Grautvornix

Sounds great - for a cool "prequel" to the introductory tutorial!

Humble suggestion to improve the 0AD homepage: Wouldn't it be useful to update the revision log on the 0AD homepage (at least once a month- while nightly built, so potentially manually mentioning the major changes in SVN) ? Currently it still looks like development has stalled - which is not true at all. You know: "do good stuff and talk about it"

Happy and prosperous New Year to everyone in the 0AD community!

Sounds cool to have really good maps as part of the main game! It is indeed important to have high quality maps visibly associated to the game. However, I'd be in favour of keeping also the more mediocre maps accessible in vanilla to preserve variety, e.g. as "user supplied maps, maps to be improved etc. As I reported already: with the game "settlers" the mapping community alone kept the (commercial) game alive for more than 25 years and still counting (cf. www.siedler-maps.de/ ) It would be lovely to see mapping community for 0aD as active as for the various settlers games... Possibly, 0aD - while being a game strongly linked to actual history - might also provide imaginary maps scenarios that come with a conundrum to solve (e.g. there is not enough of one resource, you find the right place for your CC, create the right alliances etc. etc.) Apologies for this excursion,particularly as I am not (yet) able to provide my own maps. Still slow in learning...

I'm loving it!

1.) Water should always be usable for naval purposes (sideflank your enemy, access a new region, access new resources...) 2.) It might be an obstacle that can be crossed (by verssels anyway but also by bridges? Just saying...) and also

Yep, I get your point. No worries!

From an SP perspective, I should add, that constrained maps (where some resource, or space, or anything else is scarce) can be also also quite fascinating in its own way. Players need to carefully plan their build sequence and cannot just follow e.g. a standard boom strategy.

Frankly (while I do agree that there are large differences in map quality), I am not so much in favour of dumping exisitng maps. This game delivers its fascination from historical reference, the number of Civs, and the diverse, beautiful maps. Dumping the less beautiful half of them would certainly increase average quality but als reduce variety. In fact I am already missing a few maps that used to be available in A23 etc. Part of the fun as an SP is a large number of very different maps to try with different Civs. Lastly, a bad map has at least the potential to trigger improvement. Instead, could we possibly mark the 50% bad maps as "maps for proposed improvement" or would you consider this pointless/hopeless?

I like the idea of caves as a map element as well. If you happen to discover one it could be a "wormhole" to another part of the map. But I also like the idea of roads ("flat" walls on land that can be walked on) and bridges (walls in water that can be walked on).

Oops! Sorry! Thank you very much!

Just a small observation: 0AD homepage does not list any updates since August 2024. Visiting the website it looks like project is stalled which is obviously not true at all. I know that the migration to Gitea is not complete an there might be some issues with the revision logs (not visible in SVN update either, says only "nightly build" instead - or am I doing something wrong?).

And don't forget that some casual SP enjoy building up a Civ on a beautiful map and have only occasional conflicts until the final showdown. It is certainly not competitive but another way to have fun.

Sorry, could not stop phantatasizing: There could be three additional elements: - roads ("buildable buildings/flat walls placed on land, and that can be walked on by everyone, providing a speed bonus") - bridges ("roads on a wall through water") - ramps ("bridge on land") Now imaginge: - the effect of building a bridge through a river that actually blocks ships like a wall blocks an army on land. Of course the bridge could be attacked by a ship (like a wall by an army). - Civs having poor naval skill could instead have good building techs so they can reach that close island with a bridge (I suggest a maximum length needs to be defined) - effect of a ramp to access that mountain plateau that has precious resources or that is only accessible from a well protected side. Of course ramps can be destroyed by anyone. (Owner will be Gaia even if you built it yourself!) - the effect of a road into enemy territory that not only accelerates own troops but also the enemy during his counter attack. Roads would need to be protected. /end phantasizing All this would need considerable amount of changes and certainly is to be defined and assessed carefully in all consequences. A mod would be a good candidate to test such things. I would volunteer implementing it if I could do it at all.

