Micfild

I agree. I really like the concept and think it would be a great addition to the game, so i'm glad people are trying to implement it. Of course, as with all new mechanics, it will take a while to tweak the values to get it just right. Yeah, i suggested walkspeed/2 to be a little conservative, but to be quite honest, i have no idea what the ideal value would be. Any suggestion would be just mere guessing. One intereting thing i found is that we can donwload the individual files from the diff and build a mod with it. Unfortunaly i don't know of any way to donwload the entire file structure other than manualy downloading each individual file (which can be quite a bit of work since this diff has a lot of files in it), but it may prove to be a way we can test and play with it without needing the SVN.

Hi @Grapjas. I'm very curious about your mod and some of the mechanics it implements (like charging and ammo), since i'll only be able to play it at the weekend i went to check on some of the templates just for fun. I found out that the template_unit_infantry archer seems to have the sword stats of it's horse counterpart, instead of the stats of the sword infantry (i.e. it has range 6 and 6.5 hack damage). This looks like a minor typo to me, so i decided to report here. Can't wait to test this mod, seems like fun!

They don't stop for such small angles. The current <InstantTurnAngle> for units in general (not ships or siege) seem to be 1,5 (i think radians) so about 86 degrees. Which means that any angle below that they should behave the same as A25 (if i'm getting this right).

Hi! I was reading the diff and i have a question and a few observations. Question: What is the main goal of introducing acceleration? (is it to bring unit movement closer to reality or to smooth out movement in sharp angles or something else?) Observations: They way acceleration seems to work in the code is: A variable in defined in the templates called <InstantTurnAngle>. For any turn angles smaller than this variable, movement is the same as in A25. For values bigger than this angle (sharp angles), the unit is completely stopped (speed = 0) and then accelerates towards the new direction (while turning). It seems that this because of this sudden stop (which can happend quite a lot in the battlefield) movement seems jank and slow. So, in order to balance out the mechanic it seems that the variables at our disposal are: WalkSpeed RunSpeed InstantTurnAngle Acceleration And this Speed = 0 when The angle is bigger than InstantTurnAngle. ================================================ I don't have the SVN, so i can't test this out myself, but maybe that speed = 0 thing is the culprit for the current behaviour and setting it to something like Speed = WalkSpeed/2 might be a good compromise. Again can't be sure.

Sry, i think i didn't express myself correctly. What i thought was, since the minimap has to be updated regularly to represent the changes that are occuring in the map (new units, exhausted resources, etc) it seems to be harder to introduce icons in it. What i was thinking was, instead of expanding the existing minimap, we could take a picture of that moment and display it, enlarged and with icons. We wouldn't be actually enlarging the minimap itself, so it shouldn't change any of the existing code. The "enlarged" version wouldn't update itself. It's like this: Press Button to enlarge --> save state of the minimap --> enlarge the saved state --> replace dots with icons Press Button to exit "enlarge" --> discard the saved state. Again, i don't know how feasible this is, but i thought that by separating the two it would make it harder to break any existing code.

Yeah, i've been thinking about that too. If it becomes too much of a hassle to put icons in the minimap, we could have an enlarged version that could be access thorugh some key (like Tab) and that would be like a snapshot of the minimap, (without units but with icons for resourses and CC. Similar to the Tab key in Age of Mythology. In the regular Minimap these are just dots, but when you expand the minimap they become icons. I don't know. I just thought it might be easier to implement than changing the minimap itself, given some of the posts i've read.

I like this idea a lot.

This reminds me of a map called Anatolia, in Age of Mythology. A fine addition to the game. I mean, the water could mean rivers or lakes (still mainland themed). It's just that water is not the main feature of the map and can be ignored. It does allow Athens to build marines though.

Maybe. I agree that infantry battalions would be slow and therefore not very good at pursuing the enemy. But if we consider battalions to be stronger (in some way) to just a bunch of disorganized units, then we can use those battalions to secure specific locations or areas of interest in the map (either resource rich areas or choke points). Also, a battalion of horses should still be pretty fast regardless.

Not really, if they put pikemen and archers in the same formation, you'll end up attacking the pikemen anyway.

Hi everyone! Usually create a post to propose changes or argue about some of the games mechanics. This time i'm just really curious so no proposed changes or arguments, i just wanted to ask: Why do traders have an 80 metal cost? Is it for balancing reasons? Do metal represents the money traders use? Or something else? Why are unit models updated on promotion instead of armory upgrades? These are just some of the questions i have right now. I might have some more in the future, so that why i put a fairly broad title on this post. Thanks.

What about making the green progress bar blink, or turning it red or both. It's not an icon, but it might convey the message just as well.

