Leaderboard

Based on my 4-5 years of experience playing 0 A.D., I have noticed that many players are either overrated or underrated, with some claiming their skill level is higher than it actually is. To address this, I propose the following ladder to categorize players' levels: Iron Level (1200 or below): These players are beginners with limited experience in the game. They are still learning the mechanics, and progressing beyond this level may take a few months to several years, depending on the player. Bronze Level (1200–1500): Players at this level excel at booming but are weak in combat and often struggle against rushers. Many prefer defensive playstyles and are not as active in offensive strategies. Silver Level (1500–1700): These players are "eco-bots" with excellent economic skills and strong armies. However, they rarely rush and lack proficiency in advanced rushing tactics. When they do rush, it is often infantry-based. They primarily prefer playing on mainland maps and are less skilled on low-resource maps. Additionally, they are vulnerable to early attacks. Golden Level (1700–1900): These players are aggressive and knowledgeable about rushing strategies. They excel at disrupting the economy of silver-level players and often dominate early engagements. Diamond Level (1900+): These players are highly creative, capable of devising new strategies for both combat and economy. They often serve as role models, with others learning from their gameplay. In my opinion, among last year’s active players, only Vali, Borg, and Vinme belong to this elite level. Note on Cheating: Some players use tools like ProGUI auto-train, hacked auto-civilization selection, or multi-click mice. While some may argue these are not cheats, in my view, anything that provides an unfair advantage is cheating. These tools can artificially elevate a player's level. For example, a bronze-level player using cheats might appear to be at the silver level. Therefore, players using such tools should be demoted by one level in their ranking.

That sounds like a plan we’d just have to design scenario 3 so the player couldn’t conceivably brute force their way to victory without becoming allies but we should be able to figure that out .

Yes it would be exciting to fight. all I'm saying is that if there isn't a lot of information, we can get the battle to be as big as you need for the game. Things in general will need to be adjusted for scale. Quite a few battles had troops in the thousands on both sides, but that won't work with a population cap of even 500, so events will need some adaptation anyway. So have your final battle as big and exciting as you want. :-) (In reason of course)

Sounds like a good plan just don't worry about the size too much. Scale in 0 A.D. isn't exactly 1:1 to real life anyway.

Here is what I suggest for scenario 4: I think the campaign should end in a big battle. 0ad is a game about warfare after all, so that's what people install the game for. Preferably, the player should get to carry out an attack this time. Mainly, because the tutorial should teach how to do that (and in scenario 3, the player only defends). But also because it simply a lot more fun from a role-playing perspective. However, we need a target. It can't be the Iberians this time since we made peace with them in scenario 3. The obvious (and ideal) choice would be Rome, but they weren't present in the region at the time at all (and I'll explain why that's important later). Now, it's not as impossible as it may seem to find historical events that suit our needs. Because here is what happened after Hasdrubal founded Carthago Nova: The city of Massalia was actually quite an important power in the region (and itself has a pretty interesting backstory, it was even candidate for the subject of this campaign at some point). Plus, it's Greek (and so its colonies), which allows us to include yet another popular ancient civilisation that players might have prior knowledge of. Of the said towns, Hemeroscopium ("Hemeroskopeion" in Greek) seems like the best choice (it's at least the one I was able to find the most about online). And it has the best-sounding name . So, I'd make it the final objective of the scenario to conquer this town. Now, it was not as big as one would wish, so the if there was a battle it was probably quite small and we have no historical record of it. That'd be the only drawback. However, after taking over the city we can have the player sign the Ebro Treaty (which among other cities was requested from Rome by Massalia). On the one hand, it prohibited Hasdrubal from marching further and taking more cities, but also granted much of the entire Iberian peninsula to Carthage (which is what Hasdrubal set out to do at the beginning of the campaign). And we can emphasise his diplomatic skills again. That would be such a satisfying end in my opinion.

I think it's a great idea. I was originally not planning on teaching the player the diplomacy system, but this is a nice opportunity to do so. We could make scenario 3 focus on fortifying the city and repelling an assault. But in the end actually negotiate an alliance with the attackers: For instance, gifting them some food to help with a current shortage (and maybe arranging some intermarriages). And in exchange the player gets access to the Iberian embassy building in the next scenario (therefore the ability to hire mercenaries) to use in the large attack in the end (against some Roman target).

Good observation. Perhaps after a scenario or two of war, the player finds it beneficial to ally with said enemy and halt hostilities. Run the full gamut. So then the player learns about the diplomacy and trading features that way, by making peace with a faction you were at war with. Common enemy? (Romans are encroaching now)

Your welcome.

No imaginé que fueras Español.