Leaderboard

Commas are important people! SCNR

I was inspired! and for reference

Heading off the topic, we'll get told off if we have too long a discussion on it, but... This whole business of discriminating against the concept of an 'Alpha' version - I know this is purely semantics, but if alpha has such poor connotations, why not drop it? Just call it Version 25 or release 25? We all know what it actually means, and we all know the game is and has been fully playable for literally years.

Ty Wow. Well, in this case i do agree with your previous statement. A decision should be made to either go Hard battalions or no battalions. The current builds seem to favor no battalion, since it would be the easiest to implement, considering the framework already in place. The current formation system seems more useful as a positioning tool rather than a marching or fighting tool. Also eveytime i set a group in formation and send them to collect resources, some of those units just remain idle. This doesn't happen when i take them out of formation (so i tend to set Formation Control to Walk/Patrol only, since this is where it seems more useful). One of the problems with hard battalions is how they would interact with the fact that militiary units can also build and collect resources. One idea might be to make battalions a champion exclusive feature (like they have propper military training and such). This way we can have both systems and they won't mess with each other. In any case, ty for the explanation Wow.

it was on display for a long time. The normies of the gamer world will not understand our updates. Usually our changes are gigantic and nobody knows about it. Many youtubers expect us to announce a beta, not a new Alpha. They rule out making gameplay thinking that they are minimal changes.

Hard Battalions are something like Battle for Middle Earth 2. Some people use Total War games as an example, but I don't like using that example because it comes with a kind of anti-bias. Battle for Middle Earth 2 is a perfect example, because it's an RTS game where you still have resource collection and base building in real time. Basically, soldiers are trained, live, fight, and die all in a battalion. You don't have to manually form the battalion or create a scheme where battalions are auto-formed somehow. They just are battalions from the beginning. They stay close together and fight in formation. They also fight other battalions because the enemy is using the same system. Your soldiers don't roam around and break formation chasing individual enemy soldiers or units. -------------------------------------------------------------- Soft Battalions are what I like to call any scheme where you add battalions and formations as a layer on top of the typical RTS combat method. Your soldiers are largely still individual units who are/can be trained individually and then the "battalion" is applied later, either by the game automatically or by the player. And then the battalion can be broken and reformed and broken again, either by the player or the game. This is pretty much how Rise & Fall: Civilizations at War did it and how it currently is in 0 A.D.'s dev repo. If anyone disputes these definitions, please discuss. -------------------------------------------------------------- Why do I prefer Hard Battalions? I think Soft Battalions add unnecessary steps and additional complexity over a Hard Battalions system, when such systems are supposed to reduce unnecessary management. The current 0 A.D. implementation also tries to split hairs and still allows the battalions to devolve into mosh pit fighting. This is what happened in Rise & Fall too. Your battalions look all nice and neat standing still, but once combat happens everything looks exactly the same as if you never even created a battalion, but with the added frustration of having to hotkey your units out of the battalion to micro-target the enemy (because the enemy too is moshing, not fighting formation-to-formation). Even if it was made that once your soldiers are placed into a battalion that they start acting like a BfME2 or TW battalion, it's still an unnecessary step. And then you have to decide how to reconcile that your units are fighting in battalions and your enemy has decided to forgo battalions and mosh his units at you; how is targeting done in this instance? Again, unnecessary complications. Just make hard battalions so you have battalion-to-battalion combat. See: My BfME2 video I posted above.

@Radiotraining You'll need to add it to the builder list in "templates/mixins/builder.xml". Just having the structure doesn't mean a villager knows how to construct it. ^^

People want battles. People want formations to mean something. People want Delenda Est.

Related changeset: rP25458 - Allow decaying only in enemy territory. (18/May/21) Proposed patch to add it to more structures: D4339 - [Gameplay] Expand the number of structures that do not decay in neutral territory. (10/Nov/21)

let me know if anything else is needed

Since the princess has an escort solder, I added a second tent, so to not anger her new husband when they arrive and he only sees one tent.

I'm strongly in favor of calling the release after a26 beta... I guess the devs don't see it as a polished game yet, and a lot can be done, of course. But seeing that corporations publish unfinished - or even unplayable - versions, I don't think we have to be overly modest. Just call it beta, still leaves all freedom and yet signifies progress.

There are some cases where they help, but I generally don't use them. An example is: your skirmishers are being rushed from the side by javelin cavalry, so your melee are no longer magnetically attracting all their fire. In this case you choose "box" to bring the melee to form a ring around your ranged units which temporarily makes them invincible (so long as the melee are alive).

From the graph, the reduction in production happened in 2020 and that was before Biden entered office, and I guess it was due to the pandemic's first outburst in the USA in March 2020.

