Jump to content


Community Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by azayrahmad

  1. I'm translating 0 A.D to Indonesian and I found this Water Weeding technology. The description is "Grow water weeds to to supply rice plants with (sic.) nutricients."

    Can I get a context on what species is this water weed? And if it is actually giving nutrients to rice plants?

    I'm Indonesian where rice is our staple food. As far as I know there is no weed that supply rice plants with nutrients (weeds are robbing rice's nutrients, if any). There are some that could be planted side by side with rice, but it's for land optimization, not to improve the rice's nutrients.

    • Like 2
  2. 4 hours ago, alre said:

    the purpose of a design document is to fix things and avoid always rediscussing them. the document is not enough in itself, a real leadership is necessary to make people respect the document. we actually already have one, the problem is noone cares (the base principles of 0AD design could still be taken as valid, and they say some very clear things about micromanagement, but I remember seing micro role in the game being questioned many many times, and noone ever pointing out the design principles).

    I think there are some sort of authority are needed to enforce the design. There are code reviewers that could ensure all approved changes are according to the guideline provided by the design.

    Unfortunately, as is the point of my comment, the design document itself is not yet clearly defined in term of balancing. Yes there are some general advice on the document that says we have to reduce micromanagement, but I think this is too subjective to be able to define a line.

    By defining it clearly (what is micro, what are the behavior constitutes as micro and which could be tolerated, what should be eliminated to enforce this) it should help people to understand it more clearly. We should be able to quote a specific part of design document to stop any prolonged debates.

    The last time I was active here is around perhaps A24, where people complain about nerfed Roman. But there is no statement in design document that says Roman should or should not be weaker or stronger than other civs.

    • Like 2
  3. I'm no longer really active in this forum, but I do check it out occasionally from time to time. It's sad to see that we are still in a deadlock of balancing debate.

    11 hours ago, hyperion said:

    A design document should be about principles, not stats or similar details.

    I agree with this statement. To elaborate my argument:

    In Civilizations section of the design document, currently we have historical overview and then it jumps straight to detailed description of units/buildings, some even do away with overview altogether.

    What I suggest is the overview of what the player expect when they select certain civilization. What differentiate it from other civilizations. Add some historical based justification as necessary. Something like Rise of Nations, but less technical and more abstraction:



    • Athenian: They gather silver faster (because Laureion mines), they research faster (because philosophy).
    • Romans: They have strong infantry (because Legions), they expand faster (because Roman empire).
    • Mauryan: They have mobile gathering (because ?), strong archer (because longbows).
    • etc.

    Avoid exact numbers and percentage, focus on general advantages/disadvantages or strengths/weaknesses of each civs. Only after these established, we can then go to units/structure/bonus description. For each description, there must be a reference to this overview.

    The finalized design document should be able to answer questions like:

    • why certain unit have certain stats/why does this civ have certain bonuses
    • on the other hand, why this civ doesn't have that unit or structure
    • what is the difference of gameplay between civ A & civ B
    • I'd like to rush/turtle, which civs are suitable for me
    • why does this unit too weak/strong
    • etc.

    After that, the balancing discussion can continue. Refer to design document established above before making any changes. When proposing any changes, ensure that it doesn't break any of the established design first before we talk about the relation with other civs.

    I understand that we are not making this design document from scratch, as we already have the game, so cheating i.e make the design based on the finished game is alright. What I want to stress is that we need to make sure that people know the general intended design of each civ. When people suggest changes, there must be some degree of bias (favorite civs, preferred playstyle, favorite RTS games beside 0AD, etc) and I hope the established design document could be considered before proposing something.

    • Like 4
    • Thanks 1
  4. On 10/07/2021 at 11:24 AM, azayrahmad said:

    I still get crash upon opening Atlas with Unhandled unknown exception error. Like this:


    I have attached the crashlog.txt below. Entire logs folder has also been attached, although not sure if it helps since mainlog and interestinglog don't show anything suspicious. This still happens even after I deleted cache folders. Is it just me?

    crashlog.txt 18 kB · 3 downloads logs.zip 16 kB · 3 downloads

    I still get this even after installing RC 4, so I guess it's not build issue. A24 has no issue like this.

