chan51213

Like Donner has said, I feel that something has to be done about the calvary to make them more relevant than just 'mobile infantry'. And as Serveurix has mentioned perhaps a trampling ability for calvary would be more realistic than pushing. However I think that it would be difficult to render trampling into gameplay. All infantry units would need to have a 'fallen down' form rendered as well, a considerable feat considering the multitude of infantry types present. And code would have to be written to enable fallen units to be trampled over temporarily, which seems like a bug-hive waiting to happen. While it may be relatively less realistic, I feel the pushing ability is at least a reasonable model that enables good gameplay. By being able to push the player would essentially achieve the same result as if the calvary could trample over the infantry - broken formations. Perhaps a special rule could be given to calvary only - that instead of preferentially pushing units backwards they 'displace' units sideways? Even with this caveat one would still be using the same essential mechanic for both infantry and calvary. I agree that calvary (and perhaps even infantry) should only be able to displace units while they are charging and that it should be limited either by time or distance. Here are my suggested adjustments: From the formula Force(F)=Mass(M) x Percentage-full-speed(A), one could change the A to represent a binary value of whether the charging skill is turned on or off, ie A=0 - normal state. A=1 - charging state A typical Lancer Morale = 200 Mass = 100 In the non-charging state the lancer would not have any 'Force' available. Fl=100x0 Fl=0 Triggered Ability: Charge Mana cost: 30 morale When triggered: Enables A=1, makes Fl=100x1, Fl=100 When the lancer encounters a non-charging skirmisher with Ms=10, the lancer would obviously be able to displace him. The decision whether one unit pushes the other would depend on a binary constant of whether the unit has enough force to displace the enemy units mass. And it would be logical to think that the amount of energy used in pushing something aside should depend on the mass. Lets make it simple and use one formula for both: displacing enemy units costs the 'force meter' equal to the amount of mass, and the decision to push simply depends on whether the resulting sum is a positive or negative number. force left after pushing unit = (force of unit pushing) - (mass of unit pushed) force left = 100-10 = 90 90 is a positive integer, so ability to push = granted. lets say that the lancer has worked through the crowd and doesn't have alot of force left: force left = 5-10 = -5 -5 isn't a positive integer, so ability to push = denied. Both calvary and infantry would use the same mechanism described above, with a key difference in the preferred direction of pushing. Calvary would displace units preferentially to the side, infantry would push backwards. So charging calvary would displace units and scatter formations, infantry would push enemy formations backwards in a contest of strength. Formations would still retain their relevance as the mass would be added together. Here I think that a differentiation has to be made on whether a group of units 'become a formation' and add their masses together vs staying as individuals. Becoming a formation would have to be a key decision/trigger, and one which makes the formation act as a singular unit. I am thinking of making 'the formation' something which can only be created by hero/leader units. Without them the group would be simply that, a group of independent units in a somewhat-strategic pattern, but still have their weights independently considered. In comparison, hero/leaders would be able to amass a formation of units who would then act as an extension of the hero unit. Naturally, the condition of being a formation depends on the hero being alive, which means that his death can very dramatically swing the advantage. I mentioned 'leader' because I don't think that the formation should be something that is a one-off. Yet I don't want to see too much 'spamming' of formations - aka leader units. They would be special units who represent the faceless military leadership of the civilisation. Romans can go to home and back with their centurions, and I'm sure all other civilisations can find their own equivalents. An important thing that would have to be incorporated is a number cap in the amount of leaders producible and the sizes of the formations they can command. Different civilisations may even be able to use this system to specialise in different ways? eg Romans can make their leaders relatively cheaply without too many prior research. The number cap for the leaders would be relatively high, yet the individual sizes of the formations would be small. The actual size of the formations would depend on the level of the leader unit. Gameplay with the romans would have to be very organised, depending very highly making formations and laying them out strategically. In comparison, the Celts can't buy leaders from the shop as easily as the romans. Instead their leaders would have to be made in the field. Leaders would be made from normal units who have levelled up fully. Perhaps there could even be a special unit type of 'wannabe hero'/'young royalty' etc who have to level up in order to be able to command a formation. In order to compensate their difficulty in making fomations, the units would have to be individually strong. Gameplay with the Celts would be very different from the Romans as one would have to be daring and aggressive, and formations wouldn't be so much the bread-and-butter as the coup de'grace.

Hi all I would just like to start off by saying that I think the 0AD project is fantastic. Although I can't write code, I have played my fair share of RTS games and I would like to contribute my ideas on what would make this game hopefully better. Starting with the critism: -no morale -no ability for units to push each other -units turn around almost instantaneously (correct me if I'm wrong on this) -when melee units clash, they do this wierd scattering thing which is reminescent of nightmares I used to have in AoE 2. I think these things are important to address. Quoting wikipedia: "...At certain points, a command would be given to the phalanx or a part thereof to collectively take a certain number of steps forward (ranging from half to multiple steps). This was the famed "othismos". At this point, the phalanx would put its collective weight to push back the enemy line and thus create fear and panic among its ranks. There could be multiple such instances of attempts to push, but it seems from the accounts of the ancients that these were perfectly orchestrated and attempted organized en masse..." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoplite) "...The acute shock of combat. Some scholars of the Roman infantry maintain that the intense trauma and stress of hand to hand combat meant that the contenders did not simply hack at one another continuously until one dropped. Instead there were short periods of intense, vicious fighting. If indecisive, the contenders might fall back a short distance to recuperate, and then surge forward to renew the struggle. Others behind them would be stepping up into the fray meanwhile, engaging new foes or covering their colleagues. The individual warrior could thus count on temporary relief, rather than endless fighting until death or crippling injury. As the battle progressed, the massive physical and mental stress intensified. The stamina and willpower demanded to make yet one more charge, to make yet one more surge grew even greater.Eventually one side began to break down, and it is then that the greatest slaughter began..." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_infantry_tactics) Morale is a key factor in warfare and to put it bluntly, I feel that not representing it in any game that involves humans killing each other makes the game too simplistic. There is so much ground that can be covered, so many strategics and tactics that it can create, that it is an opportunity too good to miss. Not to mention that most of these strategies come intuitively as a game player. The pushing thing is a major peeve I have about RTS games. It would be a great addition to the game as it is intuitive, strategic and also historic. Taking control of the territory and pushing opponents could be used strategically, eg push opponents into unfavourable landscape or corner them against a river. Breaking the opponent's formation, especially using wedges, is also something that is supposed to work. Yet if it can't push and seperate the enemy formation, the wedge is absolutely meaningless. Calvary charges are also supposed to work too. Here are my suggestions: Morale As per alot of other RTS games, each unit would have a specific morale-bar akin to a hitpoint bar. It would scale according to unit type and level. Each type of attack would have a seperate morale-damage count in addition to the hitpoint-damage count. This would allow for the differentiation of intimidating attacks specifically designed to break enemy morale, eg fire or elephants. What I suggest in addition to this is that the attack capacity of the individual unit proportionally depends on the morale of the unit. 100% morale bar = 100% attack capacity, 0% morale bar = 0% attack capacity. This would make the morale bar relevant, something which alot of games unfortunately don't achieve. For the sake of simplicity I'll use using a linear system, although one could easily envision a logarithmic system that makes the morale suddenly crash after a critical point. Case study: -Wimp Skirmisher Hitpoints=100 Morale=50 Attack (hitpoint damage)=10 Attack (morale damage)=10 -Spartan Hoplite Hitpoints=100 Morale=200 Attack (hitpoint damage)=10 Attack (morale damage)=10 A hit by the skirmisher would reduce the hoplite's morale by 5% (190/200) and a hit by the hoplite would reduce the skirmisher's morale by 10% (40/50). This would reduce his attack by 10%, ie from 10 to 9. Note that the morale damage count doesn't decrease, so it would only take 5 hits by the hoplite to reduce the skirmisher's morale to 0 - representing the fact that he is a wimp and gave up on the fight even though he still has a sizable chunk of hitpoints left. On the other hand, the hoplite would only break after 20 hits and by then he would probably be dead anyway - thus living up to his reputation as a steadfast warrior. -Phalanx of 10 hoplites Hitpoints=counted individually Morale=counted collectively, ie 200x10 = 2000. (this rewards units for being in formation as their attack capacity becomes independent to how hurt they individually are). If the hoplite was in a formation of 10, then the skirmisher's attack would only reduce the formation's collective morale count by 0.5% (1990/2000) - hardly affecting the collective attack capacity of the formation. Morale regeneration -leaders (aura of morale) -territory (allied territory=morale regenerates, enemy territory=morale doesn't regenerate. Therefore the home advantage of fighting on one's turf is palatable). -healers, priests (in addition to healing the hitpoints, monks could also heal the morale. Perhaps even an opportunity to specialise the monk units into becoming better hitpoint healers vs morale healers?) -victory (successful killing of an enemy unit would regenerate the morale by a bulk sum, perhaps depending on how elite the enemy was?) Other opportunities with morale -special spells/skills, eg warcry which damages enemy units' morale in a blast radius -the morale bar could act as a 'mana' bar for special spells, especially for a temporary boost of speed or pushing maneuvers (eg "othismos") -heros and leaders actually doing something for their soldiers other than just acting as another big unit. -the classic '300' scenario with a small number of elite units holding off a horde by virtue of their high morale Pushing capacity Okay, now this one would be more relevant if I could actually write it out in code (or if I was actually a mathematican), but I hope that at least it might give some ideas. I'm going to use the classic F=MA formula to determine the force/strength of a unit Each unit type would have a specific mass number (M), for example skirmisher Ms=10 hoplite Mh=40 phalanx of 10 hoplites Mhp=40x10=400 The acceleration would range from 0~1 and it would simply be the percentage of full speed the unit is at. For example: hoplite time to full speed = 4 seconds, (actual full speed is 5mm/s) at 0 seconds he is at 0A, at 2 seconds he is at 0.5A, at full speed he is at 1A So for a hoplite at full speed (ie A=1), his force (Fh) is: Fh= Mh x A Fh = 40 x 1 Fh = 40 Compared to this, the skirmisher at full speed would have a Fs of: Fs = 10 x 1 Fs = 10 ie hoplite has 4 times the force/strength of the skirmisher. Two random units hacking at each other wouldn't automatically push each other. Instead it would be something triggered, ie a 'spell' button that the player turns on to tell the units to push at whatever unit they are fighting and/or push towards their designated destination. Naturally this would be an opportunity to utilise the morale bar, in that turning on this pushing feature would drain the morale bar like it was mana for a spell (which it essentially is). Perhaps even making this a feature that needs to be researched? At the very least it would work to further differentiate the roles of unit types. eg archers and light skirmisher would have no push capacity, whereas calvary would have high push capacity that comes naturally Anyway, now for the pushing part: let's designate a distance/rate constant of 0.25mm/1s. The unit will be able to push the opponent at a rate proportional to the difference in forces times the distance/rate constant: rate heavier unit A pushes lighter unit B = distance/rate constant x (Fa+1)/(Fb+1) rate hoplite pushes skirmisher = 0.25mm/1s x 41/11 rate hoplite pushes skirmisher = 0.9mm/s note that the +1 is just to act as a failsafe when Fb=0 Formations would gain collective mass and hence force. In comparison individual units, even if selected together, won't gain collective mass and are essentially fighting alone. If a phalanx of 10 was pushing into a group of 50 individual skirmishers, they would all be treated as individuals no matter how many the player has selected for his group. It would be necessary to designate a cap in pushing speed equivalent to the unit's normal speed. This would prevent ridiculous situations where units speed up when pushing in formations. hoplite's normal speed = 5mm/s: therefore hoplite phalanx pushing speed <5mm/s, no matter how many hoplites there are in the formation or how weak the opponent is. In the instance that a phalanx was pushing a skirmisher, potential rate phalanx pushes skirmisher = 0.25mm/s x 401/11 potential rate phalanx pushes skirmisher = 9.1mm/s speed cap of phalanx = full speed of hoplite therefore: actual rate phalanx pushes skirmisher = 5mm/s Now lets consider the situation where the skirmisher (X) has another buddy immediately behind him: phalanx | | V skirmisher X skirmisher Y Y impedes X's movement. Yet they are not in a formation, they are acting as individuals... which would mean that the phalanx should be able to indirectly push Y also. (this would be important as a fail-safe to make sure rows of individual units can't cheat and stop formations in their tracks) X, in the action of being pushed by hoplite, would be imparted with a force of his own For the sake of simplicity, I'm going to use a parallel formlua pF=M x pA to calculate the force skirmisher X would be putting on his buddy Y. I'm also going to designate pA as a straight constant of 1.2 ie pF = M x 1.2 Skirmisher X, in the act of becoming pushed backwards, is putting his weight against his buddy Y. Pushed-Force X (pFx) = Ms x 1.2 pFx = 10 x 1.2 pFx = 12 Now lets consider two alternative scenarios: buddy Y is stationary, and Y is moving at full speed: if Y is stationary, then: Fy = 10 x 0 Fy = 0 ie he is going to feel the full weight of X on him therefore: rate X pushes Y = 0.25mm/s x (pFx+1)/(Fy+1) rate X pushes Y = 0.25mm/s x 12/1 rate X pushes Y = 3mm/s If buddy Y is moving at full speed, then: Fy = 10x1 Fy = 10 therefore rate X pushes Y = 0.25mm/s x (pFx+1)/(Fy+1) rate X pushes Y = 0.25mm/s x 12/11 rate X pushes Y = 1mm/s note the importance of setting pA=1.2. it is designed for situations like this where the obstacle is moving at an opposite vector with A=1. lets compare the situation if the skirmishers were in a formation of 10: Fhp = 400 Fsp = 100 rate hoplite-formation pushes skirmisher-formation (with cap of Vhoplite=5mm/s) = 0.25mm/s x 401/101 rate hoplite-formation pushes skirmisher-formation = 0.99mm/s clearly, working in formation is profitable. but I digress - let's address the situation of individual skirmishers working against a hoplite phalanx (for simplicity I'm going to assume that nobody is moving, ie A=0). Each row of individual skirmishers are not going to be pushed at the same rate. If there are enough rows of skirmishers then there are going to be some individuals who are not pushed at all! Also, there might be the situation where the skirmisher has some immobile obstacle behind them, eg cliff or river. It is at this point I would like to address the issue of the 'arc' - the vector arc the unit can be pushed back in response to immobile obstacles. hoplite | | vector of force being applied V skirmisher /\ / \ the arc where the skirmisher can be pushed back / \ / \ if there was an obstacle: hoplite | | vector of force being applied V skirmisher X | | vector of skirmisher being pushed back \ (ROCK)\ | V A hoplite formation pushing into a mass of individuals would eventually push the mass generally backwards, with individuals being juggled into position. Especially if the hoplites were in wedge formation. A wedge formation smashing into a mass of individuals would eventually dig right into it. The vector of attack would mean that they would push individuals aside and most likely splitting the massinto two. At this point the two dividedmasses would have less weight amongst them, which would mean that they are more easily pushed aside and et cetera. hoplite wedge formation \ / \ / <---- \ / -----> / \ /\ / \/ \ / | \ V | V V vectors at which skirmishers are pushed back Miscellaneous suggestions The time for units to turn around is a little thing which I have seen in some games and which I think can serve to model several features of ancient warfare. I think that giving units specific times-to-turn depending on their mobility will model these features: -vunerability of flank: hoplites and phananx formations are supposed to have vulnerable flanks. By having a slow turning movement, the units will be punished for exposing their flank and/or not preparing well enough for the enemy assult as the enemy will be able to land a couple of free hits while the hoplites are turning to face them. -skirmisher units: by having a quick turning speed, skirmishers will obtain a good hit-and-run capacity, and it will also reward micromanagement on part of the player. the issue of melee units doing funny dances when fighting: I think the problem here is when a unit tries to make mutual contact with an opponent. By looking for a mutual agreement, they do this wierd scattering dance! Instead, each melee unit would have an arc of specific size in front of them. The decision to attack would be binary, ie if anything triggers the arc then the unit would do it's attack movement automatically regardless of whether the intended target stays in the arc or not. Instead of doing awkward stops in pursuit. According to the attack speed, the arc would become 'armed' at the specific time of it's attack animation. Anything in this arc at this time would become hit, regardless of whether it was the original target. Melee units that have are meant to hit only one opponent at a time (ie all of them) would have a very narrow arc, and perhaps even a hit-cap of "1 enemy unit only". Contrawise, for units that are meant to have splash damage (eg elephants, some elite units), all one would have to do is modify the arc and hit-cap. Units that are meant to have a long range, eg sarissa, would have a comparatively longer arc. I hope this helped

Hello, just tried 0AD and absolutely loved it! I'm a huge fan of RTS games, and I am already looking foward to a beta version. Unfortunately I can't read code or have much knowledge of Ancient Western civilisations but I hope I can provide some useful suggestions -Open Source! Makes it worth while to contribute (and you will see that I've been bottled up for quite some time). Expense and Philosophy-wise, this is probably the one point that makes this game so good -Realistic naval battles! Garrisons! On Ships! Rams! I can't express how much I've waited for a decent RTS with decent naval capacities. AOE ships were a joke (arrow shooting galleys, really?!). Somebody before me suggested unit creation in ships, really love that idea -Graphics are great, fauna interactions good. -The thing where you can produce 5x units in one go was interesting. Definitely something unique, perhaps it can go somewhere. But I think there should be a cap, perhaps at 5x. -Soldiers performing civil duties was very good. Very unique and appropriate -The animal husbandry was good, would like to see changes so you can make more animals at once -Really dig the graphics of guys throwing javelins -Variable graphics between otherwise identical units. When I first played I thought those persian guys with different shields were of different types. How small my imagination has become. -Random treasures on the map is good -I noticed that while you can produce new units by upgrading the era, the units from the previous era remain unchanged. I actually like this - in traditional RTS games I loathed the bother of era upgrades and units evolving like some sort of pokemon. On the other side, I feel that there should be some sort of an advantage if you are in a more advanced society. What I suggest is: Firstly, additional upgrades, obviously. Secondly, the option to be able to train your soldiers to a higher level. So as your society becomes more sophisticated, your army becomes more organised and you are able to buy more experience for your soldiers. This way, earlier eras don't become completely obsolete but are at a disadvantage. -Historical realism is good and all, but can there be some sort of mini-translation besides their names? I can't read ancient greek -I noticed big units (talking about ships) overlap when placed close together -Movement of groups of units is clumbersome. The absence of the attack-move (A+right click) command is really bothering. Ordering units into battle is a nightmare - either march straight into them doing nothing, or me doing this mobbing thing with the cursor -I noticed that when units go from march into attack mode they do this scattering thing like in AOE. If possible I feel that it should be toned down. -Paying wood to make farms - yes AOE did this and I absolutely hated it. Farming is supposed to be a renewable resource, wood in the game is not a renewable resource! Makes more sense to use food in farming, I mean you are using grains and seeds that you could otherwise eat... -Siege machinery is way too small and way too fast. AOK trebuchets had that siege mode thing, didn't they? Perhaps artillery can have a transport mode like that, and then for battle they go into siege mode and become really slow or even immobile. -Siege machinery comes way too late in the tech tree - a town with towers is untouchable for way too long. Perhaps an early ramming unit which is literally a couple of guys carrying a big tree trunk? For convenience we can designate it as 1 pop . They would be good against buildings but get slaughtered by arrows thereby providing the initiative for innovation. -Units seem to be able to run, but they don't run towards the enemy when charging them (?) -"spearmen damage 1.5x vs calvary" ... sign, I guess it's unavoidable but can we please keep it simple, and not a rock-scissor-paper thing? Sure, spears need to have some bonus against calvary, but it's pretty darn obvious that calvary slaughters archers so I don't think they need a damage bonus... -Units hacking at buildings - Personally I think it is unrealistic and ridiculous. Unless if you are an archer with flaming arrows or a raider with a torch, non-siege units shouldn't be able to attack buildings - instead, they can occupy them if there isn't a garrison (only gain pop bonuses if viable, loses functionality as barracks etc if of different civilisation). If there is a garrison, my attacking hoplites would go into the building and fight with the garrison (number crunching by the computer, uncontrollable by player when in the building). If there is a door then they can hack at it until it is open. Afterwards when you have annexed the building you can self-destruct it yourself if you so desire. -Regarding the above point I have a suggestion that would solve the garrison problem: when you create a building, it will come with a garrison already inside, and the building will provide a population bonus to compensate so the overal pop change is zero. The garrison can be some sort of upgradable militia. This would have lots of intersting implications - When you are really desperate you can literally empty your city to double your army. -Units hacking at farms is even more ridiculous. You can harvest from it, why destroy it? Annexing it and then if you want self-destructing it seems more appropriate. Also, I don't want my soldiers constantly trying to hack an enemy farm when my villagers are plundering it -Farms completely disappearing when fully harvested is clumbersome. But then Age of Kings was the same until they made that expansion pack... By now you probably know what I'm proposing. -I noticed that ship movement sinulates with oar movement, but I feel that it should be exaggurated. -Noticed that you can see opponents creating new buildings through the fog of war. Personally feel that this shouldn't happen. -Having maps that have nations set in concrete is too ... concrete. I feel that at least in the 'match' missions you should be able to choose your nation. Hey, just start with villagers and soldiers! I don't think it is too much of a bother to build your town center. In this game where soldiers can perform civic duties, hey you even have something else to do! -Having women as villagers is good and all, but I feel that having women only as the default villager is bad. I would like to see both male and female villagers produced at a 1:1 ratio, and then if you so desire you would be able to somehow upgrade your individual male villagers into militia. I think that this would actually be appropriate for this game. The civilisations in which women could fight (Celts) would have an advantage in the game that reflects their history. For aristocratic civilisations (Athens), they would have a disadvantage because their humble villagers ie non-aristocrats can't become proper soldiers. The Romans can go home with their 'civil duty' to their heart's content. -Soldiers cost too much wood, and I'm not sure where stone comes in recruitment either... -Towers seem to be a bit ... narrow. Tall enough, but narrow... Suggestions -Archers on horses & chariots shooting in transist - what I propose is that depending on the aggression-index, if you order a chariot to attack-move, it will go fowards to the designated point firing at units in range as they go - not stopping in the middle. I haven't seen this mechanism in function anywhere, I would really like to see this mechanism working somewhere so I can finally have my Mongolian/Hun horde -More on the attack-move mechanism: when you order an elephant to attack-move to the other side of an enemy formation, they don't stop for some puny human in their path. The human would be damaged and pushed aside by default. If they are low on health and the damage kills them, then they are trampled. I'm thinking Command and Conquer, Red Alert where you could mow down soldiers with mammoth tanks. I guess that even infantry can have a charge-push aside mechanism? Especially if they are running, see below. This would actually make the wedge formation viable! Yay! -I would like to see the attack-move enhanced even more. When you order a group of units to attack-move, they would constantly try to reach the destination, attacking when in range or if path is blocked. So a group of archers would fire an arrow, WALK and then when recharged fire again. I saw this mechanism in Cossacks, Back to War. There, what it implied was that if you ordered a group of musketeers to attack-move-retreat, they would do exactly that... -If you haven't noticed by now I really would like to see the attack-move mechanism upgraded. -Terrain defence interactions - thinking Warhammer 40,000 or even Battle for Wesnoth. I noticed that in traditional RTS games calvary was way too good because infantry didn't get any terrain bonuses. In alpine maps where horses would be at a proper disadvantage the mechanics should reflect it. -Farming: What I propose is that there are designated areas for farming in the map depending on the terrain - ie you can't create a farm in the middle of a sand dune. So what would happen when you try to build a farm, it shows the land you can farm, and you plunk a farm on the designated land. I guess that the minimap could have a fertility indicator overlay, colour the map and screen in green and red. This would lead to a lot of tactical implications, such as the importance of fertile territory in desert maps, where you