Leaderboard

Yep... it's not fun waiting for a messiah (especially when one can envision some of the solutions that are needed, but recognize that it is beyond your power to deliver them). For all my @#$%ing about these topics, I do have a great deal of respect for you active developers who are keeping the lights on and consistently delivering incremental progress (and valuable experimentation) in so many areas. You guys deserve more praise.

a23 boom finish at 9/10 min, a25 boom finish at min 12-15 (15 especially if someone wants to spam cav champ or any other op unit.) So, no turtling? Maybe by 2 players out of 8. In the best case 4 due rushes too

My preference would be to add champions to fortress. But to leave champions in barracks but have the upgrade only apply to one barracks/ stable at a time. Add 150 stone 200 wood to that upgrade. Same way towers are upgraded to stone tower. Animation not needed unless someone is up to the task. I think this would increase the time to mass champions to an unbeatable level. Champions are intended to supplement army or do specialty missions, so we would see more reasonable usage with these changes. Edit: well champ spam is not so bad apart from a couple broken cavalry types. So perhaps such a change is not necessary for barracks.

But this is very realistic, isn't it? For range cavalry, the best way is to use cavalry to drive away or shoot them with shooters. The two legs of the infantry will definitely not be able to catch up. Crassus's end is the best example.

@maroder wanna make two patches?

I made a random map from the the Cliffs of Carnage skirmish map. It supports all the different biomes. The map will be included with the next cm2 release (that will be v0.25.12). Players start as nomads (whether or not the option is checked). That's because I don't know how to write the code that would make sure players start with a cc and base on the cliffs based on teams. But they get 16 more women than usual to help speed up initial build time.

We had this in the past and was removed. The issue was that ranged units kept distance on their own. Melee inf had no chance to ever get close to ranged cav for instance. So this would need to be carefully designed.

One of the Athenians strong points, which is their Dock trained Champions - Athenian Marine and Mercenary Archers - are instead locked behind Iphicratean Reform, which supposed to just make them trainable from their war ships. Nothing in the description of the tech says anything about locking the units altogether, just the ability to train them from ships. Dock doesnt always available to be built, so this in an edge for them which is otherwise is pretty subpar civilization. I do had noticed this bug in another thread from a month ago, but I'm afraid that report get lost in the shuffle so hence why I posted this again in the Bug Reports. I would love more for them to have any other buffs too, like maybe let their 10%+ Metal gathering /Phase to affect Stone gathering too, or to let these Dock Champions be buiildable in Phase 2 for some rushing strategy, which then can be protected with Athenian Walls to be build around them later, but thats more of a suggestion than anything. Thanks for everybody's work!

The proposition is that: The Fortress is now pretty boring. The game should not have boring things. Having Champions trainable in the Fortress was more interesting. Champions at the Fortress separates them more from regular troops, thematically. Champions in the barracks and stable ruin some of the benefits of the Gymnasium and Syssition and Academy. Some possible cons I see: Moving Champions back to the Fortress might make them less used. Moving Champions back to the Fortress could unbalance the Fortress? There is the notion that the Fortress should simply act as a strong defensive/offensive position, like a large overpowered defense tower instead of a uber barracks.

I agree with this. There is no longer a proper turtling.

I don't think that is necessarily bad. It will definitely be more used as it is at the moment. Not sure if it will unbalance it, but one could increase its build time. I disagree with that notion. It should have some other function than just being a large tower.

Off topic: I would actually support moving the champions back to the fortress again. Now it is just a big tower, which is a bit sad. Also makes it harder to spam champions, which is imo good.

The tech could simply be called "Delian League" or "Delian Marines."

(It might also help if you elaborate a bit on the game. Or just come and help us build 0 A.D. )

Does not require buildings, should get Metal trickle as a faction trait, just like Ptolemy got Food trickle.

I think it would be cool if those two units could be additionally built at ports and ships, not exclusively.

