Leaderboard

Hello everyone! I’m back with some new updates on the development of World Rising! The Rivers of Japan map is finally complete, with 100% of its flora now implemented! I’ve also added new terrain relief and integrated the dynamic weather system, including rain and thunderstorms, making the environment feel much more alive and dynamic. In the future, the only major addition planned for this map will be the new animals that are still being developed. I’ve also created several new particles and visual effects. Now, when women pray, a beam of light appears at the temple during the ritual. I’m planning to create something similar for priests, with special visual effects appearing while they heal units. I’ve also updated the resource-gathering accessories used by units and made some changes to the Yayoi merchant. Work has already begun on our second map: the Coast of Japan! I’ve created the first textures and I’m currently working on the vegetation for this new biome. I’ll be sharing the first screenshots very soon! The Yayoi culture also continues to grow, with more technologies and new buildings being added and tested. Development continues step by step, with new content, visual improvements, and gameplay systems gradually coming together to make World Rising more complete and unique. Thank you to everyone who continues to follow the project! Leave your comments, share your thoughts, and keep participating in the development! More updates are coming soon!

Hello everyone! I’m back with a few more updates on World Rising. Lately, I’ve been spending a lot of time improving the game’s flora, adjusting the textures and colors to make the vegetation look more consistent, natural, and realistic. The goal is to give the entire biome a stronger visual identity while still preserving variety between trees, plants, and bushes. There are still a few adjustments to make, but the overall result is already looking much more cohesive. I hope you like the changes! Let me know what you think, and keep following the development of World Rising.

if you have a handle on if a unit dies while experiencing force (ie elephant strike or siege weapon), I wonder if one of @Alexandermb's new infantry death animations could be used. There is one where the unit gets knocked backwards off its feet, could be very cinematic.

I always take the time to read comments. That helps me then to comment here and brainstorm ideas and strategies. Many people, for example, might like to add a small city builder mode. I got here through the Google search engine. I came across images like these, armies in formation; I looked at this and it reminded me of Praetorians. The visual similarity of the images thrilled me.

I'm a 3d general Artist, I have experience with 3D modelling, UV unwrap, hight-poly/low-poly asset, and I know how to use Krita/Photoshop

Well here you are trying hard to make the geometry show it's limits In the first example, a rectangle pushing another one against the wall is kinda expected to do this slide. In the second example on open terrain, I see you manually try to aim for the elephant's center, despite it trying to rotate!! But you can actually try to tweak values even without recompiling : in `pathfinder.xml` you have the parameter `SolidPushSpin`, which makes the circle pushing/soft pushing impact more or less units spins. Currently it's low (0.25), if you increase it, your elephants will spin faster in that case, but this also means elephants moving shoulder to shoulder might also wiggle a bit more.

I'm using the latest b53b24adc2 now. I think an issue now is that they are really stubborn to turn , and that can block paths or cause them to be dragged sideways somewhat easily (see the 1v1 after 0:15): video.mp4 I guess some turning would be more realistic than being pushed sideways like that, imagining it's on their own accord, which makes me think if there shouldn't be a difference between how enemy and own units react.

As Thalatta explained, Irish epic tales were significantly altered by external influences, in this case Christianization and the medieval historical tradition. For one thing, oral tradition is inherently timeless, oral narratives are constantly adapted to the changing realities of society. Consequently, these stories had almost certainly undergone changes before being fixed in writing. Furthermore, when monks committed the tales to writing, they adapted them even further, drawing inspiration from the Bible, the writings of Jordanes and Gregory of Tours, and other sources from their medieval context. Irish tales contain a great many anachronisms and stories that are implausible for a pre-Christian society. It is essential to analyze them with a critical eye and sound methodology in order to extract useful information. In this case, scythed chariots are voluntarily added to further enhance a supposed link between Ireland and the Near East. The Serians represent a conflation of the Syrians and the Seres (of Central Asia).

Written down in their present form in the High Middle Ages. Even if they refer to supposed events from a millennium earlier, it's hard to know by then what external influences and other anachronisms could have crept in in the story (as I've recently mentioned happens with funerary practices in the Iliad, where half that time passed).

ok, another random guess: Maybe we could use an additional force, where an idle unit clears the path for an allied moving unit, before they are colliding, when it's blocking the way? The blocking unit would just slighty move to the side, but only if there is space available

not sure if it is finished or ready, but it might be a good idea to implement some way for animations to play depending on motion at the time of death.

