Leaderboard

Based on numerous requests, I went ahead and made a mod to add 2 genders to "Citizens" in the game. It is based heavily on my work on Delenda Est. The Two-Genders mod does not change any stats, only converts the "Female Citizen" unit to a unit that uses Female and Male actors. The only civ that keeps Female Citizens is Sparta in this mod. It is compatible with Alpha 24 and can be tested by anyone with that release. If successful, this may be folded into the main game's repo at WFG's leisure and discretion. DOWNLOAD THE MOD HERE, FROM GITHUB.COM: https://github.com/JustusAvramenko/0-A.D.-Alpha-24---Two-Gendered-Citizens I will maintain/curate the mod and commit fixes for any problems you guys may find. Also, if you are familiar with GitHub, feel free to submit Pull Requests to the link above.

Hot take, but end user software is meant to be developed for, well, end users. You can have the game be a fancy tea party for Devs, but if there are no end users, it's all for nothing. Something to keep in mind before blurting out "you aren't entitled to anything, we made this without getting paid, take it or leave". You might get what you wished for. Developers are entitled to end users, not the other way around. That is of course, if the objective is to build a solid community around the product.

Hi all, the copy-paste trick worked perfectly and instantly for me. Thank you @faction02. For @axi, I found my new user.cfg file in: /home/my_username/snap/0ad/197/.config/0ad/config/user.cfg

The balance cannot be heard by everyone, and that is logical. Each player has a perspective on what op is and what not. Yesterday player Melunises said that champions were unfeasible in this alpha, @vinme and others said no, he insisted that it was. Well that's his point of view, and if we follow his vision then we need to do something for champions. However, I proved to him in two 1v1 games that champions are very possible, so he understood. Balancing is done by the best players for that reason. When there is a constant complaint like in alpha23, slinger, then we know that something needs to be done because all players are complaining, at all levels. Developing open source games is difficult because each person has a "perfect" game vision. Anyway, we are working for a25, today I was talking to @ValihrAnt about some changes that were necessary for a25, and I would like to share. Pikeman and spearman need to have an counter vs elephants. Champion elephants need a hp reduction like 10%. Mercenaries need to cost a little less metal and maybe start at rank 2. Reduce the damage of towers a little or decrease the amount of arrows. Archers needs a little less accuracy, from 2.0 to 2.5. Ranged cavalry need to move a little faster (16). Units need reduction in training time mainly cavalry. 8 women 10/12 infantry and 14/15 cav? It is clear that these ideas are based only on a24. As a25 is built, some values must change.

I've never said you're the problem, badosu, because I do not think it. As for civ differentiation, it used to exist. Now not so much. This is part of why this alpha feels so frustrating--it feels like a step back in many respects. Another major problem is that this alpha works well for 1v1s but can become completely miserable in long drawn out team games. This particularly true with my two other major complaints (turtle is way too strong and unit production times need to be sped up). These complaints I have been repeated many times over on the forum but never seem to be addressed beyond being dismissed. I hope that these issues are resolved sooner than later.

