Gurken Khan

I'm confused about the Zealots, as on page 1 you had sources with clubs or as swordsmen, and now it's knives? Just wondering. (Does 'knife' implicate a length or a method of production?)

I like the a24 way: (Except I'd prefer the pop count in one line.)

Not sure what you'd consider assumptions. I thought I was always very clear on what versions I was referring to. I still wanna get some more a24 games in before I switch to a25, at least having played all civs. And I'm frankly enjoying the increased stability of a24, as a23 was reliably crashing. (And I'm not sure how the dev. version will work for me.) I don't know if your ~reply implies stuff I mentioned has been addressed, looking forward to finding out. Hope that's ok for now.

Stupid moving Ok, my units are stupid and they move stupidly. But maybe some things can be better, and some even have been better in a23. I. Getting stuck. Really makes me mad when my units find a way into the woods and then can't find a way out. Haven't had exactly that in a24 so far, but recently some units were stuck behind a short, single line of trees and couldn't find their way around. So maybe still some room for improvement. II. Single file line. I thought there was some push mechanic now, can't really tell a difference. Gatherers still bump into each other when they're on the same resource and drop-off point. What really annoys me though is that overtaking is just not an option, so the slowest unit sets the pace for all others. If for example my cav was a little less stupid, they could 'open a second lane' and advance much faster; I guess on maps that would be the difference between the shortest and the fastest connection. III. Turning times. I think they're ridiculously high now. Yeah I know, dancing and stuff, but maybe this could be reconsidered. ~Flowing around a CC to find their position to capture has always been a challenge for my stupids, but now - I suppose because of the turning times- it takes them like three or four times longer. IV. Stopping to advance after attack order. What prompted my rant feedback. It changed from a23 and I really hate it. When I gave a group of units an order to attack a unit, they used to go to a point where they could attack and then take it from there. Now, if that target is killed or temporarily out of sight, they stop dead in their tracks or do some stupid stuff, like capturing a house or something I'm really not interested in. So if that behavior could be changed back to how it was in a23 I think that would be just great!

Yup. I think it's fine that badly damaged structures can't accommodate units. I really like to capture enemies' infrastructure so I usually don't damage buildings at all; unless there are too many soldiers inside to capture it... Sometimes it can be a close call not to accidentally destroy the building, for example when I have 'Captain Lardbutt' (Hanniba'al Baraq) along, who doesn't have a capture attack but deals tremendous crush damage.

@seeh The buildings are too damaged to be manned; you have to repair them first (I think>10% health).

Naturally I'm not against civs having the correct tooltips for their buildings, but if it would work both ways I think that would be ideal. Reminds me: how do flags on captured buildings work? Used to be when I capture a tower for example and then man it, it would show the flag of the civ having built it and not mine; not a big issue, but of course I'd want my flag flying there. Is there a chance we get the +10 pop cap back just for building a wonder? From my experience there was at least a chance that ten additional champs made a bit of a difference, but now with that two minute extra delay I feel building a wonder is basically pointless.

Is this even something that needs to be done? I think exiting and hitting 'continue' like it is now is fine. Is there any GUI-research what is faster, 2x choosing between two very short options or 1x choosing between three longer options? A+B and C+D are different things, so any answer should have two parts. I'd like A to say 'Yes, skip summary'. I think D is fine, if there absolutely has something to be changed.

The first time I read it I was intrigued and built an arsenal I ended up not using; otherwise it doesn't affect gameplay. I'm checking the unit tree more frequently now. But I'm also a passionate nitpicker.

It says so for Mauryas, Romans, Ptolies. I just gonna assume that's the case for all civs.

Thank you very much! Maybe I was too enraged to notice that tooltip.^^ Still wondering about the idea behind that standard box formation tho... Aggressive healers running away has always been that way, at least the last couple of years/alphas. My workaround is to put 'em on "Standground" and then micro them; still, in my book, aggressive units don't run away. Anyone got ideas about healers prioritizing hurt units? Why does the tooltip for arsenals talk about "Train Champion Infantry Crossbowmen" when there is no such thing?

