Leaderboard

I modify the marmara Map to make it more lorefriendly and I divided the Europa side and Asian side with the sea. I set the age during the late VI bc, when Bizantium, Kios and Ilum were one of the powerful cities of the ionian koine. I put also a Gaia Neapolis with a lot of gaia hoplite and soldier, a ionic Gaia pirate settlement in the east and a Thracian Gaia settlments in the north west. For a proper roleplay I suggest the use of Athenian/Spartan to play the archaic greek, without the use of rams and siege weapon, theaters, and Athenanian/Spartan Trireme TierIII ship (there werent during the VI bc), and to play Persian I suggest to play without the Elepant. I play also with a mod Terramagna 26, and I use the scythian to play the Cimmerian invasion of Asia minor. For play the map put the files in skirmishes. I hope some one will like it and play with me with this custom map! Cheers! Byzantium: Kios: Ilium: GDR_Marmara.pmp GDR_Marmara.xml

Hello Stan. I know all too well the feeling of not being able to carry on anymore, despite wanting to. You have been an extraordinary leader and the best successor I could have had when I decided to step down. You should indeed have absolutely no regrets, including in this decision of stopping and focusing on yourself and your health. Others have worded it perfectly during these ten past days: thank you for making 0 A.D. the best game that exists. I am certain that, thanks to your work, the project will endure.

Thank you Stan for your hard work. The game in even its current form is simply a stunning achievement and really a tremendous amount of fun to play.

Signing in to also give my thanks. I'm usually lurking nowadays, but I've been following for a very long time. You've been leading for so long, it's hard to remember when you weren't in charge. Whoever will be taking over have big shoes to fill.

bizantine acqueduct mechanic is interesting. even if acqueducts don't make a lot of sense for it, that kind of math could be more reasonably applied to trade network, and I'm curious to know which turn out to be the strategy implications.

Yes. Check out the 0 A.D. Vision Document.

That folder shouldn't be empty. I think that using an environment variable in the path only works with certain apps, like the Command Prompt. Let's replace the environment variable with its most likely value. @Chandragupta Mourya Directly after experiencing a crash with the 0ad editor, please open file explorer and navigate to your home folder. It's probably C:\Users\yourusername, where "yourusername" is replaced with your Windows username. Then navigate to AppData\Local\0ad\. Right-click on the "logs" folder, go to "Send To", then click Compressed Folder. Complete the wizard using the default file name of "logs.zip". Then attach logs.zip to a post in this topic. Thanks.

Age of Empires always seemed to have cultures, rather than dynasties or factions. So, these new civs don't seem to fit at all, in my mind.

What about Roman road technology? This tech would make Roman army and its allies move more quickly.

I didn't understand packing till now. thanks.