Hello everyone, @chrstgtr @Dizaka @bbgotbanned @PistolPete @cobrakai@badosu I have seen much frustration with the new alpha and it is much more worrisome than archers and eles being slightly too powerful or metal being too valuable. The problem is 4v4 gameplay pacing. I have been talking to players I often do 4v4s with recently and have been formulating my response to this for some time. This is what I believe to be causing the endless 4v4s we have seen so much recently. One point of concern is that these stalemates can happen even when teams are moderately imbalanced. I am sure you have all seen stable vs unstable systems. A stable system has forces built in to return it to its original state if it starts to move. An unstable system has forces built in to push the system away from its original state if it starts to move. I give the example of a ball on a hill or in a valley: In an unstable system (top of hill), any motion of the ball will compound and the ball will accelerate. In a stable system (bottom of valley), the ball will roll back to the bottom after being nudged. Go to attached to see diagrams demonstrating stable vs instable systems (page 1). In a 0ad 4v4 application, one team can try very hard to beat the enemy and either their efforts will "snowball" (grant more successes) or it will be costly and not achieve much. In an unstable 0ad 4v4, a team who wins a battle can expect to win in their next few engagements unless they make a mistake or their enemy gets clever, usually this leads to a victory overall. In a stable 0ad 4v4, a team who wins a battle does not see a "snowballing" or "compounding" effect on their next fights, and you can expect the game to return to the original situation. In 0ad, an unstable situation makes things that are slightly overpowered (like slingers in a23 or eles and archers in a24) seem very OP; in addition, it makes the teams seem less balanced than they may have been. Often in a24 4v4s the situation after 20 minutes is stable. This means a team has to work very hard to win even if they have some serious advantages. I have made some graphs depicting the stability level of 4v4s of different alphas (23 and 24) as they progress in time from 0 minutes to 1 hour. I include examples of what players might see at particular times. Go to attached to see a23 diagram (page 2) In a23, for a balanced game, it could be quite intense due to the moderate instability of the gameplay most of the time. Go to attached to see a24 diagram (page 3) in a24, after a brief period (17-21 minutes) of high gameplay instability, a balanced 4v4 can stabilize and become endless. This way, 4v4s either seem super imbalanced if they end around 20 minutes and seem gridlocked if they last any longer. I am not sure what causes this behavior in 4v4s. But I will list some of my suggestions in bullet points. map gets fully built up so there is no unoccupied land ( all 4v4s have been played on same map size as usual a23 4v4s). This seems to make movement and flanking attacks very hard. This matches poorly with tower and fort defensive buff. metal runs out for all players quite quickly, even if it is evenly distributed. This means more lethal options like rams/eles/champions are harder to get. Somehow, it is easier for players to rebuild all the way (idk about this one but I saw it quite a few times) I hope to get at least some people agreeing with my assessment and adding some extra detail as to what is causing this gameplay quality problem. The endless 4v4s truly are frustrating and boring. I think there are many great changes with a24, like stables, blacksmith changes; people like to point out problems, but I think this issue is the only serious gameplay problem with a24. If we can find what is causing this issue we could have a 0ad that is mildly unstable. A mildly unstable 0ad means for the duration of a balanced game, it seems like either team can win at any moment rather than a stalemate, which makes for an intense and fun game. Some players had similar frustration and I am hoping I am being accurate for those who did not put a finger on how to describe it. I think a revert to a23 would be very sad and a last resort situation, considering what a leap some features are, and how much awesome work went into the new alpha. (Also, please excuse my handwriting, I know many other people grew up with other alphabets and have better handwriting than me :I.) 0ad Stability Charts.pdf

