Leaderboard

This is not a bug ! Technical explanation: Han civ was pulled straight out from Terra Magna A23 and had its code fixed for a24 and A25, as a single standalone mod civ. On incorporating into A26, for balance, many features of the Han were removed. However, they didn't delete the template files; they just removed the OP units from Han production buildings. Crossbow cav and mobile boltshooter tank were examples of these. But the production buildings of other civs do not have explicit inhibition of these units, especially the Persian CC which can train all cav class units. As a result, the hidden units can be trained by capturing other civs' buildings.

I appreciate your enthusiasm. However, any mod that automates anything beyond the tools already explicitly provided in the game is a cheat mod. Every single game studio in the world would agree with me here. I'm not sure why Wildfire Games alone is expected to be different and allow cheat mods.

I won't argue on what is the definition of "cheating", but I would like to leave a comment on the "real solution" proposed. Having a system with a single host computing everything and sending out the data would be a great simplification of the code and indeed solve some of the cheating issues. It definitely would make our work as programmers a lot easier (no more cross platform out of sync, no more deserialization bugs etc.). However, there is one particular good reason why we (and every similar game too) go through all the hassle of a lockstep networking model (i.e. simultaneous computation of the simState in all the clients): A single host computation system will not work practically. The problem lies into the fact that the bandwidth of an internet connection is limited. (An old article on the topic is here: https://www.gamedeveloper.com/programming/1500-archers-on-a-28-8-network-programming-in-age-of-empires-and-beyond) In a single host computation system, the host will have to send (a large portion of) the gamestate to every client multiple times per second. The data of the gamestate is required to show the player what (s)he is supposed to see (units in its vision). This needs to be updated with a good frequency so that the player can respond accordingly. Currently we have turns of 200ms, so that means a frequency of 5 per second (in the past in 0 A.D. we used turns of 500ms, which wasn't ideal, but sure one can tweak a bit here). A gamestate can have a size of several MB's. I just tested: a new game on the acropolis map is already 500kB, so having a big map with 8 players in late game will be like 5MB. This means we need to be sending 25MB to every client per second. With 8 players and some observers, this will easily be a few hundred MB per second. Even on 1Gbit/s fiber class connections you won't be able to do this (1Gbit/s usually gives just over 100 MB/s). This issue prevents any MP game from running stably, so it really is not a practical solution. Even if one would have sufficient bandwidth, there is also the issue of latency. A message send over the internet takes time to arrive at the other end. Currently one a player can give a command based directly on the current turn in the simstate. The command then has to travel to the host and then back to all clients for it to be executed. So basically one needs to send stuff twice over the internet. If one has a single host computation system, the player sending a command is actually already lagging behind (since the simstate has been send from the host to him). Then secondly, the player gives a command, which is send to the host, and lastly the host sends a new simstate to the client. So in total 3 times things have been send over the internet. Meaning that the latency of commands is increased by 50% (and probably more since the package sizes have increased too). Also a single host computation system is filling one hole with another: since the host will now have full control of the simstate, and no one is controlling it, (s)he can change it. So such a system makes it possible to cheat the simstate for the host. Creating an (imo) even bigger problem than the information leak problem in a lockstep networking model. Surely one can come up with "solutions" like dedicated (trusted) servers, but then one runs into the question: who will maintain and pay for those servers? In all it boils down to the quote, quoted above too: While technically it certainly is possible to design a system without information leaks, such a system is nonviable to produce a playable game.