EDIT: trac ticket.

Regarding "construction of 100-traders long "lines" of caravans", "just looks bad": totally agree, and have proposed solutions a couple of times. Regarding "markets now generate income at a fixed rate": I was thinking about it to emulate "local trade". The "logarithmic" idea is interesting, quite different from what I was in principle thinking for a new system, while I don't agree much with "garrison workers in your markets to leverage full efficiency", it seems a waste of units.

Ok, that is quite unfortunate, but maybe for now we can let it slide (no pun intended). I just wanted to make the effect quite evident :P, but here the same without so much micro: vvv.mp4 It seems to me they should rotate more and slide less, but at the same time, one doesn't want "elephants moving shoulder to shoulder might also wiggle a bit more". This seems similar to the impedance issue I mentioned before, but for pushes causing torques: taking into account the relative velocity of the elephants should improve the issue (if you already do it, maybe it should be done more strongly? I have not gone through the whole code, just in case).

Modern reconstruction. 1940s reconstruction (Uses the term helmet, but they might actually be from a headress due to how thin the metal is) Drawing of similar horns from Runnabehy (ignore the helmet in the middle, it is Gaulish or Gallo-Roman)

Do you have a portfolio ? Or anything you'd like to improve / work on on the game ? Welcome

That’s why it’s good to have more people doing the testing. There are a thousand ways to break your work haha. Just kidding, it’s great that @Thalatta managed to compile it and test it. Alright, I’ll do some testing of my own tonight with this. Great work!

They do! @Thalatta is just master trickster here! Joking, but maybe we can increase the SolidPushSpin as explained above. I had this parameter added before doing the "push only if we have room to push", so maybe a higher value now will still results in still acceptable level of wiggles.

I like this behavior much more than what could be seen in my videos from the previous commit. I'm not sure to what extent it will be possible (or desirable) to make the behavior more realistic, but getting them to rotate a little when they are pushed would be really good, as it would make the behavior more realistic and, in many cases, could help open up paths for them to move through more quickly. But, in fact, I think this result is quite acceptable. And what I like most about this new patch is that the elephants entering the narrow path looks much smoother and more natural. They’re still clumsy and slow, which is fitting for something so large and heavy. But the movement flows much better than in the previous version, which felt stiff and a bit “dumb”

Though history is of course full of such violence (I don't insist on that "pregnant" feature, but raiding civilians/women is harsh enough), maybe another interesting feature (both from gameplay and historical accuracy perspective) could be the option to capture/enslave civilians (less "harsh" maybe, but only slightly) (and nvm you usually already have enough civilians mid-game).

Maybe an explicit IRC-channel then? Like #0ad-bridged - so the devs who want can opt in. That's true, I guess almost everyone who uses Linux has seen that 0 A.D. thing at the top of package lists. But can't be good just because of that, can it? Still it took me years to actually try it.

I am the copyright holder of original works I post in the Wildfire Games 0 A.D. Art Development forum. I hereby release all original works I uploaded to this forum in the past, and those I will upload in the future, under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.

Haha! Will check this tonight

Can't tell in from the picture, but it's also very possible that the elephant here was stuck at this angle due to the ones pushing on it's butt... But this should happen less often, and elephants should be able to unstuck themselves sooner now. You can also enable "UnitMotion" in dev overlay to display the path, this can help figuring if it's actually a pathfinder weirdness or a bug.

@guerringuerrin I was about to post when I realized you posted . Nevermind I'll keep mine as I wrote it initially. And make some reply to yours after. ------------------------ Unless... Screencast from 2026-10-01 13-50-02(2).webm x20 speed, no orders but 2 step rally point. For nerds, what changed (main changes) : Contact slides, solids slide along each other in the direction they want to go. This fix solids getting stuck on chock-point. Solid are only sensible to soft push if they actually have room to be pushed to. This makes groups of solid expand outward and prevent wiggles because now they only push in one direction. Minimal cost, just coarse grid check. Note : Also this idea is a bit of the same than pressure for non-solids. Excepted pressure wouldn't work for solids because their shape is different, and the pushing is different too, so its barely more costly, but works very well for solids. Improved contact logic so also actually even less overlapping on choke-points. Ok but now, the question is... Will @guerringuerrin manage to get some elephants stuck this time?

