real_tabasco_sauce

@king reza the great I have no idea if its the problem, but gpu skinning is in settings. Its the third option from the top in graphics (advanced).

Continuing this in a more appropriate topic. I get that placing farms in deserts is unrealistic. However, introducing a soil quality (and water availability, which I have seen suggested) system based on terrain simply doesn't fit with the abstraction level of the game. In multiplayer, it would probably just be annoying to worry about whether or not you can expect the normal amount of food from a farm. However, rather than penalizing farm placement depending on the terrain (desert, snowy, mountainous) for all maps, it could be made "opt-in": it could be set it up as a neutral feature of certain skirmish maps for which it is the focus of the map. I.e Add two "well" structures in a valley that cannot be destroyed, but only captured. These provide a 30% farming bonus in a 50 meter radius. Players descend from opposing mountain ranges to take control of the wells.

@Obskiuras Currently, it looks very similar to the siege workshop, and I think its a bit too large. The A-frame style is good, so it could be reduced to one roofed structure with stalls, wagons etc around it. This was my idea: @wowgetoffyourcellphone came up with this mock-up: Experiment with some if you have time, im sure there's plenty of approaches that would look nice.

I like the OG honor bound too:

For me, it took a double click on my own game in the lobby.

@Ginnungagap @BreakfastBurrito_007 @guerringuerrin @chrstgtr @Feldfeld @ValihrAnt @Acero @SaidRdz @Player of 0AD @Atrik and others. 18:00 UTC Sunday we will aim do do at least 1 4v4 test game. Lets see how the performance upgrades work out!

@Ginnungagap Does 18:00 UTC still work for you for the Sunday pro TG using the release candidate?

I think it could be done in a mod. However, after seeing how the com mod split the community in a26, I think a different approach should be taken. If bugs are fixed in the community mod, then it becomes the better version of the game to play, leading to pressure for each addition to be a guaranteed improvement and decreasing the experimental potential of the community mod. I'll lay out my proposition for the community mod in that discussion. My understanding is that its too late to fix stuff like this for a27, but it absolutely can be fixed for release 28.

@Gurken Khan those are commas.

How is it effed? I don't see these periods in your screenshot. Look closer? Or maybe highlight them for us? I don't remember the description for Boudica being changed in this alpha (edit: 3 years ago for hero garrison, 5 years ago for boudica aura). I think Structure might be capitalized because classes typically get capitalized in descriptions.

Infantry are any foot soldiers. The cavalry are reskinned to auxiliary cavalry, which have no different stats compared to regular cav. Its not really necessary IMO to have the auxiliary cavs in the structure tree, but conscript spearmen and the legionaries should be. However, this does result in a change in the number of units that appear in the GUI which is unsatisfactory to some.

@Ginnungagap we should do the Sunday games on the RC2: https://releases.wildfiregames.com/rc/

Im now less worried about regular champ cav and more worried about the variants like the cataphract and chariots. I tested the longswords and I don't think they will be OP.

moving the discussion of champ cav back here, @Atrik @chrstgtr @Feldfeld I did some testing to compare the case where standard champ spear cav are outnumbered 2 to 1 by regular CS spearmen (40 spears and 20 champ cav). Both were not upgraded and unaffected by any team or civ bonuses. The -1 hack armor change in a27 makes for a more sizeable difference than I expected, with an average of 12 spearmen surviving the battle compared to an average of 8.3 champ spearcav surviving the battle in a26+com mod. It seems the decreased hack armor allows the melee rank ups to compound faster, which effectively punishes the champ cav player the longer they stay in a bad fight.

They were not buffed significantly more than other melee units. I agree melee champ cav are out of balance, but is there widespread agreement that sword cavalry and spear cavalry are too? I can't say with any certainty that this is the case. That's why I think further balance changes should be more targeted than returning the counter to 3x. Spearmen kill melee champcav about 51% faster than in a26, but champ cav also do about 50% more damage overall. This leads to somewhat similar balance, except that in a26 melee champcav are OP because they are a nearly invincible damage sponge, while in the com mod they are OP because they are still pretty tanky but deal legitimate damage. With the hack armor change in a27 rc, spearmen kill champcav about 60% faster than they do in a26, which is 5.8% faster than in a26 + com mod. So we will see if the ~6% buff for spears is enough (which is probably wont be), and then we take the next step.

