causative

There's a useful trick if you want to garrison units in many structures: Select the units, then while holding down shift, ctrl-click on the nearest structure, then ctrl-click on the next structure, etc. The units will garrison in the first structure until it is full, then move on to the next structure, and so on. It's a good way to put a large army in temples, for example.

Other games like Starcraft that have mapmaking communities and automatic map sharing, also have a safe language for map triggers, so that maps can't use arbitrary code. They are sandboxed like browser JS. Sandboxing map scripts would be necessary for automatic map sharing. Or, only allow automatic sharing of maps that have no scripting.

I edited the topic because my initial analysis was slightly inaccurate - heavy warships deal 30 hack 30 crush damage per shot, not 30 pierce 30 crush. I also didn't account for the fortress's crush armor. After accounting for both those things, the analysis comes out about the same. There is an issue with setting the damage to 100 crush 10 pierce that I didn't think of. Namely, a heavy warship costs 200 wood 200 metal, which is cheaper than a catapult (which costs 350 wood 350 stone). If the warship does the same damage as a catapult and is cheaper, then there is little reason to garrison catapults on the warships; better to simply make more empty warships. In my opinion, catapults are too expensive, considering that you need a large number of them (at least 3 or 4) or else the defender can simply repair faster than you can damage, and considering how easy they are to destroy. If they were half the price - 175 wood 175 stone - that might be a better balance. But assuming we aren't changing the price of catapults, I think it is necessary to increase the price of the heavy warship to be more than a catapult. For example, 350 wood 200 metal 350 stone, which is the price of a catapult plus 200 metal. This is unfortunately a nerf to heavy warships. There is an alternative: reduce the base number of shots of the heavy warship. For example, it could fire 0 shots until garrisoned with catapults. Alternatively, it could fire 1 shot that does 50 crush damage, and each garrisoned catapult increases the number of shots by 2. What do you think is best?

Sure, that works. In that case I would say the heavy warship should deal 100 crush damage per shot to be useful as siege. There is another option for catapult siege in 0ad - rather than have the catapult destroy the building or ship directly, it could damage the units garrisoned inside. Also, since catapults were primarily anti-personnel weapons, they could be made more effective against units outside of garrison. Shorter travel times for catapult projectiles (catapult projectiles really should move faster than arrows) and splash damage would make them more effective.

They carried catapults, but apparently not very heavy ones. Note that the Tessakonteres was not a realistic warship; the article you linked quotes Plutarch as saying "But this ship was merely for show; and since she differed little from a stationary edifice on land, being meant for exhibition and not for use, she was moved only with difficulty and danger." I'm mostly going from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trireme#Tactics where it states "Artillery in the form of ballistas and catapults was widespread, especially in later centuries, but its inherent technical limitations meant that it could not play a decisive role in combat." I don't think the ancient Greeks had many very heavy catapults. The impression I get from reading about ancient sieges is that catapults were primarily anti-personnel weapons. Usually other techniques were used against the walls (rams, mining, ladders, siege towers, starvation, traitors on the inside). For a naval example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenistic-era_warships#Armament_and_tactics "It was easy to mount catapults on galleys; Alexander the Great had used them to considerable effect when he besieged Tyre from the sea in 332 BC. The catapults did not aim to sink the enemy galleys, but rather to injure or kill the rowers." (Other examples: the siege of Athens by Sparta, and the siege of Syracuse by the Romans. These were both years-long, incredibly costly sieges, which means the attackers had plenty of time and resources to acquire whatever catapults were available. Despite that, catapults were used against personnel but not used to smash down the walls, which leads to the conclusion that the attackers didn't have catapults capable of doing so). So shipborne catapults were used, but primarily against rowers and marines, not to sink ships or smash down walls. This fits with the narrative from the linked articles that ancient naval battles were focused around ramming and boarding.

There is also the issue of historical accuracy. Ships did not carry catapults heavy enough to smash fortifications so a "siege ship" of this type is not historically accurate. (There was one kind of siege ship - the Sambuca. This was a ship that carried a siege ladder for climbing the walls of seaside fortresses). However, 0ad naval combat is currently historically inaccurate, so I think a "siege ship" is allowable. Ancient naval combat was primarily based around two actions, ramming and boarding, neither of which are in the game 0ad (yet). Ships did shoot arrows and catapult stones at each other - as they do in the game 0ad - but this was mostly just harassment and did not deal enough damage to be decisive in ship-to-ship combat. Ramming was done with relatively light triremes, but although they were light ships, this apparently was very effective and required highly skilled crews. The Athenians focused on a ramming navy, with only small amounts of marines to defend against boarding - e.g. 20 marines. Coordinating a trireme crew to ram effectively was technically demanding, and less established naval powers could not do it well. Boarding was apparently easier to coordinate, and required larger but slower ships such as Quinquiremes, which carried a much larger number of marines for boarding - e.g. 100 marines. These larger ships were obviously more expensive, but did not require as skilled a crew. The Spartans used this strategy against the Athenians in the Peloponnesian War, which in the end was successful. Over time it appears the general progression was in favor of the larger ships. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenistic-era_warships https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trireme#Tactics

Yeah, of course if catapults and heavy warships significantly outranged towers and forts, that would also solve the problem. If light-medium-heavy ships were an upgrade progression, IMO the heavier ships ought to also cost more, to be realistic, but have good enough stats to be worth it. The concern is that civs without heavy warships might just lose control of the sea to civs that do have heavy warships. To keep that from happening too early in the game, the upgrades could be slow and/or expensive, and the benefits only incremental rather than overwhelming. Although right now, sea dominance is backwards. Celts and Iberians - historically relatively primitive people, around 0 A.D. - have the best navies. Briton medium warships have more HP and carry more troops than triremes. Iberian fire ships are cheap and effective. The supposedly "naval" civs with heavy warships - Ptolemies, Carthaginians, Romans, and Seleucids - are actually no better than average at sea.

Heavy warships/quinquiremes/Juggernauts are ships that deal 30 crush + 30 hack damage per shot, which increases if you garrison catapults. The problem is, they are useless. I was recently in a game that proved how weak the heavy warship is - at huge expense I produced a heavy warship with 6 catapults in it, which was able to destroy only a couple of docks before the enemy chariots arrived and forced it to retreat. It was not able to kill any towers or fortresses, which was my intended purpose of making the catapults and warship. Here are the stats for Seleucid trireme: 1400 HP, 35 pierce damage per 2 seconds per arrow, armor: 5 hack, 10 pierce, 5 crush, range 55 For a Seleucid heavy warship: 2000 HP, 30 hack + 30 crush per 5 seconds per shot, armor: 5/10/5, range 65 Without garrison, they are useless in ship-to-ship combat. If you garrison a trireme-class ship with 10 civilian soldiers - which you can do in age II, as soon as you make a trireme - it will destroy an empty heavy warship. Producing a garrisoned heavy warship is an incredibly expensive late game luxury. For Seleucids, 1 heavy warship with 5 catapults in it costs 1950 wood 1750 stone 200 metal. It is more expensive than two fortresses - approaching the cost of three fortresses - and occupies 18 population. Plus, catapults require fortresses to produce them. For ship-to-ship combat, a garrisoned heavy warship will not necessarily beat a garrisoned trireme, in addition to the crazy expense. The trireme with 10 citizen-soldiers deals 35/2*13 = 227 pierce damage per second, which is 80 damage per second after ship armor. The heavy warship with 5 catapults deals 30/5*6 = 36 hack plus 36 crush damage per second, which is 43 damage per second after ship armor. Even though the garrisoned heavy warship has more HP, it only deals about half as much damage. Against buildings, pierce damage is negligible due to armor. That 36 hack + 36 crush damage per second, reduced by a fortress's 15 hack armor and 2 crush armor, comes out to 36.5 damage per second. At this rate it would take about 2 minutes to take down a 4200 HP fortress with the heavy warship. This rate is comparable to two single catapults not on a ship. It is very slow, giving the opponent plenty of time to react, or simply to repair the fortress. At 4.2 HP/second/worker, nine repairing workers would be sufficient to prevent the fortress from losing HP. Now consider, as another form of naval siege, a Briton medium warship with 5 battering rams in it. They could unload on the shore and kill the same fortress in roughly 10 seconds (4200 damage / 500 damage per second), plus the time it takes the rams to maneuver into position, which doesn't take long if the fortress is on the shore. Cost: 1900 wood 1150 metal. So what change could balance the heavy warship? Let's operate under the premise that it ought to be at least good for naval siege. For this, have 100 crush damage per shot instead of 30, and have 10 pierce damage instead of 30 hack damage. The catapults do 100 crush and 10 pierce damage while not in the ship if they aren't upgraded, so shouldn't they do the same damage while in the ship? At this rate, it would take about 43 seconds to destroy the fortress. That's still slower than unloading rams, but it's maybe in the right area. I calculate that if the heavy warship has both armor upgrades (so 16 pierce armor) and the fortress is shooting 23 arrows, it would kill the heavy warship in about 48 seconds, which is good because it means the garrisoned heavy warship would kill the fortress before the fortress kills the garrisoned heavy warship.

Yeah, or even better, limit to 1 CC/colony per player. That way you expand in a more interesting way, by making roads of houses forts and barracks from your original territory.

Yeah, e.g. 30 minute ceasefire, 30 minute Territory victory. Might be interesting also to have a 30 minute ceasefire, 35 minute Territory victory, so that players build up and then have five minutes to destroy some of the enemy CCs/forts. Maybe 30/32 would be more balanced, because the point is not to allow a player to wipe out an opponent entirely, just to reclaim some last minute territory. 2 minutes may not seem like a lot of time but remember that the player can position his troops and siege around the enemy CC during the ceasefire, so the final 2 minutes is pure attack.

Territory Hold the most territory at X minutes. (Combine it with an X minute ceasefire and a small map to get a novel game mode).

Here are some tips for managing your army effectively. These mostly assume you have an army of infantry champions. Use ctrl+q+click to make your army attack units only and ignore buildings. Almost always, you want to kill units before buildings. If you go straight for the buildings while enemy champs are around, your champs will get slaughtered while they are attacking the building. If there are enemy civilian-soldiers around, they can repair the building, or garrison in buildings, or just attack your units. So kill the units first. Another way to look at this is how much economic damage your army can do per second. Buildings are extremely durable and don't cost that much per hit point. Units, especially workers, are very fragile compared to buildings and cost a lot more resources per hit point. So it hurts the enemy more per second to be killing workers instead of damaging buildings. Your army has a tendency to narrow into a single file line when walking long distances. Don't send your army into a tough battle in a single file line, because the front part of the line will be badly outnumbered. There are several techniques for avoiding this. When your line almost reaches the enemy, select some troops from the front part of the line, and tell them to move backwards and a bit sideways while the rest of the line keeps moving forwards. Do this repeatedly until the line looks more like a loose clump. (If units have moved too far backwards, tell them to move forwards again to stay in the clump). Then select your whole clumped-up army and tell them to attack (ctrl+q+click). Another way to get your army to arrive at the enemy at once instead of single-file is to tell your army to walk far to the side of the enemy. Then when your whole single-file line is halfway past the enemy, have them all change direction 90 degrees and walk at the enemy. This way they will all arrive at once. This works if the enemy is stationary and your army isn't too big. Some expert players, such as The_Company aka nobody___, use box formations to get their units clumped up. I personally don't do this since formations sometimes make it hard to disengage from a fight. When in combat, always use ctrl-q-click again every few seconds. This will make your army select new targets. If you don't do this, some of your units will just be walking around aimlessly trying to reach specific enemy units that are blocked by other units. Doing this makes those aimless units stop walking and just hit the closest enemy. This makes a big difference. Don't garrison champions or women if a fight is happening! Garrison citizen-soldiers. Champions do a lot more damage ungarrisoned. A common mistake is for the enemy to capture a CC or fortress with 40 champions, and then immediately garrison 20 champions in the fortress even though enemy forces are around. Don't do this! If you do, the 20 champions outside the fortress may now be outnumbered by the enemy forces and can be killed. The reason not to garrison women is just that they don't shoot arrows. If there is more than enough garrison space for your citizen-soldiers, it's OK to garrison the women. Sometimes an exception to this is garrisoning a damaged champ army in temples. Only garrison in temples during a fight if you can garrison your whole army without leaving any outside to be slaughtered. This forces the enemy to capture the temples, and then you can ungarrison your whole army - now partially healed - to keep fighting. Never take a straight-up fight that you think you're going to lose, if you can avoid it. If you have 20 champions and the enemy has 40, your 20 units will be killed while only killing 5 or 10 of the enemy. It's not cost-effective. Only take an engagement that you think you are going to win, unless there's no other choice (e.g. you can't run). In the middle of a fight, you might notice a few of your units that are isolated and outnumbered by more of the enemy, even if you outnumber the enemy in general. In this case, you can select the isolated units and just have them walk around. If the enemy isn't paying attention, his units will spend the fight just chasing the isolated units instead of dealing damage. If your heroes buff your troops, make sure they don't get damaged. Keep them away from the main fight. If the enemy targets them, have your hero just run around near the fight so they can keep giving the buff and the enemy has to chase them. Targeting the enemy hero specifically can be effective if they are strong like Boudicca or Philip of Macedon, and it's a large battle. But don't chase the hero too far if they retreat. If the enemy is sending in a superior force to destroy your base, there are things you can do to make it a lot harder for him. Immediately garrison towers and your CC/fortress with citizen-soldiers. You should have several towers surrounding your CC, and you want to garrison all of them. If you do this, then when the enemy takes your CC he won't take your base! Your garrisoned towers will hold the territory and the enemy won't be able to delete your other buildings or convert them to Gaia until he takes the towers too. Also, of course, garrisoning towers/CC increases arrow count and makes them more difficult to capture. You want to avoid engaging his army with your champions for as long as you can (because we're assuming he has more champs so you would lose any straight-up fight). Jockey for position - if a small part of his army is in reach of yours, you can attack and outnumber just that part. If he sends more of his army into that fight, back away. The longer he spends in your base jockeying for position, the more he's being shot by arrows. If he is attacking or capturing buildings while you still have champions near, attack him. He's made a big mistake and these are basically free kills. Back away if he stops attacking the building - don't take a fight where you're outnumbered. Keep women away from the enemy champs, but if he starts to attack your CC (or fortress) you want the women to repair it. Try to put the women on the opposite side of the building from the enemy. It's better to garrison citizen-soldiers than use them to fight, but if you do have more cit-soldiers than garrison space, use them to fight. Don't let the enemy champs touch them though, unless the cit-soldiers are melee units! When attacking an enemy CC or fortress, you want to let your units walk without attacking around to the other side of the CC/fort. (This assumes there are no enemy units nearby except women, perhaps because you killed them). Your single-file line of units will encircle the CC/fort, and then you can have them all start attacking at once. (Ctrl-click to damage below 50%, then regular click to capture). This is usually faster than just telling them all to attack the front of the CC/fort, because it reduces the amount of time your units spend milling about trying to find an open spot on the CC to attack. If women or cit-soldiers start repairing, use only a few of your nearest champs to kill them while the rest keep attacking the CC. If enemy champs arrive, you have to fight the champs with your whole army or run away, unless the CC is already almost captured. Romans and Spartans both have strong swordsmen cit-soldiers and pike champions. This is a good combination, particularly for Spartans. Send in the swordsmen first with the pikes right behind them. The swordsmen will make up the front row and deal damage and take hits. (Romans should have their hero around to give the swordsmen +5 attack). The champs will make up the back row and deal damage. So you have 2 rows of attacking units, and your champs aren't getting damaged. It's cheaper to let the enemy damage your Skiritai or Roman swordsmen than your champs. Build temples on the side of your territory nearest the enemy base, or close to where the combat is happening. At least 2 temples is good for any given combat area, ideally protected by towers/fortress/CC. If you're getting damaged or starting to lose a fight, and retreat is an option, then retreat and garrison in the temples. Healing your champions helps you maintain a high kill/death ratio.

Yoddhas are all about the crush damage, which is useless against units because most units have very high crush armor, but powerful against buildings, which have low crush armor. It's usually better to have 20 more maiden guards than 20 Yoddha, because if your maiden guards are fighting the enemy champs, and you have 20 fewer maiden guards than the enemy champs, you are not winning that fight and all your maiden guards will die. The situation where you would make Yoddha is in the late game if you are already very ahead and the enemy has a heavily fortified position that you have to break into. In other words, the same situation where you would make siege rams. Yoddha = siege rams, approximately.

Mr.Monkey - check this replay out too. This is against the same player (nobody___) who is admittedly better than I am. This time I had Spartans and he had Britons. This game went on until I got champs and finished him off - very late, 14 champs at 22 minutes - but I had no problem killing the 61 champs he made throughout the game as well as many workers to cripple his economy. nobodyreplay2.tar.gz

Unused resources are wasted resources. The fact that he had low resources is a testament to his skill as a player, and says nothing about the state of his economy. Here is the correct way to count how many Skiritai nobody___ made. He lost 55 units - all but 2 of them skiritai - and had 32 skiritai remaining, which you can tell by switching to his player view in the replay and alt-double-clicking on a skiritai. So by 13:00 he had made 85 skiritai. This was while attacking. If he had been staying at home using the skiritai to mine resources, he could have had much more.

My opponent is better than I am. Watch him, not me. Now I said 70 skiritai by minute 11-12, which means from 11:00 to 12:59, and said 13 minutes is too early for 20 champs. You first interpreted that as "20 champs and 70 skiritai by minute 11." Now you're looking at 10:00 and asking where are the champs? Why don't you read what I actually say instead of what you imagine?

Here is a replay of me fighting a better player (nobody___). We both played Spartan, but he had the better economy and overwhelmed me with Skiritai. No champs - the game didn't get that far. He made contact with me at 10:43, at which point he had 45 Skiritai and 144 pop, and was double producing batches of 5 Skiritai from 2 barracks. nobodyreplay.tar.gz By the way - don't exaggerate my claims. I said that you can have 70 skiritai by 11-12 minutes, which is true, and that 13 minutes is too early to have 20 champs (or 50 as mace).

Fine, what's your nick in the multiplayer lobby?

You're making the 70 Skiritai anyway, and will certainly have them by 13 minutes (actually I think more like 11-12 minutes) because they're citizen-soldiers. They're hanging around chopping wood and mining. 13 minutes is actually a bit early to have 20 champs as Spartans, especially if you've been attacking with the Skiritai. In fact it's also very early to have 50 champs as Macedonians. The 15 or 16 minute mark is more like it for 50 champs unless you're playing with med/high resources or treasures. Sparta 70 Skiritai 20 champs = 70 x [50, 40, 0, 10] + 20 x [100, 100, 0, 50] = 5500 food, 4800 wood, 1700 metal Mace 40 champs = 40 * [100, 100, 0, 50] = 4000 food, 4000 wood, 2000 metal.

Mr.Monkey, I cannot overstate how powerful Spartans properly used are. If the enemy has 40 champs and Spartans have 20 champs plus 70 Skiritai at their base, Spartans are winning that battle and losing far fewer resources and metal. Or, more often, the Spartan can simply attack with the Skiritai before the enemy has any champs, and wipe out his entire economy. Spartans are truly head and shoulders above every other infantry and deserving of the #1 spot.

Spartans have kind of a secret power. The secret is Skiritai. Never send in Spartan champs without 50 Skiritai in front of them, and you will kill far more of the enemy champs than they kill of yours. Spartans are the only civ where slow champ production is okay.

Evaluation criteria: Does the civ have a strong infantry champion? Can this civ's champions be trained from the barracks? Only training champs from fortresses is a serious disadvantage. Does this civ have an economic advantage or disadvantage? Does this civ have a powerful hero? The minimum criterion here is a hero that gives +5 attack to champion units, like Philip of Macedon, or better. Other special considerations Exceptional civs Spartans. The combination of skiritai commandos backed up by pike champs is the best infantry in the game. They can also attack with just the skiritai commandos, which can deal economic damage and even capture CCs by themselves. Their weaknesses are poor siege, and no archers, so it's possible that a Mauryan or Seleucid opponent could build up enough chariots to kill them from a distance. The Spartan can usually take them down before that happens, however. Britons. They build structures faster, and some structures give extra population, which reduces the need for houses. On top of that, they have solid sword champs that can be trained from the barracks, and the best hero (Boudicca). Briton champs also have a fast walking speed, especially with Boudicca. Britons also have slingers that cost stone instead of wood, which helps them out on low-wood maps. Briton chariots deal the most raw damage of any champ, but are weak to arrows and pikes (like any cavalry). Decent civs Macedonians. They have the second-best pike champs, which can be trained from the barracks. The pike champs cost only 50 metal (but 100 wood), which is an advantage on maps with enough wood. They have a strong hero. An equal number of Mace champs will beat Briton champs, and in fact will beat any infantry except for Spartans. However, Macedonians are economically slower than Britons. Also, their champs walk slowly, and are weak against buildings. Iberians. They have sword champs that can be trained from the barracks, and benefit from powerful starting walls. Iberians are a good civ for noobs in team games, because the starting walls mean they will not die early on (if they defend with half a brain). Also, Iberians can make cavalry skirmisher champs, which are very good at killing buildings since they deal crush damage. (Beware - Iberian cavalry skirmisher champs are worthless against enemy champs. Don't make that mistake). However, Iberians suffer from having no good heroes. Mauryans. They have sword champs that can be trained from the barracks. Their elephants make them good on low-wood or low-metal maps, and can also provide a food bonus via gathering berries. Mauryan citizen-soldier archers help protect them against rushes. Mauryans have no good heroes. Mauryan Yoddha champs are siege only - worthless against other champs - so usually don't make them. Also, elephants are useless. There's no real point to making maiden guard archers because the chariots are better. Gauls. They have a late game economy boost with heroes Britomartus or Brennus. They also have sword champs that can be trained from the barracks, and faster-building (but weaker) buildings, like the Britons. Compared to the Britons, what they lack is a hero that boosts champs enough. Romans. They have decent champs that can be trained from the barracks, and a good hero who blesses civ-soldiers as well as champs with +5 attack. (I wonder if that hero could be exploited, perhaps by sending in Roman Swordsmen or Pikemen with the champs... they might be able to mimic Sparta, only weaker. Worth a try.). Okay civs Persians. They have archer civ-soldiers and a decent pike champ. However, they cannot train this champ from the barracks, which slows them down. In fact, they can only train it from a single building, or from their hero. Their hero gives no bonus to their champs. Athenians. They have decent champs, and in team games their champ archers can be a big help. However, they have no good heroes, and they cannot train champs from the barracks. Carthaginians. They train champs from their temples, and have no good heroes. Their champs are decent, however, and they do have archer civ-soldiers. Challenging civs Seleucids. They have a good selection of champions, including the best cavalry in the game, and can make military colonies. However, the fact that their champions can only be trained from the Fortress makes them relatively slow to build up. Also, they lack a good hero. In a team game, they can be good if they are given enough time to build up. Ptolemies. They can rush with camel archers, which can be hard to defend against especially if they do it very early (at the 2-4 minute mark). Ptolemies also have good building defenses and military colonies. If the game gets to champions, however, Ptolemies can only train cavalry champions, which are hard countered by enemy pike champs. In addition to that huge weakness, Ptolemies can only train champions from the fortress. In a team game, if they are given time to build up, they can be useful for harassing trade with their cavalry.

From a gameplay perspective, 0 A. D. combat is overly simplistic compared to other RTS games. This is largely because ancient combat frequently involved simple clashes of infantry on open fields. But there is one place where ancient combat was not simple, and that is siege. I think 0 A.D. would benefit from having more complex and variable combat, and siege is one area where there's plenty of room for that. Take a look at the naval siege of Syracuse in 214-212 BC, to see the ingenuity from both sides. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Syracuse_(214%E2%80%93212_BC) https://www.math.nyu.edu/~crorres/Archimedes/Siege/Polybius.html Just from this one siege alone: Sambucae - large ships carrying siege ladders intended to overtop the walls Normal siege ladders Catapults and scorpions used defensively against the enemy ships and marines Defensive machines similar to a crane or wrecking ball used to swing and drop stones on attackers Wicker screens to protect the attacking marines against missiles The Claw of Archimedes, a crane with a grappling hook used to capsize attacking ships, and also to lift up and drop attacking marines When the naval attack was repulsed, the Romans resorted to a naval and land blockade to starve out Syracuse. The Romans finally broke into the city through subterfuge. They had a small band of marines scale the walls stealthily under cover of night, while Syracuse was distracted by the festival of Artemis This only won the Romans the outer city. Many Syracusians retreated to an inner citadel, where the Romans had to starve them out again for eight months. The Romans finally broke into the inner city through the treachery of one of its inhabitants, who opened a gate for them.

Siege warfare in 0 A.D. is unrealistic. Hitting walls with swords? Nope. Siege elephants? Nope. Elephants were used against troops, not fortifications. Totally destroying buildings? Nope. Attackers would damage the defenses just enough to enter, leaving the rest of the fortress intact, and would then flood troops through the hole they made. The exception to this is burning civilian buildings, but fortifications were generally not flammable. Capturing doesn't harm the garrison? Nope. Capturing should be a pitched battle between the attackers and the defenders, with the garrison as well as the attackers getting hacked to pieces or shot full of arrows. Ranged attacks harm the walls but not the garrison? Nope. It was a common tactic to use stone throwers, slings, or bows to clear defenders off the walls and make the approach easier. Siege towers just shoot arrows that damage the walls? Nope - the primary purpose of a siege tower was to allow the attackers to get onto the walls and engage the enemy in melee. Or, to allow attackers to use battering rams from lower levels of the tower. Arrows do not damage stone walls. Siege weapons are vulnerable to destruction in a quick melee raid? Nope - many were huge, heavy machines, almost fortresses in themselves. Siege rams are always advanced technology that requires city phase to make? For covered rams, perhaps, but simple uncovered siege rams were just tree trunks. Siege warfare in 0 A.D. is missing variety and tactics that were historically used. See below. Proposed revamp of siege mechanics: Non-siege units simply cannot damage buildings. They can capture all civilian buildings, but can only capture towers/forts/CCs/military colonies if the building is first damaged by siege. Elephants are not siege. Siege weapons deal a small amount of damage to buildings. The purpose of siege is not to destroy the building entirely, but to make it capturable. Say, when the building has been damaged below 90%, that is considered to be a hole in the wall which allows capture. Damaging the building beyond that does makes it a little easier to capture, but not a lot easier. Only ranged units in garrison increase the arrow count. Ranged non-siege may attack buildings. This does not damage the building, but damages ranged garrison. Ranged garrison has a bonus to armor against these attacks. Non-ranged garrison are not damaged by these attacks because they are not sticking their head up above the walls to shoot. Ranged siege has the same effect on the building garrison as ranged non-siege, except ranged siege also damages the building. When capturing, melee garrison deals their normal attack damage to all capturing units. Capturing units, in turn, deal damage to melee and ranged garrison, as well as decreasing the capture bar. Garrison units get an armor bonus against these capture attacks. Siege towers may still shoot arrows, but the arrows do not damage buildings. Instead, if a siege tower is adjacent to an enemy building, all units in the siege tower may engage in a capture attack against the building even if the building is not damaged. Siege towers can also have a secondary battering ram attack. Siege towers were incredibly tough, some weighing over 100 tons. They should therefore be almost fortresses themselves - 1000 HP and 10 hack/crush armor seem reasonable. Similar for covered siege rams and stone throwers, which could have 500 HP and 10 hack/crush armor. There should be a Phase II siege ram that is just a bare tree trunk. It is cheap (50-100 wood), and provides no protection to its own garrison, so all arrows shot at the ram damage garrison units as if they were not garrison. It cannot move without a garrison. Additional siege tactics that were historically used: Mining. Attackers would set up wetted hide tents to protect them against arrows, and try to dig underneath the enemy walls. They would support their tunnels with wooden struts, which they would remove at once when they were ready to collapse the wall. This could be implemented in 0 A.D. as a "mining crew" siege unit. It would work similar to a battering ram. A battering ram would not be effective on some very thick walls that could be taken down by mining. (There are also thinner walls built on hard ground that a battering ram could take down, but mining would not work on - the distinction is hard to put in 0 A.D.). Siege ladders. These would be a cheap, phase II siege weapon costing 50 or 100 wood, similar to a siege tower. Like a siege tower, when a siege ladder is adjacent to a building, the garrison of the siege ladder may try to capture the building as if the building were damaged. Unlike a siege tower, a siege ladder does not protect its garrison from ranged attacks or allow its garrison to shoot arrows or use battering rams. There was such a thing as a "siege ladder ship" - the Sambuca. It was not that effective, however. Pouring lots of water on the ground to make mud would stop a siege tower or covered siege ram from approaching. This water could be a very cheap "structure" that the defenders could construct in front of their fortress. The water would last a limited time. The only thing preventing the defender from constantly renewing it is the attacker's army killing the units that are pouring water. Starvation. The attackers would encamp in the fields surrounding the enemy town and try to starve them out or cut off their water supply. This was used by Sparta against Athens - the story of the Athenian Long Walls. There are various ways to implement something like this. The main problem is that 0 A.D. fields are far too small, and so can be located behind towers and fortifications. Attackers and defenders had lots of other tricks too such as using chains or ditches to obstruct the motion of approaching siege engines. 0 A.D. doesn't need all of them.

In my opinion, just make all food sources (animals, berries, fish) the same bright color. It's simpler that way and it reduces the chances of having one of the colors similar to something else. The way the game is now, it's difficult to see animals and fish that are such a dim brown, so that to find animals I don't even look at the minimap. If they were bright orange like the berries they would be much more visible (except for the collision with the orange player color).