Leaderboard

I think this is one of those things that does not need to be universal/standard across civs.

Wouldn't it be better if all civilizations had their own building (or if some had it at the Civic Center and others had a dedicated building) instead of placing it in the Fortress? This forces you to construct a purely defensive building, except in rare cases.

Sure. But we're talking vanilla. Com mod is also disliked for that reason, among others, so I don't see that being implemented. And, if it is then @guerringuerrin's complaints will be even more valid. This just leads to booming and turtling. Makes more sense to make an offensive tech be some place else. No reason to give turtling offensive advantages in addition to defense ones.

I never thought of it like that but you're right. I dislike it because it makes wtf much more unattainable--you have have resources to build a fort, you have actually build the fort, you lose eco time while building, then you have to research and wait for a very expensive tech. All my same complaints about wonders. Hoops just to have hoops to jump through. Agree. Although a lot of people just build a fort anywhere and it serves little strategic defensive purpose. This is especially true with current building AI/strength. Yeah. But there is not real reason for any of this other than being "different." All this could just as easily be put in any other existing buildings or new buildings all together. A more cohesive framework would be something like iber, a defensive civ, is the only civ to get heroes from the fort , a defensive building, while Rome, an offensive civ, could only get heroes from an army camp, an offensive building. Something else could be Mace being able to train it's siege hero from the siege factory while other heroes are trainable from the CC with longer train times. Right now, it just seems that the building any particular civ uses to train their heroes is random and without any actual purpose (aside from Sele that get heroes from CC more quickly than other civs can).

I have zero experience in the game but seems cool...

Since the discussion came up I checked my replays for the popularity of heroes. The script is much generated by AI quickly to get a answer, but the question isn't that complex. Every replay with a commands.txt and metadata.json is counted. No check for cheats or how good the players are. If you want to run it you need to place it in .local/share/0ad/replays/heroes/A_heroes.py. Edit: Now only the first hero per player in that game is counted. The first result was a bit less than I expected and this reflects preferences better. A_heroes.py

Perhaps it's inertia from A23 days? The Fortress used to be the ultimate building you'd build to access some of your civ's best units/unique techs. In A24, it got demoted to a strong defensive building, but some things remained. I don't think we should change anything, though. WTF is a very strong tech that needs to be hard to get. Unique techs for some civs (like Mace, Han and Romans) make sense in a Fortress, as they are also very strong. Heroes can also turn the tide in a battle. Seleucid heroes being trainable from CC is just a civilization advantage.

Yeah, I'm spitballing here. I'm just saying where the hero comes from for any given civ is basically random, which doesn't feel like good game design. Strong agree. I said this at one point and it was completely dismissed.

A rare case is if you can destroy the gauls just before vercingetorix can spawn. It's definitely necessary to bring an end to games that already drag on with one side having a clear upper hand. Or to break up a siege from maps like ambush. With only 14 % of players researching it, it is also more of a tech for the right circumstances, not something to aim for right ahead. And wonder is an exaggeration of this. I like the current status more over every thing discussed here with that exception of the roman hero from the camp. Also I think each civ usually has one very clear favorite hero. That could be balanced.

Thanks @guerringuerrin, yes forts should be defensive structure and not though as medieval castles. It could make sens to let one general purpose tech like wtf in it, as it give turtling another small advantage. In com mod they got buffed, they can 3 shot eles and heros when garrisoned basicaly.

It does delay the full offensive, but also the exploitation of some uniqueness of the civ. There are probably some civs that could stand to get their heroes earlier. Currently Seles are the only civ that get heroes from cc, which is a unique advantage. I think hero buildings could also include unique techs and some could be made available in p2 depending on civ balance considerations. Basically we have a wide spectrum of different options for how fast a civ should access its heroes and we can make those choices on a case by case basis.

yeah maybe thats the main reason. never liked WTF as it rewards ecoboting race and, as it's placed on fortress, somehow forcing defensive strat again Yeah might not need universal but feels like forcing a civ to build fortress for get the heroe feels somehow like just delaying full offensive strats.

Balancing with how quickly/cheaply you can get a hero and wtf. I personally find hero-dedicated buildings annoying and cluttering of your mental space (i sometimes forget to make the building for civs I play less often, for example) and game maps (it takes up actual space in your base and basically never matters if captured/destroyed). I would rather heroes just train slower/more expensively from the CC than from a dedicated buildings. But I think others disagree and it’s not a hill I’ll die on. Already having a fort makes it easier to eventually get wtf. I don’t think that should be placed in a fort either but that’s a different issue and a relatively low priority one too.

My suggestion at this point is to uninstall 0 A.D. by using the command line (terminal). The reason for that is to purge 0 A.D. from your system. Uninstalling 0 A.D. through flatpak may not delete everything. As a quickie suggestion ask both Grok and ChatGPT the following: "How to uninstall 0 A.D. by using the command line with Linux Mint.". You can also make a post on the Mint forum website. There are different methods for installing 0 A.D. your problem may be associated with that. Grok provided the text below: "grep" searches for the presence of 0 A.D. in each of the installation methods. Theoretically you should only see one listing. If there are more listings, it is possible that they are conflicting. It will be necessary to uninstall (purge) 0 A.D. from your computer and then choose one method to install. Both Grok and ChatGPT provide advice on that. I think the ChatGPT gave better advice. One piece of advice that ChatGPT listed as optional was:"sudo apt purge 0ad 0ad-data". I would not consider that as optional. But you need to be aware that it removes your user data. Since you are just getting the program setup, the user data, at this time, should not be an issue. Of course I need to add the disclaimer that any advice from either Grok or ChatGPT can be wrong (that includes me too), that you need to be careful, and you should think through any command before executing.