  5. 6 hours ago, hyperion said:

    So basically it's just decoration and not a game mechanic. So the only benefit is potentially better immersion.

    Do all current and possible future civs fit that scheme?

    I think it is providing reasons for and justifying deeper game mechanics. Adjusting unit price or which building could train based on social classes. Tech pairs that favor certain classes, which could be arbitrary but given meanings with social classes.

    6 hours ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

    they could have economic bonuses. Similar to the aforementioned game ( Imperator - Rome)

    Also this, so for example gathering choice can be more varied than female vs CS vs horses. Different social classes could be given different gathering rate based on social classes.

    I think it opens up many game mechanic potentials.

    Also I believe many people play 0 A.D. for its historical lessons and role-playing purpose. For them these decorations could be as important as gameplay, they are not much different than decorating units with more historically accurate armors.

    I think all civilizations have social classes, it should be applicable to all civs. Perhaps @Thorfinn the Shallow Minded could provide historical evidences for other, non-Greco Roman civs?

  6. 4 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

    bah, if I had 2 more months I could apply this to DE. lol It would be a huge amount of work though (tons of actor work), because I'd want to push it as far as I could. So, a body armor (Linothorakes, or something) tech would update the unit texture (swap the hoplite from a tunic texture to a linothorax texture), but do this with every blacksmith tech.

    Exactly what I thought when making this. Xiphos tech with actual xiphos added and linothorax with actual units get their tunic/bronze armor changed into linothorax would be really awesome, but yes each actor must be changed, which would take a long time.

    I deliberately make it a new component so it should be possible to make it gradual i.e. even if the tech is affecting multiple unit types, you can apply visible tech to one unit type and it would be okay. I'm really looking forward to DE pushing the creativity of this component.

    • Like 1
  7. Neutral is already used in diplomacy as faction who doesn't attack you. Gaia attacks you. 

    I like @Yekaterina's the wilderness idea. While I like the idea behind Gaia name I do think it's unfair to other non Greek civs.

    @LetswaveaBook unaffiliated force is interesting idea. I think its suitable for human factions. This is similar to Total War 's Rebels/Free People. I always think that hostile human and animal should have separate faction from Gaia. So these should be separate factions from the wilderness. 

    I just think it's weird that wolves attack our people and livestock but ignore the Gaia deer and mercenary. 

  8. I'm trying to make researched techs to change the look of affected entities. For example, Greave technology that allows all soldiers to have greaves on their legs.

    For this, I made custom actor based on basic infantry spearman, but the greave prop is separated into its own variant (similar to flag prop in garrison holder) named greave0 (without greave) and greave1 (with greave). To trigger the actor update, I made a new component, named VisibleTechnology. It will check if the player has researched the tech, and then set the actor variant based on the tech.

    The problem is that it seems that the TechnologyManager component cannot be called. I tried to call it in UpdateActor() function during Init() and OnResearchFinished(). The call is like this:

        let cmpTechnologyManager = Engine.QueryInterface(this.entity, IID_TechnologyManager);
        if (!cmpTechnologyManager)

    During Init(), it's always Null, and on OnResearchFinished(), the UpdateActor() isn't even called. I'm not sure what I did wrong here. Any help is truly appreciated.

    NB: I replaced the Athenian CC to train this infantry spearman with researchable graves. I also put Greaves as tech in Athenian Forge. Easiest way to test this is by loading Sandbox Athenians and training infantry spearman from CC and then research the Greave tech in Forge.

    The prototype is here: https://github.com/azayrahmad/visible-upgrade-A25

    Thank you.

