Leaderboard

what can be is to hide their name and faction until you discover them on the map.

I'm no longer really active in this forum, but I do check it out occasionally from time to time. It's sad to see that we are still in a deadlock of balancing debate. I agree with this statement. To elaborate my argument: In Civilizations section of the design document, currently we have historical overview and then it jumps straight to detailed description of units/buildings, some even do away with overview altogether. What I suggest is the overview of what the player expect when they select certain civilization. What differentiate it from other civilizations. Add some historical based justification as necessary. Something like Rise of Nations, but less technical and more abstraction: e.g. Athenian: They gather silver faster (because Laureion mines), they research faster (because philosophy). Romans: They have strong infantry (because Legions), they expand faster (because Roman empire). Mauryan: They have mobile gathering (because ?), strong archer (because longbows). etc. Avoid exact numbers and percentage, focus on general advantages/disadvantages or strengths/weaknesses of each civs. Only after these established, we can then go to units/structure/bonus description. For each description, there must be a reference to this overview. The finalized design document should be able to answer questions like: why certain unit have certain stats/why does this civ have certain bonuses on the other hand, why this civ doesn't have that unit or structure what is the difference of gameplay between civ A & civ B I'd like to rush/turtle, which civs are suitable for me why does this unit too weak/strong etc. After that, the balancing discussion can continue. Refer to design document established above before making any changes. When proposing any changes, ensure that it doesn't break any of the established design first before we talk about the relation with other civs. I understand that we are not making this design document from scratch, as we already have the game, so cheating i.e make the design based on the finished game is alright. What I want to stress is that we need to make sure that people know the general intended design of each civ. When people suggest changes, there must be some degree of bias (favorite civs, preferred playstyle, favorite RTS games beside 0AD, etc) and I hope the established design document could be considered before proposing something.

basically it is an advertisement, a tv spot about the game, Mayorcete has a wide audience in spanish. He noted that 0 AD deserves all the support for the intense love that the developers put into the game. He says that 0 AD is a worthy game on a par with Age of Empires. AoE 2 fanboys jumped in a debate in the comments. Mayorcete has been fighting with the AoE2 community , because AoE IV.

As long as we are focused only on balance, we will be chasing our own tail. 0 a.d has reached a stage where it needs a design overhaul. A design document is needed to guide the next steps. The idea of starting with a generic civilization, and then being able to choose which civilization you want to steer towards is extremely fun. I would start with a standard civilization and then the second phase I could choose which of the 14 civilizations I would like to play with, with their respective bonuses. This would add a very interesting element of surprise to players, especially in team games. If I had to choose one idea, I would certainly go that way.

It's a pretty neat model, actually.

Maybe adding an extra property to the resource *.json file (e.g. adding "zeroResourceStart" to the silver.json file) and then check for that property when the game calls "SetResourceCounts". Diff: SetResourceCounts - zeroResourceStart property

It won't make any difference, as you still need to build a CC to train more civilians. In fact, nomadic mode is quite an interesting design for Age of Empires 3 where the map will generate random terrain, because you have to explore unknown terrain to find a good place to settle down, but for the terrain is fixed 0AD, just Lack of fun. To a certain extent, if this mode is to be interesting, the design of citizens-soldier and territory needs to be removed.

The game is now trying to force all factions to start massive battles in P3. But in fact, each faction has different levels of civilization according to the historical background. If some factions do not have some powerful units in the late stage, such as cataphract, chariot, war elephant, ballista, then their dominant period should be placed in P2 and attack earlier than other factions. And those factions with powerful units in the later stage should try their best to survive the opponent's offensive in P2 until they reach P3 and reach the dominant period.

Bigger and better! I think Atlas Valleys and Sahyadri Buttes by @LordGood are masterpieces. I love that they are variable rather than symmetric, so players have different advantages and disadvantages. I also love Neareastern Badlands and Greek Acropolis. I wish we had giant versions of these maps. I think performance is much better and we are ready .

You just have to get better. In serious: maybe upload a replay so people can give you feedback. With your general description I feel you can only get general advice.

Here is another suggestion: Hide enemy civilizations in the diplomacy window. In random games, it kind of ruins the surprise.