Archers Overpowered? 10 archers vs. 10 skirmishers Units start 60 meters apart (archer max range) Theory: Skirmishers under fire as they have to approach by 30 meters Results: 6 archers left (all fully healthy) Observations: The archer range was decisive here 10 archers vs. 10 skirmishers Units start 30 meters apart (skirmisher range) Theory: Skirmishers can attack immediately, archer range nullified, strong javelin attack strength should even the odds Results: 1 archer left (full health) Observations: Remove archers' range advantage and things even out considerably; archers still slightly better, probably their attack interval advantage 10 archers vs. 10 slingers Units start 60 meters apart (archer max range) Theory: Slingers under fire briefly as they close to within 45 meters Results: 6 archers left (avg 75% health) Observations: As the slingers cost less abundant resources, this isn't a very good outcome for slingers 10 archers vs. 10 slingers Units start 45 meters apart (slinger range) Theory: Slingers can attack immediately, archer range nullified Results: 1 archer left (10% health); 3 archers left (avg 20% health), 3 slingers left (avg 40% health), 1 slinger left (50% health) Observations: Remove archers' range advantage and things even out considerably; After the first test was so close I moved some units around slightly by about 1 meter. The fact that results came down to a 1 meter placement tells me they are pretty much balanced in combat against each other. Is this desired? 10 archers vs. 8 cavalry swordsmen Units start 60 meters apart (archer max range) Theory: Cavalry under fire for 60 meters; melee cavalry should be archers' natural counter Results: 7 cavalry swordsmen left (avg 80% health) Observations: Unsurprisingly, the archers were massacred. This is a good balance IMHO. 10 archers vs. 8 cavalry spearmen Units start 60 meters apart (archer max range) Theory: Cavalry under fire for 60 meters; melee cavalry should be archers' natural counter Results: 7 cavalry swordsmen left (avg 80% health); identical results to cav swordsmen Observations: Unsurprisingly, the archers were massacred. I thought the cav spearmen would perform a little worse than cav swords due to their slower attack interval, but it didn't work out that way. This is a good balance. 10 archers vs 10 infantry spearmen Units start 60 meters apart (archer max range) Theory: Infantry spearmen in theory should fall prey to archers; we'll see Results: 6 spearmen left (avg 85% health) Observations: Surprised by this outcome. Archers were massacred by spearmen, probably because of the spearmen's double health. No spearman died until the last 10 meters of their charge. 10 archers vs 10 infantry spearmen Units start 30 meters apart Theory: Infantry spearmen in theory should fall prey to archers Results: 9 spearmen left (avg 75% health) Observations: Unsurprised by this outcome given the 60 meter tests, but this still doesn't feel right. Very unbalanced toward the spearmen. 10 archers vs 10 infantry swordsmen Units start 60 meters apart (archer max range) Theory: Infantry swordsmen in theory should fall prey to archers, especially since Results: 8 swordsmen left (avg 80% health) Observations: Archers were massacred by swordsmen, when it should have been the other way around since the swordsmen were under fire for the entire 60 meters. Conclusion I don't think archers are overpowered per se. At least not on a unit by unit basis. Their range does seem extreme though, and they only cost food and wood, so in a meat shield situation or raiding situation the results could turn heavily in their favor.

Please report any bugs you find here or on Github(preferably) and feedback is greatly appreciated! DOWNLOAD For A26 i made this temporary release, which should work fine but isn't tested much and the han are excluded. grapejuice-3.1.7_A26_semirelease.zipgrapejuice-3.1.7_A26_semirelease.pyromod A25b versions (old) grapejuice_3.1.6_A25b.zipgrapejuice_3.1.6_A25b.pyromod text version of mod features

boonGUI User interface mod for the RTS game 0 A.D. Everyone can follow the development, contribute to discussions, report bugs, suggest features or even make pull requests. Install Choose your preferred method GitHub git clone https://github.com/LangLangBart/boonGUI.git Linux: ~/.local/share/0ad/mods/ macOS: ~/Library/Application\Support/0ad/mods/ Windows: ~\Documents\My Games\0ad\mods\ Pyromod Drag and drop the file over the 0ad start icon or double click it. The mod will be unpacked and placed in your 0ad mods folder ZIP Unpack it it in your /0ad/mods/ folder Launch 0 A.D., click Settings and Mod Selection. Double-click boonGUI, click Save Configuration and Start Mods. Troubleshooting If you get errors/warnings after upgrading, delete the existing boonGUI folder and install the mod again. If that doesn't help, just post a message here or on GitHub.

If I look to the survey, I think we need a compromise. People like @nani, me and some others see the greate chance to improve the performance by a not realy noticeable visual impact. Be able to chose a number means the complete choise for everyone. But I totaly understand the other faction who say that they only want to have a on/off switch because of complexity. There are people who have difficulties chosing the right options. So I want to suggest a drop down menu. Three options. One for corpses off, called "performance optimised". One for corpses on, called "quality optimised", and one option with a corpse limit of 100 called "balanced".

All issues (except colors) have been taken care of. Y'all can Fetch origin and test.

