Leaderboard

Screen Recording 2025-04-05 103826.mp4 here is my more recent "best of both worlds" approach. This improves lag in 2 ways: Corpses accelerate slightly, allowing them to spend less time under the surface and less time overall spent decaying. This means fewer corpses will accumulate. (i could also reduce the time it takes for corpses to start decaying). Corpse position is update at 1/150th of the current rate, implemented with a random chance. This also makes things look less homogenous. This second part is much greater an improvement than one might expect. Even when the same number of units are decaying at the same time (as in the below profile), cutting down on the unnecessarily high update frequency results in a substantial improvement to rendering performance. So with this PR https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/pulls/7616, players might not need to turn corpses off as is done in autociv.

We can do 2 types of updates: micro updates where only public is changed, then large updates where the engine is changed. For the micro updates, we can do an auto-updater: click a button and pull from the git repo.

We all know that current citizen-soldiers can work and build buildings, as well as fight. This has been a major turn off for many people who came from Age of Empires and similar games. Instead of regurgitating all that's been said in the past, I'll just post a link to a comment that described it best: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32993448 So, I'll propose a system that's already present in some mods for the game, with a few caveats. The major changes would include the following. 1) Citizen-soldiers are no longer citizens. They are basic soldiers that can't gather any resource, but can still build some military buildings. Rationale is that this separates the responsibilities between your fighting units and economic units. This is a key trait that has defined RTS genre from the beginning. 2) Women are replaced by a "Citizen" unit that is randomly assigned a gender when created. These citizens are your economic units. They can gather resources, build all buildings, repair, etc. They don't have different gather rates, the difference is cosmetic. They cost only 50 food, so you don't waste wood on building any gatherers in the early game. Obviously, this requires a new model for male citizens. 3) Common soldiers can only be trained at the Barracks, Stables or Archery Ranges. Soldiers will not be able to build Civic Centers, nor should they be trainable from the Civic Centers. Some mercenary units that cost Metal could be made as an exception to this rule. 4) Common soldiers can still gain ranks as normal. No change is required here. Players can choose to train cheaper, more expendable units, or spend more resources for champions. I don't want to sound divisive, but the current model is very off-putting for someone who just wants to sit down and play a fun game. Different gather rates for females and male citizen-soldiers are the core of this issue. Why keep this feature and needlessly complicate the player's decision making in the early game? The player should gain options as he/she advances through the phases, builds up their town, researches upgrades. Not immediately at the start. Not to mention the balance considerations, the needless code that went into implementing a very questionable design decision. Even from the historical standpoint. Thank you for reading all this. If not, here's a TL:DR: Citizen-soldiers are an outdated concept, that has needlessly complicated the gameplay of this very promising RTS game for so long. The player must have a clear decision-tree at the start of each game, and gain options as he/she advances through the phases. The player shouldn't be punished for making gatherers (the wood cost). There should be a clear distinction between economic and military units. A new "Citizen" unit could replace the female worker, with a new male model added for each civilization. Citizen-soldiers could become just basic, expendable troops.

this is what it looks like in a tg. 20250406-2126-07.9951427.mp4

Citizen soldiers are a staple of Oad indeed, but the OP has a point about the difficulty of mounting raids in 0ad. Which reduces the diversity of tactics (while everyone knows that diversity of tactics is important). Maybe we should find another way to allow more trade-offs between eco and military ?

You seem to lack expertise of the game. For example, women are more expensive than half of the prize of a soldier: Food is more expensive than wood, and both units cost 1 population space...

Did you ask them to drag and drop on the running game, that's usually the easiest way if they don't rename the zip file to pyromod.

This one? https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/pulls/7510

it WORKS omg now the game is a gif on pentium steam machine not a power point

Ok @Genava55 I addressed your suggestions just now in gitea.

That's because sahara isn't actually low wood. It's pretty medium wood. It's most defined by being high food--more date trees and usually good hunt. It also has slightly more mines. If you want to see low wood--see savannah. Very low wood. Lots of mines. A map like wild lake has less differences between biomes. There are trees around the lake regardless of biome. The biome effects are most noticeable on something like mainland.

Buenos días o tardes; -Aquí les dejo mi propuesta ; Edificios comunes; (26) 1.Centro cívico----------------------(¿?) 2.casas------------------------------(¿?) 3.Almacén--------------------------(¿?) 4.Alquería--------------------------(¿?) 5.Huerto---------------------------(¿?) Arroz 6.Corral----------------------------(¿?) Buey pollo cerdo 7.Puerto------------------------------(¿?) 8.Cuartel-----------------------------(¿?) 9.Galería de tiro----------------------(¿?) 10.Establo----------------------------(¿?) 11.Establo de elefantes---------------(¿?) 12.Taller de asedio--------------------(¿?) 13.Herrería---------------------------(¿?) 14.Templo---------------------------(¿?) 15.Mercado--------------------------(¿?) 16.Torre de avanzada-----------------(¿?) 17.Torre de defensa -----------------(¿?) 18.Torre defensa pequeña-----------(¿?) 19.Fortaleza-------------------------(¿?) 20.Empalizada----------------------(¿?) 21.Muralla---------------------------(¿?) 22.(Maravilla)- Jaya Sri Maha Bodhi -----------------(¿?) (Puerta de muralla); ------------------(¿?) (torre de muralla)----------------------(¿?) -----Edificios especiales o culturales; (4) 23.Uposathagara--------------------(¿?) 24.Lovamahapaya------------------(Lohaprasadaya) 25.Simamalake----------------------(¿?) 26. Thuparamaya-------------------(¿?) Reyes (para la ia) 1. Pandukabhaya (474 BC – 367 BC) 2. Mutasiva (367 BC-307 BC) 3. Devanampiya Tissa (307 BC-267 BC) 4. Uttiya (267 BC-257 BC) 5. Mahasiva(257 BC-247 BC) 6. Suratissa (247 BC-237 BC) ......................................(invasión) 237-215.BC........................ 7. Asela (215 BC-205 BC) ......................................(invasión) 205-161.BC........................ 8. Dutugamunu El Grande (161 BC-137 BC) 9. Saddha Tissa(137 BC-119 BC) 10. Thulatthana(119 BC) 11. Lanja Tissa (119 BC-109 BC) 12. Khallata Naga (109 BC-103 BC) 13. Vattagamani Abhaya (103 BC) ......................................(invasión) 103-89.BC........................ 14. Vattagamani Abhaya (89 BC-77 BC 15. Mahakuli Mahatissa (77 BC-63 BC) 16. Chora Naga (63 BC-51 BC) 17. Kuda Tissa (51 BC-48 BC) 18. Siva I (48 BC) 19. Vatuka (48 BC ) 20. Darubhatika Tissa (48 BC) 21. Niliya (48 BC) 22. Anula (48 BC-44 BC) REINA 23. Kutakanna Tissa (44 BC-22 BC) 24. Bhatikabhaya Abhaya (22 BC-7 AD) ¿Qué opinan @DIYARAKUZA y @Tomcelmare ? Disculpen las molestias*

The title says it all. I hereby officially propose switching all of Pyrogenesis' network traffic to IPoAC. Finally an authentic, period-accurate communication method! Who's onboard?

I wanted to make an April Fools' joke here, but apart from adding words like microtransactions and NFTs I don't think I can really top that comment.

Its been talked about before, but citizen soldiers are quite fundamental to 0ad. There's a big discussion here: Citizen soldiers allow for big battles that distinguish 0ad from aoe2, and they are quite historically accurate which is something 0ad strives to achieve. That being said, they contribute to snowballing, and mainly contribute to the "booming = turtling" phenomenon. I would like to not abandon citizen soldiers entirely, as it makes 0ad unique, but we can increase the importance of non-soldier gatherers by changing gather rates and/or by introducing a new "laborer" unit.

Of course. The dirty secret that all “history” focused users don’t want to talk about is how all the civs share most of their “distinguishing” features. These civs shared their technological and social developments. Gauls had archers. Romans had slings. Athenians used mercenaries. Etc. But a game where all the civs look and play the same is boring. So there is a lot of generalization, reductionism, and abstraction that occurs to make the game more interesting.

I'm against moving champs back to barracks / stable. There can be so many ideas compared to just going back and uniformizing things. For example, decreasing the batch training time of champions (an underrated bonus by the way, large batches can train very quickly with such a reduction), having mines last longer (for example, getting 6K metal out of a 5K mine, however I was thinking of giving that bonus to Kushite Pyramid complementing the gather rate), better exchange rate on the market (but better handled than previously), cheaper market, making the unlock champion technology more expensive... And remember at least one temple can be useful as healing so it is in a way better than other champion-training buildings. Healers can also be improved a bit, I have ideas for them.