I agree with this getting off-topic

So you're saying it won't work here? I was socialized in forums with rules (off topic, full quotes...*) and actual enforcement, here it is bordering on non-moderation. This thread is all over the place; not that I don't like the p0 idea, but this thread was supposed to be about something else. *Backseat moderation was also frowned upon. I'll show myself out.

You start the game like in the dark ages of aoe1. You can choose from three generic civilizations. All civilizations look very similar (only a few differences provided by branching models). Civilizations share the same units, women (food), basic spearmen (food/wood), javelins (food/wood) and a scout (food). Scout is like a spear cavalry, able to fight and be trained in age one. At that moment we will have a good rock/paper/scissors for all civilizations. Each of these three civilizations has some very basic bonuses, one of the civilizations would have a bonus for economy, another for aggression and another for defense, pleasing all players styles. When ready to pass the stage you can choose which civilization you want to evolve to, if you choose Sparta for example, you will have some bonuses like as stronger women, faster and stronger infantry.

Too detailed for us, though.

How about the new Macedonian wonder (26397)? Though, it still needs the generic name of "Palace of (or 'at') Aigai" so to clarify the ancient Greek translation to other players.

It is not the type of damage that is in question it is the magnitude of the damage. Enjoy the Choice

All relevant commits included until: r27103 [Disclaimer: since I'm not a developer, my sense of 'relevant' may have included many more commits that are truly necessary... Feel free to simplify the list!]

Hi guys, here is a picture of the Empires at War, Rise of Rome I made , using the 0 AD Scenario Editor...I have been working over a year on it, and posted some pictures of how is looking, for you guys to see, and I think is finally done, after more than a year making it... I really would like to share it with you guys, but I don't know how to upload , so any help from any of you that know how to do it is welcome...The map is Gigantic, and It represents Southern Europe and the Mediterranean Sea, the map and the factions can be modified to your own taste as you like. The scenario I made for this map is set for 4 players, Rome, Carthage, The Gauls, and the Seleucid Empire. You can play any of them or set them as AL players as you like. I make the map to look as close as possible to the real Geographical shape of Southern Europe, The Mediterranean sea, Northern Africa and the region of Palestine and the Anatolia peninsula, and the map is packed with gaia factions that will attack and defend their small buffer states from all All main players including the AL bot. So as you move across the map expanding your empire you will also encounter Sasanids, Gauls and Germanic tribes, Greeks, Spartans, Macedonians, Iberians, Britons , Ptolemaics , Desert Pirates and mercenaries. The map have cities and ports that represent real cities and towns from that age that need to be capture or destroy for their strategic value and a lot of resources for all player to capture and keep expanding. You can set this map as you like...I usually play with the Roman Republic...so that's why I call it Rise of Rome, but you all can play and set the scenario as you like, Hope you guys enjoy it , and if possible, make it better than what I did...I am pretty sure many of you will, and I see forward to that. I just need advice on how to upload here for you guys to play and get it tested, and fix it from any errors if you find any, and make it better... May the Only true God be always by our side... ....You can write me to my gmail account. charliechill17pr@gmail.com. Thank you all for your time and attention.

Then it seems we should call it "wilderness mode".

you know what's funny? if 0 AD went trough the kind of rework borg- asks, right now the first two groups to choose from would be greek and non-greek.

Muy buenas, tengo una duda. ¿Cómo puedo crear una cuenta? Cada vez que intento crear una cuenta para poder jugar el multiplayer, me sale el mensaje "No se pudo verificar el certificado del servidor o no se completo la conexión del todo". Lo que me impide crear una cuenta para poder jugar con mis amigos. Agradecería que alguien me pudiera ayudar con dicho problema. Quedo atento a sus comentarios.

Muchas gracias, funciono. La verdad, estoy agradecido con todos ustedes. Realmente, les dio las gracias, la solución funciono, espero que estén bien y que tengan buen día.

This is all ready the case. If you open the scenario editor and let the cavalry archer and infantry archer fight one on one,You will see that the infantry archer hits the cavalry archer more often. Both units have the same accuracy.

Interesting. One time I pointed out that something could be done about the worker elephant's helpfulness, the reply I got was 'it was decided to have it skill-based', meaning microed.

Good night because I have to format the hard drive and that I am going to be traveling I leave this 3d model in case someone is interested in the task of doing it. the front fronton Temple_of_artemisa.rar

Yeah, starting_resources.json should be expanded. Shouldn't be too hard (TM). ^^

Desactiva TLS en configuración en la pestaña de red y sala multijugador.

