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.

To come back to Rome, at the military level, they are too classic. No civilization uses a combo basic unit : sword melee and archers as citizen troops phase 1. It could be interesting. Phase 2 we can train triari (spear rang 3 like skiritais but as spear unit). I like the idea that auxiliaries can be trained in captured barracks, but that won't be used often. It's too anecdotal. For the sake of balance I think the auxiliaries should be mercenaries, they are not low cost units but experienced combat units. This comes at a significant cost. Auxiliaries do not come to sacrifice their lives at reduced cost. Rome need this units for army (archers, cavalry, special unit). If we want a civilization to reduce the cost of mercenaries, I thought of Carthage as a civilization bonus instead of their useless bonus. -20% cost mercenary cost. Thanks to this bonus and to up the cost of mercenaries for example from 80 to 100 metal. The costs remain unchanged for Cartage and allies and at the same time the mercenaries are nerf a little thanks for their cost. I don't think all civilizations should have military colonies. It's great that two civilizations have access to it. (4 with Carthage and Bretons on water map). What do you think of the redesign of the Roman sword units then? Britons idendity and idea : Civilisation bonus : Atm they have weak building and fast construction. For me it ok, they sould he have the weakeast building of all civilisation. In a logic of rapid construction for less resistance. Bonus de civilisation : Bâtiment plus faible et rapide à construire : Tout à fait d'accord, pour moi ils doivent avoir les bâtiments les plus faibles. Team bonus : Delete the bonus cost monk/druid of 20% by a new bonus : All monk/druide train are trained by 2 for the same cost. It like -50% cost for same training time. Cout guerrisseurs -20% : Ok comme bonus mais il faudra un truc en plus, par exemple les soigneurs sont produits par 2 pour le cout identique? Qu'en pensez vous ? CELA correspond à -50% de cout de productiin pour un temps identique. The Bretons are on paper less strong than the Gauls. A little up would not be too much. New technlogie of civ: Allow the production of mounted druids in the stables. Gauls idea : For the Gauls, the forge could have two different production lines, in order to be able to research two technologies on the same forge. Iberes : Ally bonus team : Make the bonus ineffective on Allied Skirmishers. Séleucides New tech : Cavalry archers can attack while moving Carthage : Actual Bonus civilisation : commercial talent: too specific, too strong on the maps where it can be used, realistic but too difficult to integrate into the gameplay: -> Delete this bonus Rare products: -> Delete this bonus By removing these two techs we could imagine free cartography technology? it will take only 40 sec of research time for a cost of 0. We keep the commercial aspect of the civ by giving a mini buff. New bonus civilisation : Cartography : Cost 0, only 40 seconds. As i said delete the actuel bonus team. New bonus team : -20% cost for mercenary units Fortress: -50% construction time. To complete their reputation as builders Actual bonus civilisation Colonization: Interesting, the market could not be classified as CIVIL building for a roleplay bonus ? New tech in dock : Repair at sea: out of combat, the boats are repaired by the crew automatically at a rate of 1 hp per second. Finally to give them an identity if you want to play them without mercenaries and insist on the ability to control elephants. A new 1-pop champion elephant unit. A combat-focused unit that is not intended to be a siege unit. Slightly slower than the cavalry. In the elephant building. So maurya have archer elephant for fight and carthage melee elephant for fight. Athens : Bonus civilisation : Warship construction time -25% -> construction time of all ships -20% An orther champion unit infanterie ? a pikeman unit choose in gymnasium building.

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

It would be interesting to be able to train troops from the allied player.

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.

The archers are already killed by the melee cavalry. We need to better define the role of the spear cavelry. Give him tools to reach them. Currently they are sometimes ok, sometimes extremely bad. Making an army in late game with a significant amount of cav spear seems like a pretty bad idea, Could anyone try? Their rush are ok, more resistant vs arrow and defensive building. is good because they have a shield so it realistic (for rome, macedonians no have shield but differentiating the two units could create too much imbalance for a phase 1 unit so let's leave it that way for now). Their defensive aspect (chasing other riders from a distance is also an asset. Domamge : I think they don't do enough damage against cavalry ? and you ? same opinion ? But come to think of it in what way the spear cav unit should be against other cavalry? They should a priori as strong as the cavaliers against infantry units. It is in any case certain that in 1 against 1 the spear cav unit has a hard time against the other riders while in the current conception the spear cav must win against the others. Many ideas can come into play. I don't know if they are good 1) attack when moving for spear cav. If you run through an army, the spear cav can attack one or two attacks without having to stop. intéressant non? 2)To simulate the effect of a strong charge and stimulate the strategy of combat / withdrawal / combat / withdrawal / etc. Reduce the attack speed of cav spears and significantly increase their damage. This way when they arrive to land their first melee attack they hurt a lot. The sword cavalry will have a more constant dps while the spear cav will play with its mobility to use its attack when leaving and returning in combat. 3)Modify the armor of all cav types to rebalance them in the metagame. Big balancing work. 4)Sad idea lol, the spear cavalry and the sword cavalry is the same. Only the appearance changes. We keep the principle of spear cavalry for the champions already present. 5) Up their range attack. To simulate the length of their lance, and their ability to "bodyblock" thanks to their reach and height on a horse. 6) Your ideas

Because it is hard to be firing a bow at someone when they poke you with a sword? And that means you don't have to give cavalry some pierce resistance just becasue they "need" to counter archers.