Well there was a com mod version where we had 3x counter spearmen (after melee rebalance), and while it was indeed pretty effective versus champcav, they were a little too good vs the typical swordcav or spearcav rush. I had complaints that just 1 or 2 spearmen nullified a melee cav rush even when substantially outnumbered. So, I am keen to see how the -1 hack armor change plays out and then nerf HP to 280 if necessary. Changing the counter back to 3 affects too many other units, especially when most ppl agree its just melee champcav that are really the problem.

Ok, we need to schedule a time window on Sunday where plenty of people can test. We really should do a full 4v4 so we can measure the impact of the extensive performance enhancements. My window begins at 6PM or 18:00 UTC until 2AM UTC the following day. I would just schedule other stuff around when others can join up. @Ginnungagap @MarcusAureliu#s Perhaps we can do a "Sunday PRO" TG on the a27 RC? Some gameplay items to keep an eye out for: Capture balance: units defend capture attacks proportional to their capture attack, so women do not defend buildings from capture. cavalry capture attack is decreased, yet balance may still be problematic. Champion cavalry nerf is enough? Champion variant balance: cataphract, chariot, longsword if you use windows and don't want to uninstall a26, you can follow this guide:

Something like "Hack-dealing units are particularly good against siege, garrison some to give approaching rams a surprise!" This would maybe prevent another few "battering rams are OP" posts.

We are back! It's strange to revisit this topic with the same task at hand. I'll be available 8:00 PM UTC this Saturday for some testing games. I might switch back and forth between a26 and the RC to get more players involved. link to the recent RCs: https://releases.wildfiregames.com/rc/

@Itms what commit are these RCs at on the release-a27 branch?

I've thought about it before. Its an idea with a lot of grey area. Should they block vision too? How would the implementation work to try to shoot over the walls? I'm sure it could work, but it would take a lot of figuring out, and I'm not sure if it fits with the abstraction level of the game. @Grapjas this could be something interesting to try out with your mod.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-08409-6 potential for a civ/team bonus

I am most concerned about random maps. Skirmishes and scenarios are more responsible for being "pretty" imo, so if those should be reduced to ~40 maps of the upmost quality, I would be fine with it. With random maps, gameplay comes before beauty, so I'd hate to see good maps get junked because they look bad. You will notice with my very first post taking aim at river archipelago, I made a fan of this map upset. Personally, I think its better to keep these seldom-used random maps in the game unless they are truly redundant like Kerala. Well they already are in the options. With the quick-play mode, I meant to instead put a selection of the best maps into the limelight for new users to quickly get a taste of cool looking maps. Well, I'd argue not every random map needs an update. While I can only try to make maps pretty, I can definitely make them more enjoyable and balanced.

To be honest, its really not that many. The situation could be greatly improved without removal with: better organizing map categories like I tried to do ("Default" category problem), and folding 2,4,6, and 8 player versions of skirmish maps into one map. I think the redundant maps could be removed entirely, and maybe some of the niche maps like snowflake sea rocks could be a good fit for community maps. Also, we haven't touched on what is a "quality" map. I think for random maps, playability is the most important aspect, with looks being secondary. However, for skirmish maps, appearance is more important than it is in random maps. While some random maps do not look pretty, they are quite fun. I think for this reason and others, it would be just fine to have the highest quality maps be front and center to the user, like through quick play, but keep all the maps accessible in game setup and the map browser. So my issue isn't with organizing and cleaning up maps, its just with the "remove first" approach.

Right, but removing a ton of stuff, even just temporarily, is not a great approach to that. We have new civs, UI improvements, options, and graphics that all contribute to quality. I could improve at least 10 random maps by a28, probably more. If you do the same for skirmish maps, we are already close to "done". My point is it shouldn't be a big project or overhaul, but instead a continued effort to do better upkeep for maps.