Welcome @WiseKind. You formulate your argument(s) very eloquently and rationally, but you seem to repeat the same talking point in a different formulation quite often? Please correct me if I'm wrong, this is how I understood your main argument (for GUI mods, regarding the network issue/system I cannot speak as I do not have the sufficient knowledge): "The GUI is not part of the game, it is only how we interact with the game, thus changing the GUI cannot be considered cheating, as cheating means the game itself was altered" And you support this argument by using the 0ad vision (again, this is how I understood your post, please correct me if I got it wrong): "The vision states that 0ad is not supposed to be won by executing a build order with the fastest click speed, thus reducing the amount of clicks needed is not a relevant change to the gameplay" If I understood you correctly (if not, please ignore the following paragraph), then I'd like to disagree: - The GUI is a crucial part of the game, not some seperate entity. The GUI is what I am interacting with, it is essentially what I am "playing". A game is a thing in which things happen, according to my inputs. Changing what all the inputs do, means changing the game. Changing the game to have an advantage is considered cheating. - You said yourself that every action should have (or has?) strategic importance. But there are only so many core strategies that fit within the confines of a game, and having a larger army will always be an advantage. So if someone spares even a few seconds because one of their clicks equal ten clicks of a "normal" player, they will have an advantage. And since that advantage comes from installing a mod (which the others might not even know about), it is unfair. An unfair advantage can reasonably be called cheating. I want to answer to two things specifically, first: I do happen to know that putting the checks into place for this would be literally impossible, given the nature of free software I think it's not about any "checks", it's about establishing a common ground on what is "cheating" and what isnt. 0ad has no malicious cheaters (that I know of). But there are different opinions on what should be allowed in a "normal" or a "rated" game. And the "cheaters" we do have (Like @Atrik, the evil, evil villian ) are perfectly reasonable people, that deactivate their "cheats" when asked to (as seen in a recent tournament). So if we did find a common ground, the "cheating problem" would instantly cease to exist. As my last point I want to answer to this: Hello, that's me! I'm bored if I can't click meaningfully atleast twice a second. Even if I had ProGUI, I'd manually manage all my barracks, because I like it and because there's not much else going on (and there shouldn't be, as the "buildup" phase with only light skirmishes and major focus on you economic decisions is a great part of any rts).

cc @bb_ @Freagarach @implodedok

Hi all, right now all civilizations use a carthagian actor for formations, though especially the romans had their own, very unique standards, e.g. Aquila (eagle), Signum and Vexillum. I put together 4 standards, which I'm adding as a mod here. Alpha for player colour still needs to be added. @wowgetoffyourcellphone @Stan` @real_tabasco_sauce maybe someone could take a look on it and make a PR? we could also put together a standard bearer unit, similar to the gaul trumpeter, as a scenario unit or upgradable legionary in vanilla? They used to be called "Aquilifier" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquilifer) or "Signifier" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signifer). references: wikipedia links: standards.zip

《Cambyses II》 Cambyses II is marching his army to conquer and rule over the whole Egypt as the first foreign ruler and the first Persian Pharaoh. That would mark the end of Egypt's independence and the beginning of Persian rule over the region. Cambyses II's conquest of Egypt was part of the larger Persian Empire's expansion into various territories. Cambyses II becomes the Pharaoh of Egypt after his successful subsumption of Egypt into the Persian Empire. In doing so, Cambyses II was given the Pharaoh name of Mesuti Ra, beginning the 27th dynasty (the first Egyptian Satrapy), which lasted from 525 to 404 BCE. A Pharaoh name was a significant tradition for Egyptian royalty as it highlighted the perception of the pharaoh as being a vessel for the gods, and therefore, a divine being in their own right. 4 Players: 1. Cambyses II(Persians) 2. Hippias(Athenians) 3. Psamtik III(Egyptians) 4. Cleomenes I(Spartans) Revealed Map Unlimited Sources for all "Requirements" Installation of 0 A.D. alpha 26 + Millennium A.D Mod "File Paths" Mac: User/Application Support/0ad/mods/user/maps/scenarios Linux: Home/.local/share/0ad/mods/user/maps/scenarios Windows: Documents/My Games/0ad/mods/user/maps/scenarios ●Mithra Shakiba● Acheamanid Empire II.pmpAcheamanid Empire II.xml

Drawing of a Germanic warrior that i made.

After Han captures a Persian CC, a hidden unit becomes available in that CC: Han Cavalry Crossbowman. This unit is never mentioned in Structure Trees.

FYI: Issue #6918 (New setting for world population distributed by teams) has been closed last week by the merge of pull request #7161 (Add a 'team population' gamesetting) into the main branch. Therefore it'll probably be part of Release 28.

For not loosing track of it, we have now Issue #7704.

template_unit.xml The pathfinder has been fixed for you simulation/templates/template_unit.xml 2025-03-11 15:48:17.774030190 +0000 @@ -62,7 +62,7 @@ <Anchor>pitch</Anchor> <Floating>false</Floating> <FloatDepth>0.0</FloatDepth> - <TurnRate>14</TurnRate> + <TurnRate>100</TurnRate> </Position> <RangeOverlayManager/> <RangeOverlayRenderer/> @@ -126,7 +126,7 @@ <WalkSpeed>9</WalkSpeed> <RunMultiplier>1.67</RunMultiplier> <InstantTurnAngle>1.5</InstantTurnAngle> - <Acceleration>35</Acceleration> + <Acceleration>1000</Acceleration> <Weight>10</Weight> </UnitMotion> <Visibility>

