Jump to content

Release Candidate 2 - Alpha 24: Xšayāršā


Recommended Posts

Greetings everyone,

The new and hopefully final release candidate (RC) is here!

Revision: rP24928

Windows: https://releases.wildfiregames.com/rc/0ad-0.0.24rc2-24928-alpha-win32.exe

MacOS: https://releases.wildfiregames.com/rc/0ad-0.0.24rc2-24928-alpha-osx64.dmg

All RCs are available here: https://releases.wildfiregames.com/rc. The one you want is 0ad-0.0.24rc2-24928-alpha-**

PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE POSTING & TESTING

The RC installer will overwrite the current installed version.

  • The RC will use your current config including mods, so make sure to disable EVERYTHING (fgod, autociv, and badosu's mods are not supported)
  • You might get warnings about hotkeys, we redesigned completely the system, so you might have to fix some of them (you may want to backup your config file if your intend to play A23B again
  • It goes without saying but even though we are really close to a release, this is an experimental version.
  • macOS 10.11 and below are no longer supported.
  • windows XP and Vista are no longer supported.

 

If you want to help more you can also perform those steps

  1. Launch a random game
  2. Launch a skirmish.
  3. Connect to the lobby
  4. Play on the lobby with someone
  5. Launch Atlas and try things out there
  6. Open Unit tests demo (To see if there any breakage in displaying entity's) (It's in scenarios)
  7. Try mods through modio only. (A23B MODS WILL NOT WORK)
  8. Enable feedback and see if it works (Main menu)
  9. Connect to and use mod.io
  10. Test replaying new games
  11. Test Screenshots (F2)
  12. Test Big Screenshots (Maj+F2)
  13. Test hotkeys
  14. Test Saving and loading a game.
  15. Test Quickload/Quicksave
  16. If you need any help ping me :)

And of course you can play games with the RC.

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • wraitii changed the title to Release Candidate 2 - Alpha 24: Xšayāršā

It seems that the title of the Catafalque Bonuses page misses translation

edit: and there is a problem with this text:

screenshot0091.png.23ac59dc21d2e051fdc7263536aa7855.png

edit: there are a couple more of these, I guess the German language has too many long words  :d

screenshot0096.png.ebe62b037dfaf82bbb7d912cf487a861.pngscreenshot0095.thumb.png.0ba2172d3a6f931818b615a5f6075349.png

Edited by nifa
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

3 hours ago, nifa said:

It seems that the title of the Catafalque Bonuses page misses translation

edit: and there is a problem with this text:

screenshot0091.png.23ac59dc21d2e051fdc7263536aa7855.png

edit: there are a couple more of these, I guess the German language has too many long words  :d

screenshot0096.png.ebe62b037dfaf82bbb7d912cf487a861.pngscreenshot0095.thumb.png.0ba2172d3a6f931818b615a5f6075349.png

Thanks for the message, created some tickets.

Edited by Langbart
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Tried running application on OS X 10.11.6, reads that it "requires OS X 10.12 or later". Isn't this contrary to the minimum requirements from the official website of "10.9 or later". Expected better than this.

Will try on my bought-recently Windows laptop once I get home.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Carltonus said:

Tried running application on OS X 10.11.6, reads that it "requires OS X 10.12 or later". Isn't this contrary to the minimum requirements from the official website of "10.9 or later". Expected better than this.

Will try on my bought-recently Windows laptop once I get home.

Yeah it will be part of the release announcement, we had to drop 10.12 and below because it wouldn't work for more recent macOS @wraitii might tell you more.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Carltonus said:

Tried running application on OS X 10.11.6, reads that it "requires OS X 10.12 or later". Isn't this contrary to the minimum requirements from the official website of "10.9 or later". Expected better than this.

Will try on my bought-recently Windows laptop once I get home.

That sounds poor indeed, however, I suppose there is a good reason for this. (Perhaps the SpiderMonkey update?)

Can't you update your macOS, though? https://www.apple.com/macos/how-to-upgrade/

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Nescio said:

That sounds poor indeed, however, I suppose there is a good reason for this. (Perhaps the SpiderMonkey update?)

Actually it's the SDL2, in order to keep supporting Retina screens. (Still no HiDPI support)

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Nescio said:

That sounds poor indeed, however, I suppose there is a good reason for this. (Perhaps the SpiderMonkey update?)

Can't you update your macOS, though? https://www.apple.com/macos/how-to-upgrade/

I could, but there are the risks taken into account (memory, legal, time, etc.). I am typing this reply on an iMac (21.5-inch, Late 2015), very old computer according to one of my instructors in another trade.

5 minutes ago, Stan` said:

Actually it's the SDL2, in order to keep supporting Retina screens. (Still no HiDPI support)

Methinks, this isn't a Retina-type screen I am using after all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately 10.11 and before are no longer supported. Indeed, the reason is that the older SDL2 version was bugged on 10.12+, so we had to upgrade, but that upgrade meant we could no longer support 10.11 and earlier. We had to make a choice, and 10.12 being released in 2016 it seemed fair to upgrade.

Your iMac should support newer versions of MacOS, so I would suggest you upgrade unless you have very good reasons not to (which you may).

