Leaderboard

The last match has been played, we can now start the 2nd round! Standings are here as always: https://challonge.com/sv36zmko/standings But first I have an announcement: the new version of feldmap (0.2.1) has been signed! It is now available on mod.io. This new version drops the quite imbalanced Nubia biome, so now we can drop the previous convoluted biome rules, and back to simply a random biome setting. Note: if you previously installed feldmap manually and wish to update through mod.io, I recommend you first delete the mod to avoid bad surprises. __________________________________________________ Round 2 matches: @ValihrAnt vs @Edwarf @Feldfeld vs @LetswaveaBook @Player of 0AD vs @Dakara @MarcusAureliu#s vs @Philip the Swaggerless @borg- vs @chocapoca @rm -rf vs @BeTe @alre vs @seeh The deadline for this round is Wednesday 23, 23:59 UTC. If all matches are finished sooner we could try to get closer to the original schedule but that's not a priority. Please try to organize your match as soon as possible using forum private messaging! Beware of timezone differences. Please message me personally if your opponent doesn't answer you after 2-3 days. EDIT: I see there is a new Community Mod version released, please update and use it for this round!

Close game but i finally win Choca vs Edwarf.zip

I talked with @superflytom today and he might comment one or more matches

Hi everyone, I am happy to present a 5-part campaign titled "Macedonia: Rise to Power"! The campaign covers the times of Philip II and ends shortly before Alexander the Great gains control of the kingdom. Some screen shots are included later in this post. The scenario files for A23 can be found here:; https://github.com/SciGuy42/Macedonia_0ad For A25, conversion is still underway. The first 5 missions have been converted and can be found on the a25 branch of the github: https://github.com/SciGuy42/Macedonia_0ad/tree/a25 To install, you must download all files from the maps/scenarios/ folder in the repository and place them in the /maps/scenarios folder where your custom scenarios built with atlas are saved at by default. On Linux, this should be at /home/<user>/.local/share/0ad/mods/user/maps/scenarios. Note that for A25, you also have to put the Trigger.js file from the repository into your custom mod folder. Most of the scenarios rely heavily on scripts so make sure to also download the .js files which also go in the maps/scenarios folder containing your scenarios. The scenarios feature more or less typical build and conquer mission, as well as sieges and battles without much building involved. Make sure to read the text in the description of each mission before you play it. Often, there are intelligence reports that can be quite useful. In many cases, there are multiple ways to approach the mission strategically. The AI should be set to Petra, I recommend Medium or Hard difficulty with Balanced option. It's totally fine to play it on easier difficulties as well, especially on the first try. Hope you enjoy! I am definitely looking for feedback -- there may certainly be some bugs or inconsistencies or issues -- please make note and post! I am looking to do a round of updates in about 2 weeks but need to take a break now. If my wife hears the opening music of the game one more time, I'm in trouble UPDATE Nov 2021: - The campaign is now complete with 45 missions, starting with Phillip's rise to power and ending with Alexander's death. Conversion to a25 from a23 is currently underway. UPDATE Oct 2 2020: - Added Missions 16 and 17, covering Alexander's conquest of Tyre. Also made small changes to some scenarios based on feedback from the users. UPDATE July 27 2020: - Added Missions 11-15 covering Alexander's conquest of Asia Minor UPDATE June 19 2020: - fixed some of the winning conditions bugs that were reported - added support for difficulty levels -- switching the AI between Medium, Hard, and Very Hard will now often result in effects beyond gather rate (e.g., more troops garrisoned in enemy towers, better starting teach for enemy, etc.) - Enemy units that spawn and attack now usually march in formation - Added wall towers to fortified cities and settlements I will shortly be posting the next set of five missions. Thanks for all the comments and private messages. And here are some screen shots: UPDATE June 25 2020: Added the next set of 5 missions, comprising Alexander's Balkan Campaign. Features a naval map, new scripts and triggers, and another siege. Enjoy! Some screenshots (minor spoilers): Some screen shots from missions 11-15: Shots from 16 and 17, the conquest of Tyre:

I will note that, when crossbowmen were given these stats, it was not in the intention of anybody to make them particularly strong against other ranged units. it's not necessary to keep them so, they can be changed.

I am releasing Technology Tree. Anyone who wants can integrate it to his mod, or use this mod as dependency if files are not conflicting. Compatible with all mods not changing gui/reference/common/load, helper and mainmenu.xml. (should be all mods which are out, not sure about fgod) With DE works if this mod is the last one, but you loose something from mainmenu (not sure what). You can explore all technology trees, which are researched from structures. If you select technology, which is paired, the second choice will be displayed on the right. Supersedes are considered as requirements. Phase is set as minimum from all buildings that can research it and then max from needed technologies and phase given by buildings. By clicking on structure, the row with starting technologies (they have no requirement which is from this building) is refreshed based on that structure. You can choose any technology by clicking on it. You move in tree by clicking on requirements, paired technologies or unlocks. If some unit has some technology as requirement, it will be displayed under that technology ( you can click on that unit to open traditional viewer).

It was approved

I talked to them already

updated to A26 on modio

Could we use TTS inside the game? Example? https://nonint.com/static/tortoise_v2_examples.html https://github.com/neonbjb/tortoise-tts/blob/main/LICENSE first found it here: https://alternativeto.net/software/descript/ or maybe LJSpeech https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvF-N8UrWZE

It seems like you don't know the game. Persians have axe cavalry, Kushites have axe infantry.

