SomeGuy

Interesting... FWIW, the only time I've detected any noticeable lag in wireless mouse is when batteries are starting to go. Fresh ones always seem to resolve the issue. Then again, a wired mouse spares the battery cost (unless using rechargeables).

@alre FYI, I just came across this snippet of logic in the latest community-mod. It does seems to suggest varying degrees of random behavior in attack behavior given style of play choices for the AI. A lot more here for me to wrap my head around... // Put some randomness on the attack size let variation = randFloat(0.8, 1.2); // and lower priority and smaller sizes for easier difficulty levels if (this.Config.difficulty < PETRA.DIFFICULTY_EASY) { priority *= 0.4; variation *= 0.2; } else if (this.Config.difficulty < PETRA.DIFFICULTY_MEDIUM) { priority *= 0.8; variation *= 0.6; } if (this.Config.difficulty < PETRA.DIFFICULTY_EASY) {

Thanks! I think I'll spend more time observing and seeing if I can ever find the red line somewhere before I venture into hosting. I'm still trying to master "guest'ing" ;-)

Thanks! I've poked around further ... Where exactly is this red line seen? Before joining a game is it visible somewhere? Can't seem to locate such an indicator yet.

Great to learn that unrated games are an option. I've created ID/access to the "Lobby" ... is there a way to tell which games are being hosted as "unrated"? There's no marker I can spot just yet, but certainly it must be an important feature for those who are playing.

Bear with me as I offer up the perspective of a noob (which understandably may not hold any weight with folks around here)... Having discovered 0AD recently and growing keenly interested in everything "under the hood" I've come to expect that playing against the AI will soon become of limited enjoyment. Which means I will eventually want to head over to play 1v1 with other live players. But I remain hesitant to take that step. My limited reading about live play suggests that the rating system is messed up (given comments on Youtube and this forum) and so I don't want to jump in and get tossed around by a confused rating system. Frankly, it has kept me from getting involved in live play. At a minimum, having a "non-rated" play arena might be more inviting ( = more 0AD users over time), as a kind of "live-play sandbox" where new players (or seasoned players, for that matter) can explore the game with human interaction without concerns about how it might affect their rating. This non-rated option has been offered in certain online chess platforms. If it were an option, I'd probably be playing there regularly - without concern for how all the blunders and mistakes I'll be making while I learn more about the game would be affecting my "track record" down the line. [And of course, if such a "non-rated" offering is already available, please advise! I haven't even bothered to search given all the complaints I see about the current state of the rating system. If it exists, I'll be over there looking for some 1v1 fun together.]

Interesting! Thanks for your follow up. I had assumed the AI logic package included varying degrees of military competence (defensive, balanced, aggressive - terms led me to this assumption). Since there's no distinction in battle capabilities - and they're bad - I'm not sure how much fun there is to be had in battling against the AI. It's still odd to me that when I play AI vs AI on a matched field, the same side always beats the other (by a healthy margin). One might expect that engaging the same (flat-lined) AI algorithm for both sides that it would consistently reach something approaching a draw. Kind of a chess AI playing itself repeatedly. All the more so if there's no randomized behavior involved. Regardless, you've explained why I perform better than the AI when it comes to battle (apparently, even a noob like me can beat the AI in swordplay). But what I'm still unclear about is why "doing nothing" vs doing "something/anything" in terms of my use of formations produces the same results regardless. Perhaps the situation I've tested just isn't complex enough (topography, mixed resources, etc.) for formations to make a difference in the outcome. More testing might produce interesting distinctions. In short, based on your reply I'm inferring that it's kind of pointless to bother engaging the various battle controls when playing against the AI, unless it's for learning which key+mouse combination does what. And if doing doesn't affect the outcome perhaps if should I get a cup of coffee once the blood flows and come back later ;-)

