gui456wSERTDYF

This also depends on the map. For example, take all the pros who play always mainland 4v4 to any other map with less resources or water, and you will find that suddenly they are not pros anymore. But in mainland they are unbeatable.

Just in case, this happened to me in "open diplomacy" games, check that you have the other players set as "enemy". I would put them in neutral and then forget to change to enemy.

In 1v1 rated games it is a typical behavior that when the host is about to loose, he/she closes the game so his/her rank is not downgraded. A simple solution I see to this problem is to just consider the non-host player as the winner when the connection to the server is lost. I am aware that the connection could break because of technical issues, but I would say that if you are hosting a game it is your responsibility to have a decent connection. Also, I believe that >95 % of the times that there is a server disconnection in 1v1 rated games is because the host is loosing the match, and not because of technical reasons. I know there is this "ratings and offense disputes thread" in the forum, but this does not prevent this from happening, as we see in practice.

What I would like is that autoqueue is not stopped if I run out of resources, it would be nice if it were just paused until resources are available. Same as with population limit, it just pauses production until population cap is available.

Always thought this would be nice. Other things I thought about rams: A ram that has 0 garrisoned units cannot move. The ram does not contribute to population. A ram with 0 garrisoned units belongs to Gaia (inactive, does not attack). Whoever garrisons a unit gets the ram.

Yo tuve el mismo problema por años. Sólo se me solucionó cambiando de proveedor de internet (no por este motivo).

@real_tabasco_sauce I was using Persians and these were stone walls, and I had developed the "Persian architecture" tech. The enemy simply "cut" the wall with roman swordsmen; more than one segment of wall btw. They were a lot of swordsmen, but still... @Dizaka what you mention about the usage of walls as obstacles is true and I do it as well, but with palisades. Stone walls, on the contrary, are much more expensive and take longer to build, and usually you expect them to protect your city hermetically from whatever that comes without siege. Normally it works that way, ranged units cannot break down a wall, and this is the expected behavior. I was expecting the same for any kind of soldier units, but enough swordsmen can bring down walls. In my experience, in multiplayer games (which I play a lot), the only ones that build stone walls are new players expecting they will protect them. I never see experienced players building stone walls.

I come to suggest that walls should only be attackable by siege, and maybe elephants, but not by soldiers. There are two reasons motivating this proposal: Walls are rarely used in the game, the reason is that the cost/benefit is very low. I just played a game in which I decided to surround my city with walls, to avoid it being simply taken by horses, to discover that my enemy brought (roman) swordsmen, destroyed the wall in less than a minute with the swordsmen and took my city. Not only this is completely unrealistic, but also makes the wall even more useless than I thought... When attacking the iberians, sometimes my own soldiers end up attacking the walls instead of soldiers, which is completely useless. I think that removing the possibility of walls being attacked by anything but siege may improve things.

I find the current implementation of fish good. It is true that at some point they disappear, but as long as they last it is way faster than farms. A relatively fast regeneration rate would be interesting though, you could live on fish.

I may be interested.

This is a good solution indeed. In some cases, however, it is nice to still have some kind of demolition option to get rid of older buildings for example.

I am not speaking about this being unrealistic, it is a gameplay thing I don't feel is nice. You are about to take a city and suddenly it disappears in front of you. These kind of mechanisms are the ones I would be in favor of. Either a timer, the need of own units dismantling the building (kind of the opposite process of building the building, and recovering some resources), own units setting it on fire (if you don't want resources back; it would take some time as well, but shorter), or something on this line. But not just shift+supr and suddenly the whole city disappearing. I think this would make the game a bit more interesting.

Is there a mod that auto demolishes buildings?

Would be nice to have some mechanism to avoid the enemy demolishing his city 5 seconds before you are to take it. For example disable demolishing option when enemy is close, or when building is under attack, or when no units are garrisoned, etc.