Leaderboard

This only works for a mod. Raiding has been a part of 0ad from the beginning

I didn't know you didn't have a topic of this game. Italians will be a new faction fin this game. Sorry I haven't info in English yet.

Hello everyone, As some of you may know we maintain a list of all the changes for an alpha on the wiki. The page for Alpha 26 is this one. You can also find all the information you need to update your mod here. Unfortunately we sometimes forget to update it and some commits go missing. Would anyone be so kind as to backlog from r25861 and update the page if needed? This page is really useful to write the release announcement. Thanks in advance

This requires changing the current citizen-soldier system, adding citizens of both genders, and allowing them to complete the collection of various resources. Player P1 cannot train any soldiers. In this stage, there should be no fighting between players, all they have to do is to accumulate enough buildings and populations to prepare for the next stage to fight. This is not to say that the setting of citizens-soldiers is completely abolished, but I think at least soldiers should no longer be able to collect metals and stones. Fighting should be the main work of soldiers, and collecting materials should only be a sideline.

The current game shows that attempts to completely replace dedicated laborers with citizen soldiers were unsuccessful, and the original intent was to integrate civilians and soldiers into citizen soldiers, moving from two units to one. But what about the results now? Now there are women who farm, civic infantry who log wood, mine metal and stone, civic cavalry who hunt, mercenary infantry who can build buildings but can't gather resources, mercenary cavalry and champions who can 't gather resources or build buildings.

As a result of the game's separation of women from male commoners, it limited the kinds of work women could do, and they were not as good as men in logging wood or mining metals and stones. Even higher farming efficiency than men's is just an unrealistic "compensation". Otherwise, if women lag behind men in overall labor efficiency, who will train women laborers? But in reality, women can often cooperate with men and complete a lot of work efficiently. So I hate this division, because the result of division is that women are marginalized, and many players will delete women in the later stage and replace them with citizen soldiers.

Both sexes should be workers not more women(only). Laborers. CS (citizen Soldier) must have little role as economic , help to worker to work but only a little. cavalry should be same.

On the surface, it seems that 0AD merges civilians and soldiers to make the mechanism more concise, but in fact it shapes three different laborers - women, infantry and cavalry, making the mechanism more complex.

But actually if you can build granary in neutral area, you don't need cavalry to have meat gathering function. In my opinion, because civilians are inconvenient to hunt -> need cavalry as fast meat gatherers -> cavalry needs to be trained in P1 -> need to consider the strength of cavalry in P1. It's not a strategy, it's just creating more problems that wouldn't have arisen in order to solve some small problems, making the whole mechanism more complex and difficult to balance.

that is one purpose of cavalry meat gather rate. But the main one is that cavalry can not gather other resources so in order for the citizen-soldier concept to apply to cavalry, they needed to be good at the only economic thing they can do. Since cavalry have such a high food cost, and can gather hunt at a high rate it enables cavalry to be trained early on. Cavalry also make corrals worthwhile to make for food eco. I am glad that the economy side of 0ad has so many ways to improve rather than the simplicity of simply assigning villagers to tasks that do not need to be managed. There is strategy, and there is also skill. AoE2, and 0ad have not only strategy but also skill. This means it is just as important what you do as how well you do it. Later AoE games (Microsoft) lean more toward strategy, with more civ differentiation and less opportunities for skill (ranged units are 100% accurate) Strategy: I will gather lots of food to make women, and transition to metal for mercenaries. Skill: hunt gathering optimization with cavalry.

I also prefer AoE3, which has a lot of interesting mods despite its imperfections. Also I think Microsoft is really lazy, they have time to make more DLC for AoE2, but they don't have time to give each nation's soldiers a look that is more in line with the historical display, this is partly because AoE2 is not a 3D game, making A moving soldier model is more troublesome than making a building model, but this does not exist in AoE3, you just need to import a 3D model.

btw Did AoE3 have any impact at all? I'm barely aware it exists, because there's AoE4 and bc it's the new shtuff there's talk about it. But if I'm not mistaken 2 is still much more a thing than 3.

I have always said that capturing should be optional. No main feature. As you said, in peace, or quiet hen the zone of combat is clear.

Attack speed,single damage, hit rate, block (can be expressed as melee defense).

I am different from wow in some ideas. He wants to cancel some unique settings of 0AD in the mod, and I want to adjust them. For example, I find it interesting that a unit becomes an elite through combat. What I want to do is to make the combat experience obtained by a unit no longer related to its armor and weapons, and combat experience should be more important than armor and weapons.

Every Carthaginian players dream map

Do these issues occur also when running the official Mac version using Rosetta, or are they specific to the ARM build?

The video has several comments and I hope it can contribute to making 0ad more popular. Among the comments in the video we find:

Here is a workaround: xattr -cr /Applications/0\ A.D..app Running the above command after dragging the app to Applications should make it run. Still trying to investigate the root cause of the issue.

Requires multiple attacks.

It is listed now

I have ideas how to fix the issue, but I need to finish GL stuff first.

Personally, I think it would make the most sense to have civilians fight enemies and animals by throwing stones. In a panic, rocks will almost always be available immediately at hand. For hunting, one would have a chance to go and get a bow and arrows before you set out, but when ambushed by raiders you would have to use the tools on and near your person. Getting in to hand to hand combat with an aggressor is also extremely scary (and dangerous), so a non-militarized populous will prefer to deal with threats at range... which against an enemy without ranged armament is the objectively correct way to handle the situation if you want to live. Lastly, perverse as it seems, I think perception that a thrown stone is sub-lethal compared to dedicated ordinance like an arrow or javelin is actually a huge advantage in getting untrained people to overcome their cognitive aversion to killing. If it takes multiple stones to kill someone, you can always deny that you were responsible for delivering the killing blow. (Maybe this is why stoning is a historically popular form of execution.)

Well done, I'm really impressed! I ike the different landscpapes from snowy to really desert-like europe. Though, terrain might be sorta narrow and tight to play on cz of the high sea and mountain usage in the map.

The price is that players who are not used to the A23 will gradually abandon the game. I started recommending 0AD to Chinese RTS players 4 years ago, and it was during this process that I began to absorb their opinions to make the Mirror mod. If the alpha cannot be changed in the future, then I will implement it in the module. This at least has another option for some players.

We already talked about that with Wow... The multiplayer gamers ones are going to be very upset with us.

Much to our regret we must report the program has encountered an error. Please let us know at http://trac.wildfiregames.com/ and attach the crashlog.txt and crashlog.dmp files. Details: unhandled exception (Breakpoint) Location: unknown:0 (?) Call stack: (error while dumping stack: No stack frames found) errno = 13 (Insufficient access rights to open file) OS error = 0 (no error code was set)

Hi, please state your OS and actually attach the crashlog.txt and crashlog.dmp files. Here's how to locate them: https://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/GameDataPaths You can also check https://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/FAQ Two classics: 1. Your antivir is preventing 0AD from running, 2. You're on a laptop and your integrated GPU can't handle it (switch to designated GPU). HTH

Hi Lion, What about Adding the Rise of Rome campaign map...I will be posting the campaign soon for everyone to play it. You can play the campaign on solo mode as The Roman Republic, or modified the settings for up to 8 players. The map can also be modified to fit everyone personal taste and be use for many other scenarios, like the Roman Civil war or whatever pop into your mind. You can add other mods to it as well to make new scenarios base on many Historical situations in Europe, the Mediterranean, the Middle East and North Africa. Creativity has no limits for the creative mind.

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.

It should be said that taking the Balkan Greeks as a basic template does not work, because the Balkan Greeks are relatively primitive in weapons and tactics, and they lack many necessary units that should be counted into the basic system. Just like we look at the technology tree of AoE2, most factions will have a choice in this complete technology tree. They usually only have some of these technologies and units. The more complete the technology tree, the stronger the faction. The more incomplete a faction's tech tree is, the more it needs various civilization rewards or team rewards to make up for the "deficiencies". The problem with using the Balkan Greeks as a reference to a generic civilization is that you're trying to make their mutilated tech tree itself "complete", i.e. make the parts they lack irrelevant. You have to make archers weaker than javelinmen, make war elephants a replacement for battering rams, and make those important techs and units dispensable so that the Balkan Greeks don't look weak. A basic universal civilization should have most types of units, should have archers, horse archers, chariots, war elephants, ballistas, Seleucus is a good example (real Syracuse is also very good example). I'm not against "starting with the Greeks", but I am against starting with the Balkan Greeks.

yeah. it's pointless to have more details on the design documents, ifthey're not going to be used anyway. I recon that some solutions that avoid micro may be bad for other reasons, but it's against the doc to argue that micro should be empowered for its own sake, and still people sometimes argue exactly that, and noone ever cares to bring up the design docs.

I think he means to accomplish what AoE2 only did visually. All the civs look the same in first age and differentiate from there. You would select civ by clicking p1 upgrade for that civ is the way I understand it.

@borg- given that p1 is such a critical time but also quite a long process. Do you think it makes sense to achieve this goal by having an "earlier" phase? Something even more rudimentary where only women or maybe some near-universal unit like spearmen can be trained and houses/ storehouses/farmsteads built. A 200 food 100 wood 20 second up time to p1 would be ideal because it gives ranges of options, someone trying to rush would click p1 very soon, but someone trying to boom a little would wait a little before p1. 1 or 2 p0 buildings would be necessary for phase 1 click. Perhaps we could also make different civs have different costs of time or res to click p1 (maybe some civs cost stone? or metal?). Current unique starting units would appear at cc upon phase up (like spearcav, camel archer, han swordcav, maur elephant, kushite healer) and would be seen as a tiny buff for that civ. I think it makes sense for this first phase to take no longer than 5 minutes, and for only the baskets upgrade for berries available. I do think that such a change would make it even more important to balance the civs. We could also make p0 without the civ selection phase 1 research If we make p0, we could allow blacksmith in p1. I think that this early purchase of blacksmith would be much more expensive relative to blacksmith in p2 which people tend to spam without thinking of costs. This would provide some early boom/military differences that can be exploited (remember booming=turtling discussion?) I think this would make rushing a more interesting strategy too, because rushing in p0 would be challenging, and you would see some drastically different populations/ phase up times early on in the game.

