Jump to content


Community Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by myou5e

  1. 2 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

    The Jewish religion has strict rules for Gentiles.(non Jews)

    I am not an expert on Judaism after the 4th century.

    They compiled new rabbinical rules after the destruction of the temple.



    Just like the Pope would not condemn the Kings for certain doctrines or practices which are inconsistent, for political reasons, I would expect Rabbis to be somewhat selective of what requirements they had for others especially when they could gain power by being selective. This is just practical reality of things we see that any religion can and is used for political purposes, just as it seems to be in the case of the leaders who used Judaism to form a distinctive character against the Christians and Muslims. (This doesn't say anything about the truth of the religions)

  2. 1 minute ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

    It's weird that they did that.

    The Jewish religion is not missionary.

    Where did these Jews come from?


    Byzantine Lands?

    The Jews were dispersed from the Babylonian captivity.

    You are right, it's not missionary at all. But converting nobles does have practical material value for their people as a whole. So it is not surprising.

  3. On 17/01/2022 at 11:15 AM, Radiotraining said:


    Very Interesting Video. Still, it was hard to see who they were ethnically. The migration of Jews and the conversion of nobles doesn't tell us much about the actual people, just the official policy of the Rulers.

  4. 25 minutes ago, Stan` said:

    What about My Little Pony, or Hyrule? :p

    ABSOLUTELY. We can

    • change my "Restrict to Cultures" to "Mod Selection"
    • Include Up to date mods in the main game.
    • Let people play Hyrule / My Little Pony without downloading mod. (Already Included)
    • Let People play Millenium / Aristeia without downloading mod. (Already Included)
    • Disable these mods by default. The default will be along the lines of "Official Civilizations" or "0AD Official"

    I don't know how many of those are up to date, but this could be a great way of having "semi official" content which gets play tested/exposed to a wider community.

  5. 10 hours ago, Lopess said:


    One of the coolest things about games is that you can play a reality that you want, I believe that playing with civs in a given location and 

    historical period is more suited to scenario maps / or some campaign.

    Fortunately. Making an option available, doesn't mean you have to use it! Also as far as tournament play, having realistic matchups makes sense. You might in a tournament situation want to restrict civs to ones of a similar power, maybe Noba village people aren't able to go against the Roman Empire? So you restrict Civs. Maybe you will say "don't play as the Nobas". But maybe you and some friends want to play some games as the Nobas or similar Civs without OP factions making it ridiculous?

    This feature could easily result in MORE diversity in the game, because when it's easy to restrict Civs like this, without needing to load a Mod, then it will be easier to add Civs to the game without the nightmare of balancing each time. Just restrict to comparable factions for competitive play.

    As an example of this, there is already an "Ancient Empires" and "Millenium AD", but we don't include those in Vanilla because they are the wrong time frame. With the option I am showing, this would not be an issue. Just select the 500BC - 500AD Timeframe for vanilla Civs. To play Millenium AD? just choose 500 - 1000AD ! This would be amazing! It's not even that hard to do!

  6. 3 minutes ago, myou5e said:

    Another Idea I had for farms. It's not super important and I don't want to push it. But what if the "farms" worked more like berry bushes, you plant the bushes, they regenerate. When they run out of food, they don't disappear like bushes do now, they just sit there slowly regenerating. You would put on as many farmers/gatherers as you need to keep the bushes low, but not so many as to run out, which would result in lost time. It would look nice too, because every civ on this farm/orchard would move from every bush to bush collecting. You could have 10 on one side of the CC at one moment, then all around the next moment. You just need to get the bushes to a good regen rate that makes sense and is comparable to present farms.

    Also, these don't need to be actual bushes, we can use the same art as the present farms(rice, millet, barley etc), they just have a different internal mechanic. We can also do it for berry bushes, apple trees etc.

