Gurken Khan

I think we should stick with historical accuracy as much as we can. If there are sources for female soldiers I'm perfectly fine with incorporating them. Already there are some, although I think there is some artistic freedom taken. If there are sources for female leaders I also think it's good that we include them, like we already do. I don't think this game is able to depict ancient societies in depth, so I don't think we should try or present them as something they never were. I'm still in favor of having male and female villagers, as I believe that's historically accurate.

Settings > Options > Game Session > Wounded unit health

@LienRag You can adjust the threshold for wounded units in the settings.

Isn't @user1 in charge of the lobby?

@crazy_Baboon Are you on the latest release? There was a problem with rating in Alpha 25 so you should update to a25b. Also head over there and try to summon @user1:

@Yekaterina I don't see mods there? @LienRag Did you try the in-game mod selection? (Settings > Mod Selection)

@pixel24 'CS' are citizen soldiers. Heroes are those three special units every civ has (like Cleopatra VII), while champions are the special soldiers every civ has (i.e. Royal Guard Cavalry). My support is usually only the healers; if I have a cav hero he runs with the cav champions, slow heroes like Cleo I put together with the healers. One reason why I keep champs separate is that I play with capturing a lot; champs are better at that, while I try to give the XP to my CS.

I have five control groups at the frontline: CS cav CS inf support champs 'tower guys' (a handful of units to quickly occupy a captured building) If I actually take along siege equipment (which I rarely do) they get an additional group. My reasoning is that those groups have different roles and speeds. I might grab'em all and send them somewhere, but when I have to act tactically these groups work for me. Also it's quick if I want to select a sub-group: hit the number and then click on the unit icon(s) to select or ctrl+click to un-select; handy for example if I want the melee more forward and the ranged more to the back.

Yeah, with the billions floating around this game, turning off one DDOS certainly should be worth 500k...

Slingers. Also:

@andy5995 No. It's important tactical data, and I don't see a reason why one should be able to know. Prevent them from garrisoning, count them going in, or find out when you're forcing them out.

Yes, as @Stan` already wrote: that's loot. I think palisades and walls should remain owned, else they don't fulfill their function and don't justify the cost and effort to build them.

@Ceres Warships are warships and traders are traders. Don't see your suggestion work, might also not make sense. Maybe just send land traders to the dock and merchant ships from the dock? I believe you can put land traders into merchant ship to increase their profit: I did that some time, don't know the math and if those stats are correct. 15 traders would give +300% profit?

It's just a prank, bro! They probably just enjoy annoying other people.

I believe one of the Ds stands for 'Distributed', meaning an attacker would use several machines aka 'bots'. Makes the attack stronger, maybe not trackable to their own machine. I think they might also choose which IP range/area those bots operate from; or maybe spoof it. An IP or IP range could be blocked because they spam requests. At some ~anonymous place I was hit several times with an area ban because someone supposedly from my area misbehaved; I had to request a code snippet via IRC.

Yes, just as you describe it. You might notice that the posters there have a title and a thingy beneath their avas. If you feel you have a valid point you could pn a lucky member of that group, they might bring it into the discussion.

Depending on the map and circumstances a dock (or two docks) might be the better choice: you don't have to own the territory to build a dock, thus you can maximize the distance. @Thales Also note that you can set what resources your traders are carrying. And truthfully, depending on the circumstances, trade might even not be worth the effort; especially with a25 usually resulting in shorter games. You might put ~2000 res in (buildings, traders, techs) and only get ~1000 out...

If you're not trading at all, any player that is will have a higher income. If the AI is bartering less, or won't go below certain thresholds, then it's more likely to have a better bartering rate than a player who blindly barters whatever amounts of whatever... If, for example, you need metal and can barter any other resource for it, it may be worth comparing the rates and/or switching the resource. Trade one batch of food and the rate will go down, switch to selling wood, the rate might be better...

Yeah, what @alre said. P1: first wood, then food (in a balance, so you can afford to build the necessary structures and units, research the gathering techs). P2: first I 'industrialize' wood & food, then go for stone (to get the gathering techs & p2 structures) and then metal.

You need two markets to trade; the further apart, the more profitable. Select one market, right-click on another market (or dock, own or allied) and produce traders to work the route. Prices for bartering change over the course of the game. The more one resource is sold, the less it is worth; likewise the more one resource is bought, the higher value it gains. Not trading one resource for a while will 'normalize' its prize (~82). Techs and civ bonuses also have an influence on the prizes.

Not trying to be funny this time, just thought it's a nice pic of The Red Sea:

If the player doesn't have a team of healers it's not ironic but deserved...

I'm calling names here: @Stan` @user1 (To improve the chance of them seeing this and maybe able to do sth...)