guerringuerrin

Ok, I found the problem. Your .zip file have inside an extra folder. This is wrong, you need to have only the folder and files of the mod without this extra folder. I should look like this: Also I have experienced that same error when trying to install a mod when I already have a previous version installed, because the directory and its files already exist and the installer cannot overwrite them. So, to install it successfully, I had to first delete the folder and the files from the previous version of the mod. Yeah this is not a good idea. Youll probably will get OOS

This is true, at lease by checking the stats in-game. Only Will to Fight affects Elephant melee attacks.

That was fast, @Tapothei! Thanks for putting in the effort to learn how to create a PR. You could get a source-code editor like Visual Studio Code to make things easier for you. Also, when creating a PR that solves an issue, you normally want to include this in the PR message like this: "Fixes #8781" I'll try to explain the basic Git workflow as simply as possible. I'm still learning myself, so there may be a few details I’m overlooking. The usual workflow is to fork the repository, clone your fork locally, and create a branch for your changes ( You don't want to work directly on the website for practical reasons). You commit your work and push the branch to your fork. Each contributor works on their own fork. Once the changes are ready, you open a pull request from your branch to the upstream repository, where the maintainers can review it. Also, right now your changes are on the main branch of your repository. `Check this: Normally main should not be used for development. Instead, it is kept in sync with upstream (the official 0 A.D. repository), and new changes are developed in separate branches. Pull requests are then opened from those branches. This is an example of a PR from another contributor, notice his PR comes from another branch, called "lazy-actual-size": This way your main branch always stays clean and can be used to create new branches. Otherwise, if main contains previous work that wasn’t merged, those changes could end up included again in future pull requests. An if you later want to work on something else and sync your main branch with upstream, you may run into problems because git will detect local changes that don’t match upstream. By creating separate branches from main, you isolate each set of changes. This makes it easier to keep main clean, revisit your work later, and work on multiple things in parallel. I also noticed that your PR contains many separate commits. Like this: In these cases, it is usually recommended to squash (git command) them into a single commit. This makes it easier for maintainers to review the changes and keep a clean history of the proposed modifications. I know this might seem completely confusing right now. But if you plan to keep contributing, learning it will make things much easier in the long run.It can take months and plenty of frustration to get comfortable with the basics of git. So if you decide to learn it, be patient with yourself. It gets a little easier every day. Well, I don’t want to overwhelm you any further. You’ve already made it this far, and that’s worth recognizing. Thank you!

oh yeah, sorry i just got lost in my thoughts

@trompetin17 I realize this is the same branch as the issue I have to test so I guess I have the chance to give it a try of this great project!

I think the economic tasks performed by soldiers in 0 A.D. can represent the kinds of economic activities soldiers carried out during military campaigns. Foraging, collecting grain from nearby villages, gathering wood for fires, building fortifications, and so on. I think the citizen soldier concept in 0 A.D. actually reflects something that historically happened, something that other historical RTS games do not represent at all because they completely separate military units from civilian units. They were probably not fully equipped when carrying out these kinds of tasks. I have read a bit about this here. I read about this here. https://roman-empire.net/army/roman-military-logistics-supply-chain-history?utm_source=chatgpt.com My source is probably very questionable, haha. I'm not a historian and I know nothing about all this. But discussing these topics is fun and you learn something along the way. =) edit: also i think that actually the champions are the kind of unit that represents a "higher more noble class" of soldier, and that's why they can't do economic tasks. different from citizen soldier that were probably more "common" folks. And also, there were other men that didn't went into fight and those are the civilians

indeed this is somewhat a strategy in mid/late games. unfortunetly is not very seen these days

As I said in the first place. It's a way to represent the family and community activity in agricultural tasks. You will find contradictions if you want, this is a game. Men didnt carry big perfect square iron block into fight and magically makes them disappear when engaging into battle. Yeah. And it will be good to have specific voices in the future for answers and spaw of these units bc right now it creates confusion.

Is obvious! they are so used to carry heavy equipment that become stronger. ( joking xD ) I can't anwer that, i'm sorry here's the audio/fullwomen mod. there two options you can chose:

Hi, @Emacz The reason is historical consistency. You can check the release annauncement for more information, there is an specific title explaining this here: https://play0ad.itch.io/0ad/devlog/1399284/new-release-0-ad-release-28-boiorix AFAIK, agriculture was a family and community activity, in which men, women, and children participated, although with a division of tasks. And this change aims to represent that. To be more specific, someone with historical expertise could provide a better explanation.That said, the lack of distinct male audio feedback separate from the citizen-soldiers is a regression in the UX that will need to be addressed in the future. Also, there's a already a mod if you want to go back with this.

@DesertRose You might find this interesting

i was just about to say that what is the cost multiplier, @DesertRose?

That would be great, @Obelix!

I mean, seriously. it really sounds like you didn't follow this thread at all. Have a good day bud

Yes, the issue is that I cannot answer for the historical inconsistencies of the game or for the decisions made by the development team. I'm not even a member of the team. I'm just a civilian male ( just a joke ) I did not propose this change. However, I consider it a positive one, and I believe it aims to reflect what I already mentioned regarding agriculture. How many people do you think are actively working on this project? Many changes are proposed and driven by one or two individuals and later accepted by the team. Regarding Cleopatra, correct me if I’m wrong, but her reign was roughly around year 0 (there is no year 0, but you get the point). I’m not familiar enough with the exact temporal scope of the game to speak confidently about that. A quick online search places her reign between 51 and 30 BC. Either way, invoking a separate contradiction doesn’t really move this discussion forward. If this is an “insignificant change,” then it should not be a major issue either—unless it actually breaks something or has negative side effects (such as the lack of distinct voice lines). Some have argued that it adds clutter. But is that due to the lack of voice lines, or the models themselves? It could simply be a matter of personal preference. At this point, there’s not much more to add. What I questioned was the appeal to historical rigor taken to an extreme and that as this is a game "every change should affect gameplay". I believe that has been made quite clear.

He is not my friend, nor is anyone else who has spoken here. What we all have in common is that we are part of this community. In that sense, we are colleagues. I am not responsible for their opinions, and I am not responsible if members of this community who agree with you choose not to explain to the rest of us why they think it’s a bad change. You did, and that’s valuable.. We simply disagree on what adds something and what doesn’t. End of story. I agree with you, and I have tried to remain focused on the substance of the issue, despite some unfortunate wording on my part. Yes, it is very annoying to have to respond to many people at the same time. I would feel overwhelmed. I also hate 3v1 unbalanced mainland, by the way I think we have both made our arguments very clear. I don’t believe there is anything to gain from continuing this discussion just to repeat them.

You are right. I should have chosen my words carefully and not be part of unneccesary jokes and comments that only added noise to the discussion. I'm sorry for that. I mean it. That was my fault. I have no problem with free expression. Critiquing an argument is not censorship. Here I need to defend my position, because I genuinely think this is an exaggeration. Does having a few birds flying around really add nothing to the game? Or having three different models for the same unit? By your definition, none of that would add anything, and I disagree with that premise.There will always be a cut-off point somewhere. You can always argue that something is unnecessary. That’s why I don’t think it’s a strong argument, because by that logic, something will always be “missing.” This project aims to be historically accurate. And I do believe this adds something to the game. It may be meaningless to some people, perhaps even to the majority; we don’t really know. But I think it helps reflect what I mentioned before about families and communities being central to agricultural life. But you are right, we can disagree. Have a good day.

I tried but I fail. I have a new challenge now. It's called find the male or beyond the clutter

I wonder why you don’t bother to explain why it’s a bad change.

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