Leaderboard

I strongly agree with this: it's an interesting idea on paper, but quite impractical in the gameplay. I wouldn't rely on this mechanic for an important set of extra units, also because it doesn't happen easily to have the chance to conquer a barracks, rather than the CC and all the core buildings while in the enemy's territory. And in those cases, in a 1v1 setting, you would end the game before even having the chance to get new units. So I think there should be also a "regular" way to get them, by extra techs or buildings.

I think you full well know that the Soviet Union was not what Marx had in mind.

Political discussions alway tend to digress and turn into a fight but if this discussion continues to be insulting and demeaning I will close it.

While I could agree on the mentally handicapped part I don't know why you need to call Drumpf a girl. Donald Trump has described climate change as "a hoax," but petitioned to build a wall to protect one of "the greatest golf courses in the world" in Ireland from rising sea levels.

Getting rid of 1% of the pop could do a lot for the climate. https://gettotext.com/oxfam-study-claims-the-super-rich-are-the-ecological-vandals/

(That should be fixed in SVN.)

I mean, they don't help a lot during battles, but i find them pretty useful before one, to get my melee troops in the front and archers in the back before i attack-move. Otherwise my ranged troops tend to be in the front, since they are faster.

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

Buenos días /Buenas tardes; -(posibles)Textura escudos para "Auxiliares Vettones"; Unidades y referencias de unidades y escudos; Disculpen las molestias*

I was always puzzled what would determine which civ could build colonies; after all, most of our civs spread over at least one (sub-)continent or more? I just learned the other day (from a youtube vid) that Nuba Villages can be build in neutral terrain; but they have territorial decay. Maybe we could expand on that idea and give all civs some kind of special colony? (I sometimes mainly build a colony just to get access to certain mercs.)

I don't entirely disagree. But functionally this would mean those units never get use. You used to be able to do this (e.g., Maurya could get rams in a23 if they captured a fort and Mace could get champ skirms and swords if they captured the right buildings), but because of balancing issues these functions were all but never used. ETA All this is to say we are a long way away from such a feature *actually* being a feature and not a trivial footnote

Separately, I would also like propose offensive priests that convert enemy units. Not sure what civ this would fit best with (Rome would've been nice in the Constantine era, but that is after the 0ad timeframe)

0ad isn't balanced well enough to allow this. If you are capturing a bunch of enemy buildings then you have already won. (It would also create snowballing issues, otherwise)

If that is true then maybe make it something like dogs but with weaker units that can level up into CS and then those leveled up units don't counter against your pop count?

The earlier example with the Han Barracks would be such a case. In theory, I haven't tested, the only other civ with access to crossbow is Macedonians who could build crossbowmen. The Ji/Halberd is unique to Han only. So capturing a Han barracks would give access to 2 unique units no other faction has. Acquiring tech by capturing enemy building has been a standard feature in Warcraft and Starcraft. Can make interesting games with surprises, granted the factions are unique. I like the idea to have that in 0AD.

The Roman republic had more citizens than most other states, simply because they granted loyal allies citizenship. I think the way Auxiliary troops worked was that they were recruited from non-latin citizens or other (non-citizen) allies. If you served for several years in the army, you recieved citizenship. So it seems more fitting to make them citizen soldiers. When I think of very limited and boring, Sparta comes to mind. Romans do have their military camps.

Still. I mean different in function. So not just a different name/units. What LetsWaveABook suggested was totally unique. Changing name and unit type would not be. Edit: I don't have a good suggestion myself--making totally unique features is hard.

I mean something that is more than just a name change too...

Sadly using prop points has a performance impact so it's discouraged to do it when you don't need them to adjust to the terrain. Someone posted some progress in making an accurate bixie. I'm really busy these days so I didn't have time to follow up. It's in the pipe though.

I agree to an extent. But also, isn't 0ad just a simulation, therefore a fantasy, of historical units? The princess isn't so much of a "fire breathing dragon" but more of a simulation of han diplomacy that is implemented into 0ad in a unique way. This "unique way" is something that has been yearned for in civ uniqueness so that not every civ is a cookie-cutter civ with just a different variety of units.

@user1 My Lobby Name: Beaugoux Offender: pr0siak - He quited without resigning when it was clearly defeatedcommands.txt

If you think this way, I don't see the point to wait. Close it. There will be always one guy coming over and starting to be insulting/offensive. Even if you are 10 people debating in good faith, there is always someone coming over to troll or to release his rage and frustration. Either you consider the topic as being the problem or you consider it is the guy. Edit: to illustrate the issue, how do you deal with this:

I have a master degree in Earth science, I studied plant ecology in my curriculum and even plant histology. But thanks. Every scientists know that CO2 facilitate photosynthesis and limitate water loss in plants. This is explicitely stated in IPCC reports. However, plants rely on other things to grow properly, notably nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium etc. And they also need water, light and a good range of temperatures. We know that climate change will impact those parameters as well and we know that in some cases the gain from CO2 fertilization won't be greater than the losses from water scarcity, interspecies competition etc. This idea of CO2 being always good for plants comes from a kind people that have a relationship with plants exclusively through greenhouses. If you have a basic knowledge of plant ecology in natural system, you wouldn't make such gross generalization. You mentioned C4 photosynthesis but this pathway has evolved to cope with lower CO2 during the last millions of years. This pathway gives a benefit to the plant in scarce situation. However in a world with higher CO2, this pathway is less suited. C4 plants struggle against C3 plants during higher CO2 levels because the latter are better to use the increase in CO2. They are outcompetiting the C4 most of the time. So it is not that simple, saying CO2 is good for plants is a no brainer claim from people believing they know better than those studying the topic.

