Thales
-
Posts
86 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Thales
-
-
On 16/12/2022 at 8:47 AM, alre said:
fortresses are strong enough as is
Not a question concerning the strength of a fortress, but the acquisition of experience points by units through training. Fortresses, due to their size and purpose would seem to offer more training opportunities than barracks and stables.
-
1
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Gurken Khan said:
Women and healers can't get experience by being garrisoned.
Do they even have opportunities to gain experience?
-
I would like to suggest, as an enhancement, that units gain experience in a fortress. Additionally, that fortress have an enhanced experience benefit, such as 2X what is obtained in the barracks.
-
4
-
-
Garrisoned units gain experience in certain buildings. I'm using the Selecuids as the example.
These buildings include the: barracks, stable, and elephant stable.
The narrative for each of these buildings includes the phrase: "Units gain experience while garrisoned inside the building".
I assume that means any and all units gain experience inside any building that allows for that. Meaning that a Romanized Heavy Swordsman would gain experience in an elephant stable and an elephant would gain experience in a barracks. Is that assumption correct?
Surprisingly, fortresses don't offer gaining experience points. Seems like they should.
Where do women and healers gain experience points?
-
Interesting. Thanks.
-
For each unit there are two status bars. The top one shows the units health.. What does the bottom one display?
I noticed that the "healers" could restore a unit, going from red back to green (top status bar). However, I did not notice any change on the bottom status bar.
-
35 minutes ago, Norse_Harold said:
You should have your daughter connect to your private LAN IP address, not your public Internet IP address, if you are both on the same LAN and you intend to host outside the lobby. You can retrieve your LAN IP address on Linux with the following command.
We have no problem connecting on our home LAN, where we are in the same house. What we have been attempting to accomplish is to connect from two different locations about 150 miles (241 Kilometers) apart. That is the reason for attempting to use the public internet address obtained from https://www.whatismyip.com/ . Just tried it as an experiment. Anyway, the lobby worked. Problem solved.
-
The short answer; success, we made an internet connection through the lobby.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The longer answer.
On 05/12/2022 at 2:43 PM, maroder said:you can set a password which prevents people from joining when they don't know it.
When I first experimented with using the lobby, I may not have set a server password. Overlooked it???? Anyway this time I made sure to set the password, my daughter successfully joined the game with that password. Didn't see anyone else attempt to join.
On 05/12/2022 at 3:09 PM, Mentula said:... you can achieve the same, but without entering the Game Lobby. Just do the following:
That is the process we use on our local home LAN.
When I used https://www.whatismyip.com/ to get my internet IP address, my daughter was not able to join. She received the error message that "this is often caused by UDP port 20595 not being forwarded on the host side, by a firewall or anti-virus software". For a quick test, turned off the firewall, but she was still not able to make a connection.
Very helpful. Thank-you for responding.
-
1
-
-
My daughter and I would like to play a multiplayer game using the Game Lobby. Is it possible to create a "private" game?
In exploring how to do this, I did not see any option. Additionally, others were attempting to join. Hopefully, I did not irritate anyone.
-
2
-
-
Thanks. We started over this AM. It only took two of use to beat the AI on easy!!!
-
Unfortunately, it got extremely late so we saved the multiplayer game being played over a local LAN to be resumed in the AM.
We can see the saved game, we don't see an option for how to resume it.
How do we resume play?
-
On 04/02/2022 at 12:45 PM, LetswaveaBook said:
When garrisoned, a ship shoots +1 arrow per garrisoned infantry. Every arrow deals 35 damage.
I haven't looked into it, but all ships are broken deal high damage. see
Now for the follow-up question. Does the "arrow" benefit differ differ between sword units and archer units?
Or to phrase it differently, do you still get the "arrow" benefit with a non-range unit garrisoned in a ship?
As a similar side question: Both towers and forts have an "arrow" benefit when a unit is garrisoned in one.
Do archers add "extra' arrows beyond what a non-ranged unit would provide when garrisoned in a tower or fort?
-
Your response invoked something I had not considered. That is that the area my civilization covers is larger than the screen. At times enemy units have snuck past my front and have created havoc around the civic center and fields. These enemy units, at times, were off screen, so it took a while to see them and react. Also I have had a couple of cases of two-fronts (I'm attacking on one front but defending on a second from), meaning that it takes a while for reinforcements to get to the breach. This of course, means some troops have to be left behind as a defensive measure. Thanks for your response.
-
Thoughts concerning the preferred approach to garrisoning troops in towers and fortresses. As a broad statement, there are two generic types of units: swordsman and archers.
I assume that swordsman would be most useful when a fortress or a tower is in direct physical attack by the enemy. Archers most useful for stopping enemy units approaching the tower/fortress or killing enemy units attempting to pass by.
The implication. Swordsman would be more useful (garrisoned) near the front and not really as necessary in the rear areas. Archers would be useful in all locations. Especially useful for providing area coverage near the community center and/or fields to kill the occasional enemy unit that gets past the front.
-
Well, I'm up to 1.14 for a kill/death ratio. My opponent is down to 0.88 for a kill kill/death ratio.
