real_tabasco_sauce

ok i got it. It was a duplicate argument in the map script.

Im currently working on reviving @badosu's maps for a26 and a27 function getFoodAmount(multiplier = 1, biomeConfig) { let initialFoodAmount = Math.floor(1 * biomeConfig.initialFood()); dWarn("Mutiplier:"+multiplier+" biomeConfig.initialFood():"+biomeConfig.initialFood()+" resulting initialfoodamount:"+initialFoodAmount); if (biomeConfig['evenInitialFood']) { if (initialFoodAmount % 2 == 1) initialFoodAmount++; } Have we done an update on the js version since a23? multiplier = 1 in the function declaration ends up being: <p class="warning">WARNING: Mutiplier:[object Object] Thus giving NaN to initialFoodAmount, unless I replace multiplier with 1 in the line defining this variable. Not sure why defining multiplier in the declaration doesn't work. Would it be the same do do it within the function with the following? multiplier = 1;

In the options, if you click off 'battalion style formations' at the bottom under session, this shouldn't happen. Also, if you right click on the 'no formation' formation, that will be the new default.

yeah this is a pretty objective situation.

Well the rams are designed to be used later in the game when players often have full population. In that case, you would have a lot of melee units to work with, as well as some melee damage upgrades. With some practice in your economy and some familiarity with the units that can beat rams, I am sure you will be able to put a stop to them!

women are also good vs rams because they do a little hack damage.

What are the other functions of the autociv mod? I thought it only had to do with selecting civs before the game starts lol... The hotkeys are great. Also, you can set the limit on the number of dead bodies so that the game runs a little faster. I notice it on my computer.

Why do people keep saying I assume everything I am talking about? Of course I have played with the mod. It feels like I am sitting 'above' the game and not actually controlling the structures. I was playing an entirely different game. Right, but this is unintended and relatively harmless. And it is also not due to autociv, as far as I understand. There is a separate discussion for it. I do think it should be patched so that directing units while paused is no longer possible. So, this is not a good comparison.

@wowgetoffyourcellphone Does this sound reasonable? I think it is just the onager part that you and @Genava55 are unhappy with, so if a future imperial rome civ uses these onagers, it would be simple to move them to the new civ.

The GUI part is for sure. And I am sure @Atrik's intentions were not to create cheats. But the intention does not matter here, since the end product includes cheats. There is lots of good game development going on, but this is not it. What this does is effectively remove a large part of the game. I wound not consider it a new feature. It doesn't enhance gameplay and it doesn't equalize parts since the players are already on a level playing field.

It's not so much the faster boom that wins games at the higher level. Its the fact that you need to give much, much less attention to your economy. I haven't seen you do this yet, but the best player I have seen using this mod will just do a full p2 cavalry attack with 100% attention to micro while their economy is growing on its own. RTS games have an important factor of multitasking. Where the player divides their attention is extremely important, and the ability to multitask is difficult and only improved by practice. The degree to which proGUI automates the eco loses part of this important aspect of the game. No, user experience is just the user's enjoyment of a product. And making things easier does not always make them better. I think players are just enjoying it because it is making it easier for them to win against people without the mod. I really doubt players would have fun if this was standard for everyone, since everyone could execute perfect booms and then balance would come down to civs and micro. The reason I say that is because with this optimization, you are removing part of the game. Sure its not a glamorous or particularly exciting part of the game, but it is an important one and one you have to learn. No I don't. Thats not very nice. Yeah I would say players that use the automatic features of the mod are cheating, but I also think its just an experiment that didn't really work out and that your efforts would be better put elsewhere.

ProGUI inherently degrades the gameplay experience because it removes part of the game from the user experience. The economy is managed 'above' 0ad so you don't actually play the economy part of the game other than build buildings. I am not saying you are here, but going forward, lets not confuse a skill gap and level playing field. In a 1v1, if both players take the same civ (and let computer specs be basically the same), it is a level playing field. If both have proGUI it is also a level playing field. If I go up against @ValihrAnt this is also a level playing field. If a player beats another because they are better at 0ad, this is not unfair. Automation to the degree of progui decreases the skill gap aka decreases the amount of learnable skills it takes to be better than someone else. Decreasing the skill gap generally makes for less enjoyable gameplay.

The 'child' template inherits the values from the 'parent' and may update that information and/or add new qualities. So template_unit_champion_infantry_spearman.xml has a cost defined but units/gaul/champion_fanatic.xml, which inherits the champion infantry spearman template has a section giving a new cost profile to the unit. So they don't stack, they are just the new values. Sounds like it worked. Another way to do this would be to add this to the <identity> section of hero_boudicca.xml: <Requirements> <Techs datatype="tokens">-phase_city</Techs> </Requirements> Since heroes inherit the requirement to be in phase city, the - sign means it is removed for boudicca. Then to train her from the CC, add a line to <Trainer> in structures/brit/civil_center: units/brit/hero_boudicca

And the version on gitlab has compatibility check disabled? That's pretty disingenuous since that allows players to use the mod when their opponents don't have it. I am not asking you to remove it from mod io, since players can get it elsewhere and the cat is already out of the bag so to speak. Also, it is ultimately your work, so its up to you. I do think this is a mistake of your doing and that if you go on to make a version for a27, it should be a GUI mod only (as advertised), not a cheat mod.

The goal, surely, is to maintain integrity in the tournament organized by @70H4NN2S, and for that matter in the 0ad multiplayer lobby. If players are openly cheating using a mod that is supported by the in game mod downloader, I think that's an issue. Don't bring up less available and less abused means of cheating as a way to excuse proGUI. Since there are so many other upsides to the proGUI mod, why don't you either remove the automated eco or disable it for multiplayer. Maybe another option would be to add a setting to allow a host with progui disable the automatic eco function for all players in that host. It seems like that would be quite difficult to set up tho. I would just suggest making the word official on what mods are permitted. I think the respectful players will oblige and anyone that doesn't will get called out eventually.

