Leaderboard

This thread has derailed from the start. I apologize for not closing it earlier.

It looks like the community maps mod hasn't been updated since a23, so I've made a temporary fork of the project called community maps 2 It's pretty basic, but it gives access to the maps again. And I've run some migration scripts on the maps themselves to make them compatible with >=a24. Though I haven't checked them all for warnings or errors. If you notice any problems, just open a ticket on the community maps 2 repo and I'll try to fix things up; or you can make a PR if you feel like it. The pyromod file can be downloaded from the releases section

Hello. I would like to dispel a few doubts and misconceptions about the mRNA vaccine, since it is a new technology and people might be curious of how it works. First we need to discuss what is DNA and RNA. DNA is a molecule that resides in the cell nucleous and is responsible for storing our genetic information (our genome). It's quite a sturdy molecule and very stable. RNA is a molecule that can be found in the nucleous and in the cell body (cytoplasm). Is a small molecule and one of its main purposes is to convey information (or messages, if you will). It is not as stable as DNA. How do DNA and RNA work in the body? We know that DNA is stored in the nucleous, but the majority of the cell processes happen in the cytoplasm, which is separated from the nucleous (in humans) by the nuclear membrane. So if the cell wants to produce something (protein, antibody, enzyme, etc) using the information stored in the DNA, it need that information to get out of the nucleous. That is where RNA comes in. In a process called Transcription, a segment of our DNA is copied in the form of mRNA (the "m" stands for messenger), which then can leave the nucleous and reach the cell body. There, the information that it contains can be used to produce stuff for the cell. We can say then that mRNA is nothing more than the mailman of the cell, bringing information from the DNA to the cell body. The thing though is that this mailman is short lived and will soon be recycled by the cell. This way, the cell can regulate itself and more easily avoid overproducing stuff. So, back to the mRNA vaccine. Well, we know that the only thing that mRNA can do is convey a message. But what message does the mRNA vaccine convey? It conveys instructions to build a specific protein called SPIKE. The COVID-19 virus uses this specific protein to bypass cell defenses, entering and infecting the cell. Why would i want my cells to build a viral protein? The purpose of vaccines is to train your imune system against a specific invader. But to train they need a target. Vaccines provide the target. Some use inactivated or dead virus, while others use active, but weakened virus. Some even break up the virus in the lab and use only some of its parts. The mRNA vaccine is new because instead of injecting viral proteins in your bloodstream, it inject instructions that will allow a limited number of your cells to produce those proteins, thus providing your imune system with a target to train and practice with. Since SPIKE is THE protein that enables the virus to enter the cell and (so far) is found on all variants of the coronavirus, it was the most valuable target to practice with. Will my cell be altered in any way by the vaccine? In short, no. Because as we've seen before mRNA doesn't last very long in a cell and will eventually be recycled by it. It will stay active for a time, allowing the cell to produce and export SPIKE to train the imune system and then it will be destroyed. If if can just inject SPIKE in my bloodstream, why use a vaccine that makes me produce them instead? That is a great question and it really highlights why this new technology is so awesome. Proteins are hard to produce in a lab. They are formed from a myriad of amino acids and have complex shapes. mRNA, on the other hand, is just a string, like a bead necklace and it is it made from only 4 different molecules. mRNA is easier and cheaper to produce in a lab in comparison to proteins. Another reason is quantity and space. Each vaccine shot has limited space and the more targets we can fit into it, the more practice our imune system will have against it. Each SPIKE protein counts as a single target, but each mRNA can produce hundreds of targets (or more) during it's lifespan. So we can get more quantity for the same space using mRNA instead of proteins. If the mRNA vaccine is so good, why do some people have side effects? In the case of mRNA vaccines, the side effects are a result of your imune system fighting and practicing against the targets that we introduced. The imune system has a pattern of response against invasions. First step is stall the enemy while we gather intelligence, meaning you body will increase its temperature (fever), produce mucus (sneezing, coryza, cofing) and redirect your energy reserves to fighting the invader (tiredness). Although these are symptoms commonly associated with diseases, it's actually our body that is causing them. They might be a pain to us, but they are even more of a pain to the invaders and are quite effective in most cases. This strategy is meant to buy time in order for the imune system to capture and study some invaders in order to produce antibodies against them. So, by taking the vaccine, although you are not being invaded by any hostile forces, you are producing something that the body does not recognize and so it will mount a full attack against it. Since people are different, the intensity of their imune response is also different. This means that some can experience very mild effects will others might not. It's basically like an allergic reaction. If i can also have side effects from the vaccine, why not just get COVID instead? Well, the main difference between a vaccine and virus is that the virus will destroy your cells, while the vaccine won't. If your body can contain the virus in time, then you'll experience some to no symptoms and will be fine. If your body cannot, then the virus can get out of control and cause greater damage to your organs. COVID is specially nasty, since although it starts at the lungs it can migrate to other parts of the body (heart, brain, liver, etc). Any damage to those areas might cause significant health problems and even lead to death. When we look at the situation this way, the vaccine is preferable, even if it has a chance to cause some side effects. TL;DR; 1 - mRNA is not DNA 2 - mRNA can't change your genome 3 - mRNA is short lived 4 - The mRNA vaccine allows your body to produce the viral protein SPIKE (for a limited period of time). 5 - SPIKE alone is harmless. 6 - All COVID-19 virus, so far, have SPIKE and use to breach cell defenses and enter the cell. 7 - By taking the vaccine, you are providing SPIKE proteins for your imune system to study and learn how to fight it. 8 - Then, when a COVID-19 virus enters your body, your imune system will easily recognize the SPIKE protein is has and will stop the virus before it does significant damage to you.