This is surely a bug, but maybe we can just call it a feature. lol

Spearman and swordsman have 3 hack 3 pierce armour. What is this joke? Units die way too quickly in this alpha (and in A26 and in A25). There is no possibility of retreating from a fight. If you retreat, you will loose everything. The amount of damage dealt while turning around and pathfinding outside enemy range is enough to kill the melee unit. Ranged units die almost instantly. The attack damage is disproportionally high compared to the effective health of units, so we see instant vapourisation of entire armies. The problem of units dying too quickly is proliferated by forge techs focusing too much on attack damage and not enough shield upgrades. For comparison, in A23, the melee units had 5 hack 5 pierce armour by default. Fully upgraded units can have up to 8. Meanwhile, the damage techs are not as strong. That allowed reasonable death rates. How do we fix this? Simple: 1. Nerf the attack damage upgrades, especially cap the T3 to +1 2. Improve shield upgrades. Increase like +1 +2 +3 each tier. 3. Increase turn angular frequency. 1000 radians per second is a good value. There is no possibility of dancing given the new pathfinder which stops the unit before it turns, plus the lag which makes dance impossible. A high angular frequency will aid unit pathfinding, prevent units from being stuck and allow retreating. 4. Default unit armour values: Spearman: 6 hack 6 pierce Swordsman: 6 hack 5.5 pierce Pikeman: 8 hack 10 pierce

Alpha 27 is near and it's time to start thinking about the art goals we'd like to hit for Release 28, which is a release we hope will make a big splash. Finish the Cimbri faction (early Germans) New Market model Make the building models looked more "lived in" with props such as vines, etc. Commission an artist to create portraits for the Heroes, roughly in line with the portraits of other heroes already in the game. A new Wonder model. What else? Create Ramming animations for Ramming Ships Essentially just need to "reverse" the walking animation for a few cycles, then go forward again. Can this be done programmicly or will it actually require new dae animations? There are several Ramming Ship models in-game. Add a "dust" or "debris" particle upon collision? Terrains & Biomes Fill out the "Italy" terrains more Fill out the "Steppe" terrains more China biome? Need to replace the chief hunting source on Steppe maps (horses) and expand our Asian animal list a bit Saiga Mongolian Gazelle Goitered Gazelle Wild Ass / Onager Bactrian Camel Yak Przewalski's Horse Persian Wonder Apadana of Darius Perhaps a few more "Wonders of the World" to go in conjunction with a new "Capture the Wonder" game mode? Re-top Athena Parthenos model from DE to reduce number of triangles by half for inclusion in the game. Battering Ram models Chinese Kushites Carthaginians Add garrison flags to all Ship models Hero Portraits Find someone to remake all our hero portraits at a higher and consistent quality? More Statues, Shrines, Artifacts, Eyecandy Would like to introduce the concept of Cultural Artifacts to skirmish maps in main game. More Shrines, at least one for each civ in the game. Greeks and Persians are already covered. Statues and other similar eyecandy objects for all the cultures in the game, not just Greeks and Romans, although more Greco-Roman stuff would be nice too.

It was not. At the time I didn't know how it worked and I just wanted to add a cool asset into the map editor.

I don't think it's necessary to remove this unit because it is not particularly OP and it's nice to have an Easter egg. Han capturing a Persian is a rather rare situation

Nice background bro! Viva Immorality!

Scythians maybe, at least the Saka seem to use something similar, although maybe without the dragon/wolf head: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orlat_plaques Although the Dacians clearly should have them, in the future.

I'm all for the free design of these mods. They can sometimes add something or be fun. it called progress in this case. But I'm against their secret use in an environment where other players don't use them. it called cheat in this case Of course some players can accept cheat in their game if they know it and they are agree

I take the opportunity to share this study on the military standards: https://books.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/propylaeum/catalog/book/1394 It is written in German.

At one time, a mod allowed automating unit teleportation. This meant buildings could be set up like roads across which women could travel extremely quickly. Likewise, barracks could quickly transport soldiers across long distances. This isn't against the "Rules" as you describe, because you could technically do this, maybe if each turn was 10 seconds. Should this be considered cheating?

