Is the AI too difficult now?

[guerringuerrin]

On 18/04/2026 at 10:38 AM, Thalatta said:

and still I thought Normal in 0 A.D. wasn't the usual Normal. I doubt it's my imagination, newbies have mentioned this plenty of times, and even the game itself states "the default AI level is quite challenging for new players", which shouldn't be necessary to state if it was a normal Normal.

Plenty of times? How many times—10, 20, 30? What number would actually be needed to consider it truly representative or a majority? Do negative responses to that claim, even from SP players, not count? And why couldn’t a “normal” level be challenging? (even though it really isn’t…) I personally never found the normal level challenging; I lost a couple of times and then started beating it. You yourself have said you didn’t find it very challenging. So how should it be, beatable on the first try? And I’m pretty sure that the newbies who didn’t find it challenging didn’t go to the forum to comment on it… For me, moving from Normal to Hard in StarCraft II took quite a lot of matches… It’s a much more challenging and intelligent AI, with vastly better combat micro than in 0 A.D., and also superior economic management. 
And regarding the excess of clicks, this game is far less click-intensive than AoE 2 and SCII, starting with the auto-queue feature present in the vanilla version, which drastically reduces APM when producing units.
 

28 minutes ago, Thalatta said:

Thanks for providing evidence to what I think is quite obvious.

What’s the evidence? Two friends: one who may or may not have stopped playing, and the other who apparently kept playing on medium? Okay, now let’s move on to your reviews about the fast-paced:

33 minutes ago, Thalatta said:

https://blowingupbits.com/2014/02/0-a-d-the-land-between-time/

This guy wasn’t even used to playing RTS games, and after his third match he began to feel like he’d gotten a handle on things. Great, the guy recommends the game and gives it a positive review.

 

37 minutes ago, Thalatta said:

https://peakd.com/hive-140217/@macchiata/0ad-free-open-source-rts-game--a-gameplay

Another person who recommends the game and says it’s very addictive. He explains that the pace is determined by the difficulty: if you want a relaxed experience, you play on easy; otherwise, you increase the difficulty. The mention of pacing is quite conditional; he says: “I tried playing medium level and the enemy advanced faster and attacked faster. So it was more of a fast-paced game than a slow leisure game.”

In his own words: “So far though, this game is pretty addictive as it's only my 2nd day playing it and I have only tried Acropolis Bay. I definitely look forward to trying more and even the one with 1v4 game play.”

Great! he loved the game. Two days in and he’s already hooked. Playing on Single Player only for 2 days, counts as a casual for me.
 

42 minutes ago, Thalatta said:

Here some frustrated players on Reddit, only over the last 3 months (but hey, these people don't exist for the tryharders):

https://www.reddit.com/r/0ad/comments/1so1gzp/transition_from_very_easy_easy_is_too_hard/

https://www.reddit.com/r/0ad/comments/1ruix38/example_of_my_very_easy_mode_what/

https://www.reddit.com/r/0ad/comments/1qdf6qz/getting_smashed_fast_in_single_player_demo_a271/

These three posts include suggestions from other players giving advice on how to win, along with guides. Do those testimonies count as well? Or are they all tryhards???
 

45 minutes ago, Thalatta said:

https://www.reddit.com/r/0ad/comments/1hshm2g/why_is_easy_so_hard/

An experienced RTS player who always loses against the Petra bot on easy, come on man… read a guide, watch some videos...

I do take this from that last frustrated player, though: “0 A.D. has such a hard time explaining its mechanics clearly and providing a proper easy difficulty that it makes it really hard to get into, and with the game's low popularity, it's hard to find up-to-date guidance online too.”
A good tutorial is necessary so that new players don’t jump into fighting the AI blindly without understanding not only the basic game mechanics, but also more advanced concepts. And I think achievements are great.

As for balance, I do think it’s primarily shaped around PvP, and that’s for obvious reasons seen in many other RTS games. It’s natural for balance to evolve based on different playstyles and strategies that players discover over time as they refine techniques, explore units and civilization-specific features, and push the gameplay in different directions.
It should also be possible to separate both realms to some extent. In the SP environment, there can be technologies and units that don’t exist in MP. This is quite common in many RTS games too and adds an interesting layer to the single-player experience.

And it’s not really the case that multiplayer being only for “tryharders”. While it’s true that there’s a group of very intense tryhards like myself, you can also find daily matches that last for hours, with very laid-back players who just play and have fun without an overly competitive mindset. 

