Obelix

Some modders use their GitHub repositories (e.g. 0ADMODS), some have their mod only on a local drive or their preferred cloud storage and yet other have a Gitea repo (f.e. Empires Besieged). It's impossible to give a general answer. I’m specifically interested in the nonviolence mod ! I think the repository you asked for is the .zip file posted by @Freagarach in the following thread: Just extract the container and you see the modded files on your drive. By changing those, zipping and uploading you're 'pushing'.

I just saw your similar post... ... and got reminded on this topic: My problem with your proposal is that it shouts 'I minimize micro-management!' but in my game style it would lead to more micro-management bc units would not more be where I garrisoned them and sometimes I need all those 5 units at one place and then I have a problem.

Some modders use their GitHub repositories (e.g. 0ADMODS), some have their mod only on a local drive or their preferred cloud storage and yet other have a Gitea repo (f.e. Empires Besieged). It's impossible to give a general answer.

Regarding the slavery/naturalization debate: Aha you want slavery then! That’s up for interpretation ! Who is to say the villagers are unpaid and have no property ? The idea is just they aren’t allowed weapons ! It would also be interesting and fun if soldier units could capture/convert villagers immediately instead of killing them ! There is the ten-and-a-half year old Issue #3873 (Slavery system) that awaited discussion till today.

That's weird... I'm on Win 11, game is 0.28.0 a2cae. Same here! But I was unclear, I mean the Windows Start menu folder "0 A.D. Empires Ascendant" with the entries "0 A.D.", "Open logs folder", "Web site" and "Map editor". EDIT: My Windows is set to de_DE, my installation should be en_US by default.

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!