HI, while I am new to 0 a.d., i do have one or two suggestions that I think could make the game more interesting and require more stratgic management without increasing what I have seen referred to as "micro". I do think they are manageable in a code, but I may not have enough grasp of the process yet to foresee the complications... Suggestion: get an OPEX cost: As I see it now, we only have CAPEX costs to unit and building. Once we spend the resource, the unit/building is available as long as it is not destroyed or captured. However, that does not feel right. Units will at least have a running food costs (mercenaries would have a metal ore costs maybe as well), and repair and maintenance on building have a resource costs in wood/stone/metal. Hence I think it will be nice that as your civ grows, its running costs increases. The rate of gathering resources would therefore have to increase as well. Not enough resource, building will start to loose strenght, and not enough food you might as well have unit loosing health. --> impact on gameplay: reduce the possibility to create large group of non productive units. You just can't keep xx elephants for example, it will give more importance to worker / citizen / soldier unit, which I think ties quite well with the historical context. --> how to code it: add a resource OPEX costs to each unit/building, and a degradation costs proportional to the deficit in each resource. Engine will then have to tally the cost over the whole civ (updated at each unit/bulding creation and destruction) and manage the degradation. The deg might not have to be applied at each time step to ease the computational burden. Additional indicators get a moral status it is touched in a few active threads right now, but it would be great to have a moral score for the whole civ, with bonus/malus over the full range of activity. The morale score will be based on the following elements: stock: high level of stocks of resource is good, it provide security, feels good for the population -> higher moral. To be related to Opex costs above, a deficit in running costs of civ is bad for moral as well spirituality: from age II, the ratio of temple / civique building / priest to citizens should be valorised in morale of civ. The threshold should be discussed ratio women / men: to low a ratio of male to women in civ is bad... we should obviously not aim for 50/50, it is a game, but I see the point of valorising having more women, makes it also more needed to defend themhero: having a Hero is a morale boost high ratio of mercenaries => bad for social cohesion, malus to moral city quality: it was mentioned in the thread about athenian houses for example, you could have a morale score if you develop better housing. Paving could also be introduced (age 2 onward) to improve the city relative dev: it is a competitive game after all. Moral should be higher if your civ is more developed than competitors. relative size of territory should be valorised, having a wonder when the other civ don't have it yet, being at a more advanced age, having unique tech or units Having a powerfull ally would help for moral --> impact on gameplay: we'll have to manage our civ a bit more, keeping in mind more parameters. it valorise expansion, and therefore risk taking, which might be fun. You compete also with the other in dev level, therefore not only looking only at military strenght. Nice message from you population could appear on screen, such "We need more priest!" or "wtf, the xxxxx already have a wonder, how come our great civ is so backward!", positive ones also such as "we are so proud of our new fortified dock, let's build quinquereme now" --> how to code: probably not too complex, engine will have to keep track of a few kpi. no need to do it at every turn as well, that's something that can be computed on a rather long timescale. that's it, sorry for the very long post. I understand that it would significant change in the philosophy of the game so it might not interest everyone...

0ad is an amazing game and it has become my current favorite RTS game, but one thing I still don't enjoy is capturing. There is something that feels wrong to me with the current system, it is way too confusing, it's also annoying for units to try to capture a building automatically. The animation (which I get is a placeholder) feels out of place and ruins the immersion. I know that it doesn't make sense for infantry to attack stone buildings with swords, but maybe some animation of the troops using makeshift rams with logs or blunt weaponry could make it more realistic. Changes to mechanics By default, buildings are not able to be captured. Unless they have certain % of HP diminished. IF that is the case, units can be ordered to capture the building by garrisoning. This could simulate the idea that maybe the walls and doors were damaged allowing invaders to enter through the breaches. Buildings could have a number of slots for capturing enemies, that is, for example a building can garrison 20 people, then 30 enemies could enter a building to capture it, turning the odds in favour of the invader (which already commited some troops and siege to breach the building) If there are no people garrisoned the building is captured immediately. If only women are garrisoned, the building is also captured immediately, the units inside would be kicked out. If there are people garrisoned, depending on how much each side has in the building either the attacking or defending army would start losing men. This could be a tricky thing since I don't know how damage to each side would be calculated, initially I thought the bigger numbers should win, but some people maybe wouldn't like elite soldiers to die to skirmishers for example. Some buildings such as houses and warehouses should be easily breachable. This could be an interesting change, because it would make capturing a more deliberate choice, with the attacker and defender choosing to put more troops in a building if it's important. This probably is a lot of work and maybe it has a lot of issues that I haven't thought about, but let me know what you guys think. or if it's even doable in the engine, or maybe it's just a stupid idea because of balance and all that. Or maybe it can be improved... you tell me haha.

I'd like to say thanks as well! I have literally just discovered the game, and I really apreciate it. So thanks for all the team behind it.

I imagine with a little bit of micro, you can make chopping a tree line, for example, a lot more efficient than having to place multiple storehouses. But compared to a Worker Elephant, not sure. Maybe Worker Elephants are the more expensive, tankier, and more versatile (able to build) version of a Storage Cart, while Storage Carts are cheaper and a bit faster moving. For Nomads, the Cart could unpack into a Yurt (house), further making it different from a Worker Elephant.

