Boudica

Thanks, fpre! I did that and tried rebuilding again, but the problem appeared again.

Hi there, I'm sorry but I've encountered a problem with the build on Linux after I svn up'd to the recent version. make clean and rebuilding the workspaces didn't seem to fix it. It says that that enet/enet.h file is missing. I have previously installed libenet and it also built fine like two weeks ago. It seems I won't be able to join for some test playing today.

I think your units were performing a dance dodge:

That really fits! You are very likely to have to go save a Mauryan ally in a team game.

Such savages! I wouldn't expect them to also be the Persian Immorals.

Kushites seem to be people of puns. I see you started with relics, so it's Shanakdakheto who comes to mind. She slows down the gather rate for all enemy female citizens by 15%. I think you could say that... she moves the enemy eco... into Shanghai-da-Ghetto. OK, I'm out.

I believe that if you watch some ValihrAnt's videos and reinstall for the fifth time, you're gonna make it. But as nifa and Nescio suggested, playing with multiple bots (some allied) can really be another interesting way to ease the difficulty and make the game more fun. Honestly, the bots can sometimes be better team players than some of the humans.

Just let him pay for something he doesn't need if that's what he prefers. Maybe I should have charged for my advice too because it can't be good if it's free, can it? If I were Loki1950, I'd have to add: Enjoy the Choice!

Thanks for the reply! I'm glad that the videos helped. ValihrAnt has many more on his channel, and watching other people play can be a good way to improve at your own game. I specifically value the fact that you are willing to abandon what didn't work in favor of something better. Trust me that there are some mistakes that almost all new players make, yet many are really stubborn and refuse to learn. You deduced very well that one of the main goals of the game is to grow your population as fast as possible. At some point of your growth, economy techs become worth researching, yet it's often a bit later than ASAP. Also you need to balance your growth with how your opponent is growing, so that you aren't in a position when he has many more soldiers and you can no longer defend. When you're talking about ranged units, they really are good at dealing damage. On the other hand, melee units are much better at taking damage and they don't die that fast. Having a balanced army of different unit types is consequently almost always a better choice. I'm just mentioning this because there are a lot of new players that make an army of only one unit type with the greatest damage, neglecting all other properties. The commerce thing you've mentioned is probably either trading or bartering. You need to build a market for either of those. Once you and your ally have a market, you can produce trader units to generate resources by automatically going between those two markets. You can actually also trade between two market of yours, the more distance between them, the greater the income. To start trading, you either set a rally point from your market to the other one before you train traders. Or you can just select the traders you have and right click the two markets you want them to trade between. You can also set the proportion of different resources you're getting from the trade after selecting a market. Bartering is just an instant exchange of one resource type for another, yet there is a variable fee you pay for doing that, so it's only worth up to a certain point.

Hello, DanW58! All I can hear is that the challenge presented by the AI keeps you motivated to keep trying again and again. No, I understand what you're saying. There had been concerns about the Easy AI being too hard (that's why Sandbox was added), but then there also were concerns that the Very Hard AI is too easy. I'm not sure if anyone else has pointed out that there is a big difference between Sandbox and Easy. Maybe the distinction could really be tweaked a bit (which isn't very hard to do), but it might be hard to find what works well for a majority of new players. I think that an alternative solution might be to provide a better tutorial so that the newcomers really know what they have to do to win the Easy AI. I'm pretty sure that you'd only need to do one or two things differently in order to start winning against the AI. If you can post some of your replays, we can give you tips. If you don't want to do that, it's highly probable that the tips are contained in any of the following two videos:

I suppose it's just a Google Translate plugin. It probably has little to do with the forum system itself.

Wow, I didn't know my Spanish was that good.

It's making me sad that my fact checking of DoctorOrgans claims is viewed as taking part in the flame war. This reminds me of the saying "If you argue with an idiot for more than five minutes, there are two idiots arguing", yet still one thing is arguing and the other is refusing to accept that there are lies being said about you. Perhaps a better solution would be to request to ban him from the forums. I can't really even remember seeing him post anything helpful, or on-topic. It's just three things on repeat, regardless the topic. Let's see what the admins think about calling other members boring, putting words in their mouth, telling them to get a job (thanks, I am self-employed and doing well). I don't think such behavior helps the community.

I'm available over the weekend, starting now, any time you want. Let's see who is making excuses.

