Leaderboard

Yes, I agree, next weekend I implement it.

I think a "Capture the Wonder" game mode would be awesome. So, on certain random maps, a game setup option would be available to choose a "Capture the Wonder" victory. This is different from a standard "Wonder" victory; it would place a "Wonder of the World" at the center of the map, and the player or team who can capture and hold it for a specified amount of time wins the game. Like a "Wonder" victory, the time duration can be chosen by the game host. The random map script could have a "<capture_the_wonder/>" flag that enables this, so that it can be available on a map script-by-map script basis (some map scripts would probably be unsuitable for this game mode by their design. As an aside: If "Capture the Wonder" is implemented, I'd suggest renaming the standard "Wonder" victory to "Build a Wonder" or something similar. Your thoughts on such a game mode/victory condition? For discussion of possible Wonders, go here:

How did Macedon did _not_ end up there. ^^'

Delenda Est released for A25 (an updated, even better release will come in the next few weeks with more fixes and more stuff for A25) https://0ad.mod.io/delenda-est Better Scouting released for A25 https://0ad.mod.io/better-scouting-mod Two-Gendered Citizens released for A25 https://0ad.mod.io/two-gendered-citizens Theban Greeks released for A25 https://0ad.mod.io/theban-greeks

I was thinking in something similar for differentiating civs in three main axles of categorization: "Barbarian civs" = Iberians, Gauls, Britons, Suebians, Xiongnu, Scythians, Huns, Yayois, Thracians, Dacians, Norse, Lusitanians, etc. *"Medium civs" = Greeks of all sorts, Macedonians, Ptolemies, Seleucids, Carthaginians, Kushites, Garamantians, Anglo-Saxons, Zapotecs, Judeans, etc. *(medium sized, medium lifespan, Kingdoms, City-states, "halfway civs") "Empire civs" = Romans, Persians, Indians, Chineses, Franks, Byzantines, Umayyads, etc. T1. Barbarian civs = No army camps or military colonies. Unlock civic centers in P2 (Cheaper civic centers). Can build storehouses, farms and farmsteads anywhere in the map. Also rely on small storehouses and resource wagons (for all resources). Few special buildings (No libraries). Can replenish their troops quickly (can train certain units like Celtic spearmen / Iberian spearmen / Scythian archers (and other equivalents, maybe naked fanatics for Gauls aswell) from houses after a certain technology). Don't require a technology for training women from houses. Can build docks anywhere in the map. Cheaper technologies. Small cheap houses that only grant 5 population bonus. Few mercenaries (and just ethnically / geographically related with them; Vettones, Batavians, Galatians, Celtiberians, Alans, Helvetii, Belgae celts, etc). Weak navy (more focused on transportation and confusing large ships) (more small cheap warships) (few exceptions like Norse). Tribal and more religious / healing technologies *based on Shamanism, Animism, Paganism, Tengrism, etc. Fortresses can just grant "Will to fight" technology and train heroes. More useful wonders. Few to no slaves. T2. Medium civs = Unlock military colonies and army camps in P2. Unlock civic centers in P3. Special buildings (Libraries, Gymnasium, Syssition, special temples, etc.). Medium sized houses that grant 10 population bonus. Can build docks only in terrains under territory influence (whether of military colonies, army camps or civic centers). More balanced navy (with some exceptions). Can build some small storehouses and resource wagons after P2 and after a certain technology. More mercenaries. More mercenary technologies. More useful fortresses (same as T1, but can also train the same units from military colonies and army camps after a certain technology). Have access to slaves. T3. Empire civs = Unlock military colonies and army camps in P2. Unlock civic centers in P3 and after an specific technology that extends 20% of territory effects for all buildings (more expensive civic centers, but a larger civic centers with more population bonus). Same special buildings as T2. More special buildings; academies, courts, senates, palaces, etc. Medium sized houses like in T2. Have access to larger sized (but more expensive) apartments with 20 population bonus in P2. More political units (senators, ministers, ambassadors, royalty, etc). Can build docks only in terrains under territory influence (whether of military colonies, army camps or civic centers). Can build some small storehouses and resource wagons after P2 and after a certain technology. Have more technological requirements and more expensive technologies. But also access to a wider variety; more political, economical and diplomatic technologies. Even more mercenaries. More useful fortresses (same as T1, but can also train both the same champion units from Barracks and mercenaries. Offer other forms of bonuses). Wide use of slavery. ***Of course, not all civs selected in each of these types should match perfectly and rigidly each of those descriptions (for example, Athenians should have access to their Platonic Academy, Huns should have a wider and richer selection of mercenaries, Mauryans should continue with their worker elephants, etc.). And there should be variety even in civs of the same type. But those axles could work instead as a form of classification for the main nature of each civ.