Thanks for your fast reply. It is also true that nearly every single game studio in the world develops nonfree software, and either doesn't understand, or isn't sympathetic with, the case for software freedom. The vast majority of software programmers in general would agree that there is nothing wrong with a word processor displaying advertisements, but I certainly object! I am aware that my opinion is very rare, almost unique, even among free software supporters. But one million people can be wrong. They are expected to be different as a consequence of releasing their project's source code as open source (again, think of how many game studios don't do this). The only way to actually forbid players from secretly trying out certain third-party tools in ranked matches is to install an anticheat, which is a program whose job it is to verify that the game's code hasn't been modified. All anticheat programs are nonfree (their source code is private), and they have to be, since these tools rely on obfuscation to do their jobs. Therefore, in order to truly enforce any rules governing what mods are allowed and which mods aren't allowed would certainly require this project to become at least partially nonfree. Maybe the community is fine with that (I'm not; I would leave immediately if this happened, greatly disappointed), but it's true, and it's important to keep in mind. As of now, 0 A.D. is free software, and by definition, that means people can modify the game however they want. Whether we want to change that is a totally different question. Information cheats and GUI automation are still two different things I would also like to point out that, even if you disagree that GUI mods should be allowed, you could still understand that "cheating" by using automation tools that aren't present in vanilla, and "cheating" by breaking the game itself to reveal the map or spawn in units, are two different things. You may think that they are both cheating and should both be banned, but they are still different kinds of "cheating". One point I am trying to make here is that even if it is technologically impossible to truly mitigate the former kind of cheating, it IS possible to mitigate the latter. If we re-design the network protocol in 0 A.D. such that the whole simulation is no longer synced directly between peers, and instead only one peer has the full state and is responsible for computing each player's vision, then the other players would be unable to reveal the map on their end, even if they modified the game to their heart's content. Hopefully you can agree that, even if automation and macros are still to be considered unfair, it would still be very good if we implemented a change that could totally eliminate at least one class of cheating, even if we could not eliminate all of it. It certainly wouldn't be bad. Anyways, I think your argument here is constructive, and I'm looking forward to seeing more from you, and the rest of the 0 A.D. community.

Units toughness are at a good spot now (exception for champ cavs). It's better now with the melee re-balance then it was in vanilla a26. Retreating should have a non-null cost, and it's not that costly rn.

I suggest a shield wall formation: The shield wall formation would be diferent from phalanx formation. The shield wall formation would give a bonus against projectile damage, the phalanx formation would give a bonus against melee damage. Many players use and abuse ranged infantery, witch exterminates melee infantery. The shield wall formation will make the melee infantery more viable, in a historical period marked by the use of strong infantery, and will make it easy to invade enemy territory without losing more than half of your army in the process.

Hey nifa, nice to see you back! They look pretty nice. The polycount looks high though

I don´t agree, we can explore other options, for example: 1) Increase infantry defense against projectiles with shield wall formation. 2) Increased the defense of the fortresses to make them more viable and harder to capture. 3) Garrison soldiers on the rams to make them stronger. 4) Garrison only ranged infantery in wall towers.

guess now I gotta take hans everytime im up against a persian

The problem perhaps is not champion cavalry themselves but rather the lack of counters from some civs. Mauryas and Brits are total sitting ducks against champion spear cav. Most civs can only counter by making equal numbers of this unit in the hope of a stalemate Only a few civs have decent counters: Spartans, Macedonians and Athenians have champion spearman that can kill this unit effectively. Gauls are the only civ near perfection because their naked fanatics do exactly the job of countering spear cav. Can we give other civs some champion spearman or things similar to naked fanatics? Gauls are the single most OP civ right now because they are not missing anything. They have no weakness.

Yes, caltrops, also known as "crow's feet", were used in the Battle of Gaugamela in 331 BCE. They were an effective weapon against cavalry and chariots. [1, 2, 3] How were they used? [3] Caltrops are area denial weapons made of sharp nails or spines arranged in a pattern. [3] They were used to slow down the advance of troops, especially horses, chariots, and war elephants. [3] The Romans called them tribulus, which means "jagged iron". [4] How were they used in the Battle of Gaugamela? [1] According to a history written centuries after the battle, Persian King Darius III strewed the ground with caltrops to stop Alexander the Great's forces. [1] Alexander was able to maneuver around the caltrops and win the battle. [2] How were they used in other battles? [1] Caltrops were used in the Battle of Nisibis in 217 AD, where they helped the Roman infantry break up a Parthian cavalry charge. [1] In modern times, caltrops are effective against wheeled vehicles with pneumatic tires. [3] Generative AI is experimental. [1] https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a60661761/ukraine-dungeons-and-dragons-weapon/ [2] https://www.historynet.com/weaponry-the-caltrop/ [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caltrop [4] https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caltrop Not all images can be exported from Search.