I'm not surprised that the meme character has problems choosing which button to press. He's been presented with two choices that are both well-known to be incorrect (to anyone except DoctorOrgans). Sorry to disappoint, badosu, but it's hard to make a comeback. Without greatly lowering my standards for a discussion, that is. After being proven wrong in everything he says, DoctorOrgans switched to expressing himself with irrelevant pictures. Perhaps my simple English, which he considers to be of an academic level, failed to convey the fact that I'm actually willing to participate in a tournament. I seem to be unable to say that in a way he can understand, but that might really only have to do with the conflicting fantasy he is living in his head.

The real idea of coming up with with brackets of such arbitrary sizes is so that you can hope (based on your other arbitrary rules and the small number of active players) to get included in a top category and keep saying that you are higher class than specific other players. I can clearly see how you had problems finding who to put in the silver category to also omit me, but it's ridiculous how you include several other players that don't have a history of beating me more often than not. I don't also need to be a psychologist to see that your inclusion of roscany is rooted in your denial of my previous claims about the imbalance of some of the games you posted. Either a display of your developing insanity, or a lame attempt at trolling. I don't feel angry writing this, I just feel that it barely is worth commenting on. I think I might be up to participating in a tournament hosted with normal settings, fair-play enforcement and badosu's balanced maps too.

It's funny that I actually expected your next post to contain the phrase "common sense". When you get totally devastated by facts and arguments, what else can you do than trying to dismiss that using vague phrases? Maybe also add some more emoticons for emphasis? Of course, you can also try putting words into my mouth and end it all with unsolicited life advice. I take this all as an unusual way of expressing agreement through an emotional denial. There are some more facts for you: It's just you who regularly refers to this gold / silver / bronze classification. Also, I've never seen anyone except yourself claim that you are a "silver player", yet there is even a thread where several more reputable disagreed with that. It's just you who obsessively puts it in every other post. This makes me think if you even responding to me, or if that's an argument you are only having with yourself. Things don't become a fact when you repeat them more often. Saying that you don't care about the TG performance after we just discussed just that based on the replays you posted doesn't make the results look any better for you. BTW, Stockfish, sorry about hijacking your thread. Hope you are enjoyed.

I probably tried to reference what is normally called LLN, but you not only seem to not know the correct name of the theorem, you don't even seem to be able to apply it well. I won't go into details because it's irrelevant here anyway. I don't know how to understand your crazy smiley reaction to my summary of the games. Your methodology of looking only at the kill count is not accepted by anyone else. Maybe this is where you should add some references. You could as well post screenshots of your city and argue that you won because your city is the most symmetrical, but I prefer to not give you any ideas. The funniest thing is that even when I include the games that were known to be imbalanced in advance, even if I include the game that was closed because of one player early resignation, your sample just by no means shows you as someone who wins more frequently. On the other hand, the only games a sane person would consider relevant end in a harsh defeat of yours. I'm sure you fear the day when I actually agree to play a 1 vs. 1 with you (not that it's very relevant to my point about your poor performance in team games). Anyway, as I explained many times before, I'm sick of your practices when you "accidentally" delete your CC or pretend to be AFK, so that you can ask for a rehost and get a better starting position. You've shown several times that you are unable to follow simple fair-play rules, even in the official tournament. There is even a history of you rage quitting our rated 1 vs. 1 because "you were supposed to win". You couldn't accept that your simplified view of who wins a game just doesn't reflect reality.