Of all the proposed changes, i'm still testing metal distribution, crush damage and palisades, since i'm still not satisfied with the changes i made. As for the population costs, they seem to be fine in a game of 300 max pop, so i'm attaching a mod with just this change in case anyone wants to try. Population_mod.zip

Thank you very much @Freagarach, @bb_ and @Stan`! All three solutions (changing the cost.js schema from integer to decimal, using "add" instead of "mul" and using "mul_round") worked independently. Of these 3 "mul_round" seemed to be better, since i don't need to mess around with the schemas and it's easier to scale than "add".

It's the same for all of them. Before posting, i tried to revert the changes i made to palisade_long and it went after palisade_medium (it seems to be going in order). But if it helps, here is palisade_medium. palisades_medium.xml

Hello! I've been having some trouble while trying to mod the resource cost of palisades. To make modding easier, i went to the base .xml file for palisades and setup a base wood cost and building time. Then, on the many pieces that inherit that .xml i changed their cost to a multiple of the base value using (op="mul">). But when i run the game, it give me an error (interestinglog.html), so i was wondering if it is not possible to use that operation in regard to resource costs or if i'm doing something wrong? (i'll attach both some sample .xmls if you want to check). Thanks. palisades_long.xml template_structure_defensive_palisade.xml

I really like this idea. It incentivizes clever building placement. Granaries could give bonuses to farm gather rates, while CC's wouldn't, making you chose between safety or economic bonus. CC's could give some sort of bonus to markets (most likely a trade bonus, but could also be on barter prices). Just spitballing here, but i really do like this concept.

Fair, but just because they don't have to, doesn't mean they can't get closer to reality, specially if it imposes less restrictions on unit diversity. If that is the case, then nothing wrong with making the legionnaire have a mixed damage type (hack and pierce) like the spearman has. I not only adds historical accuracy but also adds diversity. Hmm, it might make the game a bit more complex and add a new challenge to coding but why not have then a 2 pronged approach. Units would have a damage type (hack, pierce, crush or mixed) based on the weapon capabilities, and it could also have a damage source (spear, arrow, sword, etc). This way, attack modifiers would be linked to the source (weapon), not the damage type. I personally prefer the 3 damage type solution currently in use. I think it's more easy to understand and work with.

I do agreed, which is why i also suggested a price increase from 14 --> 30 wood. Stone walls cost 48 stone and are quite sturdy in comparison. Granted, stone is harder to come by than wood, so maybe 30 wood is still too cheap.

I put champion cav at 3 pop for 2 reasons. One is that I put regular cav at 2 pop, and since champions are much more stronger than regular cav (both in damage and armor) it made sense that it's pop cost (i.e. maintenance cost) would also be higher. The second one is to reduce the availability of champion cavalry overall., seeing that they are just as fast as regular cavalry (meaning they can take and leave fights very easily), but have a lot more HP, Armor and Capture attack (increasing their survival and threat power). If 3 is too much though, what about 2.5? Why? Are they that good? I thought they just melted to sword units (specially sword cav).

Fair enough. Although, just to clarify, it's not that you're building 1.5 humans, but that you're building 1 human that has a "maintenance" cost of 1.5 (it consumes more resources). But as you said, the term "population" isn't the best to describe this value.

