Leaderboard

Edited the Athenian mockup with some DE-accurate information: I threw in some vertical scrollbars for 3 of the information panels and a horizontal scrollbar under the Hero portraits at the bottom.

There was a discussion regarding whether some people prefer icons (like me), and others text. I think the conclusion was that it could be left for the player as an option. An alternative layout I can think of to show the high amount of info more efficiently (and following also from other games) is the structure of the 2nd one, with the icons of the 1st one, no text (or with name tags like the Heroes on the 1st layout), with the explanation as tooltip when hovering the mouse. One could also have the option to show text beside the icon (or just text, without the icon), but the more experienced players could then choose only icons as a faster reference. I also liked more the upper right images from the 1st layout. Another thing I was thinking about (coming soon in my next batch of suggestions) is that I'd put Catafalque Bonuses inside Civilization Overview to present and concentrate all information from a given civ better (although this would add even more info to this screen).

Another potential layout. It's less "graphical" and doesn't have icons. it's a simpler layout and follow the current more closely. Potentially more text on the screen than the other one, which I was trying to get away from.

Items like this for Civ Bonuses and Team Bonus. Stencil format. onHover tooltips give Description/History: Then for technologies and structures, we get icons like these, which have onHover tooltips giving costs, etc., as in-game or in structtree, plus Description/History: (technologies) (Structures)

Exactly. All we need at first is to make a generic layout (so every civ's Civilization Overview will look nicer right away), and then a civ-specific layout: perhaps for either the Achaemenids and/or the Athenians. If can make that work, then it should be a lot smoother making the rest of the civs follow suit with their own themes. All of the features will be in-place and all we need to do is plug-n-play.

Yes, looks great. I also think that all the civilization-specific ornamentation adds a lot of personality. I can imagine a base template with more generic decorations that act as placeholders until they're replaced with civilization-specific ones. I think that could help the visual development of each civ overview.

I think the 'generic' theme could be based on this Athenian example. Just remove all of the Athenian-specific things, like the owls, anchors, and ocean waves. That way, when a modder adds a new civ or the base game adds a new civ, the new layout will still work without necessitating a whole new theme right away. The theme for the new civ can be created later and will be helped with the fact that there will be a dozen examples of how it's done. I really like how the bonuses are represented by stencils, while the 'entities' such as technologies and buildings are represented by simplified, aesthetically pleasing round icons.

would like to share a few suggestions to improve the tactical depth and usability of unit formations in 0 a.d.: Maintain Formations During Attacks: Currently, when ordering a formation (like a Roman Testudo or Greek Phalanx) to attack, the formation breaks apart as units rush to fight individually. It would be great if formations could move and attack as a single cohesive block, maintaining their defensive bonuses and structure during defensive advances or slow pushes. Improved Stance and Range Management: Managing ranged units or tactical retreats is currently difficult because troops automatically engage anything in range, disrupting the battle plan. We need better control or dedicated stances to prevent units from breaking formation to chase retreating enemies or breaking ranks to attack targets of opportunity. Custom Formation Dimensions (Width and Length): It would be extremely helpful to choose the specific dimensions of a formation before or during placement. For example, allowing players to adjust the grid to be 10 units wide by 5 units deep, or vice versa, either through hotkeys or by clicking and dragging the mouse to draw the line of deployment If you see any AI, it's because I used it since I don't speak English. Thank you for your hard work developing this magnificent game.

Honestly, I'm not convinced that optimizing a programming language primarily for absolute beginners is as beneficial as it sounds. Python followed a similar philosophy, but learning to program well is vastly harder than learning a handful of keywords. Any design tradeoff that makes the language slightly easier during the first week, at the cost of making it less expressive or more awkward for experienced users over the following years, seems questionable. Nowadays, if the goal is to let people write programs in natural language, LLMs already provide a much more flexible solution. You can describe the program in your own language and have the model translate it into an established programming language. That avoids permanently baking "natural language" compromises into the language itself. Python is an example of the downside of prioritizing beginner friendliness too much. The core language is simple, but once you start doing more advanced things, many features feel like workarounds layered on top of the original design. The result is code that can actually become harder to read and reason about than languages that were designed with more consistency and long-term scalability in mind.

I think it would be nice to have auto-scout as a feature. In a lot of games with the feature, some people use it, while many don't. Higher-level players find it doesn't scout as efficiently as they want it to, so they prefer to scout by hand. Lower-level players like the APM it frees up, so they are more likely to use it. I think it's a fine feature. It's something that was desired in the original game design 20 years ago. It would be neat to have it come back.