    • Like 5
  9. 2 hours ago, Wijitmaker said:

    It seemed to make sense to use at the time (20 years ago) that many of the ancients typically didn't support a standing army, they would fight during fighting season and then return home and gather/build during the off season.  A hybrid of both roles.  So, the idea of a citizen soldier was born.  Champions and mercenaries were supposed to be excluded from economic capabilities.

    It was a great idea back then when I first hear about 0 A.D. It is still a great idea today. After a lot of RTS I played over the years, I still love the idea that the main fighting force is both economic and military unit. It's not perfect, but it could be improved.

    I believe what we're discussing here is a way to fleshed out the implementation more to make it more in line with the historical facts without abandoning the main concepts. Hopefully we can find a way to tread a line between history and gameplay and satisfy both.


    • Like 1
  10. On 19/07/2021 at 8:22 AM, azayrahmad said:

    For the next one, currently I'm working on the custom template for tutorial entities. It'll take a couple of days, I'll probably finished it on weekends.


    Turns out I'm free today, so I finished the custom template.

    Here is the patch if anybody's interested: https://code.wildfiregames.com/D4196

    Basically with this patch, introductory tutorial would be less cluttered as units and structures can only build/train/research what is required by tutorial and not much more. There are some teasers though (Healers and Storehouse wood gathering tech are unlocked even though not required by tutorial).

    For those more interested in testing it as a mod, I have attached it below, A25 only.

    The next step would be to fix some tutorial language as some are referred by incorrect name (Xiphos/sidearm tech in Forge is referred as Infantry Training by tutorial instruction). And then my plan is to divide the tutorial into several smaller missions as per syllabus to ensure learning players can skip any stage. 

    Please let me know what you guys think!


    • Like 3
    • Thanks 1
  11. 15 hours ago, Stan` said:

    They were a lot of plans for the tutorials. @Angen had one @Freagarach had one and likely some other people on the forums but it never came to fruition.

    I'm not aware of @Angen's tutorial plan, but @Freagarach's one at the start of this thread is very good. However I believe the best and easiest way is simply to improve the existing tutorial, little by little.

    For starter, I've made the pull request to replace the Learn to Play tutorial with Introductory tutorial here: https://code.wildfiregames.com/D4194. I requested @wraitii to be reviewer for it since a lot of tutorial's commits were made by him.

    16 hours ago, Stan` said:

    Having custom templates or using the tehcnology manager can be done IIRC. If it makes sense.

    For the next one, currently I'm working on the custom template for tutorial entities. It'll take a couple of days, I'll probably finished it on weekends.

    Hopefully later we can divide the introductory tutorial as per @Freagarach's syllabus. And then sprinkle some historical context. Peloponnesian war would work, considering the tutorial is Spartan vs Athenians. Will need review by historians (Perhaps @Thorfinn the Shallow Minded or @Genava55 would like to help?). But this can be done much later.

    16 hours ago, Stan` said:

    The game still lacks some basic tutorial features though like area highlighting or object highliting.

    Yes, these are very much needed. We can revise the tutorial once these features are available (I'm sorry I still have no clue how to add these features).

  12. On 14/07/2021 at 5:29 PM, Stan` said:

    It's one of the demo campaigns in A25 :)

    But sure it can be improved.

    I'm aware of it, they are amazing. Hopefully today's generation interested enough to download 0 AD would be more encouraged to play after testing the tutorials. Although yes, with all due respect to the devs especially everyone involved in creating the tutorial, there are some ways to improve it. 

    • The most accessible Tutorial (accessed from Learn to Play > Tutorial) is the Starting Economy Walkthrough instead of the more beginner-friendly Introductory Tutorial.
    • As discussed here, the language used in the tutorials can be improved a bit:
    • I suggest the tutorial to use in-universe conversation for tutorials instead of the currently more technical language, similar to Age of Empires tutorial. I.e. lets pretend that the player is the king of civilization and the tutorial is coming from a kingdom advisor, like this:

    My archon/pharaoh/king, both our women and citizen-soldiers excel at gathering resources and building structures, but our citizen-soldiers are by law required to take up arms in time of need. Please select the women by left-clicking them.

