Yekaterina

Are you playing on Alpha 23: Ken Wood version by any chance? İf you are playing on Alpha 25: Yauna, you will find that catapults can be destroyed by ranged units or any melee cavalry easily. Make 10 of any melee cavalry and hack down any artillery you see

You can already achieve this by writing a few lines in local.cfg zoom.max = 100; zoom.min = 0.5;

@real_tabasco_sauce what is it about the axe cav that made you want to change it? Currently I find them quite handy as a fast moving siege option (to capture garrisoned enemy CC with pure cavalry) and somewhat decent as a frontline meatshield against enemy infantry. Your version of the axe cavalry does the same hack damage as a champion swordsman infantry, which might be problematic given they have siege capabilities, although your idea is interesting. A suggestion: let Persians have a sword cavalry and Hyrcanian Axe cavalry at the same time, so the players get a choice. (similar to Mauryan champion swordsman vs Yoddha)

I totally agree with this. But, instead of a bot randomly muting people, we should add an auto-report button, where if a player feels insulted, they can click on the button and report the offending player to the moderator directly. This will solve vinme's problem and more people can resolve their arguments instead of suffering in silence. Most other modern games that I have played contain this button so I think 0ad deserves one as well.

Thank you very much for the explanation, it makes total sense to me. I think the problem might be alleviated if we take into consideration the average rating of the players present in each match. I am suggesting running the algorithm twice instead of just once; the first run generates a rough rating for everyone, which will contain anomalies like azeem. Then, we run a second pass, this time taking into account the average rating of the players participating in the game, and weight that game accordingly. The total score at the end of the second pass will be a weighted average instead of just an average. If a player participated a lot in OP TGs, even though they perform just 5% above average, their total will still be much higher than a player who dominates the newcomers a few times. High average player level -> more weight. Furthermore, instead of just comparing to the average in one game, we can change the rating +/- threshold depending on the players present: in a game surrounded by experts, even if you have done 10% below average, you still did a good job, being able to hurt those experts somehow. So we should give the player positive credit if they perform anything better than 10% below average. On the other hand, in a noob game, you must perform 150% better than them to show that you are not a noob like the others. Finally, I propose we build a replay bank using a service like Onedrive or Google drive, where everyone dumps their replays into the repository. Then we can query the repository with Mentula's algorithm for players' ratings. Players like I delete replays often to free up disk space, which results in the loss of many records and good games. I believe a repository will also benefit @mysticjim's videos.

@Mentula could you explain to me exactly how the ratings are calculated from the weights? I would like a mathematical understanding of your algorithm as it currently spits out some rather unexpected results. Setting everything to 0 except the number of units killed, which is set to 1: (the top killer) It would seem that azeem1121 is the top killer, however, he is nowhere near as effective as vinme or Palin in game. In the matche I played with him, he had a very high kill death ratio because he surprise rushed a few inexperienced players in nomad mode. The total number of kills was less than 100 although he lost very few. The game ended in a crash instead of a proper finish so I think there is something to be fixed here. If you can explain to me how your algorithm works, perhaps I can propose a better mathematical model. The top resource gatherers: This is much closer to reality based on what I have seen from these players.

Dual boot your Macbook with a Linux distribution, or Windows.

Yes. The only problem with 4 by 4 is that you cannot sustain production at this rate in early game with 300 resources. You will drain resources much faster than you can gather. 3 by 3 spamming women might be the upper limit, although attempting a combination of 2 and 3 might work. I am just able to sustain 2 by 2 production (due to my poor skills). Maybe @berhudar or @ValihrAnt can try 3 by 3 autotrain. I wasn't aware of this mechanic. I am slightly confused, as I heard that the game refreshes 4 times per second (each turn is 0.25 second) so anything in between is rounded? I am not sure if this delay will be significant in the long run and whether it will affect both batch sizes in the same way. How do you determine the number of timeouts per second? I think the more timeouts per second the less inaccuracy and delay but it might cause extra load on the CPU.

An example of gameplay on 2 by 2 batch training: metadata.jsoncommands.txt It was my first attempt so some parts of it was poorly executed. However, you can see that it is still a fast booming strategy in spite of my poor execution.

