Leaderboard

- archers are good for provoking a fight from a distance, but they are not actually good for fighting, never commit to a fight with archers alone - when fighting against pikes, it's worth using swordsmen instead of spearmen, in any case, you need a share of your army to be melee fighters. If you don't have good ranged units (archers are the worst ones in this alpha) just use melee. - everybody give me a like if @BreakfastBurrito_007 comes here proposing to add attack ground to the game

Hello modders, I am artoo, dev of artix linux, and have started the han china standalone mod some time ago. Despite my rather limited time for a game, I chose to register an account, since the communication on Github is rather non existent. Reason for the thread, I am looking for testers of the current master branch and thus hopefully feedback. I was also hoping to reach m7600, and if these nice new models for fortress, walls and the big tower could be added. I am basically a coder, not really skilled with images and 3D arts. Aim of the Han mod is to have a very polished, complete and unique faction, that might be included in the main game as far as I know. For that to happen, in my view, there are some open tasks, just to name nice rice fields as one. I could coordinate the development of the mod, if required, until inclusion is the offer. Happy testing. https://github.com/0ADMods/han_china

This is an attempt for an hellenic shrine for maps with biome: mediterranean / temperate I tried both the small temple and the ruins, just to get an idea how it could look like I attached some of the reference images I used

Lion.Kanzen's explanation is usually correct, however a more precise definition is that the hardness of a counter is determined by the ratio of cost effectiveness of the counter-unit/composition against the thing it is intended to counter. A soft counter requires nearly equal resources to be invested for a counter to be effective, while for a hard counter a small investment in the counter unit can shut down a much larger investment from the opponent. The dividing line between soft and hard counter depends on context, so it is a little tricky to try to generalize a dividing line. But if you are spending less than 75 resources on your counter for every 100 the opponent spends then you are probably talking about a hard counter. If you spend more than 80 for every 100 you are probably talking about a soft counter. I don't want to give the impression that designing a game around soft counters is bad. Soft counters give a certain amount of inertia to proceedings, which gives players more time to consciously strategize. They also lend much more weight to economic activities, which makes the game accessible and "fair." However, when a game is under active development, soft counters have one huge disadvantage: they are susceptible to perturbation. When the margin of victory is small, it is easy to unintentionally reverse the direction of a counter just as a consequence of small mechanical changes; for instance by making a unit slightly faster, or introducing a rotation delay, or changing the speed, range, or accuracy of projectiles. That can cause the metagame to completely rearrange in unintended ways with each patch and makes life very difficult for whoever is supposed to be in charge of the balance design. Sound familiar?

It gets worse. The pathfinder doesn't see the 3rd dimension, which presents quite a big problem when bridges involve having terrain that cannot be represented as planes. (see shallow water river and bridge above that for simple case). I guess this can be workaround by having alternate grids. But that sounds like something you should not be doing. A* itself doesn't care about grids or planes. It traverses weighted graphs. So, the proper solution would probably be implementing full 3D pathfinding. If properly done, this would even allow having non-planar terrain, such as caves, overhanging cliffs and whatnot.

Hi guys. I first wanted to offer my experience to help with historical matters, especially with regard to Hellenic history. I have 3 years of experience studying Hellenology and Byzantinism and have attended the Hellenic Studies Symposium 2018, I am also responsible for "Greco-Roman Relations in Classical Antiquity" at Wikipedia having made many contributions to "Byzantine tactics", "Hellenization in the Byzantine Empire", "Byzantine Army", "Byzantine War Manuals" and many other articles regarding Medieval Hellenic history. I would be more than happy to help in any way. I have experience in helping and giving historical guidance for the Total War Attila mod "1204" both in aspects of military design (decorations, patterns, armor, tactics, formations, ect) and to explain the mechanisms of the Byzantine state. (I also have extensive knowledge of Byzantine art and architecture).

This is very good, i believe that a good foundation of conceptual art helps a lot in the creation of 3d models, which in the end is the biggest bottleneck for creating a civ. There are key buildings like barrack, cc, houses, towers, fortress and economic buildings. This makes it easier for a 3d artist to dedicate a week. Alias Congratulations on the initiative.

It would be cool if there was an option to select your hero when playing a regicide game. I recently played regicide on a water map and chose the Athenians, hoping I would get the naval Hero. I didn't. I am no programmer but I've thought of 2 selection ideas: Select from the Game Lobby. Allow to instantly produced from the Civic Center when in Regicide game mode. I don't know which is harder to program. Thanks for reading

I understand people cursing in private lobbies, but then having them publicly Visible for all ages isn't safe would reccomend a profanity filter for servers/games like there is in chats

I would like to have "random" and "unknown" map selection of skirmish maps, just as we currently do with "random maps." Because skirmish maps are designed based on number of players, the randomization would have to only select from maps matching the number of players in the game. "Why?" It would be fun to have unpredictable maps for players used to "random maps," which have more standardized starting resources. "Why don't you just pick a skirmish map and invite someone to play?" My impression is that people aren't as familiar with skirmish maps and might feel like they are walking into a trap if they believe the host has practiced on the particular map. Overall, this may encourage playing on these maps. They are pretty cool!

tell them this species was smaller.