Thanks @Stan` for all the work! I haven't been here for a while, but I've dabbled with some other open source projects. I think I agree with @real_tabasco_sauce with splitting up the command. The same person who's overseeing the engine doesn't have to be the same person that oversees the art or the PR or the writing, or testing. Different people or better, yet different teams of people could work on each. The one issue I've found is that the contribution system looks very confusing. It might turn out not when I eventually submit a patch, but it looks like it. I'm actually kind of nervous when the time comes to start putting patches of the encyclopedia into the game. Maybe with an easier, more straight forward (but still self-hosted) all in one bug tracker solution would be better, like GitLab, so people wouldn't need to get multiple accounts on different old programming systems to submit something. Oh Also, a dev/ WFG staff (I don't know who is in charge of it) but I can help with documentation, just PM me with something and I'll see what I can do.

@Stan` really was the ideal project lead. He really knew his stuff and learned on the job very quickly.

Well done Stan. Pushing the game forward for over 12 years. That is an excellent contribution and quite an accomplishment. Take a minute and look over the before and after differences. You will be proud. That is 2x the length of time of what I was able to give it. I think it would be helpful for the team to push through a few more days and formulate some sort of a succession plan. Whether that be some sort of election process or maybe a search plan for nominations or recruits. Or perhaps it would be as little as helping to facilitate the conversation for the team, internally. Maybe formulating a helpful internal poll? The project still needs some sort of leadership to continue forward. As the last one to wear the mantle it would be wise to the team bestow it instead of allowing chaos to emerge in the vacuum... Unless the game is destined to have some sort of division/branch like when Alexander the Great died suddenly

As Nibbles said twice in Tom & Jerry, "C'est la guerre!"; well, c'est la vie to all of us... Am grateful for your service to the free world; 0 A.D. will never be the same again after this passing of torches.

Thanks to Stan for his leadership. For his gentle style to moderate and his way to give motivation even for small contributions.

Thanks Stan, we'll remember forever the time you was leading this project and how much you did for the game and the community.

Stan, thank you for the outstanding job you did. Besides the remarkable commitment and contribution to the project development, I have admired your patience, tolerance, responsiveness and involvement demonstrated to every member of this community, from the newest forum user, to the ones claiming they know better. Even more so, considering the responsibility and high pressure that the role demands. 2023 has been a tough year for 0AD and the project is more fragile today than it was one year ago. My wish for the future is that the new leadership will successfully tackle the "few can ruin the experience of many" problem, that so deeply harmed the game and the community. Fair winds Stan. Whatever you'll do from now on, it'll be a success.

@Stan`Enjoy a rest! Good luck on future undertakings, I know you'll succeed with anything you put your mind and heart to!

Dear @Stan` You've been our last standing man, driving the project forward in its darkest hours. Lack of developers, unpaid work, and your commitment to listening and addressing issues defined your legacy. I wish the project will go on, carrying your spirit. Sincerely, sanafur

Stan, thanks for the monumental effort that you put into helping WFG. If I had to sum up your attitude about WFG, it would be "I care." Period. You did the tasks others weren't willing to do. You never said "that's below my pay grade," when I brought an issue to you that I couldn't solve myself. You intervened when other staff were being petty. You were nearly always "on duty" and available. I agree that no one person can replace you. In fact, it's not fair for one person to do as much as you took responsibility for. Other staff were ignoring certain responsibilities and allowing you to take care of too much. That only works for so long, and now they see the consequences. Anyone in Stan's position would get burnt out. The work that Stan did should be done by a team of people, unless Stan would be paid for it of course. I mostly agree with this idea. I would instead structure it like this: there is a team leader who has authority to delegate. He has three subordinates who do tasks assigned by the team leader. The team leader is a supervisor who verifies that all necessary tasks have been assigned and are making progress. He also does work on these tasks, but he's not the only one doing that work. Maybe that's what was originally intended, but the subordinates just didn't do the tasks because they didn't feel like it or something along these lines. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is the impression that I got. Anyway, maybe a new structure and agreement can be reached. Meanwhile, we have even more of a need for volunteers. It's not only programmers that we need. There are documentation, bug reporting, testing, artwork, scenario and map making tasks available for volunteers here. Contact your nearest dev or WFG staff to discuss how you can help.

