All Activity

@Agne1940 Hello, Thank you for this information.

Hi there, It's definitely frustrating when the AI still feels too tough even on "Very Easy." A few things you might want to check: Campaign or Skirmish? – Some games have different AI settings for campaign missions compared to skirmish/custom matches. Even if you've set the default to "Very Easy," the campaign might override it. AI Behavior Matters – You mentioned setting it to Random — this can sometimes result in unexpectedly aggressive or tricky behavior. Try setting it to something more predictable like Defensive or Passive if the game allows that. Modifiers or Boosts – Check if the AI is getting resource or production bonuses regardless of the difficulty level. Some games apply boosts that aren't tied strictly to the "Very Easy" setting. Game Speed or Mechanics – In some titles, the pace of the game or complex mechanics can make things harder even if the AI is weaker. Try slowing down the game speed or experimenting with different factions/units. If all else fails, sometimes community forums or mods can help adjust the difficulty further if the base settings aren’t enough. Hope this helps, and good luck!

What about doubling the territory effective ranges of the buildings? Could encourage the AI player to build further out.

I didn't change the AI's logic for this. But it responded well. Although it doesn't do it like a human, building absurdly far away, to gain advantages, it still builds outside its area.

Loom and Fertility Festival are already taken care of in the PR. As for the old "Spartan Women" bonus, how about calling it "Ritualistic Exercise," eluding to something unique to their culture to justify the bonus?

The spartan bonus for women can be easily rephrased to refer to just "citizens" and justified by the strict Spartan discipline. EDIT: It's Fertility Festival, not Female Festival. I guess we don't have to change the tech name, but only the tooltip. The same for Loom.

Athens: Politēs Athēnaîos (Athenian Citizen) Britons: Carthaginians: Gauls: Han: Iberians: Kushites: Macedonians: Politēs Makedonikḗ (Macedonian Citizen) Mauryas: Persians: Ptolemies: Romans: Cīvis Rōmānus (Roman Citizen) Seleucids: Sparta: Politēs Spartiátēs (Spartan Citizen) Also keep in mind the names don't always have to translate to "{Civ} Citizen," it could also be something like Han Peasant, or Gallic Artisan, or anything like that to add cultural flavor.

Rome: Cīvis Rōmānus (Roman Citizen). Greek city states (Athens, Sparta, Macedonia): Polítēs (Citizen).

https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/pulls/8062 Please suggest GenericNames and SpecificNames.

Gotta chomp those Rice Krispie Treats.

This guy's voice is terrible.

Kinda makes sense if you think about Age of Empires games, where even their versions of champions, "Unique Units," have upgrades that make them even better. -> -> May I propose that the Spartan Champion have a 3-tier upgrade system that goes (GenericNames) Spartiate -> Bodyguard Spartiate -> Olympic Champion Spartiate; Village -> Town -> City phase.

How does the AI handle it?

...and that would be indeed a neat add-on indicating which CC is under attack ("Amphipolis is under attack by <Name of opponent>").

I hope you'll excuse this quite massive bump: Since today (UTC+2) there is this new ticket #8055 (Feature: City Names)-opened by op.

What are you talking about, this is the slowest rts I've ever played in my life, and I've played a lot. 0 a.d you can easily beat anyone with an average apm of 60.

hello @user1 I play as Darkedestroyer the offender is aqula97 he quit mid game without resigning when it was clear he had been defeated http://"C:\Users\Owner\Documents\My Games\0ad\replays\0.27.0\2025-06-10_0002\commands.txt"

The game is a bit deserted... but it's still enjoyable.

This is an OOS change so maybe could be tested in @borg-'s balancing mod or the Com mod by @real_tabasco_sauce

Since that happened this WE I looked into it, and got a grasp of the problem. The prices are currently driven by the number of transactions and not the volumes they generate. So one can drive the price of a resource then benefit from large transactions, therefor overall generating resources. Currently the formula multiply some constants to sold amount (which is equivalent to number of transactions, as sold amounts are fix), if you change it to bought amount, large transaction affect the price more, and generating resources from this 'Pump and Dump' no longer works => The only way to have barter efficiency over 100% will now be if ANOTHER player oversold a resource, and the amount you can generate is now proportional to the amount he lost. Which is very likely the behavior intended in the first place.

See: https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/issues/8051

Under certain conditions, the market can be pumped exploited with OP trades that will generate infinite resources. Below is one example of the exploit: One needs to firstly invest 3000 metal to buy some other resources, e.g. food, to really depreciate the metal value and raise the food value. Then you take 500 food to trade back more than 3000 metal - you end with a net profit in metal. Furthermore, the food is still highly valued and you can buy huge quantities of other resources with food, resulting in resources being generated from nowhere. However, this is not consistently working. I tried to reproduce this but did not get these profitable values like Cube did. After many trades, I was eventually able to generate 10K metal after spending 2000 food and 2500 wood (profit?) Ideally we make changes to the bartering mechanism to prevent this from happening.

Could be. Although if you read the story we the devs back then actually proposed a game before age of mythology

It seems to me that this system was copied from Age of mythology.