Leaderboard

https://play0ad.com/0-a-d-empires-ascendant-alpha-26-feature-freeze-update/

Kakutstha made a new youtube video

What if ships had no firepower other than their turreted ranged units and an anti-ship ram for some ram ships and a catapult for quineremes? What if there was a "board enemy ship" feature for ships when adjacent? What if ships had capture points and could be boarded and captured? Feature request: When you select a number of boats and soldiers, click a button to have all soldiers evenly divide themselves and garrison (or turret) onto the boats. Also a button to have the soldiers evenly repair all the boats. I would like ships to have 3 ways to combat other ships: -having turreted soldiers/catapults/balisatas -ramming -capturing/boarding. But this can probably not be achieved by a simple changes in parameters.

if you still have a few melee units left, you actually win that fight. Also, once the melee units are dead, you can retreat with ranked up units. I have seen this strategy a few times in multiplayer with huge benefits. Here's an example army composition: 50/50 spear/skirm 50 spear 40 skirm, 10 mercenary archers. In this battle, your skirms and melee do the usual meatshield fighting, but your 10 archers are constantly picking off enemy skirms or slingers.

What if ships had no firepower other than their turreted ranged units and an anti-ship ram for some ram ships and a catapult for quineremes? What if there was a "board enemy ship" feature for ships when adjacent? What if ships had capture points and could be boarded and captured? Feature request: When you select a number of boats and soldiers, click a button to have all soldiers evenly divide themselves and garrison (or turret) onto the boats. Also a button to have the soldiers evenly repair all the boats.

I wonder if prefered classes should be configurable. @Freagarach is it even possible?

Derphammer.

A huge part of the problem is how densely packed units in 0 AD tend to be, even clipping through each other more often than not. It is impossible to read silhouettes for important clues like shields and weapons when the eye cannot locate where one unit starts and another begins.

Any thoughts and opinions on whether players should be able to target specific unit types? Players are already able to do this for their own units (i.e., double clicking on a jav cav will select all jac cav on the screen). But players are currently not able to select which enemy units they attack aside from doing it one by one. I envision somewhere where units will target the closet unit type within their vision, so basically the same thing as now, but units will ignore all enemies but the type that they've been told to fight. Such an option would help with the meatshield targeting issue where all archers target the closest couple of spears while ignoring all the jav inf standing behind the meatshield. It seems like it would also create better symmetry in what you can select with your units vs what you can select of your enemy units.

I think such an option does not solve the problem. If it is easy focus your attacks on melee infantry, I doubt if melee infantry would still have any use. I don´t think we should keep a bad system because it provides challenges. I just mean to say that if we do so, we need to rethink the role of melee infantry.

Hello @Gnievko, welcome to community Try configuration options in ~/.config/0ad/config/user.cfg: cursorbackend = "system" nohwcursor = "true"

@chrstgtr This, or something similiar was brought up in that thread about "meatshield meta". As much as I dislike the meatshield meta, I feel that this would not be a good alternative. No matter how balanced the units are there will always be a unit to prioritize killing in battle, and I think such a system as choosing a particular unit to kill while ignoring others would be too automatic and we would lose some skill-factor to the game. The reason I liked attack-ground was that its applications depends on the situation and there would still be ways to counter it. Also, attack-ground or area-attack would be more imprecise than selecting a particular unit and would also have its own skill factor. A true attack-ground such as the one from that youtube video would offer reduced hit-rate as a tradeoff for targeting a particular area of an enemy army.

Thank you very much, it works here.

@Lopess libfmt has been updated in the system, needed full clean and rebuild try: cd ~/0ad && make -C build/workspaces/gcc clean && rm -rf binaries/system/*.a && ./build/workspaces/update-workspaces.sh && make -C build/workspaces/gcc -j3

@nwtour @vladislavbelov any clue ?