"I palmtree negros" makes me think of "strange fruit"; not too happy with that. While I support the use of a blacklist for certain words, I still don't think taking care of toxic individuals is possible without human moderators. And since it only takes one or two individuals to ruin the experience for a lot of people, I really think it should be taken care of.

I'm actually just getting into a24; so I hope y'all ok with me suggesting things for a25 before I switch to testing it. Queuing actions: It sucks in a24, please revert it to how it was in a23. For example, when I order units to build a house and then cut wood, and then I change my mind and want them to build another house instead of cutting wood, I could previously order them again to build the first house and then the second; if I do that now they build the first house and then still go to the woods, not building the second house. Move orders: It majorly sucks in a24, please, please, please revert it to how it was in a23; don't know how many units I lost because it's such a disaster. And I'm doubting the common sense of the people responsible for that and if they ever played the game with those changes. Why is the Box formation the standard for move orders? Why on earth would I ever want that? If for example I wanna get out of range from some hostile towers, instead of just moving their butts my units now do stupid huddling and sorting and then maybe move out. And it always goes back to box formation! Even when I told them I don't want that friggin formation. And when I tell them I don't want that stupid formation after the move order, it cancels the move order! AAAARRRGGHHH...!!! Aggressive healers: Could healers with aggressive stance please not run away just because they caught an arrow? What's their aggressive stance for? Naturally I run 'em in packs, so their running away just makes everything worse. And how about their priorities? Could they prioritize hurt units (<x health)?

Over the last alphas, I think there was increasingly less offers by AI-enemies to become neutral or even allied; not that I'd much inclined to accept it. I'd still like some ~matrix to be available in-game to see what the relations are (it gets announced anyway, but I don't necessarily remember it).

Maybe it would help if the berries looked more like the harvest. Sketch:

I don't think you ever had a socialist government? Certainly Duque isn't a socialist. Anyway, to get back to the topic: I'm not offended by profanity, but if the servers are open to minors, maybe a general rule against profanity and other offensive words like slurs should be stated. And then probably enforced on a per complaint basis. I don't really believe an automated system will work; on the other hand, if only one person is responsible for that stuff, I don't know how well that would work...

With everything I've read about Columbia in the last decades, I somehow doubt that solely 'progressive and communist words' are to blame for hate and violence...

@Ulrich You can also queue actions. If I'm invaded I like my soldiers to drop off their resources and then attack. (The dropped off resources might help with new buildings or troops, while when soldiers are killed carrying stuff you not only lose it, but the enemy also gets more loot.)

Guess the Spartans shouldn't have called them "The Village People" before...

I think intel might be the least beneficial in village phase, while also it would be less realistic for a village to pull off an espionage mission as for a city. As proposed by others above, increasing the cost for each use might be the better solution.

Well, what do you I know, it was the antivir. @Angen I guess I don't have to understand the difference. Still wish that whitelisting those folders had the desired effect...

@Angen I whitelisted both the 0AD application folder and the destination folder, didn't do the trick. I was skeptical from the beginning, as there wasn't a problem with the previous versions of 0AD or the antivirus, and, as I mentioned before, the folders including the metadata.json are created. (Didn't find a way to shut down the antivirus, neither in the app itself nor with the Task-Manager, but I also prefer to have it active...) Anyone else here on Win 8.1?

Hi. I downloaded the 0ad-0.0.24b-alpha-win32.exe (Build 24936) and installed it, but the game does not generate replays. It does generate the folders with the metadata.json, comparison with older versions shows there probably should be a commands.txt, too? But there ain't none. I (unnecessarily) installed it for all users, don't know if that is of any relevance. As stated above I'm on Win 8.1. Ideas? thx

@av93Maybe it's less binding where they live? 'Current' wife? @thankforpiejk. Congrats to you two! (Should it be true.)

While I could easily agree to points 1, 2 and 4, No. 3 - together with other of your arguments - to me sound a bit like 'We have always done it like this! And our neighbors do it like this!', which, by itself, doesn't sound too convincing to me. If a sufficient number of people ('regular' players, competitive players and lastly - and I guess most importantly - a ~handful of devs) think there is a 'package' available (the mod your thread is obviously about but you haven't mentioned - and which I didn't try (yet)) that is a step in the right direction, I say 'why not?'.