My "improvement", I suspect is because I am hiding behind walls. Now, I have to develop a break-out strategy, My troops are too widely dispersed as there are two combat fronts. I may also have too many troops garrisoned in the walls and towers.
-
I noticed that I had a kill/death ratio of 0.9.
My opponent had a kill/death ratio of 1.1.
Beyond what the ratio means, is it "good" news for me, or "bad" news?
-
18 minutes ago, Old Roman said:
I tend to keep garrisionable defensive buildings filled with swordsman. In which case I select the building (preferably before the ram reaches it), right click the ram, then click the icon to empty the building.
I have favored archers, I think that is turning out to have been a mistake. Based on my recent experience, going with swordsman will be more appropriate.
I also made two other mistakes. One, I forgot to use my champion. Second, I neglected have a supply of horse cavalry.
19 minutes ago, Old Roman said:For weakened rams sicking a CC full or women on them is sometimes sufficient.
I'm also pretty fumble fingered with the stress of RTS games. (I forgot to use my champion) I attempted to get the women into the CC, but I bungled that.
-
Can you have a unit (or a group) focus on attacking a particular enemy unit?
In more specific terms, the enemy had three battering rams which were destroying my structures with virtual impunity. Part of the problem, I had a bad mix of units myself, so I was not inflicting much damage on the battering rams. Anyway, a "solution", (if it is available) would be to have units (swordsman) with high hacking attack points specifically target the battering rams.. Can that be done?
-
4 hours ago, Grapjas said:
Elephants should be a shock unit, not a siege unit imo.
Agree. I've been posting suggestions that elephants are too powerful against stone structures.
-
Based on the graphic above; when attacking an elephant, you would primarily use piercing (projectile) weapons.
The resistance to piercing is 41%. Hacking would appear to be less successful at 52%. The least successful would be crush at 88%.
Is that interpretation correct?
-
A follow-up note. Everything is working well with 0AD.
The follow-up note relates to the cabling between the device (computer, Roku) and the display screen (monitor, TV). With both my computer (to play 0AD) and my TV, I recently upgraded my devices. I used existing cables(HDMI and Displayport). Everything appears to be working correctly. Cabling may not be an issue with 0AD. I had not considered the potential that recently adopted new cabling standards could affect your video quality.
In looking to upgrade my TV soundbar, I ran across several articles that discussed HDMI and Displayport specifications. Basically, my existing cables were now "obsolete" by new standards. I just installed a "newer" HDMI cable between by Roku and TV to see what would happen. It was cheap enough. The picture looks better, but that is subjective. A lot of testing would resolve that, but I'm not about to do it.
Whether current industry standard HDMI and/or displayport cables would have a positive effect on 0AD is an unknown, but still something that should be considered.
-
Are there any visual cues on the mini-map for showing where the enemy is attacking you after the notification alert?
I've been having trouble locating the enemy a lot of times.
In a recent game, I was successfully flanked by the enemy which was very devastating for me.
-
Thanks very much. Extremely helpful. Still reading through this guide.
I would like to suggest including in your document header, the hyperlink to this thread and the date of publication. That will make it easier for the reader to re-find this thread in the future and to see if they have the latest version of this guide.
-
1 hour ago, sarcoma said:
Game is hugely unbalanced in terms of military techs. A 100 man fully upgraded army is like 10 times stronger than 200 men with few upgrades, and building arrows won't much to them either.
Good point. My units were all up-to-date. But that does not obviate that the enemy may have had superior troops compared to my troops. Also it seemed that the enemy had an apparent endless line of reinforcements. Where I seemingly could not build replacements as fast!!
42 minutes ago, LetswaveaBook said:Huh? You build towers and a fortress?
Yes. I was actually, in the last game, faced with a two front war where the enemy alternated between attacking on each front. I did make a mistake in that the enemy was able to flank one front to get inside my lines. While I was finally able to finally "kill" that attack, it left me open to getting overrun on the other front, which is what happened. Pretty intelligent AI!!!
29 minutes ago, thephilosopher said:If you're fighting an overwhelming force that's led by a hero - and you don't have enough units to either fight back or launch a simultaneous attack on the enemy - then, yeah, the "resign" button is probably your best bet. They'll have enough firepower to capture your barracks and towers, and they should be able to take down your fortress with rams or catapults.
Keep in mind that quite a few new players try the "load up every male unit I have and take them to invade the enemy at the same time" trick. And you can fight against that trick if you're at Phase 3. Those players sometimes leave their home base wide open, and you can march in with an army and a couple of rams and capture their CC.
I was wondering about the points your raised. The AI may have decided to pursue the strategy of dedicating every possible unit to attack. But it didn't seem that they were getting exhausted.
-
1
-
Any Benefit to Demolishing a Useless Structure?
in Gameplay Discussion
Posted
I established a Klēroukhia Military Colony near some resources. The Klēroukhia was not near the enemy. After the resources were exhausted I abandoned the structure. I left the Klēroukhia, as is. Out of curiosity, any benefit to demolishing the Klēroukhia once it became "useless"?