Leaderboard

Hey everyone, A27 is getting ready, so I am planning to update this mod to have it available at the release. So now would be a good time for some feedback / feature requests/ any bug reports. ______________________ Besides the request for bug reports - I do like some visual novelty once in a while (and I have looked the the temple of vesta for quite some time now). So I have some drafts for new background images that could be included in the next (A27) version if you (i.e the users of the mod) find any of them nice enough. (Note: they are not 100% finished, but should give a good impression of how they will look like) If you like any of these options and want to see them in the mod let me know - and if you don't like any of them and none should be included let me know as well. Option 1: David / the victor Option 2: Athena & ruins Option 3: Road to victory

first attempts to include it on some maps.

Two variations of Greek shrines.

Not to make this a community mod discussion, but I don't think the community mod should be a balanced version of the game for competitive games. This would solidify the existing division it has created in the community. I think the mod is better off as a testing ground for balance changes and some content additions (ie centurions). In an alternative plan to @Yekaterina's, new civs could be added to a release (hopefully in a fairly well balanced state, Han was an example although their balance is still questioned by some). After release, community mod efforts could include live balance patches for the new civs. In a26, there were no balance patches to Han, only a bugfix, however one was attempted for crossbows.

Of course instead of cavalry we could have a couple types of "fast dudes" costing something more like 80 food 50 wood rather than 100 and 50, with adjusted stats of speed, hp, armor and perhaps interesting weapon choices.

I would say there is certainly enough historical knowledge, it just has to be researched. We don't need to know exactly how many troops were at X battle at Y time, just that fighting occurred. Weaponry is well understood. I am not sure about the particular civs we are talking about, but it is often the case that real historical events are recorded in folklore Cavalry can be trained with a limit from captured stables. It is a straightforward and logical mechanic. Economy can be fairly simple but strong with less emphasis on metal (on that note, perhaps a civ bonus could be less metal cost for blacksmith techs, but increased research time. Another option would be replace metal costs here with stone). To say they used no metal is wrong, there seems to be plenty of metal usage, just not casting iron swords and the like as seen in Eurasian and African civs.

I think that would work better with the shrines (map neutral object).

How about making Temples a neutral zone for any player (only units, not siege) where ever you are on the battle field. For an enemy unit to be healed, they will need to go inside the temple whereas allies can still heal around it or inside. To make things more interesting, the owner of the temple is able to see who is garrisoned inside and if any enemy is identified, is able to convert them to his side.

There is no need to outrun horses, but just to outrun other infantry.

Persian version:

I think agriculture can only appear in P2, because the planting industry in nomadic countries is often not the individual behavior of herdsmen, but the requirements of tribal chiefs, Shanyu, and Khan, and the start of agricultural construction in nomadic countries generally requires nomadic cavalry Farmers are captured from villages in other countries, and these people who have mastered agricultural skills are allowed to reclaim the land, instead of training herdsmen who know nothing about farming from scratch.

Yes yes and yes

Cilician Pirate Ships now in the game. Would be nice to have a new "Pirate" Dock model to capture.

They parents have educated them better.

@maroder All of them are very impressive, and I like them. Thank you very much!

This is a bit overblown. Some groups of nomads did farm, seasonally. It would be very interesting to try to leverage this for nomads and make it more viable.

