting housed. You could select the ladies, task them to construct a house and <Shift>-click them back on wood thereafter. Or you could select the ladies and task them to construct a house while they automatically go back to chopping wood. That saves a whopping 50% of your clicks! (The name of the hotkey is "Push order in front" and it is not set by default.) For the people being curious about what happens when using both hotkeys: You can keep constucting houses but each is pushed to the front of the queue (so Push order in front takes precedence). Please tag anyone you know who could benefit from this. At least I know @ValihrAnt could.

I believe that I already outlined my opinion much earlier regarding a very obvious Spartan gimmick: Be able to train Spartans at phase 1. Simply speaking Sparta without Spartans is stupid. My proposal in a thread regarding ways to diversify champions included making making Spartan hoplites free as well, only offset by a lengthly recruitment time, two population, and a hard cap of one Syssiton in the Village Phase and +1 for each subsequent one. Technologies would be able to change the characteristics of its citizenry over time, making each Phase give an option to represent the political elements affecting Spartans.

Of course until now I haven't played "Battles In the Dirt" since a23, but last night I noticed several errors scrolling by about 'treasures'. I also vaguely recall the center of the map being being full of some rather nasty gaia troops. Both treasures and gaia were missing from the map, which was still quite playable.

Feels like Romans could be unique in that they have (1) smaller citizen population but (2) additional merc population to top them off that can gather resources slower but maybe be better at fighting (basically, all units have merc counterparts). Could be like a 110/120 or 80/150 split. Sort of like there is a separate population for dogs.

For a graphical front end for svn on Linux I have used ksvn though it is now not used as Dolphin the KDE file browser now has context activated svn access similar to TortoiseSVN on Windows. Enjoy the Choice

I would not go as far as that (one civ clearly counter another), but nice to hear someone generally agrees.

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

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 )

I have voiced my issues with crush damage here and there on the forum and I agree with the room for improvement. What I would like crush damage to be, is damage that is not as deadly as pierce and hack against weakly armored units. However I would like to see that heavily armored units don't see their crush damage improved as much as their other armors, so crush would be something to overcome armored units. That is also somewhat historically correct. So an citizen ranged unit could have 6 crush armor and a champion infantry could have 10, which is a difference of 4, while for hack/pierce the difference would be 7.

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.

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

It would be interesting to see this at play in a mod. Though maybe 1.5 humans being 1 humans needs renaming of the term 'population.' Specifically, what I find problematic is that the population dynamic would dramatically impact the current 1 human : 1 population dynamic for models. With currently how elephants/rams are I can understand the 5/3 population distribution (e.g., rams cannot kill units or farms).

To make treasures/relics/whatever more prone to generating interactions, they need to be made way more visible on the strategic map... Right now (I play KenWood since I'm on Debian Stable) the only thing easily seen on the strategic map is animals (bright pink) and trees (green), and secondarily stone (grey) and thirdly metal (yellow, but not bright enough to be easily distinguished on the map, depending on what surrounds it). Even berries are quite difficult to spot (slightly different green) ! There at least should be a map mode that shows only resources, and probably a way to toggle which resources to show (so it could be possible to show only berries, or only metal, or only treasures, or only relics,...) making very easy to spot whatever the player is interested in. And relics are not visible outside the vision range of a unit, which means that if you send cavalry to scout the map, you need to micromanage them in permanence (checking if there is a relic in their area of vision). I never played multiplayer (I'm too old to play on faster than "slow" and I don't think anyone is interested in playing at this speed) but on single player I found treasures stressful (if you don't get enough of them you lose) and tedious (it's not only a matter of exploring the map quickly but to be lucky enough to notice them which means spending not only cavalry but also constant player's attention). And they never lead to any interesting cavalry combat (either I get first to them, the enemy gets first to them, or I get to them too close to the enemy so that his infantry chases my cavalry : the later case may need some micro skill but usually no real tactic involved since I have very little chance to defeat them as my cavalry is stretched thin in order to find the other treasures). Maybe make treasures either more numerous and smaller or needing more force to capture ? On some maps they're defended by Gaia soldiers but I'm not a fan of it especially when the treasures/gaia forces are too close to the starting point. Maybe have the treasures/defending-forces under a non-capturable building (but not impossible to destroy without siege engines) that sounds an alarm horn (audible/visible by all players) when attacked ? That would leave the option for all players to go try to get them or to attack enemy cavalry/citizens/women (if women get a "dismantle" ability) trying to get them... Or make the treasures visible to everyone at the start of the game ? Especially if they're defended (so that it's not the closest player that gets them, but the most committed), that would allow for real strategic interaction early game... Is it technically possible to have treasures be carried by the unit that fetched them ? Or to have one trader unit at start (trainable in Civic Centers but with a very long time, like 60 seconds, so it's not unremplaceable but still not a good idea to have it killed nor possible to spam them) which would be the only unit able to fetch the treasure ? That way ambushing the units carrying the treasure would be a possible strategy. Actually, the One-Trader-at-Start option would make collecting treasures a real strategic endeavour, and not a lucky grab (to get more than one treasure the player would need to defend the others while s/he manages his travelling salesman), so if it's technically possible it's probably the best option... (and no, I don't know how to make a mod)