Intente desactivar TLS a través de la configuración. Ref: #6504 (20/Apr/22)

dejame llamar a un desarrollador... @Silier@Freagarach @Stan`

Two because I would like to have a reason to enjoy using catapults again, and three for tactical diversity.

For use against siege yes, we need to be careful with ranged units though. This is why i prefer to add it to catapults, one because ranged units already have a lot going for them. Catapults do not.

One more thing to consider: swords are more likely to break or bend with a powerful hit. A swordsman will be hesitant to hit a siege engine with full force. An axe will not be out of action after such an attack. An axeman is more likely to decommision a siege engine.

With all respect there are only really three ways to inflict damage, pierce, hack/slash and bludgeon/crush, if you want to add permutations of those you would need to add resistances for them which means things get complicated quickly. Your best option is to use damage modifiers. Its simple and allows for alterations using the existing foundations without bloating things.

Yes, but my point is that the trireme should have various civs specfic upgrades. I just put metal ram as a possibility, not implying it could be readily implemented. I was referring to something along these lines, although this probably would only apply to fishing boats. https://wildfiregames.com/forum/topic/56010-did-someone-say-improved-ship-movement/#comment-453813

To be honest, I think the call to for a design document isn´t rooted in practical purposes. I would consider the hope that a design document provides misleading. You might think that things get done once it is clearly put in a design document, but issues don´t magically solve itself when there is a design document. I expect any design document to quickly get stale. So rather than saying this is the design document, It would be probably better to set goals for the next 3 alphas and count how much has been achieved to reach these goals. There was some talk about faction differentiation, but what have the discussion since A24 delivered? Hoplite tradition and moving possibly kush pyramids to p1. You can´t say we should achieve this goal and just wait until it is achieved.

No, statistics on which civ players choose, whether win loss/ratio fits statistical expectations, length of games and other collectable data, then trying to make sense of all the data. Complement it with questionnaires as to what people like about civs and what not. The goal should be to have all civs be somewhat attractive for whatever reasons, if it's just the sound track that makes a civ popular that is fine as well If those "we need ultimate balance for competitive games" people have a couple interesting civs which work for them to choose from that is good enough, they just have to have the possibility of a filter which is currently lacking. Contribute redirects to https://code.wildfiregames.com/source/design/ which returns an error --- @maroder A design document should be about principles, not stats or similar details. What it could describe without thinking much about it: How to update the design document (process) If I want to add a civ, what do I have to fulfill If I want to add a map, what do I have to make sure If I want to add a model, what requirements are there If I want to write a new ui, what must I make sure of How to bring historical facts to the users attention How should city building aspect work How should fights work on a meta level What is territory meant to achieve many more For instance the removal of kennels without the backing of a design document shouldn't have happened IMHO.

Just want to say, we appreciate you, Stan. Lots of toxicity has been around the last 18 months or so and it’s easy to forget about good people like you.

The term here is also archaic, but it is what ordinary people understand.

The exact term is https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lime_mortar Still lime stone. In Spanish (Latinoamérica) we call all sub products "Cal".

These are all fantastico my friend!

did some rites with lime? "Mayan ceremony stone of lime"

in the comments some Mexicans mention the existence of this tradition.

@Duileoga thank you very much for all this!

enjoyy <3<3

Los modelos son impresionantes, gran trabajo! Acerca de la descripción para la facción: Tal vez tiene frases un poco largas? Sin cambiar el contenido, estaba pensando en algo así: -Los mayas son una cultura que llegó a un alto nivel de desarrollo convirtiendo sus otrora aldeas en imponentes Ciudades Estado (como la antigua Grecia) con palacios, plazas y pirámides que alzaron sobre las tupidas junglas de las tierras bajas, los volcanes de las tierras altas y los pastizales de Yucatán. Gracias a sus avanzados conocimientos en agricultura, astronomía, arquitectura, arte y matemáticas, florecieron en su periodo preclásico a la par que Roma en el Mediterráneo. Los antepasados de los mayas legaron impresionantes murales y estelas que nos narran grandes mitos, epopeyas, guerras y poderosas dinastías; perviviendo tras 4.000 años en las actuales repúblicas de Guatemala, México, Belice, Honduras y El Salvador. ¿Qué le parece, @Duileoga?

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.