Most competitive players are not playing the game often, so it's not being built for competitive players. The fact that we don't have such diverse civilizations is because there is no design plan and someone to command it. I've even started working on it, but it takes a lot of time, and unfortunately I don't have my free time to spend on it anymore, Besides that the part of 0.ad community is extremely ungrateful. You spend hundreds of hours working on various improvements, to find two or three problems/errors and post on the forum all the time when the new alpha is bad. I said several times that a24 was a work in progress and that a25 would be much better, but they continued to talk a lot of crap. Well the "end" result of the work is an alpha25 much better than alpha24 and 23 as I said. Lack of patience is a problem, especially for those who don't move a finger to help with anything. Basically the alpha 24 - 25 was mostly build by me and @Nescio (gameplay/balance), but we're not working on it concretely anymore, so if no one else is interested in this, players are destined to play with these civilizations / gameplay / balancing for many years, like that how was a23 sling + ram.

I was thinking the same for a while ! The game seems to be more and more tailored only for hardcore competitors who expect perfect balancing between all civs : something which is impossible without making them completely similar. This withdraws most of the game diversity except graphically and, to some extent, the interest to play different civs to get a different playing experience. The game becomes quickly annoying for casual playsers and generally not hardcore competitors players. I believe the game is not played only by hardcore competitors. Maybe the generalizing civs movement was intentend to get a sens of balancing before re-adding diversity to the game to take it out of its competitor niche market ?

Hey guys. My mod was never intended to be woke, progressive, or to "right historical wrongs," or to reduce female representation, remove/promote misogyny/misandry, or anything pro/con politically or socially. I just felt it made more sense to have male and female variants of civilian citizens, aka "villagers." That's pretty much the extent. I think it also just looks cooler to have male and female villagers working side-by-side.