    • In addition to above, I think it's best to refer to units as their in-game unit names, so instead of female citizens we can refer to them as Spartan women to avoid confusion.
    • Also in my opinion, at least for introductory tutorial, perhaps we can use special templates for tutorial entities that can only construct what is required in the tutorial, to avoid clutter in structure panel that could intimidate new players.

    I'm open for discussion about this. I really think that the tutorial is the gateway for new players before deciding whether or not this game (or even RTS game in general) is worth their time, which is important since we're in a time where thousands of games are easily accessible while RTS games are decreasing in popularity. 

    • Like 1
  13. Due to 0 AD vision of less unnecessary micro, I think switching attacks manually or cooldown mechanic is not preferable for Empire Ascendant (it's really nice for a mod though).

    Here are what I think might work for ships with current engine, only involving simple template modifications:

    • Concept: Works like siege tower, but at sea.
      • Attack type is arrow but modify damage to be normal damage like one archer.
      • Add BuildingAI component to the template, so increased arrows on garrison.
    • Concept: Big ships with corvus like Quinquereme & Juggernaut can capture smaller warships.
      • Hopefully capture animation can be added later (just lowering the corvus).
      • I'm not sure what would happen if two opposing juggernaut capture each other, so we could set only smaller ships are capturable.

    Ramming would be a little more complex as it needs component modifications, but here's what I think:

    • Concept: Ramming works as melee attack but multiplied with speed before impact. Speed increase should be automatic, but ships need to be more than certain range for it to work.
    • Modification: Attack and UnitAI needs to be modified like this to allow automatic charge (sorry for rather technical description):
      • Attack type must include CanCharge and ChargeRange properties. If a unit can charge set CanCharge to True and set ChargeRange to a range, e.g. 10m
      • UnitAI will check if the range between a ship and targeted enemy ship.
        • If it is exactly the same, it will charge i.e ship use running speed
        • Otherwise (ship too close or too far) it will just approach the enemy with normal speed. 
      • On impact, record the current speed and multiplied this to attack damage before stopping and melee attack.
      • To ram again then the ship must retreat outside ChargeRange, otherwise the speed won't increase.

    What do you guys think?

    • Like 1
  14. 10 hours ago, Yekaterina said:

    35 damage arrows is ridiculous. Can you suggest another value? Consider pierce, hack and crush. 

    Also where are the ramming features of Quinqueremes and Triemes?

    That doesn't sound right. With that kind of damage it should have been Bolt instead of arrow.
    Although I think ships should work like siege tower, with melee attack by default (ramming)
    and arrow attacks only when garrisoned (with Building AI).


  15. 5 hours ago, Riquez said:

    Crea is right. The language in the tutorial could be worded less sexist. I'm a 49 year old man & even I noticed that.

    This isn't about historical context, it's about wording modern game text in a way that doesn't make women sound worthless to people playing it.

    The description above singles out Females & then dismisses them as worthless in every area.

    Since this is part of the Tutorial, it's one of the first things you read opening the game.

    Personally I'd like to see both men & women in this untrained role, but at minimum the wording should be updated. 

    I agree with this. It should be made clear that while historically accurate, women couldn't fight not because they were unable to, but because they were not permitted to.

    I tried to rephrase the sentence (pardon for grammar mistakes):


    You have two main types of starting units: female citizens and citizen soldiers. Female citizens are purely economic units; they excel in gathering resources but they are not trained to fight. Citizen soldiers are workers by default but in times of need, can utilize a weapon to fight.

    Also the word 'female' is meant for backend code, not for user facing description. Even the unit names are already Spartan women, Athenian women, not female citizen. Although I'm hesitate to replace female citizens with women. Also in ancient Greece I think women are not citizens, so perhaps civilian would be more appropriate.

    • Like 3
  • Create New...