wowgetoffyourcellphone

Well, at some point you have to actually design the game. Not everything can be an option.

Ah, I assumed that's what you wanted for default. My bad.

What would you do to achieve the current shift-click behavior? just deprecate it? No es bueno, senor.

Checkboxes next to the objectives of the scenario, etc.

It could very easily have been a more accurate simple design and done the same thing visually.

The entire point is to blunt the capture->delete meta. Gaining the benefit of that building isn't a reason to capture it? The only reason in your mind to capture a building is to delete it? Do you not see the problem here? There are several techs in the base game that I find uninteresting or of only minor use, but I think building strength and capture strength are useful/interesting, especially if the capture->delete meta is changed.

The developers of the game.

In my opinion, packing effects into the Phase up techs is super uninteresting. It's not like 0 A.D.'s tech tree is massive.

https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/issues/7599#issuecomment-112460 Design discussion branched from here^ Some of my thoughts on the subject: Things I think will help overall: #7608 looks interesting. I'm thinking there could be another status bar below the capture bar for "Assimilation." There could be a "warm up" time called Assimilation where it takes a certain number of minutes for the usage of that captured building to become available. You've captured it, it's been denied to the enemy, and you've claimed its territory, but now you gotta wait a little while before you can actually use it. And similar to #7608, you can't delete it either unless you've Assimilated it. All of this wouldn't require any input from the player, so it's decently simple. As suggested by @real_tabasco_sauce Adding some toggle or option to choose default behavior for your units: Capture or Attack. If it's an in-game toggle, we could call it a "Policy," or else it can just be an Options menu item. I think in-game toggle is sexier, but Options menu item might be simpler (?). If an in-game toggle, you wouldn't have to swap in and out of the Options menu if you wanted to change the policy mid-game. I think (un-garrisoned) buildings should take longer to capture in general, and buildings easier to destroy with melee weapons. Maybe revisit the base capture points of different building types and the health/HP or armor values of various buildings. Just rebalance capturing vs. attacking. I don't think a fully-garrisoned building should be impossible to capture. We could revisit the GarrisonRegenRate values to prevent this. Higher base capture points, but lower GarrisonRegenRates seem desirable to me. My ideal game is still Attack by default, but if some solutions were implemented to make capturing better and attacking more viable, then I could live with Capture by default, especially if there was a toggle. If we make buildings more vulnerable to non-siege units, then we can compensate with a building health tech tree at the Civic Center: Craftsmen (common) -> Architects (common) -> Monumental Architecture (for "urban" civs). And if we make buildings less vulnerable to capturing (increased base capture points), we can add a couple capture techs to compensate: Military Cult (common; at the Temple) -> Plunderers (for "barbarian" civs; at the Temple), Siege Ladders (common; at the Fortress).

That's true, but we already don't call them just "Indians" or "Chinese." We differentiate them already. Yes, later we could add the Guptas and Tang.

I think this is too much info in the middle of the match when we can use that space for something else.

How is anyone to know that no one is hiding it? lol If you are so ethical, why don't you support features that allow everyone to know what mods you are using? lol

Wait a minute! Where is the one-boob armor in female form? I feel cheated.

If someone were to make some mods isolating some of the features (and people can enable whichever features they'd like to see via mods), that would be super cool. Doing so might also create a basis for some pull requests down the line.

It would be interesting if we could have a discussion about the linothorax. I'm of the view that it was white-washed leather rather than linen, where the quilted linen corselet came later. The term "linothorax" is so cool though that I'd still want to use it.

The first shield pattern with the lame stripe really bothers me for some reason. There's zero creativity and it's strange.

Checkboxes for starters.

There are also different sizes of crossbows. The ones depicted for the standard Han Crossbowman are smaller personal weapons with a lower draw strength than the siege crossbows shown for the Macedonians where you need the force of your upper body to help push/pull the draw mechanism. The Han of course also had larger crossbows as well.

They are already differentiated by dynasty. Mauryas and Han.

This is very good! It'll be in DE for A27 and in the base game for R28. The hanging banner consistent with the Pirate ship sail is a nice touch.

I'd honestly rather it be something in the game world rather than an options menu item. But either way, that would be ideal. But to make either option attractive, we gotta rebalance capturing vs. attacking.

I think the problem is that building hitpoints (or resistance/armor) weren't adjusted to balance. :/

Even "Celts" comes from Greek "Keltoi." Is that true @Genava55?

True, so it makes sense to differentiate.

We did group them when it was 1 civ. We only differentiated them by name when we split them up into their constituent civs.