:DD

At least your country was not defeated by birds, that is a plus xd

I assume that the majority here will agree that retreating is a skill (when microing your units) and should not be automated. And while I'd be ok with not having to kill each and every unit of a civ to defeat it, I also wouldn't want my units to convert to the enemy. Complete genocide is just the standard/default, although other modes are possible.

Well I was hoping to give some advice about the Byzantine military equipment and the architecture that the mod employs. But first, if it were possible I would like to know in what years approximately the mod takes place.

excellent.

@user1 My lobby name: Beaugoux Offender: Karin_ashx commands.txt

My name: Obaky Offender: emapis metadata.json commands.txt

What do you think about implementing a feature where units can build bridges across water? They'd have to be built on the shore of one piece of land and connect to the shore of another piece of land. Then they would of course block ship passage, but like other buildings, they can be destroyed by the enemy. The bridges would have to be wide enough for infantry to cross, and not be too narrow as to create a bottleneck that would cause game lag. Perhaps the bridges would contain areas where infantry could be garrisoned and fire arrows.

@guerringuerrin new version up. Bug fixed.

Hey, thank you very much! ^^ Yes, that's my hope! I wanted to give some contribution in the project and I thought this could be the most readily way I can help! Meanwhile I can try to learn a bit of all the rest and putting some ideas on paper is also a good motivation to do so!

Can confirm the bug, seems setting non English language triggers it. Will try to fix.

Yeah sure. I'm hoping someone can help us implement some kind of friction in C++. I suppose there is a way to add it without adding a big number of range checks which is what auras do. https://code.wildfiregames.com/rP25182 <- Pushing https://code.wildfiregames.com/rP25219 <- MSVC Warning https://code.wildfiregames.com/rP25686 <- OOS Fix. https://code.wildfiregames.com/rP25708 <- Configurable pushing https://code.wildfiregames.com/rP25747 <- Pushing glitch https://code.wildfiregames.com/rP25748 <- Unit pushing: fix pairs of unit being allowed to overlap. I'm not sure about the terminology, but I think what is implemented is static pushing. 08:41 < wraitii> Well Ideally we'd implement a weight-per-template & static-moving pushing

that is not really an aura, I forced into one because I couldn't put it into the engine. I originally designed it to be into the engine aside unit pushing.

Something like this? Related ticket: #6150 - Increasing the maximum camera zoom in normal game mode (16/Apr/21) It is possible to set it up via your user.cfg file. Check the 6th item in the wiki/FAQ#General.

considering performance I think its not a good idea to attach an aura to every single unit. the other values could of course be tweaked.

AoE-IV Agreed when adding the cruise missiles.

A French report says that an entire grid with nuclear production (mixed with 50/50 nuclear/renewable) is much cheaper than 100% renewable or 87% renewable. Including the construction cost, waste management cost and decommission cost.

They don't stop for such small angles. The current <InstantTurnAngle> for units in general (not ships or siege) seem to be 1,5 (i think radians) so about 86 degrees. Which means that any angle below that they should behave the same as A25 (if i'm getting this right).

Hi! I was reading the diff and i have a question and a few observations. Question: What is the main goal of introducing acceleration? (is it to bring unit movement closer to reality or to smooth out movement in sharp angles or something else?) Observations: They way acceleration seems to work in the code is: A variable in defined in the templates called <InstantTurnAngle>. For any turn angles smaller than this variable, movement is the same as in A25. For values bigger than this angle (sharp angles), the unit is completely stopped (speed = 0) and then accelerates towards the new direction (while turning). It seems that this because of this sudden stop (which can happend quite a lot in the battlefield) movement seems jank and slow. So, in order to balance out the mechanic it seems that the variables at our disposal are: WalkSpeed RunSpeed InstantTurnAngle Acceleration And this Speed = 0 when The angle is bigger than InstantTurnAngle. ================================================ I don't have the SVN, so i can't test this out myself, but maybe that speed = 0 thing is the culprit for the current behaviour and setting it to something like Speed = WalkSpeed/2 might be a good compromise. Again can't be sure.

I want to try this with Elephants. On a serious note, if the feature makes movement seem more realistic and smooth, it is the way to go. Then after that comes balancing. What I felt in A24 is that: 1: I never made a diff, so nothing really changed. If you want a change, it seems being able to make a diff is very useful. 2: Unit pathing was overhauled, but there was no balance testing after that. So something was implemented and "the balance team"(if such a team existed) wasn't aware of the consequences. Now that skirmishers have good pathing, they are OP and my view is that archers were OP in A24 because other units lacked good pathing.