Hi everyone, I just uploaded a new video on my channel of you are interested. It's a commentary of an interesting 1v1 I had with @ValihrAnt two days ago (we both experimented not common civilization strategies) :))

Take 1 camel and he won't deal any damage to a woodline with 40 units working. Take 15 of them and they will be both annoying and lethal if microed well (they can kill a skirmisher in 1 shot and a spearmen in 2-3 seconds). In P2 if the enemy is booming (unless he is an archer civ) he has no units to counter them, and doing melee cavarly as counter takes at least 2 mins (stables+training time), so it's a good way to slow down the opponent

About formations: It seems you see that as a situation to avoid in-game, but this is exactly the kind of thing I would love to encounter in my games: the choice of battlefield having a heavy influence on the battle outcome. Forcing the opponent to follow you where they can not maintain the formation that is giving them the advantage sounds like an interesting tactical choice. Not following a fleeing army when you think they can lead you to an ambush is another interesting choice. If improving formations support in 0 A.D. can be the source of such choices, I’m all in favour of it

I think archer cavalry is a good unit. It is not supposed to deal a lot of damage: it's mostly and annoying unit which purpose is to keep the enemy idle and harass his wood/mineral eco. In my opinion it's not a unit that can win a battle, so while you train some of these archers to slow the enemy eco down you should train a strong army in the back (skirms, slings, sword cavs, or any units that deal much damage). In the 1v1 I showed in the video Vali had only archer and spearmen infantry in his base, which is why when I attacked him with merchenary units mixed to slingers and spearmen he had no counter to that. If he began to train skirmishers and maybe waited to have 10/15 cav archers before attacking me he could probably survive better my P2 attack.

I think it could be a special building, or even a ''cult statue''. But for the later i think this would be more fitting (Horse statue at Tongwancheng). For wonder Ovoo is a bit small and i think there are better options (Maybe a Kurgan grave, or something based on Tongwancheng) There is a pagoda who was built by a Xiognu ruler; but was later rebuilt in Qing dinasty and i am not sure how it looked before. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haibao_Pagoda_Temple

I feel that. In fact, I created a mod that aims at making formations less akward and more usable. Wasn't that a game where all units were always in formations (also soldiers wouldn't work or have an economic role)? It's hard to fit that into 0AD paradigm.

Please also make a patch for vanilla 0 A.D.

Correct, when testing the stronghold placement option, the mapgen(?) seems to place the teams at different distances (as shown in the provided mini-map) even though both game instances were run on medium map size. The thinking is that the player that would be positioned along the map border would be disadvantaged compared to the other positions. @Jammyjamjamman believes it has something to do with the randomness of math calculations? Not quite sure... Also, ran into an error after enabling the mod and restarting the game and entering into mod selection.

Phew, interesting topic with lots of ideas and discussions. After reading until here, I would like to ask whether some kind of "basic game" could be retained for beginners of 0 A.D., allowing them to first learn the game itself, and then give the option to later expand on the different possibilities that distinguished civs offer. I.e., do you plan to make these changes as an option or will they replace what we currently have? I hope for the former, but of course this is just a personal wish and might be too complicated to achieve. To my understanding, it all boils down to balancing. As long as it's fun to play with any civ, it's nice to have more pronounced "features", i.e. advantages/ disadvantages on some stats or because of specific units, but also some "specialties" that are not available yet, if realistic and historically correct enough. Would it make sense to have civs that have only 2 phases? Either they get the stuff from P3 already in P2, or they don't get (all) achievements from P3. Or could some civs take longer for certain things, only to be achieved in a P4? (which we currently don't have) Could certain achievements in a phase maybe only made after a civ has made contact (friendly or not) with another civ (i.e. to learn from it)? I assume that this happened in history, but right now I don't know of real examples/ sources of information. Furthermore, you might discuss whether there should be more differentiation of available formations among the civs, i e. some could have far less formations than now. I have some barbaric tribes in mind and am pretty sure that formations were not their outstanding capability. But maybe I'm wrong. Instead, they were good traders and, if thinking about Vikings, great sailors. I purposely have not mentioned an existing civ to give this rather as a vague example.

