wowgetoffyourcellphone

The big titan. Easy fix.

The Romans had a saying, "The ram has touched the wall." Meaning, that the inhabitants of a city or town have until the ram touching the wall to surrender, else once an assault has begun you are completely at the mercy of the besiegers. There are some things that I've always found weird that have been mentioned here: 1. Battering Rams killing infantry dudes in one blow. lololol. Why do battering rams attack soldiers at all? They should be 100% for destroying buildings, not mowing through formations of troops. 2. I think War Elephant attack should be rebalanced to be something like 60 hack, 40 crush. They still can be used against buildings, but are really much better against units. Give both a bonus vs. gates.

Looks like they enjoyed the ganj.

That horse head really needs to be bigger. Even if it's a pony, the head would be bigger. Otherwise, I really really love the unorthodox idle animations you have there. Nicely authentic.

Text should be black, my man.

You can create your own entry in \simulation\templates\special\player.xml with a custom class name, and then just give that class to the affected unit or building. So, like, if you wanted only 1 Link and 1 Zelda, you can create new entries in player.xml, named Link and Zelda respectively and set them to >1<.

@stanislas69: Are you willing to try your hand at some "hair" helmets for the Kushite units? I know you tried some earlier when we talked via PM, but they weren't quite right. Up for trying again? @Sundiata What kind of fabric is this? I am very curious! Did they have the ability for such sheer fabrics in that time? I always thought it was some Hollywood convention!

Right, if we want a game that feels authentic, then battles should primarily be infantry-based, with cavalry on the wings, raiding, and occasionally making crucial attacks that turn the tide. Most "balanced" armies of the time were roughly 85/15, infantry/cavalry. Greek city-states would be something like 95/5, while Persians, who relied heavily on cavalry, might be 75/25. The nomadic civs are definitely the ones that break the mould, with reversed ratios. So, while we shouldn't enforce such ratios, I think we can encourage this kind of gameplay via stats, unit roles, and combat features. Should a Spartan player theoretically be able to win with a massive cavalry rush? Sure! It should be possible, but it should be very hard to pull off, methinks. The opposite may be true for planned nomad civs. Some strats harder than others for each civ. I'd like to see a gameplay like this. Civs good at some strats based on history, but other strats certainly possible to pull off by a skilled player in some situations. Orthodox vs. unorthodox. Of course, it's all harder done than said. Hence, all these mods and balance thread. Just trying to present a theoretical framework for this stuff.

However, 0 A.D. is about achieving historical authenticity. A Spartan player massing shock cavalry and overrunning the enemy should raise eyebrows. Not impossible, but difficult to pull of. I agree that slavish adherence to historical accuracy is detrimental to gameplay. But realism can give guidance to gameplay. Else, why is the game based on history anyway? Might as well make a fantasy game if historicity is ignored.

If you mean 2-3 attackers, then if you can focus fire your towers on these 2-3 units, then you can successfully defend.

Right, but that's up to the player if they want to focus-fire all the tower's arrows on a single unit. Same thing happens with archers. You can let your archers choose random targets, or you can choose to focus fire, but some arrows are "wasted." Same should be true with defense towers. At least to me, it would be expected that they'd have similar behavior.

If a tower has multiple arrows, then it may make sense that some are fired at random targets, but I think at least one of the arrows should be fired at the player's desired target. Either that, or all the arrows fired at the intended target. Either way, yeah, the current building arrow behavior could use some looking into. Because right now, they feel like a "Tower Defense" game. lol

Just saying if sword infantry > spear infantry, then it may make sense that sword cavalry > spear cavalry.

The Triforce selections are awesome. But there's a problem. To do that, you had to increase the unit footprint size, correct? The problem with this is that increases the size of their hitbox and now they are more vulnerable to ranged units, as any projectile that lands within the footprint counts as a "hit." I ran into this peculiarity in DE.

You mean accuracy or minimum distance? IMHO, the MinDistance of the towers in Public mod is too far. Kind of restrictive. I think it was made that way to prevent the seriously annoying Tower Creep strategy, but you can fix that by making sure the tower's territory effect is smaller than its MinDistance. Also, the sentry tower/defense tower distinction in the game really bothers me, but that's a different discussion. I agree with this. Units need roles, and arrow/javelin/sling units' role shouldn't be anti-building. +1 Nah, I think Spear Cavalry historically are the "heavy cavalry" of the age, meaning they are the stock cavalry unit, tougher than others, higher attack, more armor, making them best for charging large numbers of ranged units or attacking enemy infantry from behind or taking punishment from nearby towers. I think conceptually, swords>spears, so the Sword Cav should be the anti-cav cav. Just my opinion. Do the same for the ranged infantry too. Only have spear infantry and women at the CC so all civs start the match on equal footing. Things get more diverse after building the barracks. I don't understand the adherence to the idea that the CC must have a bunch of trainable military units there. Build orders can be changed. It's an alpha. Why has no one brought up the notion of increasing training times? Age of Kings regularly has train times close to 20 seconds for some units. I am well-aware that 0 A.D. is not AOK, something I've been trying to wriggle into the zeitgeist myself, but it's just an example. I do like the idea of stables though. Helps remove the "7 different units trained at the barracks" syndrome. I'd think you would be interested in the challenge! Or an "Horse Stables" add-on for the barracks, i.e. "upgrade", akin to Starcraft. Can also be achieved more cheaply, as far as manpower, with a tech.

It can only swap out the complete unit actor. It cannot swap prop actors. Here is a list of tech effects. Not sure how current it is. https://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/TechModifications

Nah, just have the original tier-1 barracks have the same obstruction size as the upgraded tier-2 barracks.

I like how the blood oozes out of the dead bodies. Nice touch.

Can use upgrade feature.

I like the cloud shadows on the ground.

The barracks wood texture needs some color variety.

I don't buy that explanation. It had to have been mismanagement. If you lost 2 big projects, then why wouldn't you downsize and refocus on the remaining projects/new project?

Synced.

Maybe, like making the option for sounds to be omnipresent. Toggling cloud actors is not really a config option kind of thing, but maybe it is. As I said previously too, distance fog doesn't need turned off per se, it just needs reduced by a factor of 10. I don't think disabling the fog entirely would be desirable, as it's an integral part to some maps, just adjusted by a certain amount. Also, looks like an orthographic matrix would be more ideal than adjusting 3D camera options to cheat a semi-realistic isometric view like what I'm doing. With such a matrix, it would be better to just have its own config, maybe: https://trac.wildfiregames.com/ticket/3653#comment:7 Because what I'm doing with this config modification is really just cheating. It's pulling back the 3D camera suuuuper far so that things look flat, and then reducing the camera field of view to blow up a tiny section of the view and make it visible. That's why the distance fog looks so thick, because in reality you are looking at everything from a super far distance, and that's why the sounds don't work right too, they're too far away even though they "look" close. There would need to be totally separate sound configs, certainly. The current sound system is quasi-3D, whereas in an isometric game you don't want or need 3D audio at all. Also, if you still want building rotation in iso/ortho mode, which I would since the game world is still technically 3D and you may need to rotate non-square buildings around obstacles, etc., the building rotation should be capped to 45 degree angles. In perspective mode you'd expect/want more freedom.

You mean these?