I know that this is off-topic forum. However, this is way way way way way way off topic trolling.

there are some big caveats here, though, which I would contend make all the difference. See celts building pop bonus, stables, ptol eco buildings now have a cost (although still technically unique it is less so), all civs have rams, all civs have siege factories, multiple civs lost universities, lighthouse changed and as a result is now unused, cav health tech was propagated to all civs which devalued Persian and sele civ, Maury ele is less helpful now, Athens lost p2 champs, Sparta lost champ types, Roman army camp while still unique is also less capable and therefore not used as much. There are more but that is what I can come up with without having to think. I know some of these might be coming back, but there is no doubt that a lot of the game is fundamentally different now. For some civs like mace their uniqueness has basically been almost totally eliminated. The diversity isn’t as bad as it was in a24, but I don’t think it is anywhere near where it was in a23 (as imperfect some things were in a23) I agree that the game should put back in many of the unique aspects that are most noticeably and used

This is overblown. One's suitability to join the army on campaign was often predicated on economic status and age. Middle class Greeks and Romans did serve in the infantry, but lower peasants and those too young and too old often did not. A certain number of upper class citizens had to provide cavalry for the army, but those were often the sons of the landowners and serving in the cavalry could be avoided by being willing to supply additional horses. Often a campaign did not necessitate a "full call-up" of available manpower either. Full call-ups usually only occured during times of severe national emergency or siege. Athens could only field 10,000 hoplites from a population of 30,000 citizens and 100,000 non-citizens for the "national emergency" Marathon campaign. And Gauls had a warrior class, separate from the peasantry.

much more relevant (in my mind at least): to this day women gatherers still have lower vision than males. this is quite absurd, and clearly has no historical justification, there's only a gameplay motive, but effect on gameplay is actually minimal, and some times even paradoxical, like women not seeing archers attacking them.

Tbh female players are more concerned about lobby harassment than 1 gender citizen...

Buenos días /tardes/noches; -Texturas para unidades de infantería ligera lusitana en fase 3 , provisionales; (las texturas inferiores de pelaje son las capas, además de añadir textura para grebas y cinturón) Escaramuzador lusitano; Espadachín lusitano; Hondero lusitano; Lancero lusitano; -Cualquier sugerencia , crítica .... serán bien aceptadas. Disculpen las molestias*

Attached is a pyromod file of a Kiara bot snapshot at commit 64fa277 on Sep 24, 2021 (for anyone who wants to try it out). kiara-64fa277.pyromod

In my opinion Graphic Artists of 0AD have achieved a tremendus success in defining the modern graphic style for modern RTS games. All units, Biome and scaling is better than all other RTS game of this time. In case of music,sounds 0AD can also be regarded as a masterpiece. Gameplay has also improved significantly after the latest release. Although I would recommend beetter AI for FFA single player. Therefore I would deliberately recommend/suggest/support a massive marketing campaign for 0AD in this situation when people are eager to choose a new RTS leader for the upcoming time. Thanks All Artists, Musicians, Programmers for creating an awesome game like 0AD.

Hi all, after playing for a while, I finally have found some good friends in games. We had a couple of meetups and they were fun. I’m happy that I can find them here. Just wanna thank you and wish everyone a good day! :D

I don’t intend to debate the merits of each change. But what I can say is that something like the globalization of siege factories made some civs less unique because things like Mace’s “quick siege push” strategy or Persia’s mass cav with health bonus is now no longer unique. While I agree a25 has more players playing with more strats this diversity seems to be a function of unit balancing and upgrade changes, which is distinct from civ diversity where I think we can still improve.

A24 was less diverse than A23, but the idea that A25 is less diverse than A23 is mostly wrong. I guess the idea comes from the fact that nonexistant bonuses were removed from the history page, https://code.wildfiregames.com/D2720. The only actual existant bonus which was removed is the Gaul and Briton population bonus, https://code.wildfiregames.com/D2950. It's also true that every civ getting a stable removed the uniqueness of the Persian stable, but I think that's an acceptable casualty for better gameplay. From A23 to A25 most civs have gained actually existing bonuses, only exception being the Britons who haven't yet gotten anything. The gameplay is far more diverse than it was in A23, which was just infantry spam with an occasionaly early rush. The Carthaginians might not have gained any direct bonuses, but they've also gained the most identity with the mercenary changes. I also don't get from where the notion that the competitive community is pushing for the game to lose civ diversity and how the competitive players are the reason that not enough civ differentiation is done. If there's no one there to make patches nothing will happen.