 

On 18/04/2026 at 9:41 AM, Thalatta said:

Level naming has to be adjusted to RTS players, all of them, not just the vast minority that play competitive online matches (something I see as a recurring issue with this game)

This is what I mean: you keep referring to the game as prioritizing multiplayer as if that were a deliberate design decision and it isn’t. There have been campaigns in the past, but they’re difficult to keep updated from version to version due to technical constraints and the very limited manpower available to maintain everything. There’s currently one person working on updating the old campaign, and another developer working on a more advanced narrative system for creating campaigns. I understand that some people may have told you that, but it’s not a premeditated design decision at all.

If the proposal is to set the easy level as the default, fine, that can be done very easily. I don’t see why the developers wouldn’t accept it. I’ve seen in another post that you have some knowledge of JavaScript; you could make the PR yourself in very little time. Now, reducing the normal game speed to 0.8x and trying to set 1.25x as the “competitive option” seems like a terrible idea to me. But it’s not as if this is there because it’s designed with multiplayer players in mind.

[Deicide4u]

3 hours ago, guerringuerrin said:

And regarding the excess of clicks, this game is far less click-intensive than AoE 2 and SCII, starting with the auto-queue feature present in the vanilla version, which drastically reduces APM when producing units

Yeah, not to mention the batch training, which also increases the total training time to equal or more than "3x the speed of training" in SC II per batch.

3 hours ago, guerringuerrin said:

If the proposal is to set the easy level as the default, fine, that can be done very easily

Or, you can change the setting in the Options and never be bothered about it again. Oh, and you can also disable the match-setting tips, so you aren't annoyed by that "Medium AI is too hard for beginners" message.

Again, the "Normal" AI in AoE2 will destroy any new AoE 2 player, regardless of his/her experience with RTS. 

[Thalatta]

11 hours ago, guerringuerrin said:

I personally never found the normal level challenging; I lost a couple of times and then started beating it. You yourself have said you didn’t find it very challenging. So how should it be, beatable on the first try? And I’m pretty sure that the newbies who didn’t find it challenging didn’t go to the forum to comment on it… For me, moving from Normal to Hard in StarCraft II took quite a lot of matches… It’s a much more challenging and intelligent AI, with vastly better combat micro than in 0 A.D., and also superior economic management. 

In Normal 0 A.D., same, after a couple of lost matches I realised one had to hurry, and since then Very Hard wasn't a problem. When the AI was improved recently, again I lost a couple of matches, and realised I had to play even better, so the following few matches I've won on Very Hard (set always on Aggressive). But it seems some people just can’t do this as easily as we can (I just hold back because I don’t like to confront a game like I’m on cocaine, I just step up as it's necessary). Regarding SC2, I went straight to Brutal, and yes, a couple of Protoss scenarios took me the whole day, but I knew what I was going against, and this is kind of my point, it’s all about expectations, and not only 0 A.D. Normal is not normal (I don’t think one should read a guide and watch some videos for it, and, yet again, there’s a warning in the game itself), but apparently on Very Easy people are getting rushed. This should not happen, there’s a clear gap between that level and Sandbox, and not because the AI is smart, but because it makes rushes, and this is the core of the problem with the easy levels, which might be trivial for you and I, and for many others, but I don’t want to lose sight of those who have some RTS experience and have their expectations on what those difficulty levels should actually mean. Most of the rest of your answer is just dismissing their experience, do negative responses cancel their opinions? Do positive reviews brush off those who are frustrated? Is it not fast-paced for some, even when for others that’s a conditional thing? I don’t care about those who have a positive experience, good for them, that’s a non-issue, I worry about those who seem to be left behind. I got those links in 5 minutes, I could keep going and you know it, so let’s not waste time on ignoring an issue that’s there.

 

11 hours ago, guerringuerrin said:

This is what I mean: you keep referring to the game as prioritizing multiplayer as if that were a deliberate design decision and it isn’t. There have been campaigns in the past, but they’re difficult to keep updated from version to version due to technical constraints and the very limited manpower available to maintain everything. There’s currently one person working on updating the old campaign, and another developer working on a more advanced narrative system for creating campaigns. I understand that some people may have told you that, but it’s not a premeditated design decision at all.