How about allowing Roman military camps to be built in allied territory and allowing them to recruit troops that your allies have? its a purely team based bonus, but maybe something unique to consider for team games. I like the idea of hastati having a pilum attack, but I think for the sake of simplicity it should simply be treated like how maiden guard can switch between sword or bow. I think again this was done in Delende Est. And I think it can also be justified historically because most combat in 0 AD is taking place in or around a supply base. So infinite pila is not unreasonable. I would take it one step further and maintain the original unit stats, so you have what is essentially a heavier skirmisher but it moves slower and can fight in melee if required. This is I think would be a good way to capture the essence of early Roman legionaries while keeping it nice and simple. And the code has already been done in Delende Est so its available for use in this regard, just needs tweaking

I never play with formations, all my experiences have been terrible. Really caught me off guard when auto formations were added with a25 version. (WHY?) They currently don't help with fighting, they harm marching and gathering. Historically CS had military training and were fighting in formations. I'd prefer if there was an other way to repair formations than making it champ exclusive.

Right now, all spear units have a mix of attack values, with both pierce and hack damage. If you just give them hack damage and remove the pierce damage they give, then re-adjust the armor values of cavalry, you can make spear units better against cavalry by default. It should be thus: Cavalry Low hack armor (vulnerable against melee units) Spear cav are the anti-cav cavalry, bonus attack vs. cavalry (in DE this is reversed, but let's not argue anymore about this, I'm just going with EA's counter scheme) Since spear infantry have their piece attack given back to hack attack, spear infantry are now a natural counter to cavalry High pierce armor (strong against ranged units) Combined with fast speed, should make short work of ranged infantry High crush armor Ranged Infantry Low hack armor (vulnerable against fast melee units, such as melee cav) They should melt away against any melee unit that reaches them Their range and pierce attack should help keep melee infantry at bay, but melee cavalry close the gap too quickly and massacre them Medium pierce armor (good at dueling other ranged units, but not great) Low crush armor (vulnerable against splash damage from catapults, eh hem) Melee Infantry High hack armor (good at dueling other melee units; resistant against melee cav) Pierce armor Medium for spear Infantry Low for sword Infantry Sword infantry are the anti-infantry infantry, bonus attack vs. infantry Medium crush armor I mean, we can quibble with exact values, but something like that^

Even at this time Catholic Romanism has not been consolidated. It is until the time of the Merovingians. The cultural underdevelopment after the fall of the Roman Empire is abysmal, It will recover in elite sectors, the monks will save the Greek and Latin tradition from the barbarians. There will be no knowledge for the people until the Protestant Reformation, schooling will fall (literacy) it will not be available until the people's universities in Protestant countries. For most of the Middle Ages, knowing how to read will be a matter exclusively for the nobility. Feudalism brought a culture of ignorance, serfs are relegated to being peasants, the Middle Ages are totalitarian states, in Europe. Contrast to the ancient age not because of religion, but because of the clergy, science and knowledge become a monopoly. In Judaism it is clear that studying Torah you need to read despite having rabbis.

Well, they have the same health as spear cav. IMHO, a problem is the armor. Honestly, I'd revamp cavalry entirely, but that's none of my business.

This is a good approach. In fact, if I were to "redesign" the mod, then I would narrow the focus a lot. Focus it around the Byzantines, like how the base game's center is the Romans. So, your civs would be the Byzantines, Umayyads, Bulgars, and maybe 1 more civ. (I'm just spit balling here, Avars perhaps; I'm not well-versed in the year 1000 AD). I'd have 2 branches of the mod: standard and experimental. The standard version of the mod is the base-game compatible version. The experimental version would do things like add a Religion system, Religious Relics, Jihad, Economics, etc. The experimental version would have the standard version as a dependency. So, you'd put all of your focus on the standard version, and then any experimental stuff you want to try is a smaller side mod.

I would like to understant this distinction. What is the general idea behind a "soft" battalion and a "hard" battalion? Is the current formation system considered a form of soft battalion or no battalion?

Yup, I think that the princess camp, could call it diplomatic mission or so, is a very nice incentive in team games. For the sake of some playing around, here the current capabilities for this weak building. Don't worry @Stan, the princess is deactivated in master branch, but merged in for eventual use if required.

Aye.

I like this, choosing your ground is important and it makes the map more than just eye candy. So many real battles were decided by terrain

Why do sword cavalry have such high health? Cavalry is all about mobility and a strong attack. Its weakness should be cost and low health - there are limits how much armour that you can put on a horse and it makes a big target.

@Radiotraining

0 A D it always appears on these lists.

Commm on man!! it was a casual comment in the meme page, it wasn't to trigger anyone ahahaha easy!

Guys, the Princess Camp is a fantasy element that takes the civ so far removed from the other civs that you jeopardize their inclusion.

Then People choices war. Nice slogan.

