Suggestions for 0 A.D.

[CheckTester]

Guys, am I the only one who thinks that suggestions for improvements and refinements to such a diverse game should have been posted in separate threads a long time ago, rather than in one kilometer-long one with... 173 pages! 

In my opinion, this is completely counterproductive!

Edited January 29 by CheckTester

[Guest]

1 hour ago, CheckTester said:

Should have been posted in separate threads a long time ago, rather than in one kilometer-long one with... 173 pages!

You can't change the past where amatuers are just having fun, it was their choice to comment it here instead of making a new thread. You can however go ahead and make your own thread with specific feature as long its relevant and not repeatable and that your interested to see it fruition. Then again do you think most people bother skimming past page 10(200) of the many threads? Counterproductive yes, but this is not a job, its a hobby.

[Thalatta]

4 hours ago, CheckTester said:

Guys, am I the only one who thinks that suggestions for improvements and refinements to such a diverse game should have been posted in separate threads a long time ago, rather than in one kilometer-long one with... 173 pages! 

In my opinion, this is completely counterproductive!

Well, maybe for my last proposal that would have made sense, but before that I posted a list of 20 suggestions, I don't think 20 new threads would have been productive . I'd leave a new thread for a bigger suggestion requiring more discussion, but what do I know.

I can take the opportunity to ask: I really don't know how things work for suggestions to actually be taken into account, some of my suggestions were well received, but that's about it, I don't know what is actually done after that.

[guerringuerrin]

@Thalatta Your ideas about groups, formations, and battalions are very interesting. It’s true that in their current state they’re quite buggy and there’s too much overlap between them. I support your view that these features should be able to coexist as independently as possible, while also being versatile enough to let each player choose their preferred playstyle.

Beyond the different possible ways to solve it, the diagnosis is very clear, and the general direction of the solution you propose is quite clear as well — it’s been a valuable contribution.

There are currently some improvements in progress regarding formation behavior. I think that in the future, something along the lines of what you propose could end up being adopted.
 

1 hour ago, Thalatta said:

I can take the opportunity to ask: I really don't know how things work for suggestions to actually be taken into account, some of my suggestions were well received, but that's about it, I don't know what is actually done after that.

If a suggestion is well received, there is consensus among the development team, and there is time available to work on it, then it can be incorporated.

Creating a dedicated post for a specific feature you want to propose is also a good idea. The more detailed it is, the better. You can include diagrams or mockups to make communication with other community members easier and, essentially, to build the necessary consensus.

It’s also possible to contribute directly to the 0 A.D. repository either by writing new code or by reporting issues you encounter in the game: However, it’s important to keep in mind that submitting a Pull Request does not necessarily mean the code will be merged.

It also takes time to get to know the right people and to become familiar with the dynamics of the community.

Cheers.

Edited January 29 by guerringuerrin

[Guest]

There is a bit of a problem with pausing, I was observing a game of 3 player FFA. A player who lost his Civil Centre decided to pause the game. We've talked it out but after 5 minute of asking to unpause, the game ended by the host quitting because the player doesn't want to unpause. So following Dota's style, give the ability for players to unpause. Pausing/unpausing should have a cooldown of 3 minute(individual, starts upon unpause) to prevent abuse or a better solution is welcomed. Players who pause then unpause later are not effected.

Player 1 pause for a reason but after awhile that it took longer then expected player 2 decides to unpause the game, the cooldown has started.

Another case where player 1 decides to pause and then player 2 unpause it accidentally, cooldown starts. But player 2 can pause, then eventually when player 1 returns he unpause.

Cooldown will not lower during pause.

[Arup]

you can simply kick the pauser if you are host. the command is /kick [username]

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Arup said:

you can simply kick the pauser if you are host. the command is /kick [username]

Thats a thing? Good to know...

Edit: Honestly, I'd rather have the unpause feature for other players nonetheless, who knows some players might get bored of waiting and just decide to let the player afk in the middle of team games.

Maybe have a feature to allow control their units for allies just like in Warcraft 3 if they want to afk without pause.

Oh but when I think about it, is there even an unkick command? Atleast that solves my worries. Is there a list of command for host that I can read on?

Thanks.

Edited February 18 by Tapothei

[ffm2]

2 hours ago, Tapothei said:

Oh but when I think about it, is there even an unkick command? Atleast that solves my worries. Is there a list of command for host that I can read on?

/kick

/ban

/kickspecs

/banspecs

/list

/clear

You can't force the player from the lobby back into the game, he has to join.

[Obelix]

1 hour ago, ffm2 said:

/kickspecs

/banspecs

Oh, thx! Needs to be added to the FAQ entry How can I ban observers in multiplayer mode?!

[Arup]

On 19/02/2026 at 12:01 AM, Obelix said:

Oh, thx! Needs to be added to the FAQ entry How can I ban observers in multiplayer mode?!

buddy, I think those are autociv exclusive commands,not part of vanilla... not sure tho

[Eilat]

I have a list of custom bots for various purposes, but my newest bot has a slight change in how the ally operates, which probably counts as gameplay related, so I wanted to discuss it with everyone here.

"I'm delighted to introduce the newest bot in my series of AI bots, the Protectorate bot. This bot represents a breakthrough in gameplay compared to the previous two, redefining alliance relationships. To play this bot, you need at least two players on the same team, both controlled by Protectorate. The player with the smaller ID will play the role of the "Empire," and the other players will be "vassals" (for example, if players 1, 2, and 3 are on the same team, player 1 will be the Empire, and players 2 and 3 will be the vassals). The Empire will prioritize military strength and trade, while the vassals will prioritize workers and pay 30% of their resources every 60 seconds to the Empire. This payment is waived if the vassal's resources are less than 20% of the Empire's resources and increases to 40% when the Empire launches an attack. The empire would also station troops in vassal states, with the number depending on the actual situation (this only happened when the empire's population exceeded 100)."

https://wildfiregames.com/forum/topic/140686-other-ai-bots-besides-petra/#:~:text=I'm delighted to,population exceeded 100).

I'd like to hear everyone's opinions.

[Eilat]

15 minutes ago, Eilat said:

pay 30% of their resources every 60 seconds to the Empire. This payment is waived if the vassal's resources are less than 20% of the Empire's resources and increases to 40% when the Empire launches an attack

To accomplish this, I added a file called tributeManager.js. Tribute is paid and a notification appears in the chat box, but I'm also unsure if tribute is still paid when conditions change (vassal budget is lower than required and before the empire launches a war).

[DesertRose]

• To make it more consistent among Civs, all Cavalry that can hunt have a special melee attack against defenseless animals

 

• German civilians have a damage multiplier against animals (including hostile ones)

or

• Civilians have a damage multiplier against defenseless animals

 

 

Edited March 1 by DesertRose

[LienRag]

On 28/01/2026 at 10:05 PM, Thalatta said:

Finally, it would be nice if 2 digit numbers were allowed

And how do you do that ?

[DesertRose]

If you task a Worker to a Field, they will go to another nearby Field if that Field has less farmers instead.

Edited March 9 by DesertRose

[Grapjas]

1 minute ago, DesertRose said:

If you task a Worker to a Field, they will instead go to another nearby Field if that Field has less farmers.

Would be a great first patch for someone willing to contribute to 0 AD

[Atrik]

14 minutes ago, DesertRose said:

If you task a Worker to a Field, they will go to another nearby Field if that Field has less farmers instead.

You are overwriting a player command for something maybe he doesn't want to do thoughts..
Maybe you can check Field Manager from @Mentula that added a command panel for farms with useful buttons.

[DesertRose]

3 minutes ago, Atrik said:

You are overwriting a player command for something maybe he doesn't want to do thoughts..
Maybe you can check Field Manager from @Mentula that added a command panel for farms with useful buttons.

Interesting.

I was just about to comment that ModernGui already has a very similar function to distribute your Farmer equally among multiple Fields. It seems that mod got it from the above mod.

Would be great to some sort of "Spread evenly" functionality in the base game.

[Atrik]

10 minutes ago, DesertRose said:

Would be great to some sort of "Spread evenly" functionality in the base game.

https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/pulls/8525

In that PR, @phosit suggested that we could use the selection box for spreading gatherers on some selection. I don't know how in feasible it is, or if it would be practical but just noting  it as a more general approach.

FieldManager is awesome but indeed, the fact it create a panel for fields, is introducing a tiny bit of technicality to the selection panel. Far from being a disqualifier to introduce in vanilla IMO, but together with the icons that aren't that much blending, there is probably some work to get in there.

[Grapjas]

I wouldnt really bother creating anything in GUI for it, for vanilla anyway. The objective is simple, player wants villager to farm, villager goes to an nearby available farm. So it does what the player wants to do. Better than standing AFK at a busy farm.

But it's up to whoever decides to pick this up anyway.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

Do workers tasked on busy farms not already look for spots on nearby farms? Or do you mean that they should automatically distribute to all available farms?

[Atrik]

9 minutes ago, Grapjas said:

The objective is simple, player wants villager to farm, villager goes to an nearby available farm. So it does what the player wants to do. Better than standing AFK at a busy farm.

If the farm is full, this is already the case, like for all resource gathering. Gatherers have diminishing efficiency in function of how much they are on a single field, hence the initial suggestion of having them spreading.

[Grapjas]

Oh, i completely misread that, i thought we were talking about expanding the radius a villager goes to a new farm if necessary. Because that radius is quite small actually.

[ffm2]

50 minutes ago, DesertRose said:

Would be great to some sort of "Spread evenly" functionality in the base game.

Why though?

It would be 2 developers working against each other.

First develops a game mechanic where each farmer has x0.9 of the efficiency of the former.

Second just optimize the effect automatically to a minimum making it meaningless for the player.

If you like to plan less for your setup, why don't you just suggest to remove the feature that's also not full documented with the numbers?

I'd just keep it as it is, but it should be documented with the numbers clearer.

[Atrik]

49 minutes ago, ffm2 said:

Why though?

It would be 2 developers working against each other.

First develops a game mechanic where each farmer has x0.9 of the efficiency of the former.

Second just optimize the effect automatically to a minimum making it meaningless for the player.

If you like to plan less for your setup, why don't you just suggest to remove the feature that's also not full documented with the numbers?

I'd just keep it as it is, but it should be documented with the numbers clearer.

Make a mod that remove all gui buttons that can be executed with just the mouse (units actions, formations, etc). Also remove selection box since you can always shift+click units when you want to make a multi-selection. You can even remove auto-drop-site deposit and things like that. Surely you'll experience fully the real-time-strategy at it's full potential then. Since real-time obviously means clicking a lot, and anything that allow users to make batch orders are blasphemes.