I don't understand why people want to nerf champion cavalry, Historically they are supposed to be more powerful and invincible, we might need a counter weapon to cause damage to them like Caltrop. Ranged units can use them, and we can give extra HP for spears if they are in formation. or make them invincible in formation. But in an 1v1 fight with an unskilled peasant, they are supposed to kill them in 1 hit. yet they don't do that in 0AD. In Age of Empires IV, heavy cavalry units deal extra damage when they charge. Cavalry charges can also break enemy lines, which can be useful for hit-and-run tactics, we don't have it. I think making them weak only make them useless in battle, forget about 1v1s in real battle 3-4 pikes attack a single champ and kill them easily, the champ cavalry should justify the cost. I think there should be anti-cavalry training upgrades for units so that they can reasonably save themselves from slaughter, army should have this upgrade if they must counter cavalry.

The guy above is straight up facts! #MMGA MAKE MINISTERS GREAT AGAIN!!

Currently it's not really possible to do such a thing. The only thing with dynamic pathfinding are gates. The game has a 2D grid not a 3D one

It’s the most useful or least useful tech, depending on the circumstance.

its a typo. You can see that a27 techs are in there.

! This is really nice data here. Its still shocking how much ppl skip loom.

Don't use a chat window at all. The chat functionality is a poor match. If you want to scroll back just read a manual instead of an interactive intro. Just pop up a window / banner for each objective as you do in other cases already. Suggest to allow skipping objectives.

Question to the devs: would be technically possible to integrate additional ambient sounds to the game also based on different contexts? Thinking like some background sounds of a bustling city while we hover to the main base, or some battle background during fights.. that would be pretty cool to further enhance game immersion! Would it work with auras, or requires some biome-related triggers? Definitely not a feature "high" on priority list at the moment, but would be probably a nice added touch for future releases

Me and the bois about to go lay down some 0 A.D. @nifa

I removed the World Population checkbox in the game setup and replaced it with a dropdown for selecting the Population Cap Type ("Player Population", "Team Population", or "World Population"). Here is what that looks like: Nothing spectacular, but it works. Generally, you simply need to transfer the changes you see in the PR to your own mod (i.e. going through the affected files and making the same changes to the corresponding files in your repo, by using a diff file for example). Unfortunately, however, this specific patch here builds on changes made after the release of A26 and not applied in the community mod (which your mod is based on, correct?). This means, if you try to do the above you will find that some files in your mod differ from the original files in the PR and you won't be able to transfer the changes. You would have to backtrack more and more commits affecting a larger and larger number of files and eventually you very nasty conflicts. All in all, unfortunately, it's not feasible to pack these changes into an A26 mod. I guess you'll have to wait until A27 for it.

I think best to have the option to have 2 versions of world population with one distributed per player and to have one distributed per team.

Introduction Basics Beginner Advanced Expert Changelog

I am from India, so GMT+5:30, In my place people call cool people "leopard" in local language, so I took this nickname. also it start with leo, I am fan of Leonardo DiCaprio.

Units (Pre-Islamic and Islamic) 1. Infantry Rajil (Infantry) 2. Missiles Ramiy (archer) 3. Cavalry Fursan (cavalry) Bedouin Raider (camelry) 4. Champion Unit Mubarizun (Elite Infantry, divided by three classes sword, bow and javelin) Ansar Cavalry 5. Client Troops Mawali Infantry (Spearman) Al-Asawira (mounted Archer) 6. Siege Falakan-e Majaniq (Persian Mangonel) Umayyad Period 1. Infantry Shurtah (Urban Prefect) Rammaha (Spearman) 2. Missile Ramiy (Archer) 2. Cavalry Muqatila Bedouin Raider (Camelry) 3. Champion unit Al-Haras Al-Khass Al-Haras Al-Qasr 4. Client Troops Mawali Infantry (Spearman) Al-Asawira (Mounted Archer) Berber Auxiliary (Skirmisher) 5. Navy Byzantine Dromon

The Arabs took advantage from the decline of the Sassanids after 28 years of war against the Romans. They are Arabs! The Persian was incorporated into caliphate later by the Arabs due to lack of manpower (skilled warrior). Ansar Warrior from End of Antiquity mod: Arab Guarsman (Haras) Spearmen (Rammaha)

Yes, that's why i'm trying to contact NoMolester, the leader of the Mod. I cannot propose the faction i wish to propose because i didn't receive his approval.

Note I think you have totally ignored the Sasanian Empire 224–651 As you can see the largest in the Islamic world and successors of Parthia after their defeat to the Romans. Essentially, these guys are the Persians.