I guess you're looking at the final kill count. Let me say that your definition of "outperforming" someone is really absurd. I hope that users posting their rating reflect this when deciding about your IQ rating. I really can't stress enough how ignorant it is to only compare the final number of kills, and especially if you compare it with your allies when the game was lost for your team. This just shows that you're fighting your team instead of the opponent, and it could be one of the reasons why many people prefer to play against you. You're counting kills occurring at minute 2 the same as Gaia woman kills from minute 30. You pretend to miss that 18 of my kills in the last game were expensive siege weapons, which made you unable to keep pushing on a map with limited resources. A kill is a kill, right? When you are advanced enough, you might start to realize that it's not the final kill count that wins a game, but mostly the eco. You might start to employ different strategies than hoping for the rest of your team to hold for 20 minutes until you finally start fighting, then preferably going for the weak players (because "a kill is a kill" and "who cares if we end up losing, i outperformed everyone"). I'm not surprised that you selected games from the recent period after my real rating fixture. I'm not gonna check what you left out, but I'm gonna comment on what you selected: When you look at the first game, it's a balance a good player can't be proud of winning with (especially if he'd like to consider himself superior). CryptoCamelius with a weaker civ beat roscany at the opposite front, so we'd have to win our side with Rockss. But you can't really compare Rockss to Akazid because Akazid is experienced with low-pop games. He knew to do cavalry and he brought a lot of infantry to your P3 attack, even though he even went for a big infantry rush before. You'd have to give me credit for keeping the K/D > 1 after rushes from both of you (and none of my kills were women), but if it was to be just moderately balanced, Rockss would have to be able to push first in P3 because he didn't participate in the rush. What happened instead was that he was going for a wonder and kept too many units on eco. I'd have to get more credit for telling exactly what we needed to do, but I'm only writing this because you'd usually start claiming (without being involved in the chat) that it was me who gave wrong commands to the team. You don't mind saying that from a position of someone, who really was only required to go for his 7/10 boom and then send all units into a fight. So this is how DoctorOrgans outperforming everybody looks like. The second game crashed in the middle of what would be a losing fight for you (your untanked army of archers vs. our slinger army, properly tanked with 30 pikemen). From what I remember, you were at a lower pop, lacking minerals (no, those few low-income traders weren't making a difference, even though that was why you said you'd have won). You never even got to build a fortress and you were just going to fall in the next moments. Funny enough, you tried to blame (?) my allies for helping me a lot, yet if if wasn't for Rockss from the opposite front coming to me, I wouldn't ever have been really attacked well. Your K/D is only better because hamdich K/D is much worse and you let him take the damage, while mostly only making the lowest DPS unit available. DoctorOrgans's outperforming in action. Third game: Since Ajan2017 knew how to play, the balance is off. Fourth game: Your rush made Ricsand resign early without saying anything. I guess he wouldn't have to do that if the balance wasn't in your favor. I congratulate you on not making this game last an hour though. I was rushing very successfully too anyway. Fifth game: I think you faced me that game. Early rushes, then fast steamroll. You weren't even P3. Sixth game: You think your rush was getting you ahead of me, but your camels weren't useful anymore that I got P2 towers. I'd be able to get a faster P3. Other than that, I don't like to make conclusions from unfinished games. Seventh game: Now this is a relevant game. Teams look balanced, my civ is typically considered as worse. We were both holding two players. Now since you like kills, notice you only get about half of them as me. I wasn't rushing, so most of my kills are actually soldiers. Eighth game: Unfinished, you are clearly losing though. Ninth game: Yeah, I already commented on that. Final stats look balanced though, so better not make conclusions. There is the summary of the presented replays (from my point of view). Bad balance: 1 3 4 Won: 2 5 7 8 Lost: Undecided: 6 9 I'm looking forward to you claiming that the imbalanced games were actually balanced well, yet even if they were (which would confirm you have to be regarded as a weaker player), the results don't look very good for you. Now keep in mind that my stats are based on longer-term data.

Well, it's not very advanced, maybe you were just looking for a joke that isn't there. Kush is supposed to refer to the Kushites civilization as in "I'll play Kushites", and it is a pun on rush. Thanks for asking instead of faking a laughter.

The reason why the stats are relevant in our case is that we are regarded the same for the sake of balancing.1 There have been games where you were on a slightly better or slightly worse team, but you've only been winning games where the rest of your team was significantly stronger. The numbers were so significant (only around 20% win rate for you) that it made me start regarding you as less skilled and accept balances that would otherwise be wrong. This produced a few victories that made claims about your superiority even more laughable. The top three players might really often get a team that requires them to do wonders, but we all know that this is not really your case. What remains is trying to blame it on the civilizations. I know you're often playing Sparta to have this excuse at hand, but it's not very relevant for the comparison because I'm most often taking Random anyway, so I didn't have a better civilization in most of the games. 1) The only reason someone asks to switch you and me is that they don't want to play with you. It's never happened for the sake of balancing.

These are some nice suggestion. It might be a good idea to check how the behavior has changed in the SVN version of the game though. The current alpha is already two years old and many changes have been made since.

Hello there... I am not sure if it's possible for the host to selectively start ignoring your commands without causing an OOS error. But the part where you describe not being able to type any text in the chat window suggests that it was a bug in your instance of the game. I don't know the internals much and I've never encountered this myself, but we'll know that it's not something new when it happens to someone else. One question: Aren't you by any chance playing on Mac OS? There have been some problems with that version of the game. It might help to restart the game before matches, I think that works for some people.

Hi there, I think that an easy approach could be to add your hosting e-mail account to a desktop e-mail client (Thunderbird or similar). If you haven't done this yet, check what your hosting provider says about the IMAP or POP3 access. From there you can easily select the e-mails and save them to your hard drive (just Save as or whatever your e-mail client supports). If you use Gmail, there is a feature that lets you add you another e-mail account, and Gmail then acts similarly to a desktop email client. I'd have to check, but I think that Gmail then allows you to also transfer all the past e-mails to your Gmail account.