Leaderboard

Missed the last presentation about 0 A.D. with a focus on how to contribute ? Fear not for it's now available online: https://t.co/NwcJbyh9Nv

If you look at pure stats, infantry mercs are no less OP than cavalry mercs. However, no-one ever complains about them, simply because it's easy to dodge them, then lure them into a trap due to the slow speed of infantry. The lower survivability of infantry and their slow speed nerf them, making very OP units defeatable. Consider Macedonian silver shield units and champion pikemen. They are just as deadly as the champion cavalry in close range, yet no-one notices them, simply because you are never forced into a melee fight with them: free draw a circle of ranged units around them, then dance with your melee. This will eventually wear out the champion units without costing a single soldier of yours. You can't avoid any cavalry unit using this technique, especially against the Carthaginians (lightening general hero). So an effective nerf would be slowing down these mercenary sword cavalry so that they cannot escape spear cavalry or javlin cavalry.

I’d prefer it only be CS. I have concerns that that’ll make champ spear cav OP, especially because there is a tech for champ spear cav with Sele and Persia.

The problem with the bribe mechanic is that it was implemented and then boom, no one worked on making it more interesting. There were some minor tweaks, sure. But any further design work on the feature died due to disagreements. For instance, I'd expand it to include all support and citizen soldier units and then give it some kind of cool down time between bribes, or make the cost of bribing increase exponentially while there are active spies, but the cost settles back down once all spies are expired. But consensus wasn't reached so now the feature sits unused and unimportant.

My minimap patch isn't a feature, it's an optimization. And according to the open RB list I have some time to make a proper patch.

https://code.wildfiregames.com/D4506 people just can’t agree. If nothing else, I think the 2x multiplier should be implemented since there is agreement in that

Its a trade off, and you would not turn all your pikes into rams anyhow, that would be a grave error in judgment

A sensible player would work with that and try to channel the opponent into crossfire and other disadvantageous situations. If you want to encourage players to think beyond P3 = Ram= victory then you need to give them more options and better ones. That is reasonable

To clarify on the gate weakness I mean that the weakness of gates be further emphasized than they currently are.

So I have been thinking, and I am going to suggest raising the health of stone walls. Right now they are useless except to deter raiding. However I also think gates should be kept at a weak level. This way you leave the obvious weaknesses of walls open while also allowing defending players to better control the flow of an assault on their town. I do not think the stone cost should be altered or the build time.

No I meant for all foot units to turn them into rams. You could also turn that handheld ram into a bigger ram

You could have an upgrade cost for units a bit higher and not require multiple ones. I don't think you can do a shared upgrade that way.

there is another option: soldiers building rams on the field. wow has the code for it if I remember well.

Alrighty, that makes sense

It would be nice if there was a runaway option whenever charging is implemented. Otherwise, it will be all offense and no defense.

Even if there is no new model it doesn't hinder the adjustment of the data, I suggest you try my mod, there is a battering ram in P2, it is cheaper, has lower HP and damage, and is easier to be destroyed by melee infantry.

wiki/XML.Actor#AttachPoint Loading the mesh in blender give a nice list.

More seriously, there are only three phases not four. So a light ram in second phase would make it far more meaningful than the current "everyone rush phase 3 as fast they jolly well can" I don't see why everyone should not get a tree trunk hauled by a couple guys. It does not take a rocket scientist to tell a couple guys to pick up a random log and start smacking the local neighbor's door with it. The difference would be much lower pierce lower since they are just a couple guys with a log, so shooting them would be just as effective as smacking them with pointy sticks and swords.

@Stan` This is really well done presentation. Excellent travail.

I will wait patiently, thanks for working on "beautifying" the game.

*could be made If the multiplier for CS spear cav is boosted to 2, should that also happen for the champion spear cavalry? Furthermore I think the hack armor could be nice as I deem spear cavalry to weak against infantry swordsmen.

It gives perfectly the excuse for make another complete topic. "Defensive building capture and repair".

I can get someone to record it if needed.