Massive update! Video covering most things: Untitled.mp4 DETAILS: * Added most official WildFireGames skirmish maps to the mod, to be played with player position randomnization (and everything else in this mod). Arrows, slinger & ballista stones, and bolts now have a (slight) trail. Redone flaming arrow/javs and siege particles (it was a fire trail, now it's more fireball with a smoke trail). New building: Field Camps. Available for all civs. They can only be build inside neutral and enemy territory (max 3). Max 10 (12 for some civs) can be garrisoned. Units will slowly heal while garrisoned and the heal can be boosted by garrisoning priests/doctors/surgeons and even more with the new added tech "Quick Thinking". The camp/tent can be destroyed easily even be a decent army of regular units, but cannot be captured. Reworked priests. They can now build (and also help build, with reduced effectiveness) the new Field Camps and can now attack, with weak power. They can no longer heal units on the battlefield, they instead now boost healing done in field camps. Limit = 6. Units now enter a wounded state when their health drops below a treshold. They will receive a movement and attack speed penalty while in this state. Units in this state will receive a bandage icon on them. (Originally @wraitii' s idea ) Some general changes to units: All units move a little faster. Slingers, Javelineers became slightly more accurate, archers slightly less accurate. Slingers received slightly more attack speed and damage. Ranged champions and heros now have the same attack speed and accuracy. Archers including hero's and champions: Attack damage is increased but they now shoot much slower, are less accurate, and take longer to aim. (Logic: Some bows require considerable amount of power to draw, especially longbows) Ranged archer cavalry (incl hero & champ) now have less range, accuracy and attack power compared to ranged infantry archers but higher attack speed. (Logic: Cavalry archers actually used lighter bows than infantry) Champion and hero archers aim/attack faster and have more damage (like usual but tweaked the numbers). Hero archers have the same aim/attack speed as champions but much more health (unmodded) and damage (tweaked). * A few skirmish maps are not included for randomnization for this mod for various reasons with them mainly being: The map is more a scenario type of map (extra units/structures). There is not much point in randomnization if the starting positions are or nearly are identical (or symmetrical), and would otherwise need slight modifications for the mod. Look for the maps with my mod logo on them, they are the ones that work with randomnization. Updated original post download links and very soon after this post it will be updated on mod.io and also ingame->mod selection. Ty all on IRC dev chat for answering questions

Just to chime in with my opinion: I barely play anymore, because a24 just feels dull and boring, as civs are now all (more or less) the same. I really liked the kind of differences between the civs before. Aside from that the most annoying changes for me are the sounds as well and the reduced movement speed of units.

@ValihrAnt@borg-We need to think less of stats balance in themselves and more on unit roles. In this case the melee role as meat shield or archer counter is preserved, it's still effective. The problem is that skirmishers now can't fulfill theirs (infantry support). So thereby I think buffing skirmishers in general in such a way that they can actually handle archers is better than nerfing archers, otherwise we just get back to that state where an army of 20 archers take ages to kill a single spearman.

Compared to the apha 23 have you noticed any delay in the orders of the game? Shift action, shift put several units to be formed? Thanks for your feedback

Agree with this. Don't think this one is necessary with spearmen getting an attack bonus vs elephants. Can maybe reduce their armor values by 1 as they now get affected by blacksmith armor upgrades. So initially they'll have less armor than in a23 but after upgrades they'll have more. This would require a very hefty increase in food cost then. I wouldn't fight against a small nerf. I agree with a nerf on archers. For infantry damage or accuracy, or a bit of both and for cav archers accuracy. Yes, early cavalry are much too weak now and pretty much are only useful for trying to harass berries. Yes, a return to the old values or something similar is necessary. I was happy to experiment with the changes, but upon figuring out the meta more it's just simply a step back. I guess it also depends on how you define spam. In a23 making 1 barrack for a faster uptime or 2 for a stronger eco approach was the norm. Now the meta, atleast in my experience, is to plop down 2/3 barracks in p1 and spam from there as resources come in quicker than they can be spent otherwise. For me that fits as an increase in unit spam. On a tangent, I suppose another reason for doing more barracks is that the 2nd level economy techs have become more expensive for less gain and it's more efficient to just spam out units in p1 and skip straight to p3, while getting the techs on the way up. Not getting the phase up hp bonuses also makes it super risky to phase up early now. In higher level games it was something that was already being punished, especially by @borg-and @Feldfeld , and with those bonuses gone it becomes super dangerous for no real gain.

