Leaderboard

I stumbled across this game one day and decided to give it a go. So far so good, just a few notes. 1. I'm getting Age of Mythology vibes from playing the Greek civilizations 2. How do I disable/close players in skirmish mode? 3. You should rename this game Ascendant Empires and take it all the way into the present and future, like a spiritual successor to Empire Earth.

@Lion.Kanzen beat me to it; but here's a pic with a worker:

Sounds good. Unfortunately I don't think for this game. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

The idea is how we can make the game more tactical, easy to control, interesting to watch.(What sells the most visually about the game is that the combats are attractive). Without losing the RTS essence. 2 objectives are sought: Greater unit control, especially melee infantry. Greater management by allowing better control of groups of units and therefore being able to create basic tactics. .that the units can be arranged in various divisions and individually controlled. They even form large impassable blocks. Together they form solid, or nearly solid missile defenses when moving in formation. Maneuverability is important. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_tactics Some concepts need to be kept in mind.

https://historum.com/t/han-dynasty-crossbow-iii.179336/ "What may surprise many readers is how a reduced 285 lb Han crossbow shoot at the same level of power as a Medieval 1200 lb composite crossbow? And how could a 150 lb longbow shoot at the same level of power as a Medieval 1200 lb steel crossbow? This can be explained by powerstroke." Seems they had "short" reload time and dealt much more "impact". Can agree with everything else stated.

I believe this can be handled by just increasing repeat time.

Then there is currently no way to remove them. There was work in that area, but it's been stalled. [Differential] D3286 Allow removing player entities when starting a match (wildfiregames.com)

A civilization with non-infinite fields (and not micromanagy like AoE, really non-infinite fields where you can't rebuild a field in the same place when the soil is exhausted) would play very differently and as such be a nice addition.

One real improvement that Alpha 26 brought is that the mini-map is now actually a mini-map instead of a mini map. I mean, it's not just a repetition in smaller size of the big map, but it now bears very clear and legible symbols for all the important things (you don't have just a yellow spot for a gold mine, that could be confused with a yellow player unit, you now have a very clear symbol meaning "there is gold here". It could be even nicer if there was a way to toggle off/on all these symbols, when a player is in need of something specific. Also, there's a huge problem with relics : they are crucially important, yet once you spotted one but moved your unit away from it (because it's useless to try to capture it with only one unit) you have no way of remembering where it was. There are two possible solutions : 1 - Make the symbol for relics stay on the map, with a greyed color when it's not currently visible (since it may have moved). Of course remove the greyed symbol if the location becomes visible again and the relic isn't there anymore. 2 - Allow to put "pins" on the map, so when you explore and want to remember where the relic was (or another thing, like a commercial road) you can pin it. For the normal map, I find it often difficult to see where exactly is the highest point of an area (I mean, if there's a small mound somewhere, which is the highest point of that mound ? It's often really not obvious to see). It would be nice to be able to toggle geographic curves view... Also, when placing a tower, it would be nice to see the exclusion zone for other towers that it provokes. What is visible is only its range, which (from what I understand) is different.

In the Han Dynasty, there were crossbows with a range similar to that of bows, and crossbows with a range far beyond that of bows, so it cannot be generalized. I don’t think it’s necessary to think too complicated, because wheat fields and millet fields also need to be irrigated with water, but agricultural irrigation cannot be represented in the game, so I don’t think we need to be too entangled in the water supply of rice fields.

Greater range, really ? I'm in no way specialist of the Han dynasty of the period, but that's not generally how crossbows work. They do indeed have longer reload and may have less impact that longbow, but they're known for having longer range. Even Aiend agreed with that. Also, if the problem with making Crossbowmen too cheap is that it makes them economically OP, it' always possible to make them less efficient at economic tasks (like Skiritois). Would need a reason to justify that, though.

Shyft boomed and fought usually 2 minutes before yekaterina accounts do. I know you are a good enough player to easily beat both of them, but I am not so I think its easier for me to see the differences. If yekaterina was able to change seamlessly from behaving like shyft to normal, I think it would be a multiple personality disorder situation.

"yekaterina" might have a ton of smurf accounts, but there is still a huge gap in playstyle and more importantly behavior between them and shyft.