build your buildings and 'salting the land' techniques for the really hardcore. It would also get rid of AOK-remnescent eyesores, such as the fore-mentioned desert farms, and farms on pavement in the middle of a town. I'm not sure introducing a fertility multiplier is appropriate for sake of simplicity (and yes I noticed the irony). -Formations: Here's my problem - the AgeOfEmpires-Starcraft style of unit selection and ordering is very clumbersome, and I feel that it's not appropriate for historical RTS. Sure, you can do the double click or Ctrl+1,2,3 thing, but I feel that introducing some level of convenience in formation command is appropriate for any RTS other than starcraft . What I propose is this: In the default state, unit selection is through the individual like it is now. However, there are special leader/general units to whom you can designate a team or formation. The formation under control of the leader now works like a single unit, in that it only occupies one icon on the screen, you order it around like a single unit, and when you select any individual within the formation it selects the entire formation by default. If you so desire you would/should be able to add units to the formation after it's initial creation. The formation would be Ctrl-able, and you would be able to Ctrl it with any individual units you desire. There would be some sort of table/tab on the screen that shows all the formations I've designated for convenience. To show where I'm coming from, think Cossacks, Back to War or Warhammer 40,000. -Morale: I would like to see morale becoming important and visible. When morale hits rock bottom, the units become temporarly uncontrollable (very important!) and actively run away in the opposite direction from the enemy. Historically that happened right? -WIth the morale thing, I am thinking a 'run' button. You turn on the run button, and the unit will run until you turn it off. Movement bonus, attack bonus, damage-morale bonus (thinking calvary charge). But when the run button is on, morale starts to drop (fatigue); when run is off, morale recovers. This would mean that when you are rallying/transporting troops, they are slow because they are walking for sake of maintaining morale (even the calvary); then if the enemy turns up on your flank with the run button on, you really are caught on your flank tactic-wise. Especially if you the player are looking at the other side of the map. A micro-management point that would seperate the wheat from the chaff. -More on morale - killing units would give a boost to that unit's morale. Small detail, but I feel an important one. Especially if they have the run-button on and are losing morale by the clock. -Wind: the game already has a season thing, why not wind? I'm sure that it is more relevant tactics-wise. Things that would be affected by wind would be ship movement, fire, perhaps archer range? Hey, it could even introduce a tactical edge on some maps, where the prevalent wind determines who is boss and who needs to think hard to turn the advantage. Would be especially relevant in campaigns. -Fire: I'm not sure if Ancient Western civilisations used fire on the battlefield as part of their tactics, but I'm sure that Ancient Asia did. At the very least, if you are torching a house, the fire would spread to neighbouring buildings. I'll fold on fire spreading between ships at close quarters for sake of simplicity -I mentioned it above, but I really think that the rock-scissor-paper mechanism should be toned down. Other things can be introduced to compensate: For example, terrain defence bonuses or penalties, minimum range for spears; this would implicate that swordsmen who don't have a minimum range can get up close to a spearman and stab him to death while the spearman can't touch him; of course the situation changes when the spearman is in a phalanx and is supported from the back. -I didn't really try it, but can you capture sheep? You should be able to capture sheep. Definitely. Perhaps even have that thing like in AOE where the villagers shepherd the sheep to the closest mill. -please please please please can we have walkable walls? It probably is a coding nightmare but they are walls! Fortifications! Archers shooting from behind a stone wall like in AOK is not cool! The alternative like in Cossacks where they can't is also not cool! -Elaborating from the earlier rant, what I propose is this. Stone walls are by default unbuildable by the player aka Warcraft III - they either come with the mission, or you set the settings so they are, or it's a special mission in which somebody did a cool coding thing so you can build them. What would be buildable by default are pallisades which are not walkable. Nevertheless the stone walls would be interactive, so you could trash them if you are sieging it.