Leaderboard

Different biomes offer different amounts and distributions of each resource. TheCJ has pretty much summarised it but I can see some additional things with my GUI mod: Aegean has medium sized forest, more stone than metal, but the density of woodline is high. Hunt is abundant and mostly passive. You might get apple trees. This is the pro biome as it allows all strategies but discourages turtle / ecobot. Subalpine has woodlines of all sizes and a range of densities. Less hunt than Aegean. Plenty of stone but few metal mines - bad for champs and mercs. Boom with slings and attack early! Rhine valley is the best one for wood as the forests are the most dense and large. There might be clearings in the middle for you to build ultra efficient storehouses. Very bad hunting options and not enough mines. So the correct play is just boom hard. India has giant berries and giant trees - potential for epic boom. Sadly due to pathfinder bug and complicated meshes, the biome is quite bugged for most low spec players. Not recommended unless you use EnhancedGUI mod in which case it becomes amazing. Elephants are good hunt but mines are not enough. Nubia has insane amounts of metal - perfect for mercs and Cav rush. The woodlines are small though sufficiently dense. The berries are double the normal size. Savannah has wood in the form of large baobab trees dotted everywhere. But there is elephant to hunt and sufficient mines. Sudanian Savannah has exceptionally large and dense forests with 600 wood trees. However, hunt and mines are scarce. This is another boom biome in disguise. Temperate is the most loved biome of A27 TGs because it always offer some extra food in the form of apple trees or additional berries. Hunt and mines are plentiful, so all strategies can be played. The woodlines are quite irregular here and in general less dense than Rhineland or Aegean. Most players get confused by the leaves. Arctic has medium and small woodlines but are always very dense. Obviously no apple trees but the chance of extra hunt is high. Mines are also scarce. You either rush with cav or boom for early inf attacks.

1v1 vs OP @MarcusAureliu#s feat non stop rush + CC swap

I agree to @borg- that 0 A.D. stands out for being a much less frenetic game compared to titles like Age of Empires II (aoe2) or Age of Mythology (aom). its more deliberate strategic focus where there are no constant micro battles that force players to perform hundreds of clicks per minute (except in high level games, but usually pro players like borg or vali doesnt overtask other players, tho they can do it perfectly) to manage individual units or special abilities. In 0 A.D., victory is built through macroeconomic decisions and largescale tactics, significantly reducing the number of actions needed to control standard matches. Micro plays are ofc very important, i usually like to do some 5 - 8inf minirushes to kill some wumen or counter rushes. I fully support the argument that the clicks required to play effectively are fewer here. While aom or aoe2 demand near surgical attention in every skirmish, 0 A.D. prioritizes planning and resource flow, making it more accessible to players who prefer strategy over reflexes. But ofc, as more reflexes and apm more advantage. Ipropose two key adjustments: -Increase the base game speed to 1.15x, to streamline mid-game phases without sacrificing tactical depth. -Reduce unit training times by 15 or 20%. With this two things micro would be much important and the rest of the tactics remain the same. Additionally, it’s important to highlight that 0 A.D. is designed for armies of 200–300 units, compared to the 100–150 of its competitors. This difference demands a less chaotic design but could also be leveraged to make large-scale battles more dynamic without overwhelming the player. Anyway 0 A.D. doesn’t need to copy the frenetic pace of other RTS games, but it could optimize its rhythm to enhance its unique identity. I support @borg’s ideas and hope the developers consider these changes. Also i think 0ad needs a face-wash and make a better UI and PLEASE GO TO STEAM. 0 A.D. IS BETTER THAN MUCH OF ITS COMPETITORS, only needs few things and more players

