All Activity

Since back then (AOE2) I liked one ally and four enemies. Makes every game different. And teaming the enemies up boosts the difficulty. Did you somewhere establish what "non-cheating" is? I consider "all seeing" cheating, so... (Not complaining, just saying.)

The AI sends its only hero to die in its first attack. The hero dies, so the AI instantly lose. Make the hero stay in home base, near the Civic Center. I can see that the "retreat" trigger activates when the hero is at low health, but it doesn't work very well on slow infantry and Elephant heroes.

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.

It's a mod with better AI. Check the mods in the Mod dowloader. You might first try winning against a unmodded Medium AI, though. It's the highest non-cheating difficulty that still can pose a good challenge if you procrastinate and let it build up.

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 ?

What is it ? I wasn't aware of it... Does it cheat ? As written above, I don't like that.

Thanks. I wasn't aware of difficulty levels for the AI. I really dislike cheating AIs, though. What is the highest level where it doesn't cheat ? Note also that I'm absolutely not asking for advice on how to play against AI. I like discovering myself what works, it's the most enjoyable part of the game. My question was about how many AI opponent to choose (eventually, how many allies too - allies are good for trade, but it's quite random how long they survive, which is something I don't really like). And, for high level of opponents, what level of cheating (additionnal resources mostly) is acceptable and makes for a game that is both fun and challenging.

It is easier to "download" if you use flatpak. See the graphic associated with the post cited below.

Hard AI - Random behavior. Pop either 200, 300 (testing strats for multiplayer), or unlimited (for just monster war fun). Starting RSS Low or Normal. When it's on Hard mode - they've got a 25% gather buff, so they WILL have an army before you, 99% of the time. I find it helps to train a few cav (typically 5-7) at around 30-pop to do more hunting for food, but also to tank the first attack so archers/javs can knock it out. That first attack isn't usually more than a few units, so you can quickly grab everyone to fight it then return to work. I've found as well, after watching some people in my multiplayer games, town setup matters. A storehouse on a border woodline WILL distract any troops controlled by AI enough for you to gather the forces to repel. houses close together helps break up a formation and funnel troops in one-by-one rather than a mass blob. Hope that helps.

There are in fact battles that Rome won because of Elephants, maybe not many of them given the shortish time frame, but they are there. As for why or why not, I think its cool enough to be worthwhile, not everything has to be legionary focused in Roman civs.

Yep

https://code.wildfiregames.com/D368 @bb_ Made a patch some time ago. Secondary attack.

Nowadays, I always play against Hard Balanced AI. I've tried playing against the Hardest, but found no major difference in difficulty. There's also Petra Expert AI mod if you need more challenge. The AI gets bonus gathering speed at levels greater than Medium. It also trains larger armies more quickly. However, you will beat it easily if you're a decent player.

Linux Download page is still not working, btw: https://play0ad.com/download/linux/ If someone wants to look at the code to start modding I assume you can start here: https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/wiki/BuildInstructionsGettingTheCode ? Is that right?

I always play by myself with the computer opponent. Therefore, delenda est is particularly interesting to me because it offers many development options and more building alternatives. It's certainly been discussed before, but it's a shame that the Roman legionaries aren't able to throw the pilum. For example, you could switch it around like with the Immortals. Easy for me, as a non-programmer, to say. It would, however, make the history more accurate. The Romans were the absolute world power in ancient times, also based on this tactic. Likewise, military camps are inferior to the military colonies of the Phoenicians or Seleucids. It's the same with shipping; galleys were both capable of long-range weapons; above a certain size, they had long-range weapons on board and could ram or board ships. Of course, I don't want to dictate anything to the other players; I like the authenticity of the figures and the painstaking attention to detail, and the gameplay isn't that important to me. I would also like to have optional raider gangs or pirate ships, in addition to treasure. That's why I particularly like the Danubius map. This way, everyone can shape their game the way they want. Otherwise, I really like the game... please never stop...

Finally won 1v7 on againt very hard AI with open map. Earlier used ibr to play xd. Was hard but nothing is impossible with gauls, given you can spam fanatcis then switch to melee champ cavs. @SaidRdz, @Player of 0AD, thats how to you do it

I played a lot of lame games against AI but now I begin to understand how to make 0ad games more interesting. So I'd like to ask what settings players use to make their AI games interesting ? The problem I have is that too little AIs make the game boring, but too much make their first attack nearly impossible to repel without cheating, so in both cases the gameplay is boring. I guess that some cheating may be fine against more than 3 opponents (all allied; games against non-allied opponents are too random) but I don't know which exactly will make the game fun (basically, some wood with "bring me my axe" to get some palisades in order to survive the first attack and then counter-attack I guess, but how much would be reasonable ?).

Honestly, Roman elephants dont sit right with me. Elephants never played a significant role in Roman victories (or defeats) AFAIK. We have civilizations which lack basic units like infantry javelins, not because they never used them but because they never played a significant role for them (i mean all civs have spears someone must have figured out to throw it). Romans are already diverse and they will neither gain from having elephants nor lose from not having them.

A merc elephant would be great As a thought experiment I would assume a full metal cost, which going off the smaller African elephant would be 450 metal in total after converting food cost to metal. Given training is faster, and also knowing the limited acquisition that Rome has from Numidia, I would run with the elephant stables but cap it at 1 or maybe 2 buildings, that way production should be slower than other civs who could spam like four or five elephant stables so they can mass them fast. A cool side affect would be that now a Roman player could use captured elephant stables, which would be a fun niche feature.

Six to be exact. unit focus is fine but does not have to dictate everything. Not sure what exactly you mean by additional unit roster, their roster is still the same after the reforms tech.

I agree.As a non-roster mercenary unit it's fine.

We already have a lot of civs which have access to War Elephants. Romans have focus on infantry and siege. They are also currently the only civ with an additional unit roster. I think they are fully covered now, but I would like to see the return of Donkey-pulled Scorpio cart. Romans have an abstract technology called "Roman roads", which provides a small speed boost. I'd say that the idea is fun, but this is not a City building simulation game. This is a fun idea, Praetorians had this feature. Again, would make this into a City building simulation game. The players already need to worry about positioning for their structures, we shouldn't make it worse. For anyone who played Metal Fatigue, you know how annoying this can be. Or fun, depending on if you're the one who built a huge tank and artillery army underground and are now wrecking the enemy's base.

Oh, and of courser not every stone quarry should offer an entrance to a cave system. It must be discovered. This might be an option to mine more stone over a longer period. In a typical game, stone appears to be a resource that is used in larger quantities mostly during build up.

The difficulity is of course the actual game mechanic: a building to walk on, not like a wall, not like a field. For sure not easy to implement, hence this might remain a dream. Ah - one more I remember from Settlers 5 that was fun: - tunnels/caves - you could discover and enter them, and then surface again on another place on the map (teleporting is a feature we have already iirc). Of course this works for both sides. To add more fun, the entry would be blocked by stone (a stone quarry). Once the stone is removed you have a secret passage to another part of the map. Watchout - it can also be used by your adversary if he discovers it!

This would be pretty epic, I always wished we could build the bridges from the scenario editor is Age II. Roads would be an interesting feature, most useful I think for shifting forces around your territory I would think, though aggressively building a road into your opponents land would be terribly funny as well