No, it's secret

You guys can scoff all you like, but based on what I'm seeing and reading I'd lay even money that AoE4 is going to be a game that dictates the expectations and mindshare of 0 AD for the next 5-10 years. Let's talk about the good things they are doing: The game runs smoothly in a performant, modern, 3D engine with serviceable graphics that will almost certainly improve over time thanks to patches and modding. The gameplay we've seen preserves most of the complexity of AoE2's timeless systems, while also adopting a much more asymmetric roster of civilization designs. (Some of these new civilization concepts might significantly expand the design space of historical RTS.) It explores some interesting micro-gameplay concepts. History RTS tends to fixate on projectile dodging and kiting, which are high skill floor and low ceiling, so having a high profile game try to showcase something else is good. AoE4 has faster matches and tech progression than a lot of games in its space. Military buildup is also fast and action looks like it will start early. This is a nice concession to the reality that the people who grew up with this genre are now adults under a lot of time pressure. Non-rush games don't need to take 50-60 minutes to resolve. The game is doing some really interesting things with contextual doodads around buildings. The game's ambient sound design is reportedly superb - although there is clearly still room for improvement. (ding ding) It is releasing in a finished (or nearly finished) state on October 28, 2021. This is all amazing in my book. I'm not sure good enough to usurp AoE2's e-sports throne. It might not even be enough to prevent it falling into semi-obscurity like the other entries in the Age series. But for 0 AD it will do one thing that is tremendously important: demonstrate that it is possible to make a high quality, modern re-adaptation of the AoE2 design philosophy. AoE4 is (in all the ways that matter to a broad audience) what 0 AD is supposed to be. It's the promise this project was sold to us with, and it's coming to you in a few weeks from the hands of a bunch Microsoft MBAs who are more interested in this quarter's profits than making great games. This stings to anyone who believes in FOSS, but the answer is not to nurse our insecurities. It's time to start taking notes. What works and what doesn't? What should 0 AD copy and what can it improve on? Can Wildfire use any of their design research to break out of its multi-decadal development pace? These are important questions, because if AoE4 is good (or even just pretty good) 0 AD will have to change its sales pitch to remain relevant. "Sort of like AoE4, but antiquity, and you get what you pay for" will not cut it--particularly if mod support is coming.

Catapults were very powerful weapons, very effective against organic units. Their weakness was cost, packing time and vulnerability to hack - they were fragile machines, so they needed a lot of protection

@Player of 0AD but what you had in splash you lost in mobility. Cata-heavy armies could be outmaneuvered. As a cata-heavy army the disadvantage was you had to know when to unpack and not do it too early or too late. Very few players could manage catas. Most cata armies started appearing 16-18 mins into the game and that is only if you intentionally went cata. Also, only 2 civs could do it (Rome/mace) due to arsenal/encampment as other civs would only be able to do it in the 20-23 min mark. Also, catas are a good anti-snowballing measure. Finally, they can be easily countered with cav. Catas are not much worse than champ cav ...and with current metal availability plenty counters and better alternative strategies (e.g., champs) than catas.

It's possible in theory to reduce vision range using an aura Here are a list of things than can be affected by techs aura. It's missing the Damage tags in some places and needs to be updated. https://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/TechModifications

Do note 0ad A25 is in Debian testing now, so it might be in the next version of your distro.

I agree, especially about the last part. Simply building a trading post on the right slot was essentially the entire extent of trading and it was about as deep as a pizza box. Having biome-appropriate trading posts to trade with seems a lot more dynamic than the AOE3 method. BTW-in Alpha 25 there are Trading Posts on a few of the new skirmish maps by which you can test the concept.

This is great, good job!

I decided to upload these 2 replays because some people asked me on the lobby and because I think they can be useful for many players. Uploading these replays is NOT a way to say "Hey look, I am better than @ValihrAnt or @Feldfeld: 1) they are players way stronger than me 2) when I will have a replay of a game in which I lose against these two gods and I play decently, I will upload that too surely!. Nevetheless, these games are two exceptions in which we both played really well and that I think can teach many things to many people Jofursloft vs Feldfeld.zip Jofursloft vs Valihrant.zip

kataphracts: more armor hetairoi/agema: +speed, +small bonus vs infantry and reduced bonus vs cav.

I would like to congratulate you on the great work done with the graphics in this new alpha. I haven't had a chance to try the new game extensively but I really liked what I got from my first gameplay. The new environments are beautifully crafted. Lot of attention to details. This combined with the new pathfinding improvements is definitely a big step forward for the game.

@Stan`

I have trade posts in Delenda Est on many maps and I tried to sneak them into the base game with the terrain update (check out the Hindu Kush skirmish map). They are also available in the base game in Atlas and can be used in your custom skirmish maps. I and a lot of others ( @maroder, who also worked extensively on the new map stuff, @wraitii and @Freagarach on the team who have expressed a desire for more interesting maps) do want to eventually have cool things on maps and to extend the biome code to include treasures, shrines, trade posts, villages, dangerous animals, creeps, aesthetic animals, etc.

First of all, if it does not give major problems, there is no reason to remove it. These units are trained sometimes and I like to keep them as an option. Also I think we should consider the nature of 0AD as a community project. These units are someone's contributions, so it feels unfair (and maybe a little unrespectful) to cut it without strong reason. Also (this argument is not popular by me) 0AD is still in alpha, which means there is no reason to cut now it if you can cut the unit from the game later.

no better way to invest food than in livestock.