Jump to content

LienRag

Community Members
  • Posts

    207
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by LienRag

  1. Well, that's the point of fighting near your barracks... It may be a bit overpowered, I can't say, but fighting in a situation that you prepared for should indeed give quite a good advantage.
  2. That is exactly why it shouldn't exist. Not only hunting I mean but collecting resources outside your territory. A cart which only collects treasures (with treasures then needing to be carried) could be interesting, I've proposed it elsewhere.
  3. Nice idea. Needs to be balanced though (law of diminishing returns).
  4. The idea that you can make a palisade in no man's land but not control it is an important game feature.
  5. Garrisoning is a tad micro-heavy, but it could be fixed by specific orders : "interdiction" (for the attacker), to prevent anyone to enter the building, and "breach" for the defender, in order to have a formation break the enemy lines in order to garrison. Garrisoning in itself is extremely important strategically, as it means that it's possible with good tactics to storm an unprepared enemy while making impossible to take out enemy defenses without siege engines if he actually took care to defend.
  6. Yes, something like that is sorely needed. Endgames are a PITA sometimes, for no reason. Also, there should be an option on the minimap to show only enemies (buildings and units).
  7. BTW, is there a reason for this temple to not have any territory effect ?
  8. Historically very accurate, but how would you do this without adding to the burden of micro-management ? Also, auras for the altars are not how sacrifices worked historically. It would be more like a morale boost (but again, we'd need to have morale for it to work).
  9. That seems to be a problem of implementation. Easy fix would be to remove this shield bonus when on "no formation" and make sure that all formations prevent turning at a whim (which most formations actually does AFAIK). Or if some formations do allow turning at a whim, remove the shield bonus for them (and make that clear in the hover-text !).
  10. Another idea, but not sure if it's technically doable : have damage from archers to units with shields being greatly reduced by shields, that is from the front (with the shielded moving to face the greatest threat when at rest, if shot upon). That should have huge (and very interesting) tactical consequences.
  11. I'm not good enough at 0ad to talk numbers, so I didn't read past the few posts at the beginning. But though I understand the concern, my take is that the main difference between ranged and melee units being armor is quite accurate historically. That doesn't mean that melee units shouldn't hack quickly through unarmored ranged units if they can catch them, though. As I wrote many times, we won't have anything like historical battles as long as we don't have morale, but it doesn't prevent trying to do a not-too-bad balance in the meantime. Well-armored melee should be extremely hard to kill for archers, and only vulnerable to slingers (take a stone to the helmet, yes it won't crush your skull, but you'll still feel it hard). To approximate the historical role of harassment by archers, could it be possible to have damage diminish when the health diminish ? Once archers have already wounded the weakly armored parts of the body, the armored part is quite immune to arrows... Also, good balance (and historical accuracy, see Devereaux's blog post on kiting) would be to have ranged damage heavily dependent on, well, range : if you want to be efficient, you shoot at close range (which would make steep cliffs so much more of a strategic asset), if you just want to harass, you shot at long range. We need a specific formation for melee units that allows for a short charge, as that's the way historically that hoplites were able to destroy ranged units (which are usually quicker). Turning around (to run in the opposite direction) should take some time (for everyone, but here it's important for the ranged units, so as to make them unable to dance too easily). I guess that's the good balance would be to make the "turning around" time take as much time as the short charge, so when the charge starts it's too late to turn around. And if ranged units still "dance" by turning around before the enemy is close enough to charge, well it's (more or less) how they were used historically.