    I don't think you would need to modify the UnitAI at all, just

    • Make it possible to "build" berry bushes and farms
    • To build them easily(I mean, drag mouse over a square or circular area, you don't want to sit there clicking on 1x1 squares for 5 minutes)
    • Get the right regen rates, cost and obstruction area.
  7. Another Idea I had for farms. It's not super important and I don't want to push it. But what if the "farms" worked more like berry bushes, you plant the bushes, they regenerate. When they run out of food, they don't disappear like bushes do now, they just sit there slowly regenerating. You would put on as many farmers/gatherers as you need to keep the bushes low, but not so many as to run out, which would result in lost time. It would look nice too, because every civ on this farm/orchard would move from every bush to bush collecting. You could have 10 on one side of the CC at one moment, then all around the next moment. You just need to get the bushes to a good regen rate that makes sense and is comparable to present farms.

    Also, these don't need to be actual bushes, we can use the same art as the present farms(rice, millet, barley etc), they just have a different internal mechanic. We can also do it for berry bushes, apple trees etc.

  8. 1 hour ago, Gurken Khan said:

    Something more flexible than now might be nice, could also help on maps with 'interesting' terrain.

    Yes, and Yes. It's always annoyed me and felt like pointless micro trying to arrange farms to fill up gaps efficiently and manually placing them. Dragging a box over an area would save (boring) time, look better, be more space efficient and realistic :-p. I think many people are still thinking "age of empires copy". But honestly why do we want to copy the boring parts of it?

    • Like 1
  9. Here is an example of the Civilization Selection I was talking about on IRC. The function doesn't work yet, but the idea is that this selection would restrict the civs to those within that group/theatre of war/influence. I think it's actually a way to limit the difficulty of balancing, as we don't need to balance, for example, the Yayoi to the roman empire who would have never fought anyway :-p. We don't need to pretend that these civs are comparable. Additionally, I think that this can make the game feel immersive. Because you are playing real battles. You fight as the Persians in the Middle East, not in the Celtic Highlands. Speaking of which, I want to also want another option on this list "Geographical", so it will limit civs who existed in the maps biome.

    The brilliant example above doesn't seem to have this function of restricting Civs, actually. But it does look fantastic and makes choosing a Civ more fun, interactive and informative, which is all very helpful. They are different things. Would be great to have both :-p



    • Sad 1
  10. 23 minutes ago, hyperion said:

    Diminishing returns are a thing since forever. The question here is about to drop and not about adding them. ;)


    As for why and what, it's complex and not something I could write up in a couple sentences and neither the ultimate truth. To give a hint, currently building a couple farms around the CC is basically all that is needed. This has implications on city layout, defense, expansion pressure and many other things. This in turn gives relatively little room of how certain game mechanics are to be designed, which leads to questionable proposals to solve problems which are at it's core mostly down to the very compact farming.


    Anyway strengthening the S in RTS sounds like a good idea to me and as I can tell was also an original goal of 0ad.


    Edit: Btw, if you reduce size of fields a bit and have only one farmer per field, it becomes easier to place farms while still taking more space overall, just saying.

    I really want to be able to drag farmland over an area, and the farmers will fill that area with 1x1 "farms". This could be faster than queing up ten farms around a CC/Farmstead, and also imo more realistic, because I think it doesn't really make sense to not be able to grow a plant on a 1x1 just because it's too small.

  11. On 27/12/2020 at 5:19 PM, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

    This civ selection screen layout from Hyrule Conquest (I modded the Macedonians and Athenians in to show you how it could look for EA):



    I would do this to DE, but Hyrule's game setup UI code is based on A23, incompatible with A24, and I'm not sure how to rectify it. 

    This looks amazing!

    • Thanks 1
  12. 14 hours ago, Player of 0AD said:

    As each 0AD player knows, female armor looked exactly like this:



    It seems that the Visha Kanyas were not warriors at all. They were assassins that probably used poison or other surreptitious means of killing. The unit is presently mostly ahistorical, but not completley. They may have actually dressed like that, but in the bedroom, to seduce and poison; and also the game mentions she uses poison arrows, I think. These assassins did use poison, but it may have been on their tongue, not on a large sword. They could put it on their tongue and then literally kill you with a kiss, because they were apparently trained to be immune to poison since childhood. It was brutal and scary. These women are actually a historical example of that movie Naked Weapon. But they didn't fight in war, they were assassins.