Since the sole role of leadership seems very taxing, I wonder if a leadership 'committee' would be better suited for a project like this. There could be 3 (or more) positions: Engine development lead, Multiplayer and lobby lead, Volunteer organization lead, and/or maybe outreach and public relations lead.

Thank you for all your time. You always had the overview but still commented on many small things. I apreciated that.

farewell Stan. Be back sometimes.

Your dedication and leadership have been instrumental in shaping this project over the past 12 years. Your decision to step down is both respected and understood, and your contributions will always be remembered and appreciated! Wishing you the very best in your future endeavors Stan'! We may have never discussed it before, but now is the perfect time to make it happen! Let's break the tradition and have that 1v1 match.

Thank you Stan, you're a champ!

As an eternally sometimes active and sometimes burned out dev, I relate to the struggle. Thanks for all the years of leadership and support, thanks for all the events you attended, all the mods you carried and updated, and all the releases you shipped ! Enjoy the rest

It’s sad to see you go, but not unexpected. No one can bear so many things by themselves for so long. I hope your replacement will be a team instead of an individual, to prevent people getting burnt out. Anyway, it’s good to see you have other projects now, I hope we will soon find some time to discuss these with a cold beer

Thanks for all your work over the years, Stan!

Thanks for everything, you did a great job, i really enjoy a lot <3 take care.

I thought that you might quit, I know I was annoying sometimes to you and community I apologise for that and I wish this is a joke but you sound dead serious. You did a great job, you took 0ad to this level. hope the new project manager take 0ad to the next level.

You've been a massive pillar for the project, and your energy did not go to waste. Thanks for teaching me the ways of 0 A.D. Senpai.

It was a great time to work with you! You've done uncountable amount of things to improve 0 A.D. in many areas. It was taking a lot of time and energy, it wasn't simple for you but you've made much further than many others in that situation. Thank you for all you've done! I wish you a nice journey and to only do things you really enjoy 0 A.D. development is keep going and I'll be always glad to hear your feedback if you came to say hello

I second @Genava55! Always welcome for a chat! Farewell, to the truest of that word, to you!

Farewell Stanislas. You have been a fantastic leader and your involvement has been remarkable. We will miss you, but I understand your decision. I wish you the best and don't hesitate to come back to say hello on the forum.

It's about making the unit orders more logical for new users. I have problems with the (otherwise great) feature of "go there, do something, and then come back": The "Oh cool, they come back!" becomes all too often "Aw crap, they go away...". I waste inordinate amounts of time trying to catch stupid units deciding they have to go/return to some point on the other side of a "giant" sized map, instead of staying put and wait for my orders. And no, the attack movement doesn't necessarily help: For instance what can you do when unloading unit groups from a ship, and they all start scuttling away like scared cockroaches? While you need to take care of some urgent matter on the other side of the map? Wouldn't it be real nice if they stayed put, waiting for you to tell them what to do? What I'm suggesting is to reverse how it (seems to) work right now: Unit stances ("aggressive", etc.) should only and exclusively determine how a unit will react to enemies in its vicinity (or being attacked). Units should not remember where they were when receiving a standard command (standard right click), nor try to go back there when they consider they have finished their task. Never, ever. Units should remember where they started from and do their "do something and then come back" thing only when specifically ordered so (Key+right click). That "memory" should only last for that specific task, i.e. when they come back they forget about everything, and are ready for new type #2 or #3 orders. Repairing a dropsite shouldn't be an invitation to gather. When building one, okay, that makes some sense. But repairing my dock is just that, a repair, and I shouldn't have to catch the repairers before they vanish into the hinterland to cut wood... It's even more annoying with the "Norse" civ which has a dropsite ship. Each time I repair that one (and it happens often!), my repairers scuttle off to cut wood... What this changes, is that you won't find yourself chasing after units which, for some unfathomable reason, kept a memory of some past location, and won't lose it unless you memorize a new location, which is just shifting the problem but not solving it. When you have 300 units to micromanage, of which 150 have a mind of their own, your head explodes. People trying to second-guess your intentions is already annoying with normal humans, it gets horrible with hundreds of stupid-but-lightning fast AI units... I guess you all have got used to it, and probably don't even notice it anymore, but for new users it's a major pain in the neck, compounded by the lack of documentation. Here you are, making two coordinate but separate attacks on very different places on a giant map, all the while the AI is trying to storm your CC somewhere else, and you need to spend waste most of your time catching your rebellious units... (Also posted this in the suggestion thread, but made a copy here for the discussion I feel coming... )

