Leaderboard

public Litterally, a must-have.

Nice to see Millenium A.D. being updated

The issue with building a system revolving on different archer types, is that for balancing, it would be necessary to give it to most civs. No matter what historical justifications one might find. Personally, I feel like the current system, with archers, slingers, and javelineers, isn't being used to its full potential.

@wowgetoffyourcellphone @Stan` Changed the layout a little bit. Mod file is attached, please test and let me know what you think? :) 765954859_olive_mill(2).zip

There are some skirmish maps with hostile Gaia camps spawning units 20 meters near your starting base. They are quite annoying, and you should avoid these maps.

Indeed, I was talking for a given bow. And for example, slings lose less kinetic energy in flight. Same with crossbows, given that darts are heavier. But for short distance and high damage, it's basically javelineers (in all its variants like pilum, etc). And the Kestrophendone if you want to get fancy. I thought people were always complaining that archers were OP. They should be a support unit, melee should reign supreme (at least until gunpowder :P). But I'm all in for variety, and as I mentioned before, giving all those archers the same range doesn't seem the right decision to me (not even counting that things are the other way around). You should have, regarding range, Persian Archers > Cretan Archers > Other Greek Archers. Regarding damage, I've seen discussions if Cretan archers used anti-armor arrow points, but have to look into it again. I do care about history because there's basically one of it, while one could achieve in many ways a balanced gameplay.

In my case, I was pleasantly surprised by:

Some of you have known the mod Historical Patch over the past few alphas. What started as a small side project during a25–a26 grew way beyond what I expected, thanks to everyone who asked questions, gave feedback, or just showed interest. Taking a break and coming back in a27 made me realize something important: this isn’t really a “patch” anymore. So I’m giving the project a new name — Classical Warfare AEA. Classical Warfare AEA (Africa–Europe–Asia) is all about bringing more authenticity and depth to the classical world in 0 A.D. The name reflects the game’s geographic range and also nods to the familiar “eae” tag that’s become part of the community’s culture. The goal is simple: make the classical era feel richer, more grounded, and more interesting to explore. One of the best parts of this project has been the people who’ve helped along the way. If you’re into ancient history, military systems, or just enjoy digging through sources, you’re welcome here. Modders, researchers, and especially artists — there’s plenty of room to contribute. The project is shifting toward a clean, emblem‑style visual identity, so if you enjoy designing units, architecture, emblems, or UI elements, your work would be hugely appreciated. I’m excited to keep building this with the community. Whether you want to help, give feedback, or just follow along, I’m glad to have you here. Emacz2/classical-warefare-aea

I want to know what mod is good.

I was just playing Spartans with you mod, and I got this

How about more ideas of civilizations? I did a search of lesser known civilizations and this is what it said: Garamantes: Desert dwellers of North Africa known for advanced irrigation systems in the Sahara. Nabataeans: Masters of desert trade who constructed the rock-cut city of Petra. Illyrians: Balkan raiders who successfully resisted Greek and later Roman expansion. Scythians: Powerful nomadic horsemen dominating the Black Sea and Eurasian steppes. Sarmatians: A later wave of horse-riding nomads on the Eurasian steppe. Thracians: Skilled metalworkers and warriors from the Balkans. Bactrians: Traders on the Silk Road located in modern-day Afghanistan. Arameans: Nomadic conquerors who spread the Aramaic language and culture across the Near East.

The reason is scenarios are new or updated maps of each version, and there were no new and updated maps for R28

As mentioned, slingers are indeed good offensively (the Inca would split swords and kill horses of the Spaniards), but weak defensively, take a lot of time to train, and not being benefited by many techs (quite the opposite regarding training time, should get worse).

will work on this, but since lead slingers ie Rhodians and Elite Balieric have longer range than archer, will be hard to balance/counter. Thanks for input!

I misread this, since before you said more damage and shorter range. You can't separate things like that. Some Asiatic recurved composite bows were way shorter than longbows, yet had longer maximum range (although what matters is effective range, but they didn't differ much on that). It's about the materials and complexity. They were indeed harder to build, but were necessary when going on horseback. Anyway, a fast ranged weapon with short range and less damage could be a repeating crossbow (the famous chu-ko-nu), supposedly invented at the time of the game, in the Warring States period, with the Han being involved. A slow ranged weapon with more range and damage would be the gastraphetes, but the game gives it a range of just 45m, which seems wrong to me. Then there's the Chinese crossbow, which maybe in the late Warring States period outranged their bows*, even when for the Han the game has the range for the Infantry Crossbowman as 45m, and for the Archer as 60m. I think this is wrong if we consider effective range (bolts lose less kinetic energy in flight than arrows). I haven't checked about other crossbows around that time, which weren't many, and probably weren't superior to the Chinese. Another interesting disadvantage of the crossbows not usually talked about is that ammunition was reused by the enemy, although you can't use arrows on crossbows (too much power) and bolts on bows (too short), but some cultures had a guide to use baby-arrows on bows that would allow them to also reuse bolts from the enemy. *Source: https://dn720004.ca.archive.org/0/items/science-and-civilisation-in-china-volume-5-chemistry-and-chemical-technology-par_20210927_1445/Science and Civilisation in China Volume 5%2C Chemistry and Chemical Technology Part 6%2C Military Technology Missiles and Sieges by Joseph Needham%2C Robin D. S. Yates (z-lib.org)_text.pdf, page 137. In other parts it's mentioned that the bows of the Huns and the Xiongnu couldn't outmatch the Chinese crossbows, although I haven't read enough to check if this means outrange (I'd guess effective range).

