chrstgtr

Way off topic, but I agree that this would be fun and is a little surprising something like this doesn’t already exist.

Yes, same as if you destroy it.

You get a portion back

Agree. Didn't realize that either. But seems to be an easy, logical thing to fix

Sure. But it was also clear that that was what everyone was talking about except for possibly causative. I would also be fine with siege walls decaying, to be honest. They can be build in enemy terrority but so can camps. Those decay. Force players to garrision them like they do with camps. I don't like it when annoying things are built in my city and there is no reason why an absent player should continue to control it. At a min, it should be gaia and just something in your base

Sure. Siege walls can be in a category of their own. But that wasn't what you were just saying.

Everything you say is irrelevant--garrisoned walls already don't decay/get captured. Walls only get captured when they are entirely in enemy territory and unmanned. Men can't even exercise a capture mechanic on walls. If you think unmanned walls in enemy territory shouldn't be captured then you should tell all the Turks, Greeks, Arabs, Slavs, Brits, etc. that they don't actually have control of the old Roman walls in their countries because the Romans (who no longer exist) still control them.

There is literally no reason why walls should not be capturable. It makes no sense for empty walls that are surrounded by enemy territory to be controlled by a player that has no nearby units, building, or territory. Do you really think think fleeing armies locked a special door that can only be opened with one key and then left the Nest doorbell video on so they could view all that pass by? That is such an absurdly stupid thing to believe from a historical, practical, or gameplay point of view

This. Before the decay rate of walls was unified with other buildings, iber used to be annoying even after killing it because you would get "trapped" in walls of a city you already destroyed/captured. I lost so many games because walls and pathfinding of a defeated iber player made be useless for 2 minutes while I moved to the next player and the other side of my team died.

The point other people are making is that they see automation as a cheat and your opinion on whether it is (or isn't) cheating doesn't matter. Both opinions are obviously reasonable. But only the person in favor of automation actually gets a choice on whether it is used--you get to decide whether to "cheat" and your enemy, who believe automation is cheating, can't do anything to stop you.

This actually makes a ton of sense and something that I would like to see in vanilla. It decreases the incentive to snipe (good because that is just micro intensive) and allows for actual strategy (as opposed to just automation) because ideal armies will have varying stance composition. This is also especially useful when fighting under towers/forts/CCs

Feels like a false choice. If the features are actually good then they should be in EA. To be honest, I don't see a need for a "sequel" when everything worthwhile can just be integrated into EA (yeah, I know the timeframe restriction exists for EA, but that is false construction that doesn't need to exist).

Yeah, I'm not entirely opposed to it. I would like just something that gives more control to the player. I also wouldn't want the max number to be set so low that it effectively automates the games. But that automating effect begins to take pretty quickly if it is intended to do anything like avoid having an entire army focus on a dancing hero.

Sure, but one of the insights from @real_tabasco_sauce is that this isn't necessarily "bad" behavior and the "problem" we are trying to solve doesn't really exist. I agree with him on both points. I'm just pointing out that there is potentially a better solution out there.

Agree--it hasn't been for a couple of years now. Agree. This would only take away control from the player. At best, it runs the risk of automating the game. Seems like the better solution is to revisit an "attack area" feature that would provide all the same, and more, benefits to the player without automating the game.

Can't you just make it shaded like the way queued units are now? That introduced nothing new

I see zero downside to this.

I think what you say is fine and is an obvious next step (at least for some civs), but another option remains: modify current values of CS units and women. Women could be made cheaper or produce more quickly. Women gather rates could increase and/or men rates could decrease. Etc. Personally, I would prefer this approach for all (or at least most) civs and then giving a few select civs, like Sparta, laborers/slaves as a civ differentiator.

I agree that in the future the community mod should do as you suggest. As for immediately doing what you suggest, there are adoption hurdles associated with a changing mods, and I think there is a general desire to not do too many updates unless we have to (because of adoption fatigue issues). Doing as you request would require all players to download a new version of the community mod, which may or may not happen, and would cause confusion within the playing base as to what is new in the new version of the mod. A lot of people have a lot of ideas they want to launch in the next iteration of the community mod. Given timing, however, it's probably easier to just wait until "coming soon" comes.

Bolts aren’t impacted here. They’re different from units as are buildings. Even if everything you say is true, then it still wouldn’t apply to something like an ele. Also, there’s a reason why bolts were banned in a22 in MP games and were changed in a23. You’re missing the point in that everything changes whenever you change unit stats. It’s absurd to suggest that somehow range unit dps is an exception to that rule

That's what I thought, but just wanted to make sure. Anyways, the values look about right to me--I probably would've done .5 m/s more for melee inf and done slightly different stuff for cav, but it looks directionally correct and good enough for community mod.

ttk? Also, this looks like it could make sense to me. Will be good in community mod to do real tests with

You could also just increase health of all units. Still need to worry about units destroying siege/buildings, though. Personally, I would decrease attack, but it's something to consider

Who said anything about range’s ability to destroy buildings, siege, etc. Buildings/siege will become relatively stronger because range units will no longer be able to clear the field. That tower that used to just be a pest before you could kill surrounding enemy units and then capture it could now be able to turn a battle because battles will last as much as twice as long. Remember how you used to be able to counter bolt shooters by killing enemy units that were guarding the bolt shooter and then attacking the bolt shooter with melee? Guess what, now you can’t quickly kill the smaller army that is defending the bolt shooter, so you can’t approach the bolt shooter with your melee, and the bolt shooter now has no counter and is OP. You can’t change a stat and think it will have no side effect. Especially when you acknowledge that inverse of the same stat does have a side effect. It’s why @real_tabasco_sauce modified attack dmg and armor in opposite directions instead of just increasing attack dmg.

It introduces a ton side effects--units vs builds, units vs siege, units vs units, etc. Basically the same you see by doing the opposite with melee.