real_tabasco_sauce

yeah, my point was it would be nice if they could be better used to bide precious time to gather a defensive response. Ideally, the defender can benefit from the time the attacker wasted by pathing around or having to take down the walls (ie more time for a technology to complete researching before starting to fight). I agree, they should also be a significant advantage for a defending army, but I think this should come from adding another row to turret space, rather than giving wall turrets arrows again.

This is true, but it would be nice if walls could be more useful for quick defenses, rather than exclusively for turtling (i guess palisades are used just to limit the movement of cavalry around one's base, but this is done long in advance). I think build times should be reduced for both palisades and walls. For instance, you have just scouted a large group of infantry moving to your town from rather far away. In this case, one should be able to at least put up some palisades in anticipation.

Interesting. fn didnt make a difference for me. Apparently the default is just shift, which works fine. Not sure why it was shift+backspace for me as I don't remember changing it. I probably should have realized its a modifier of another command (delete). So it makes sense that shift+delete and delete can not be used together here.

https://trac.wildfiregames.com/ticket/6703#ticket first ticket from me. I guess this is low priority, but things like this do affect the user experience.

It appears "A26" in the video is actually the development version of a27 with using openGL (according to @leopard's comment). So I would think differences between the second and third test can be attributed to the Vulkan backend and/or slight differences in the testing conditions.

Great video @leopard!

At the start, you probably don't need 5 houses. This is wood you don't need to spend yet. First get units for gathering food and wood, then make houses one by one as needed. if you can put the farmstead near berries, these are gathered much faster than farming.

@TerryF first, try "booming" with only women and soldiers gathering food and wood only. Any new units you train should also go on food and wood. The main thing is to gather the resources you need (food and wood only for the first 10 or so minutes), and immediately spend those resources to get more units gathering. Get upgrades or additional barracks if you have excess wood. If you find that you have 1000 or 2000 food or wood, it probably means you are not spending it appropriately. You should avoid having to "save up" resources for something. Don't move to get stone or metal until you need absolutely need it. You can practice by yourself without any AI once or twice, and if you can manage to get to 200 population by 15:00 minutes of game time, this is a great start.

perhaps a good way to control would be to just watch a 4v4 replay using GL and then using vulkan. Not sure if replays would be compatible tho.

I wonder if a 0ad youtuber could try posting a short 1 to 2 minute comparison. I am very curious about the potential benefits, but I will need to wait for a mac compatible release candidate. It seems some players report significant performance improvements, and some report none at all. it seems a lot of potential 0ad players are turned away from 0ad by performance issues, so perhaps this could be a popular video. @ValihrAnt @leopard @seeh @Darkcity

Ah yes, I remember this patch. In theory, the best solution would be to allow buildings to be considered visible with a smaller portion of their area in vision range. However, the most practical solution would be to increase vision range a little and decrease range a little as well.

I have had this happen too, what are the scenarios where siege can shoot farther than its vision range? (100 meters range vs 110 meters vision range) Perhaps it has to do with whether or not a large building is considered fully in view? I would think even seeing the corner of a fortress should allow the status of the building to be unveiled. Since large buildings like forts are a lot larger than 10 meters on one side, I think it would not be ideal to just increase vision range to like 140.

This is also true, they seem very bland. My main issue with it is that they are so forced as a gameplay mechanic. The developers seem to be unnecessarily messing with the classic conquest formula.

@BreakfastBurrito_007 give this a try, might be great on ur pc.

People use walls and defenses much more in team games than in 1v1s. A very common strategy especially with Iberians is for the edge player to turtle up and take the 2v1 while the player’s pocket helps the other side or goes for cav. While it is largely dependent on circumstances, this level of team play is great. the pace of the game is good, age of empires games take 30 minutes to an hour even with 1v1s. Being able to quickly play a game is a great feature. I think the biggest reason players don’t use walls is how long it takes to build them, not really the cost. You can almost never build them in time for the attack they are supposed to delay.

Nice work @vladislavbelov, thank you! Will MacOS support be ready in time for the first release candidate? Or will this take longer?

@wowgetoffyourcellphone how about this for a ramming ship implementation: Either make ram damage a function (maybe sigmoidal) of speed, or require a particular speed the boat should be going for the ram attack to be successful. In either case, the ram "charge up" is the ship's acceleration, which I think is a neat approach since we already have it in the game.

I'm just thinking a core structure to ship classes based on size would be helpful

Yes, reducing their size would be great, and I think slowing their top speed and reducing vision could allow for more strategy and could make waterways seem larger.

I'd say you put it right, it dilutes the concept. I think the player should instead use some ranged boats for sheltering melee boats from pursuing vessels. The system we are devising here should work well with a combination of ships.

I like what we have going here: I'd say a couple things: first, I think there should't be a building AI arrow count. If a ship has an attack that is player controlled, I don't see the point of adding a buildingAI arrow count. It would be best to keep that part simple. also, I am not sure of the garrison effects. I would prefer that the ships are fully functional "out of the box" and that garrisoning should be a transport concern, but I am open minded to trying these effects out. I think these classes you bring up could fit into parent classes based on ship size (light,medium,heavy) with the following characteristics: light: less health, more speed, acceleration medium: medium health, speed, acceleration heavy: more health, less speed, less acceleration scout and light warships could belong to light; ramming ships, boarding ships, and medium warships belong to medium; and siege ships belong to heavy. Each ship would have its own abilities while still belonging to a parent class. This way, I could go ahead and make the core light, medium, and heavy classes playable in the community mod for brainstorming while art and gameplay mechanic developments allow for the specialized ships to be introduced.

yeah overall slower gameplay too

I would be happy with this to be honest. Then the carthage team bonus could be changed. Maybe this would be something to experiment with in the community mod as well.

Well, yeah I agree on principle, but they are technically related as they are all in the community mod and were highly supported. IMO better to increase melee damage than decrease ranged damage. But I guess they have similar outcomes.

How could you say that? That makes no sense. Stop with the negativity at least until you see the gitlab branch.