This is the link to the graph for anyone who is interested: https://www.desmos.com/calculator/vlu7yvlz8y You can tweak the values of the parameters to see the result for each unit type.

@real_tabasco_sauce mentioned that autotraining in larger batches will start the second batch faster, which is something that I did not take into account. So I am now comparing autotraining in batches of 2 units to autotraining one by one. The mathematical derivation: Plotting the two functions onto a graph in Desmos: Vertical axis: total resources gathered (arbitrary unit) Horizontal axis: time passed (arbitrary unit) Blue line: R(t) for 2 by 2 Red line: R(t) for 1 by 1 Black line: the amount of resources by which blue leads red. Analysis and conclusion: Initially, red is greater than blue: 1 by 1 wins for short time lengths. If you want a quick burst of resources then training 1 by 1 is superior for a short duration. Then blue catches up and exceeds red at a finite time: this is the critical value; if you are planning on batch training continuously for longer than this critical value then 2 by 2 will maximise your economy. The black line suggests that the advantage of 2 by 2 will blow up after a significant amount of time, so if you are booming peacefully from scratch then 2 by 2 is favourable. @berhudar This may be of interest to you. Would you like to develop a build order for 2 by 2 training? Tessekurler

I have tried it in Vanilla A25 and it wasn't a very difficult play. Combining with borg's idea of moving all cavalry units to the civic centre, then if there is a lot of hunt on the map, you can almost continuously produce axe cavalry and you can mass 30 of them in less than 8 minutes.

Good idea. Women in 0AD are too vulnerable to rushes so some self-defence capability would be appreceiated. This is too OP in my opinion It might make balancing more difficult, but I would appreciate this if I was a Persian player. I think this is perfect Might be too OP. 30 of them can hack down a CC very quickly so it leaves very little chance for the enemy. That is an unique feature indeed, would love to try. Good, now the Persian player can kill everyone in phase one. Plausible and would be a good feature Plausible, but I am not sure what role the slaves should take. I am also not sure if training slaves is politically correct.

An useless unit is good, because it doesn't break a civ like the fire cavs of Iberians or Carthaginians' mercenaries. If you think the Gaul trumpeter is useless, then don't train it! If someone else spammed it, since it's useless, it can't hurt you too much. But, this useless unit opened up possibilities for new unit types and new strategies involving them. For example, if I was in a situation where I had to spam infantry with the Gauls, I would add in a few trumpeters to boost the performance of my army. But if you don't want to do that, it's your choice.

And it's an automated function so we should be able to delete it easily

It happened again in just a few minutes...

I second vinme's point. Someone was suddenly kicked from the lobby when I was having a perfectly normal and respectful conversation with them:

Siege was great in A23. In A25, siege seem to be over-nerfed, especially the catapult, which has no accuracy and the unitAI of catapults and boltshooters is severely bugged. They target random units and random buildings instead of the entity that you ordered them to attack. The immortal hero Kurush still exists and can now auto-train these champions, however, the Persians really could use an infantry buff and the Cardaces units were just ideal. And yes, in A23, if you make a mistake and lose a large portion of your army, you still have a fair chance of returning. In A25 however, if you walk into a battle outnumbered then you have lost the game. Overpowered cavalry units will clean up every last hope you have.