Here again the problem is that many of these were not problems before. I will make posts in the other space (although, as I have previously pointed out, the one instance in which I did this several players, including myself, all posted saying the change was a bad idea yet the devs moved forward with the change anyways). An overarching theme here is that many players feel that a large portion of the dev team doesn't listen to players' concerns and feedback and the replies from many devs on this forum only reinforce that feeling. But I will try your way one last time.

Come on. My point is that it has been read and it has been dismissed (actively and/or passively) by devs on the forums. Maybe I and others didn't go through the proper medium, but why would we if we just get told we're wrong by every dev that is on the forum? Devs can't say we need feedback from players and then say that the feedback is substantively wrong when they get the input. Just like devs can't say we need feedback from players and then say feedback is procedurally wrong and doesn't count because it isn't written in the right place.

This is honestly the best take I have seen throughout all the debate. That may have been a problem in the past. But it clearly isn't a problem now. And if you read all the compliant threads on the most constant theme are players, many of whom have been around for a long time, making complaints or constructive criticisms to which the devs basically say shove it--you are wrong or it is too early to conclude that. There are obviously some large, unaddressed complaints out there. And with each day more players that I talk to seem to enjoy the game less and less. Some have all but disappeared. It would be wise to address these concerns or at the very least actually engage them. Yes, people are playing a24 (myself included) but has anyone actually asked the players that are online day in and day out what they think of the alpha compared to previous iterations? This is honestly the best take I have seen throughout all the debate. That may have been a problem in the past. But it clearly isn't a problem now. And if you read all the compliant threads on the most constant theme are players, many of whom have been around for a long time, making complaints or constructive criticisms to which the devs basically say shove it--you are wrong or it is too early to conclude that. There are obviously some large, unaddressed complaints out there. And with each day more players that I talk to seem to enjoy the game less and less. Some have all but disappeared. It would be wise to address these concerns or at the very least actually engage them. Yes, people are playing a24 (myself included) but has anyone actually asked the players that are online day in and day out what they think of the alpha compared to previous iterations?

I guess there's some confusion with terminology. I'll make it simple: if you can test the gameplay/balance changes for the next version you can provide feedback that it's less fun and avoid issues with the new release. Does that make sense?

How many people actually still play Alpha 23? Serious question. Controversial opinion, but I'm inclined to think that these strong reactions from certain types of players mean that we're actually moving in the right direction. There's definitely still a lot of room for improvement, but that has always been the case for 0AD. Either way, there are always going to be these kind of reactionary responses... I've seen them with almost every Alpha. Alpha 23 was just around for so long that some people got overly comfortable with a broken meta. Even dependent on it. Also, about the archers, the fact that they need to be paired with melee units (meat-shields) to become truly effective is a good thing, right?? Once a sufficient number of melee units reach them, they cut through them like butter. I even saw someone complain about OP archers while he was just massively outnumbered by them... And complaining that everyone has rams is like complaining that everyone has spearmen... Some unit types are more generic by nature.

¡Eso parece una buena idea !, perdón por la última confirmación, fueron algunas actualizaciones bien pensadas. Creo que el mejor lugar para continuar las conversaciones es aquí, evitando así dejar el tema del tema de civ zapotecas.

