Leaderboard

Can it? Yes: There are plenty of other ancient warfare themed RTS games where melee units are a viable DPS source. There is nothing particularly exotic about 0 AD's pathfinding, or combat model, or unit conventions that would seem to prevent it reaching a similar balance point. Will it? Maybe: For the entire time I have been watching this project develop (which is going on 5 or 6 years now) its design has never strayed from one rigid network of established unit roles and interactions. In order to introduce melee that is useful as more than just a meat shield, without simultaneously rendering ranged units entirely redundant, the developers are going to have to throw out that established counter network and replace it with something new. If the wider community rebels the moment such a thing is even suggested then it will never happen. Should it? Yes: For the sake of both historical authenticity and playstyle diversity, it really must. As the game currently exists, it is the ranged units that make up the survivable core of any infantry attack force. Melee infantry act as an expendable auxiliary contingent that exists to boost the combat efficiency of the core until it is killed off. I don't want to go too far and say that no ancient militaries worked this way, but it is certainly not how the ancient Greeks, Romans, Carthaginians, or Macedonian successor states operated. For them it was the (mostly but not always entirely melee) heavy infantry that made up the survivable core of their armies. Light, usually ranged infantry were the ones deployed as the expendable support auxiliaries, and together with cavalry they usually represented only a small faction of an army's total fighting numbers. The status quo is a huge misrepresentation of these cultures' normal tactics. Additionally, such tight synergy between ranged and melee is very limiting to a player's creativity and to the operational diversity of different civilizations the game can feature. The game may have civs that claim to specialize in heavy infantry, but they are still locked into the same composition as any other civ. No one is going to boom into melee infantry only, or skip basic ranged infantry upgrades in favor of more melee upgrades, and the game is poorer for not having these options. This is not to say either that the meat shield meta should be removed entirely. It would be interesting if there were actually a few civs where ranged still forms the survivable core of the army, but for the majority not permitting melee heavy infantry to stand on their own is limiting and profoundly anachronistic.

Early in phase two, the turtler has only sentry towers which are easy to capture. If these players prepare for a rush every time, then you could just boom to p2, quickly get the first military upgrades and attack with as many units as you can. Another thing you could do is build a forward base in p2 and build scout towers so that you can see most of his territory. Then, when you both reach p3, you will see where he places his first fort, and you send all men to deny it. This is a big problem for the turtler, because they want to get the fort up, but also not lose all of their troops who are building it.

Even something static would be an improvement as long as it is interesting and adds a bit of visual drama to the match end.

my 7th 0AD youtube vid pls like and subscribe :) sent to me by a player named ava i also have 6 more that i recorded in the last 2 days in the queue so expect a video per day going forward :))) i started recording some of them live while im playing which is so much funnn i cant wait to share them w y'all :)))

demo.rar

Yeah in templates > special > player.xml

@user1 The player Beathoven(1322) left our rated match without a word and exited the lobby soon after. U know the story, he gets beat up and leaves to not loose any ranking. And the bot did not count this as a win, as it happened with my previous complain. commands.txt metadata.json

There is a bug in A25 which got fixed for the rerelease A25b, might be the reason here.

My preference is this. - All factions get 1 warship. No more 3 separate warship classes. - The player can tech up their warships from light to medium to heavy. It's a teching progression. (Bireme to Trireme to Quinquireme) - Warships are about the size (footprint) of the current Biremes/Pentaconters. Each new level just makes the ship look beefier (Heavy upgrade makes them 10% longer too, but they would still be smaller than the current Triremes, even at max rank). - We abandon the "soldiers on deck" feature. They wouldn't look right anyway without massive unusable ships. - Remove BuildingAI. They now attack just like any other unit-one target at a time. Means you can now micro them. - Garrisoning soldiers on board adds health and speed to the warship. - Add a ramming feature at some point. Probably when/if secondary attacks are added to the game.

p2 rush is good only for some civs. you could try spartan skiri

what you are describing does not sound "extremely vulnerable". There are other civs that are more vulnerable to rushes too. For example, many civs are helpless against the camel rush. Even If the Han are in fact more vulnerable, I don't see this being a problem.

They are extremely vulnerable to spear cavalry rush, so you can easily kill them in early game.

Actually gauls and brits should be the worst civs for turtling. Their buildings are weaker and they dont have citizen infantry swordsmen. At the other hand they can build buildings faster. Be aware of kushites because they have big pyramids, swordsmen and a tech for extra building health. And a huge temple which has space for 40 units, that might be very hard to conquer. In the next alpha the Han will be a pain, they have very strong buildings and all turtlers might like them.

Since you can draw mockups are welcome

Even if this does happen, you can focus on destroying just one piece of the wall, prefereably the gate. Use 5 catapults and 3 rams so that he cannot counter your siege easily. Prepare spearcav to counter his mercenary sword cav and javlin cav to counter his elephants or infantry.

Currently, arrowships do pierce damages, cataships do crush damages. So one is effective against buildings and the other isn't. With your suggestion, it seems you would like to remove that difference. D4507 reduces the pierce damages of arrow-ships to the same level as the one of defensive buildings and add a multiplier against ships. Could you develop your argumentation about why having all ships dealing a moderate amount of damages to buildings would make the gameplay better? On the Quinqueremes/cataships' inaccuracy, the same issue was brought forward for catapults: Catapults dont work. I guess a similar fix should be made for both, D4511.

we can destroy walls, and defeat the enemy, it's possible I have done that when I was more noobish than I am now, but I could have destroyed the enemy a lot earlier I was too noob to at that time. I let the enemy build walls which was a mistake and It took a lot of time to defeat the turtler.

Gauls have an easier starting economy and have always been friendly to new players, because of their simple structure tree. Caros The Carthaginian walls are 3 times stronger than default walls, so once a wall has been constructed they are quite invincible.

On mainland there is no guaranteed way to defeat turtlers, but a map that make turtling very difficult is the empire map. On that map you start with 2 CCs and both thus you can focus your cavalry attacks on the weakest point of their bases. But then again, turtlers might not like to play on empire.

Gboss leaves the match then leaves the lobby. metadata.jsoncommands.txt

will japan civ have waifus