Lion.Kanzen

Once @WhiteTreePaladin (not sure if it was him) suggested if we could sell the female villagers to a neutral market. It also occurs to me that if a lot of villagers are sold I'll create a small army of gaia slaves (enemy). I think neutral markets should generate resources by controlling them. They should definitely be different.

@Akira Kurosawa this is the topical about this gameplay.

if I had already thought that they would appear. I don't know how.to propose them. Here in this specific topic it will not work, it is not gameplay it is art.

Seriously? it has never happened to me. Or at least not so obvious.

but that's a cheat. it would be interesting in the traditional way. I say this because it is very unintuitive. In all my years of playing until today I see this.

Couldn't you add the stats of the upgrades?

in standard mode it should not appear, at least not in random maps.

Would you destroy a relic in relic mode?

J most of the casual audience plays the campaign mode, we need to include a campaign.

at least one method so that units are not mixed up.

there should be mixed formations and formations that seek only to be a block. Also cohort mode to separate units into different commandos (regiments). It would be a mode that does not allow mixing troops from other battalions and does not allow mutability of the group.

For me the fact that the troops can't handle is a defect, the maximum entertainment is to see the troops fight in melee apart from military the maneuvers.

The idea is how we can make the game more tactical, easy to control, interesting to watch.(What sells the most visually about the game is that the combats are attractive). Without losing the RTS essence. 2 objectives are sought: Greater unit control, especially melee infantry. Greater management by allowing better control of groups of units and therefore being able to create basic tactics. .that the units can be arranged in various divisions and individually controlled. They even form large impassable blocks. Together they form solid, or nearly solid missile defenses when moving in formation. Maneuverability is important. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_tactics Some concepts need to be kept in mind.

always the interaction of units is related. In the end this damage has to be solved in 2 ways. Maintain current damage and increase armor. Or decrease the damage maintain the current armor.

it is sought that the player has more control to order, disorder and reorder his troops. Battalions benefit the most from melee infantry and melee cavalry to a certain extent. We are not looking for realism like total war but you do feel the immersion of the battle. That the infantry needs less micromanaging and you can focus that management on the missile and cavalry units.

There should be a filter called "good looking maps".

https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxWrMflDU1DfB1tlvt8X--yfEhEjBbNfKJ Check the cut(clip) When there are enough units you can give a good control.It is quite strategic.

to simulate strategies better more development is needed, there are many things planned that simulate strategies and battalion formations need to be improved. Also rear attack effect (that's planned).

I respectfully disagree with both of these. I didn't like the 45 minute average games, and there is absolutely logistics and reinforcements in a26. Hour 1:30 is perfect. Hahahaha

everyone loved my slingers. The idea for slingers came from AoE I What I should have calculated is the ratio of numbers between an AoE slingers and 0ad. In 0 AD every 4 units equals one of AoE I. 4 Phalanx units kill an Armored Elephant. In 0 AD the ratio should be between 8-16 pikemen.

it is the least popular civs mod. That's why I'm not interested at the moment. I would like to develop Babylonia and Assyria. They are early iron civilizations. More related to the current game.

could you make melee combat longer? Sometimes the units feel like tiger paper. they die with nothing and very little melee combat is appreciated in the game.