Seriously, again? Wasn't this the primary thing that made about half the player base quit last time? All that aside, doing massive changes like this break the progress made in balancing units

Macedonia 45 - Nightmare (323 BC) Alexander is in trouble. His skin is burning up, head is raging with internal fire and strife. As he lay dying, in his mind there is one final battle to be fought. The landscape is desolate, covered in fire and ash. The sea is red and full of blood. All his enemies have gathered against him -- from the Spartan rebels, to the city of Tyre, and all the way to India. His only allies are the people who greeted him like a living God -- the land of Egypt. Will he prevail? Only you will find out. AI Settings: Player 8 (Doom Guard) should be set to Sandbox. For the rest of the players use a difficulty of your choice. For casual game play, set your Ally to Hard or Very Hard and your Enemies to a combination of Easy and Medium difficulties. You can also gift units to your ally. Simply move them to the little palisade pen and they will switch ownership. Your ally may also gift units to you as well.

I agree Thanks for finishing my work! Suggestion for polishing the map with some hand editing in Atlas: make texture distribution more natural less sand in Brittany, north western France, Poland and Balkan more sand in northern Africa / Sahara replace full snow in the Atlas mountains with rocky/snowy mixture (there are no real glaciers in the Atlas mountains like in the Alps) break up repetitive texture patterns by replacing uniform texture areas with a combination of 2-3 different textures Atlas mountains plains of Spain, middle and eastern Europe adjust shoreline at some critical areas according to real world maps: eradicate lakes in northern Africa and in Brittany a bit more land in northern Italy (Venice area) / make north western Adriatic Sea a bit smaller a bit more land in eastern Brittany some fine tuning of the western and northern French coast, and Belgium/Netherlands/Germany coastline add more flora and fauna apart from the woods maybe add treasures and/or special objects like stone quarries (the new ones features in Delenda Est)

I agree that the addition of some high quality scripted campaigns will be a great boon to 0 AD's value propositions. However, I must point out that in the RTS space, single player scripted (ie campaign) content has only a weak relationship to long term playability. For a lot of serious RTS players, a campaign is only something they might try for a few days (or hours) to get a taste of gameplay. Others might beat all the campaign content over the course of a few weeks then never touch it again. I think it is a only a small minority who find enjoyment in replaying campaign content repeatedly for the duration of their engagement. So let's not lose focus on the real reason Bad Player raised this (IMO very legitimate) complaint: 0 AD has a shallow core gameplay loop. There needs to be more diversity between civilizations. There needs to be more diversity between units. The game needs to have some mechanics-based hard counter cycles so that not every battle is decided by marginal differences in unit numbers or strength that are mostly attributable to the snowballing of minor decisions and tactical blunders from 10 minutes ago. Otherwise the game is too easily "solved" and most players will lose interest almost as soon as they have a taste of mastery (e.g. within 6 months). As for why some people might stick around longer: I would posit the main reasons are they become invested in the drama of the game's development. In some ways I think the evolution of 0 AD's metagame and design philosophy is a much more interesting strategic sandbox than the game itself. Others might be fanatic devotees of FOSS and have literally nothing better they can stomach to play.

That's also true. Good observation. Another aspect about units that can be improved (in my opinion) is the hard differences between each type of unit. For example, spear units are so weak against infantry compared to sword units. And, as much as it's appreciable to have differences between units, I think the disparity shouldn't be so wide, because it makes the game a bit too mechanic and less creative. Another example is about destroying buildings. Units are a tad too weak on destroying any building and this also force you to use the same predictable mechanic of relying on siege units before any attack. So this again makes the game a bit too linear. Just my impression, but I haven't played much the most recent update, so things may be different by now I defer to more expert players to find the right balance in these micro differentials

Hello everyone! After reading the whole thread i have two doubts i want to share with u. 1- Didn't find autociv option to disable blood to test performance. Am I missing something or this option its only available with No Blood And Gore Mod by @Stan` (https://0ad.mod.io/no-blood-and-gore-mod). 2- Autociv's autoassign civ its not working properly in my 0ad. If u say Gauls u take Spartans, If u say Iber u take Seleúcids. I've already installed a fresh version of 0ad with Autociv and Boongui Only. I download autociv v25.2.3 from github (https://github.com/nanihadesuka/autociv) and still having this error. I wonder if there's something related to 0ad native lengauge (spanish in my case). I'll be glad to change it my self but there's no editable file in the mod (ofc, autociv.pyromod its already compiled). Maybe is there a fix for this I didn't see or I can only fix it compiling new version from sourcecode. I hope u can understand my poor English. TY

Is that in texas?

Stan origins, lol.