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

To be honest, the overemphasis on individual actions, such as people having fewer children or the president being less ostentatious is crazy. Oil producers in the us even support reducing carbon footprint, because they know it can improve their image and it won't lead to any decrease in sales. People can not change their carbon footprint very easily while the systems they live in are not designed to reduce it. With all this talk about individual responsibility, people forget the amount of power that governments/corporations have over our behavior as well as the changes that could be made to decrease waste and emissions. For example, there is the good idea to make companies responsible for the packaging that they sell with their product. At least in the USA, packaging is not made to be easily dismantled. If it were, it would be easy to sort one's recycling and improve efficiency there. I feel this should be a no-brainer and all it requires are some new, clever designs for packaging. Another idea would be to sponsor car trade ins, exchanging super old gas guzzlers for newer electric cars or efficient hybrids. I can totally understand people being financially trapped into continuing to use an old car, because they have exceeded the economic service life and now need to repair/ refuel very frequently.

not in my country.

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.

It is what people form in their heads, they think that a great change will occur when they stop having that title. A lot of people stuck with that A23 concept. That cycle did us a lot of damage, but we are getting back on track. You have to take the 0 A.D project as a project that will always be ongoing thanks to the fans.

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.

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^

-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.

Yes, but for this ti implement, you'd have to be able to query or change diplomacy values via tech modifiers. Would also offer some interesting mechanics for the ministers to garrison in allied buildings for example. Or eg princess garrisons enemy building and sabotages eco or so, until she is uncovered and exposed.

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...

in turn they are ideas from other games. that yes well corrected, and joint.

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.

Maybe bonus to recruit cheaper. Auxiliar camp.

@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.

I always thought that the Roman roster is very limited (and boring), and was wondering why that huge empire wouldn't have access to more kinds of units. So I'd welcome additions to their roster, but don't if it should be a matter of luck/captured buildings.

Rome To achieve the differentiation of civilizations, Rome must also be assigned some changes. For his identity and a little balancing buff. The 'Triarus' spears unit must be differentiated from other civilizations as it is an experienced unit in the Roman ranks. I propose that they be rank 3 units, like the Spartan skiritai. that their cost has also changed for 50 wood, 40 food and 30 metal, as a pure measure of balance between civilization. I find that having the same feature twice is healthy in a game -> For example the Roman and Macedonian cavalry Phase 1. Units The "hastatus" swordsman unit would be changed so that it has a second attack (throwing with pillium). The unit would have 1 pilium available every 45 seconds inflicting 20 piercing and 2 crushing damage. This is a priority attack over the basic attack, anyway it does more damage than the melee attack. Regarding the improvements of the forge and the heroes, nothing comes to reinforce this secondary attack. It's a major change I know. This would give civilization the opportunity to make massive use of melee infantry. To inflict some damage on a rush defense. And historically it is heavy. A good Roman infantry player would make good use of the formations at his disposal (normal and other formations without bonus, testudo, forced march) to achieve his objective. In addition, the use of pilium would make it possible to compensate for the absence of a remote unit such as the skirmisher. An easy kill of elephant units. The only problem would be the use of the throwing weapon on targets such as a ram, building .. maybe a little stupid at the role play level but maybe it make too much programming to avoid these attacks said " stupid ". We come to replace skirmishers with Roman citizen archers. In addition to this archer unit, there would be the auxiliary archer (mercenary rank 2, best precision etc.) Available at age 2 with a technlogy. it is proven that Rome has had great recourse to groups of auxiliaries. In the stable, the tirailleur cavalry which has no meaning has just been replaced by the mercenary cavalry rank 2 archers. -------------- There are currently a lot of positive points about rome on differentiation. A solid hp pool architecture. Siege walls and military camps are fun and historically realistic. With these changes I want to make Rome more centered on melee infantry by allowing it through a training game to have tools against ranged units. Moreover, it is undeniable that rome used archers a lot. The auxiliary aspect is insufficiently exploited, it can take the path of the mercenaries for simplicity of gameplay Rome has no unique technology in this alpha. If I do not say stupidity before there was a technology in the temple for the range of vision of the units. Three ideas for new tech. The first is original it will be necessary to see what it gives in part I think it can be interesting (defensive, offessensive and support ally) Pax romana : 500 METAL. It is not a technology strictly speaking but a diplomatic solution, a strategy. Once the button is clicked. This establishes a 90 second ceasefire for all players on the map. You can click the button once per game. The technology is researched in the castle. Auxiliary cavalry: 200 food 200 metal 10 sec: Allows the recruitment of barbarian cavalry mercenary rank rank 2 in the stable (these are Gallic and German cavalry) Auxiliary infantry: 200 food 200 metal 10 sec: Allows the recruitment of rank 2 mercenary auxiliary infantry in the barack. Civilization bonus : Roman legionaries can use the testudo formation -> Hastatus units benefit from bonuses and penalties when using this formation. Very strong resistance to piercing damage (I don't have the numbers but +30 piercing armor would make them tanky enough to be almost untouched in the medium term?) + 3 sharp armor, -60% damage inflicted as a penalty and -90% speed. Forced March Formation: All Roman infantry units in Forced March formation are + 30% faster but have 0 armor due to fatigue. The Romans are known for their civil engineering and their ability to move quickly thanks to their disciplined and rigor. Roman outpost: homing pigeon technology is free and instantly unlocked