  13. 41 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

    You don't understand what the map is showing. The US formally does not recognize Taiwan's indpendence only because of a deal made with China a long time ago. The map does not show whether countries are allies of the US, it only shows how much they value their relationship with Taiwan, and how much they can benefit from a relationship with China. Many countries currently want a good relationship with China because of the amazing economic power China has.

    Think of it this way: If a country recognizes Taiwan they might make the Taiwanese happy, but if they don't recognize Taiwan, it makes China happy, because it makes Taiwan look like its not independent of China. Many of these countries who previously supported Taiwan's independence are doing it so they may get better trade or foreing direct investment from China.

    Also, renewable energy such as wind power is not a scam, it is a very fast growing energy sector because it is cheap to install and allows for a distributed, sabotage resistant grid. There is a huge project going on in the Northern Territory in Australia for wind and solar that will be serving the Singaporean grid.

    I agree with the first part about the meaning of recognizing Taiwan. I also agree that wind and solar have the potential to be sabotage resistant due to locally installing them. This capability would seem to be lost if you are exporting that power to another country! In this case it might do the job, provide power, at the cost of being expensive, easy to sabotage, and damaging to the Australian landscape, but it does the job!

  14. On 15/06/2022 at 3:57 AM, Freagarach said:

    We have an Upkeep component, and you'll need to override one or two functions: https://code.wildfiregames.com/source/0ad/browse/ps/trunk/binaries/data/mods/public/simulation/components/Upkeep.js$73.

    I didn't know this existed! You must have added it since after my hiatus :-p

    @FreagarachIs it better for performance to have longer ticker intervals? Eg between 2 and 10 seconds instead of 1 second? Also How are fractions calculated? If I did .2 food per second, would it do 0 food or 1 every 5 seconds? Hope you don't mind all the questions.

    You might be waiting for me to stop asking questions and actually make a contribution to the codebase or at least a mod but I am trying to understand things properly first :-p.

  15. 23 hours ago, borg- said:

    I really think the changes with the ax cavalry are valid, but I don't agree with the current proposal. It seems to solve one problem and create others. I still maintain my idea that having these units in phase 1 with armor, health and attack adjustments is the best choice. The idea would be to create a weak melee cavalry unit for phase 2 and 3 but efficient for phase 1. It could have similar damage to the spearmen cavalry, even lower, but maybe with a bonus against support units like trader, women and priests and maintaining their efficiency against constructions.

    I actually like the idea of a lot more being available in P1, except if it's likely to use a blacksmith, then you will need P2 to build a blacksmith then everything that requires a blacksmith will become available, like swords :-p

    Axes could be made a lot more roughly than swords and require less metal than a blade I think, you can use stone as well.

  16. On 14/06/2022 at 5:21 AM, LetswaveaBook said:

    When I searched on the internet for Persian Ice houses, the idea of adding the to the game felt very good. The most logical bonus would be food related and I like the idea of a food trickle as it encourages to build more than a single one.

    It seems natural to compare the cost of the ice house to a farmer. So for 5 farmers we have a cost of

    250 food for training 5 women

    100 wood for a field + 75 wood for building the housing for 5 women,

    75 seconds construction time.

    Without farming upgrades, they produce as much as 5 ice houses (as proposed) in the mod. But the cost of the Ice houses is 500 wood and 250 seconds build time. So fields seem preferable to me even if you lack all farming upgrades. Currently the main advantage of the building seems to be that it does not require population space. @borg- I am interested what your ideas are behind these numbers.

    I think this is a better idea. If the cost and the gain per Ice house are higher, then instead of being spammed, each one brings a more noticeable impact.

    My suggestion would be 100 wood+100 stone+50 seconds build time. So at the start of the game, you have a unique way of using your stone. If you have some leftover stone at the start, you can fully utilize it for ice houses, but it means you need to go to stone before getting the 3rd barracks. So that would give the interesting question on how many ice houses you build at the start of the game and how you combine it with your build order.

    Farming gets more efficient as more eco technologies are being researched. The Ice house seems to lag behind more and more for every farming technology that gets researched. I think it would be fitting if the Persian Architecture tech also provided +20% resource tickle for ice houses (as well as a +20% territory boost).

    My humble suggestion is that because Ice Houses could help to preserve food, that is to prevent wasted food, then they could rather give you a food collection rate bonus, rather than a fixed amount. Perhaps they would need a building space or number restriction too.

  17. On 25/11/2021 at 9:53 PM, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

    These 3 issues at least are all caused by the same issue.

    I wonder what could be done to help archers without simply giving them more damage? or giving pikes less armor, or reducing skirmisher damage? What could be added to make range matter again?

    It seems I am the only one who has any excitement about attack-ground, at this point I am more interested in why other people think it is not worth implementing. Please share your thoughts.

    By the way, I would love to test the current attack-ground that exists unimplemented, but I have no idea how. :I

    I think attack ground is a great idea and I am eager to see  it happen. Freagarach is working on it.

    • Like 1
  18. On 21/05/2022 at 5:42 AM, Crynux said:

    The proposal is ... If you post a problem, post a solution. If you don't have a solution, state how you imagine things would be if the problem was solved; as that would at least give us a destination, but not how to get there.

    So to practice what I preach ... here's some possible solutions to the points above:

    1. Further breakdown project milestones/versions (for example A27) into subprojects.
      • There are a couple options here ... we could have an overarching goal for the milestone (for example, "Refactor rendering to remove nvtt and make way for vulkan support"; completely guessing here lol). Then during A27, the majority of work would be on that.
      • Another option could be to have subprojects for the milestone; for example, Art could have a goal, Balance could have a goal, etc, etc. Then once they're all complete, A{n} is complete.
      • Another possibly better option could be to have alternating milestone focus. So for example, in the case of A27. Maybe A27.0 could be focused on getting balance stuff in (maybe it's only a 1 or 2 week sprint). Then after that A27.1 would focus on non-balance related things. This would give time for the devs to do what they want, while also dedicating some time to balance issues.
    2. With solution 1 there ... there are some things that could help this. Alternativelty, if balance is just mostly xml configurations ... there could be some functionality added (idk if it's already there), to allow people to merge balance configurations. So for example, have a balance menu in-game where they could select the xml to load settings from. Then optionally, have an in-game balance vote (for example after a SP or MP game), on what the players thought of the balance.
      • This would give some real feedback on each balance configuration, and differences/implications could be drawn when comparing concrete versions of the settings. It would give balance people and programmers a better technical understanding of what setting influences balance the most, or at least is the most controversial.
    3. Direction can come with the solution in point 1. Honestly ... my thought is that having a stream if tickets isn't the best solution for projects goal-wise. It doesn't give a clear outlook of progress (in my opinion). Having smaller goals would give a better sense of completion. Seeing those goals accumulate will give a better sense of success.
      • One idea here would be to adopt something with some kind of project-based progress bars. The visual feedback of it is amazing in my mind.
      • For example, there's this https://github.com/opf/openproject
        • With it you can do progress bars like these: Bulk editing progress
        • Of course, this is just an example, there's probably other software out there that does the same.
      • Maybe gitlab does this? (just checked, it does, here's a screenshot)
        • New milestone
      • Ultimately, if we can have something like this on the homepage, that could be cool too! It could be a point-of-interest for anyone looking at the project ... if they're interested in helping, having current workings, or areas of real need posted publicly would be a benefit; and I think would draw in more people.


    1. and 3. are already present in the milestones listed at https://trac.wildfiregames.com/roadmap. Perhaps there is an issue of marketing so it's obvious :-p . Maybe social media is a good idea after all :-p

    I support 2 and will defend adding something like in game balancing or loading of third party balancing. More so, I want to be involved with it. I'm doing things with templates now to try to make them more user friendly. It's not the same as editing in game. I don't know enough to do that now, but maybe in the future.