Spoiler, it's a lot of fun. Now that I've spoiled the entire premise of this post, I wanted to thank the development and art team for making something truly unique. I've been following 0 A.D. since I got interested in Linux (around 7-8 years ago), because it was the first package listed in Synaptic, the old GUI package manager. I couldn't play it at the time, my computer barely ran Windows 7, let alone an RTS game full of eye-candy detail. Well, now I can, and the feeling of finally being able to play THAT ONE FREE GAME I've always wanted to play is phenomenal. The fact that this game is free (as in freedom!) is a miracle. I can't even fathom how much work went into this game. Technically, it feels the most like Age of Mythology, while gameplay is most similar to Age of Empires 2. The choice of civilizations is at first daunting, but each one plays similarly enough that you could just pick any and learn as you go. One feature stands out, and it's not intuitive at first. Citizen Soldiers (CS) are both your workers and your basic soldiers. They cost Wood in addition to Food, and some of the swordsmen types can even cost Metal. They might be weak, but they're easy to mass. You would use them primarily to gather Stone and Metal, with few of them on Wood (females gather Wood only slightly slower than males). Since females will be your primary gatherers in the early game, you should avoid making too many of CS in the Village phase. The game begins in earnest in the Town phase, when more of your soldiers become available. Most champion units are still locked behind City phase. More importantly, siege engines can also only be built in this phase (baring a few civs), so your options at storming the enemy towns are limited until the City phase. This might be my only complaint so far. In Age of Empires 2 or Age of Mythology, you get access to siege weapons in the 3rd phase. In addition, 20 Knights can level the Town Center alone, if it's not defended. In 0 A.D., attacking a Civic Center with 20 Town phase cavalry units will likely result in utter failure, wasting resources. Maybe this is a good thing, maybe not. It depends on what kind of player you are. But players should get an option that is not simply "move to the City phase ASAP". Other than that, I had a blast playing Romans, Athenians and Persians so far. I'll try some other civilizations (SPARTAAAAANS! READY!) and ultimately decide on my "goto" civ. This is really a fun game to play on a relaxing rainy day. Absolute chill when compared to the APM madness in StarCraft. And I love it. Thank you so much.

Let's have a thread where we can discuss different strategies in TG and 1v1 to make our gameplay more interesting! Some interesting TG strategies that I have observed: 1. Min 11 double push. Two players boom with infantry then suddenly send all to attack the enemy border, causing them to loose huge amount of units and all wood eco. Then the two pull back if the pocket is going to help. To prepare for this, you need to make only 50 women and 4 barracks to spam out infantry so that you get a lead before min11; at the same time you must scout where the enemy woodlines and economy zones are. If the enemies are unaware, you can beat both in one go. You can also set up outposts and palisades beforehands to prevent the pocket from coming to help. 2. Siege Hail. One player makes an insane amount of ram 25~40, then the other comes with infantry for ground support. The siege spammer should garrison their eco infantry into the rams when attacking; the garrisoned units can serve as repairers. They should also research all siege related upgrades. The supporting player should ideally use more ranged inf than melee inf. Entire bases will be obliterated in minutes and the enemy will have to rebuild. If they focus on taking out rams, then they will get killed by the supporting inf. Tough choices. 3. Boltshooters + elephants. Use elephants to protect your boltshooters and do massive damage.

Thanks to all contributors who figured and made this patch! Langbart ultra op. https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/issues/7714 Tested over couple of games it definitely feel like reverting the 'a27 lags'. Similar feedback from @0 calories. No more climax 4-12 fps lags or camera/gui unresponsiveness . Sharing the patch for those who'd like to try it. And get reasonable fps again... To apply on linux, (if you built the game) put the patch in your game folder lagpatch.patch Apply the patch: patch -p1 < lagpatch.patch Recompile: cd build/workspaces/gcc make -j3

Look harder. I found this in under a minute using a targeted search. The thread doesn't discuss why most players want current speed times (probably because it was widely accepted that current train times are desirable). Actually, only one person pushes back on shorter train times. It was you. You don't give any reason for wanting longer train times other than noting that other games have longer train times. Notably, your latest reason for wanting longer train times--to reduce spam--is directly refuted by...yourself: when you say "The problem with changing training times is that it does nothing to fix the fundamental issue [with spam]." This is quick way to lose the player base. After greatly increasing the player count during COVID, the player base almost immediately decreased with a24's release and it hasn't recovered. In the face of criticism, some used your exact logic to justify a24's changes. It's obviously a failed strategy. Purposely "ruining" 0ad would be a disaster

Your Cmake is too recent. You might get away by editing the cmake file for nvtt and change the version there.

From the above, you can see why temperate is played the most: it doesn't not favour a particular strategy nor civilisation, so balance is maximised and no one can predict other people's strategies. Aegean is also played a lot by higher rated players in 1v1 but most players might find it more difficult than temperate.