Explico lo que hice: En el mod hay muchos de los templates base que tiene 0ad por defecto y estan desactualizados, lo ideal seria crear unos templates propios que extiendan de los originales para no tener que esta actualizando los del mod constantemente. Los archivos dentro de maps/random tambien los tuve que quitar por que causan conflictos con los originales. Los archivos de session.js y session.xml pasa lo mismo. Actualice los paths para que todos cumplan con la nueva estructura de carpeta y he simulado varios juego, ya son jugables los Zapotecas y los Toltecas. Falta agregar el nuevo edicio de "arsenal" a las civs, ya lo hice para los zapo y tolt Has aqui mi reporte joaquin (perdon por los acentos, no lo tengo en el teclado )

Personally I think we can keep the skirmisher's attack constant but increase the skirmisher health point to 75 - half way between archers and spearmen. This would highlight their superiority over archers in shorter range combat while keeping them inferior to spearmen in melee combat. In terms of slingers, I think the current A24 attack and defence stats are appropriate; they were not very strong historically as they were often recruited from the poorest citizens due to low cost. Therefore we should lower the cost of training each slinger to compensate for low attack and armour. A sensible cost would be something like 5 stone and 20 food and 10 wood each. Alternatively we can also reduce their training time, so mass formations of slingers can be deployed to counter enemy catapults or towers.

Thanks for these tests and the explanations. Some players have tried similar tests too. The results from this type of test are interesting, but I find it hard to build robust conclusions out of them. For example, if you change the starting position of archers (archers concentrated in one spot or archers surrounding the enemy), results can change significantly. The power of archers also comes a lot from microing them (hit, spread and escape). Obstacles plays an important role too (buildings through which you can teleport, forests, palisades/wall...). Balancing the range advantage of archers is quite difficult. If melee units can provide a reasonable counter, nothing prevent a player with archers to make melee units too. And since cavalry units do not play the same economic role as infantry, I would guess the most relevant test would be slingers versus archers and slingers versus skirmishers which are the units with similar role in game. The corresponding numbers found seems off by a large margin to me. Archers are now also a decent counter to both catapults and bolts if they are not well protected too. Skirmishers/melees do a terrible job at protecting sieges against archers. It is now hard to use catapults to destroy a fort protected by archers. Unbalance between civilization with or without archers get worse since mauryans and persians can get archery tradition on top of other upgrades and benefits from population cap advantage which make it easy to outnumber the enemy. I do not mean that balancing this would be easy since the current balance is the result of aggregating many other changes (units speed, rotation speed, no hp increase with phases...). I would like to emphasize that the problem is not to be minimized

I definitely want that, I'm one of those who like the rain ... the rain of arrows against the enemy.

Christ. @m7600 I love the trees and decor.

X marks the spot 2v2v2v2 or 4v4 - Grapjas This map has been included in my mod with features as position randomnization, obstruction templates, and custom iber defense setup (on start of the game). Download here New mod: Grapejuice - Game Modification - Wildfire Games Community Forums

Now i can't unsee this, lol. Wouldve been a great name too.

Could you show it from a different angle? I'd like to be able to see the other two sides too, as well as the central courtyard. And perhaps zoom in to better show the columns? Furthermore, how does it look in game? How large is it, compared to other wonders? I'm not too fond of the steps, trees, and corner decorations around the structure either.

Hi, thanks to everyone involved in developing 0ad. I really like the game. I think the current unit vs unit balance and various types of units are good. I think new to a24 is the hard counter of archers vs. infantry spearmen/ slinger. In a23 the direction of the counter was reversed as long as there were not a large number of archers (affected 2-3 civilizations). At the moment I see the counterattack units as follows: Bow: hard counterattack against infantry spearmen / slinger Spear: counters bow Melee cavalry: very hard counterattack archers Infantry spearmen: counters spear Slinger: counters spear and building In short, the two main, ranged economic units are countered harshly by archers. The rock, scissors, paper system is much more important in a24 than in a23. I like strong units and find the balance good. When I counter archer civilizations with melee spear or melee cavalry, the archers are withdrawn under towers, castles, CC or temples. From phase 2 there are often 1-4 towers. There should not be fought or not longer than 1 minute. Longer battles in the economy of the archers civilizations are often not useful / too expensive from phase 2 on, especially if there are too many towers. I mainly play team games and I refer to that in particular. In my humble opinion, the gameplay is currently broken due to the decisions to be made. As an archer civilization I let the economy grow and only need to pay attention to building towers and later anti ram. In P3 I can easily force any fight using 1-2 rams so that javelin and slinger civilizations lose either buildings or units. As Infantry spearmen civilization, I might win if I decide to largely forego my main long-range economic unit and use close combat spearmen, use close combat cavalry, use siege weapons early on, use champions. In short, I have to do a lot more and make a lot more decisions to get the same result. While archer civilizations can play standard and do not have to pay attention to a hard Unit counter. At the moment I don't have constant use for javelin units (main ranged economic unit) and would find a buff e.g. bringing back the higher walking speed, higher HP or other changes good. Furthermore, I would find opportunities to hit the economy of archery civilizations good. If melee spear units can capture towers more easily, that would reduce tower spam. Everything that reduces entrenchment in the area and makes the economy more attackable, I think it's good. Weakening archers a bit would be ok too.