It is generally believed that the traction trebuchet originated in China. We call it "礮Pao". This is the simplest but most effective weapon that uses the principle of leverage. We used it to drop bombs from the 12th to the 15th century.

@Philip the Swaggerless Yeah, you're right there. Not having to build something, and instead of spending you're gathering resources, that's definitely an advantage.

Hi, this is my first forum post, I've created a small map for personal use. I made it in a few days, and it's not the best. Forgive me, I'm still learning the ropes. Looking for feedback! Without further ado, I present my first half-decent, horribly unbalanced map, the Battle of Iapetra, downloadable below. Screenshots will hopefully be added soon. I hope you enjoy, and apologies for the inaccurate name! city_siege.pmpcity_siege.xml

Hi @AlphaEpsilon290 and welcome, My tips would be to try break pattern in terrain textures, take about e.g. 3 main terrain elements and add to it with a small brush where needed. Play around and note the difference between left click terrain painting, and right click terrain painting. It's also nice to not only break terrain textures, but the terrain itself too by adding some height differences like holes, bumps, mountains, hills (and by texturing those accordingly) etc. Wildlife and nature can do some wonders to the atmosphere and setting aswell. If you want this map to be played without the unlimited resources setting, it's standard to have the following resources near the civic centre: About 10 chicken and 5 bushes for food, some straggler tree's nearby for early wood without needing a store house, and a big metal and stone mine about a farms reach away from the civic centre. Ofcourse you don't neccesarily have to follow this standard, but it can give you an idea. Good luck and have fun

Some tips: Scenarios are cool because we can emulate certain features that existed at that location and at that time so be sure to add trees and use the atlas relief modifiers, there are a lot of cool things to use. Keep us updated with future updates!

@user1 I regret to have to make this report but this player named FUBAR did go a bit too far. He suddenly left a rated 1v1 game hosted by himself without resigning soon after I destroyed one of his CC, even though he had 2 and most of his infrastructure were intact. He began to talk rudely since I reached town phase, calling me names like 'smurf' and 'bullshit'. Even after the end of the game, he called me '@#$%' publicly in the lobby before leaving. I have both the replays and a screenshot. Had the game continued, I would likely have won. Therefore I think I deserve some rating increase, considering that many people have told me that I am underrated. My username: Roshan9 Offender: FUBAR 2022-01-02_0002.zip

Hey good night user 101942 quitmetadata.jsoncommands.txt a game. Thanks!

That's definitely the case of mauryan Maiden Guards. That units (champions!) don't absolutely make sense and I think should be reviewed. Another big problem (in my opinion) is about heroes. Boudica and Cleopatra have a insane and totally unrealistic damage attack and amount of HP.

Yep, it does! Besides, I personally like "working side-by-side", irrespective of gender etc. Whether this is historically correct or not, I don't care too much, but I respect contrary opinions on this. If my previous post was misunderstood, it must have been me being not clear enough and what not.

Hey guys. My mod was never intended to be woke, progressive, or to "right historical wrongs," or to reduce female representation, remove/promote misogyny/misandry, or anything pro/con politically or socially. I just felt it made more sense to have male and female variants of civilian citizens, aka "villagers." That's pretty much the extent. I think it also just looks cooler to have male and female villagers working side-by-side.

This has gone a bit too far. 1. 'Female citizens' in 0ad are UnitAI + template.xml + actor.xml. They have nothing to do with real women whatsoever. So there is no sexism involved since we are dealing with purely AIs. 2. If you make 'male gatherers' , then someone could ask for 'female soldiers'. But if you implement that, you see women killed on the battlefield, then they will protest because women's rights have been violated... So these people will never be satisfied... 3. Women rush can be an effective strategy to delay your opponent. I don't see why the creator of the thread just sprays in a random criticism and never returned to check out the the mod. They have not returned since November 2020... No other female players have had this complaint, nor are the interested in installing extra mods to make the AIs more politically correct... This led me to suspect that whether this Crea is trolling...

DON'T CHANGE ANYTHING

Recently I watched a historical video which says that the pop-culture siege towers (which are used to capture walls) are rather wrong. In reality, the siege towers where used to shoot at the defenders (and to destroy gates / walls / buildings) So they should be fine.

Hello! I'm not sure if this belongs here, but would you find addition of climate catastrophes (flooding, storm, earth quake, volcanic eruption) interesting and feasible to add?

Over the last alphas, I think there was increasingly less offers by AI-enemies to become neutral or even allied; not that I'd much inclined to accept it. I'd still like some ~matrix to be available in-game to see what the relations are (it gets announced anyway, but I don't necessarily remember it).

We can also determine it based on number of games won, ratio of games won, etc. Winning games and high KD ratio increase the xp of a player and titles are given based on do. This separates pros from nubs so that nubs don't get abused and pros can enjoy exhilarating matches.