The game seems to have multiple workflow layers. pyrogenesis -> 0ad -> mods There is pyro engine with the simulation and basic data handling, which would be the layer for I/O optimization. Abstract stuff in here. I think it should ideally reach a somewhat stable state as the first? So that the stability can build up to the other layers. Because better simulation and performance stability = better community games = more activity on community layer (the mods for 0ad) Then, there is 0AD itself; it is much about the meshes, soundtracks, civ design, building sizes (if a space game would use pyrogenesis, it maybe had very different buildings, so that would be handled by the 0ad layer) , but also gives the basic, persistent balancing for every basic unit type. So, the game mod is kind of a.. consensual game state, which can be assumed to provide certain functionality, meshes and compatibilities. It is a common package for a community of players. In that perspective, it is more modular than the engine (generic operations and script handling, graphics rendering...), but less modular than the actual mods. That way, it allows for a greater number of players to have trust in a common gamestate and prevent OOS. Moddable game is great, but this is of course a Problem to keep track of all the versions and ensure same game behaviour between different players. p.s., i am aware that there is a "0ad" base mod within the game, but maybe it would be helpful to handle it in different layers? Engine layer should have long update cycle, game layer with medium update cycle (seasons+balancing??), and then the community-modding-layer, which is technically bleeding-edge. But there can also be some kind of release cycles, like already done. I like to compare it to arch linux and manjaro. In that way, that many people can have an better access to the grassroot kind of development (not only code!), if the changes can be locally limited. Because the fundamentals on which their modding relies (the game) provide a long-term stability. Maybe it even makes sense to have different mod formats, like .pyromap, .pyrociv etc., which can then have a stable dependency system implemented (theoretically). The Community mod is a great example in which this strength of the community-driven game is already realized! It says on the description that bleeding-edge changes are quickly added and removed. It is already a good, kind of real-time community participation (though the community might still become bigger :p and it sure will, as soon as we scaled it somehow in some ways) //EDIT4: Also consider that the different layers would have different pools of contributors. The 0ad-game can take contributions from the modding layer. Basically like a filter. But on the modular layers, we probably see the most historians, musicians, writers, translators... stuff like that. The pyro engine as the most "static" layer would take contributions mainly from devs. Not so much music in the const arrays. But (ideally, in future) these contributions could extend to other RTS who use the engine. Still in the learning of all the C++ atm. Begging pardon for maybe stupid assumptions or questions. It is not meaned to say that the engine is "too bad" or just complaining. Much effort has already be done, and probably, if we compare engine optimizations, it is much less work than all the meshes, models, voices, music, scripting, balancing, moderation, legalese etc. I just hope that more problems can be solved ! So much has already been achieved, and it would be very lovely to see it scale up to epic battles which can take the players back in history is this about the atlas editor? Concerning the files that are created by modders: maybe it is worth a thought to create user friendly toolkits for packaging mods on the long run. So that there would always be checks if the basic file stucture is correct etc. Can reduce the need to re-upload a mod and start another version for some fix of missing or wrongly placed files. When there is many people modding, then this can take some work away from the team, i imagine. //EDIT2: i am aware that there is already a command line argument to package a .pyromod. So you are most likely already aware of that fact, considering the depth of organization on wildfire games. Wait, what is the topic called? Naming poll... this is kind of off-topic. <\talk>

I have an even better idea: insert the template of siege towers into wild gaia horses, so that you can capture them and ride them early on. This may be useful for potential American civs who don't currently have cavalry units.

How do you think we can implement the capture of enemy's horses? Or are saying they should have cavalry at the start ? Siege towers during the protoclassic period? Or is this evidence from the classical period?

For option 1 and 2 the button placing is a bit unfavorable. Option 2 is still in the realm of ok-ish. Maybe placing the main buttons vertically would make it much easier on art. The stargate (option 3) works tho.

Indeed A27 SVN. GitHub source.

I really liked this line of art, all very good, do we have more of these for other cultures too?

I want to see if it helps to make one.

amount of Otakus(That's what we call fans of anime and Japanese culture in Latin America) are going to join.

I'll take note and record the gameplay if I get that game.

