chrstgtr

It's just superfluous, and I can see why it would be annoying to do when already engaged in other tasks--it's already a bit annoying to have to send resources when busy with other stuff. But I get why others would want it, esp for the scenario that Feld raised above.

The second one looks good to me. (I also don’t have a problem with the current one). I’d want to be able to see some of the actual gameplay screen, which the second one does well Personal opinion, but I think clicking on confirm every time you want to send res would get annoying fast. This’ll probably vary from person to person. (Also probably east to turn confirmation requirement off)

It creates a trade off decision to force players to have a better balanced economy (or make the decision to concentrate on a few resources more strategic) before all food was for pop and you only needed to mine wood/metal to tech upgrade, which meant a near mindless allocation of gathers to the same three res for most civs. For most games, was no reason not to spend all your food or to invest heavily in stone/metal Also, it was to free up some metal for mercs/champs.

Yeah. I mean more down the line. I just have zero interest in having another Hellenistic civ because of how they’re already repetitive. It’s not per se bad. But I just really, really don’t care. And would much rather integrate new ideas into what civs we already have to get what we do have more differentiated/interesting

Anything but another Hellenistic faction.

Needs and wants a different. The game is fine now. But I don't have anything against including more (if the additions are reasonably balanced). I have no desire to add civ that would be nearly duplicative of civs that already exist (i.e., Syracuse repeating elements of other Hellenic civs).

I can't commit to any specific time this weekend, but I will generally be around. Pls ping me if you see me in lobby

What are your stat settings? These look interesting/unexpected in a few different ways

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