All right, finally! Thanks for not giving up, mr.michael. And, thanks to farabundo and guerringuerrin for translating to/from Spanish for mr.michael and me yesterday. "It won't load" apparently meant "I can't find the OOS_dump.dat and OOS_dump.txt files". After I posted instructions on where to find the files (AppData\Roaming), mr.michael said that he was finally able to find them and send them to the devs. Also, user1 sent me a PM confirming that he received the OOS dump files from mr.michael. It helps to have a positive confirmation, thanks. The next step is waiting for the files to be analyzed by Silier and user1.

@nifa, minor problem with the map. Could you have a look at @Langbart's comments on PR 21 please and let us know what you'd suggest...

Follow the instructions in this thread and you might get your points one day:

@Norse_Harold this i found matchsettings.mp.zip matchsettings.zip

The mechanics are simple, you probably missed it. The Imperial Ministry produces the princess unit(catafalque). The princess can only upgrade to a princess camp in allied or enemy territory. The princess camp has an aura for ally and enemy each(wip), produces females and princess. You can only have one princess until you upgrade her to camp, which let you build one new princess. The princess camp can be upgraded to a CC if one imperial court exists and the fiefdom tech is researched. The idea was, that this could be the only means of the Han to expand.

Hello. Try turning off the "TLS encryption" in the settings (Networking/Lobby).

ideas that I found over there ... http://news.everychina.com/wz419452/han_dynastic_diplomacy.html https://www.chinafetching.com/princess-jieyou-and-feng-liao

I think the problem lies in planning too much stuff ahead that risk to derail a project. That's why I chose to focus on 3 civs for the moment, just to have a clear goal -relatively- manageable. Bear in mind that I have zero experience with modding. I just launched this idea just a few days ago and now I'm trying to figure out the rest. So even making a single civ could be an incredible accomplishment to me! So I would stick with some limited goals for now. This is to give some context. But again, the civs I chosen to focus on are completely arbitrary: I just picked up some interesting/influential ones that were already planned to be included in the mod somehow. So they surely can be discussed, if it's the case! For example, I was considering to switch the Avars with the Bulgarian Kingdom, since it had close contact with both Byzantine and Russian empires, so it could fit coherently with the rest. But I don't know. If you have knowledge about this one it would be incredibly helpful to plan it out, in case! Although I would say that if you want to pick a specific civ and take care of its details, feel free to do so and we'll see how to implement it. But in general, future civs could be added later, only after the first goals are accomplished. Otherwise it's a bit too much.

@Lion.KanzenFor requests, I think the best way would be to open per-map tickets on the community maps 2 repo. I wasn't really planning to start taking requests... I just saw alre's message and figured I could make a quick fix. But... yes feel free to open a ticket on the repo if you notice a map that you'd like to see improved and me or someone else may do something with it.

v2.psd

Spread around the wood base or above the roof?

i was confused wich one was the swords so i've made both style

Will make sack's of flour/wheat for use them in prop points, and i don't know if they had a blacksmith but instead i will make a wood carver as the barrack with some big yurt with bows and quivers around also, i think i will need the new horse mesh and skeleton that will be used with the cavalry update for place them with prop points around the yurts or the yurt with wheels.

Some weapons of the Xiongnu: Bronze head of a meteor hammer. It is basically the same thing as a sling, but instead of releasing the cord and let the sling-bullet fly out, you tied a rope to the bullet/mace head and fling the entire thing, including the rope itself. It is much more expensive than your typical sling, but also significantly more deadly due to being made out of dense metal. Has no direct relation to the fancy modern kung fu meteor hammer. All-metal iron javelin similar to Iberian soliferrum. The one depicted in this photo is actually a Han Chinese example (Chinese also used iron javelin), but Chinese source mentions that Xiongnu also use it. It is apparently thrust/thrown at close range. Xiongnu knives and swords. Their daos are more or less identical to Han Dynasty daos, but they had their own style of double-edged sword (jian). Their spears and halberds are also identical to the Han Chinese ones. Xiongnu did occasionally fought as infantry. One of the bow discovered at Xinjiang, China. Based on brick sculpting and this artifact, Xiongnu bow is almost identical to the type known to the West as Scythian bow. Xiongnu also used plenty of bronze maces, a characteristic weapon of the nomads. Apparently some Chinese-style crossbow mechanisms also turn out in grave finds, but its use must be extremely rare. Armor Although Han records mention that Xiongnu were armored with wooden armor at best, grave finds indicate that they used bronze scale armor and iron lamellar armor. No complete suit survived, unfortunately. Shield Some Chinese brick sculptures depict Xiongnu cavalry armed with shield, but we know next to nothing about them. Also look at his prominent nose.

These are all good. I need all of them now, including these:

Type B set - Link https://www.dropbox....l9/B%20type.rar Type C : i did type C set plain vesion? how plain?