This is a guide to help new players to choose which civilisation to play with, before each match. Pro players can ignore this. 1. Some general comments Civilisations in A26 are quite well balanced, especially with community mod, so there is no absolute best civ. The best civ for you is the one that suits your strategy / playstyle. Try to explore different strategies with each civ so that you get a good overview of what's available to you in each situation. If you haven't beaten the AI yet, try to practice with one civ until you have mastered it, then switch to others. 2. What makes a good civ: Being flexible in strategies: wide variety of unit types available. Can succeed in different terrains, biomes as well as naval battles. Strong economy: additional farming upgrades, gathering bonuses, etc. 3. Considering specific cases: Houses: Some civs have houses which increase your population capacity by 5, while other have that by 10. 5-house civs are generally more flexible in early games and gives your a slight advantage in wood if you want to research techs very early on. However, in late game, 10-house civs require much less attention to housebuilders and housing would unlikely be a obstacle to your population development. In addition, the building of 10-houses are more efficient as units have to walk less. Ranged units: in 0ad, the longer the unit's range, the less damage it does and the slower it moves. So javelins do the most damage per second while archers do the least. However, in some obscure landscapes such as gorges or densely built cities, the extra range of archers allows them to snipe the enemy without moving into the treacherous areas. This can minimise your losses and give you an advantage over your enemy if they only have javlin units. In addition, archers' additional range makes them perfect hit and run units; they can deal extra damage to any retreating enemy. However, in a prolonged confrontation on flat, open ground, archer's low damage will result in certain loss against javlins or slingers. Archers - longest range (60m-66m), walks slowly - not great for early economy but great for mountainous maps and urban fights in city lanes. Slingers - have extra crush damage, effective against buildings as well as humans. (45m) Can be used as replacements for siege weapons. Crossbows - Shoots a very high damage projectile every 3 seconds (45m-60m) Javlineers - high damage but low range (35m) - allows for fast economical development and wins you any close-range firefight behind the melees. Melee units: each type has a different use and no civ offers all of them, so choose wisely depending on your need. Melees are most often used as meatshields by pro players, to protect their ranged units who output the most damage. These values can be looked up in the structure tree. Swordsman - deal the highest damage per second but cost metal. The main damage type is hack, making them perfect against enemy siege weapons. Spearman - great againts due to their 3x bonus. However, they are less effective than swordsman at infantry and siege, although still decent. Pikeman - slow-moving but tanky units with double the armour of spearman and swordsman. Perfect meatshields but do little damage. Halberdier - Chinese variation of pikeman, stated between a normal pikeman and a spearman. Clubman / Maceman - deal huge crush damage; they can destroy buildings and siege weapons very quickly but are ineffective against other units. Champions, siege and heroes: if you are looking for a particular hero's bonus or a particular type of champions, e.g. elephants, then obviously choose a civ which has them. 4. Some personal recommendations If you are very new and have no idea what you want or what's ahead of you, Romans and Spartans are 2 good starting points in this alpha. These 2 have quite a simple structure tree so it's easy to get used to; they both have strong melee units and javelineers, allowing you to win any close-range confrontations against an AI. In addition, both have some strong champions for late game. Romans have an extra powerful model of catapult and entrenched camps which will help you in siege attacks, while Spartans have supercharged infantry units, namely the Skiritai Commandos and their heroes Brasidas and Leonidas. Their lack of archers is compensated by having bolt shooters. Stay away from Han and Ptolemies. Han is bugged in original A26 and has a very unique but complicated structure tree; their lack of javelineers and slingers will make defending against early attacks a bit more difficult. However, they do offer some very overpowered techs, heroes and the additional 10% maximum population in late game. Ptolemies' buildings are constructed very slowly, on top of that, being a 5-house civ, it's very easy for your development to be slowed down by the lack of houses. Also, their heavy reliance on mining also makes the civ difficult to play with. However, their buildings to cost much less than other civilisations, so you can save up wood for earlier techs and early infantry. Gauls are Britons can also offer very strong armies and rapid rates of economic development. However, they are more effective at killing enemy units than destroying their buildings. If your enemy decides to surround themselves with walls, towers and fortresses with swordsman inside, then it would be a challenge for Britons and Gauls to siege them. They are 5-house civs, which may or may not appeal to you over the 10-house Romans and Spartans.

It's okay if a new civ causes imbalance in vanilla, the community mod will push for a solution then the balanced version will be implemented in A29

The progress of American civilization, such as city construction, may be reflected in some construction and operation games, but it is not suitable for RTS such as 0AD, because in the final analysis, this game is about fighting, and the problem of American civilization at this time is There are no domesticated horses, no metal weapons, no wheels, so there are no cavalry, chariots, and battering rams, which makes it difficult for them to compete with the existing civilizations of the game. In addition, AoE3 appears in the 15th century and later Native Americans , and if we try to join American civilization now, its level of civilization is still far from the most mature state in 1,500 years. I am more optimistic about the pre-colonial American mods that only have American civilization, because the combat modes of all factions are similar, without iron, cavalry and chariots.

well it is one globe you are right that it would have been quite a trip. I don't think the historical accuracy of any two civ's realistically fighting each other is fit for a videogame. After all we do want more content right? Plus, if more than one American civ is added, it could be conceivable or even historically verifiable that they fought each other. I think this is a great way to proceed.

To settle the argument, what about add 2 or 3 civs at the same time? Hyrule conquest does 5 at a time so it's not too much for Empires Ascendant to do 3 right? Best candidates in my opinion: 1. Zapotecs (The most complete American civ so far) 2. Xiongnu / Scythians (These 2 are essentially the same, a completely new play style) 3. Lusitans - a very complete civ ready for balancing and implementation. Although I do feel it's a bit repetitive to have so many Celts / Iberians.

I'm think a "Nomads" alpha release (Scythians and Xiongnu) and a "Mesoamerican" alpha release (Zapotecs and Maya) would be really cool.

That's my point--excluding American civs for "historical" reasons is silly These two statements can't coexist. Until you start adding American civ then no new American civ will ever have any real historical connections during 0ad's timeframe. Besides, it's a game. It's not a historical simulation. Sparta and Athens both existed at the same time and did interact with each other. We don't need the game to perfectly replay every one of their interactions. If the outcome was already determined then it wouldn't be a game.