  12. I understand how it would weaken an already weakened army to remove that cheat, but could it still be an option at game start (set by default, with a big caveat if one opts out of it "the AI is already weak as it is, it would weaken it more") ? Obviously it would first require some minimal scouting code, but I don't believe that systematic scouting is very hard to implement... Scouting and counter-scouting is a very important part of an RTS game, and a quite fun one.
  13. The problem in 0ad is that these attacks have either no stakes or too high stakes (destroy the player, or at least the player's economy). There is very little occasions to have a battle for a clear but secondary stake (like controlling a strategic point). Also, when they're strong enough to be a threat but not to kill you, what make them unfun is that the resource they actually deplete is the player's attention/concentration, much more than the Civ's army or economy.
  14. If you mean "myth" you may be right, but if you want historical accuracy they should have the strongest melee formation, not unit.
  15. Yep. As far as I remember, I got nothing else than the segfault. I'll try the new AppImage in a few days.
  16. Output of the rm -v command : 'squashfs-root/usr/lib/libcurl-gnutls.so.4' supprimé Output of squashfs-root/AppRun : Erreur de segmentation (core dumped) If that helps, the segfault was immediate.
  17. I got it here : https://github.com/0ad-matters/0ad-appimage/releases/tag/v0.0.27-rc1-27645-alpha which means that it's the 0ad-0.0.27-rc1-27645-alpha-2305191528-x86_64_65744d18aeb7b41697563d9ec7040137.AppImage file. I tried it on OpenSuse Leap 15.4
  18. I get /usr/bin/AppImageLauncher: /usr/lib64/libcurl.so.4: no version information available (required by /usr/bin/../lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/appimagelauncher/libappimageupdate.so) Erreur de segmentation (core dumped)
  19. I'd say Zulus are quite bold, at least...
  20. Thanks, I didn't know this command. Didn't seem to do anything in my situation, though - I still have / used at 97%. Also, AFAIK I did a zypper remove of 0ad (and 0ad doesn't appear in the menu) but when trying again an upgrade it stills download 1 Go of 0ad, which may explain why it tells me that the total download is 5 Go. I don't think so, Lagrange is very lightweight and I believe the others to be too. I do. What are they ? I didn't install them (I mean, not directly of voluntarily). Do I need them ? Can I reduce the number of copies ? How ? I get "error : unknown option -u". apt-get is specific to Debian (and derivatives), it doesn't work on OpenSuse. And from what I checked, there's no equivalent with zypper, one has to remove packages one by one from their names.
  21. I disagree. The size of the herd may depend on the species, but even with Elephants and Giraffes it should be more than "a couple individuals". Else you force the player to keep micro-managing the herd (killing the third animal as soon as it is beneficial, in order to allow the spawning of a new one).
  22. I used Flatpak to be able to test a24 on an OpenSuse Leap, but I don't need it anymore since I was finally able to test a25 through backports on another computer with Debian. Problem is, I don't have enough room on / to upgrade to the last Leap version, and checking the filesystem tells me that /var/Flatpak takes 4 Go, including 3 Go in /var/flatpak/repo in folders with non-recognizable names. When doing a flatpak list, all I get it this : zeroad translations com.play0ad.zeroad.Locale stable flathub system Lagrange fi.skyjake.Lagrange 1.2.2 stable flathub system Freedesktop.org Application Platform version 1.6 org.freedesktop.Platform 1.6 1.6 flathub system Freedesktop Platform org.freedesktop.Platform 20.08.6 20.08 flathub system Freedesktop Platform org.freedesktop.Platform 21.08.14 21.08 flathub system Mesa org.freedesktop.Platform.GL.default 21.3.8 21.08 flathub system Intel VAAPI Driver org.freedesktop.Platform.VAAPI.Intel 1.6 flathub system Intel org.freedesktop.Platform.VAAPI.Intel 21.08 flathub system FFmpeg extension org.freedesktop.Platform.ffmpeg 1.6 flathub system openh264 org.freedesktop.Platform.openh264 2.1.0 2.0 flathub system La Bataille pour Wesnoth org.wesnoth.Wesnoth master wesnoth-origin system La Bataille pour Wesnoth org.wesnoth.Wesnoth 1.16.5 stable flathub system Except Wesnoth (which I would like to keep in order to not lose all the add-ons I downloaded), what is there should not take 4 Go of disk space. Am I wrong to believe that 0ad was not successfully removed from my disk ? What to do to remove it entirely ?
×
×
  • Create New...