real_tabasco_sauce

some units or just their models might get designed and later removed from a civ due to balance concerns or historical accuracy reasons. However, it is nice to keep them since different mods may make use of them, and they may be used in new ways in the future. An example of this are the centurions for rome.

This is a configurable option actually. you can turn off "battalion style formations" in the options.

{ "value": "Identity/Tooltip", "replace": "Counters: 4.5× vs Cavalry."} { "value": "Identity/Tooltip", "replace": "Counters: 1.5× vs Cavalry" } Neither of the above work for elephants and pikemen respectively.

yeah thats what Ive got.

I think most players (if they have to choose) would choose better performance into the late game than slightly less input delay at the start.Now I admit that is a bit of a false dichotomy, so if you think it will work out to increase turn rate after all those awesome optimizations you have been working on, then I would be happy to test it out.

@wowgetoffyourcellphone https://gitlab.com/real_tabasco_sauce/0-a-d-community-mod-unit-specific-upgrades/-/compare/main...unit_upgrades?from_project_id=36954588&page=2&straight=false They are working, but I cannot seem to modify the tooltip to change the displayed counter. Its supposed to be "replace": "string" right?

if you get the mod "Autociv" there is a great implementation for building hotkeys.

https://code.wildfiregames.com/D1971 ^for attack ground

I just think that level of control of your units should not be automated. I agree that whoever has the faster clicks should not always win a fight and that sniping is not a desirable meta, as @BreakfastBurrito_007 pointed out, but can we let the-fine tuned control of units remain a learnable skill? there is fun in trying to find the lowest HP cav that rushed your early eco and being able to kill it as they retreat. Also there is fun in sniping if you know it will be effective because you have learned when it is effective. Adding a stance to do automatic sniping will add a level of automation that doesn't fit with the behavior of other stances, or any other configurable behavior in the game. Also, when the sniping meta is fixed, automatic sniping will probably just mislead new players into thinking ranged targets should be prioritized, when in reality it depends on many more factors. perhaps you would take interest in attack ground? I would find this to be a much more generally applicable attack mode. Its got a few nuances in terms of implementation, like how to smoothly choose the radius while selecting the area to attack, and whether or not the attack should be one volley or endless attacks.

Yes they are still reproducible, they only appear for fewer frames. The only thing that stops all the tears is starting a screen recording.

I say we should address this at the without thought item: bring balance to melee vs ranged engagements -> sniping becomes one of many options for micro AND only certain fights may be won by sniping.

Unit spec upgrades: eles researched from the ele stable (if some civ ever has ele mercs, they would just be researched from that building) Howdah Elephants (melee and ranged) +1 pierce armor Battlefield intimidation Elephants (melee and ranged) gain 1.5x counter to cavalry. These two upgrades should work out pretty well to accomodate both melee and ranged eles. Also they will help elephants endure into the late game against cavalry and ranged cavalry in particular. The other two can be 'Tusk spikes', a unique upgrade bolstering the splash attack at the expense of further reducing crush damage, while the remaining can be a building upgrade for the ele stables for healing eles inside.

@wowgetoffyourcellphone are those already in the game files or no?

Excellent. I would be more than happy to think of some techs for these icons. In fact I could add eles to the roster for unit specific upgrades, use two of these, probably the 2nd and 3rd there, and then the 1st and 4th could be unique techs for a certain civ or group of civs.

you said it. Basically, just about everyone to my knowledge is happy with the art style and is very appreciative of the hardworking artists. There is no need to redesign the scales of the game to make 1 person happy, and even if there were no downsides (there are many), it would still not be worth the effort. As @Stan` said lots of work is going into more immediate concerns such as performance.

I assume you would love to select units no larger than 4 pixels across, so that the scale is 'realistic.' Better yet, lets make ships even larger. In addition, we can let all units die in two hits so things are realistic. We can make the map so large it takes actual hours to traverse, which is nice and realistic. Even better, lets manually put soldiers on horses to call it cavalry. sounds fun to me right? If I sound annoyed its because I am. It doesn't make sense to make such a big deal of the tiniest abstractions. Remember that this is a videogame, and that a balance must be maintained between various aspects of the game. Lastly, coding, art, design, balance, and historical accuracy all take hard work done by people on a largely voluntary basis. So you should really be respectful when making suggestions.