All civs will eventually have their own folder. It's going to be one of my little projects to accomplish that. Should be easier than my project to give all unit textures their own folder. That was a massive undertaking, lemme tell ya. Yes, portraits will be easier. Right, but then name it "Emissaries" instead of "Cartography." Cartography = maps Emissaries = Dove, etc.

There is no historical record of this.

Combined with cheaper archers, Xiongnu's most important weapon is the bow and arrow. Xiongnu has very good horse archers, among which the "射雕者Shediaozhe" （These people have excellent arrow skills and can hit flying eagles.）is particularly accurate. According to records, once the Han army sent dozens of cavalry to pursue three Shediaozhe", all of them were shot dead. In the end, Liguang led a hundred cavalry in pursuit, shot two of them himself, and captured one.

This is an official position established by Xiongnu, where 僮仆Tongpu means slave. Xiongnu regarded the countries of the Western Regions as his own slaves, so he set up this official position to govern. Later, with the Han Dynasty's attack on the Xiongnu, Xiongnu lost control of the Western Regions, and this official position also disappeared.

Yeah, sorry, but I truly have very little faith that any of these ideas (including friendly fire) will ever get used... or at least not in any way that permanently fixes the problem they are supposed to fix. I mean, just for this one issue we have 5 different proposed solutions for the same flaw, all but one of which each entertains half a dozen competing implementation options, with just as many pros and cons for each. There is no way this group will ever come to a consensus to use any of them. (Except maybe the 9% buff, which does nothing to change the flimsy unit-role interaction model that's creating the issue to begin with, and will therefore break the second anyone so much as sneezes on the pathfinding or target selection code.) This is to say I do not believe the value of these kinds of discussions is in identifying solutions to this game's balance problems. What it does do is indirectly illuminate the organizational deficiencies that perpetuate this and so many other problems in the 0AD constellation, so that if ever someone emerges with the drive and vision to fix it, maybe the wider community will have the sagacity to rally around them.

Small map 100-200 population. That's what I used in my old PCs.

the game should include new player colors.

That's completely fine. There has been calls to create some civ differentiation, so I hope we can find people that can accept the patch.

https://trac.wildfiregames.com/changeset/26612

I am not sure what the benefit of friendly fire would be for 0ad. Some ideas for breaking the melee=shield, ranged=dps situation are: attack-ground increased melee inf dmg 9% charging for melee units minimum range I could imagine friendly fire on catapults, but this would require more control over them from the player.

Rio de Janeiro. Lol

It's differentiation.

the game is limited by the fact that all military units only use one weapon to fight. that's the logic used until now.

Or more micro.

Once all four are done, I can make a little square and share them on social media

The friendly fire option exists for all units (unless something drastically changed in the most recent alpha). It just has never been turned on for anything except siege units. I don't think any modder has publicly explored the possibilities yet. And I can't blame them, since innovations like this have a snowballs chance in hell of ever being embraced by the wider community. Personally however, the interaction you describe is exactly the kind of thing I wish 0AD EA would try out. Edit: I should add, I privately tested precisely this sort of generalized friendly fire convention in combination with directional armor back during alpha 24. For my tastes I thought it was brilliant. It made literally-backing-up a friendly meat shield with ranged units worse than completely useless, because the fire support would nail the friendly guys in their unarmored backs and end up doing more damage to you than the enemy. To get any kind of advantage you had to send the archers/slingers/peltasts out to flank and encircle the enemy's melee line using their superior speed, at which point they were absolutely lethal. But then they would be very vulnerable to the enemy cavalry and fire support, meaning you would have to pick your moment. And the kicker is that this is MUCH closer to the real doctrine of ancient warfare than what is currently represented by games like 0AD. However... I can see how players acclimated to the conventions of Age of Empires would have a well founded beef with added micromanagement burden like that. it would either entirely overstrain the attention economy for any normal player, or necessitate a huge shift in focus to the tactical. Successful integration of friendly fire as a game mechanic is mostly associated with the Myth series; and those are very different games...

Elite rank Garamantian skirmishers

No jokes, that was my final goal. You are lucky that I am bad at blender, otherwise 0AD graphics will turn into minecraft.