I can reproduce this on A26: - put units in defensive stance while idle (or not, I suppose) - tell them to garrison something - make sure that the garrisoned unit/building doesn't have a rally point set, and ungarrison it in any way the unit will move towards the previous idle position. this is very broken, needs fix. Possibly just add an instruction to forget this.heldPosition when garrisoning in UnitAI.js. thanks for reporting.

Hi, I'm still comparably new to 0ad. I'm usually not joining discussions of other people that don't affect me. But I do want to point out something (I think is) important: 0ad has a comparably small player base, some even say it's shrinking. Either way, 0ad is a great game, it deserves a much bigger playerbase. Having more players would benefit everyone. We definitely need new players. We should take every new player that we can get, and avoid new players from quitting right away after playing the game just a few times. The first impression of the game counts. It is impossible for old players who have played the game for years to actually reproduce the experience you get when first playing the game. That is why we need new players that share their thoughts and make suggestions. Of course, some of these suggestions will be bad. But this information is way more valuable than many players understand. To state that a new player's ideas and impressions are wrong, jidt because experienced players think otherwise is a very very weak argument. And even if all thoughts and suggestions are rubbish (which is definitely not the case), then why not just explain and help them (without offending them)? Please be more welcoming to new players. That is a sign a sign of maturity and responsibility. That being said, I fully agree with @krt0143 here, 0ad desperately needs a good tutorial, it would help new players A LOT. And no, YouTube videos and any other guides don't come close to what completely new players, that have never played a single game, need to know. I can confidently say this, because I had many problems myself when first starting out. Pressing random keys and buttons on the screen is not how learning to play a game is supposed to work. I hope you understand what I mean.

Don't worry, as you gain experience it'll get easier to control your units. Take the case of repairing a dock, you might have an idea of what you want your units to do after repairing the dock, so just use shift to queue their next task. Even if you don't want them to do anything after repairing the dock, you can always use shift to tell them to move to a spot next to the dock so that they can wait for your next order.

They might not always make pauses between decisions, but they do have idle workers sometimes. Moreover they're pretty inefficient: sometimes they send workers across ~half the map for a new task; sometimes they gather res really far from a storehouse and they don't build new storehouses for example at woodlines. All those shuttling times really add up.

I believe siege mines would be a great addition to the game. I have been thinking about that for some time now, but I've never put the work in.

What toxic 0 AD players think they are like: What they actually are like:

- More historically centered had been the introduction of an additional building to the Umayyad faction that allows to unlock advanced techs that reflect the high sophistication of their civilization. They were called "diwans" and were various councils that administered the bureaucracy, organization and decision within the caliphates. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divan The main concept behind this administrative building (similarly with Carolingian's library) was to offer more options and decisions to take also in the late game, hopefully improving the longevity of the game experience that, in my personal experience, tend to slump towards the end. All of this is still obviously a beta test to try out some possible options that can be explored as gameplay Anyway open to feedback / suggestions! EDIT: forgot, credit to @Lopess for the 3D model of this and also many other buildings of the Umayyad civilization

I feel a bit sorry for this uneducated person: