Nescio

You seem to be assuming wider screens have more pixels, which is not necessarily true. If the resolution is kept the same, taller screens can display more (because a square is the most compact rectangle). A different way to visualize it would be by listing displays by height instead of width: Anyway, let's discuss your design; missing or unspecified are: game build and version name hero and catafalque icons research in progress faction emblem Furthermore, I'd recommend putting the mini-map at the right side of the bottom panels, rather than the left, because the majority of people are right-handed. Other than that, I like your concept :)

If you want to honour him (he died in 2006, right?), why not just name your mod Ken Wood then? We don't translate Cicero to Mr. Chickpea either, to name just one example.

Such a tower would have a lot of dead angles. Perhaps you could replace the top with a (e.g. circular or octagonal) platform?

Quite frankly, I don't quite see what ξύλο has to do with the Byzantines. I can find quite a few examples stone, mortar, and brick Byzantine architecture but none of wood. How about ἐκκλησία (ekklesia), the Greek word for church? After all, Christianity was concentrated predominantly in the Byzantine Empire during this timeframe. Furthermore, the Carolingians supported and strengthened the Latin Church and converted what is now Germany. Just a suggestion; it's your mod, not mine.

The name of the previous release (A22) started with a V (Venustas), which is followed by W, the 23rd letter of the alphabet, so there is nothing unusual there. Millenium A.D.'s A, B, C, D, X is a bit odd, but that's up to you, I don't really care, it's just a name :) However, why 21?

A23 is rumoured to be coming soon, therefore I decided to update this (A22) mod again; the vertical GUI is reverted, females are renamed to women, cavalry can no longer gather, and many other minor tweaks and edits. 0abc-readme.pdf contains more detailed information.

Yeah; now I want to replace "CitizenSoldier" with "Worker"; where can I find and modify the "g_WorkerTypes" variable?

It seems the idle worker button actually checks for the CitizenSoldier class, not the Worker class. I guess it's intentional but I also think it's confusing. Where can I change this?

Yes, stackable auras are possible and are already used, e.g.: https://trac.wildfiregames.com/browser/ps/trunk/binaries/data/mods/public/simulation/data/auras/structures/wonder_pop_1.json I'm not sure how much lag will be caused by giving every melee soldier an aura.

Yes, I know However, unlike pikemen, hoplites did not always fight closely packed together; 2 m distance in between was not unusual; “phalanx” is a generic term and means nothing more than just “formation”. Anyway, I suppose I'm going off-topic again

Yes, I'm aware of that, and agree with many of your other points. However, in 0 A.D. hoplites are indistinguishable from other spearmen, and your suggestion to give them a low hack armour would make them vulnerable to (cavalry) swordsmen.

There already exists a thing called "Wikipedia", so perhaps you should just try improving the corresponding page over there. Or perhaps start your own Kushite article on the significantly harder to find https://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki if you want to restrict yourself to 0 A.D. specifically. Forum posts are unsuitable for anything longer than c. 500 words.

Why not? Having formations behave differently from individual units (perhaps as is done in Cossacks) would be a great improvement, yes, but even without we could have a look at actual history for inspiration of unit roles.

If you want to make your life easier, just edit it in any simple text editor, compile it into a pdf, and post that on the forums.

Anyway, how important is preserving the status quo, an outdated design document, or modern conventions? And how important is historical accuracy in 0 A.D.? Take, for instance, the pikeman. In 0 A.D. it is an extremely heavy armoured unit with a 3.0× bonus attack vs cavalry. Because a pike requires two hands to handle, their shields were attached to their left arm or shoulders; those were rimless (thus less effective against hacking attacks), much lighter than the heavy hoplite aspis (thus easier to pierce with a heavy thrusting spear), and not as large as the Roman tower shields (thus protecting a smaller surface against sling stones and bullets). Furthermore, pikemen did not need cuirasses (or other, heavy, metal body armour), because they were out of reach of ordinary melee weapons. Historically pikemen were thus actually lighter armoured than other types of Greek (and Italic) heavy (melee) infantry, in contrast to 0 A.D.'s. Contrary to popular conventions, pikes were *not* anti-cavalry weapons. It was primarily a defensive weapon, designed to keep enemies at a distance: the sarissa (pike) was twice as long as the dory (spear) and easily outranged all other melee weapons. As long as they stayed in a closely packed formation, pikemen were practically invulnerable to frontal attacks. They could serve to push back an enemy formation (e.g. Roman swordsmen) or pinpoint opponents on a certain location. However, pike formation had to move slowly to stay together; if they moved too quickly, the formation would break, and the pikemen would become vulnerable to attacks; chasing cavalry was not an option. Because of the compactness of their tightly packed formation formation and the unwieldy length of their weapons, pikemen were unable to turn around rapidly. The easiest way to defeat a pike formation was to outflank it and massacre them by an attack from the rear. Cavalry was especially effective at this. Pikemen were therefore accompanied by light infantry and cavalry to protect them against enemy cavalry. So rather than making cavalry vulnerable to pikeman, as in 0 A.D., it should actually be the other way around

Hoplites could hold their own in almost any fight and certainly did not die quickly in melee.

These might also be useful then:

Only the façade is made of limestone blocks; the core of the walls consists of mortar and rocks; and the colourful layers of bricks are there to make it more resilient to earthquakes. Have a look at this partially demolished section (and click to zoom in):

These?

Or perhaps disable heroes by default. Catafalques are normally unavailable either. 0 A.D. doesn't have to resemble the DC universe.

Great; a (fantasy?) mod which would want to use a dozen damage types is not inconceivable, nor is one using only one damage; both should be possible. Another nice-to-have feature would be resource consuming attacks, e.g. a boltshooter consumes 1 metal per shot and a stonethrower 1 stone; if you run out of the required resource, your unit won't be able to attack. (This would also allow making siege weapons cheaper; e.g. an "onager" currently costs 400 wood + 250 stone, whereas a stone defence tower costs 100 wood + 100 stone and a long city wall section only 28 stone - but that's a different discussion )

Yes, I fully agree. Part of the reason why swordsmen are better than spearmen is that the former inflicts hack damage, whereas the latter inflicts pierce damage, as do archers. A simpler melee/ranged/crush damage system might work better, or perhaps even only a single damage type (dead is dead). On the other hand, to have a meaningful counter system without hard bonus attacks one probably needs more than just three (effectively two) damage types. Unfortunately damage types are currently hard-coded. What is really needed is making adding, changing, or removing damage types at least as easy as modding resources is. That is a poor example: in AoK a paladin could defeat a pikeman or heavy camel, their supposed counters, in single combat; massed crossbowmen could take out skirmishers; and an early swordsman rush could destroy a player. More importantly, 0 A.D. shouldn't aim at being merely an AoK clone.

Historically, heavy (melee) infantry formations dominated the battlefield and decided the outcome. Light (ranged) infantry was there for harassing the enemy; although they frequently outnumbered other troops, their numbers did not always “count”. Cavalry was almost always less than 10% of an army; they were often light in function, organized in squadrons on the flanks, and served for reconnaisance, protecting against enemy cavalry, and especially for chasing down fleeing enemies. Bigae (light two-horse chariots) more or less had the same function as cavalry, unlike quadrigae (heavy four-horse chariots), which were located in front of the heavy infantry formation and served to disrupt the enemy's; they were replaced with elephantry. An interesting characteristic of Hellenistic warfare was that, because of the rather standard army deployment: “in battles between combined arms forces, similar troop types tended to find themselves fighting one another – cavalry against cavalry, light infantry against light infantry, elephants against elephants, and so on.” (CHGRW 404)

Rise of Nations had a similar system (although more like subsequent units ramp up at 5% and structures at 10%), which worked great there, however, it also had income limits and all resources were infinite. 0 A.D. is a different game.

According to that sample, 20% has 2.1 and 30% 3.0, so requiring 3.3 would alienate many players.