guerringuerrin

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.

That’s why it’s important to clarify what we mean when giving opinions about specific topics. Saying “it’s useless clutter that reduces clarity” is not specific enough about what the actual issue is: the models themselves, or the lack of distinct voices? Since we were discussing this: Which, stated like that and without further explanation, seems to refer to the introduction of the change itself rather than to any specific aspect of it. I’m clarifying this because this topic has been discussed in the game over the past few days, and from the arguments I’ve been reading, some people seem to be rejecting the very idea of having male citizen models. I guess now is clear you meant the audio feedback

Just to be clear, idle villager pointer adds a pointer in the top of every idle villager, it doesnt convert male villagers into women. I agree having the same voice sound of military units ads clutter. But I don't see why having a male model, totally different from the military models, adds clutterness too

So you're saying the AoE franchise is full of clutterness then

Could you explain why is a bad change?

civ_female_my_lord_shifted.mp3 Gendered-citizens are a great addition. I’m glad they were incorporated into the game. However, since they currently use the same response and spawn audio as Citizen-soldiers, an important feedback element has been lost. Audio feedback is very important—sometimes players don’t even look at the screen to see what they selected, and this is only possible thanks to the audio. The same applies when spawning units: right now, there’s no way to tell by listening whether the unit being spawned is a soldier or a citizen. I was thinking that we could edit the audio to give them male voices. Here’s a very rough example I put together. Please don’t take it seriously—it’s a very rough, low-quality sample, included only for illustration. I also believe there are some voice clips that aren’t currently used but are available. That said, I don’t want to take this lightly. In my humble opinion, artistic curation is very important, and audio falls within that scope. A consistent solution requires approaching this carefully and responsibly, so as not to undermine the work of other developers and artists.

Well, that TV show is so funny u should give it a chance, is not one more comercial product IMHO

That TV show is so funny. I really liked. That dark humor is great There is also a very nice movie called The Northman that has somewhat bizarre dark sense of humor.

I think the problem is the lack of a Male Civilian voice sound. RIght now, they have same voices as citizen-soldier and thats creates confusion

@real_tabasco_sauce i couldnt find git repo of this but little bug on Shuffle checkbox description is the same as Balanced checkbox and theres also a typo in competitive :

My name is guerringuerrin and I'm not GuerinDinosaurCat, the one in the picture is my DinosaurCat, and before you ask: yes, I have a DinosaurCat. His name is GuerinsDinosaurCat

@chrstgtri think you missed my message

BTW, looking back game graphics looks so so good now compared to a23. It's so beautiful

Like this: 1537665806_Desktop2026_02.27-15_47_28_03.mp4

For what I can tell he's just shift clicking super fast. (you can hear the multiple answers from the unit) EDIT: if you are wondering how he place houses without resources is because in a23 Ptol houses were free

@Perzival12 @Jackerino Add a system for scenario and campaign narratives #8318 Add a speech/dialogue system #8614 Add scenario objectives #7785

@LienRag @CheckTester I hope this help you a bit. This is how I interpret the Unit Table: In the first table, we have the basic templates from which the others are derived. There, I select the base template I want to filter in order to easily view its stats. For example, I want to get the template for the Ranged Cavalry Javelineer. Then, in the table below, I specify the same unit again. There, the specialized Ranged Cavalry Javelineer units are displayed, along with the civilization they belong to. For example, the template I selected (template_unit_cavalry_ranged_javelineer.xml) has a walk speed of 16.2. In my example, I chose cart/cavalry_javelineer_b from the second table, which belongs to the Carthaginians and shows a Walk Speed of 1.6 (in green). This means that its final walk speed is 16.2 + 1.6 = 17.8. And this number is exactly the one shown in the unit’s tooltip in the Civilopedia. Reveal hidden contents to see the screenthos:

@sarcoma I've already ported to R28 and updated the links in the first message. But if you are using ModernGUI you have this feature already