There is no need to have two types of farmland in the Han Dynasty. The biggest problem at present is that compared to China, which grows wheat, rice and millet at the same time, India was almost entirely rice-based at that time, but India did not have rice fields. We should first It is right to give the rice fields to India.

Personally I like it. Especially in p1 it can help a bit.

also you would need to double the number of arrows for each unit garrisoned, or something like that. by the way, you should try the turbo mode by freagarach.

just double health instead of resistance. that should work.

this is actually already quite agreed on, there is a poll somewhere in this forum.

I found another bug. If a priest who is in the process of healing another unit is forced to guard any unit from the squad, the priest stops healing at all. But as soon as the guard is removed, the priest resumes the treatment.

Ideally, units should be given stat bonuses.

Just do it how they do it in Age of Empires. no need to reinvent the wheel or require hotkeys.

Blasphemy!

I know you all have been waiting a long time for its release. And the time is finally here. The Autisticus map pack. Featuring: MOUNT AUTISTICO (3v4) - A 3v4 map where the team of 3 is surrounded by the team of four . The players in the middle all have faster access to more metal. For balance. Unbalanced maps are something I will probably focus on more because if the game starts to have a lot less players it might be good to have a way for experienced players to put themselves against the newer players. BLOOD BOWL (4v4) - A top vs bottom map that uses modded trees. Baobobs and fruit trees are set with unlimited res for quicker more hassle free gathering. More focus will be put on booming and sending units. Hopefully less objects in the map means better performance too. I got the idea from the BGH maps from Starcraft 1 (RIP blizzard thanks for ruining Warcraft 3). It also has a big pit in the middle because why not. If you find any problems in the maps or have any suggestions let me know. I would like to have these added to the community maps mod IF people like them enough. EDIT: Thanks @Helicity for reporting the errors. I reuploaded the mod with the missing files and fixed the Awkward Iber walls and replaced the map preview. EDIT : Reuploaded version 1.2 EDIT: Newest Version 1.4 is stable and works as its supposed to. Fixed the limited trees / fruit added more fauna in the middle . Added more paths AUTISTICUSMOD.zip AUTISTMOD1.4.zip

@Genava55 @Lopess @Stan` @wowgetoffyourcellphone, esta es mi idea para los edificios tracios , ¿Ustedes que opinan?; (H=Helenizado + tracio) (T=Tracio/rural) (C=Común en todas las Civ's) -Edificios comunes; (21) 1.Centro cívico;---------------------------(...) H 2.casas;-----------------------------------(...) T 3.Almacén;--------------------------------(...) T 4.Alquería;---------------------------------(...) T 5.Huerto;-----------------------------------(...) C 6.Corral;------------------------------------(...) T 6.1-Cabra;-----------(...) 6.2-oveja;---------(...) 6.3-vaca;------------(...) 6.4-Cerdo;------------(...) 7.Puerto;------------------------------------(...) T 8.Cuartel;----------------------------------(...) H 9.Herrería;---------------------------------(...) H 10.Templo;---------------------------------(...) H 11.Mercado;-------------------------------(...) H 12.Torre de avanzada;--------------------(...) C 13.Torre de defensa ;---------------------(...) H 14.Torre defensa pequeña;----------------(...) T 15.Fortaleza;-------------------------------(...) H 16.Empalizada;----------------------------(...) C 17.Muralla;---------------------------------(...) H 18.Galería de Tiro;------------------------(...) H 19.Establo.;--------------------------------(...) H 20.Taller de asedio;-----------------------(...) H 21.(Maravilla)Tumba real;-----------------(...) H (Puerta de muralla);----------------------(...) H (torre de muralla);------------------------(...) H -Edificios especiales o culturales; (4) 22.Tumba tracia;-----------------------------(...) H 23.Palacio Tracio;----------------------------(...) H 24.Poblado tracio;---------------------------(...) T 25.Mansión tracia;---------------------------(...) H -Posdata;(encontré suficientes elementos y referencias para diferenciar los tracios de los ilirios y dacios , cuanto tenga más tiempo me pondré con los edificios de esas facciones) Disculpen las molestias*

