Perzival12

Is there some way I could download the patch? I have been looking for a could campaign chat for a while, and this seems perfect.

That is why I prefer Conquest Civic Centre mode. However, it would be nice to make demands of your opponent, like requesting tribute before agreeing to an alliance or demanding a surrender.

Hey, so I have some friends who want to try 0 A.D., but they don't have computers. Would it be possible to make a mobile version of 0 A.D., for phones and tablets? I know that there is a lot of work there, but it might be worth looking into. While most RTS gamers use their computers, it would also be interesting to play 0 A.D. on the go, like in a car or while your laptop is down.

This would be best made as a mod, to figure out how to do it, then integrated (as the Han were for A27). It's all good and useful to outline a campaign, but someone needs to code it, figure out cinematics, and do that type of stuff. If I were you, @CheckTester, I would refer to the Modding Guide and turn your idea into a mod, for insertion into A29 (it's probably too late to be added to A28).

It isn't a real problem, it just looks very strange.

I was just playing an MP match, and my opponent built up close to me, and look at what happened: What caused this???

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavs Here is their Wikipedia, it should have most of what you need, and links to other resources. Hope this helps!

I can find some, but make sure you contact their authors before you post it.

The armor system should definitely be reworked to a 1-1 basis (I.e your 6 armor=6% resistance, while 65 armor=65% resistance). That would make it easier for both players (why does 6 armor mean 47% resistance?) and modders (how do I know if this is balanced I or not?).

I definintly agree with the idea of unit-specific upgrades (which would also contribute to civ-specific tech trees). Then you can also counter the tactics of your enemy (possibly nullifying their snowballing). For example, say the snowballer has tons of cav, research better spears, train spearmen, snowballer loses most cav. Then, as the now weakened player (who spent most of his resources on cav), figures out his opponent's tactics, he can counter (tons of archers an swordsman). Defensive buildings are a little too strong in some ways and too weak in others. They have too little life and resistance, and way too much damage (especially when garrisoned). This should be slightly reversed, so that towers can shoot less arrows, but take longer to destroy or capture. Fortresses are also very OP, though maybe that is a good thing. I think that the biggest thing involving CS is their lore and reason for existing. The idea is that they are everyday people who take up arms, not professional soldiers. But, professional soldiers are all champions which, A: doesn't make sense (champions, not professionals), and B: makes all actual soldiers too expensive and OP. For loot, I think the entire lootsystem should be done away with, and replaced with a treasure dropping system. I have two reasons for this. The first is that, in reality, in the middle of a battle how are soldiers carrying suits of armor and other looted items from the dead bodies, while still fighting unimpaired, and two, when I lose most of my army, it would be nice to have a way to get it back, by sending people to collect the treasure that both armies have dropped.

Okay. For your two unremovable objects, open the .xml file in a text editor, search for their names, and delete them. Second, I noticed that in the same .xml file that the players are garbled. The problem might stem from the fact that some players are pre-selected and other players aren't. If resizing the map fixes the problem, it might be too large, and need to be resized permanently. Yeah, I just tried, and the map crashed 0 A.D. strange thing, it did something that I have only seen it do once before, when I did something the engine coudn't have... Anyway, try out what I said and see if it works then. Let me know how it goes.

You're welcome. I just did some searching, if you want to make multiple players have the same color, there are two ways: A: Make or edit a Scenario map, making the team members have the same color. B: Edit PlayerColor.js. Not sure what exactly you would change, but it is doable. C: Do both, which would fix all maps to be how you want them. D: Do what @Gurken Khan said above: toggle diplomacy colors (which can be changed in Settings).

You can already do this. In a skirmish or random map, just set the civs of all desired players to the same one, and put them all on a team, then select Lock Teams.

True, I didn't pay much attention to the story. However, the part I did pay attention to (the end), is my main storyline critique. Why does Franklin have to shoot Michael or Trevor (I took the third option, but...). A much more fun option would have been to be Trevor and shoot Michael or vise versa, with the third option remaining the same. Then it would have made sense that T and M are friends afterward, since they chose not to kill each other, or that there is no bad blood, because one is dead.

It appears to be the later, based off of the names of your downloads.

That sounds like a problem with your .pmp file. I have encountered this, and it is caused by one of two things: #1: if you made the map using any mods, there is a chance that they might have terrains that are not in vanilla 0 A.D., which breaks the map, or, #2: your .pmp file is missing or named differently than your .xml file.

Bridges should only be able to span a certain distance (20 long x 10 wide), while navy would be used for larger distances and faster transportation along rivers.

When you compare GTAV’s story to GTA:SA’s story, V looks poorly written and sloppily put together, like the artists put too much work into making the drug store groceries shootable instead of writing a more interesting and less cliche’ story. What really turned me off for GTAV was just how crappy the police are. Sometimes they notice you when in real life they never would, while other times they walk right by you. And the fact that you couldn’t kill them without having every other cop in the radius know your exact location made it worse (though, granted, they are better than SA cops).

GTA V really disappointed me. While it is a great game, the story was sadly lacking (why didn’t I get to just shoot Stretch or Steve in any of the missions? Why did I have to wait?!), and when compared to SA, it had almost no collectibles or side-missions. There also was to much reliance on DLC, and a lot of the wilderness areas, as well as the military base, felt like they were useless outside of missions. The fact that the game also capped police upgrades at four starts (with five stars just being more cops) also was a heavy disappointment (I want to battle soldiers and tanks!!!).

Yeah, that would be a super useful feature. Heroes being able to perform special attacks or inspiring battle roars would definitely add to the gameplay, make them more important (rather than just a really long lived budding unit), and set 0 A.D. farther apart from AoE. I can even see several different hero-oriented modes, like some sort of fleeing scenario (general flees from his destroyed city, being constantly ambushed by enemy soldiers).

0 A.D. is changing stereotypes!

Okay. Battalions seem like they could be a good idea, as long as they are OPTIONAL. Replacing individual unit training with battalions is not a good idea, but being able to turn a formation into a battalion (or a group of units into a battalion) seems like it would grant a lot of new features, while being unique.

It is a major feature, and there are posts discussing it from A23 era, so it should have been implemented, or at least been a mod, by now.

As I said before, formations should just be turned into battalions, with a bit of Warzone 2100 unit grouping added.

Sorry, I was in a hurry. I mean that, at the moment, a champion unit can fight off a few citizen soldiers, and look cool. But a battalion of champions fighting several battalions of units looks less cool, and makes champs seem less important and special. Hyrule Conquest units are only cannon fodder because of the battalion system, as you would see if you were to compare HC to my remake of it (which is using the same damage and health values most of the time). Battalions also mean that civs should start with a battalion, so then why is there only in building to start… and it would mean removal of Citizen Soldiers, or wasting your troops, as you would have to order an entire battalion to gather resources or build a house.