alre

lol I thought noone would implement that anymore, I was actually considering to propose on this forum a completely new alternative for how to make corrals work.

because that is the last thing that is taken into consideration, is also the thing being discussed before making the final decision.

wrong. 0AD design choices are all near sighted because there is no long term project, not because of general focus on balance. actually devs give fairly little attention to balancing.

2 stone per second is exaggerated. for athenians I think it makes more sense to have a metal related bonus, justified by the famous mines of Laurion. may be a low metal trickle, a metal mining bonus (boring), extra metal spawning next to cc, or some sort of coded bonus of any kind one may want to try to implement.

I tried to make a villager trading machine of my own design and it was hella complicate (but still less than many you can find online, not surprising that mine was kinda bugged).

it can lag a lot, depending on what you do, and it changes a lot too with updates.

getting better and better! maybe a bit out of style? respect to the logo iself I mean.

letswaveabook is weirdjockes' smurf!

in the pre-game page there is a little icon of a chat baloon, on the right under the map picture, that allows you to see the lobby without closing the game, from there you can see those stats. sometimes I host a 1v1, and a lot of noobs join, one after the other, and I have to explain to each of them that I don't want to play a boring unbalanced game, if one could set a filter like the one seeh suggested, I would use it.

well techically when you are under siege in 0 AD, you use arrows too. all fortification shoot arrows.

Latest patch of Mount and Blade: Bannerlord (still in early access beta) supports battles as large as 1000 vs 1000. If you don't know it, bannerlord is a heck of a RPG game, that lets you play as a war lord slowly enlarging his/her army and his/her power. While battles and sieges are gorgeus experiences, I would say there is not a strong enphasis on tactics, but there is already good support for mods, and some talk about a RTS rework of the game. I'm talking about this because bannerlord is not only a very interesting game itself, but it is very interesting, to me at least, that you can make battles that big with an engine that simulates them much more in depth than usual RTS games (complete computation of arrow trajectory, different armor for different parts of the body, weapon swings can miss or be blocked by obstacles like trees, soldiers can switch weapons and pick up ammo from the fallen, horse arches can only shoot at their left, and not their right, axes can break shields, npc can sometimes kick you or hit you with their shields...)

you are right, it is because they are slow, but that has little to do with the friction aura in fact. How friction work is this: units that are overlapping are slowed down, so that are left befind by the rest of the mob, and thus can stop overlapping. Instead, I'm convinced that the thing with livestock having a harder time overlapping is caused by the fact that a maximum value for unit pushing is hardcoded in the unit motion system, and that value is measured in meters per game turn, minimal pushing in pathfinder.xml also uses the same unit. Now of course, if a unit moves very fast, for hard that you can push it, you will only deviate its path so much, because of how many meters they cover in little time, but if a unit is very slow, pushing it will truly move it away from where it stands. I think maximum pushing should depend on unit speed. Also, in the engine there is still a form of "unit bumping", and you can tell sheeps and cattle bump on each other quite easily. That feature is coded at line 242 of the already linked file, but that control is less sensible to faster units, to the point that I don't believe it ever works on cavalry at all (it sometimes does on infantry, but only on extreme cases).

@Micfild computers don't simulate physics too seamlessly, in order to avoid units pass trough each other like gosts, you must have collision detection. Since A25 however, 0AD gave up collision detection in favour of unit pushing. How it would work in previous alphas is this: if some units is going to move in top of another, the engine stops it, and queues a new, equal, move order to it. As a result, units would stop for a brief moment, and then start moving again, this was described as "unit bumping on each other", all the bumps slowed down mobs nex to chockepoints or when manouvring, and all the move orders were heavy on the pathfinder. With unit pushing, units can actually be pushed forward when moving, by other units in the back, and go faster than they would when alone - the process is symmetrical, so the units on the back are slowed down, but by average, the mob goes at the same speed of a unit on its own, disregarding any chockepoint. The way parameters in pathfinder.xml affect pushing is a bit counterintuitive, and in fact, in my mod for reducing unit overlapping, I actually reduced pushing radius. You can find it here. also check Res Gestae mod, wich has another take still on reducing overlapping.

I was trying to rejoin talenters game.

definitely worth it.

done. logs.zip

yesterday I was hosting a game, when, not long before action would start, all players started to lose connection, and I read a strange error message that said that I couldn't connect to the host (I was hosting). the game said that I had lost connection to the server, and I also couldn't log to the lobby. Actually, I also lost internet connection for a while, which seems to be the obvious culprit. Anyway, today I was playing in a game @Talenters was hosting, when the same thing happened. Talenters however, did not lose internet connection and was still in the lobby. Noone could rejoin the game though, and my 0AD even crashed while trying. Why would the game say to the host that he lost connection to the server? the forum won't let me upload the html log files. crashlog.dmp crashlog.txt crashlog.dmp crashlog.txt crashlog.dmp crashlog.txt

I agree the lobby is indeed chaotic. we are come to the point that I feel there are more smurfs than new players. no wonder hosts only accept known players. By the way cav rushes were already powerful in A23 and we didn't have all these smurfs. rushes don't make smurfing anyway necessary, pretending to be worse than you are so you can boom more safely is simply not honest. and I still don't get why you created the smurf account with 8 wins straight. was that just to make a point or was that for fun too?

wherever there is communication and social relations, there will be conflict. everything the game allows can be considered fair by some players, and unfair by others, especially if playing against someone they know already. you do not solve the grand problem of human conflict. wouldn't be even greater if there wasn't any civ with one and only OP strategy that everyone picking that civ was obviously going for?

whith this example, @Reyhan, you showed perfectly why it's not fun to have nubs on your team, and why many hosts only accept players of their level. even teams means more fun. also, if this bullying is an effective strategy, than I don't think it can be blamed. it's a coordinated assault, and it makes a lot of sense in TGs. All in all, I'd say you are painting things a lot darker than they are, and many of these issues are simply caused by 0AD having a small playerbase, and it having a public lobby, with a public chat. there's good to it, and bad. of course it is true that smurf accounts should be limited somehow, and that TG should have a rating system, both these things have quite some consensus. (but TG rating should not consider in game scores though, this too has been discussed). I also think that if the game also had a quick matchup system for 1v1, this would make matters simpler, and be more inviting to many new players.

I heard that too. they call them laundries.

I think soft battalions are a kind of overlapping in function with control groups. what battalions do, however, control groups do better. Anyway, I don't think roman checkered battle line is recommendable in any game really, not even total war.

I agree attacking fields is stupid, bu do we want units to not try conquering by default?

nice. is it just for 1v1?

gameplay-wise, camels are actually the exact same as horses.