Essentially, yeah. I just got into the weeds talking about armor values. You summed it up nicely.

Yes, I do agree with this statement 100% - as I said, the existing player base who've been here a while know it, and it goes without saying that the volunteers contributing to the project know it. But for the sake of a moniker, potentially a lot of new players, influencers and maybe even future prospective future volunteers might not understand it due to preconceived notions of what a project in an 'alpha' might be. I'm slightly wary of the alpha and even the beta tags, both suggest a state of pre-completion that apply much more to commercial projects. The impression I get is that alpha means early, unfinished, not fully functional to a lot of people. Beta suggests almost finished, perhaps not quite fully featured yet, but may be soon. Neither of the above truly apply in the case of 0AD. It certainly won't be 'finished' soon, if ever (as you rightly suggested.) And while there are longstanding things involving ongoing work to improve, it's also a competitively played game with a fully functional and growing feature set. It can be played and enjoyed in a state of completeness with very professional presentation. It is what it is now, and it will be what it evolves into in the future. I don't think a changing of the versioning name would change the perception of 0AD overnight, but possibly it might subtly improve certain first impressions, maybe cause people to take a deeper look at the project rather than dismiss it through misguided preconception. Maybe?

Egypt cult to Isis and Persians with Babylonian cult , Iranian Mitraism (mystical oriental cults). Perhaps the Seleucids have many strong cults in their empire, including the Cybele cult. The Baal Cult [Carthage] was syncretized on several sides, but it was because Hellenization. Same with Asherah/Astaroth.

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.

-Para las unidades "Auxiliares vettonas" había pensado en 3 tipos; 1. Infantería vettona mercenaria( com lanza); -------------------------(Scortamareva Secias) 2.Infantería vettona mercenaria (con venablos);-----------------------(iovanan Secias) 3.Jinete mercenario Vettón(com laza);---------------------------------(Epones Secias) -Los escudos vettones serían más grandes que la de los lusitanos (que usaban caetras"escudos pequeños") y los auxiliares vettones tendrían dos tipos de escudos , unos redondos y grandes para la caballería y guerrilleros (con venablos) y otros ovalados y alargados para los lanceros . -Si tienen más interés en investigar , busquen el "Centro de interpretación de la Cultura Vettona" Disculpen las molestias*

If you get rid of the dumb pierce attack with spear units, that also solves some issues. But apparently it is a sacred cow that must not be touched.

I agree, the armor is the problem. Swordcavalry should not be superior in every way except barely losing to spearcav. The best way to fix the discrepancy between spearcav and swordcav is to let swordcav keep the high damage, but reduce their armor. This way, spearcav will defeat swordcav more convincingly and spearcav will be more survivable, but not as lethal as swordcav.

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.

Hi, some suggestion here: the "sign board" thing on the town center, barrack and other building can actually be removed as the “sign board" were started to be popular on Tang/Song dynasty. The word "大雄宝殿 da xiong bao dian" will ONLY be used on Buddhist temple (usually on the main temple) Another suggestion for the Han building is adding "阙que" (stone pillars gate) on some main building like town center, fortress, wonders. As the "que" structure were greatly used in the Han dynasty.

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

@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...

I will be more than happy to help with any style or aspect that is needed for the Byzantines.

Steal some from Delenda Est.

not all civs are for that. I prefer the mercenary camps to capture them on the map.

Well, I would put more importance on differentiation and depth instead of balancing. Once you have unique factions, it may be easier to balance than the current approach with many factions and too similar units and function of buildings. Iirc, it was the worker you could capture with an archon, ie only Protos had this ability, and only a special unit.

@ValihrAnt wanted to add colonies to every faction. Maybe we could give Romans instead of a colony something like an allied village, functioning like a colony but being able to train auxiliary units.

I was thinking metal-only cost and merc-type rank.

I am not suggesting any name change. Above I left a list of Republican units.

Good point, I would like some way to proliferate this some (without just making it kush merc camps).

Auxiliary units could be the Roman Mercs maybe?

@wowgetoffyourcellphone Imagine, you give a Han princess to the Xiongnu to stop their raids, and direct their Warlords to raid an adversary. True historic accuracy. The Han barracks would certainly be a valuable target to capture with 2 unique Han citizen units, Crossbow and Ji.

I like this. Very different from other bonuses.

Would it make sense from a gameplay or historical sense if these units could be trained faster than normal? Also, would they cost food/wood or would they be like mercs as @Dakara said I feel this could give rise to some interesting fights. I like this idea quite a bit.

It is cheap enough and much more stable/consistant. Hydroelectric dams are worst than nuclear plants, they killed much more people and polluted much more as well (for example the methylation of mercure occuring in South America).

In the coming decades, without tapping into the largest biomass on this planet, there is literally no chance of feeding everyone. Eating insects won't be a choice then, just the grain of a desertified world. Is it alarmist when someone points at a broken bridge while on the train several miles down the track? Gaze into the future. The green house effect doesn't care about feelings.

Honestly, based on historical precedence, I think the most likely outcome would be that we just look the other way and when on the brink of extinction, we just accept more than half the population as collateral damage, geoengineer what's left to something livable and just carry on. Couldn't deal with a virus, what hope is there for climate change. Especially when it's a case of slow boiling frogs. I am almost curious to see it unfold. Personally, I am stoic enough to not worry about it, but interesting times ahead. I am lucky/unlucky to be born at the start of the millennia, so basically a front row ticket.

This was made a long time ago trying to follow somehow the rome range "Byz Range".