I can foresee a few frustrating edge cases with this sort of thing, that could be mitigated to greater or lesser extents depending on implementation. For instance, if I designate a Persian champion lancer as the preferred target do my units only target Persian champion lancers, non-civ specific champion lancers, generic elite spear cavalry, or spear cavalry in general? Do they go on to prefer melee cavalry or cavalry in general over infantry-type units after all the champion lancers are dead? What happens if all the champion lancers at the front of the battle are dead but there is still one stuck back in the rear? Should melee units try to wade through the enemy line to get him until the player orders them to stop? Should there be a attack-range-based preference calculus? Paradoxically, a more predictable version of this idea might be to specify more preferred target classes for various unit types. (Which, as a bonus, is a feature that the game already supports.) E.g. spearmen and pikes might have melee as their preferred target class, swordsmen could prefer infantry. Maybe melee cavalry prefer to target ranged infantry, or spear cavalry might have other cavalry as their most favorite target. Maybe foot skirmishers target melee, slingers target ranged, and perhaps foot archers target cavalry if you want to get weird. Etc. This would increase unit class differentiation and players would basically pre-select their units' battle tactics by way of the composition they decide to build (which is probably a little more realistic--people need training to do stuff effectively in the heat of battle). No additional micromanagement would be added to the game (which I'm sure some would appreciate and others could consider an inexcusable missed opportunity). This I very much agree with.

This funny bug shown below sometimes occurs when I quit the lobby and start a singleplayer game. It has persisted over the alphas, and has become especially frequent in A25 that I felt a need to report it. untitled.webm My solution is to delete all of my configuration files and relaunch the game, that often fixes the problem, but then I would have to tweak the settings again. The log files are here: userreport_hwdetect.txtsystem_info.txtmainlog.htmlinterestinglog.html And below are my configurations: user.cfgmatchsettings.jsonlocal.cfg It's also worth mentioning that 0A.D interferes heavily with KDE desktop effects. As soon as I launch 0AD, all animations disappear and become jagged; KDE desktop effects such as magic lamp windows and wobbly windows disappear; round corners of windows become right angles; latte-dock also experiences glitches. I am not sure if these 2 bugs are related.

well done replay great start BTW:i cant like and cant upload. error is: Sorry, an unknown server error occurred when uploading this file. (Error code: -200)

Couldn't complete the first mission. There is a green player somewhere but I don't see him

@Sp00ky First of all turn of random differences between units in the graphic settings. That way at least all unit types have only 1 look which you can better learn than the look of all the different variations. And I can recommend you the BoonGUI mod because it increases graphics of projectiles a lot so you can actually see them. Much better projectile sizes, not realistic, but the main game should adapt them.

Nope, I have no idea and also cannot reproduce. Does it happen always for you?

Same reason why some people want some version of an 'attack ground': melee units don't deal as much damage as the ranged units. Melee units also have more non-attacking time because they have to walk up to the enemy to do damage whereas range units can just slightly change their aim and continue attacking without having to walk up to another unit. Additionally, Range units tend to 'overkill' melee untis because melee units have a tendency to walk to specific a fighting point whereas range units form a line. So what I am suggesting will pragmatically mean that more units are being shot at because two lines of range units may form where the units shoot at the unit standing directly across from them. The reason why the meatshield winner wins is because once a player loses their meatshield then their range units, which are more susceptible to damage, will get quickly overrun. Basically, I am just trying to propose an alternative to the attack ground debate that occurred in another thread where no one could agree how an attack ground should function (i.e. range units shooting randomly within an area vs range units targeting specific units in an area vs. etc.).

Guess it depends how you're playing/what your settings are. I like to turtle until I can start my decisive 'world peace & unity tour', capturing critical infrastructure on the way. When my AI ally attacks early/mid game it always ends with their army being wiped out; even if they successfully destroy the enemies' eco, they have no understanding of pulling back or pulling out. So the enemies' soldiers garrison, my ally pokes at fields or something and gets shot up; and for me it's no fun trying to capture fully garrisoned CCs etc. If my ally gets mighty and attacks late game, they just destroy everything; also no capturing fun for me. Basically, I prefer my ally to hold their flank, be a viable trading partner and to not get in my way otherwise. (And not declare themselves neutral or even allied with my enemies! )

The sound seem to be inherited correctly from the parent templates in 0ad/infantry_spearman_b.xml at master · 0ad/0ad (github.com) Maybe @Freagarach has an idea

I think he means the Sparabara spearmen of Persians

Dont forget that there are also merc cavs which are also spearcav (carth, ptol, sele). They might be less dangerous than jav merc cav even though they are melee troops while the jav arent.

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

Stanislas interview.

I hardly find the error messages helpful, but yours is a new level of unhelpful. Can you upload the crashlog.txt and crashlog.dmp files? (You may find paths to these files at https://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/GameDataPaths )

shps.mp4