Jump to content


Community Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Grigoris

  1. On 10/27/2019 at 9:28 PM, WetLook said:

    Hello All,

    Here are some suggestions after a first session.

    1. After exiting the game, the 'Continue' button could be at the top right to make the next mouse click easier.

    2. We need mouse-over pop up balloons to help us identify icons.  For example, 'Wood' when the mouse pointer is over the wood icon, and 'Woman' when over a woman, idle or on a task.  Also, the help text in the pop up balloons for the buildings could be clearer.

    3. Can we have a 'Restart' option in the Menu?  This would restart the game on the same map and scenario without the need to exit from the map and game.

    Also, if you are a forum subscriber please ask if you would like help with your English, for submitting to the 0 A.D. forums.


    On 10/30/2019 at 10:31 PM, MERTZEN said:

    Hello All,

    I got a lot to say but on a general basis and after playing a lot of onlines games on the current version :

    > ranged units and siege rams are too strong, it's not realistic (on a history point of view) to see celts winning the game with only slingers and battle rams, what I would suggest to correct this would be :

    1. Lowering the attack dammages of slingers and allowing only a limited number of attacks (spears) for the skirmishers before a countdown that allow them to reload their stack of javelins, on the meantime the skirmisher would act as a spearman (with low armor). A level 1 skrimisher would have for example only 6 javelin to throw.

    2. Battler rams and all other siege units in general should be packed with citizen soldiers units in order to be used, for example a battle ram speed could depend on the number of units inside and the units that handle the balistas or catapultes should be vulnerable of ranged attacks. If they got killed the siege engine become Gaia until some else is using it.

    3.  .. to compensate this I would give to the celts factions a citizen soldier with sword (which would be histroricaly accurate as gauls where well knows smiths) and also a citizen soldier with hammer or haxe that perform crush units and could be used to destrow buildings.

    4. Spear cavaliers should have a special charge attack that could crashed low armored units such as ranged units. Currently they are not strong enough against archers, skirmishers and slingers, that's not realistic.

    It's just a start but I thing that with these littles changes the game could become even more attractive and we would see much more historically accurate  battles.







    Actually siege units are here, that's nice, but not really implemented into gameplay (even Spear-Sword-Ranged-Cavallery is not really ready). 0AD is playable, but it's important to take care, that we players don't learn to play with unfinished concepts and try to keep them for convenience, because we just learned to use them for our advantage. These interesting ideas are giving some sort of solutions about walls and siege units

    Walls are now pretty weak and expensive, beside of blocking choke points and decorative reasons (mostly in singleplayer, in multiplayer not really recommended), they have no use. At some point they will need rework.

    - by soldiers nearly indestructible stone walls make need for now dispensable siege engines or ropes and ladders to climb and conquer them faster. Climbing walls adds one more aspect of ancient warfare into 0AD for new mid-game rushing strategies against weak turtles: siege assaults. Siege engines are commonly spammed mid-late-game for trying to raid civil centers, if enemies keep up with equal strenght. Siege engines are relatively cheap, powerful, comfortable. Attackers now don't really try to protect, improve some engine by manpower (packing units into it, similar to towers) and then to advance them on enemy positions.

    - protecting stone walls were built with increasing prosperity, one thing lead to another over time - trade increased more, prosperity has grown, walls got bigger, economy boomed. Why not some economy bonus for walling civil centers? If there is some number of wall-towers and walls around civil center, it can be classified mostly as a city in ancient times. Walls could get some economic use in gameplay, beside of warfare, returning in some sort investment into them.

    Probably some aspects fit more for mod-making (several ways of balancing economy by walls), but could still exist as rough basic concept in 0 AD. Persians, Greeks and many more were first citybuilders with walled cities, before they waged war about land and cities. Walls were essential for ancient cities and now we have a gameplay with optional walls :huh:


    • Like 1
  2. On 1/22/2019 at 6:21 PM, coworotel said:

    One suggestion:

    Right now I see we have a good number of nice mods, and they were downloaded many times, but it is still very hard to find people for a multiplayer match using mods. Anytime you look, there is at most 1 game using mod (I mean a major gameplay mod). It would be interesting if there was some way to:

    • see which mod the players in the lobby were using;
    • filter games by mod.

    When you try to join a game with mod, if you don't have the mod activated, then it fails and shows you in a new window, which mod or 0AD version is used.

    • Like 1
  3. After multiplayer game was launched, it loaded the game, but finally the connection failed (lost server connection, reason unknown). It seems to be a new randomly occuring bug after joining. It's like on defect-ticket #5163. Several times rejoining didn't worked, restart 0AD wasn't successful too.



  4. 3 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

    What you mean?

    That not make sense. loosingit by conquer  may be can wait to assimilate. explain more.


    Yes assimilation similar in RoN. after capture your building must be assimilated.

    connection between "deleting building / status conquer bar" isn't obvious

    When building is conquered by exactly 50%, it's no more possible to delete it. That isn't very obvious (probably i mean logical :) ), then only delete button is disabled. It's more an anti-abuse-mechanism, it makes not really sense (?).

    allows to clean up few things: no more possible to delete buildings shortly before siege or loosing it by conquer (normally occupants can't go out without to die), no more need to mix conquering buildings and other elements of gameplay

    Disabled instant-delete prevents from deleting important buildings (let's say temples, barracks) seconds before conquer state falls under 50% or few seconds before incoming enemy, when you finally loose ground and control. In combat it should be up to enemy to conquer or destroy a building, not to owner, unless he decides early enough to dismantle a building.

    How do you mean assimilation in this context? What is RoN?

  5. It could be a nice feature, to change the way of deleting buildings. There are some unlovely things:

    - buildings can be destroyed by one click without to get significant ressources, this leads to some weird AI-tactics (f.e. destroying buildings before loosing it), even humans use it.

    - connection between "deleting building / status conquer bar" isn't obvious

    - sometimes players are cut off from ressources and have a big (useless) city around their cc, but they would need every little piece of material to recruit workers

    Building needs workers, ressources, time, why not to make deleting buildings the reverse way of it?


    - allows to clean up few things: no more possible to delete buildings shortly before siege or loosing it by conquer (normally occupants can't go out without to die), no more need to mix conquering buildings and other elements of gameplay

    - allows recycling as new ressource income (needs worker, time), more options&fun for players in some situations


    - connection hitpoints and recycling a bit tricky to prevent abuse (recycling full damaged buildings, repair ability, .. )

    -> possibility to make sink down the building only by owner (reverse of building it): during this action no functionality of building, as it would be built completely new, but full hp&conquer& .. states, repair abilities remain. Ressources are gathered once building got teared down. Reverse of deleting (building up) could be made possible for case owner switches fast.

    • Thanks 1
  6. Alpha 24 XXIV

    Romans adapted many of Greece and other civilizations, it lead them to domination of the last ancient era, before Middle Age was born. Not many ancients books (and knowledge) survived those times :cray: But at least enough for the following age and peoples found other ways to live :king::drunk::eat:

  7. What about to add a new vision system (thought for night maps)? View range will there be bound to units or fireplaces, not specifical to buildings. Few units with torches could allow to increase view range (probably could be used one time later for to burn down buildings).

  8. Tribute wagon, more phases, that's all very inspiring :)

    Tribute right now is fast and direct, simple mouse-click (or touch on touchscreen). Tribute wagon is slow, can be lost by capture and takes some time for one way, but instead could multiply tribute. Since it would be a special unit, the number of wagons should be limited. To keep a minimum way distance, it should be bound to cc too. The special detail on tribute wagon could be, that tribute increase is influenced by phase gap of the civilizations.

    On 7.4.2018 at 6:00 PM, stanislas69 said:

    To me mini civs are main civs wannabes. The only thing that could be a mini civ is a civ that's only made of small villages with little to no technologies and thus can't compete against let's say rome. But even then you could just make them a harder civ to play, with let's say a Zerg rush type attack.

    Mini civ could be a civ, which can't evolve to next phase. Let's say as a new gamemode with more restricted phase advance, where you need 2 cc's to reach next phase, until more cc's are able to advance on next phase and reach their better elite abilities.

    Examples: 6 players

    - everytime two cc's can advance to next phase (I > II, II > III)

    step 1: two phase I cc's reach phase II, unlocks advance to phase II for one more cc, but no fourth cc can advance to phase II

    step 2: one phase II cc reach phase III, unlocks advance to phase II for one more phase I cc (allows fourth phase II cc - after fourth phase II cc, one fifth cc can advance too)

    step 3: two phase II cc's reach phase III, unlocks phase III for one more phase II cc (max 3 phase III)

    summary: 3 phase III cc, 2 phase II cc, 1 phase I cc, more players would mean more low phase cc

    probably step 4: phase IV.. ?


  9. On 27.12.2017 at 4:11 PM, Andrettin said:

    A simple solution to barracks spamming would be making certain buildings (like the barracks) increase in cost exponentially for each building of the same type that the player already owns. For example, the barracks increasing 25% in resource costs for each one built (the 25% being compounded with each other, not added to one another).

    Barrack spam is industrial warfare, no more ancient warfare. Just had a 2v2 game, everyone made around 2 barracks, except one player managed to build in short time 11 barracks :o

    It is a legal way to win, often ends with a clear winner or in rare cases as long stalemates (both opponents high recruiting rate), but this isn't really fun. In fact it's wasting ressources for countless attacks and hard to counter. <_<

    Personally, i would like to see gameplay more to evolve over the ages (I, II, III). Less barracks would still allow a big army, but you can't outplay others just by citizen soldier mass-production. It would be harder to replace losses and development for champions would be probably more important.

    Increasing costs could be an effective way to regulate it. At some point, it's too expensive to build more barracks, the ressources could be used for other better options (supporting friendly weak economies, champs). This opens new strategies. Big economies would still keep some of their advantage, but overall similar (small) economies differ less between each other :)

  10. Thank you for this thread. I like the cinema function very much and started playing with it around. :)

    For summary:

    How to make paths in atlas editor, see..


    Red points are target nodes, green points are (viewer) position nodes. Delta time can be manipulated later in trigger.

    Adding single nodes in editor works fine with fn+insert, next node will be added to last selected node (possibility to add more nodes between existing nodes).

    Tip: move nodes only on ground (x-y, red/blue axis) for to find right place, then you can modify height (z, green axis). Sometimes it's too hard to adjust it by eye with all axis at same time (x-y-z).


    Now it needs an script editor.

    As fcxSanya wrote, for cinema trigger create manually mapname.js . It has to be integrated in mapname.xml . The xml-file can be found where you save your files, for example 0ad_mods_user_maps_ ... (scenarios/skirmish) .

    Examples: https://trac.wildfiregames.com/browser/ps/trunk/binaries/data/mods/public/maps/scenarios/Cinema_Demo.js and https://trac.wildfiregames.com/browser/ps/trunk/binaries/data/mods/public/maps/scenarios/Cinema_Demo.xml . For to learn about triggers: https://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/Triggers .


    Ah, very important, don't forget to add the comma one line above where you add trigger content in xml-file... :blush:

    Start only with few nodes, for to understand how everything works.


    • Like 2
  11. On 16.12.2017 at 5:11 AM, Loki1950 said:

    Formations have not been fully implemented and the pathfinder(the code that figures out where and how to move units) still needs some work it is being worked on though.

    Enjoy the Choice :)

    I agree with Sundata, that city building ends up often in too mechanic-practical ways. Multiplayer games escalate pretty fast, there's no time left to build a city with walls (even wooden one). I think some reasons are because of the unit system: every citizen soldiers can be used as full soldier, you don't need really walls for protection from enemy soldiers. Walls won't help much a more "peaceful" developing city anyway. Nowadays in fights you got the winning majority or you loose (even against AI). City building can have really low priority, expensive walls can be destroyed by masses of unorganized citizen soldiers in no time, without siege machine.. Houses are much cheaper, fast built, useful and don't cost too much. Don't understand me wrong, i like the concept of citizen soldiers, but it feels a bit overwhelming in some situations. (probably we could do a group of players for more roleplay focused city-building :))

    My wish/opinion on formations :rolleyes:: every formation should need a minimum size of units, time to form, later the peoples are in a locked group with bonus/malus depending on unit and formation (speed, charge, defence, turtle, range, cap, .. , citizen can't gather in group but fight, .. ). This could bring in a counter-system "light" and open ways to divide citizen soldiers more into phases when they work like women without normal weapons, or fight as organized groups. Citizen only gain ability to fight effective in formations. Champions would just benefit by formations themself. Walls would gain influence, they give time to prepare citizen for an organized defence of a city. Non-combatant population could be made an important factor to increase the number of locked groups, to increase the possible amount of militarized citizen, unless you build champions. If you want big armies, you need a big city, enough ressources to afford professional soldiers or special resarch?


    36 minutes ago, Sundiata said:


    yes please, I'm trying to make a map according to these considerations. I like a lot of those mechanics from DE. They're much more logical/immersive. I was thinking that the CC could be programmed to only be able to store a nominal amount of each resource, like max 200 of every resource. Then the CC can still be used in very early game, or emergencies or when setting up a new territory, but the moment you want to train 5 units at a time, you're going to have set up storehouse and farm to store more resources. When CC is full, you'd get a message like: "CC stores are full, build a storehouse to store more resources or a farmstead to store more food"


    Good idea. Now we can build dropsites and do research (faster gathering, ..), because CC alone isn't helpful over time (ressources deplete in area). Why not a similar system for to store ressources? If i want to store more food, i need some sort of ancient granary, or other storehouses for different material? (Question: can worker be made to stop gathering ressources if store full?) I would like this :)

    This thread pretty escalated to a collection of different ideas :P


    • Like 3
  • Create New...