Obelix

My Windows menu entry's called 'Map editor'!

Ethernet connection is highly recommended!

see #8906

Haven't you read the Release announcement for Release 28 on the website? There it is explained clearly: May I ask you why you haven't asked this question in the corresponding thread? It doesn't fit here.

Would it be possible that you copy the title into your post and change the title to sth. like 'Change default formation'? Then it may be found better by other searchers... --- See also the corresponding FAQ chapter: How can I get units to move as individuals and not in formation?

Are you able to provide ressources? This would underly your advocacy attempt and may lead to faster implementation.

Yes, this change makes this simplified passage a bit more accurate. But instead of 'fell', 'lost its independency' would fit more.

Something like this should have been fixed in the last Release (R28): Issue #7438 Maybe Issue #8227 is related? It is supposed to be fixed in the next Release (R29).

I really get sad when reading thread titles like this one and replies seconding it. IMO saying an open source software project 'is wasting its potential!' is discrediting the work of the main developers and the hundreds of contributors who are all doing it voluntarily in their free-time. You can't use key figures like controlling in a capitalistic enterprise does to work for share holders. FYI

Hello Bennett and welcome to the community, those are interesting thoughts! Thank you for sharing them! Indeed, snapping of Walls to other objects e.g. Walls of allied players would be great. This paragraph ignores the Team Bonuses, which would be strategically enhanced by your idea. I think of it as a social problem that shouldn't be limited by technical solutions. I like the idea of having the possibility to build only a small amount of buildings (quality or quantity) in allied territory. To be honest, it would be easier to read, if you would use the 'Numbered list' function for numbered lists as well as paragraph spacing for new paragraphs. But that note from me should not influence my thoughts on your ideas.

I can confirm this misbehaviour and filed Issue #9208 for you. A Pull Request will follow soon; the reference will be edited into this Reply. Pull Request's been proposed: #9209

https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/wiki/GameDataPaths

^^

Reminds me of the Spys in Rise of Nations.

What do you think about an enlarged Spying tech branch in the Tech tree that includes a Bribing soldiers tech after a basic Bribing merchants tech?

By accident I found a related Issue on Gitea: #4050 (Build back own buildings to gather resources)

The version/build information might then be placed between the ressource information and the emblem.

Regardless of the decision whether the version/build information in the top bar should be removed, I really like the second proposal!

I needed to think about your proposal, @Perzival12. In the end I am in favour of your suggestion-even though I guess I'll be pretty bad in this game mode. Could this be optional in MP?

Because those are completely different softwares and use cases.

Over at Gitea, some minutes ago @fabio argued against the removal of the version and build information, too. I support fabio and @Stan`s take, that it would be a regression. Indeed it doesn't add value to gameplay but to game development.

There are still some shades left between black and white ...

Only by micro-managing ...