Yes, it could be what you say, and it might be related to a (bad) pathfinding issue. In this latest video of the stationary elephant, I think you can see a clear path that the elephant could take (orange arrow) instead of trying to join the path line that all the others are using. And since it never manages to get into position, it looks like it just stays still. I understand what you mean and, to some extent, I agree. So far, my intention with these testruns has been to force situations that may not be common in everyday gameplay but are still possible (such as a group of 24 elephants). I'll now start testing more "expected" situations, mixing elephants with infantry. We could also test MP in the next few days. I haven't tried to coordinate because I've been short on time, but we'll find an opportunity. Regarding the forces exerted by the elephant's hitbox, are they the same from the front and the sides, and while turning versus moving straight? For example, in this screenshot from the fourth video (at around 0:30), one elephant fails to reach its waypoint and ends up blocking a huge group behind it. You'd expect the combined force of all those elephants to overcome the resistance of one or two elephants blocking the way. I imagine accumulating forces is complex and could lead to less predictable results. That's why I was wondering whether the side edges of the hitbox could have lower force/resistance, allowing an elephant crossing the path of one coming from the front to be pushed aside. Maybe this is very complex to implement; I'm just throwing the idea out there. Maybe it's simply a matter of improving the pathfinding. Overall, my opinion of this PR is very positive, especially the new infantry and cavalry behavior. I think elephants (or units with the "solid" property) still need some tuning. Since these properties are optional, the PR can be merged as is, but I think fine-tuning them would be valuable to provide good baseline conditions, as we've already seen with infantry/cavalry.

There are also mentions of bows and armor which IIRC are not really found in iron age Ireland. I suppose chariots without scythes could still be included since there seems to be some evidence (even without finds of a whole chariot) .

They are apparently mentioned in epics https://celt.ucc.ie/published/T301035/text021.html https://celt.ucc.ie/published/T301021/text086.html Now those might just be exaggerations, which does bring into question how accurate other passages about chariots are. Although i think the Irish may have actually had chariots (but probably not with blades), as you have mentioned before in the thread there is evidence in some metal fittings and their word for chariot.

Furthermore, the Old Irish carpat (ˈkaɾ.bəd̪) for chariot can only be derived from a Celtic language. A borrowing from Latin would have resulted in a completely different form and pronunciation.

Is it possible they had blades on their chariots? I think scythe chariots show up in some Irish myths and Roman accounts about the Britons. But ive also read those only existed in the near east.

By uploading photos frequently, you'll have a guaranteed audience.

0 AD has good visibility in its niches, Linux games, it literally has no competition in that branch. I mentioned to Stan a while ago that he should publish on another indie store, and I saw that it's popular there, at least in strategy gaming niche. On the internet it has been losing visibility along with the decline of RTS. Real-time strategy games (RTS) are a genre that innovates very little. They tend to sell very little and fail to appeal to a wide audience. There are many videos with such analyses. I don't know if I should have more of a presence on X. I think X is quite huge; the people from those platforms are also on Threads, which is connected to Instagram, all this in the face of Facebook's precarious situation. Facebook increasingly resembles a no-man's land, filled with memes and mainstream news, A horrible algorithm, it seems like Threads is taking space away from FB itself. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/05/technology/threads-meta-twitter-x.html

Yeah a lot of promotional material is made by hand, and video is a bit too hard to come buy. And so far, mentioning no AI content has deterred all the volunteers. Since i don't have much time these days I haven't posted things in a while. For miniatures you need a phone number, and so far I have not been willing to use mine That's why it's always the same / from the video. Yeah so that won't happen really (I mean judging from the past ten years) Regarding donators, we're pretty fine because we're open source, (sure it could always be better, but the only costs are maintaining the server) We had a bridge at some point but due to GDPR we can't ensure that the data you share will be deleted on all platforms it's being shared on. Discord is pretty bad for that for instance. A few people also don't want their data shared on proprietary platforms. And it's hard to get consent uniformly.

Some who argue for Irish using chariots believe they were used in a similar way to the chariots of the Britons (transporting elites to battle). From Caesar's gallic wars

Quise decir que se parecen más a picos o hachas.

