Leaderboard

Right, for attack I agree. Maybe only +20% attack over champ, not much more. But regardless, you still want heroes to have great health or armor (either one) so that you have time to utilize their bonuses or auras. Due to the nature of focus-fire in the game it would be too easy to snipe heroes otherwise.

Dreamliner (1092) & @BeTe (1243) face off on the very interesting Magadha map, sprawling w fauna which offers the opportunity to run ones food eco off of hunting alone until very far into the game but also presents the very real threat of stalking predators picking off less-armored units also check oute Bete's 0ad vids: https://youtu.be/INIX9xxCtvo commands.txt

Btw temple and everything come from http://www.romaniadevis.ro/dacia/zona-geto-daca/reconstituiri-3d/item/templu-dacic-v-01-reconstituire-virtuala-3d And http://www.romaniadevis.ro/dacia/zona-geto-daca/reconstituiri-3d/item/templu-dacic-v-02-reconstituire-virtuala-3d

Notwithstanding what I said above, I think it would be nice if towers and other defensive buildings had a preference for closer units. It doesn't make sense how towers are just as likely to randomly shoot arrows at faraway, hard to hit moving units as they are to shoot arrows at units trying to capture the tower/other defensive buildings. I wouldn't want it to be as simply as "targeting the closest unit" but I would like something where towers are like 3x as likely to target units within 10m than targets 50m away. But such a system gets complicated fast and I don't think we have code for that.

Sounds like we want it to be a user-choice. ^^ (spread-attack or focus fire, not limited to structures) Just sad it is hard to get user-preferred default values in the simulation properly (e.g. stances).

Didn't read the whole thread, but projectiles are the things which cause most lag currently, so increasing their frequency seems to be a bad idea.

I think I would like what you describe for something like siege towers/ships. (This has also irked me for sometime) Don't think I would want for buildings, though. It would make towers effectively the same as CCs and forts sue to unit “overkill.” Also possibly OP in small to medium sized fights because a unit would die at whatever the rate of fire would be, which would make towers very consequential (I.e., early game rushes could easily be stopped with a 100w investment). I kind of like how buildings can have little effect to suddenly killing an entire army at once. I think it adds more macro tactics and is one of the reasons why advancing armies don’t easily snowball after killing their first base (I.e., it is common that an army dies fighting the second CC it tries to take down because the units are already low health). This is personal preference, though relatedly, I think your two examples are positive. Towers weakening entire armies make countering much easier since a bigger, lower health army might be weaker than a smaller full health army. Likewise, towers create a two variable calculation instead of one, based only on unit numbers. Towers being more effective when close to each other also encourages more strategic builds

Another work in progress re-mapping. This time, it's the Fortress: And here you can see a comparison, where I lightened up the roof texture and added a bit of yellow:

early stage of a two-party map, should be playable in all sizes, and all combinations 1 vs 1, 2 vs 2, 3 vs 3 and 4 vs 4. The map should be balanced, mines and obstacles are mirrored at the center. Every base has a stone and metall mine in close proximity and some bushes of berries. Between the player of the same party there are no obstacles. Additional Mines are evenly distributed. There are a lot of parameters in this map, i can change, like: average distance between groups of trees amount of trees in a group size of a group of trees, either they are all in a small spot, or they are more widely distributed number of additional mines distance between the players additional hills reflect.zip

There are certainly better solutions.

Well the way I did it, the closest unit is selected as the target and it will be targeted until destruction. Whatever is closest is attacked until death, so If the target is a building, it has to be destroyed. Obviously, this solution is really just a proof of concept so I could make the video above. Ideally, the script could check for any soldiers within range before resorting to attacking a building. Also ideally, one attack's worth of arrows (default+garrisoned arrows per 2 seconds) would be sent to the closest target in targetUnits. After all the arrows are sent, the closest unit would be searched for again, rather than shooting the now more distant unit to death. The second task might not be too hard, but for the first, I have no idea how to check the class of an entity in targetUnits. And then there are the freezing issues. I can open a patch later today if people think we should go ahead with this idea.

I'd always prefer units. What good does it do if some arrows hit a nearby house or barracks?

Template for defense towers says it prefers eating humans for breakfast template_structure_defensive_tower:20 Building AI weights all targets using this and shoots at higher priority new targets as well as it current UnitAI target BuildingAI.js#L327 It seems there is a special code path for Buildings that have both UnitAI and Building ai UnitAI.js#L2183 which is used for ships.

