Forums
.thumb.jpeg.6593e9caa97375b0d0fe3e8d0b0480a4.jpeg)
-
Who's Online 5 Members, 1 Anonymous, 860 Guests (See full list)
-
Latest updates
-
-
Newest Posts
-
Honestly, 0 A.D. is a better game. I'm obviously talking about the standard Skirmish and Random map games, since we still don't have any good official campaigns. The main thing for me is, it took a while to understand when exactly to switch to training soldiers. If you get comfortable enough, you will get the timing naturally. It usually coincides with the switch to farming, so once you have your initial farms, making additional women is only desired if more farms are needed to balance the economy. Once you accept that, it's much easier to enjoy the game. You just boom, make units and everything is good. Age of Empires, on the other hand, is a much more stressful game. You need to advance to the Castle age ASAP, or you risk falling behind in relics and economy. We often joke that you need to reach the City phase in 0 A.D. fast, but we at least can make new Civic Centers in the second phase. And, there is no unit conversion by priests. Battles are much more chaotic in 0 A.D. owning to a fact that there is much more fighting units. Boom games in AoE2 can often lead to some absurdity, like having 115 villagers and 5 military units. Anyway, I needed to rant a bit. -
Well, yes, in scenario maps custom victory conditions for each team are possible, even for each player. However, the code behind the victory condition "presets" (the ones selectable in game setup -- Regicide, Wonder, Conquest, etc.) is currently not designed to work on a subset of players only. -
Thats why you dont let kids balance the game, they try to use some pseudo-logic to buff the units they like more and nerf the ones they dont like. On a more serious note, whether a general lost at the end is not a ideal indicator of their skill. If you only have cs units while your opponent has champs, you can micro-manage them perfectly and still lose... I mean Hannibal lost to Scipio at Zama? -
Hi there, I assume that the problem could also lie in the diplomacy settings (i.e. "Are they really an enemy?"). When setting up the match, make sure that their team number is different from yours (or there can be no team number assigned to both players). If the diplomacy mode is enabled (meaning if it's allowed to change your teams during the game), you can try opening the diplomacy setting (icon somewhere in the top right corner) and check if the AI is set to Enemy and not Neutral. -
By Gurken Khan · Posted
Hi @Amj, welcome to the forums. Make sure you don't have ceasefire enabled at match setup. Try "attack move", CTRL + right click by default. Also make sure your units are on aggressive stance: If your units still don't attack maybe attach a replay here. HTH -
Solution? Be the host, or just play 1v1.
-
One of the worst things about this game the lack of balanced games, it's totally hard to balance games and every time the host is trying to win games by putting the worst players in the second team everytime i'm on the second team it's almost always a lose, because the host only want to win every single darn time
-
.thumb.png.ce58cea22940c255f5b0a735d5abee36.png)