I can try it sometime.

yep, that makes sense to me. One thing to be sure of is to try and not make the system too complicated. Since the upgrade progress from level 1 to level 3, the costs should progress with some logical flow as well. perhaps a flat rate for one non-conflicting resource and some progression for the conflicting resource: wood upgrade: 300f 0w, 300f 300w, 300f 600w stone upgrade: 300m 0s, 300m 300s, 300m 600s metal upgrade: 300s 0m, 300s 300m, 300s 600m the food upgrade could be left as is. I will echo others here and say I also have no issues with the current model.

Yes, but maybe not garrison. Not 100% sure on that. yes, but I'm afraid the distinction and their roles are quite a core structure to the game, and in order for the nomads to fit in they must have some adherence to the standards of the other civs. Right now it feels like a different game almost. The same goes for territory dependence. if they are quick to build, it could work out nicely. I could make a proof of concept sometime. This already sounds better. One risk could be an expansive women boom turning into a flood of archers with an upgrade, so maybe it would be better to promote to this unit? I envision a successful defense from a raid turning into a counterattack using the headhunters. This also adds some nice risk and reward elements.

My understanding is that the upgrades cost 'their own' resource because it forces a decision between investing in long term eco vs short term spending. However, there are other more important examples of opportunity cost (ie training soldiers early vs women), so I'd be open minded to changing the costs. My main concern would be setting the costs so that the upgrades are always a 'no-brainer'. I think its too late to change this for a27, but what I would suggest is submitting this as a merge request for the community mod when it gets launched for a27: https://gitlab.com/0ad/0ad-community-mod-a26 this will be a place to try out gameplay ideas without the risks of releasing potentially negative balance decisions in an alpha. as for beating the AI, don't just put workers on all the resources. for the first 8 or so minutes, you want food and wood because you are training units and building houses and/or barracks. If you have a slinger civ, it helps to start on food and wood and add a few to stone later. This should give you the numbers you need to beat the AI as long as you are constantly spending resources. If you find yourself 'saving up' to try and get an upgrade or reach town phase, that is a problem. A good economy is about rates not about the total resources you have at one time.

Some feedback (one or 2 of these i have mentioned before): allow the CC to train while moving. (both civs) don't allow cavalry to build. buildings can only be constructed in your territory (thus carts can only be unpacked in own territory) Allow Ovoos in p1, exchange their stone trickle for a defense/damage bonus within 60 m. Ovoos instead also provide a territory root, the idea is that you can place one and then move the cc elsewhere. This allows a lot of flexibility while maintaining the core feature of territory influence. I would also move the stone tech back to the storehouse. split the stable and corral, and give the stable a small structure (perhaps for keeping supplies dry). I think the market/food deposit hybrid is fine for xiongnu. I don't really like the maiden archers and cav archers. Being free means a risk of some spammy gameplay. Also it might be confused with normal women. I'd say just let the starting women be fairly strong, which makes sense because of the lack of towers and how weak the buildings are.

yes It is reproducible (big blue tear): When starting a single player game setup. when leaving back to the menu. not when entering lobby. when clicking host and when confirming to host when arriving in multiplayer gamesetup. when clicking start game in gamesetup when leaving game setup to go back to the lobby. when clicking the chatbar to type a message. when clicking away from the chatbar to not type a message. not when viewing player info or the leaderboard when leaving the lobby to the main menu. in game: when opening and closing the chat (either with enter or by selection with dropdown) when pressing backtick to open the console not when viewing the tech tree not when viewing settings/options/hotkeys I can sometimes see fragments of the upper left side of the screen within the tears (for example, lobby participants) my OS is ventura 13.3.1

It only happens in vulkan + fullscreen. Setting borderless fullscreen false does not fix it, turning on windowed mode does fix it. Starting a screen recording also fixes it, which is why I recorded my screen externally.

The packable CCs are already fine for this. Also, I would rather nomads have mobility in their offense, not defense.

Are the thracians ruled out? I think the Suebians would a bit more familiar civ structure and thus better received. I totally support the nomadic civs, its just that I anticipate more disagreement on their units and mechanics. Plus, I think work remains on making the two nomad civs look different.