Agreed. The point I made was that 0 AD has training times significantly faster than many of its fellow RTS games, and the numbers I offered, while placeholder of course, would be conservative changes relative to other games. Some have suggested just changing the speed, which slows everything. I for one do not want that to be watching my soldiers moving that slowly. I would never claim that a single change would be without side effects, but the doom and gloom that some would suggest I think is a wild exaggeration. Supposing that the early game feels far too sluggish. Perhaps that's more the fault of things like not properly incentivising players to scout from the get go like most RTSs (Which I think is a problem in 0 AD regardless of whether training times are changed.). From my perspective at least, temporarily ruining a product is a perfectly normal part of prototyping in the interest of creating the most robust iteration possible, and I do not think the risks are as massive with this comparatively modest suggestion. By the way, I searched the forums for topics with the keyword 'alpha 24,' and the in the one topic that criticised the alpha, I found that only christgtr pushed for training times to be reduced. I could not find a single other person pressing for that change. I'm sure there were lobby conversations about it, but the outrage regarding training times seems a bit overblown. Granted, there were many things people didn't like about Alpha 24 (It was a long topic.), and maybe that was a lesser priority. Fair, I don't think that it would be good if I tried to make them such. Nothing substitutes empirical data, and while I did want to test alpha 24 to contrast its slower training times, I unfortunately could not get it running. On the flip-side of what I've argued for, there might be good reason to even see how the community reacts to faster training times as many individuals have pressed for. While I remain skeptical of the merits of such a change, if the community supports it after rigorous testing, who am I to challenge that? While I think you make fair points, if we really wish to depict such large battles, shouldn't we be playing with units on a squad or battalion level rather than force players to manage hundreds of peons? That would definitely make the design less chaotic and allow for meaningful micro that the game has hoped to introduce since this project began. That, however, is a completely different can of worms. I think that the conversation has stagnated, and I rest my case. Even if 0 AD is less frenetic compared to Age of Empires 2 or Age of Mythology (Of which the evidence for, while important, is only anecdotal), as I said in my opening post, the factory-like way units pop out is odd compared to other titles, and considering bringing the numbers down is nothing radical with that perspective. 0 AD does not have to make itself unique by being one of the fastest paced titles in its genre.

Well, you can just take a look at the biomes? Compared to temperate, which is the default in most tgs I played, Aegean-Anatolian has less dense forests and less hunt, Subalpine is pretty similar, Arctic has less dense forests and hunt that fights back, Rhine Valley (Fall) is pretty similar, India has elephants and massive trees, Nubia has no wood, Sahara also has no wood, Sudanian Savanna also has elephants and little wood, Eurasian Steppe has small trees which you can build buildings on. Cant give you percentages though, sorry. I think metal and stone mines are pretty similar in every biome.

This I have to disagree with. I do not think a fast game necessarily means that "the fastest clicks win". Especially because of the batch training mechanic, 0ad is very fast (in that you can get a lot of population in a short amount of time), but doesnt need a lot of clicks (one click every, 35-40 seconds? for groups of five for every barracks?). The only other rts I played (AoE2) is very slow paced in comparison (booming in 0ad means you are full pop before 14:00. Booming in AoE2 starts at ~14:00 when you reach AoE2s phase 3), but needs a lot more clicks.

They can be used as key defenders in a lot of situations. Also thanks to cheaper loom from @real_tabasco_sauce. @Stockfish even went as far as to attempt offensives with Spartans females

I always felt like the game was being taken over by a very competitive community.

Actually I hold the opposite opinion: training time should also be influenced by death rate and gather rate. The current death rate is very high in battles and the current train speeds are insufficient to reinforce. If you increase train time further, then you are going to have a game where you lose everything after you get disadvantaged in one battle. The gathering rate is the fundamental requirement for supporting unit production. If you slow down unit production, booming will be much slower - not fun. Nobody can reach P3 quickly. If anything, train time should be decreased

I would agree with you @Thorfinn the Shallow Minded, if it wasnt for the performance issue in large (4v4) multiplayer. When the game basically runs at half speed, you have 16 irl seconds for a women and 20 irl seconds for a soldier. Also, even in small games, where the lag is not so bad, the batch training makes things a lot easier, because you only have to queue up one batch every 20-40s. Sometimes even an entire minute (when you manage to queue up 10 women). And since you dont have to assign them individually (you can just send them all to wood or all to food), its basically one action every 20s.

https://www.gimp.org/news/2025/03/16/gimp-3-0-released/@Stan`@Alexandermb@wackyserious@Mr.lie@Sundiatanew version of stable gimp is released.

https://www.blender.org/download/releases/4-4/@Stan`@Alexandermb@wackyserious@Mr.lie@Sundiata new version of stable Blender is released.