I am not in this tournament, but I suggested to @70H4NN2S to come up with a list of allowed mods for the tournament. proGUI should not be in this list as it gives the user abilities that are not possible in normal 0ad, aka cheats. I am fine with people using it in casual games, but i'm noticing the 'If you can't beat em, join em' trend, and its troubling. In addition to the unfair part, it is doing so much eco for the player which normally requires lots of attention because its an important part of the game. So it goes against a key principle of RTS games: multitasking.

Well the buildings have like 80% overlap. But thats not a major issue. Well, me too, which is why we'd make those sister civs not bland, duh. I just find it much better to simplify or rather synthesize down to just one civ. Which involves pulling from the more interesting units and structures and putting together a streamlined civ. I also would say adding an additional roman civ would make the other civs seem under-appreciated. Also, adding a whole civ outside of 0ad's timeframe seems like it could be a bit of an issue with the historians too. We don't need all the stuff from the imperial era, just enough to show the changes in the military going into imperial rome. However, if someone comes along down the line and makes an imperial rome civ for vanilla 0ad, all you would have to do is remove the onager from the existing romans, and make sure the imperial romans start with legionaries. So, whats the harm in my patch? Its not like we are forever fixed in making decisions like these.

@camelator I'm sorry they kicked you out for balance. Many TG hosts will be more inclusive than this one. I think some players get far ahead of themselves trying to set up a 'pro' TG. If you are persistent and improve, you will find spots more regularly. And you will also find nicer hosts That is one downside to the community mod. Because the player base is split, it is harder for players to find games. My hope is that it can become a CTE instead of just a fixed and balanced version of the base game.

agree totally. Well the greeks are split up by civilization, not by time. In general, I think one well-polished, sophisticated and fun civ is better than two poorly differentiated 'sister' civs that are individually more bland. I suppose that could work, but I still think this would be less enjoyable than to present it as an upgrade. Splitting the civ would mean both roman civs share a lot of units and structures, so it would be hard to defend them as being distinct. Since we know time flows in one direction, it makes a lot of sense for these later developments to be unlocked after growing a city, not before. In this case, just a few differences in the roster completely bring quite a difference in how the civ is played. I am sure players would like to be able to wait to make the decision than to be stuck with one version of rome when they would rather have picked the other. As an upgrade, the element of surprise is equal if not better than the pre-game customization option, since there is less time to react to the change in strategy. Of course, the opponent can scout and guess that the opponent might research the reforms based on the economy choices. The upgrade as I have designed it is supposed to unlock some powerful units at the cost of losing access to many CS units. This makes the economy susceptible to raids, and if the economy fails, it will be hard for rome to afford the legionaries to defend itself. If this was a standalone civ, you couldn't produce this gameplay dynamic. At least not in a streamlined way.

So what do you think about changing the name to something like 'imperial army' or 'imperial reforms', the idea being to introduce military changes that occurred as rome became an empire. I understand the idea of the 'marian reforms' is contested as @wowgetoffyourcellphone pointed out.

Oh so more like a volley than one machine projecting multiple lead chunks. in other words "Sulla killed many by means of catapults shooting twenty of the heaviest lead bullets at once," has a double meaning.

Perhaps the thing to do would be remove the attribution to Marius, and call it something else. 'Military Reforms', 'Imperial Reforms', 'Professional Army', 'Imperial Army'.

No, only one chapter. I don't say this, only that they were used once by a catapult, and that a two armed torsion catapult would be much less suited for this task, so it may have been a one arm catapult. The authors appear to entertain multiple possibilities, but explain that the lack of evidence renders the situation fairly inconclusive. Im not cherry picking information, this was something you did not share with us earlier, so I figured I should share it. It seems you are certain that onagers are a much later development and you refuse to entertain the possibility it could be anything but. I agree with @wowgetoffyourcellphone here. It is pretty cool in my eyes to research the marian reforms. The point of this upgrade is to let the player undergo the transformation of the roman army that occurred before 0 a.d.. Onagers are first mentioned about 150 years after, and may have been mentioned in 86 BC providing an area of effect role. Why not let Rome play out this evolution over time? The reforms also get rid of the roman citizen cavalry and extraordinarii which is also accurate coincidentally. These could have been first used anywhere between 53BC to 20AD, which is not too long after the marian reforms. This is why it doesn't make sense to separate the time periods. Republican and prinicpate rome are two timeperiods, but time is a continuum, so just let the civ evolve with an upgrade. It would be so sad to split the content between two civs, rather than let the one civ remain with depth, intriguing mechanics, and cool gameplay. There's not enough information to say for certain the onagers were earlier than 0 A. D. but there is enough for ~ 100AD, which I think is enough to add to the game, considering it is locked behind an upgrade that symbolizes later roman developments.

I think this, in combination with the ~100 A.D. mention of a 1 arm catapult on some ram-type machine, is enough to conclude that the roman civ's use of onagers is plausible. Apollodorous doesn't portray it as some new invention either. The idea of the marian reforms upgrade is that it brings the later rome character to the army in a streamlined way. For example, melee CS and the extraordinarii champions are traded for legionaries. I think it makes sense for the upgrade to allow the onagers in the same way since it is a later siege weapon.

The onager discussion begins on 690. Apparently a battle in 86 BC used many lead shot launched from catapults. Its hard to say what machine might have done that but it seems to me that a 1 arm onager would be most up to the task. I suppose this could have been done with torsion catapults too, but it would seem much more difficult and risky.