From the above, you can see why temperate is played the most: it doesn't not favour a particular strategy nor civilisation, so balance is maximised and no one can predict other people's strategies.  Aegean is also played a lot by higher rated players in 1v1 but most players might find it more difficult than temperate.

Agreed.  The point I made was that 0 AD has training times significantly faster than many of its fellow RTS games, and the numbers I offered, while placeholder of course, would be conservative changes relative to other games.  Some have suggested just changing the speed, which slows everything.  I for one do not want that to be watching my soldiers moving that slowly.   I would never claim that a single change would be without side effects, but the doom and gloom that some would suggest I think is a wild exaggeration.  Supposing that the early game feels far too sluggish.  Perhaps that's more the fault of things like not properly incentivising players to scout from the get go like most RTSs (Which I think is a problem in 0 AD regardless of whether training times are changed.).  From my perspective at least, temporarily ruining a product is a perfectly normal part of prototyping in the interest of creating the most robust iteration possible, and I do not think the risks are as massive with this comparatively modest suggestion.   By the way, I searched the forums for topics with the keyword 'alpha 24,' and the in the one topic that criticised the alpha, I found that only christgtr pushed for training times to be reduced.  I could not find a single other person pressing for that change.  I'm sure there were lobby conversations about it, but the outrage regarding training times seems a bit overblown.  Granted, there were many things people didn't like about Alpha 24 (It was a long topic.), and maybe that was a lesser priority. Fair, I don't think that it would be good if I tried to make them such.  Nothing substitutes empirical data, and while I did want to test alpha 24 to contrast its slower training times, I unfortunately could not get it running.  On the flip-side of what I've argued for, there might be good reason to even see how the community reacts to faster training times as many individuals have pressed for.  While I remain skeptical of the merits of such a change, if the community supports it after rigorous testing, who am I to challenge that?  While I think you make fair points, if we really wish to depict such large battles, shouldn't we be playing with units on a squad or battalion level rather than force players to manage hundreds of peons?  That would definitely make the design less chaotic and allow for meaningful micro that the game has hoped to introduce since this project began.  That, however, is a completely different can of worms. I think that the conversation has stagnated, and I rest my case.  Even if 0 AD is less frenetic compared to Age of Empires 2 or Age of Mythology (Of which the evidence for, while important, is only anecdotal), as I said in my opening post, the factory-like way units pop out is odd compared to other titles, and considering bringing the numbers down is nothing radical with that perspective.  0 AD does not have to make itself unique by being one of the fastest paced titles in its genre.  

Different biomes offer different amounts and distributions of each resource. TheCJ has pretty much summarised it but I can see some additional things with my GUI mod: Aegean has medium sized forest, more stone than metal, but the density of woodline is high. Hunt is abundant and mostly passive. You might get apple trees. This is the pro biome as it allows all strategies but discourages turtle / ecobot. Subalpine has woodlines of all sizes and a range of densities. Less hunt than Aegean. Plenty of stone but few metal mines - bad for champs and mercs. Boom with slings and attack early! Rhine valley is the best one for wood as the forests are the most dense and large. There might be clearings in the middle for you to build ultra efficient storehouses. Very bad hunting options and not enough mines. So the correct play is just boom hard. India has giant berries and giant trees - potential for epic boom. Sadly due to pathfinder bug and complicated meshes, the biome is quite bugged for most low spec players. Not recommended unless you use EnhancedGUI mod in which case it becomes amazing. Elephants are good hunt but mines are not enough.  Nubia has insane amounts of metal - perfect for mercs and Cav rush. The woodlines are small though sufficiently dense. The berries are double the normal size. Savannah has wood in the form of large baobab trees dotted everywhere. But there is elephant to hunt and sufficient mines. Sudanian Savannah has exceptionally large and dense forests with 600 wood trees. However, hunt and mines are scarce. This is another boom biome in disguise. Temperate is the most loved biome of A27 TGs because it always offer some extra food in the form of apple trees or additional berries. Hunt and mines are plentiful, so all strategies can be played. The woodlines are quite irregular here and in general less dense than Rhineland or Aegean. Most players get confused by the leaves.   Arctic has medium and small woodlines but are always very dense. Obviously no apple trees but the chance of extra hunt is high. Mines are also scarce.  You either rush with cav  or boom for early inf attacks.  

@umatbro That one will be a bit hard to install, try the one I shared above. You need to download the zip file, unzip/extract it, and then move it to your mods folder. Here is a guide on where you can find the mods folder: https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/wiki/GameDataPaths

How do I download and install this mod?

Well, you can just take a look at the biomes? Compared to temperate, which is the default in most tgs I played, Aegean-Anatolian has less dense forests and less hunt, Subalpine is pretty similar, Arctic has less dense forests and hunt that fights back, Rhine Valley (Fall) is pretty similar, India has elephants and massive trees, Nubia has no wood, Sahara also has no wood, Sudanian Savanna also has elephants and little wood, Eurasian Steppe has small trees which you can build buildings on. Cant give you percentages though, sorry. I think metal and stone mines are pretty similar in every biome.

Is there a definition what biome selection does actually with your resources? (alpine = + 10% wood, nubia= -5%wood+5%stone, or the like) If that was the case, I could select (in SP a biome that suit my civ best or olne that poses most constrianed environment. That could be quite interesting!