chrstgtr

I understand. But you usually hit max pop by the time you get a bunch of groups. Late game, you can have just two groups to transition to cav/champs. For ease, I usually just create one group for barracks and manually do individual barracks for one or two production cycles. By the end of one or two cycles, I usually have a chance to link the barracks up on the same production cycle from the same group. Cycling through barracks, like you describe above, sounds like too much effort for the reward, to me.

I see what you’re saying, but it’s still possible to do that with preexisting control groups. It just requires a few more clicks than/control groups than hot keys.

Also, AQ: peer reviewed for universal acceptance that has occurred Trainer: not peer reviewed with no universal acceptance @Atrik is just substituting terms to make it sound innocuous. “Read user input” is newspeak for “decide which units to make, how many to make, and when to make them” which is exactly how I described it the first time. Just because the player sets the parameters doesn’t mean the mod doesn’t do exactly what I said. Playing with a chess with the “assistance” of AI would isn’t all of a sudden made fair if the “user input” is to play at a 2000 level instead of a 3200 level, and it certainly isn’t fair if your opponent doesn’t consent to the “assistance.” Even with the substitution of terms, he still has to admit that it does some things differently with no player action.

@AtrikYour mod can decide which units to make, how many to make, and when to make them. It can also move the units for you. With the exception of only a few players (all of whom use your mod), everyone finds your mod problematic. @BreakfastBurrito_007 I don’t use autociv hot keys, and am not too familiar with their offerings. But based on your description, it sounds like you can accomplish most (all?) of what you want with control groups and a little more work. The control groups in the base game is what I’ve always used. A hot key button for all barracks would be nice but it would only actually save me like 20 clocks over the span of 30 minutes of gameplay (with most of those clicks happening before any real game action). Nice sure. But I’m not upset that it doesn’t exist.

I used to complain about how Elexis handled things from time to time. Looking back in it, Elexis did a great job and was under appreciated

The past is never dead. It is not even the past

yeah, I think I’ve seen it one or two times for real and it was in the context of an ally fort being accidentally too close to an ally CC. It is easy to imagine if you are building a new CC in unsettled area. but most of the time, it was trolling by an enemy or ally

Elexis is back?

I think it is a bug. Forts have a lot of territory influence, so when they are placed close by they begin to take over nearby structures. Functionally, this basically never happens unless you're trolling. You have to build so close to the CC that your builders are under constant fire.

Forts used to have territory root but that was taken out in a24–>a25 because it encouraged too much turtling. (I think fort only gave root in a24.) Maurya hero building gives territory root. (Maybe Persian hero buildings does too.) I don’t like that feature. Taking out territory root against Maurya is effectively “kill CC and find the hero building.” The Maurya building isn’t a last stand location. It’s easily captured as soon as it’s found but that might not be easy to do. It looks like your connection to your ally was just a little too short

Yeah. Those are great but mostly limited to p3. Differentiation should be more than tech trees and one of two unique OP units for each civ. We're running out of our ability to differentiation through unique units too as more and more civs get their own unique units (Romans got their own last alpha, same with Persia, etc.)

At one point, someone posted a video on YouTube of you can beat very hard AI with 300 women and clever micro. No one should suggest that women are too OP. It’s just that the AI isn’t very intelligent

I was more addressing the eco change proposal. But thanks for the feedback. Always good to have input. -------------- With respect to the actual forum thread topic, I would like to encourage others to try to come up with ideas that aren't just techs. Techs that modify an already existing template are a little gimmicky and lazy. Most techs also put us in a "race to push all the buttons." I would also say that the most interesting civ differentiators aren't techs. They are the inherent civ bonuses/features like Iber's walls, Iber's skirm discount, Athens' phrasing bonus, Mace's automatic tech research times, etc. These are differentiators that create really unique strategies and build orders, and are not just a "race to push all the tech buttons"

The community mod has a process to it. Someone notes a problem. Someone proposes a solution. It gets debated. It gets possibly modified. It gets voted on. If it receives enough votes, it goes in. Your proposed change hasn't gone through that process. I haven't looked at the thread for a long time, but I'm pretty sure there wasn't even a consensus that there was problem. I also believe some version of your proposal was previously debated and rejected (https://code.wildfiregames.com/D3704) (if I recall correctly, I actually wanted something somewhat similar to a progressive system like you proposed but I was unable to convince others). Simply put, your proposal hasn't undergone the review that other items that are adopted into the game and through the community mod have to go through. Additionally, your proposal's effect would have an extremely expansive effect, which suggests a greater need for caution and the review described above. ------------

I tell you these things because this is the common route that almost every player goes through (including myself). At one point, I thought rams were too strong. At one point, I thought AI was great. Then I played a little more and realized my errors. If you aren't interested in other people's opinions then I don't know why you're posting here.

If you really want the game that way you can mod it and play it all you want in SP. But most of your balance complaints aren't really valid. They're only valid for your current level. As your skill improves, you will see why the game is balanced the way that it is. Ultimately, it would be great if 0AD had a better SP experience. But, as it stands, it just isn't there. The lack of a better AI system is probably the biggest weakness of 0AD and that item that keeps 0AD from gaining a bigger player base. As it stands, AI is often too difficult for beginners and way too easy for experienced players. The lack of a true campaign mode is another glaring omission.

I guess what you're saying could be relevant. But only if all units can't eco within the borers. Otherwise, it just spreads out an eco. So long as all units are working then you will still end up with too much res

I agree in part. But I would also say that maps with relatively less metal/stone and relatively more wood create inequity for civs that rely on slingers/mercs. It's always very sad when the ptol player runs out of stone/metal and is stuck making only pikes and camels. There has to be somewhere between "way too much wood" and "way too little wood" that would make it more fair for everyone.

I would like that. The slightly less wood part would obviously be an alternative to making a smaller radius--both result in slightly less resources within the territory footprint. My radius idea is just easier for my less programing savvy brain to understand because it doesn't require changes to the underlying map generator.

I agree 100%. But low wood is probably the #2 reason why some maps/biomes are unpopular (#2 after only the fact that some maps require the use of a navy). All I mean to say is that a reduction is radius size should be done carefully because its easy to overdo it and the potential for blowback.

That is unrelated. It doesn't change the fact that there is "too much" of certain resources on certain maps. Economies will be slowed but players still may end up with thousands in extra res on many maps. The problem is there is often no resource scarcity, which encourages unit spam and obviates any need to build additional CCs .

Agree. On some maps this is a huge problem. The ability to build over shrubbery has partially mitigated this somewhat for some biomes. Unfortunately, it's a tough problem to fix because you can easily tip into a scenario where there is not enough wood, which is often a frustrating player experience. Indeed, I think the player base prefers maps where wood is overwhelmingly plentiful. There is a happy medium in-between where we presently are and "not enough" wood but I think a slight decrease in wood could quickly go from "this is an improvement" to "this ruined the game." I don't know what you mean by "worker density."

Or just decrease the radius increase size with each phase. We did that some in the community mod but I think we could do it even more. It's pretty easy to run of of minerals, esp if you build a lot of slingers, mercs, etc. It's usually wood that there is "too much" of.

One of the lessons is: if you want to actually develop a game with new features do it as part of the main development team. Everyone would like to see new/more team members. the reception for rogue development is chillier.

You’re missing the entire point. Your opinion doesn’t matter if the people you’re playing with think that’s it’s cheating.