KKaslana

I would like to share and discuss this way of booming with other players:

Perhaps when she feels better. Why weirdJokes in particular? I would any player above a threshold (1300-1400) into my hosted game, with a few exceptions. Whether other hosts would permit me to play in their games is another issue that I am not very concerned about.

Agreed, in my opinion the stats should be adjusted to -20%, similar to the bonus of Britons and Gauls in A23.

List of usernames: Christoffel-Symbol, Christoffel-Symbol1, 2, 3, ..., 8, Sevda, Elena137, Sixth-Serenade (I gave her my password and it became hers), lagrange, Kallen (initially mine but she guessed my password and stole it)... Sometimes I play as her on her laptop and few people could notice. I do join as spectator at weekends and I quite often see you play, but I don't think you noticed me. It seems that either our IP or her hardware address has been put on a blacklist, which could explain. The interesting problem is, certain people spread rumours about how other people play... For example, I like mass cavalry attack at minute 7-10 with at least 25 cavalry units, but some people keep claiming that I am a fast boomer and ask me to boom instead of rush whenever I play. Booming is not my preferred style of playing but for the greater good of the team I often boom as they asked. In terms of civilization, I don't have a strong preference but I think Ptolemies have extremely strong economy and can win any battle close to their base, but they lack manouvreability due to pikemen, therefore they will fail on large maps against cavalry. Iberian champion cavalry is OP but the civ as a whole is irritating to play with because of the walls which obstruct your resource gathering. Spartans have the strongest infantry and manoeuvreability but they seem to lose to Ptolemaic economy and Iberian champion cavalry. This doesn't apply for me I am afraid, I get banned when I try this. I can confirm that they are all gone. When we returned to school after Christmas break, I kept receiving 'authentication error' from the lobby. Kate's solution was letting me use her smurf accounts, so she produced a list of her accounts and I tried all of them systematically. Some of these were banned in mere seconds meanwhile others lasted a few hours before they are banned. Quite a few weeks ago - sometime in late January. I do not remember her saying this and I have not taught her how to bypass any bans. I am aware of some methods myself but I haven't told her yet. Would you like me to teach her?

I am afraid I cannot agree with your viewpoint here. Sometimes I just remain idle and observe lobby conversations, without interacting with anyone and few people ever noticed me. Approximately 1/3 of the conversation is about advertising games and asking for players to join; another 1/3 is post-mortem of games where players compliment each other or insult each other; about 1/4 is smurf speculation and the remaining parts are in other languages that I cannot understand. Out of all of the smurf speculations I have observed so far (at least 20 cases), there had only been 2 correct guesses; all of the other attempts were wrong, a 10% accuracy. An interesting observation was, the speculators themselves were absolutely convinced with their reasoning and refused to listen to other player's guesses. The deduction reasoning of the smurf speculators roughly follows these 3 paths: 1. Who does this playstyle resemble? 2. Who could invent this name? 3. The style of language used by this smurf. Once a player satisfies all 3 criteria, then the speculator is convinced of this player's identity. Intuitively, this logic is sound, however, one must consider the possibility of non-unique solutions to the problem and the plausibility of a player changing their strategy. If one would like to conceal their identity, they would alter their use of language and playstyle, even if it means hindering their skills slightly. These often throw the speculators off-course and wrong an innocent player while leaving the real culprits amok. On the case of Yekaterina, as a fellow student in the same university as her, I can responsibly tell you that she has been ill since last Thursday evening and any potential smurfs you saw since then couldn't have been her. Furthermore, a technical difficulty specific to Eduroam (the WiFi network in our university) prevents more than 1 account from logging in simultaneously, that means, if she is online, then I must be offline. This problem first appeared in January 2022 - I believe she has not been able to make another account since then. I have watched her try to create another account over VPN, different HWID spoofers but all of her attempts failed and resulted in her being banned. Therefore, Emperior's claim that Yekaterina 'is still smurfing' is wrong. We used to swap laptops to play the game, so at times, I was playing behind what appeared to be Yekaterina, on her laptop. Sometimes people could notice but most of the time people never knew a change! One week ago, I found a method to circumvent this bug and enjoy myself in the lobby independent of her. However, I have not taught her how to do it yet! Therefore she still does not have the ability to create another account, at least when she is in the university. I doubt that you will believe anything that I say, which is expected considering I am always anonymous and rarely participate in lobby games. However, I would like to inform you that even the things you most firmly believe in could be wrong. Assumptions will remain speculative until they are proven or set as an axiom.

Can confirm. I was destroyed in merely 10 minutes when I tried to play a boom strategy against extreme Catalina. When I tried to rush it, I ended up slowing down my own economy without dealing significant damage. Catalina on very hard balanced mode is beatable, however, although it may be difficult for relatively new players. I will start to work on my own AI after repetitively beating a team of Petras for 2 years.