A turtlers' dream lul. I don't think that defensive structures need any overall buff, but I do think that an infantry player should have some ways to restrict cavalry movement. Palisades work as long as you are not facing any melee cav which can kill it in 5-10 seconds. Stone walls would be nice as they are stat-wise, but they are too hard to place since they can't be put over trees and can't be in neutral territory like palisades.

not unusable, but just unimpactful and hard to balance. Sort of gimmicky you know?

@LetswaveaBook said a new one would be made with those changes, but I haven't seen it yet. Honestly, I would be happy with the minimum, which is just the multiplier increase almost everyone seems to agree on that. I think spear cav should be a little more armored than swordcav, but this could be decided later.

yes, I just hope to avoid adding things that might end up like the bribing mechanic.

first time I see it in some Indian Language. I also found out that you were Indian recently. I have already seen Japanese, Chinese, Indian, Filipino players.

there are a lot of Indian players for 0AD including me and we are active everyday. don't know anyone else from Asia except Iran.

Ideally it would be good to see some kind of wall buff for A26 already rather than A27.

Definitely agree.

The problem with stone walls is that they need to be built in territory, which means you need to wrap your town in a full circle to be safe, but it's stupid, because on the one hand it limits the development of the town, and at the same time there is a lot of narrow terrain on the map , only a narrow section of wall is needed to block the road.

I think it could be logically defended. I can see how a workshop is needed to assemble something with moving parts and aligned measurements; for picking up a tree trunk not so much.

Gaps in walls while problematic aren't a big issue when you can quite literally go through walls with little effort. I am against deleting trees because this can be abused by Rome to delete an opponents forests. Also forests are good impediments to rams and elephants which is why forests in front of walls are good. Yes and that is largely because walls lack meaningful impact to the battlefield.

At this stage we need better defenses not more ways to destroy stuff. Gates will die easily enough to siege, the point is to give the defender more control over his position than he currently has by giving him better tools. The workman is only ever as good as his tools or so they say.

Hey, as I said here It seems portable apps have no interest whatsoever in adding the game to their portable app repos. You can however install it on some machine and copy the files elsewhere. If you pass -writableRoot it'sll be 100% portable.

Yeah. I suppose we need a a special component for compound upgrade @Freagarach ?

Ah I see, so essentially a button that merges a couple units into a ram? Or a single unit into a ram? And then a button with that unit to turn it into a better ram?

How about units on a different island with no barracks or no building? Should they command a ship to go back to their dock, so they can go back to some barracks. That seems like a messy edge case.

Filter on "prop"

how about either they train from the buildings I mentioned above for 2 non-mace civs. This should neatly solve these issues. Maybe also give them a different price, but this may not be necessary.

I don't think all civs should get this p2 ram. How about only add the p2 ram to few (like 1-3) civs? I think it would be weird if every civ got the p2 ram, making rams both ubiquitous (all civs have them) and redundant (all civs have 2 different rams). I think it would be really cool for this unit to serve as a mercenary for some civ. This would probably mean inverting the cost: wood -> metal and metal -> wood. Also this would require only 1 or 2 designs. Here is an idea: Maybe mace alone should be allowed to build the siege workshop in p2 and train the p2 ram, while a couple other civs can train the p2 ram in other buildings (could be military colony for seles, or maybe roman army camp for romans "auxillary seige unit", not for ptol because ptol already OPOPOPOP).

In addition to removing the damage bonus of spearmen and pikeman to cavalry, and adding the damage reduction of cavalry to spearmen and pikeman, it is also necessary to add the damage bonus of melee cavalry to ranged units, and increase the damage and HP of archers. Before I tested in the mod, a small number of cavalry (10) charged directly to most archers (25), and when they were all recruits, the cavalry only killed 6 archers and were eliminated. The impact would be much better if the cavalry attacked from the side and behind while the infantry on both sides was engaged, or if part of the cataphract was used to take the bow fire at the front of the cavalry line. And compared with pure melee cavalry, adding a part of javelin and archer cavalry has better killing effect on archers. Overall, more experimentation is required, I'll refine these settings in the mod and get someone to test it.

Ram army go brrrrrrrrrrrr

Stanislas interview.

Excuse me, did you just say: