Leaderboard

Popular opinion: Ptolemies is the best civ for booming(getting a lot of resources and units) because of the team bonus for +1 food per second. Another opinion: I think Kushites is the best civ for booming because of the pyramid aura boosting 15% gather rate. I can get even more food per second with a pyramid compared to the +1 food per second of Ptolemies, lets see how: If we put a pyramid adjacent to the civic centre and put farms around the civic centre close to the pyramid, we can get the pyramid aura boost of 15% gather rate on minimum 20 farmers. I assume 1 farmer gathers 4 food every 10 seconds without the pyramid boost. So 1 farmer gathers 0.4 food per second. 20 farmers gather 8 food per second. 15% of 8 is 1.2 so we get +1.2 food per second with the pyramid boost which is better than the team bonus of +1 food per second of Ptolemies. Keep in mind I took conservative values, the food per second could reach upto 3 if we use the pyramid aura on 50 farmers. Bonus: if you keep the pyramid near the stone and metal mine near civ center you can boost that as well. + you can keep 1 pyramid on ur woodline. A problem is that kushites is an archer civ, so you will have to snipe to survive an endgame fight with javs or slingers. Sniping means selecting your archers to attack the enemy's ranged units instead of the default attacking the closer melee soldiers. Elephants have better stats than melee soldiers (except speed) + they can break buildings faster so they're better. What you said is right, that's a risk if you're willing to take it, you can use the temple healing aura to heal elephants. You can garrison elephants in elephant stables. Elephants will die so you will have to replace them. edit: If you're the moral type of player who wants to save all your units: We should be thankful we don't brutalize and torture elephants for war anymore, unfortunately its still done in most tourist spaces but on a lesser scale at least. Also any war back in ancient history would result in a lot of deaths, thats why people say war is bad. You can't escape from that in 0ad, in multiplayer people don't use healers and only focus on units who can do damage or eco cause thats what helps them win. Unless you maybe get like 8 healers to heal 1 elephant hero and make it invincible but non ai people would start killing the healers and then the hero Yeah they weren't popular but Valhirant just made a video using kushites yesterday, I've also seen a lot more people play kushites in the multiplayer lobby recently.

I think most players would agree that the single-player content 0ad offers is meager, especially in comparison to other RTS games. There are many great scenario maps, but there are no built-in campaigns. In my opinion the underlying issue is that there is simply no way for map makers to tell a story. I want/plan to make an interface for exactly that; the capability to tell the player about the historical context and events a game or campaign is based on, and to pack it into a plot that unfolds while the player plays through it. I'll disclaim it straight ahead: I'm not the typical and traditional RTS player that I know many other people in this community are -- e.g. I haven't player the AOE games. It might be because of that, but I personally dislike the idea of adding actual dialogue and voiceovers. I'd personally rather convey the feeling of reading a history book. However, I am well aware that there are players who would disagree with this. So why not do both? We could have history-book style prologues and epilogues and something alike at key points too. And to bring the story to a more interactive, personal level, add the ability to have character monologues and dialogues. What do you think? I made this thread to collect concepts and ideas on how to make it work and look. (By the way, I made some mockups for this a while ago, I'll post that in here when I've cleaned it up.)

The Kushites are my favorite civ in 0 AD. I like their diverse unit choices: champion macemen, champion swordsmen, champion archers, elephants, and mercenaries. I have only played in singleplayer (against 1 medium and 1 hard AI together), and I can win most of my matches now. What do you guys think of the Kushites, especially when compared against other civs? I got the impression that they're not very popular based on Youtube videos. The only other civ I play is the Romans, which seem to have a much safer early game (Kushite archers don't do a lot of damage). Also, is it just me or are elephants not very good? They are very slow and if a battle goes wrong you typically lose most of them during the retreat. To heal them back up you can't just garrison them in a temple (like with other champion melee and cavalry), so you'd need to spend a lot of resources on healers as well.

Well, you need to plan the pyramid placement. Mercenaries mace men replace much of siege, cost metal, are fragile and useless against anything else but buildings. They start out weak in the village phase, with only spearmen and archers. One building trains only mercenary cavalry, pretty useless. Good champions are trained at the temple. Pretty complex unit roster is what I'm getting at.

New update: Additional camera settings: These are configurable options that are normally hidden from the settings interface, presumably because it might confuse new players. However, I personally found these camera settings to be essential for players improve their micro. In short: Scroll speed changes how fast your camera pans around the map when you press WASD. The value is the speed of the camera in m/s and the default was 120. I personally use 620 so that I can quickly move myself around my base. I allow up to 1000 but that's a bit too crazy for me. The zoom options control your altitude from the map. Default minimum is 50, but if you have a high resolution screen, you can still see content clearly for up to 10 or even 8. FOV = Field of view

Yeah, just move the stone miners a bit closer to the pyramid. I like the sound they make when you select them. Eerie. EDIT: On-topic, they are a bit too complex for me. I like to play more standard civs, like Romans and Spartans.

This would be handy in TG games, especially when one side is stronger than the other. If your ally dies, he can send all his units other side and repop in the enemy base. Also particularly important with current meta, where buildings are easily capturable. In the event of an enemy team capturing your team mates CC, yet die during the fight and you capture the CC again, you will have to either destroy the CC so your team mate can build their own again; or you keep it there and they have less territory.

This is simply to emphasize, based on historical references from the time period, what I explained earlier. The most appropriate designation for a civilization of the same rank as the Gauls or Britons would be the 'Germans'.

It seems to be a simple model, even more so using this reference model and the texture of the northern boat.

Hi, I downloaded version 7 of your bot and test played it against Petra on very hard random settings. A few observations: The bot makes all women in the early stage, up to a third of its population. This gave the bot very good eco compared to Petra but very weak against rushes. The bot still makes the same mistakes of using women to mine and infantry to farm. The bot loves cavalry and its eco is mainly cavalry focused. The bot wins against Petra but with a very low KD. Dropsites are not placed close enough to the resources. Point one can be improved by changing the target number of females. Normally, in a 200 pop game, 55-60 women is the sweet spot. Even in 300 pop games, assuming you use all women to farm, no more than 65 women is necessary from my experience. Point 4 is a result of point 1: the bot always fights outnumbered battles. Point 5 can be improved by decreasing the maximum acceptable distance between res and dropsite.

Profanity issues aside, one important rule to not ruin your game: No more than 10 champ cav units per person

Murder Holes are a must if you intend to build any. Without that tech, they are just a nice decoration. Ah, I haven't thought much about using walls. Mainly because I prefer Forts with Murder holes. A reflex passed over from AoE2.

I am not involved with the team, so this is me talking out of my backside. I believe it makes no sense to push for Steam until the game gets a decent single player campaign and fixes lag in the late game (it's getting there).

It is vanilla map, still working on it, but I would like to know it for the future. EDIT: And another quick question: Is it possible to make bridge like this:

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.

Geriatrix claims that @Feldfeld left 0ad because of me. He has been re-iterating this statement for the past few months but without explaining the reasoning. He brought it up today and I am getting concerned. My question is: FeldFeld, am I the reason why you quit 0ad (if you have quit 0ad at all) ? If so, why? I only remember playing with FeldFeld once where he was on his main account. Being of the highest rated players, we don't want to loose you and if there is something that I can do to bring you back, please suggest! If anyone else knows something, feel free to comment below. Thanks.