Hello ! I am posting this for Chesnutter, cause he asked me to I think these are great and probably ambitious ideas for improvement of the game.... (i hope this is the right place for it .. if not please move it) Hey, I’m a Roman history fan so my knowledge and focus is on them more than other ancient civs. I think these would make playing as and against the Romans more authentic, fun and challenging. Bear in mind I have no coding experience but here are my ideas. So, Roman engineer (unit) builds trenches, traps and roads. OR it could be just the basic infantry unit. Historically, Roman soldiers were part fighter and part builder. I think a greater emphasis in 0ad of this would make it more real. Trenches (with spiky stakes or simply a deep empty moat (with/without water): - Doesn’t prevent enemy infantry movement across but slows them down a lot (80% speed reduction) - Doesn’t damage infantry unless spikes/stakes tech upgrade (like a gate in a wooden wall however you could double click to select all trenches in view to upgrade them to have stakes all at the same time - Requires a lot of wood. - Cheap and fast to build compared to walls but in some ways less effective. Available in phase one, degrades over time(?). Built like a wall across an area. Good against early cav rushes. Prevents cav and siege from crossing. 2. Traps/pits « lilies »: - heavily damages and slows down enemy infantry and cav, but doesn’t damage rams. - Expensive to build. - Built along an area (shown as a bunch of small holes with spikes in them) - Barely visible for a realistic element of surprise. Maybe once enemy units have been damaged they become viable to the enemy (like trenches degrades over time). Would this be hard to code? 3. Roads - speed up movement of units (allied AND enemy). - Available in phase one though maybe cost prohibitive unless teammates contribute resources - which I think would be cool, increasing teamwork and community interaction (which is what I like about gaming). - Built out on the terrain and any units moving on it move 20-25-30% faster. - Requires wood and a lot of stone. - Built mostly straight to make it user-friendly (curved or zigzag roads wouldn’t be playable). - Shift right click to make the units go from point A to point B (so they walk along the road). - Or it could work a bit like a hero/monk where when they are near the road they move faster (but less visually appealing IMO). Does this make sense from a user POV? - Roads could be built through forests, bogs, hills, rivers etc... just like the Romans did it. I don't think roads would make the romans OP because the cost would be fronted by the user building it but it could also be used against him. *Roads are one of the things that made it possible for Rome to conquer the known world (and for them to be conquered themselves by « barbarians” in the 200-400s AD), so I specifically like this idea. 4. (Non-Roman) Need to be stronger against Siege. Wooden walls should be cheaper to build and faster. To make possible what Caeser did in his Gallic wars. Ie Alesia. OTHER GENERAL IDEAS to increase historical accuracy and more interesting game play. Range bonus for troops/siege on hills. Attack + defense/health bonus for troops hills. More implementation for defensive formations (like Romans) but that players actually want to use. Slow attrition for armies not in allied/home territory. Attrition for armies/troops in the sun VS healing rate for troops in the shade/forests. Defensive bonus for troops fighting on edge of forest (to imitate guerrilla tactics). 0zon “Cost surface” ideas + some input from me. “With a cost surface function recalculating range or walking speed etc. based on attributes such as slope, altitude or landuse type (forest, meadow etc.) some of the ideas could be maybe technically implemented..…” - 0zon Reduced speed walking up hills. Reduced speed walking through forests/bogs/sandy areas. Increased speed for troops on flat/non hilly ground (specifically for cav). Rams can only move on flat open terrain. Increased fertility/food gains on flat grassy areas (for farms). Increased building costs on non-flat lands. Forests that regrow. Rams get attack bonus when garrisoned. Allied temple’s aura also heals troops. An idea from LeiftheLucky (I think) Ranged units have only a certain amount of ammo and then they have to use melee or/and go back to allied territory/cc/barracks/garrison to replenish stock. Keep up the good work and THANK YOU! Chesnutter on 0ad Edited several times for spelling and formatting

I hate it. Also I think we have different fords: those where boats can travel through and the others; I can't tell them apart visually, I have to know the map.

To offer a brief clarification, I am not saying that this is a necessarily bad thing. Many popular game series like Starcraft and Age of Empires reward players with high APMs. I also would note that of my albeit brief time playing the latest alpha, I have had fun; this is not about whether 0 AD is a good or bad game. That said, it is a fast game, with a casual player like myself feeling like I am running something more like a factory than a fledgling city. The reason I think this is important to note since 0 AD's vision contradicts the current game state. To consider this looking at training times shows at least in part why the game is fast-paced: Looking at 0 AD, women train in 8 seconds, infantry in 10, and cavalry in 15. Age of Empires II Villager training time: 25 seconds. Starcraft Probe training time: 20 seconds. Starcraft II Probe training time: 12 seconds Age of Mythology villager training time: 15 seconds. Age of Empires III settler training time: 25 seconds. Age of Empires IV villager training time: 25 seconds. Considering that aside from champions, all units have economic roles, training times should be significantly increased for all citizen soldiers and women. If we don't even consider batch training, which accelerates training even more, the early game becomes a frantic rush. Assuming that a player like myself starts by training women, something I think is intuitively sensible since they cost half as much as soldiers and produce the same economic output, the player is pressed to put all of them towards food production to maintain production before needing to rapidly pivot to wood to allow for the building of houses, eventually the barracks for citizen soldiers, and lastly farms for when berries inevitably run out. The barracks snowballs this even further, and the fact that a technology at a house makes you able to churn out even more women means that population growth feels exponential. I'm sure that there could be much better ways of playing, but intuitive way feels surprisingly intensive for what should be the most relaxed part of the game. I would advise at the very least increasing the training time of women to be 15 seconds. Infantry could take 20 seconds to train, and cavalry could take 25 seconds. These numbers, I would note, are a modest increase, and I would still argue that the game would feel fast paced. If we truly wish to make it game that does not force you to multitask too heavily, bumping everything up another five seconds could further help. These numbers are hardly perfect I'm sure, that's what playtesting is for, yet I think they would bring the game more in line with the game's vision.