No, it's secret

Merc cav OP. 10 min mark: 1 players resigned and 104 kills/21 deaths (Border - see first screenshot). 15:40 min mark: 2 players resigned and 206 kills/85 deaths (Border+Pocket - see 2nd screenshot). Pocket activity: On standby. I was border (blue) and pocket was Acanthis. Only received 100 stone and 200 metal by pocket initially. Carthage OP due to Mercs who can be available in <5 min and massed within 7/8 min. Because they only cost metal all you need to do is mine metal for mercs. Replay attached. Note: Strategy credit to @ValihrAnt @BreakfastBurrito_007@chrstgtr@Yekaterina@LetswaveaBook@alre@Player of 0AD@Lion.Kanzen@badosu@Jofursloft metadata.json commands.txt

Looks like a kind of männerbund and it would explain why there is a stelae among Cantabrians depicting a warrior with a wolf-hood. Männerbunde are generally associated to wolf or dog in Indo-European societies. I suggest the Lusitanians should have a special unit called Lusitanian young or Lusitanian raider. It could be simply the standard javelineer unit but with a bonus of speed. Which by itself would be a pain in the *** and a good advantage if given at the start.

This has gone a bit too far. 1. 'Female citizens' in 0ad are UnitAI + template.xml + actor.xml. They have nothing to do with real women whatsoever. So there is no sexism involved since we are dealing with purely AIs. 2. If you make 'male gatherers' , then someone could ask for 'female soldiers'. But if you implement that, you see women killed on the battlefield, then they will protest because women's rights have been violated... So these people will never be satisfied... 3. Women rush can be an effective strategy to delay your opponent. I don't see why the creator of the thread just sprays in a random criticism and never returned to check out the the mod. They have not returned since November 2020... No other female players have had this complaint, nor are the interested in installing extra mods to make the AIs more politically correct... This led me to suspect that whether this Crea is trolling...

@JC (naval supremacist) Maybe you think RNA vaccine is a really special kind of vaccine but a vaccine like astrazeneca (which not a RNA based vaccine) is actually working by using a virus as a vector to carry DNA to your nucleus. Why didnt you complain about it instead? Furthermore, people like you misunderstand the study about RNA reverse transcriptases. Most of the RNA aren't reversed in DNA, obviously, this a rare pathway. It happens generally during viral infections and it doesn't reverse any RNA in DNA, only specific chain of RNA. A RNA virus contains numerous RNA coding chains to produces multiple proteins. The risk that a RNA vaccine got reversed is very small in comparison of a virus. Finally the SARS-COV-2 has been identified as being able to reverse some part of its RNA into our DNA. But in your discourse, the RNA vaccine is a risk but not the virus itself.

Why do we need such topics as this in the 0ad forum? It makes me sad, to say the least.

A city that is well defended is defended by men, not by walls. So it does not need walls.

Units who don't have BuildingAI can't fire multiple arrows (yet).

I would say a javelineer would work fine. Strabo's account is short and could be an example of an emblematic case: Diodorus Siculus mention also that the young Lusitanians were used to plunder other lands to learn the way of war.

On the contrary they had a number of great successes in the latter half of the Peloponnesian War in part due to the genius of Lysander, but another major way in which they were able to turn the tide was through the funding of Persia. I could see there being a one time technology that would give x number of free ships to Sparta.

1- I think we can give the medium warship a slow move speed, as they weren't as fast as the others, this would add historical realism and would likely solve the balancing problem. It could also cost a little more wood and less gold. 3- Fire ships has been nerfed enough, you just have some micro that can take it down without taking damage. 4- What you mean, lighthouse already reveals an area around it and no shoreline, since alpha 24. 5- Spartans lost tough naval battles in your history, why should there be any naval bonuses?

Special things don't mean diverse game-play. Kushites had their pyramids for a while, but it did not affect their game style. So here comes the example of https://code.wildfiregames.com/D4280 which is something that affect the style of kushites. Not by adding something special, but by empowering what we all ready have. There are more examples like this: Naked fanatics: They are totally unique and you can produce them. There is no reason to produce them though. Gauls also get the trumpeter. Athenian Council chamber: You get an unique building to produce heros (I admit, somewhat similar to Gauls, Spartans, Persians and Mauryas). However you only touch the building to train the heroes and maybe you get a tech there. So it is a building with hardly any meaning in the game. Maybe allow it to train (some) champions would be nice or give it a territory root as the Persian and Mauryan palaces have. All helenistic factions get the Theatron: Not that anyone really would consider building them. I would suggest adding them to p1 with cheaper cost and lesser effect (10% territory boost). Once you get to p2, you would be able to do an upgrade to get the full territory boost. It might also open some possibilities for theatron related bonuses. Colonization: This is a unique tech, that you most often don't find any place for in your games. Reducing the price of this technologies to 15ow,150m might create a nice option. Pillars of Ashoka: This could help to diversify the Mauryas, but unfortunately there is currently no reason to build it. An idea would be that if would increase the speed of traders and grant experience to healers withing the range of the pillar. Mauryas: They get something unique of their champions and it deals a lot of crush damage. It is not the the elephant, but mace champion. It is unique, but nobody bothers making it. I think this is because human units have to much crush resistance (Reducing crush resistance might also mean that other units need to be rebalanced. Note: Kushite macemen also suffer somewhat from this problem). Temple of Vesta: When I play Romans, I tend to forget that it exists. If we made it more potent (larger aura range), it would be more of a defining feature Cavalry diversity of Persians: The persians have an amazing number of 6 different cavalry types in their stables. The fact that this diversity is not really used makes this a shame. So balancing all cavalry to give each of them an unique place could help. It would also help if Chariots and Cataphracts were unlocked with the same upgrade (also goes for Seleucids). Finally Kushite mercenary camps: If you want to double down on diversity, you might want to reduce to cost of these camps to 100w,50m to put an emphasis on their uniqueness. So there you find a way to diversify all factions but Britons and Iberians. For britons the was a woad technology proposed in A24. Certainly the Iberians are all ready diverse. I think we could do better in terms of diversity if we only used the thing that we all ready have. Also we could improve our heroes and I welcome any suggestions on

Is Miguel Sanches Baêma the full name? I don't find anything over google scholar: The only place where I can find him is on a forum. But did he publish anything (book, article etc.)? https://recons-iberoceltica.forumeiros.com/t111-os-armamentos-dos-lusitanos-nas-campanhas-de-viriato Thank you for the reference. Although I find it difficult to follow his logic. He says basically that the Celtiberians are influencing the North-Eastern Iberians because there is La Tène weapons in North-Eastern Iberia. In his mind, La Tène weapons = Celtiberian influence. The problem I have with his opinion is that it has been discussed several times in the literature that the La Tène weapons were not typical in Celtiberian context. For example, the La Tène shield boss is more frequent in the North-East than it is among the Celtiberians. The same goes for the Celtic iron montefortino, which is purely La Tène but is not found in Celtiberian context but only in Iberian context: So it is not valid to say that long shields are equivalent of Celtiberian influence and that anything representing long shields is depicting Celtiberian influence. In fact it is probably the reverse that happened, the Celtiberians adopted the long shields during the 2nd century BC, after it was adopted among the Iberians. The problem with your opinion is that it follows this logic: Everything among Iberians is valid for Celtiberians. Everything among Celtiberians is valid for Lusitanians. Therefore everything among Iberians is valid for Lusitanians. In my opinion, this is sophistry. References: https://www.academia.edu/728177/_Patterns_of_interaction_Celtic_and_Iberian_weapons_in_Iron_Age_Spain_?fbclid=IwAR2OWR_RHZeg1RSCqG_oC8G1mMQcbra3rEIvBusM4kDdHtT2L2Xm9m0nA58 https://www.academia.edu/727108/_Montefortino-type_and_related_helmets_in_the_Iberian_Peninsula_a_study_in_archaeological_context_ https://www.academia.edu/29051656/Elmi_Montefortino_nel_Mediterraneo_occidentale

It is not I don't want to include it. It is simply a lack of evidences. I heard your opinion but I am not convinced. You claimed a lot of weird things: You claimed the Celts were commonly using scale armor but it is not the case. You claimed there was a Celtiberian ceramic proving it, you didn't provide the evidence when I asked for. You claimed there were accounts from classical authors suggesting its use, but you simply said something weird about Strabo mentioning heavy infantry (which doesn't mean lorica squamata). In the end there is only one plausible evidence in a strictly Iberian context, Llíria. But even a specialist like Quesada-Sanz (which is THE specialist concerning Iberian warfare and armament) is unconvinced about the possibility it represents a metallic armor. So if you want absolutely to depict a scale armor, it should at least be kept for the Iberians.

I can only agree with it: for a casual players, tech differences aren't really relevant, unique buildings, items, units, building improvments, etc. things which are really visible are.

I agree very much with the type of civ uniques @chrstgtr is proposing. Unique techs are fine, but from a non competitive player perspective they don't make much difference for the unique felling of a civ. It is way better to have something unique that you can easily see and experience. I.e. some phase two champ, the war dogs, the workers ele or as an extreme example the Scythians from DE who have a completely different gameplay. @ValihrAnt for that reason I also agree that D4280 is superior to the alternative D4233

I think that's what they're shooting for, but I think the style misses the mark. With every icon using the same 2 colors (black and yellow), any "clarity" achieved with the simplified shapes is made moot by the new lack of distinction. Players need icons and buttons to be distinct at a glance. AOEIV's and other games icons don't have this.

It looks fine. It's probably pretty good boost, but it doesn't look "special" in the same way that celts' building pop bonus was "special" or mace's siege workshop was "special" in a23. It's the totally unique civ aspects (like the celt house bonus) that I think are the most fun, but are also the most difficult to come up with (in fact, in a23 not all civs had something like this). I very quickly scanned your other civs and something like the helots for Sparta would be more in line with what I am thinking of. Or even Maurya getting 2 heros. One thing I think about that would fit this, would be a civ that is almost just a raiding/nomadic civ. But that becomes very difficult to articulate into a particular bonus.

And we no longer have the problem of ele civs often being completely unable to push with pointless stalemates. https://code.wildfiregames.com/D3350 would argue that the library being completely unique to Ptolemies increases differentiation. I didn't actually realize the lighthouse was changed, it's effectively now an outpost on steroids. The value can probably be changed to suit the bigger maps, but the idea is certainly an improvement over it being banned on every naval game. And they got a new unique tech that affects their champion cav The worker ele? Don't see how it being nerfed reduces diversity, although iirc I saw a patch returning its old behaviour. That's true, I forgot about this. Would like the P2 champs to come back as they were a really cool trait and the new tech doesn't make up for it. Is simply being able to build a siege workshop the kind of uniqueness we want though? Its such a basic building that I think it's far better if every civ gets a siege workshop and mace get a unique tech for their siege, on top of the crossbow produced from the siege workshop. I far prefer the diversity of a25 to a23. Just compare the types of units and strategies we see now, it is no longer an infantry spam fest and there are also cavalry and champions involved now.

