On top of that, adding small, non-interactive, scattered elements around buildings and across the terrain is always welcome. These details enrich the scene, reinforce the historical setting, and improve immersion without impacting performance, since they do not require gameplay logic or interaction. For instance: small piles of stones, broken pottery shards, clay jars left outside houses, wooden buckets, firewood stacks, loose straw or hay patches, worn footpaths between buildings, mud patches near entrances, simple wooden stools, abandoned tools like hammers or chisels, woven baskets, animal bones or remains, ash piles from fires, charcoal fragments, rope coils, small fences or stakes, cloth scraps or drying fabrics, barrels or storage containers, crates or wooden boxes, cart tracks on the ground, water puddles in uneven terrain, moss patches on stones, vines creeping on walls, fallen leaves or organic debris, sand or dust accumulation in corners, simple market leftovers like spilled grain or fruit, training dummies near barracks, broken shields or discarded equipment, fishing nets for coastal maps, scattered reeds or grasses near water. These kinds of elements help tell a story about daily life and activity, making the world feel more dynamic and grounded without overcomplicating the gameplay layer.

I agree with this direction. Even when buildings are meant to look recently constructed, a bit of environmental integration goes a long way in making them feel believable within the world. Adding subtle dirt accumulation around the base of walls, slight discoloration from moisture, or small traces of wear can help anchor structures to the terrain instead of making them look like they were just placed there. In real life, even new constructions quickly pick up signs of use and exposure. A hint of mud near entrances, some irregularity in textures, or very light weathering can add depth without making assets look old or neglected. It is less about making things look aged, and more about breaking the “pristine” feel so that the scene reads as lived-in and coherent.

No, I'm not Kate, and this forum is the first I have taken part in like 20 years, if I remember correctly. Everything is math under the hood, but no one ever does it (not even me), one just gets a feeling of what will work when. One doesn't calculate exactly how many seconds a certain amount of units will take to capture some structure, but there's a formula behind it, and one just has some intuitive idea after some time. I was just trying to do that same thing with something a bit similar to what CheckTester said, with some realistic reconsiderations. And then arguing that virtual combat with base garrisons would be more realistic, simple, and help with intuitiveness.

@Thalatta Kate, is that you? Anyway, I'm not doing that much math. I stand by my opinion that the game should be simple to learn and harder to master. New players already don't want to spend a lot of time learning this game. In fact, I believe that feature creep (especially since AoE III was released) has pushed people away from RTS. Couple this with the short attention span of younger generation, and you get only a fraction of former player base. No wonder that AoE 2 and AoE 1 (via Return of Rome) are still very popular. It's simpler, it works and is just wining timeless formula. There are some specific people who like to obsess over feature creep, sheets, statistics, and they are a minority. But, I digress.

Мы строим качественный дома каркасные быстро, надёжно и по доступной цене. Однако надежность и уровень исполнения всегда держатся высоко. Грамотно утепленные стены удерживают тепло в холодное время и свежесть в жару. Звукоизоляционные свойства в таких домах легко усиливаются дополнительными материалами. После этого формируется несущая основа из деревянных либо металлических деталей.