Thank you so much, this worked!

Indeed this would have quite a few implications on settlement layout: Distanced dropsites would need longer to deliver their goods to the CC while currently distance is not relevant at all. Therefore, it might be advantageous to build another CC or camp or fortress or whatever is defined as a potential converter building (converting collected goods to goods inventorized to the player's account). Currently the converter building is the dropsite itself. If we now re-allocate that conversion function to the CC, camp, fortress or whatever, this could have implications. Question: would such constraint (distance to converter building) also affect Petra AI? We need to be careful suggesting these things as gameplay might become much more complex.

I’m not interested in discussing semantics. The point you’re making is clear: “many people might get a bad impression of the game,” and based on that premise, you’re defending your idea of recalibrating the difficulty levels. But the reality is that you have no actual evidence that this is a frustration point that is driving players away. To be clear: I don’t see a problem with recalibrating the AI. What I do see as a problem is making decisions based on personal opinions presented as if they were factual premises.   Here’s another assumption without solid grounding: in your less than three months here, how many people from the community have you actually talked to in order to make that claim? How many members do you think the community has to assert that this is the “opinion of many”? And how many others don’t participate here and might hold a completely different view? The truth is, you don’t know. Yet you bring it up, assume it as a valid premise, and from there make proposals about how things "should be.”   And how do you know that the majority of singleplayer players don’t enjoy the game at its current pacing? Do you have any statistics to support that? I’ve seen new players running the game at 1.25x speed, so does that mean the game is too slow? I understand that this may be your preference, and that others might agree with you. There’s nothing wrong with having a different opinion or proposing ideas, but it would be better not to defend them based on unproven assumptions.

I see it as either you implement it with ranges (a simplification), or you consider the transport (more realism). Using both at the same time seems adding conditions over conditions. Only ranges would cause clustered buildings. Besides the reasons already given, I favor (automatic) transport because it implies the need to lay out buildings in a realistic way (to have paths to go between them).

I can interpret the moment when a production decision is made, such as clicking on a barracks and queueing up units, as a player action, and this doesn’t necessarily have to involve camera movement, it could be done using shortcuts assigned to numbers on the keyboard.  However, I’d be inclined not to classify the units that are automatically produced from that queue as player actions. 1 unit queued in each of 10 barracks can create quite a bit of noise, especially when combined with losses during combat. In terms of terminology, something like “Follow Development” might make sense. But “Follow Player” doesn’t seem entirely accurate, since the player isn’t actively clicking on or engaging with those units at that moment. The player might not even be aware of how many barracks are doing what, which ones are still producing or which ones have run out. Therefore, I think this complex tracking experience causes this feature to lose its meaning. Thanks Atrik. You’re like a roofer who finds and fixes leaks. Although I don’t approve of some mods that can introduce hidden unfairness in games like autotrain, these are still valuable touches. That said, I would have preferred if we could all play a single, shared version of the game, an improved common experience that doesn’t rely on various mods. Rather than insisting on keeping flaws, it would be a better approach to address and fix them.