@Classic-Burger I can explain why a sheet with a bunch of ideas doesn’t translate to an equivalent bunch of gameplay changes/features. gameplay changes should fit into the scope and style of 0ad, be compatible with existing features, not introduce unnecessary complication, while enriching gameplay. For example, users may suggest realism features, like capturing wild horses to give the player a 1-time discount on a cavalryman. However, that would conflict with other features, like siege speed, hero HP, as 0ad is not an exhaustive simulation. if every idea we came across was implemented as is, 0ad would be quite a mess, wouldn’t it? One other thing is that these changes require people’s work to get them over the finish line. So arguments for a new feature should either convince a dev to take up the task, or the arguer should try it themselves. And that means you may need to modify or walk back the original idea to get more people in agreement.  

What is the point of formations? Or more precisely, what are the motivations behind this wish? It seems to me that the motivations are mostly cosmetic. To give a total war vibe.

Pathfinder and units walking on objects. It's not easy.

@wowgetoffyourcellphoneN Within gameplay, we need a conceptual game department that decides to improve gameplay, not just balance. People who contribute ideas and people dedicated to programming improvements, gameplay improvements and that the way to get new features. Many ideas never progress beyond a  sheet of paper with ideas.

Los incas del siglo III d.C., al igual que varias ideas del mod, me hicieron cuestionar ciertas cosas jajaja