Andrew Martz, a former senior software engineer at World's Edge, confirmed in a separate LinkedIn post that the studio's next project was cancelled as part of its reorganisation under Activision. People made a meme about the future:

Artillerymen's shooting star Recording 2026-09-29 172206.mp4

Reminds me of

A few updates on the Great War mod: A battle between infantry fighting vehicles. Recording 2026-09-28 214329.mp4 The first representatives of the artillery and missile forces

Hi, Let me start by expressing how much I love the unit motions. The inertia aspect bring more depth to the units, and with the newly tweaked values, it's a good balance between realism and unit control ability (also micro). I especially love the turns cavalry make. that really gives the vibes of medieval cavalry going for raids. The unit animation sync needs to be handled though, so that the stop-animation syncs with units stopping, by that's a minor thing. As for the elephants. O.M.G. That thing is so fun to play. Elephants pushing and trampling units is so fun, and I wouldn't be surprised if this changes births a few elephant lovers in-game. The infantry units having different values from cavs and eles makes the most sense to me, tbh. It gives infantry agility, and tighter controls which their qudra-pedal brothers can only dream of. I'll try to recruit more testers for this and see how people feel about this in general, but I for one really love this and hope this gets pushed in the next alpha. Cheers.

Screencast+from+2026-09-22+02-47-35.webm Screencast+from+2026-09-22+02-49-43(1).webm Better? Also another demo about cavalry movement now : Screencast+from+2026-09-22+02-53-38.webm

I wholeheartedly agree. In fact, Delenda Est has this feature already. Subsequent UnitAI changes to the base game have made it a little buggy, but it could easily be added to the game without too much fuss. I've already created an issue on Gitea for this: https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/issues/9143 ^Rating: Must Have Indeed. I'd like to change the house from: Small House 5 pop 75 cost and Big House 10 pop 150 cost to these new stats: Small House 10 pop 100 cost and Big House 15 pop 150 cost and Tenement (Carthage and Rome) 20 pop 200 cost I've always thought that the pop bonuses and costs should be more aligned. The double cost and double benefit difference seemed too big to me. And then, I think, re-add the 2 pop cost for Citizen-Cavalry and Infantry Champions, and 3 pop cost for Cavalry Champions. And increase 'default' pop cap to 400. ^Rating: Should Have The word you're looking for is 'Tooltip.' I think most of us agree that they should be improved! I've made this gitea issue, which is very relevent: https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/issues/9166 ^Rating: Must Have

