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...

You're talking to the right man, I know a little about everything. even if I am not a professional historian. Quoting "" Roman soldiers could swim with their armor on and were taught to swim as part of their military training regimen. The legionaries were trained to be the jack of all trades of the Roman military: they were expected to be able to fulfill a great number of different roles both on and off the battlefield, and so, part of that capability was being able to wade across rivers and other bodies of water to quickly reach a battle, siege, or other locale that required immediate military or engineering expertise. To support this, there are a number of primary sources that we can draw upon, the ones that I am well-read in date from the later periods of the Roman Empire, but I am sure that there are sources that exist from the earlier eras as well. The first, and perhaps best direct evidence comes to us from a little ditty, dating from the from the time of Hadrian (AD 117-138) written on a soldier's grave, which describes the exploits of a member of the Germani Corporis Custodes, an elite bodyguard of the Emperor. It reads as such: I am the man, once well known to the riverbanks in Pannonia brave and foremost amongst a thousand Batavi, who, with Hadrian as judge, could swim the wide waters of the deep Danube in full battle kit. From my bow I shot an arrow which, while it hung in the air and fell back, I hit and broke with another. Whom no Roman or foreigner ever outdid, no soldier with the spear, no Parthian with the bow, here I lie, on this ever-mindful stone, have I bequeathed my deeds to memory. Let anyone see if after me he can match my deeds. I set my own standard, being the first to bring of such feats. Additionally, the 5th Century Roman military manual De Re Militari by Flavius Vegetius Renatus, elaborates a bit on the act of swimming in the legions. In the early parts of the manual, he has a small section titled: Learning to Swim Every young soldier, without exception, should in the summer months be taught to swim; for it is sometimes impossible to pass rivers on bridges, but the flying and pursuing army both are often obliged to swim over them. A sudden melting of snow or fall of rain often makes them overflow their banks, and in such a situation, the danger is as great from ignorance in swimming as from the enemy. Later on, Vegetius explains a bit about drilling, including this important section, which mentions how the men were continually practiced in swimming in the sea or in rivers. But even in winter, if it did not rain or snow, they were obliged to perform their drills in the field, lest an intermission of discipline should affect both the courage and constitution of the soldier. In short, both legionary and auxiliary troops should continually be drilled in cutting wood, carrying burdens, passing ditches, swimming in the sea or in rivers, marching in the full step and even running with their arms and baggage, so that, inured to labor in peace, they may find no difficulty in war. Overall, it can be surmised that troops were indeed taught to swim and fully expected to be able to swim in battle kit if the situation necessitated it, however, if there were no pressing matters, it is likely that the soldiers were bidden to take off their armor and wade across, so as to prevent rust and decay. I know that this is attested to in the later Byzantine military manuals, but someone with more expertise in the early Roman works might be able to elaborate further on this.

I hadn't considered 'Seasons' - I actually really like the sound of that.

It was a click-bait!

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:

First little test game with proof of concept of the princess mechanics. Princess moves in roman enemy territory and establishes her camp, a young roman nobleman is in love with her already, baby on the way, they build a big house.

why would a unit have its attack lowered when in a close fight? right now skirmishers deal a higher damage than spearmen.

IMHO It could be like this: Cavalry: Glass cannons Low armour meaning they should be used wisely But high speed meaning they can pick their fights. Decent attack values lets them easily kill off stragglers. Allows them to quickly reach ranged infantry to make short work of them. Ranged infantry: Low armour, vulnerable against any unit when in range. When the enemy is too close, they switch to their melee weapon, which is merely a dagger, so they'll be massacred by (almost) anything. Melee infantry: Good armour, depending on the exact unit type, meaning they can hold their ground against cavalry. Spearmen have their "range" advantage so multiple men can attack one target more easily. Their lack of speed make them sustain casualties against ranged infantry, but when up close they hack them away.

Are you serious? even if they buy saudi oil, burning it still releases emissions in the usa. This notably does not increase emissions in saudi arabia. Either way, this does not reduce USA's carbon footprint. A better example of exporting emissions is buying beef from brazil, where the emissions happen in the country the product is bought from.