The pathfinder is quite inefficient with large groups of infantry so retreat is always slower than you think; it is especially difficult when enemy slingers are already in formation: 1 shower of stones will decimate what you have left. Theoretically, yes. However, the strange attack mechanic in A25 is such that your units don't die one by one but 10 at a time (for roughly equal battles). Again, this could be caused by lag, but it makes the queued units in stables unable to begin their training promptly, and therefore even if you have 10 stables, after the 12 seconds of production time and another 10 seconds of walking, your main army would have been reduced by 40 units and you still can't reinforce properly. This will happen to both sides so you won't get a lasting large battle but a trickle of units rushing each other in under a minute. The cavalry will also arrive one after another instead of all at the same time which also exposes weaknesses. The rate of killing is simply too fast compared to train time. The size of medium Mainland is too large for units to arrive in time, especially if you are a pocket player trying to push the enemy at your flank. Infantry stands no chance; only cavalry can get there in time but their train time and cost are too much. Most of the time, when I am fighting a weaker player, it's easy to maintain 200 population because my army outnumbered theirs. The A25 attack mechanic favours the more numerous side to the extent that I can exterminate an army 80% of my size with only half casualties. This, combined with the fast killing, leaves them very little chance to resist. On the other hand, when I am fighting another full army, my population will drop to 180 and maintain there, because the first 20 units sacrificed themselves in knocking out 30 enemy units, which reduced their speed of killing and hence an equilibrium is reached at 180. Given I have 7 barracks and 7 stables (which is above average number). In my early A25 games, I played 1v1s with someone and both of us made 8 barracks each, only to see the battle of what used to be 200 units disappearing in less than a minute, then both of us had to go back to base and do economy, then fight again, then back and forth... On the other hand, in A23, I can maintain a large battle with the AI at 200 pop or 300 easily, with only 5 barracks. The AI also resists for a few decent minutes (on only 3 barracks) before losing. I think this is a much more reasonable setting.

I totally agree with this, I also prefer a long-lasting game to ending in 10 minutes. However, I do like to rush the enemy in early stages. Lag is certainly a factor in this, as singleplayer vs Petra often feature battles that end in seconds. I like the idea of raising repeat times, as that doesn't upset the entire balancing plan and also gives archers an advantage.

The issue wit fast-paced fighting is you can't micro the battles once they start. It's often the case that you can kill 100 units in merely 30 seconds; you spend 15 minutes booming and walking only to fight for 1 minute, then it's a siege + turtle time. Not being able to control your army in a fight would be a downside, especially when 0AD is more about conquest than city building. It also removes the importance of good reinforcement: if you outnumber your enemies in the first encounter, you can push them back relentlessly and there is nothing they can do. This problem did not exist in A23 because of the lack of ridiculous techs and all units had lower attack values and accuracy. A23 had a reasonable pace of battle that doesn't include an army of 100 perishing against 150 in 20 seconds. @real_tabasco_sauce I would recommend you to try A23 and compare the differences. You will also see your flood of hundreds of archers be defeated by 100 skirmishers + melee.

If you want to learn about the specialties of each civ and become knowledgeable about the game, I would recommend reading the structure tree and civilisation descriptions in game. Hover your mouse over icons to see the exact statistics of each building and unit. You can also study the behaviour of AIs (using revealed map) and experiment with units in the Atlas scenario editor. If you are aiming to defeat other players, then this guide is for you:

Considering that A26 doesn't change the technology, armour and pathfinder compared to A25, having a flood of crossbowmen would still result in you inevitably losing the battle to another civ with melee cavalry or a combination of melee infantry and skirmishers. Your rate of reinforcement will always be slower than your death rate. Units die too quickly in A25 and A26 and there is little opportunity for a long lasting battle. For example, a skirmisher cavalry can kill a ranged infantry unit in just 3 hits (3.75 seconds). In my opionion, this is too fast. Suggestion: either increase the health of all units or decrease the standard attack values.

However, the crossbowmen are not available until P2, by which point the increase in boom speed would be less significant. Players may try to race to P2 early just to train this particular unit, but that will hinder other aspects of their economy and this unit is also the weakest soldier unit in the game. If the price decrease is not sensible, then we must increase their attack. So either 36 pierce attack per 3 seconds, or 12 attack per second.

The han crossbow units need their stats to be re-adjusted. Currently they are too weak, firing a 20 damage shot every 3 seconds at 45 metres. Comparing them to slingers who also have a 45 metres range, they should deal approximately 10 pierce damage per second in order to be on par with the slingers, however, their current dps is 6.66 which is too weak. I would suggest either decreasing their firing rate to 1 shot every 2 seconds (at 20 pierce) or 1 shot per second but 10 pierce damage per shot. If you are determined to create a trash unit, then you must decrease their price and training time accordingly, for example let their cost be 35 food, 35 wood and let the training time be 6 seconds compared to the 10 seconds for infantry.