Before it was very easy to rush that makes the game extremely boring a single strategy, they got used to just playing the same thing for three long years, it was a mistake not to have launched in Alpha before so that they get used to all the disasters. The Archers are pretty badly balanced but the elephants I think are a nightmare.

It is supposed to be historically correct but NSFW.

I want my Gauls naked as well

It is a contentious topic as the majority of players won't tolerate even the slightest micro to dodge projectiles (OMG U DANCING!!!!111onze!). At the same time reducing turn rate to a state where dancing is not extremely overpowered like before but allows players to get some limited benefit seems beneficial, at least in my opinion. The obnoxious issue was one single unit dancing (with patrol or not) targeted by all of the opponent's ranged units, that is what we want to avoid. In my opinion a limited version of dancing where that is not possible but allows for micro when raiding for example is beneficial.

press Alt+Q ( before or while a training ) is in process ( not after training ) it works. training could always reconfigured then as you usual do it. I think that's logical good work super shortcut. of course if you don't have resources it can not build. but its not start if you have resources again!! (it not remembers!). its not deactivated. it always just repeats the production stack (as it is). if production stack is broken by to less resources you need reconfigure (all) the stack of maybe each building (that's maybe a chance for feature update i think in alpha99 )

The building doesn't know what you want to train, you must first train some units and then if autotrain is enabled for that building it will autotrain them again. (saying it will start to trains the same units again)

Feel free to improve them: https://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/Localization.

To be honest it seems much more lazy for some players to learn something new than really a gameplay / balancing problem. I have entered 4v4 games and no less than 6 different civilizations per game. I see dog rush, bolts with palisades protecting in neutral territory, much more infantry in the game, champs, etc ... In my 1v1 games with @ValihrAnt, we played all games with random civ, and both had a chance of winning with any civilization, not the most afraid of celts / pto. Some players are stepping out of their comfort zone and learning how to play a new game, but you won't be able to do that by playing 2 or 3 games. It also took me a while to get used to the changes, the game seemed a little slower than a23, but nothing you don't get used to and learn to like. It is obvious that there is still a need for refinement for the units, but it is indisputable that a24 has a better balance than a23, for several reasons. Some frustrations seem to me more focused on ddos and also lag. We will continue to work to improve this, and make a25 even better, however it is necessary to make constructive criticisms and not throw up a lot of random words. We have created a subforum for this and so far most people who criticize with harsh words here, have not posted anything there, so how do they think of helping?

In addition, I see that most of the development team seems to be on the defensive, trying to find reasoning lacks in the words of we who are showing what is not great, or at least what we do not find great at this time of the development process. I want to say you that we are not here to judge you or blame you or your work. We are just showing here the things we think should be improved/modified for a better result, trying to show you, from our perspective what we think wrong so far. So, please, instead of making a kind of war between developers and the community which does not agree totally with some changes, listen to us and try to take some recoil. Instead of turning around the subject, face it. Anyway, we are just writing words. Do not be that much on the defensive. I also understand that you are proud of the work you did so far, and trust me, we are for you too. But taking another perspective on your work could eventually help you improve it. Again, we are not here to judge you, we do not even have that power. So, please, at least, just listen, and take some recoil. (Do not count on me to further discuss if you still that much on the defensive) Kind regards.