I mean, the game's meta already changes every Alpha. Might as well make it a feature instead of a bug.

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.

D4338 - Fix passibilty overlay in atlas Created a patch to fix the problem. Unfortunately, the only way to fix on your computer is build the game from the source code and apply a patch.

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.

Perhaps a more realistic mechanic for the princess would be some bonus that she confers to the civ to which she is sent. For example, the princess would have to be garrisoned in one of the other civ's civic centres, and would then give that building faster training for women, stronger capture resistance, more capture points, or some other good bonus. To additionally represent a strengthened alliance, perhaps the Hans could be able to build their buildings within the territory influence of that civic centre as well, or within a certain distance of it. I don't know if that is possible, but it would be interesting. The benefit of this approach is that it actually would strengthen alliances. Since the civ to which the princess is sent would only get her bonus while they're allied with her player, they would want to keep that alliance. The bonus would have to be good enough to provide a strong incentive, but not a direct offensive military bonus that would make them too strong. This would be a more realistic, organic way to simulate a stronger alliance.

This camp was very good to congratulate, it reminds me how much it is possible to create new structures using only existing elements. You can create a separate mod with this mechanic, if we think about it there should be an interesting diplomatic mechanic for several civs already present in 0ad, to which in the future you can add them too.

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.

True, but they don't add anything to the roster.

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?

they should recruit auxiliary troops like Cretan archers and Numidian cavalry, elephants,slingers

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.

Another possibility would be to give rome auxiliary units, but no structure to train them. So they can only train them once the Romans conquer a barracks/stable/CC from a different faction.

Yeah, I definitely agree. After spending several hours trying, we haven't worked out how to make the roads go around hills, mountains, and shoreline yet. Thanks. And actually, as shown in the screenshot, the gap between players' bases changes based on the number of players and size of the map. This is 2v2 on a Medium map.

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).

I think this (rank upgrades) is a great dimension to add to the game. It can go some lengths to distinguish booming versus military empowerment. I think there should be a longer term economic cost to these upgrades, and it I wonder if you would support the possibility that getting all of these upgrades for all units is actually a strategic failure. rank 2/3 units get worse at gathering, and an enemies rank 2/3 unit composition is beating your rank 2/3 composition, but your units in your base gathering res are also rank 2, so you are losing overall. I have been wondering what these Advanced, and Elite upgrades should cost: Advanced: 300 food 300 wood 200 metal 1:45 research time, adds 5 metal cost (and +25 food for cav) to unit and 10% training time Elite: 500 food 500 wood 500 metal 2:00 research time, adds another 10 metal cost (and +40 food for cav) to unit and further 20% training time This adds the economic question for the player: do I want to get blacksmith upgrades, postpone the choices for advanced/elite upgrades, and maintain my eco, or do I want to get this upgrade that empowers my units, but add an economic liability to them. Getting these upgrades is basically a "bet" on that unit, and since the upgrade has a long time to research, the timing could be complicated, so you could not always get it as an emergency reaction. Should any civs get a p1 advanced rank upgrade, or would this be to easy to do a rush with, despite the large cost and economic situation? My thinking is that champions could stay being trained at barracks, but upgrade to enable it could add some extra food and some metal and stone cost, by default train at fort with no unlock. I certainly agree that in a25 it is too easy to mass champions at a sudden time, but I think there should be a way to go: non-rank-upgraded CS, +champions strategy. @Dizaka @chrstgtr @ValihrAnt @Palaiologos @LetswaveaBook what do you think about @wowgetoffyourcellphone's concept, and my ideas on those upgrades?

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.

The fact that the current climate change is caused by humans is also supported by Earth Sciences. I mean, CO2 is known for a long time as an important driver of Earth's climate: (this is geologist Richard Alley invited at the National Academy of Sciences (US) for a presentation)

I wonder how many travel hours, CPU power etc. were used to create such reports.

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