Hello everyone! I've been reading a few forum threads recently, discussing a myriad of issues and balancing suggestions for 0AD, that is, OP cav swordsman, OP mercs, Metal abundance, Elephants being very good at taking down walls, to name a few. To that point, i would like to make 4 small suggestions in an attempt to deal with those problems. I'm aware that some of these suggestion might have flaws, but even if they just help inspire people to come with other solutions, i'm happy. I'll divide this post in 2 parts. The first one will only contain my suggestions, while the second one will contain my reasoning. Have fun! ===================================//================================= PART 1: SUGGESTIONS Population Cost: Taking women as a baseline 1 pop cost: Women and Healers: -> 1 pop Citizen-Soldiers and Mercenary infantry: 1.5 pop Champion infantry: 2 pop Citizen-Soldier Cavalry -> 2 pop Mercenary Cavalry -> 2 pop Champion Cavalry -> 3 pop Boltshooters -> 2pop Catapults and Rams -> 3pop Siege Elephants -> 5 pop Metal Distribuition: Maintain number of Metal mines, but reduce the Resource Amount from 5000 --> 2500-3000. Crush Damage: - Decrease crush armor on organic units: From 15 --> around 5 and add crush armor increase to both Armor and Shield Upgrades (like 0.5 increase instead of 1, so the neither will be crush preferential) Exemple: Hack Armor 1: -> +1 Hack armor +0.5 Crush Armor Pierce Armor 1: -> +1 Pierce armor + 0.5 Crush Armor - Increase Crush armor of some buildings (those that have high Hack armor): From 3 -->15 (79% damage reduction) - Give Siege units (Rams and Catapults) a bonus vs Buildings to offset the new armor values. Palisade Walls: Increase Hack Resistance: 5-->15 (79% damage reduction) Increase Wood Cost: 14 --> 30 (to compensate for the higher resistance) PART 2: REASONING Population Cost: The main idea is: the stronger a unit is, the higher it's maintenance cost (armor gets rusty, swords get blunt, spears can break, etc). The better the equipment, the higher the maintence. This way, soldiers and mercenary units have a higher maintenance cost than the women unit (who are just gatherers) and that is reflected in a higher pop cost. Same for horses, champions, siege units and Elephants. From a balance standpoint this should also remove a bit of power from cavalry rushes without removing it as an option, (since the player will have to build more houses in order afford the same amount of units he did previously). Metal Distribution: This is meant to force players to expand more in search of metal, since it's a very important reasource for late game units. It will also reduce a bit of the abundance of metal without reducing the number of metal mines, giving more expansion options. Might even encourage people to start trade routes earlier. Crush Damage: I haven't seen anyone complaining about Crush damage specificaly, but i think there is room for improvement. Currently crush is treated as "anti-building" Type of attack. This way buildings have low crush armor, while humans have high crush armor. The problem with this approach is that it limits what you can do with crush. In my opinion, there is no real reason why humans would be so resistant to crush damage in the first place. Clubs, slings, maces, can crush bones, burst organs, crack skulls and so on, even with armor (if you hit'em enough times). As for buildings, again, there is no real reason why a building would be weak to maces, slings or clubs. So it having low crush damage makes little sense to me. Buildings are indeed weak to siege weapons (catapuls and rams) and therefore those units should have a damage bonus vs buldings, instead of buildings having low crush armor. This ways we can make units use crush damage more liberaly without fear of breaking the game. This also helps against Elephants being able to take down stone walls and forts with ease. Elephants are strong, but they are not siege weapons. They can stomp units (crush), skeewer them with their tusks (pierce) or whack them with their trunk(crush), but they have limited usufulness against stone walls. Palisade Walls: Palisade walls are defensive structures, made out of sturdy wood and are hard to take down, specially with swords (chances are they will blunt before the wall is taken down). So for the sake of realism, i'm suggesting a significant increase in the Hack resistance of wooden walls. In order do make it difficult to spam them in the early game, an increase in their price can help with that. If there is a need to make them more fragile, my sugestion is to lower the hit point of the wall instead, or slightly decrease the Hack resistance, but not by much. ==============================///==================================== Well, those are my suggestions. What do you think?

Hello! I would like to start a discussion about Gathering units, namely: women and citizen soldiers. Proposition: Give both citizen soldiers and women the same gather rates. Argument: Currently women are good at gathering food and wood (to some extent), while Citizen soldiers are better at gathering wood, stone and metal. I think the leading argument for this is a historical one, where women didn't perform physically demanding tasks in most ancient societies (though my knowledge is very limited in regard to this). That being said, the game still allows women to gather wood, metal and stone, but at a lower rate than citizen soldiers. This was probably done as a compromise between historical accuracy and gameplay balancing. i would like to propose a further compromise in favor of balance and give them both the same gather rates for all resources. Here is my point. Currently women have many drawbacks. They are frail (low HP, damage and no armor), can only be built from the civic center (unless you are willing to spend a lot of resources early game to research Fertility Rites) and are only good at gathering food and, sometimes, wood. Their advantages are their low cost and fast build time. Citizen soldiers, on the other hand, are more sturdy, have better gather rates for wood, metal and stone, and can be built from a barracks. Their drawbacks are their wood cost and slightly longer build time. From what i have seen, unless you are performing some sort of rush, as soon as you can maintain a steady production of citizen soldiers, you can basically halt women production completely. That is to say that, citizen soldiers are way better gatherers than women, which end up being relegated as pure farmers. Its thinking this way that i thought it would be a reasonable idea to equalize gather rates, thus making this choice between gatherers a bit more difficult to make. Women would favor a more economic approach at the cost of early vulnerability, while citizen soldiers would be a little bit weaker on the eco (in comparison to women) but would be less susceptible to harassment. i would like to hear your opinion on the subject and if this small concession would be acceptable, even if its less historically accurate.

@maroder @wowgetoffyourcellphone Thank for the link.

@Langbart Sent me a message with a solution to the Unit Cost Card not showing decimal values. Posting it here since it's relevant. In gui/common/tooltip.js In line 708, remove the Math.floor, leaving just the rest of the equation and it's done.