You haven't played with these bad boys, I see.

We need more maps with canyons and choke points, so it’s easier to find places to position archers and rain arrows into the enemy. Also, since archers don’t wear any armor, and are carrying only a bow and quiver, they should maybe move slightly faster than other CS.

Well, it's not to completely negate, but acts as a modifier. Thus, you have values of pierce (p), hack (h), crush (c), block (b), parry (a) and dodge (d), both for attack (A) and defense (D): pA, hA, cA, bA, aA, dA, pD, hD, cD, bD, aD, dD. For example, aA is how hard is to parry its attack, aD is how easily it parries attacks. The better for the unit the bigger the values are. As a proof of concept, a naive formula for the damage the attacker deals to a defender could be (pA/pD+hA/hD+cA/cD)(bA/bD)(aA/aD)(dA/dD), meaning that all damage, after being divided by each corresponding defender's resistance, is added up, and then multiplied by factors related to the probability (it's NOT directly a probability) of the attack being either blocked, parried or dodged (just adding them up is problematic). Here I'm showing the (rounded) results, with 10 taken as an average value, and other parameters like rate of fire, movement speed and range not yet taken into account: This means that the damage ratio for spearmen:cavalry is 3:1 (as wanted), for cavalry:archers is 6:4 (which makes sense, cavalry would get destroyed by archers if they don't close in, like in Agincourt), and for archers:spearmen is 2:5 (which makes sense, the advantage of archers being not this but keeping their distance). Remember that rate of fire, movement speed and range not yet taken into account, which would incline more the scales to what is wanted. Also, archers:archers is 4 times more destructive than cavalry:cavalry, which is twice as destructive as spearmen:spearmen, which makes sense considering how long these kind of engagements last. Would be nice to keep adding units.

Also in the game type setting wihtin the map selection panel (on the right there is Map | Player | Game type) you can chose a grace period ("ceasefire") for how long you will not be attacked. Finally, in addition to setting AI difficulty to Easy, Very Easy or Sandbox as Boudica suggested, you can also reduce Game Speed on the same Game Type panel (or alternatively from within game using the little clock icon on the left of the top right controls group.

Not in CWA We have greek archers and regular archers, and then Maurya have a bonus due to their long bows and Kush has poision/fire, persia has faster draw time.... Not in CWA We have greek archers and regular archers, and then Maurya have a bonus due to their long bows and Kush has poision/fire, persia has faster draw time....

Since R28, the Mauryas Maidens champions longbows have shorter range. Maybe the logic there is that they are females so weak draw strength? Anyways they do make up for their champion title with better speed and high damage. They also have less hp too thoughts, but overall still a good unit.

Nice, I approve.

If I make a custom decal it could be looking something like this: (using the decal from the spartan barracks and a pine tree decal)

Nice. I like the real windows. I also like the hanging winch.

So, after playing for a few months now (almost a year), and through my work on Hyrule Conquest and experience playing games such as Halo Wars and Warcraft, I've been thinking: the civilizations in 0 A.D. aren't really that unique. Most civilizations are statistically and gameplay wise almost the exact same, with differences between them being almost purely aesthetic, both in names and actual art. While I know we can't get the races as varied as in a fantasy RTS (with flying races, aliens, monsters, magic, etc.) I feel like the varying ways each race operated in history is not used almost at all. So, using my knowledge of history I've composed a small list of things that could be changed to the few races I actively know about: Athenians: Strong navy & walls, more techs Britains: Faster units and stronger/more dogs Gauls: Fiercer units (more damage and RoF) Germans: Mobile dropsites and houses Romans: Defensive units (more resistance) and formation focused Spartans: Offensive units (more damage & health) This list is incomplete, I ask everyone who reads this to post some thoughts about the other civs and I'll edit this list to fit those ideas.

merged

These could be considered: -Artemisia I for Persians (or Carians, if part of the game at some point): naval commander. The one from the battles of Artemisium and Salamis. -Artemisia II for Persians (or Carians): naval strategist and medical researcher. Sister/wife of Mausolus, ordered the construction of his tomb: the Mausoleum at Halicarnassus. -Lǚ Mǔ for Han: rebel leader that played a role in the restoration of the Han dynasty. -Teuta for Illyrians: not a playable faction still (eventually?), but since Gaia's units being more challenging has been mentioned, they could even have Heroes, and Teuta would be compatible with Gaia's piracy units (although I'd name them differently than Gaia, and reserve that for basically abandoned things).

I totally forgot how to export, but maybe @Stan` can help you with the file: 0.A.D_Attack_Ranged_Throw_Rock.dae