aI made a mod that implements my proposals on formations. I think the improvement is stark, here's a preview: Some detail: Assignment of units to formation places This is already very similar to the current algorithm, the only difference is point 3.2. I tried hard to introduce it, but, for simple that it sounds, I can't seem to make it work. Sorting the array doesn't seem to have any effect, I noticed it's always the same units that take the farther positions, those left out by the others. I'm attaching the js file with attemted edits. Also point 2 has seen an improvememt, similar to the one dealt in the next section. Rotation movement This had the greatest impact, in particular the second point. Makes formations a lot more usable I think. First point is dealt as in my last post of June 30. Column formation This was easiest. Not much to add about it. Further considerations and questions - I did quite some code refactoring, as much as I thought it would be acceptable. External use of some function may break, although it seems unlikely to me. - I'm not sure I respected coding conventions either. - Formations now don't get formed anymore in the mean direction of their members. - Browsing Formation.js history, I was startled noticing that actually my proposals are nothing new and already where in the engine some time ago (rP14292, rP14300). I'm not sure what to do with this information. - How is LoadFormation supposed to be used? - The only way to make formation turns more natural than this, is to change how entities turn around obstacles, so that they do not do it on position, but rather sliding around the corner as they turn. The improvement would be evident for formations, but would also be noticeable for rams and cavalry. I'm not sure where's the code for that. - I can keep making improvements if you like, my goal is to make formations good looking, and also reasonable even for competitive games, and I'd like my edits to go in the main game. (edit/clarification/license: I renounce to all rights on my work on the mod and agree to the legal disclaimer) Formation formation-mod-proposal.pyromod

I used to play almost solely 1v1s as I felt they are more competitive. Personally I don't enjoy games were 8 players boom, one is behind and his team loses because they are practically 3v4. I would not mind uploading the losses of my team, but as a bad team member I mostly feel that when my team loses it is because someone else let us down heavily (The game in which I wanted to delete 2 women and deleted 80 military units instead is one that I conveniently ignore). I also cast some interesting games on my youtube channel, but I don't envy casting long team games there. Neither do I want to overload @mysticjim e-mail. Recently I had some fun team games and I would like to upload some special strategies. I like to try some unconventional strategies, as just standard booming is just boring. A25 gives more room for full on cavalry aggression and that is a good thing. Game descriptions below if you are not afraid of spoilers: game2.zip game 3.zip Game 1.zip

Ey chill ! I will rush you more often then Expect different types: archer rush, javelin rush, swordsman rush, cavalry rush, P2 push, mercenary rush... all are good strategies for TG.

If I could afford cavlary, I would prioritise it before mercenary infantry for their superior HP values and manoeuvrebility. My approach to playing the Kushites would be using a mixture of archers, swordsmen, pikemen, elephants and cavalry. They allow for a variety of unit types and different strategies, and I would like to mix up different units so that I am prepared for anything that my enemy is planning for me. With that being said, I am not the expert at playing Kushites; I would much prefer to use the Macedonians, Romans and Spartans. I may upload a Youtube video detailing how I play with the Kushites if there is a demand for it. Christoffel-Symbol

Some extra info: Mainland TG in community maps is using the stronghold code that's currently in a25. Me and Jammy haven't modified it, just appropriating it. Only Frontier and Ambush have the stronghold option in a25 (that I know of).

Yes! Cavalry javelineers can be used to replace infantry javelineers. They are more cost efficient (in terms of wood) and offers more attack and health, so why not! If I get Kush, Carthage I will be using these as my main ranged force. About cavalry archers, they are only deadly in P1 and P2. In P3 it is hard to do damage with them but it is very effective at making your enemy ragequit

I use them a lot mostly in tgs when I play with kush/maury. Mixing them with regular spearmen is soo good They can be used for P2 rushes too

there is not, unless you autoqueue batches. There is a thread somewhere discussing that.

And that you have to use a formation. It doesn't work when not in a formation.

let me understand, you are proposing a sort of alternative move order (not quite simple move, not quite attack move) in which a formation moves forward until it gets in contact with the enemy, and then it stops to attack it? seems nice I think, but for how 0AD works, I don't see any other use than with Iphicrates, and even for him, not so much. If formation patrolling worked better, one could use that instead. could 0AD have soldiers moving and attacking in such ordered manner without that being penalising? I don't see how, but I honestly hope someone finds a nice way to make it.

^ lol both of you are better at rushing than booming... @LetswaveaBook @Player of 0AD Care to play a boom contest with me? Even if you can beat my build order, there is still Havran, ChillaOfVanilla, christoffel symbol, chrstgtr, berhudar, juarca and NoobDude to steamroller you in booming if you forget to rush them. So, rushing is great in A25 if you encounter any of these guys.