I was 1 year old when this topic was written. Guys this is the biggest necropost i've seen. It's like writing your name over cave art.

I haven't watched the replay, but I can imagine what happened lol. Whoever did this is devious for sure. Yes I would recommend that selection of the cheats allowed box in the game setup automatically makes the game unrated.

Pikemen are clown units. They lose 1v1 against jav cav, while having 3x multiplier. They are only good for absorbing damage. Their design as clown units lies in their awkward stats. Spearmen and swordsmen are half decent, as they deal to little damage and need to approach their target to do damage. As army size increases, naturally melee units face more difficulties. In low numbers, the balance is fine. I would suggest to give melee units stronger offensive forge upgrades so they can keep competing with ranged units as the game progresses. In my view, melee units should dominate major battles and ranged units should be for harassment and minor support. Currently the high damage output of ranged units dominates battles.

A good question. Ideally the maintainer of the mod will write a public-facing document that describes the changes. In the meantime, the git commit log has concise descriptions of the changes. Click a commit, and it lists the files that are changed along with a unified "diff" view of the lines that were changed by the commit. If this is confusing to you, I suggest reading a tutorial on how to read a diff patch. Start reading from about 25% down the page, at This is the traditional "unified diff" header. I see that the first two commits simply copy the original alpha 26 simulation data files. And, the third commit is the Han farming upgrade fix. Therefore, currently the only change is the Han farming upgrade fix.

If there is no one with the official role in WFG of drafting legal terms, then the word responsible is still appropriate. It means who has accepted the responsibility for this task? If collecting email addresses is not the course of action that WFG wants to take then what solutions are being implemented to ensure that bans are effective? Here are some ideas from others, as well as from me. Improve the rate limit for new account creation per IP. Someone said that an IP can create 1 account per hour. Consider adjusting this to, for example, 1 account per month. I think that Gmail allows 10 email addresses to be created from a certain IP before they require a mobile phone number to be attached to a new account. Make account age public for all users to see. Also, make rated game record and rating unspoofable. Regularly scan for weak passwords, and lock accounts with weak passwords. Ban them if there is no password reset capability. Allow free registration without an email address, but establish a policy where all new accounts are "unverified" and have limited privileges. Allow "verified" users to host games that are only open to other "verified" accounts. Changing an account to "verified" requires 3 referrals from existing "verified" accounts, which will lose their own "verified" status if they commit fraud, and also requires an email address and dossier to be filled out. The purpose of the dossier is to have consistency of individual identity across duplicate accounts. Allow use of aliases in order to protect players from bullying or targeting, but require that the aliases are tied to a "verified" account in order to make rule enforcement effective. What's happening with the status quo is that the cost of player misconduct and easy duplicate account creation is being externalized to the player base, especially those players who regularly host games. This still has an impact on WFG, of course, as it causes players to consider leaving or at least withdrawing support for WFG. Case in point: go2die's retiring from the WFG forum yesterday.

Some thoughts about the current state of lobby moderation: Smurfing wasn't noticed (as much) as a problem in the past because I was actively preventing it. But it isn't obvious that it is a severe problem here or that smurfing intrinsically is a problem in general. There have been some interesting made points about this. In fact very very few people have problem with it enough to mention anything about it. I've seen numbers that suggest there might be as many players who think smurfing should be allowed as there are players who've indicated that it should not be allowed. Only a handful of players have indicated smurfing as a problem to me personally (though it seems more than that have voiced it to others) while we have several thousand unique regular players. The vast majority of players are content and very much like the game and the lobby. That is a good thing. This is including reports of toxicity or foul language in the chat. The reports we do receive are acted on even though the opposite is said. As I mentioned before we have thousands of players and thousands of new ones added constantly. Again, with very few reports from these players. It's not unreasonable to see it as at least somewhat successful. That's not saying there isn't room for improvement but it's good to have a balanced perspective. Muting players is a great way to avoid possible hurt caused by the text people write in the chat while still allowing everyone to play the game. I introduced the automated muting of players because when I started as a moderator there was a big problem. 90% of swearing was not being addressed and then randomly someone would get kicked (or worse, banned). This was looking like actual moderator abuse. For me at the time I saw it as a valid criticism when it looks like everyone else can do it but if you irritate some moderator suddenly you're banned. That was indeed how it seemed. I think consistency is good. I'm happy to see some players interested in helping to moderate the lobby chat. This is why I have enabled for some players to help out in this area while trying to minimize the potential for moderator abuse (intentional or otherwise). This way there can be an opportunity for those players to demonstrate their wisdom and they can possibly be eventually considered for the moderator status that enables them to ban players. That said, the need for banning is extremely rare and because of that it's not actually important for those players to have that role. I think we have a healthy number of moderator/administrator types that are available for discussion about potentially banning some player. Unfortunately one of the very first players we tried out as a lobby helper turned out to have quite negative results in multiple areas but I think that just highlights that we should have not just one person but many! I would like to see the number of lobby helpers be in the dozens. It could actually end up being possible to have someone there at all times who can address some issue in the chat. I have benefited by having the understanding that simply because someone has said a situation is a certain way, it doesn't necessarily mean it is so. I believe moderators and lobby helpers will benefit by having this understanding as well. I probably have more meaningful thoughts but that can wait for now. I haven't yet touched on rated matches. Please offer your thoughts on any of this. Cheers

Update: added phases to details and icons are now squares and not rectangles

@wowgetoffyourcellphone Re-upload. Should be fixed. Thank you for noticing