Leaderboard

Palisades are built in smaller segments than stone walls. When a ram attacks a palisade, it attacks the edge of the palisade, the center of the palisade, and the other edge of the palisade. Each part of the palisade has 700 health, so an un-upgraded ram, dealing 150 crush damage, will need at least 5 hits to destroy each part of the palisade. Having destroyed a section, a tiny bottleneck of soldiers can then follow the ram through, but they are especially vulnerable to the defending army since they must squeeze through a small space. (Another trouble for the invader is that soldiers (especially ranged soldiers) get distracted fighting the palisade and do not immediately stop when enemy soldiers come into range) Stone walls are built in larger sections and of course have more health. But once the main section is destroyed there is a large gap for an army to pass through. I think palisades are too strong versus siege compared to stone walls and the main issue is that they have smaller sections that each need to be destroyed. I propose that the length of the middle section of palisade walls be extended to the same length as the stone walls.

The Roman Siege wall is a really cool thing to have in the game, but if you build it anywhere other than your home territory you lose ownership of it very quickly. So if you build it for a siege in enemy territory, it will soon become the enemy's and they can just delete it. Also in neutral territory you will lose it right away, so there is no point to building a gate. I think it would be cool if siege walls within a certain range of roman military fort just mirrored the ownership of the military fort. That said the A26 catapults, with their 100 range and increased damage, will be would probably be overpowered in conjunction with the siege wall.

yes I think so. All bushes do not obstruct buildings. I like it tbh, it makes this map in particular feel very open.

Mirror Mod.

I would like to see palisades gain effectiveness versus cavalry and lose some versus siege. Increasing the gap between posts would mean that it is easier for cavalry to get through once they break one section. If siege attacking one piece of wall did exactly the same damage to the adjacent pieces of wall, then larger sections could be opened up by the same attack. On a side note, it would be very nice if melee cavalry could get a .3x or .5x multiplier versus palisade walls.

Maybe that should be changed?

Still same. Seems to be performance regression of a26.

The ideal for formations using that principle would be to have centurion rank as a requirement for the battalion. In 0ad our ranges are not. Are simply XP upgrades.

I tried that AppImage and I get much less fps (50 vs 125) there on every map compared to installed alpha 25 using identical graphics settings.

Yeah, well. It's good to have them (for example if an enemy should show up with siege), and if they're building to prepare an offensive their low gathering rate doesn't matter.

Ha, creative use of github Quick notes looking at the yml: 0ad tarballs don't get checked for checksum mismatch No checksum generated for the app image ActorEditor doesn't look accessible 0ad.appdata.xml belongs into /usr/share/metainfo/ instead

The function call should not be in GetSimulationState. You could set a timer in cmpPlayer instead. Even better is using cmpResourceTrickle that all player entities already have. https://github.com/0ad-matters/no-gather/pull/6 Versioning suggestion to all modders. Separate out the import commit with the modded changes so seeing whats changed from the base game is easier.

Maybe. But remember, women can't garrison everywhere so that would really just be to garrison all men. Garrisoning all men right now, is a pretty rare occurrence (and it is even rarer for the player who does it to survive, so this may be a feature without any real use). I would also worry about the scenario where players begin to purposely build barracks close to each other on the border, wait to be attacked and then garrison all barracks. The attacker's units would then default to capturing barracks. The garrisoned player could then engage in a series of rapid un-garrisoning and re-garrisoning that can't be stopped because the attacking player's units always default to the buildings. Basically, I would be concerned that such a feature has little value and could lead to annoying meta changes so I don't know if it is worth creating. But I could be wrong.

Inspiration, from Battle for Middle Earth 2. In this video you will see: Persistent Battalions Army Formation Cavalry trample effect on enemy soldiers Cheering Informative sound FX Target Flash

Gorgeous! Those rocks (metal mines?) are gorgeous. Ground textures? Gorgeous! Alexandermb and wackyserious' work on the unit textures really pops out in the HQ version of that screenshot... My one criticism would be the use of those paving stones known as Sett: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sett_(paving) I grew up in Antwerp and that particular type of paving stone is still ubiquitous there, as in many historical cities in Europe and even in some American cities like Boston and new York you can still find it. It has a very 18th - 19th century feel to it, and I can't unsee it. It's too iconic of a pavement stone. This one is a lot more irregular, and therefore perhaps more authentic looking. A more common type of ancient cobblestones perhaps: https://cc0textures.com/view?id=PavingStones016 A different type of Sett, but far less iconic looking, and therefore maybe more appropriate: https://cc0textures.com/view?id=PavingStones010 And this is perhaps the most historically realistic type of pavement stone (and my personal preference, maybe with some color correction): https://cc0textures.com/view?id=PavingStones054