I don’t necessarily say it is deliberate, it could well be accidental, which could be because this is a game made mostly by gamers that like the genre so much (this is, being quite experienced in it) that are willing to volunteer to code to make it. There’s a lot of knowledge about gameplay and balance, but this, seems to me, has shifted game too much to their preferences. I feel a “corporate” game tries to take more into account casuals and total beginners, because selling it really matters for them. So, I think there’s tension between what experienced RTS players want, and growing the game, for which I think is vital to consider what casuals and total beginners can actually do without delving into guides and videos, which, unsurprisingly, they are not going to do, they just want to play a game as they have played others. My proposal is just a cosmetic thing, how the game is presented out of the box, given that I think there’s plenty of evidence many are getting frustrated (which, again, doesn’t contradict that many are not, as I know is the case). The 0.8x speed idea is also mostly cosmetic, so I’m not sure why it would be so terrible (and with upgradeable Achievements one would be motivating people to play with Competitive Presets, which is the concept that wraps up everything), although I wonder if it would make infantry and cavalry speed difference more relevant (particularly if cavalry is made a bit faster, but these are unrelated gameplay discussions). For all I care, batch training could be made more advantageous, and there could be techs improving this even more, to replenish late armies faster, my worry is what happens in the early game (early for newbies! that's not 5 mins, that could be at least 20 mins), particularly on the easier difficulty levels.

I never coded in JavaScript, but have done it in many other languages. As I mentioned somewhere else, I don’t like to do PRs, at least for now, because I don’t like to overload what’s already there, and, contrary to what you might think, I don’t want to try to impose my ideas, but to discuss first and see if there’s agreement on if there’s some merit to them.

Edited 3 hours ago by Thalatta

[guerringuerrin]

@Thalatta I’m not dismissing the negative experience that some players may have. What I’m saying is that it’s very difficult to establish that this negative experience is representative of every(or considerable amount) new player’s experience.
I agree that the AI needs to be improved. Ideally, it shouldn’t rush under certain configurations. That’s something we all know is pending and difficult to implement. But that’s very different from wanting to modify the game’s pacing in its default state. I haven’t seen this kind of engagement approach in other RTS games. What I have seen are in-game tutorials, ranging from basic mechanics to complex build orders, along with campaigns and achievement systems, challenges.

Establishing a slower pacing as the “normal” baseline would be a substantially disruptive change, and accepting it would require very solid evidence. Not just a handful of reports you might find on Reddit or that show up here from time to time in the forum. Furthermore, you will always have dissatisfied players. You can keep searching and maybe find 100 or 200 reports online about this issue. But is that sample representative? That’s roughly the same number of players who play multiplayer every day. The same group you’ve described as a minority (and I agree that’s likely the case). So those 100 or 200 reports should also be considered a minority, shouldn’t they?

So, one thing is making the AI easier, and another is changing the game’s pacing.

I think changing the AI’s default difficulty from Normal to Very Easy Defensive would be a positive change in this regard. Even so, without a basic guide to the game’s military and economic mechanics, it’s very likely that a new player will lose their first few attempts, for the simple reason that they don’t understand how the game works.

I’ve seen many newbies build 50 farms with 100 civilians (people clearly coming from AoE). You have to give new players the tools to understand how to play. And if many of us recommend that people read some guides, it’s simply because the game doesn’t provide that kind of (good) how-to in-game.

You should also care about those who are having a positive experience, they’re proof that something is being done right.
 

1 hour ago, Thalatta said:

I don’t necessarily say it is deliberate, it could well be accidental, which could be because this is a game made mostly by gamers that like the genre so much (this is, being quite experienced in it) that are willing to volunteer to code to make it. There’s a lot of knowledge about gameplay and balance, but this, seems to me, has shifted game too much to their preferences. I feel a “corporate” game tries to take more into account casuals and total beginners, because selling it really matters for them. So, I think there’s tension between what experienced RTS players want, and growing the game, for which I think is vital to consider what casuals and total beginners can actually do without delving into guides and videos, which, unsurprisingly, they are not going to do, they just want to play a game as they have played others.

I think you’re drawing conclusions far too quickly for how little time you’ve been here. Have you seen the developers play? Do you know them? There are all kinds of contributors: some play very well, others are complete noobs, and some, I think, don’t even play at all. I hope that over time you’ll come across other perspectives and have experiences that will lead you to see this differently.

Casual players don’t necessary need the game to be slower; they need in-game tutorials and campaigns, they need guidance. It’s not about “making it easier so they stick around.” It’s about teaching them how to play, giving them content, storytelling, and engagement. And this is missing, not because of some “experienced-player corporatism,” but because there isn’t enough manpower to tackle tasks of that complexity and scope. There’s no need to break what already works; what’s needed is to improve what works and build what’s missing.

 

1 hour ago, Thalatta said:

The 0.8x speed idea is also mostly cosmetic, so I’m not sure why it would be so terrible

Changing the game’s default speed to 0.8x is not a cosmetic change at all. It’s a significant design decision.

 

1 hour ago, Thalatta said:

I never coded in JavaScript, but have done it in many other languages. As I mentioned somewhere else, I don’t like to do PRs, at least for now, because I don’t like to overload what’s already there, and, contrary to what you might think, I don’t want to try to impose my ideas, but to discuss first and see if there’s agreement on if there’s some merit to them.

Alright. I think it’s a good idea, and I’ll open the PR as soon as I have some free time. Basic PRs like this tend to be resolved fairly quickly, whether accepted or rejected.

Btw, I don’t think you’re trying to impose your ideas. I just meant that some of them are based on assumptions without solid support.

Edited 2 hours ago by guerringuerrin

[Atrik]

The inevitable conclusion it isn't that AI isn't hard at all. It's actually rather too easy, but the vanilla content 0AD offers isn't optimal for casual or new players for leisure games, nor for learning. There are some work in this area already like :

https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/pulls/8861

https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/pulls/7785

Also a good foundation for making campaigns more immersive: 
https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/pulls/8614 

 We can thanks @Vantha which is the main dive in these areas.

 

I recommend trying mods, such as Delenda-Est, hyrule-conquest and a tone more already ported and coming up for R28, that are just 2 clicks away for players to get a great load of content from. If you want to not be a multiplayer try-harder, you do have many options that doesn't involve trying to beat the hardest level of AI possible actually.

[Thalatta]

49 minutes ago, guerringuerrin said:

Establishing a slower pacing as the “normal” baseline would be a substantially disruptive change, and accepting it would require very solid evidence. Not just a handful of reports you might find on Reddit or that show up here from time to time in the forum. Furthermore, you will always have dissatisfied players. You can keep searching and maybe find 100 or 200 reports online about this issue. But is that sample representative? That’s roughly the same number of players who play multiplayer every day. The same group you’ve described as a minority (and I agree that’s likely the case). So those 100 or 200 reports should also be considered a minority, shouldn’t they?

What you are asking can't be reasonably done. It's not about doing a statistically validated poll, but what one reads (I can read plenty in three months), and perceives when taking up the game (maybe this was too long ago for you and many), after all, this thread started with "several posts that suggest that the current Petra is too difficult". That’s a start for something, and everything else I keep reading here, on Reddit, etc, makes it valid for me, considering the gap between Very Easy and Sandbox has already been mentioned before. And it's not that I don't care that some are having a positive experience, it's that that doesn't indicate there's no problem for some. Regarding pacing, as I've mentioned, it's a fact that production times are much faster than in other games, as discussed in the link I provided from this forum. Regarding speed of the game itself, I see that as less relevant than the other two things, but I do still think all this is mostly cosmetic, since once you choose the Competitive Preset, it just stays there, and one would use that for everything. Why do experienced players care what the default setting was at the beginning, if it's clear what the accepted competitive setting is? There’s no breaking of what already works, it’s all under the corresponding Preset.

Actually, besides cosmetics, I also proposed the addition of levels, which was also mentioned by the OP. To summarise, I think the difficulty levels should be (for Aggressive, while for Balanced and Defensive rushes should be tuned down even more) something along these lines (or whatever approximation possible):

-Sandbox: as it is now.

-Extremely Easy: no rushes, small armies and defenses.

-Very Easy: small rushes, medium armies and defenses.

-Easy: medium rushes, decent armies and defenses.

-Normal: decent rushes, large armies and defenses, comparable to other games, no warning should be needed.

-Hard, Very Hard and Extremely Hard: only now large rushes, huge armies and defenses, EH at least as hard as SC2 brutal (or whatever is possible), VH and H more or less equidistantly filling the gap down to Normal.
 

26 minutes ago, Atrik said:

The inevitable conclusion it isn't that AI isn't hard at all

For hard levels, yes, for easy levels, no. It's like all difficulty levels seem clustered somewhere above the usual Normal, but don't reach as far as SC2 Brutal, which is not that brutal considering I'm far from being a pro, yet managed just fine.

Edited 1 hour ago by Thalatta
Small, medium, decent, large and huge by newbie standards!