You're referring to in-game mute functionality, of course.

Well, with unit AI a unit turns to face its target quite rapidly. With soldiers this isn't too bad, but with a large siege tower and large ships, those units turning to face their target will look very rapid indeed. Large object wheeling around very fast. Perhaps there can be a target angle element where this can be relieved a bit. Also, will need code to handle multiple projectiles. @Freagarach As currently the UnitAI only allows 1 projectile.

It would be good if we can control the defensive buildings' arrows to shoot at a particular target, similar to controlling infantry archers.

Yep. It could be used as inspiration. Although those references are mostly from the Dacian period. By the way, I was a bit harsh by saying this is ugly. I find the models too generic and too blend. It is unmemorable and unremarkable, it doesn't make a visual impact. But the models by themselves aren't bad.

Agree on everthing, although overlapping forts/cc are a bit OP me thinks. interesting, stances for building-AI would make it more transparent and user-friendly.

You don't want close range heroes like Scipio to die too quickly Also some heroes don't have bonuses so they are used as meatshields. You can have bonud heroes and meatshield heroes, separate. For good measure, let elephant heroes be meatshields and cav heroes be fragile. Agis gets 1500 health please

@BreakfastBurrito_007 @Itms and @Norse_Harold are working on it. Regarding the GUID maybe @user1 or @Dunedan can match it from the DB?

Hello Ceres, Most of the time the engine is not able to recover the call stack, I'm not sure wether it's a bug in the implementation or an intended behavior. However when hitting certain conditions such as triggering an ENSURE macro you will get the call stack. If a memory dump was created when the game failed, (check the file modification/creation dates to be sure) one can read the call stack using visual studio.

I think with the right spread values, this could be optimized to be less of a problem, but I see what u mean.

well to take his point literally is to miss the point.

Tell him he's enlisting to defend Ukraine if he's so Nazi.

He gave proper attribution too.

I was the host of the game and I regret not kicking him earlier. I also saw these messages but I was too focused on playing. DoctorOrgans clearly isn't from the Third Reich. There is nothing wrong about being born in Germany in that era but there is everything wrong in writing "3th" instead of "3rd".

The two words have the same meaning, it is used as an offensive word, and Bakixeddu also used it in this way.

https://football-italia.net/giaccherini-italy-have-cojones/ https://wikidonca.it/index.php?title=Cojone&mobileaction=toggle_view_desktop here it says Perugino dialect. https://es.bab.la/diccionario/espanol-italiano/cojones Seems to be related to "coglioni" https://es.bab.la/diccionario/italiano-espanol/coglioni They sound almost identical in the root of the word. https://it.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coglione

This is the screenshot, in case the external image hoster discontinues hosting it. Google Translate from Italian to English: Bakixeddu: nz. motherf______ come back (in Italian) nz.: call your mother Bakixeddu (in English) Bakixeddu: nz. but s___ me (in Italian) nz.: good, I am reporting you (in English) Bakixeddu: but get off the f___ you (untranslated: cojone) (in Italian) Thanks for the report. I count 4 or 5 instances of profanity in this report, depending on whether or not "cojone" is Italian profanity. I've added it to the list of Bakixeddu's infractions, which affects the recommended mute duration. I've applied a lobby mute of 1 day to Bakixeddu for this behavior and will be watching for future violations by Bakixeddu. To everyone, please report any other abusive behavior that you may observe. Also, consider avoiding Bakixeddu until he chooses to improve his behavior.

current WIP:

I suppose writing a script should be pretty easy that edits all xml files to point to a single grey texture.

Hero units don't need to be more powerful than champion units of the same kind, because the role of hero units should be to provide some buffs as leaders, not to exert individual prowess.

It would be possible to reduce health and give base health regeneration so that the unit only dies when focused. But that is not really an realistic approach.

So that it's more important to protect that unit rather than suicide it? You are training a hero for its bonuses, not for meatshielding.

Please explain. I can't understand why a single cavalry hero unit is as strong as 5 champion units. If he is slightly stronger, that's possible; we have some exceptional people, but equivalent of 5 is just absurd. The champion units are appropriately strong in my opinion. A reasonable set of stats for champion sword cavalry should be 400 health Same speed and turn rate as other cavalry units 1 more armour and 1 more attack than the champion sword cavalry.