... or actually build roads and bridges? Kind of a special building? A bridge could cross water or represent a ramp to a cliff. This would mean allowing to build elements that would be finally owned by Gaia (very much like some watch towers) - but that can be walked on, then giving a speed bonus and that can be added to and destroyed as well? Destroyed by artillery or ships, I mean. Wild, wild dreams... (unfortunately I am not able to contribute coding at all. I know it is always easy to express some wild ideas and expext others to do the hard work)

Indeed, this game is far from being unfinished although there are many ideas and discussions of extending and further improving it. Frankly, the game works well and is fun to play (both SP or MP). So , I do support the proposal to rephrase that disclaimer from essentially saying: "this game is unfinished and will not completely work, has potentially bugs", etc. to something more positive like: "this game is a full featured early release that is constantly improved and extended by an active community. Many extensions are already available for download as mods, and there is even guidance material available how to adapt the game by yourself and therefore contribute to this community project." Plus I would really suggest renaming the next version from "0AD Alpha 0.0.27" to "0AD 1.0" (and no alpha). I do acknowledge this might be seen as a bit bold marketing but THIS GAME IS ALREADY AWESOME RIGHT NOW and will get even better! Sorry, I had a need to express my view .

If I remember correctly it is 500 BC and 300 AD.

Too bad! Nice try...

One thought: what if you connect the two sentences like: "<hero's name> has fallen in battle and crossed River Styx to meet Hades" In this way we might be able to avoid the linguistic male/female "complexity"...

@Gurken Khanwell described! @bigsmit19I typically do similar things (fields surrounded by houses so that women gatheres can seek shelter quickly). Houses generally make a good barrier against attackers also next to the CC. Attackers would go at the houses first while the CC is firing arrows at them - buys you some time to train some new troops. If I build a tower, I fully staff it and then surround it completely by houses so that attacking enemies can be decimated by the tower while they make their go at the houses. In addition to that - if you focus more on building your economy and using many women with only a limited army - I would probably garrison all my soldiers in the CC when attacked. Particularly in the initial phases, it is almost not possible to conquer or destroy a garrisoned CC and your enemy would waste his forces. Bottom line: if you feel weak, don't attack and only fight back carefully from the relative safety of your CC. Unless you have significant forces, don't move next to your enemy's towers or CC as they would deal significant damage. If you take over a tower, man it immediately. It will provide nice backup for your operation and decimate the enemy even after you left their territory. Attack a CC only when you have large upgraded forces and siege units. Hope this helps a bit, and hope you continue to have fun with the game!

Hi everyone, I have (another) strange idea for discussion: Currently, there are three cases of trading: Manually at the market place with "the world". Automatically using traders or merchant ships with yourself. Automatically using traders or merchant ships with your allies. In any case, the goods you are "buying" have a price but these resources seem to be available in unlimited quantities. As an example, when I run out of metal and have no more mines, I barter for metal which seem available basically without limits (whatever the price) until the end of game. Rhetorical question: Where do these goods come from? Idea 1: What if I could trade with my ally only until my ally's stock runs out ? Idea 2: What if we introduced a "world resource cap" similar to the world population cap? (that can be configured) This would mean that at some point there is no more wood or no more metal on the map and the only renewable resource is food --> you can train more workers/women but possibly no more soldiers. In such case, it can be part of the strategy to plan your resources wisely before they run out deny resources to your enemies. Resources would be limited to what is available on the map plus possibly a bit more on top whatever the cap, i.e. if metal reserve is depleted that's it. In this case one needs to be inventive and do e.g. a women rush (like the famous chicken rush/sheep rush that was discussed previously, but more as a joke). I successfully did women rushes on rams already, so it is not totally out of this world Introducing constraints to the game can be quite fun sometimes - like currently in several maps that just don't provide a CC and the only way forward is building a harbour, collect stuff until there is enough stock to actually build a CC. So, I'd be interested to hear your opinions...

Indeed, of course you are right! Just trying to help collecting the ideas for this index. I do agree there is a need to improve on pathfinding.

There were at least two discussions: 1) This one in favour of sing the roads in maps as a feature - 2) and also this one regarding building actually roads (the roads discussion starts a bit down the contribution list with this post):

That's great news! Looking forward to it!

And another one: