Leaderboard

Issue: People use garrisoning to take off targetting off units. Example: Someone pushes with barracks using garrisons/ungarrisons from said barracks. That means that targetting of 30 units can be reset by garrisoning them in 3 barracks. Ungarrisoning instantly makes it possible to kill units that are capturing barracks. Suggestion: 4-6 second timer when unit is idle and vulnerable to dmg doing nothing while garrisoning. Alternative suggestion is all armor becomes 0 but unit can attack while garrisoning. Conversely, ungarrisoning units should not be instant.

I imagine with a little bit of micro, you can make chopping a tree line, for example, a lot more efficient than having to place multiple storehouses. But compared to a Worker Elephant, not sure. Maybe Worker Elephants are the more expensive, tankier, and more versatile (able to build) version of a Storage Cart, while Storage Carts are cheaper and a bit faster moving. For Nomads, the Cart could unpack into a Yurt (house), further making it different from a Worker Elephant.

Another thing to point out is that Storage Carts won't be able to construct buildings, which makes them different from Worker Elephants. That, plus cost, health, and speed differences.

Possible/probable future civs which will have Storage Carts: Cimbri, Scythians, Xiongnu

In the game Warcraft 3, when the city center and all buildings are lost for a long time, the losing units become visible on the map until they build a new city center (or something like that). This innovation would help to quickly find the hopelessly losing side without wandering around the map for a single unit hiding on the map.

possible, but in my tests this does not translate well on 0ad battles. units turn at all times in a whim.

Don't know. I think the behavior of the AI largely depends on knowing the map (attacking, new CCs...). Also don't know if we have someone currently working on AI. Maybe @Freagarach knows more?

After years of Torrent-seeding 0AD, I've checked the 0AD site again and noticed the news. I've registered here to thank you @Stan` for all your time and heart spent working on 0AD and give you remote support and a hug! Thank you! If the project/community will need a new system administrator, please PM me. I and my ~9 years of SysOp/Linux experience will do my best to help the project!

Whenever we think about Macedonia, Alexander is the first thing that comes to mind for good reason. To capture the his strategy, I think that having all Macedonian military units being given a slow but constant regeneration in friendly and neutral territory could represent his ability to march an army across thousands of miles of enemy territory. This regeneration would increase in rate for veteran units. Likewise, siege units being as iconic as they were with cases like Rhodes and Tyre could be either constructed by units or instead siege production buildings could be built anywhere. This choice might, however, be too similar to Romans. A last aspect that could reflect how important cavalry was to Macedonian society could be something that gives them extra hitpoints but at a marginally higher cost or population space.

Note that attackers didn't necessarily need to damage the walls to capture the city. Surrounding the enemy and starving them out was a popular strategy. In some sieges, a traitor would open the gates for the attackers. Siege ladders and siege towers were used to put troops directly on top of the walls without needing to damage them. Huge siege ramps, made out of dirt, sloping up to the top of the wall, were another strategy.

to be honest, it sounds more complicated than the current system. I don't mind the animation, since it kind of represents capturing. You can think of it like a mob of soldiers surrounding a building and forcing the occupants out. If this was a non-visual process, it would be very difficult to prevent your buildings being captured. Also I don't like the idea of units fighting "inside" a building, as I wouldn't be able to see what is going on without clicking the building. Perhaps one way to improve capturing mechanics would be to calculate a 'garrison strength' (affected by phase, units and/or hero inside) and provide this metric in the UI for your own buildings and also enemy buildings. Although, maybe this would give the attacker too much information.

I'm starting to agree with this. Can still keep "Forced March" as a formation that gives a speed boost and -1 all armor (vulnerable to ambush), but only with player input.

I think that would work better with the shrines (map neutral object).

one suggestion i made quite some time ago concerning "minifactions" (based on civs technically already present in the game but don't have their own factions, such as the Thracians) who could/would be present on certain maps and available either for destruction or alliance and allow the player that allies with them to have access to their units. this would extend to naval units as well, so, for example, on largely naval maps the Iberians would use their own transports but be able to ally with a non-player group (such as the Phoenicians) to gain access to some warships, the alternative being that, on a given map, they would ally with a player that DOES have warships and split the difference: for example, the Iberians ally with the Athenians against the Romans and Persians on a naval map, with the Athenians covering for their naval needs while the Iberians help defend the Athenians on land, particularly with their walls and towers since (iirc) the Iberians are the most defensive playable civ