Seleucids

OK I played 1v3 against very hard AI and it was easy for me. Case closed. metadata.jsoncommands.txt

I've seen several posts that suggest that the current Petra is too difficult, after my changes to its behaviour. My question is, should I make new PRs to nerf it Also what about creating more granular difficulty levels? For example we can lower the very easy to even lower and add some more extreme levels. Currently the only cheat of Petra is in terms of eco. We can give the extreme levels other cheats such as bonus to atk, unit hp, building hp, unit movement speed, training time discount, projectile accuracy, armour, price discount...

This is the best scale I have seen so far and the most useful

You are good enough for TGs and I know how to balance you. That's all that matters.

There is no bubble. It is what it is. Get used to LLMs

This is actually very hard to do

This selection box targeting was nicknamed autosnipe

Autosnipe existed but nobody uses it anymore and it probably doesn't work in R28 @ffm2 had some click counter script in python which you might be interested in

Please do. My honour!

@seregadushka I was once thinking like you, but you will soon find that nobody will approve of your PR if you raise it to the main repo. Actually you had a chance until you wrote about this on the forum and attracted oppositions. So the fastest way is to just make a local mod and enjoy yourself. You can never please everyone, especially on controversial things like this.

This is not the first time I see you say this and this won't be the last time some random thread gets turned into a ProGUi controversy debate lol

When pigs fly

@seregadushka This queue locking feature that you suggest exist in some mods, called Autoqueue or ProGUI or something. You can ask @Atrik for help on this

yes

Don't.

Interesting I will try 3 by 3 then 4 by 4 and let you know The bigger the batch the less flexible you are though

Not surprised lol

For R29: - Cantarella - Camellya - Carlotta - Calcharo - Ciaccona @Arup I think you can see where this is going ... Then R30 will obviously be 'Diana'

@DesertRose you are right, the tutorial needs to be improved. We need to make the tutorial informative enough while not carrying too much information so that the new players can be onboarded without getting stressed out. The best way to achieve this is by making 3 consecutive chapters that allow them to take a break in between. The only comment I have is the batch size. There are many mathematical studies in this topic somewhere on the forum and I remember reaching a conclusion of 2 by 2 on auto train being the best.

Jagsus here you go

@Average Concept Enjoyer https://github.com/Yekaterina999/Judeans-Hasmonian https://github.com/0ADMods/judeans

The player who chose Judeans in a TG be like: your CC was promised to me 3000 years ago! Jokes aside, this civ actually exists somewhere on GitHub or in Endovelico. Please take a look around and see if you can port it to R28

@Atrik @wowgetoffyourcellphoneI want to touch on the recent discussion regarding our development workflows and how best to align our modding efforts with the vanilla codebase. I have read through both of your points and really appreciate the nuance around resource allocation and reviewer availability. The reality is that there are definitely valid differences between the timelines for mods versus full game integration, particularly when it comes to compliance and QA scrutiny. However, as we move forward on larger project deliverables, our goal is to streamline the process without sacrificing quality. I am proposing that we introduce weekly alignment sessions on Microsoft Teams to keep everyone synced with QA and product management. This would allow us to surface blockers earlier and ensure our technical direction remains aligned with the broader roadmap. Regarding the specific debate on mods versus pull requests, standardising our integration protocols can actually help bridge the gap you mentioned regarding reviewer availability. By centralising these reviews within a PR workflow, we create a more predictable pipeline for feedback and refinement before code enters the core system. This is a collective effort to improve how we scale our development operations. If we can establish these regular touchpoints and adopt a shared development standard, we should see fewer integration headaches and faster cycles for feature releases. I would love to hear your feedback on how you think we can implement this in a way that respects the workflow differences you are facing while still moving us toward greater consistency.

Point 1: you can visually check that there is a gap. If you want the units to pass through smoothly, your gap should be large enough to be visually obvious Point 2: moderngui is the way to go right now Point 3: every time you mark someone as buddy, their name is written to a list in user.cfg locally. Nobody else knows who you mark as buddy as this is a purely local action and not synced. If you log in on a different computer, you will loose all of your friends. You can implement an enemy list in a similar way but I recommend you to get along with other players instead

I was the one who improved the AI's eco and the army size hehe I hope it's not too hard for new players