real_tabasco_sauce

speed is just the projectile speed. Units account for the direction of their target when attacking, but not any changes after that. So speed effectively controls how easily projectiles may be dodged. I think for a few units, projectile speed is too fast.

Wouldn't it be a good fix to only execute degarrison commands if there are units to degarrison? It seems sub-optimal to have a ton of commands that don't do anything.

Hey @AInur, A decent number of multiplayer players like to use the community mod. Basically it is a balance and gameplay experimentation mod that has been updated a few times since a26 released. I think most of the com mod players would say that balance is overall better than the base game. In the case of champ cav, they are still strong of course, but they are not almost invulnerable like they are in vanilla. If you would like to give it a try, go settings->mod selection -> download mods

This one is hardish to detect as a spectator. You can see that players with "quickstart", which is both in proGUI and a standalone quickstart mod, will often have all their units gathering or building by the 2 or 3 seconds, while the fastest players without this mod cannot do it so fast.

I think I see your complaint, @Genava55. You're worried that using the Cimbrian wars to set up the "Germans" civ closes the door to the later germans. I'm afraid that's true for the current version, but nothing is ever set completely in stone. I think it would be reasonable for some content to represent post cimbrian war germans, setting up what players would probably expect as "Germans" like you said earlier. I'm not sure what that would look like or how it would work, but I'd be fine with it conceptually. It just has to make gameplay sense. Could change a hero, wonder. for now though, I think we should solidify what we have already done so we can get it over the finish line.

@Atrik you are alone in thinking that it is not an advantage. Also, individual games are not evidence. In order to truly determine the advantage, some data should analyzed with and without the mod. Why even debate whether or not its an advantage. We want to move forward and find a solution.

I figure we should have a discussion so that players know what certain macros and automation mods look like. This way there is hopefully less superstition, and more awareness. I think it helps for hosts to know what to look for instead of relying on "hackusations". This is the progui autotrainer: 20241104-1713-04.6220386.mp4 Notice the end where the player gets housed, production and attempts to produce immediately cease. Basically well-distributed large batches of the highest size are produced as long as there is pop space. The unit composition is also very even. This shouldn't be confused with well timed batches, which are possible with one or two barracks, but not possible to do this consistently.

@Samulis any chance you could cook up a ram ship sound? I'm thinking like an oar stroke into a big crash, with a little debris falling loosely into water afterwards.

hmmm, perhaps. I like the white theme being present across the units, but maybe its ok for the _b units to just have wood and player color. I suppose it would also make the champ units and advanced units seem relatively cooler/more special.

I’ll add that the civ and battles with the Roman could make for a very cool campaign.

Well it’s not solely with them. There are Teutonic units and teutobod, ambronian and tigurnian units. But most are cimbrian. with the regular city building approach and the semi nomadic abilities unlocked with techs, we represent both the likely home the people left (as obscure as it is) as well as the migrations they took across Europe. so the design is not just about units but what the civ is capable of doing.

It’s never the right answer to say “if you are unhappy with other players having an advantage, get that advantage instead of complaining” the bottom line is host should 1) know what mods players are using 2) be allowed to ban the use of cheats without retribution or briefing, and 3) some tools in game setup would be great for helping identify mods, prohibiting unsigned mods, and/or only allowing a user-determined list of mods. @Stan` I like the idea of using a script in replay pallas, would it be done on upload to flag replays or something users can run if they like?

NoOvershoot.zip A mod for a27. You can apply this if you get the nightly build.

Ok, then maybe players will learn about something before armenius and the famous battle of teutoberg forest. Maybe their pre-conceived ideas on what the civ should look like will be challenged. I think that would be fine, no?

If you bring in a faction called ‘the Germans’, people expect to see ‘the Germans’. People are either going to be disappointed, or they're not going to care. I don't think many players know what "the germans" looked like in 100bc. Is "German alliance" or "Cimbrian Alliance" better? What is the alternative, what is the way forward? Suggestions?

Ok and????? I think we have a good idea now that fits 0ad and is cool. It brings interesting hypotheticals and conveys some of the unknowns in the civ description. Where are you going with this?

Certainly not the most prominent but one of the earliest. Sure the teutons were likely similar, but we have units from the teutons in the civ and a certain leader called "teutobod" as a hero. So i think "Germans" is appropriately nonspecific. @Genava55 What do you think the name should be? I haven't seen your proposition, only critiques. Maybe "Crimbrian Alliance"

Is this about the name? Germans vs Cimbri? Well "Gauls" is, from what I understand, quite a generic term as there were many gallic tribes. In this case, using "Cimbri" would be a little at odds with the other cimbri allies that are included in the civ. Its true that some of these allies are better described as gallic or celtic, but as we have seen from the ambiguity around the Cimbri themselves, they too could be described as celtic. But since these groups participated in the well-known cimbrian wars and were referred romans as germanii, I prefer Germans. Although lets not let this hold up development: the name should be simple to change if a little labor intensive. are we set on that face as the civ emblem? And using some geometry for the standard flag?

Hey, I just saw the button. It looks and works great! Thank you!

@guerringuerrin @Philip the Swaggerless @chrstgtr @roscany @ValihrAnt @BreakfastBurrito_007 @Dizaka @SaidRdz @ffm2 @Norse_Harold @PistolPetethoughts on more fish for these water maps?

Yep. As long as you were near that unit immediately after you first got attacked.

If players want that, they shouldn't force their vision of how the game should be played on other players that don't have the same advantage. I expect few to 'play underground' like you mention, maybe half of current users. But I concede that more options like I outlined above is better for everyone. Shoot, it could even be under a dedicated tab, called "mod allowance", "fairness", or something else.

A problem 0ad has faced for a long time is that of overshooting. Since the range of a unit's target is checked after attack completion, as long as the target was in range then, ANY attack afterwards will work. This is not so noticeable in many cases, but for slow attacking units in particular, enemy units can travel a long way in that time, leading to things like this: Untitled video - Made with Clipchamp (3).mp4 Also, this problem is very clear with siege units, which have a slow fire rate, and crossbow units. In @ValihrAnt's recent video, you can see that ram ships are annoyingly able to damage units that are far away, resulting in chaotic and unpredictable gameplay. What I propose to fix this is 2 additional range checks that occur during the unit's repeat time. https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/pulls/7178 This doesn't completely solve the problem, but it greatly reduces it to where it is basically unnoticeable for pikemen: 20241103-1845-03.6204650.mp4 The additional range checks do slightly impact performance, but its actually less than I expected: After the recent improvements to performance, I think we can "spend" some performance cost for nice things like this. Players, would you accept a small performance cost like this in order to get more responsive and intuitive gameplay? If not, I could limit this to slow-firing units which are the biggest offenders. However, I do think faster firing units stand to gain from this even if the problems are not as noticeable for these units.

It seems like the proposals are not mutually exclusive. We could have user mods visible under the player profile, and even in game setup, a button that requires users to use signed mods, and a similar button that activates a mod whitelist which could be determined by the user in settings. Between these options there would be good options for hosts to determine what mods are allowed or not including a user friendly and intuitive option, and an more customizable option.

stockfish was also pretty open about his use of cheats.