Still a noob here, enjoying a deeper dive into this awesome 0AD project. I've been trying to grasp how military maneuvers affect battle outcomes. My earlier question (partially addressed) can be found here: But I remain even more puzzled by what I'm now seeing... Having used Atlas to create a flat battle field with two equally matched armies (8 default spearmen against the same on open field), I initiate a Match with both teams at the same AI settings. Results: the same team repeatedly beats the other, with 3 of its initial 8 soldiers remaining (obviously, vs. none of the other team remaining, hence the "win"). I had expected that - at least on average - either team had a chance to win since their resources and AI capabilities are perfectly matched. Not the case; it's as if there's something about the skirmish that makes the same outcome inevitable each time. One possible explanation: The dueling AI models are "seeded" with a random numbers, but each time I restart the AI vs AI game, they each receive their same respective seed # as previously, and therefore, the same outcome repeats itself? Perhaps someone in this forum knows if this is a possibility. BUT HERE'S A MORE VEXING PUZZLE: Whenever I assume the role of Player 1 as human (myself) and do NOT intervene with any micro-control instructions, I wind up winning against the same opposing AI by a slightly greater margin (4 of my 8 soldiers remain standing) compared to letting the AI play (only wins by 3). In other words, by doing nothing I perform even better than the AI surrogate. This suggests the AI makes worse battle choices than me when I make no explicit choices. And comparing this to my tests of active intervention on my part, it gets odder still... I've tested each and every one of the formations available to the 8 spearmen before troops are engaged. Regardless of the formation I construct through the menu panel, the exact same outcome is produced, i.e., the same 4:0 (1/2 my initial 8 troops are left) regardless of any military maneuvers - i.e., the same as doing nothing at all. I'm left wondering what I'm missing ... Certainly engaging with the enemy using various maneuvers ought to influence results of in some way (better or worse). One would hope that there are outcomes associated with actively managing one's troops that produce superior results to doing nothing. Otherwise, what's the point? Can anyone replicate such conditions to see if they get different outcomes (I've attached the setup if interested, or create your own)? Clearly I'm missing something either about the AI settings or about how the game is designed to operate. Any insights greatly appreciated! Test-Matched-Opp_2p.xml Test-Matched-Opp_2p.pmp

@alreAh, this is a great explanation. Many thanks - much appreciated. I haven't come across this key detail in AI behavior from what I've seen in pop-ups so far, clearly I have missed it somewhere. However, this still leaves me wondering why my "doing nothing" with my troops still consistently beats an equally-matched AI army by a hefty margin. I typically have about half my army left after obliterating the AI opponent (regardless of setting "aggressive" or "defensive"). Given this observation, it seems wise for me to let my armies just "do their own thing" without my intervening as a military micro-controller... which seems counterintuitive to much of what the game is about - given all those formation commands, micro-control tactics, etc. . Shouldn't I need to take control and perform maneuvers in some manner in order to beat an "auto-pilot" opponent? In fact, I'm not even telling my army to "attack" in this test map... they just take it upon themselves apparently.

I'm brand new here (just introduced myself elsewhere), so I may be totally out of line, but I wanted to share a confusing experience and see if I'm doing something wrong... As a noob who wants to explore simple military maneuvers, I created a flat skirmish map (Atlas) with equal number of "Britons" fighters on both sides as follows: 16 x infantry_melee 4 x infantry_ranged 4 x default_cavalry I put them in symmetrical formation facing each other at some near distance, and set Player 1 to myself and Player 2 to AI. I figured that within 0AD itself this would allow me to try different formations against different levels of AI strength and fighting style to see what I could learn. What I have found thus far is extremely confusing... Without giving any instructions to my Player 1 troops, even setting matches on this map at the AI Difficulty="Very Hard" and AI Behavior="Aggressive" my Player 1 wins by a healthy margin repeatedly. In fact, my "hands-off" Player 1 often beats the AI set to Difficult="Very Hard" by even fewer lost troops than are killed when set to "Very Easy." Okay, so I must be doing something weird here. But if not even bothering to engage with my Player 1's controls still makes my equally matched army beat the AI under every circumstance, what am I missing about the playing against the AI in the first place? FYI, I've attached the two Atlas-produced test files I created that lead me to draw these observations shared above. What I was expecting: That I would have to master some level of game play technique before being able to successfully compete against the AI, that some intervention and control on my part would be required to defeat the AI, and that the harder I made the AI the better my skills would need to be to prevail. Is what I've observed in this equally-matched test map surprising to anyone familiar with the AI and gameplay? If so, what am I missing about what I should be expecting? Many thanks for your experience and insights! Test-Skirmish_2p.xml Test-Skirmish_2p.pmp

Recently stumbled across 0AD, which I'm now running on two different Linux platforms (Arch/Manjaro), and am keenly impressed. Can't thank those behind this effort enough for making such a fascinating FOSS opportunity to enjoy a rich and well-conceived RTS game. In trying to absorb the basics, input controls, build/boom methods, and - most recently - the armed conflict aspects of 0AD, I've come across some seemingly odd behavior. I will make a separate post about that shortly... Meanwhile, just wanted to express my gratitude to those who have supported this project for all these years. Hopefully I too can contribute in some way over time.