Suggestions for 0 A.D.

[george]

i am consistently disappointed and frustrated by the ai that controls unit behavior. i'll send my units in to attack, look away for a moment to keep up with production, and half my elephants have wandered a screen away chasing a trader that doesn't matter at all, or all the archers are getting slaughtered by three cavalry while they diligently shoot completely ineffective arrows at a barracks that isn't even in use. i'll set some infantry to chop wood and 5 enemy soldiers can take out 40 because apparently they don't notice the guy right next to them getting stabbed to death.

the solution i propose is a window like trade or diplomacy windows that allows the player to set standing orders. instead of five clumsy unchangeable preset modes (violent, aggressive, defensive, passive), the player can choose how they want units to respond to or prioritize non-combatants (woman or traders) vs. infantry vs. siege units vs buildings. you can set an interval to re-acquire targets so they don't focus in on a target that isn't working, set awareness for something like a unit nearby being attacked, set chase distance, if you don't want them to run too far, decide they want units to capture building or kill by default.

regardless of how much fine tuning, concentrated micro will always be the most effective, but in in the current set up micro managing every attack feels way more important than considering global strategy, and refining preemptive control of the AI would bring that more into balance. if it turned out to be too powerful, you could even gate it behind a building like a training hall and some upgrades to allow access to it's most potent features.

[Deicide4u]

@george

One easy solution is to re-order an attack move for your army from time to time. Unit AI will prioritize attackers.

[george]

@Deicide4u

yes, every thing i mentioned can be solved by just having more apm. but then the challenge of the game becomes quickly and accurately clicking instead of making strategic decisions about how to have units behave. 

[BeTe]

13 hours ago, george said:

@Deicide4u

yes, every thing i mentioned can be solved by just having more apm. but then the challenge of the game becomes quickly and accurately clicking instead of making strategic decisions about how to have units behave. 

Don't forget this is real-time strategy, not turn-based strategy game.  

[Gurken Khan]

I think it would be nice if the same buttons for the same units are always in the same order, even if it's in different buildings; especially thinking about Persian cav in stables and CCs here. (Why would you even put them in a different order?)

[real_tabasco_sauce]

Does anyone object to making the seagulls unselectable, so you don't accidentally click the wrong thing with ur fishing ship?

before:

 

after:

 

[Gurken Khan]

53 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

making the seagulls unselectable

I consider it a bug that they're selectable.

[LienRag]

On 10/04/2025 at 2:19 PM, Deicide4u said:

 Plus, ranged units already die too fast to cavalry.

Ranged units cannot die too fast to (mêlée) cavalry.

Cavalry are supposed to bring havoc to ranged units if they get to them.

If you don't want your ranged units to die to cavalry, don't expose them to cavalry !

 

What we need though are formations dedicated to interdict passage : where units would engage enemy units in a way that is maybe less destructive (reduce number of strikes by 2 or something) but prevent the enemy unit to pass through the formation.

That would both make protecting ranged units more sensible, and remove the situations where your troops are between a building and the enemy coming to garrison in it, but they still are able to garrison...

[LienRag]

On 04/06/2025 at 1:58 PM, george said:

the solution i propose is a window like trade or diplomacy windows that allows the player to set standing orders.

It's probably the best way to solve the problem, yes.

But I wouldn't have it replace the different stances, rather parameter what each stance means (like in "passive" stance, do the unit flee at first attack or after having lost 10% hp ? does it go to a safe distance from enemy units and then stand idle, or go back to its task once it's out of range of the enemy ? In "aggressive" stance, how far do they go from their allied units ? Do they pursue someone who is faster than them or not ?).

 

Also, we could use work formations for Citizen-Soldiers : go work as a group, and if one member of the formation is attacked, they all fight back (but if someone not of their work formation is attacked, they keep working).

[LienRag]

On 10/04/2025 at 2:19 PM, Deicide4u said:

Great suggestions, but this one is too micro intensive. 0 A.D. is not a RPG, players already have a lot to think about during the game. Plus, ranged units already die too fast to cavalry.

 

If they have a toggle for their behavior after being out of ammo "go fight in melee/go reload" then no it's not too micro-intensive.

They could even have toggles about what to do after spending half their ammo : keep firing until no ammo/lower their rate of fire (with lower rate of fire should come better accuracy).

 

[zozio32]

one element that might be fun would be market routes at the exit of maps.  Something that you cannot control, but a point for your merchant, or merchant ship to reach. It is only interesting if the gain in term of resource are important compare to what's available on the map.   All the players could send merchant to it all the time, the trick would be to protect the trade route

[zozio32]

19 minutes ago, zozio32 said:

one element that might be fun would be market routes at the exit of maps.  Something that you cannot control, but a point for your merchant, or merchant ship to reach. It is only interesting if the gain in term of resource are important compare to what's available on the map.   All the players could send merchant to it all the time, the trick would be to protect the trade route

you combined that with the road ability mentioned before, and that can make some different type of scenarios, were controlling a trade route, building the road for it, are key to get the resource and build your wonder for example.

[Perzival12]

It would be nice if you could move earth with workers. That way you could build earth mounds or dig trenches in your defense line. (After all, this game is supposed to be historically accurate, and that was a common tactic at the time).

[Deicide4u]

39 minutes ago, Perzival12 said:

It would be nice if you could move earth with workers. That way you could build earth mounds or dig trenches in your defense line.

