Nobody said an exhaustive simulation. This is not very exhaustive.(In theory) The only thing I disagree with about WoW is that the formation or battalion shouldn't be fixed. The only advantage this has is that the performance could be better. I'm not asking for flanks and other things. I'm saying that the battalion should function differently in combat. Correct, thank you, that's my point. Bravo. That's why there needs to be a department with a leader. You read what I wrote, tell me what you didn't. Read it again. I'm not saying that the ideas will be taken. I'm saying that it will be discussed (as it already is). And it gets filtered. And if something needs improvement, it gets done. But there must be transparency, a public document outlining what needs to be done or where the desired path is to be taken. ---Let's start again.---   Is 0 AD an open-source clone of the Age of Empires series with fewer features? Or does it aspire to be more? I mean, to innovate. Yes or no? I didn't say it has to be a full Total War game. But the formation should be useful and somewhat more immersive. For now, the battalions are useless and just an aesthetic banner. But not total war. I'm talking about the formations. I wasn't the one who started the conversation about the battalions. Wowgetyou..etc is right. Battalions could give it something unique, as I said before, not many RTS games work that way. The other idea is the idea of progress; that no longer has to do with innovation but with reinforcing the gameplay.   The CS are very OP for the economic experience( the snowball effect), but I don't want to remove them. Something has to be done.  From there, all that's needed are more game modes. Do you think these are very radical ideas? @real_tabasco_sauce Furthermore, I'm not the only one with these ideas. The change should be gradual and progressive, not a radical change. By sheet I mean a route to follow. Simple.

Being a clone of another game seems to be the case, I suppose. Show me a recent design document.

Battalions can be useful if it helps to create features such as directional attack bonuses and formation bonuses.

Well, select a scenario map from the map selector and play it. Sorry, what am I missing?

Indeed pathfinding may be one of the main issues of bridges - walking on objects could be done with fields already (as they represent buildable objects) but finding a single entrance and exit while actually walking on water (denied area) may not be so simple for pathfinding. Again - in settlers 4 or 5, I remember you could build bridges only at pre-dertmined sites that neeeded definition in the map itself (defined entrance and exit points). Actually, should it be possible to build a bridge everwhere you want? This might be an interesting feature like blocking ships from entering or leaving a river or even denying access to a beach (if building a U-shape bridge)?. A bonus of freely positioned bridges could be that they could be possibly built on land as well (zero height above terrain) and would then be called "roads".   I guess that would be a completely different game then.