The build instructions are yet to be updated entirely, since the release isn't out yet.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Lopess said:

Is there a forecast for when a new PPA 0ad XXIV update for ubuntu will be available??? :cry:

I need to ask ricotz, but it's very likely it will come at the same time with the release.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 14/02/2021 at 8:25 PM, Stan` said:
  • Test replaying new games
  • Test Saving and loading a game.
     

 

I haven't studied it deeply yet. Playing with the bot -> Save -> Exit -> Load -> Win -> Press Replay. It will turn out to be an invalid Replay (the bot is playing, but the player's units are just standing)

Edited by nwtour
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, nifa said:

I noticed that there are 13 practice ranges (the structure) in atlas, but it seems that I can't build any of them ingame, so I was wondering why they have been left out?

Yes, practice ranges exist for all civilizations in game and yes, they're unused. This is intentional.

One reason is functional. In A24, the barracks is for infantry, the stable for cavalry, the elephant stable for elephants, the arsenal for siege engines, the dock for ships, the temple for healing, and the fortress for defending territory. We don't treat e.g. ranged cavalry differently from melee cavalry, so why should we have a separate structure for ranged infantry?

The other reason is that we care about historical accuracy. While (semi-)permanent practice ranges are well-attested for mediaeval England, early modern Europe, or the present-day United States, there is no evidence whatsoever for their existence in antiquity. (Please prove me wrong if you happen to know of any.) Moreover, dedicated heavy troops (i.e. melee infantry) often had one or two javelins and dedicated light troops (i.e. ranged infantry) often had a sword as a sidearm.

Just because Age of Empires has them doesn't mean 0 A.D. should do the same.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The previous alpha has the Carthaginian quinquireme only built in the “super dock”. Now it can also be built in the normal dock like the Romans and the successors. Is this intentional?

Aren’t the hoplomachi and murmillones already in, or will be in the actual release?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Carltonus said:

The previous alpha has the Carthaginian quinquireme only built in the “super dock”. Now it can also be built in the normal dock like the Romans and the successors. Is this intentional?

Yes, this is intentional too: limiting warships to the super dock only is effectively a penalty. Moreover, Carthaginians were already able to construct quinquerenes at captured Roman or Ptolemaic docks.

In A24 quinqueremes and fireships can be constructed at any dock, so if e.g. the Romans capture an Athenian dock, they can built Roman quinqueremes there too. Likewise, Mauryas can also train worker elephants and elephant archers at elephant stables of other civs and e.g. Macedonians can construct siege towers at arsenals captured from Romans or Gauls, to name a few examples.

48 minutes ago, Carltonus said:

Aren’t the hoplomachi and murmillones already in, or will be in the actual release?

I'm not sure what you're referring to.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Nescio said:

The other reason is that we care about historical accuracy. While (semi-)permanent practice ranges are well-attested for mediaeval England, early modern Europe, or the present-day United States, there is no evidence whatsoever for their existence in antiquity. (Please prove me wrong if you happen to know of any.) Moreover, dedicated heavy troops (i.e. melee infantry) often had one or two javelins and dedicated light troops (i.e. ranged infantry) often had a sword as a sidearm.

The problem with this argument is that "barracks" themselves aren't exactly historically accurate either (save for the Romans perhaps, whose barracks looked different than ours)... By and large, they are an RTS abstraction, like standalone towers. The thing is, archery ranges are a fun abstraction, and mesh well with the division between infantry, artillery, cavalry etc. And the distinction between archers at least, and melee infantry, I would argue is quite relevant. As far as I understand, they were usually recruited from different sections of the population (often even different places) and functioned as distinct units. Same goes for other infantry skirmishers like dedicated slingers and javelineers, like the famous peltasts. Of course, many ranged units would have a sidearm for close quarter melee combat if it came to that, and many melee infantry units would have had some javelins and even slings, but generally still operated quite differently to dedicated skirmishers. Basically, in my opinion ignoring the archery ranges is a missed opportunity, from an RTS perspective. I hope they make it into Alpha 25. The models are beautiful and unique, and I think they would look great in-game, and would be welcomed by a significant majority of the playerbase.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the best argument for why archery ranges and stables should exist, regardless of accuracy, would be due to tells if we will.  At the moment, when I watch high level 0 AD players, I see little scouting before aggression.  While there are undoubtedly other reasons behind that such as map generation, this shows the fact that it is usually difficult to predict the build order based on structures in place.  Age of Empires 2 and Starcraft 2 are both games where the idea of working against specific unit compositions is critical to success, and 0 AD theoretically is the same.  Having specialised structures do that means that players that look for that intel are rewarded.  Whether the stable-barracks-archery range system is historical or not is a bit inconsequential for our purposes.  0 AD is meant to represent the old rock-paper-scissors formula.  

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I do agree with the scouting and gameplay argument. However, the fact that civil centre can train military also kind of defeats the purpose of scouting - to an extent, the game is quite flexible anyways. If we want to change that, we kinda have to change the whole game.

I'm not extraordinarily satisfied with the current gameplay situation, but I'm not certain adding an "archery range" would really improve things much, unless we actually go for an AoE2 clone - but I don't think that's necessarily entirely desirable, since AoE2 is alive and very much kicking.

I think our gameplay would benefit from being more similar to Rise of Nations, since we already have the territory mechanic, but that also needs a number of changes.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...