If taking this as a fact we should conclude any mention of OP is either to have an excuse when loosing or an attempt to hamper any play that doesn't fit into the narrow scheme of what should be legit in the individuals view. If imbalance were an issue we would have mirror matchup settings (civ/map) seen implemented long ago. Also usually cries of imbalance start the day after a release, making it clear there can hardly be any substance to such claims. If balancing was taken serious, ranked games (and maybe others) should be collected and the data evaluated properly. I'm sure statistics will show a different picture in many cases than what people expect. I also second @vv221 claim that all civs playing the same reduces the replayability of the game. This should be obvious to anyone. I would even go as far as to claim imbalance may be desirable for you can easier find an interesting matchup if you can have civ selection slightly favor the weaker player. Well, ofc, if there are millions of players this point becomes moot.

That’s right, and points out at the core issue: some players favour balance, other favour diversity. I for one would play much more often if there was more diversity between the civilizations, but I understand that other players want (almost) perfect balance. Since we can not have both at the same time, I think there is roughly three choices: (easy choice) Focus on balance, at the cost of diversity (easy choice) Focus on diversity, at the cost of balance (hard choice) Provide both experiences, and allow the player to chose one I am of course all in favour of the hard one, but if I were to chose between the easy ones I would without any hesitation advise cutting the balance in favour of fun original gameplay (I guess you would disagree on this one ). A perfectly balanced game means that I have very low incentive to try multiple civilizations, so it reduces a lot the time I’m willing to spend playing 0 A.D. before switching to something else.

I was waiting for this, lol. Recently I was doing tests and I discovered that without any blacksmith or stable upgrades for any party, these cavalry nearly beat skiritai commandos from sparta which take longer to train and are much more expensive. They also easily overcome 111 HP spartan spearmen still with no upgrades, in the 10 vs 10 I did, there were 3 half health cavalry remaining. Narrowly beating spearmen (even without the +11 hp from sparta) as a cavalry unit should be something only done by well upgraded champion melee cavalry. One of the main problems are that rank 2 units only need 1 or 2 favorable fights to advance to rank 3, where they become much more powerful. With swordcav in rank 2, it is very easy to rank up simply by killing archers or women. (this can be in minute 9, before most people are p2) I dont see many other mercenaries being very op, but then again the alpha is not so old, and we are discovering swordcav as a separate category to be op as well. The OPness of these units is perhaps more pronounced from the intersection of mercs and swordcav OPness. Keep in mind that if we nerf swordcav and mercs, these units will suffer a lot, perhaps too much. 3 balancing options come to mind, depending on how op other mercs are found to be versus swordcav as an isolated op merc: reduce the rate at which mercenaries gain experience, so that spears will rank up faster in a longer engagement and the tide will turn for the spears after some initial losses. I think this will effect OP mercs units more than non OP mercs, because non-OP mercs do not take engagements versus their number 1 counter. If (1) is found to be a problem for other mercs that were not op, then we can add back the 10 metal cost from CS swordcav back to the swordcav template for mercs. If this is too big a nerf it could be changed to 5 metal. In CS swordcav, the 10 metal supposedly accounted for the sword. This might help the general cav balance as well: perhaps instead of nerfing mercenary experience rate, we could give a bonus to experience gained by spearmen when engaging cavalry units. ***Perhaps a moderate combination of 1 and 3, for example: -25% experience rate in general for mercs, and +{25-50}% experience rate for spearmen when fighting cavalry. I like this one because it does some to nerf general cavalry and may help us in the champions department too. Also it is extra careful not to hurt mercs overall. I dislike option 2 because this still allows them to be very op militarily, it just might take slightly longer to get them. @Dizaka which do you think is better between these two. Others: what do you think of these solutions? or do you think these units are OP despite evidence from Dizaka?

Found issue: stupid folder names

@LienRag, please consider giving a try to a25, feedback on the current version would be a much better base for potential improvements What we all want (well, I guess this is what we all want) is to improve the feeling of uniqueness in the future releases, not that each of us stay "stuck" on a good ol’ build that will no longer evolve.

In 0 A.D. all civilizations have exactly the same basic structures: a house for population, a farmstead for food, a storehouse for other resources, etc. This is basically inherited from Age of Empires, which had a granary (for fruit and grain) and a storage pit (for fish, meat, wood, gold, and stone). Age of Empires II had three structures, a mill (for all food), lumber camp (for wood), and mining camp (for gold and stone). Age of Mythology broke with this convention of all civilizations having the same buildings: The Greeks have a granary for food and a storehouse for wood and gold. The Egyptions have a granary for food, a lumber camp for wood, and a mining camp for gold. The Norse have a movable ox-cart for all resources. The Atlanteans have citizens that double as builders, gatherers, and dropsites and for economic technologies they have an economic guild. The Chinese have a storage pit for food, wood, and gold. This worked great and gave each civilization a different feeling. In principle 0 A.D. could differentiate civilizations by giving them different structures too. With four resources there are already 15 possible combinations for dropsites: a single structure: food+wood+stone+metal two structures: food, wood+stone+metal food+stone+metal, wood food+wood+metal, stone food+wood+stone, metal food+wood, stone+metal food+stone, wood+metal food+metal, wood+stone three structures: food+wood, stone, metal food+stone, wood, metal food+metal, wood, stone food, wood+stone, metal food, wood+metal, stone food, wood, stone+metal a structure for each resource: food, wood, stone, metal Other combinations are possible too (e.g. food+wood, food+stone, food+metal). And combined with the house, corral, and market one can get many more possibilities. Of course, not every single faction must have completely unique structures, it's perfectly fine for multiple civilizations to share similar structures. However, the point is there is no compelling reason why all civilization should continue to always keep exactly the same basic structures. Currently there is a great desire to see 0 A.D.'s civilizations further differentiated from each other. However, the current proposals can fundamentally be summarized as “the same basics + something unique”, which means they'll remain quite similar to each other (as is the case in Age of Empires). By varying the basics instead one could easily achieve a more different feeling for each civilization. What do you think? (As for implementation, someone should improve the AI to use the (already existing) DropsiteFood, DropsiteWood, DropsiteStone, and DropsiteMetal classes instead of Farmstead and Storehouse.)

Anything that has actual historical accuracy should be added, yes. About archers, from what I read there is a serious misconception on what musculature is necessary to use a military bow of the period ; Katniss Evergreen would never be able to wield one with the muscle mass that she shows in the movie. So barred historical precedents of female archers, no, popular culture should not be the basis for including them in the game.

In cost.js you can find the relevant line.

@user1 My username: gandolf_deluxecommands.txtmetadata.json Offending username: nobeuno Player nobeuno disconnected from two rated games and then refused to resign to make up the points. Attaching the files for our first game here.

Champion cavalry has entered the chat and would like to have a word.

Well the goal is to have it in Vanilla so other mods can use it too.

My take for now: Units overlapping is not a desired outcome of the pushing logic However, it is quite a bit harder to prevent it and actually make pushing work and/or pathfinding work. The pathfinding benefits of pushing outweigh the cons of units overlapping I don't know if I'll have time / how much time I'll have for A26. Possibly little. So I wouldn't expect this to get much worked on. It's possible that there could be tweaks to pathfinder.xml to improve things. Do you mean that e.g. A24 already had problems with this or are you talking about the A24-A25 SVN version?

There has been a lot of discussion about new mechanics to 0ad battles and movement systems. In a25 the unit balance is better than ever (in my opinion), and I feel we can add new options and experiences that will further help with both gameplay balancing and immersion at the same time. ground-attack for ranged units (or a more advanced system) (1) melee unit charging (2) improved boat mechanics (3) cavalry acceleration and turning radius (3) These mechanics will help to vary the combat and differentiate the roles of cavalry, melee, and ranged units. This could be a great improvement for a26.