0 A. D. is not a game about World War II.

Ancient battles were fought in the open, or in and around stone fortresses.

[Classic-Burger]

2 hours ago, Perzival12 said:

trenches

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

Ironically enough, trenches/ditches were definitely used by the ancients in pitched battles and during sieges.

[Perzival12]

On 5/9/2025 at 10:40 AM, Deicide4u said:

Ancient battles were fought in the open, or in and around stone fortresses.

Yeah, and those open plains and fortresses were surrounded by ditches full of spikes and traps to imped cavalry and siege machines. What do you think the moat was for? Even the Gauls had mounds of earth to give them protection from arrows if they didn’t have time to construct a palisade. I’m not saying deep enough for separate battles in trenches (like ww1), but some sort of slowing terrain to prevent siege machines and cavalry from crossing easily. PS: building moats would also be cool, though that is more Middle Ages than Iron Age.

Edited September 8, 2025 by Perzival12
Spellcheck

[Classic-Burger]

6 minutes ago, Perzival12 said:

Yeah, and those open plains and fortresses were surrounded by ditches full of spikes and traps to imped cavalry and siege machines. What do you think the moat was for? Even the Gauls had mounds of earth to give them protection from arrows if they didn’t have time to construct a palisade. I’m not saying deep enough for separate battles in trenches (like ww1), but some sort of slowing terrain to prevent siege machines and cavalry from crossing easily. PS: building moats would also be cool, though that is more Middle Ages than Iron Age.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trench_warfare

Trenches, moats and traps are not the same thing.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moat

Moats are obstacles.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trou_de_loup

 

[Deicide4u]

22 minutes ago, Perzival12 said:

building moats would also be cool, though that is more Middle Ages than Iron Age.

Moats are a Middle ages thing.

We have palisades, we have Roman Siege Walls and Army Camps.

24 minutes ago, Perzival12 said:

traps to imped cavalry and siege machines.

Traps for Siege Weapons? The best ancients had was a big rock to throw at the thing.
I say, keep it simple.

[Classic-Burger]

9 minutes ago, Deicide4u said:

Moats are a Middle ages thing.

Nope.

[Perzival12]

50 minutes ago, Deicide4u said:

Traps for Siege Weapons? The best ancients had was a big rock to throw at the thing.
I say, keep it simple.

I don’t mean like, actual traps, but pits and spikes should slow down or block certain units. A wall of spikes would stop cavalry and slow infantry, a pit would slow infantry and stop siege machines and cavalry, a moat would stop all unless it is filled in by making a mound (using the same mechanics as digging a pig).

[zozio32]

The roman definitely used defensive ditches around fortified camps.   I don't think you could easily bring a ram to it.  I would see a point for such tech with some civs.  Then there is always the risk to make the roman too good if we give them everything the romans did

[Perzival12]

5 hours ago, zozio32 said:

there is always the risk to make the roman too good if we give them everything the romans did

All civs built mounds and dug trenches. The Romans were just better at it. If trenches were added, they should be available to everyone.

[LienRag]

I don't remember if it has already been suggested, but what would really better the game would be secondary objectives, and especially in P2.

I mean, it's nearly impossible to attack an enemy fortified area before siege units in P3, which means the gameplay lacks diversity.

We'd need things to fight for in P1 (like treasures/relics, but ones which would be revealed at the beginning of the game, to remove the randomness of getting there first if you don't know the map already).

Note that many maps have Gaia buildings, but it's never (AFAIK) explained whether they have their own roots (some have, so are nice to capture early) or not (most of them don't, which makes them nearly useless to capture early).
A few nice-to-have-but-not-totally-unbalancing buildings with their own root territory clearly established, and revealed at the beginning of the game, could be nice.

Like towers, houses, markets, storehouses, farms...
One map at least have temples with their own roots, it's a bit strong imho but why not.

Not necessarily all treasures and relics and buildings-with-their-own-roots need to be revealed at the beginning of the game, it's fine to reward exploration, but a few important ones should.
And all buildings should make clearly visible if they have their own root territory !

Of course those revealed at start should be at a minimum distance from the players' starting position (basically no treasure should be closer to one player than to at least another one, and other rewards should still be relatively far away, so that a player sending troops to it can get there before the closest player has finished to capture it if he did send only one citizen soldier).

 

And in P2, we should have things that resist attacks by non-siege units (like garrisoned towers) and simple, unprotected battering rams that can take them down (but slowly, and also are vulnerable to counter-attacks : basically no armor, even against pierce).

Not sure what the equilibrium should be concerning resource gathering : we'd want something that can be built in the open (to serve as a secondary objective for the enemy), that is resistant to non-siege units once garrisoned but can be taken down by these P2 rams.
But also not something that makes it too easy to build outside territory, so as not to compete unfairly with the Kleroukia or Town Center.

Maybe something that take nearly as much time to build than a Kleroukia, doesn't cost metal and costs only 50 or 100 Stone ? With less hit points, less garrison, and way less territory around it ?

Edited October 5, 2025 by LienRag
fixing typo

[Deicide4u]

14 minutes ago, LienRag said:

I mean, it's nearly impossible to attack an enemy fortified area before siege units in P3, which means the gameplay lacks diversity.

I partially agree, but you don't have to attack the fortified positions to be ahead. In fact, you should ignore the buildings and go after the enemy's gatherers.

In multiplayer games, people will resign once they see you are far ahead. This is possible even in P1.