    On 21/05/2022 at 5:42 AM, Crynux said:

    To some degree, yes. Too much openness is bad, especially when no-one is declared the final decision maker. This is true in many cases. One that comes to mind (I've been watching a lot of Gordon Ramsay lately lol), is in businesses like hotels, restaurants. With a group of "owners", if there's no-one who has a final say, decisions rot. Part of what Ramsay does is instill a position of power in a single person ... that changes the entire organization, and how it runs as a whole.

    Maybe having a elected "official" would help the project. Alternatively ... we could also adopt a voting system of sorts, where solutions are presented, and voted on with a deadline within the community. Of course, there's a ton of ways about this. We could also make the project configurable by default. So like ... at any point if there's something that's a core concern, or clear divide in the community ... make a checkbox for it ... then we get BOTH those sides remaining interested, while also satisfying their personal needs/opinions.


    People talk about FOSS principles of openness. I actually don't think that means no leaders. FOSS makes code accessible to others, but doesn't give those others write access to the developers PC. That means FOSS is free to be forked. It doesn't mean there is no decision making at the top. If you don't like the King, start your own kingdom. But there is nothing wrong with kings.

  19. On 22/05/2022 at 12:20 PM, Loki1950 said:

    IIRC those stats are in XML files though each civ has a separate file for each unit so it is a tedious process to edit each file in question so a way of dealing with all the files at once is needed not a trivial task basically a macro for a text editor and not many text editors have macro search and replace functions and then they are not available on all the platforms we support.

    Enjoy the Choice :)  

    On this point, there is a new feature, which I think was implement by @wraitii, on the modding side which allows for "mixins" which makes modding way less time consuming. This feature is not used much in the current Alpha, but I think it is undermentioned and underpraised! It can reduce the effort of adjusting XML files by I think maybe 90% once this feature is properly understood by modders, and implemented more widely in the Alpha. It's something I have been working on, actually, and I plan to release a mod soon which does very little, except use mixins to rearrange template files. The intent is to show modders how easy it can be to mod using this new arrangement.

  20. 30 minutes ago, Stan` said:

    Do note that techs and auras are in JSON files and in another folder :) @Freagarach is trying to get rid of that IIRC :P

    Also custom stats on the host are not an option due to the fact that all the players must have them.


    Regardless of which directory it's in, XML, YAML, JSON, Dahl, perhaps with some restrictions, can all be safely loaded.

    For a counterpoint against me see these:

    They are called XXE(XML External Entities), and they are used for user input on the web frequently. They are a security risk, but one that can be controlled. Dahl is a configuration language that has been designed specifically with shareable and secure configuration in mind. But it would require quite a few changes.

  21. On 22/05/2022 at 9:59 AM, Sevda said:

    An idea: make unit stats adjustable during game setup, and all players use the stats stored on the host's computer. This resolves all of the balancing issues on the forum, no need to trouble the developers and players can decide the stats of units for balance. There will be no more balancing conundrum. 

    This is equivalent to my suggestion about only allowing the distribution of the template files. Filter out the zip for anything but properly formatted XML.

  22. 2 minutes ago, Stan` said:

    XML files are precached as XMB, and they need to come in a mod preferably in a zip for bandwith. You cannot add new files while the game is running too, only edit existing ones. Exception being maps when generated in atlas, because we force the reloading. You also need to restart the game to load a mod, and you need a mod.json

    Sorry to keep badgering about this. I'm not telling you that you should do anything, but all those things seem to have workarounds. Json, HTML, Dhall, Xml, yml all have very similar architectures and can be translatable into each other pretty easily, in some cases with loss of information or type data, but that data can be stored in other variables anyway(like an extra attribute stating a value should be interpreted as a number/integer etc). I'll leave it at this because I don't want to waste your time. But I think it's worth considering due to the fact I think it could be a way to distract the "balancing bros" from the dev team and delegate some responsibility.

  • Create New...