Indeed, they were, what I mean though is how you could dictate the way in which the formation would advance on the battlefield. This was particularly useful with the way the engine was set up to allow for cavalry charges and using collisions to a large degree. Not exactly 1:1, but there could be a way to use a combination of keys to change the behavior of the formation in battle. It would be similar to an attack move order. Probably easier to depict with simulated screenshots than in words. Again that's really just in case, from a coding perspective, that a group of units has to default back to "no formation" if you give them direct orders to attack something in particular. As I said in my OP in this thread that's the danger of people who don't know coding making suggestions. It really is a lot easier for us to say how we would like things to happen when we don't understand whether it is possible or not.

still continues

Another victory mode that uses these extra conditions is "victory by score" but I don't think it is super set with this mode, I think.

Replace mono-stoke with another font in these files. PlayerViewControl.xml, MenuButton.xml and BuildLabel.xml All default fonts are listed here: binaries/data/mods/mod/fonts

The fall of Rome...

Have time and patience.

Exactly.

Mythologie unit and gods

Idk. I guess I would have to try it out to find out how it works) fits into the game.

kind of. but pointless in the game.

kind of like in real life I would say. And you can attack them with ranged units while they retreat.

I'm not sure of what you mean. for Iphicrates' aura to work, units don't have to stay in the precise formation position. Note that if you leave some units that are in formation to fight, they will probably go out of place sometimes, but will come back to their places when they are done fighting. PS: if you take units in formation and order them to attack a target, they will leave formation, so you have to simply move them to the desired fighting position. you may use h key to stop them when you want them to attack immediately. also mind their stance (aggressive, defensive, etc.).

@AcanthisI'd like a neat fighting formation, but whenever my units were in formation I just wanted to turn it off immediately. So I don't even have the experience that I could give an as detailed feedback as yours.

By work I mean, basic pathfinding and keeping the formation. It is intensely frustrating to play as Athens, for example, and try to use Iphicrates' bonus because- even if you select a formation, say box, as the default- the game will constantly remove units within the control group from the formation and even cancel it for the entire group. You can be in the middle of a fight, not giving any commands, and the entire army goes out of formation and you instantly lose the bonus. Attempting to reform the formation causes losses and no damage is dealt during the mean time. Sometimes I can get the formation to "stick" but it takes a lot of micromanagement just to keep them that way. This shouldn't be the case at all. Otherwise, units get stuck constantly when in formation and turn into sitting ducks while units not in formation wipe them out. Formations offer almost zero advantages, unless you want to use them for cavalry in order to force them into their run speed to escape a situation (which requires a bit of micro and, lets be honest, isn't the function of a formation feature at all and should rather be more of a "charge" or "increase speed at the expense of stamina" feature). If formations would "work" by allowing the units in the formation to move smoothly and not get hung up constantly, then you could look at buffs and debuffs like maroder mentioned. At the moment, adding any bonuses to one formation type or another would just be an exercise in frustration given how buggy the current feature is. Once formations simply work, then adding those bonuses and play testing with mods would be one way to iterate which ideas were good on paper and which ones are terrible.

that's reasonable, but any opposing army could just retreat where there is not enough space for a formation to move, and thus be invulnerable to them, until they leave formation. from there in the narrow, they could keep showering projectiles at the formation.

just some ideas: they could stay in formation, but only the soilders from the formation can attack that are in range of the enemy. They get an increase in armor, but also a slower movent speed. For the testudo: makes the formation invulnerable to pierce damage, but they canot attack

surprising (to me at least) how @Dizaka was using autoqueue for making women in the cc at the start of the game.

If formations were working there would be a lot of room for differentiation based on how the units are moved around the battlefield. On a separate note, more support units like trumpets, drums, flag/standard bearers, supply wagons, etc would be another way to further change how civs are played. An elephant in the room is that people want to play sometimes vastly different games. For some, they want the game to be over and done with within 20 minutes, some even less. Others might enjoy longer games. Some want a deathmatch with boundless resources. Perhaps a further refinement of the game types available would be one way to branch off the different ideas. I wouldn't want to split the community too much, but like with all games there are different "groups" who play a certain way that don't quite understand how other people can have fun doing something else (like not taking advantage of every last disparity between units and civs). Personally, as someone who has studied ancient civilizations in an academic setting and into my adult life, I'd like to see more attention paid to things like formations, defenses, economics, logistics. From this perspective, terrain and strategy should account for more than it currently does. Ideally there would even be seasonal changes within the game which affect the pace of the match (in the eastern Mediterranean the summer was the fighting season and the winter was farming, in part due to temperature/precip patterns but also due to changes in wind and seaworthiness of the vessels at the time). That said, I don't need free open source Total War clone: the current game is still a lot of fun, I simply find that there are a lot of elements of this game and its genre that haven't been pushed forward much lately. It is too easy of course for someone without coding ability to say what would be nice or not, so I leave this here not to say this game isn't playable, but rather as a general wish to see some refinement on the above.