I agree. I wouldn't mind a "casual" UI and a "competitive" UI.

You just have to comply with the 0 A.D.'s licence(s). 0 A.D. is released as open source: you can freely use, copy, modify and distribute the game's source code and data files, as long as you include attribution to Wildfire Games and let anyone freely modify and distribute any of your own modifications to the game's files. For other mods you have to look at their licence(s) e.g. here is the licence for the 0abc-a24 mod on GitHub made by @Nescio. WIKI There are some wiki articles you can read: wiki/Modding_Guide wiki/Mod_Layout wiki/ModdingGuiAndSimulation wiki/ArtDesignDocument existing Mods I also took a look at a small existing mod (e.g ffm_visibility mod or custom rating) to see how there mod is built. This helps to better understand how a mod is structured. Some total-conversion mods are: Hyrule Conquest, Delenda Est or 0AD City Builder. IRC Recently, there was a user in IRC #0ad-dev who asked the same question and @Stan` explained it to him, might be useful for you. Here is the link: 2021-01-29-QuakeNet (look for: "17:14 < nephele> Stan: staaaan, how to mod 0ad"). It might also be a good idea to join IRC (#0ad-dev) to discuss things more easily, most active devs are in the European timezone. Forum There are some sub forums that might interest you e.g. Game Modification or Art Development. If you encounter problems there are many people on these forums that can help.

Buenas ; @Lion.Kanzen , esto es un Primer boceto ; (como no tenía certeza de a que se refería me vendría bien que corrigiera lo antes posible) Disculpen las molestias*

I just had an idea: what about supporting two ingame UIs natively, i.e. a "casual UI" and a "competitive UI" (+ maybe an "observer UI")? Apart from the extra work for the developers, wouldn't that solve the problem of different player types? Maybe @borg-@ValihrAnt ("competitive") and @Nescio@Sundiata ("casual") could say something about their preferences...?

I was surfing the web, trying to find some free 3D models for my mod when I found this site: https://www.smk.dk/article/digitale-afstoebninger/ The site is in Danish, so I have to use Google Translate. So SMK (Gallery Museum of Denmark) 3D-scanned some of their collection and released the 3D models free of charge (CC0). We still need to reduce polygon and paint it, I guess (I'm not skilled in 3D modeling). It's okay to use Public Domain object for 0 A.D, right?

Seems it was more of a fortnight. Will add things tomorrow. I managed to make a custom keyboard layout for my Windows with better deadkeys, so now I can do āēīōūȳčšḥṣžřŵŷṙ easily, no more ^ shortcuts. Also a custom Polytonic keyboard to type koppas and digammas ϜϝϘϙ.

Yoda - Jedi Master Yoghurt - a food produced from the bacterial fermentation of milk Yogi - an anthropomorphic cartoon bear. Who liked picnic baskets. Yellow Bile - a humor believed in medieval physiology to be secreted by the liver and to cause irascibility Yellow Fever - an acute viral haemorrhagic disease transmitted by infected mosquitoes. Yellow Weather Warning - Lowest level of warning for extreme weather conditions, below amber and red. Usually means there will be flooding in parts of Wales. Yowsers - a slang amalgamation of 'yikes' and 'wowsers!' Popularised by the cartoon series, Scooby Doo. Yowsers, I just made a mess of my trousers - someone exclaiming in reaction to a recent unexpected/scary event that they may have soiled themselves as a result*

The first hero of the Romans is the "Sword of Rome". The second one the "Shield of Rome". So the third one should be called the "Club of Rome"! (Scipio Africanus, 20% attack bonus)

Wth an earthquake has happened it's a mystery island after all. Details Screenshots Ps: does anyone know why i have red waves in the water? Edit: In the current state ridges can be abused with ungarrison from ships (AI doesnt do this though), however the units will likely get stuck. Ungarrison range seems to be huge. I'll fix later somehow