alre

count me as well. I don't see benefit in the added micro for exploring and handling horse archers. those things are already noob-unfriendly. many have talked about why, he may just agree. besides, your own motivations are very weak.

I don't see the issue. the problem whith cavalry death balls is not vision. I guess we can equalize the vision ranges of cav and inf, but the way it is now is ok by me.

I considered something like that. I imagine it's hardly impactful or worth the micro, so it's fine by me. It's nothing like that. It's just a micro play option that provides a tiny buff to the corral strategy. good, because corrals have been significantly nerfed by the animals-by-age change, but personally, I would rather have the simpler setup.

I believe the values are a lot lower than they could be. but I don't like the idea at large, I don't see any fun in it, and I think it could actually harm gameplay if it was buffed. so I'd rather see it useless than used with profit.

it can and it did. in A24 it was quite important to maintain constant stream of reinforcements. granted, this was mostly true in bigger maps, but I appreciated that aspect of the game.

they can be edited selecting the "crossing arrows" symbol. if you need to try the same units many times, you can save the map you created, and then load it directly when opening the game with command line. there is a guide somewhere on the wiki.

probably already been written many times, but yeah: - right click on "no formation" in order to have no formation in use by default (current default is very bad for competitive play, and it's going to be worse in next alpha) - only use formations to regroup your men quickly, especially at the beginning of an engagement (usually after first contact happened without any use of formations) - end formations immediately after you created it. never leave units in formation while they are fighting. you can use attack-move for that, because attack-move immediately disbands any formation.

observers are currently able to talk to players if they want to, from game chat, not only from external tools. the game allows it because it's indeed a game and made for leisure, but it can easily be considered cheating if strategic information is passed.

there is already: ctrl+1 _ assign units to group 1 1 _ select group 1

I guess they are so stupid because you aren't supposed to look at them in that detail. do you think that Unit AI can be improved?

I'd like if the palisade was differentiated as being an anti-cav defense, specifically, as many proposed already, if it had special resistance to cav in order to slow it down properly. I'd like if palisades were more "spiky", it would make them look cooler and different than stone rocks, not just inferior. But I oppose adding aura damage if that means units stop to receive harm without going away. a cheap solution for that would be applying damage to units that attack spiky palisades - a kind of "thorns" attribute.

A brief guide to how to set the parameters in Pathfinder.xml the most important parameters you can find in Pathfinder.xml configuration file, are those called Clearance. Each passability class (humans are default class, elephants and such are in the "large" class) has its clearance value, which is the size of the square each units occupies in the map, and that affects the pathfinder. When you put units working at a mine, they will try to stay at clearance distance from each other, same when you order them to go to some point and you wait until they crowd it. Scaling up clearance value would have the most consequences, affecting how units space out when working, and how likely are they to get stuck. Clearance is defined pretty low in the xml file, before that it comes the Pushing section, which has many other parameters. Radius is the most important, and it's a value that multiplies the clearance size (actually, its diagonal) to make up the radius at which that units impresses maximum pushing to nearby units. You can extend area at which units push each other with StaticExtension and MovingExtension, which depend on wether the unit is moving or not. If you use values too large for pushing radius and/or StaticExtension, you will get units that try to get as packed as clearance allows, but then get pushed away and settle for a sparcer arrangement. this is ugly, and can also lead to units continuously pushing each other out of position while they are trying to work: 0 A.D. 2022-07-25 17-01-53.mp4 MovingExtension, on the other hand, can be larger, because it doesn't create those bad effects. StaticSpread and MovingSpread influence how progressive will be the pushing strenght in the range of StaticExtension and MovingExtension (inside clearance*radius, pushing strenght is maxed out). These parameters are not so relevant as the others, 0.6 is a good value (it prevents steps in the pushing strenght function). Values bigger than 0.6 extend the area a which pressure is maxed out. PressureStrength regulates the amount of slowdown to be impressed on units that are suffering heavy pushing (because they are too dense). Current value is very small and some little slowdown can be observed only by making two dense balls of units cross each other. In the following video, the value is raised to 20 (PressureDecay = 0): 0 A.D. 2022-07-25 17-48-19.mp4 You can see in the video that high pushing pressure (slowdown/friction) prevents dense blob by making denser units fall behind, and it's more realistic, but may feel too slow - consider this is is A26 which also feels slower becouse of acceleration. High values for PressureStrength can also give back strategical meaning to chockepoints. it's true, but it's inevitable. for wood chopping, units move in very messy obstruction maps. Also many obstacles are those built by the players.

It's very easy actually, it's just a couple of parameters. You just have to check how units behave while lumberjacking or mining, so it's not the case that they get suck. the main parameter is Pushing/Radius in simulation\data\Pathfinder.xml.

that's curious. either you go for early aggression, or you go for early eco + late aggression. what else would you want to do?

come on that's not an answer. why do you need that many units? do you play low pop games sometimes?

why do you say that?

well...

Nevertheless, I hope the game is never made too stressful for less aggressive player, many beginners are like this, before they start to realise the fun of aggressive play. Just a gentle reminder that turtling is a legitimate strategy.

look at bongui mod. they changed that panel quite a lot, for the better I think.

There has been discussion, but without reaching an agreement on how to procede. computation burden is an issue. @wraitii is the sole dev who's worked on it. blobs will be practically the same in A26, changes are minimal. I believe they move a bit better thanks to newly introduced pushing friction, but they seem to me more or less as dense as before. I couldn't manage to get better results by changing pathfinder.xml alone. I think the number 300 came out at some point when there was the feeling that more was better, that people wanted big battles, and that 300 was a number the engine could bear with, at least in a 1v1 setting. Personally, I enjoy much more 100/150 max pop settings. From my MP perspective, A25 is only better at lower max pop.

I just verified that if you select units from different civs controlled by the same player the icons duplication doesn't happen. However, it seems that some civ-specific buildings can leak to the available list with the civ-specific units. this is avoidable because it doesn't happen with mercenaries.

not really, if you can get a messy UI by having a messy selection, that's fine. users understand. as long as it doesn't crash, it's ok. this is a good point. I didn't expect that what units buildings can train depends on the civ, but what buildings units can build does not. that wasn't how it worked in my mind, I thought available buildings depended on the civ.

tu quoque @wowgetoffyourcellphone

that's just a fancy way of saying he doesn't want to handle it, and he's not. you are so overcomplicating this! - when you conquer a new building you didn't have access before, you can train new units you didn't have access to before. immediately self explanatory. - units trained from captured buildings are the same as if you controlled those buildings as their own civ. no need to change anything, not the appearance, not the stats. - you don't have to train units you don't want to anyway, if you conquered an enemy building you are probably winning regardless. - if new units changed the set of structures you can build, that would be actually confusing. luckily, noone asked for that. - there are no edge cases at all, all building produce exactly the same units regardless of the owner civ, period. can't be simpler than that. - the ui can possibly get messy, but that can already happen if you select a ridiculous amount of different buildings of the same civ. just don't select a ridiculous amount of different buildings and you'll be ok. the ui can handle up to 4 rows full of trainable units icons. we get that you dislike the proposal, but you are speaking out of turn. it's ok if you personally prefer the current status, but don't twist a new proposal to create strawman arguments and drown us in words, rather ask if you don't understand something. in a25, carth merc cav was arguably the unit that was most characteristic of that civ playstyle, and other players could and can train it if they manage to conquer the building that trains it. you guessed it: it really created some LOL moments to me. by the way, I don't think there are any gameplay downsides to this feature, and I don't see any problem for extending it to all kinds of units.

.