Skiritai. They're your fast flankers and ranged-infantry killers (give them extra pierce armor, with less hack armor), while the Spartiates are your tanks who kill melee things (uber hack armor).

Just came to say Hi, and to recommend you guys to check this show...If you are in to history ,adventures, sword fights, politic, espionage, war, romance, mysticism, culture, traditions, Templar Knights, Mongols, Nomads, Saracens, Byzantines, Crusaders, This is the SHOW... The series was made by Turkey, and its production quality is 5 stars, I have been following the show, and I'm in love with it...I thought it was so good that I should share it here with all of you guys. Hope you enjoy it as much as I did....By the way, I keep polishing the Empires at War scenario and will publish it as soon as I feel is right for launch. Thank you all for your time and attention.

A bunch of videos on nuclear energy

I played them last night against Norse. (Easy win spanning dozens of archers). Really cool civ. And most of the buildings seem also "game ready". I hope to see one day this faction in the official game. Congratulations

Keep in mind that building the Syssiton itself is an expense; supposing that there was no batch training possible and Spartans had something like a sixty second training time, I would hardly call that a completely broken mechanic. This could be coupled with their champions having reduced stats that improve with each subsequent phase. Making them spawn from the Civic Centre would make the Syssiton a redundancy, an unideal outcome. My point is that Spartans should be able to viably have Spartans at the beginning of the game in a way that is not a massive opportunity cost. Keep in mind that we are talking merely hypothetically, and calling such a mechanic either weak or overpowered is a false dichotomy without further experimentation.

1 vs 4 VH PetraAI on lower Nubia random map: "Iberia With gallic mercenaries vs the last city of Ptolemies" commands.txtmetadata.json

Hi everyone, just came to tell everyone that I love 0 AD Editor, because of all the amazing Artistic sceneries that can be made with it. When I downloaded this game few months ago , I did it because I saw a Video presenting the best 10 open sources game in the world, with a visual showcase of all the games, and 0 AD was the top of the bests... As soon as I saw it... I came looking for it in a heart beat and downloaded.... Then I start exploring it and found the editor, and decide to play with it and my girlfriend came, and saw what I was doing, She never saw the little soldiers nor the castles and buildings. Only the beautiful landscape textures, and the millions of combinations that can be done to mimic reality with the editor, while I was absolutely in a trance, playing with the editor.... Then I show her the little roman soldiers, and all the other factions, their buildings, characters, the fauna....and start talking to her about the history of the age in a generic way.... And she as me fell in love with the age the game represent and all the amazing things that can be done with the Atlas engine....and suggest me the idea of making a map of Europe and the Mediterranean Sea with all the factions and cities, stiles of fauna, landscapes, to put colors, trees, make them look cool, give love to all the templates, combine them, play with them, try to make that world you are making as beautiful as you can possibly do, and beyond by pushing its Atlas editor engine to as much as you can get from it, IF YOU CAN! ...And more, if you have the time.... The experience of making a world with this engine is a mystical experience...I do really love the job you all have done...and I mean it...I have been sharing this pictures with a very few people, AFTER A POST KIDNAPPING i DID BY ACCIDENT...with no bad intentions...for real!....And I don't want to be the uncoolest guy around you guys... But I do really think, that I must share them with you all. In order to let you know you are not alone, please.. Share your pictures here too...let me see what you got, made, create....Any Good mod to recommend me??? Please let me know , so others as well, feel welcome to share them here with me, so anyone that show up in this post, so they know about too... Because, guys, at the end, this 0 AD universes is not only made to be played...but is also about giving us all...a chance to create something visually artistic, and fun to play with, have a good time. A lovely hobby to be part off. There are millions of beautiful landscapes possibilities of combinations, that can be created , by cobining templates, and playing with the low terrain and hight terrain tool... Anyone that loves visual art, specially artist or artistic oriented people, creative people, ( if they happen to be History lovers, the better,) will fall in love with 0 AD, and it's an outstanding editor engine. My scenario will never ever be as beautiful as I would like it to be visually...but I do really, hope it inspires all you modDers, map and scenario makers, so 0 AD fans like me...To make your own, and make them beautiful to look at, and fun to play in them...SHARE THEM... please, if any of you have great picks with outstanding scenery, OR A GREAT MOB SUGGESTION... Share them here, tell me why, let me know....Let all share....and play....after all, at the end....that is why we are all here, surviving the madness of the outside world of this age, Playing 0 AD while listening at this....Long Live 0 AD! Thank you guys!