guerringuerrin

Tabascos link:

haha they even talk about 0ad in the chat. interesting

Normally there is no official patches/bugfixes between releases. Last version we had the community-mod which is sort of an "official mod" that was intended to fix this kind of bugs and also balancing issues. I don't know if we will have community-mod for this release. All these stuff depends on very few members of the community and sometimes it can't be hard to do the work. Keep in touch in the forum and there might be some news about these in the next months

Look, if you felt attacked or ofended in any way, I apologize. I don't want to portrait myself in an innocent way nor my intention was to attack you. I discuss arguments in a public forum about a public matter that many players are discussing. There's no need to tag me for me to answer you about what you put here. I didn't insulted you I didn't ordered you to shut up and is OK if you don't like the change. I'm not here to change your mind. But yeah if your argument is: I answer this is nonsense, or "this doesn't make sense". Because is an overexaggeration (or however is it spell. Not using chatgpt to avoid unnecesary comments) that leads anywhere. Why? Because you can use that argument to almost everything the game, which leads to doesn't even have a game in the first place. Yes, the change has some historical ground and I told you: And about this: Yes it adds confusion and nothing else. That's my point. I agree about the audio feedback, not about the models or because naming has changed from women to civilians Yes, I wanted to bring this up because that's kind of a very characteristic mechanic of the game and it's a naming used for years, and even today. I get your point about "talking about real matches in the lobby, what players actually say in-game, not forum terminology." I'm a real player too. I play almost everyday, for years. Yes in lobby we commonly say "bring your army", "javs", "javcav", "make soldiers" etcétera. Still I've seen ppl in lobby start using civilians for former women and they are not robots. You say "civilian" is artificial and I argued that too. What about "villagers", would be better? Less artificial from your POV? Is honest not ironical question. Women are still there and I don't think someone had the intention of removing them or undermine them. Because, as we were discussing here, the intention were not political. Were historical. I don't get if this is some kind of joke or irony. As far as I know there has been aura damage and other types of auras for a long time

How dare you....

Hi @Riley S. You are doing nothing wrong. I believe this is a bug from R28. You can check it out here: https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/issues/8735

It's not about "let them be equal to men". They are not showed as equal.

Yeah, I'm not an english native speaker and my english is not very good so when I need to write long sentences I use it for quick translation. It is better to use others translators like google translate which sometimes can make very literal translation that are not quite common in native english speaking. The the arguments are my own. You missing the point. You said: And I argued that currently the soldiers are in fact commonly called citizen-soldiers (not civilian-soldiers) , then calling Civilian to the former women is consistant with the naming convention the game already has and you seem to completely ignore. Here are some examples of the use of this term or you can just use the search bar and look for the amount of threads with this naming. Just in case you still believe I think is my brilliant idea: This is from 16 years ago and I leave some more in the spoiler And if its that meaningless, what's the big deal? It's ok if you don't like the change. I'm just discussing some of your arguments that I don't agree or I find exagerated(historical) or just totally false from game design perspective, like saying: "This is a game and any changes made should add something to the gameplay." I just asked why is a bad change and from that point we are discusing arguments. That's all. I do agree this change added some confusion, but not because there is now a male model and a new naming for the former women but because the male voices are the same as citizen-soldiers and now player is forced to look to see what is selecting/spawning. It's ok if it doesnt strikes you. I guess I wasn't that wrong when I said some people are just upset because they think this is a change based on political ideas.

No, obviously there has to be a cut-off point somewhere, and there are clearly artistic and aesthetic considerations that come into play. In the (probably) most popular historical RTS franchise in the world, there are “villagers” of both sexes. It’s called Age of Empires — maybe you’ve heard of it. I don’t know how each civilization historically referred to its non-soldier people. But the term is entirely consistent within the game’s universe. In fact, soldiers aren’t simply called “soldiers” — they’ve been called “Citizen-soldiers” for a long time. So on one side we had “Citizen-soldiers,” and on the other side we had “women.” Does that sound more consistent to you? If you want to put it in those terms, of course not. Maybe that was the case. And maybe now someone is fixing it. But you seem to have a problem with that. What’s ridiculous is pretending those are valid arguments when they’re clearly exaggerations that no reasonable person would take seriously. So if you use ridiculous arguements, thats on you. Citizen-soldiers don’t gather food as quickly as civilians. If a player chooses to use them on farms, that’s a gameplay decision. They’re accepting the trade-off in exchange for having their farms/CC/base better defended. The addition of a male model for what are now civilians responds to the reasons already stated. I’m not sure where you got that definition from, but it’s far from correct. There are artistic and aesthetic decisions that add nothing directly to gameplay, yet they are there precisely because this is a game — and they add aesthetic value. There’s even a mod that replaces trees with pink cubes and metal deposits with yellow rectangles. I invite you to start using it, since apparently having attractive 3D models has no value to the gameplay experience. Yeah, maybe you are right on this. Maybe there are people who have been working on the Art Team on this game for more than fifteen years or so, making it look better every single day. Improving every single model, adding different variants for the same unit. So yeah

@ittihat_ve_terakki I can truly understand that people consider the lack of appropriate audio feedback to be a problem. From a gameplay perspective, it’s reasonable to see that as an issue, and something should be done about it. But... This is merely your assumption. I’ve already seen many people adopt the term “Civilian” without any issue. Historically, agriculture was a task carried out by the whole of civil society—within families or communities. I think this change aims to represent that. And what you’re saying here is nonsense. You’re taking the historical accuracy argument to an extreme. It doesn’t even make sense to debate it. If you want to keep playing without your comfort being challenged, the favor has already been done for you — enjoy. Honestly, what exactly is the problem? I’m genuinely struck by the reaction of some people, who I’m really seems to be motivated far more by ideological concerns than anything else. I’ve read comments in the lobby claiming this is part of a “woke agenda” (absurd argument) and that we should add r4pes to the game to be historically accurate.... Seriously, is having male models working on farms as civilians really that upsetting? It’s kind of funny.

@real_tabasco_saucecorrect me if i'm wrong but You can try specify same way is done on that template and it should override parent's requirements: <Identity> <Civ>germ</Civ> <GenericName>Cimbrian Clubman</GenericName> <SpecificName>Kulbawigô</SpecificName> <VisibleClasses datatype="tokens">Champion</VisibleClasses> <Requirements> <Techs datatype="tokens">phase_village</Techs> </Requirements> <Icon>units/germ/infantry_clubman.png</Icon> </Identity>

Take a look at this template. Is the Cimbrian Clubman (German Champion), available from the start. ( phase_village) https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/src/branch/main/binaries/data/mods/public/simulation/templates/units/germ/champion_infantry_maceman.xml

Hey @Tapothei!, thanks for working on this. If you'd like, you can even go a step further and open the Pull Request yourself. That would make things easier, since you wouldn’t need to rely on someone else to do it. Of course, this isn’t mandatory. Here is a guide to get the latest code and how to compile it And here's the commit guidelines Keep in mind that opening a PR doesn’t guarantee that the code will be merged.

Could you be a bit more specific?

You’re absolutely right about this. There were several months available to test the different release candidates. In fact, the times I personally tested the RCs, I welcomed the inclusion of this PR, yet I didn’t notice this (important) detail at all. It was only after playing the final version of 0 A.D. R28 repeatedly that I realized this lack of feedback was causing confusion. At least on my part, I take some self-criticism for not giving the testing phase the importance it deserved. There are a few other issues that could have been avoided if we had dedicated the necessary time and commitment to properly testing the RCs as we should have.