Please do, much appreciated! As stated in the discussions above, I cannot access the lobby through my own account while I am inside my university's network, which is not necessarily a problem as the ban does allow me to concentrate on my work. Sometimes I borrow Yekaterina's laptop to play, which might not be permitted neither. However, when I go home during a weekend, I change my IP address from my router, then delete all system cache and create a new account. In order to ensure that I am recognisable in the lobby, I have made a list of accounts in the form: Christoffel-Symboln where n is an integer equal to the number of accounts I have made; I will be Christoffel-Symbol8 this weekend. This systematic process is working quite well but constraining me to just 1 account and allowing access at all IPs would be much more convenient for me. Understood. Perhaps it is a bug specific to Eduroam and the fact that both of us have created more than 2 accounts and often share laptops or accounts. Sometimes I borrow her laptop simply because it has a superior GPU and a 144Hz screen... I will avoid that in the future. I am curious about whether the lobby checks our hardware. If I log into my account on her laptop and play, then she logs into her account after I leave, will both of us be banned? My apologies, I had created approximately 5 accounts in winter 2020 as I wasn't aware of the regulations. Fortunately, I have forgotten the names and passwords to all of these accounts so they will never cause you anymore trouble, hopefully. I can see some reasons to this rule, but it is often the case that our accounts get deleted after a few weeks (error: account does not exist) for no apparent reason and we have to return with a new one. Christoffel-Symbol3 and Christoffel-Symbol5 came into existence because of this. If the single account you award me with (be it Christoffel-Symbol0 or Christoffel-Symbol9) does not get deleted, then I will not make any more accounts. If it does get deleted, I will report the bug on the forum. Thank you for your understanding, @user1

The game suddenly crashed during a major cavalry battle. These are the logs and replay, please tell me what went wrong and how to avoid similar crashes in the future. Thank you. mainlog.htmlinterestinglog.htmlcrashlog.zip Only the command.txt remained after the game. commands.txt There is another minor issue I need to bring up: during the game, I charged my cavalry into an Iberian player's base and he deleted his CC. There were enemy units inside the walls, and it took me approximately 1 minute to kill all of them, after which, the Iberian walls decayed to gaia and all of my cavalry were trapped inside like a jail. This is hugely inconvenient despite being unlikely to happen. My suggestion would be, let gaia doors open to anyone who wants to pass through, meanwhile, if the doors belong to a player, they should only open to that player's allies and not their enemies.

You can do the Carthaginian one, since you are a big fan of them. I will do the Macedonians instead.

If I could afford cavlary, I would prioritise it before mercenary infantry for their superior HP values and manoeuvrebility. My approach to playing the Kushites would be using a mixture of archers, swordsmen, pikemen, elephants and cavalry. They allow for a variety of unit types and different strategies, and I would like to mix up different units so that I am prepared for anything that my enemy is planning for me. With that being said, I am not the expert at playing Kushites; I would much prefer to use the Macedonians, Romans and Spartans. I may upload a Youtube video detailing how I play with the Kushites if there is a demand for it. Christoffel-Symbol

This aggression towards us is not necessary. You yourself only rushed me once, out of all of the 1v1s we played. As you said, unfortunately, the strategy you saw from me was aimed at generating a sufficient army before 9:30, as that is the expected timing of the first attack from the very hard AI. In order to maximise population growth rate, I train very few men before 7:30, which leaves me vulnerable in the early stages. Furthermore, it relies on deleting women in late stages to free up space for champion units and siege weapons, which implies wasting resources. However, it is not necessary in a game against some AIs where the population capacity is 300, which is what I am used to. I also have another booming strategy which is significantly slower but is more immune to early rushes from a human player; normally I adopt this strategy for playing in the lobby. However, I know that you almost never rush, so the fastest method is worth the risk when playing a 1v1 against you. In conclusion, I am willing to share my strategies with anyone who is interested, however, they are not the most infallible approach to multiplayer games and the other players mentioned above are likely to be more skilled and knowledgeable than me in this respect. Christoffel-Symbol (Robin)

Hi @BreakfastBurrito_007! It's nice to have attack-ground functionality in 0ad, though I don't think it should be used in vanilla or mods depicting the same historical period, since there wasn't any AOE weapon available: 0ad archers can't do real AOE damage, and if you use them to attack-ground, it would be worse than attackmove, because some arrows will be wasted on the same target (maybe it should be possible to actually attack a zone rather than a point). Catapult dealing AOE damage isn't historically accurate either. Also the projectiles are too fast for attack-ground to make sense. But if someone wants to make 0ad mods with wizards, dragons, howitzers or stealth bombers, that will be awesome.

@wowgetoffyourcellphone Thank you for your suggestions. I will consider implementing this in a future version. Currently a25 and a26svn UnitAI.js files are not compatible - using the file from one version will cause errors in another one. I've tested both changes with a26svn. ret variable has two functions: (1) The maximum separation for chasing, as the codes suggest. (2) The trigger range for autotargeting when the unit is idle or on attackmove. In my opinion it isn't necessary that one value should be used for both fuctions, and (2) is much more important. I think it's good to decrease the trigger range for most units, but perhaps it's better to make it dependent on both vision and attackrange like in the case for defensive stance. However, I found removing autotargeting on dangerous animals problematic. I agree preemptive pest control can cause quite a lot of troubles too. If units are not able to autotarget dangerous animals, they won't attack the animals unless (1)The animals are attacking your unit - in this case he can retaliate, but your nearby units won't help. (2) You ordered your units to target a particular animal - in this case when your target is killed, your units will be idle and not able to attack nearby animals that are attacking you. This is very dangerous on maps with lots of animals attacking you, like Polar Sea, since you have to micro your units to kill the wolves one by one, otherwise they will stand idle and get killed. Fortunately, most popular maps don't have any dangerous animals.

@nani No, you should set MaxSameTurnMoves to 0. Unit overlapping happens because entities boxes are not respected, and pushing was intoduced to alleviate this effect, so smaller radius will make actual unit groups tighter, hence more unit overlapping. When you set MaxSameTurnMoves to 0, other parameters don't matter.

Sounds great!