It would be very cool if and only if it could be implemented in a way that does not break the game. Ideas: - garrisoned units could be enslaved rather than ejected when capturing buildings - units inside a radius of certain buildings (Only civic centers? All territory roots?) can be enslaved when those buildings are captured - during battles, enslavement may be a mechanic when morale is implemented, for instance units are captured and enslaved when they alreay have low morale and they are completely outnumbered by enemy units by a certain percentage within a certain radius, the idea is to limit the case so it only happens at the end of a battle which is sorely lost - there could be an option to capture unarmed units like buildings rather than killing them

I can't even imagine how they do it. This will only add unnecessary fuss on the battlefield. And the evacuation of a slave from the battlefield? What if the slave mine is attacked? It will be much more efficient to use a soldier than an unarmed unit. In addition, we will need a separate population scale for slaves, or even make their population capacity zero. To add a system of enslavement, it is necessary to again separate economic units from military units, as in Cossacks: BtoW or in the AoE series.

That's true, I'm working with @Duileoga on this, your opinion and experience is welcome.

Indeed. This area is outside my expertise and I have already too much to read for other mods I am participating with. It would be nice to have someone with an academic background, or at least comfortable with academic literature, and the motivation to tackle this topic. Customized tech tree would be revolutionary but it should be implement first then.

We need a subject matter expert to come along and create a thread similar to @Sundiata's famous Kushites thread. Perhaps we can recruit for this purpose. So do the Britons, Persians, and Han, so no big deal. We are getting into realms where a more customized tech tree will be required. Same goes for the nomads, to a lesser extent.

For your information, I voted yes to the two questions in the poll. My concerns however are: Contrary to the other civilizations already included or to the candidates generally considered, the American civs are purely prehistorical civs. Other civilizations are known from historical records and classical literature. Even people without a proper literature have been described by neighboring civilizations and have participated to the events related to civilizations with a literature we know and understand. For example, Iberians, Gauls and Britons were known and described by the Romans and the Greeks. From those civilizations, we know the names of multiple tribes, the names of several towns, the names of multiple leaders and kings. We know multiple battles and wars they participated in. We know the names of multiple gods they believed in. For the Protoclassic Maya and Zapotecs, we don't have the same level of information. This is an issue for the heroes for example. I don't think there is enough info to find three figures from their period. Currently, the designs of the Maya and Zapotecs have elements going out of our timeframe. Especially the Zapotecs. They have been designed for mods which don't have the same restriction related to the time-line. Although this is not really a big issue. There are some concerns about the balance. The American civs didn't rely as much on metal than our current civs. They didn't have any sort of cavalry. Their weapons are mostly based on Neolithic technologies. Animal husbandry wasn't very developed too.

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

Thank you for your report, @LienRag, there was indeed an issue with the aura. I have prepared a patch (https://code.wildfiregames.com/D4931), you can test that.

While it may not be worthwhile to, say, have 2 Macedonian civs (Argead and Antigonid) or 2 Spartan civs (Classical and Hellenistic), I think Rome would be the one exception to this. The Republican era was very different from the Principate era, which itself was different from the Dominate era. Rome as a polity lasted so long it could be worthwhile to put the effort into depicting these 3 eras separately. Perhaps a special feature of the Roman civ could be this ability to choose "eras." At the start of the match playing as the Romans, the player is given the choice of which era they wish to play (Republican, Triumvirate, Principate, Dominate) which then alters unit roster, techs, buildings, etc. to suit this choice. Or... just have 3 separate civs and have a random "Romans" group in game setup.

I personally like the time restriction to keep the feel of the time. It's already strange enough that if you play Romans vs Gaul or Britons you do not get to pick Julius Caesar. If at the start of the game you chose between 2 or 3 eras, and then could only choose civs of that era, that would be cool. However, I'm sure that would be a lot of work, especially as alpha updates go on.

Yes, the button: "DO WHAT I TOLD YOU AND NOTHING ELSE!!!" is a feature that I am missing too. On the other hand it is possible that a wild animal kills a dozen of workers building because they start to fight only when it is too late. Somethimes it would help when you could add units to working cluster. So when they get attacked all of them start to fight. Then starting to fight would make sense. But this stopping your work for an action that is "designed to fail" is often cumbersome. To be honest, 0AD troops complaining about enemy fire would be a laughingstock. Their affinity to run into enemy fire for anything is rather a hassle too. Usually 2/3 of the time I am busy calling them back.