Leaderboard

@RangerK I think SaidRdz is much better than me, sniper, rauls or chrgster. Once he gets going on Maury he is unstoppable with those sword. VERY few, if any, players can contain that army. Because it is slash you can't even contain him with mass siege towers. You'll notice in both games he was singled out in early phases otherwise you don't really stand a chance. Check Rauls attacking him in 2nd game and in first Geriatrix. In the first game it was a matter of keeping Rauls/SaidRdz contained with just 2 players for some time. In the second game it was a matter of keeping SaidRdz / spartan contained. Geriatrix did a great job setting that up and placing a CC defensively so that eco of pocket wasn't impacted. In the second game Rauls did a great job attacking SaidRdz allowing the han cav to pop in the south at an important fork in the road. It was just a matter of time before they'd push through, though. Goal was always for other side to push through first and to buy time on whatever side SaidRdz is. Palalaigos is awesome.

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

Hi, I'm wondering if the wildfire games developers would be interested in a joined stand on FOSDEM 2024 with DDNet. DDNet, like 0ad, is a complete free and open-source game with a decently sized community. The game mechanic differ from 0ad: DDNet is a 2D cooperative precision platformer. 2023 was my first in person FOSDEM, I met 2 other DDNet developers and we had a great time. I didn't get a stand in 2023 (and I didn't see a 0ad stand). All the approved stands were from really big open-source projects, so I though maybe a joined submission might have higher changes of success. Any thoughts?

Romans building capabilities would be nice to have, but that's a huge change to the game (and probably to the game engine). Having maps as a map feature is easier to do. Everybody was able to use roman roads afaik (if you can overcome roman fortifications along the road). Making movement faster in own territory and slower in enemy territory is currently not possible with the game engine (from what I've read elsewhere) but should be a very interesting feature...

Well siege range is already improved, now being 85 meters, which is just outside the range of archers with the tradition upgrade.

This is badly needed independent of any other changes. Great news for all those people building walls and palisades in p1 and all those other people who do p1 inf rushes?

Isn't a spear a much more basic weapon than a sword? Kinda strikes me wrong that some civs have sword-units in p1 and then get spear-units in p2.

Well, indeed. The very large range of ranged units is part of their OP.

In DE, the map has interesting capturable items, such as Shrines, Cultural Artifacts, Pirate Docks, and Farmsteads. One can also build your Storehouses and Granaries in neutral territory, for what I call the "Strong Core/Weak Countryside" dynamic. I've slowly started adding things kinds of things to the base game's skirmish maps, but no one plays skirmish maps on the lobby, unfortunately. Yeah, base game's siege engines are kinda weird. Too much attack range, massive vision range, huuuuge Crush damage (like artillery shells).

Yes. Taking down walls with infantry should not be doable if the walls are manned, but still doable if there's nobody around. Would it be possible to reduce damage to near zero when attacking from only one side, but to multiply it drastically when the wall is attacked from both sides ?

Yes, making walls block entirely missile attacks is the way to go. With exception for units that are placed above the wall (like in a watchtower, a fortress, a siege tower, whatever). Units inside a fully walled area should indeed not be targetable by enemy missiles. If there is a hole somewhere on the wall, ranged units would try to path around the wall to get line of sight/fire (there should be a visual cue for that when hovering the enemy unit to click on it to target it).

Would be nice to have road allow for quicker movement...

If this is implemented I'd like to see opportunities for counter-play. Extending the range makes sense and happens anyway due to the way elevation bonuses work in the game. Extending the minimum range by the same amount could allow for players to rush the wall in a higher-risk play that could help counter the wall mounted bolt shooters. A challenge of balancing these positions will be that different civs have varying levels of siege capability.

make a team with your friends, and play team games.

Could just have a build limit.

Yeah, sorry; maybe I was a bit too snarky. It was easy for me to search because I remembered seeing that error message. Anyway, glad your problem was solved. hf,gl

Balance? Rauls Akazid and Sniper all on the same team?

I do understand the point that, implementing walls reducing damage onto troops on the respective other side, is difficult to achieve. (Only wall/tower-garrisoned troops should have a range and protection bonus,; most likely they already do) When looking at the ballistics this should be the same issue if firing across a hill or ridge or another obstacle (building). Not sure the current engine takes this fully into account. I believe there is already a height bonus/malus for shooting from above/from below, but firing across an elevated obstacle could indeed generally reduce damage, possibly depending on the height of that obstruction. Hmm, I smell added complexity here... I'd be interested in getting your opinions here. Thanks!

I think the best approach is to reduce sword damage against walls for significant amount and make the infantry prefer targeting units over structure.