Isn't the opening poster the same guy as @Stitch from the related thread? If so, a critique of the image attachments: The first two images are actually part of the Great Chaitya (Buddhist sanctuary or hall) inside Karla Caves, Maharashtra, which doesn't appear palace-like at all. Third is a generic chaitya and vihāra (Buddhist monastery) based on one from an unknown location. For the fourth, seeing a handful of temples alongside the Great Stupa, but where's the so-called "palace"? Good luck finding any good art or images for Pataliputra...

Thank you Stan, by removing "persist match setting" I was able to host again. Thanks

According to my observations there are 3 types of host crashes: 1. DDOS as questioned. The evidence is that the game never crashes, but my entire home network is disabled. My parents have no net access neither because something is downloading very large files while taking up the entire bandwidth (200Mb/s)! 2. STUN error. I often experience this. Sometimes turning on TLS encryption helps, other times turning it off helps. It's especially strange when I couldn't connect to a host because of STUN error, then after a few seconds or after a restart of the game, I could connect. Sometimes I get kicked out of a game by STUN; I knew that it was not a network issue because I was downloading something slowly in the background. 3. Host is in a bad environment: they might be running 0ad on windows where they can only use 4GB of ram -> crashes if there is a large fight. Or, they might have unstable network connection themselves or lives very far away from all other players. Bad connectivity / processing power will lead to missing turns, hence OOS. number 2 is affecting me the most right now. I'm not sure how STUN works but I often get disconnected due to STUN error.

https://code.wildfiregames.com/D1269 And #4274

I vote for Vulcan I believe it is the most straightforward candidate.

Yeah, my point is more the later. Walls should actually do something besides delay an attacker by a few seconds to power through or path around. Until then, walls are just annoying

I would say a player with better eco will usually wind up attacking more than defending. Palisades can be great for limiting ranged cavalry movement, but sadly sword cavalry can break through in a matter of seconds, hence my suggestion of adding a .3x for melee cavalry. I think another issue with walls is how finicky they are to place. I would suggest making the obstruction box smaller for resources and buildings than it is for units, or perhaps allowing walls to remove some obstructions upon completion. I think decreasing build time would make this much better, since you could decrease the number of gatherers needed to build a section, which reduces both walking idle time, worker minutes while building, as well as risk of failing to complete walls. For stone walls I think changing the number of turret positions to 16 or 20 could make that feature worthwhile.

Kind of. The better the player the more optimized the eco, the less time to build. If you get countered then there should also be a teammate that can help cover your base while you continue to push, etc. But I hear your point. Walls largely don’t work now because they’re nothing but an obstacle—a larger army can kill a smaller army that’s hiding behind a wall. The wall just gives the defender a chance to coalescence units. This is why I’ve said elsewhere that I think walls should largely function like towers

Yes, I'd like to see more distinctive play from the Defensive/Balanced/Aggressive AI levels, for sure. Secondarily, it'd be cool to have the AI player names have an associated behavior. So, the Miltiades AI having a greater chance of being Aggressive than the Hippias AI, for example. I agree. Some work needs to be done to make walls fun and viable.

Thanks for the report! It has been fixed with http://trac.wildfiregames.com/changeset/27483.

I believe DoctorOrgans is already muted in lobby, if we don't want to play with him, we shouldn't/don't have to. The current moderation for this player seems adequate.

In the random map Frontier, you can choose team placement: Could this be done for mainland and some other random maps? I think it would be great!

It's good old age-of-empires-tradition that one can shoot through buildings ;-)

I see this thread now . I link this idea I had during these days Basically this would add tags to the games to identify the language register (e.g. safe-language/unsafe-language-VM18). This would help giving the players more information about the game and choose games with the preferred language register. The same concept could be used for other things: like playing style, playing level etc. and filtering functions can be added based on tags (show/order/hide games based on specific tags)

I think we all have read or heard the good ideas to make ship combat better. But to get started, I think the warships just need stripped down to the bare minimum and made usable again. Shrink up their size as I previously suggested, then make them behave and fight in simple logical ways. Make them useful and fun again. Then start adding the other features if they're warranted. I feel ramming would be easiest to implement since we want charging and secondary attack features for land units already. Even capturing could possibly be a secondary attack. So, until we even have those features for land units committed to the game, warships should be brought back to basics as I outlined above and elsewhere. Once those features are added for land units, then it will be easier to figure out how they can apply to ships.

The league idea sounds great, but I'd recommend checking where people are actually rated to see if those divisions make sense. My impression is that there aren't enough players rated above 2000 to separate them into three or more leagues. But I could be wrong about that. On the other hand, there's a huge difference between a player rated 1350 and a player rated 1000 (both in the "Wood League" here).