Since I was told that “creating a dedicated post for a specific feature” is a good idea, as is including “diagrams or mockups to make communication with other community members easier”, I’m going to do that for my idea of how to better deal with selections, formations, groups and battalions, explained here: In summary, selections automatically define battalions, which override groups and can be disbanded by breaking formation, making all these concepts unintuitive and entangled, when they could be useful and independent. I proposed for battalions to be defined and selected with ctrl+alt+number and alt+number, respectively. I mentioned battalions to appear as a box surrounding group icons, but I’m going to invert that since battalions are a more “compact” concept than groups, thus icons will be battalions and boxes with labels will be groups. The following figures are edited, I did not code anything Figure 1: this is how battalions would look like, with battalion 1 for hoplites and battalion 2 for javelineers. Battalions must have exclusive definitions since their function is just to treat the battalion as a unique unit. Each would have the little flag, and the icons on the left are representing them with their number. A formation has been set for them. Figure 2: this is how 3 groups, group 1 for hoplites, group 2 for javelineers, and group 3 for all of them, would look like. The boxes around each icon with a label indicating the group they belong to are shown on the left. The icons themselves don’t have a number because in this example they are not part of a battalion. No little flags. No formation is set here, but it could. Figure 3: this is how battalions 1 and 2 belonging to group 3 would look like. A formation is set for the whole group 3. Clicking on the icons would select the battalions, while clicking on the label would select the group. The label is thinner but one could smash the cursor against the side, and when a label is there no sideways movement should happen. Right clicking on icons or labels would disband battalions or groups, respectively. Figure 4: same as before, but if one were to use alt+formation instead, for each battalion to acquire that formation. The same could be achieved by forming each battalion independently, but it would be slower, particularly when having a lot of battalions in a group. Figure 5: splitting battalion 1 into battalions 3 and 4 to better show the advantages of the previous concept. This is how Total War games work. It would be good if 2 digit numbers were allowed, not to run out of single digit ones (for group labels maybe they should be written vertically). Figure 6: now to something TW games don’t do, groups inside battalions. Battalion 5 has been defined for all units, with group 1 for hoplites, group 2 for javelineers, and group 3 for all of them. When a group doesn’t include the whole battalion its label should be shown on the right. This is useful to sometimes have different parts of a given battalion do different things, for situational flexibility. This is the last case, the following figures are considerations and variations of this. Figure 7: to show its versatility, this is what would happen if group 1 includes more units, mostly Skiritai in this case, and group 3 includes more units besides battalion 5, mostly surgeons in this case. Clicking on the label 1 besides battalion 5 could select the onscreen units from group 1 belonging to that battalion, clicking on the Skiritai could select the onscreen units of group 1 not belonging to that battalion, using alt would also select the offscreen units, and double clicking any group 1 label would select the whole group 1. Similarly with battalions, clicking once on battalion 5 with label 1 would also select the onscreen units from group 1 belonging to that battalion, but double clicking it would select the whole battalion 5. Edit 1 day later: I think better to forget this "alt" modifier and make no differentiation between onscreen and offscreen units (just like groups work now anyway) since it would be confusing with alt+number, used to define battalions. Figure 8: an option or alternative to have for Figure 6, show an icon for composition of the subgroups. This also increases the area for clicking them. They don’t need to have a number 5, because the parent already has that number, and it would be redundant, there cannot be sub-battalions, by definition of what a battalion is. There can be subgroups of subgroups, just that for now they would appear as new groups (just as 1, 2 and 3 appear here, 1 and 2 being subgroups of 3), but there could be another way I’ll describe at the end. Figure 9: an alternative of how to represent Figure 6. I like this more, but wanted to show more intuitive things first to be clearer. Figure 10: final figure, using the previous concept, with the icons for composition of the subgroups to expand the area to click them, and considering that more units, mostly surgeons, not belonging to any battalion, belong to group 3. With this fleshed out representation there could be an alternative way to represent subgroups of subgroups and so on, just by attaching them horizontally (vertical multiplicity of icons and labels for parents will also increase, but I doubt anyone would need so many subgroups). I hope this was clear and be considered as a possible way to comfortably use groups and battalions at the same time, and if there's a weird case you think this wouldn't work let me know, it would be fun trying to figure out what the representation should be.

I'll be honest and direct, I'm developing a mod as a hobby (Empire Earth Reforged, if you're wondering). I'd like to know if there's a process for extracting some models and converting them to a different format for use. I would, of course, give proper credit. I'd appreciate it if someone from the project could answer my question and perhaps support this fan project. I'd like someone from the project to answer my question and perhaps support this fan project. The link to the mod's page is: https://www.moddb.com/mods/empire-earth-reforged

The most wanted feature is a new phase tech icon. ok

AI coding is something you shouldn't consider. If the AI can't use it just make a small workaround. I.e. make AI receive +50 silver/minute on their resources (or more depending on difficulty) when they have build a market. It's easy and does not affect "real" players.

My idea: one market allowed per civic center. 5 traders allowed per market. So there should be a tweaking of profit gains, but IMHO trade should be a complement, not a substitute to the economy. This way trade isn't allowed with a single town (you need an ally or another population center), and there's no crowded commercial rute (and related lag)

I like the idea. Kind of like the persian palace, but requires garrisoning. Sounds like a good way to keep civilians useful in the late game.

I like the idea of markets generating income too and this should be done imho. We can decide on the balancing later. Notice if you want to prevent creating more than N traders, it may not be incentivized to produce more. Currently having women on fields in late-game is useless usually as trade generates income faster.

I have already started capturing (using unit power+health+proximity) as 0AD decided to add converting units + besieging buidings (using loyalty). I can't yet imagine how to make slaves tradable. If we made this, then we could immediately represent all resources in this way (object representation). Then only a more generic + visible inventory is missing and we have people bearing goods around. The newest prop point works of Sander will make a lot possible (e.g. people bearing each other, might look strange but possible. And as we have height range bonus for ranged units you even had a benefit from stacking your units... ). I think of making a unit that bears a wooden plank to building foundation defend itself with this plank if it has no better weapon at hand and is being attacked. So far the dreaming.