@real_tabasco_sauce I was using Persians and these were stone walls, and I had developed the "Persian architecture" tech. The enemy simply "cut" the wall with roman swordsmen; more than one segment of wall btw. They were a lot of swordsmen, but still... @Dizaka what you mention about the usage of walls as obstacles is true and I do it as well, but with palisades. Stone walls, on the contrary, are much more expensive and take longer to build, and usually you expect them to protect your city hermetically from whatever that comes without siege. Normally it works that way, ranged units cannot break down a wall, and this is the expected behavior. I was expecting the same for any kind of soldier units, but enough swordsmen can bring down walls. In my experience, in multiplayer games (which I play a lot), the only ones that build stone walls are new players expecting they will protect them. I never see experienced players building stone walls.

This. Saying fishing has no purpose is completely wrong. Fishing requires an upfront, risky investment that pays off handsomely when done well. Heavy fishing maps are also vulnerable to ship attacks late, which can’t be defended without also making ships. If you try to out boom a fishing player with a lot of berries/farms, you will lose 100% of the time against a good player. Making fishing infinite won’t make fishing more viable—it will make farms/berries useless.

I said 'bad idea' because letting the fish be infinite and significantly faster than farming would basically guarantee a player's victory if they have a 'safe' fishing source and their opponent doesn't. There should be a need to transition to farms at some point, or reach for more distant and dangerous fish.

I think it could be possible to avoid the 'death' of the resource and let it reach 0. That way the fishing rate would be limited to the regen rate. One could even make a fish_depleted model where there are fewer fish in the water and only 1 bird circling above.

If you want to make endless fish, then do it only like in Age of Empires III. The fact is that whales there were not a separate animal, but a static “deposit” of gold. But squid and ordinary fish were not an endless source of food. Another nuance is that not only fishing boats in the Age of Empires III could fish, but also some military ones. You can, of course, make two types of fish “deposits”, one of which could end, and the other - a large one - slow production and an endless one, for which it makes sense to fight. There is another more complex option - to leave the sources of fish limited, but they will periodically appear in a random place in the water area and their number, in order to avoid frame drops, must be tied to a certain number, different for each map and for different map scales. The second option is to let the fish, after exhaustion, go on cooldown for a few minutes and resume only after some time. The Age of Empires II solved this problem in the form of a separate building, accessible to a fishing boat - fishing nets, which were like a farm, only for water.

Maybe the food regeneration could buffed to be as fast as 1 fishing boat gathering speed, but you can still make the trade-off to fish intensively with more boats.

Indeed, techs that effect other things like reach (range), acceleration (maybe a ship rowing tech), Counters (maybe steel arrows for a bonus vs. Elephants), or unlock things like extra ranks or make promotions easier to attain ("tradition" techs) are far more interesting.

One of the main features of 0ad that serves to make civs often play very similarly is that many units are totally equal for some civs. Another issue is how simple many unit roles are (think meatshield/sniper meta). Unit specific upgrades is an attempt to differentiate unit roles and create some situational upgrade clicking as opposed to "must get" like the current military upgrades are. Unit specific upgrades could also help create more specific roles for units, depending on the situation. Considering civ balance and civ playstyles, some civs might not get all the unit specific upgrades for each of their units. This would make them maybe not "unique techs", but certainly "non-universal" techs. Consider that in Aoe2 there are many similar units (people who like games to be "cool" don't like this, hence aoe4). Japanese get every tech that is available for cav archers, meanwhile a couple other civs have access to less techs but have specific bonuses regarding cav archers. This creates differentiation in when and how cav archers are best used for that civilization. I'm not saying that we should be Aoe2, but I am saying that this is a very effective way to make "the same" units play very differently. To give an example from earlier, someone mentioned "longer pikes" (one of the unit specific upgrades). It seems like it won't have much gameplay effect, but the crucial aspect is that is has greater effect in certain situations (ie chokepoints, getting hits on cav). This is really fun compared to the plain old +armor, +damage techs.

To give an idea, in Delenda Est cavalry have a vision of 50 and infantry a vision of 44. Also, DE mods unitAI.js to alter (this.GetStance().respondChase) from 100% vision range to 85%. What this does is allow your units to see enemies at the edge of their vision range, but they don't automatically berserk.

Yes they should: they're riding on a vantage point.

Please give them more resistance as well, they die so quickly.

Hi guys! Water Engine. I've searched for this and haven't found. Is that so difficult to make water flow from higher altitude to lower altitude in the game? I think it would be amazing. If the water were related to the resources needed to a civilization grow in the game it would be super. I know the game started as a Age of Empires mod. But I think is a bigger thing now. I'm trying to use the game to teach some economics matter. All games like Empire Earth, Rising Nations, AoE, etc have resources but none of them have water witch is basic and the most important resource in the past and today . The water Engine would make possible great new scenarios. I can't stop thinking about what to create. Let me know what you think about it. Best regards!