errt

If we know the time a unit will need to reach the dropsite and return (or we can estimate it good enough), something like this might be possible: Have the gatherer count be a hard and soft limit, so gatherers currently working on the ressource count 1 to the hard limit (so e.g. only 5 workers can work on it concurrently). All gatherers being assigned to the ressource (whether currently working on it, returning to or from the dropsite or just being idle) would count <timetogather>/<timetogather+timetoroundtriptodropsite> to the softlimit (so no more than a total of 5 may be assigend to that ressource). That way, for a single player with one dropsite that all gatherers on this ressource use (this should be the main case), if assigned the max number of workers, this should balance out to a optimal (subject to rounding) gathering rate. The situation for more than one player on a single ressource might get more complex, but could work, too. As an example: If a ressource allows 5 gatherers, and units the player wanting to collect from it take 10 units of time to gather and 20 units of time to round trip to the drop site, he could assign at most 15 workers (15*(10/30)=5). If assigned at the same time, 5 of them would start gathering, at time 10 they'd go for the dropsite, so the second 5 will start gathering taking up to time 20, when the first 5 have reached the dropsite. At time 30, the third batch of workers will have finished gathering just in time the first batch arrives again and so forth. This still has the issue of being gameable by just filling the soft limit with units you'll never reach the target. Solutions to this could involve requiring a unit to at first reach the ressource and the return to it more or less regularly to be counted to the soft limit or using the soft limit only when the hard limit is used up.

Instead of a mysteriously appearing and disappearing banner carrier unit, why not make every unit able to carry a banner, then choose one out of a battalion to carry this battalions banner. That way, without the need for a range of different banner carrier units, it would alway fit the battalion (e.g. horse mounted for cavalry formations, etc, would even fit naval formations). It would be more realistic too, as there would not be any artificial constraints, like not being able to attack the banner carrier. If the banner carrier dies, just choose a new one (or break the formation).

I don't think you should drop non-uniform cost as this is really making a difference the players will notice. But I don't think you need an algorithm that always finds the shortest (or better: lowest cost) path, players will mostly not even notice a slightly non-perfect path. In fact, non-perfect paths even might ADD to the experience as they might feel more natural: Humans will almost never use the perfect path. So I suggest on priorizing for a high performance non-uniform cost algorithm without guarantee for perfect paths over a lower performance algorithm with perfect outcome or uniform cost algorithms. But that's just my two cents. @iap: afaik that's almost what 0ad is already doing: A long range path finder that's discussed here for the long distances and a short range pathfinder for the details. Just that 0ad currently doesn't update the long path while moving along it (at least that's what I think it does and what I think you suggested).

I don't think formations should stop if there is an obstacle, as this would surely disappoint players who sent their formation in some direction and then went to another location and when returning have to find out that the formation only moved part of the way it was sent. It's not realistic either. They should change formation to something more appropriate to pass the obstacle (should be a column formation for most if not all situations) and then rearrange their initial formation after passing the obstacle. I can see a wedge formation approaching a small gap between two mountains: The first units will start to form a column, while the rest waits for them to pass the gap, then follow in column formation, too, while behind the gap the wedge form again from the units that already passed. Should not be too hard to implement, just give every formation type the abilty to move formation->column->formation and do a little work to identify obstacles before being too close.

If walls had a high weight but no range, that should be enough to have them stop the enemies expansion. At least if you can only build them in your territory and something is done to assure that no territory can be controlled where no building is in (so the territory can not reach over the wall, as it wouldn't be connected to the rest - territory-wise, not meant to be based on whether walking would be possible). Btw.: Should impassable terrain stop territories? I think it should. Badly passable terrain (e.g. steel slopes) could also decrease weights on it's tiles, so borders would follow natural borders more often, creating a more realistic map division.

Really love the idea of dynamic borders. The static territories idea was what I disliked most about the previous plans for 0ad. Also like Mythos_Ruler's last border drawing style, looks unobtrusive and 'antique', fitting the game greatly. Just one thought about this: I'd not have buildings split the difference, but more like that (might also be easier to implement): Let's say you have two opposing barracks, weight 100, range 10 with two tiles in between. Each would have an influence of 100 on it's own tile, 90 on the next one and so on, so each player would get one of the tiles in between. Now player 1 builds a fortress (weight 300, range 15) on the tile behind his barracks, increasing his influence on the tiles as following: 390 on the fortress' tile (300 from the fortress + 90 from the barracks), 380 on his barracks' tile, 350 on the tile in front of his barracks, 320 on the next tile (being more than the 90 from player 2's barracks, so this would fall to player 1) and, this being the important one, 290 one player 2's barracks' tile, still being more than the 100 from it, so the tile containing player 2's barracks would also become part of player 1's territory (and thus losing loyality and such). I agree on building civ centers on neutral territory (might be impossible to conquer e.g. islands) and no border for gaia (there's really no need for that). No position on the civ centers near to each other question, I see the problem, but on the other hand really dislike restrictions, have to agree with satchitb, that was something I hated in AOE3, that you were allowed to only build a certain number of buildings and so.