wowgetoffyourcellphone

The original idea for units was that they should be (somewhat) difficult to replace, so there's an incentive to not waste their lives. Another reason why ranking was invented.

Indeed, there are template changes.

I think there were multiple discussions. I fell onto the side of simpler tooltips. Didn't make sense to me to duplicate a bunch of information between the tooltips and the information screens.

That is my opinion as well. Huge text-heavy tooltips might seem useful, but reality is a different story.

You've convinced me. I think something more useful would be a section that lists the current techs applied to this unit, and then another section that shows remaining available techs for this unit.

This is because the builder list is not used consistently in the templates. If it was, then this would not happen.

It is possible to deal with it without needing any new code. DE does it.

I'm thinking the empty corners of the footprint also cause visual confusion. I mean, I'm not confused, but there have been enough comments about it that I think it should be filled in somehow I guess.

This information could be useful if presented in a better way, but I agree as presented it's very cluttery.

I was thinking similar to OP's suggestion of a garden or raised flower bed. The side stairs aren't bad, but probably won't alleviate OP's confusion.

lol @Stan`

I don't remember, but lately I am erring toward simplicity when it comes to the base game. The constant back and forth over the Han has basically sapped all energy I had for advocacy. It could also be my current flu. I'll leave y'all to it then.

I think the Carth embassies can be a distinct outlier, but in general I vote to have captured buildings only build the new owner's units. To do otherwise will take a lot more discussion and design work and balancing.

Why isn't the reaction, "Neat! I can train new units from this captured thing!"?

An edge case I never considered. I agree. Revealed Map should also apply Cartography's effects and remove it from the Researcher panel.

The backend is fine, but we can present it anyway we want to right?

C'mon. I'm talking about how it's presented to the end user, who likely knows nothing (and does not care) about how the files are organized on the backend.

It should be: Name Version Description Dependencies Website <mod icon> Delenda Est 0.0.26 An overhaul mod...blah blah 0ad>=0.0.26 http://

Yeah, the path could maybe show up in a tooltip or something.

Yep, this would indeed be nice. Definitely a strong "want", along with Target Flash (when you right-click something it flashes white as visual feedback) and Actor Erasure (when foundation construction begins, it erases actors beneath it, such as grass).

The term is misused then. You still need the real "Name" of the mod, not just its description and folder name. lol

Right, the "Name" has to be identical to the folder name, else it won't work in multiplayer. @Freagarach and I ran into that trying to test Delenda Est one time. It's just unintuitive. To any normie, the "Name" of the mod should be Delenda Est, not delenda_est_a26 (which is identical to the folder name, also listed). Some attention needs to be given to such things, but of course I know manpower is always short. Just noting the odd incongruencies for end-users.