Ceres

Thank you. I'll look into it (might take a while, though).

@Lion.Kanzen Great inspirations and proposals, I like very much. Thank you! Besides, one of your posts contains "encrypted gstatic" links. What's their purpose?

Phew, interesting topic with lots of ideas and discussions. After reading until here, I would like to ask whether some kind of "basic game" could be retained for beginners of 0 A.D., allowing them to first learn the game itself, and then give the option to later expand on the different possibilities that distinguished civs offer. I.e., do you plan to make these changes as an option or will they replace what we currently have? I hope for the former, but of course this is just a personal wish and might be too complicated to achieve. To my understanding, it all boils down to balancing. As long as it's fun to play with any civ, it's nice to have more pronounced "features", i.e. advantages/ disadvantages on some stats or because of specific units, but also some "specialties" that are not available yet, if realistic and historically correct enough. Would it make sense to have civs that have only 2 phases? Either they get the stuff from P3 already in P2, or they don't get (all) achievements from P3. Or could some civs take longer for certain things, only to be achieved in a P4? (which we currently don't have) Could certain achievements in a phase maybe only made after a civ has made contact (friendly or not) with another civ (i.e. to learn from it)? I assume that this happened in history, but right now I don't know of real examples/ sources of information. Furthermore, you might discuss whether there should be more differentiation of available formations among the civs, i e. some could have far less formations than now. I have some barbaric tribes in mind and am pretty sure that formations were not their outstanding capability. But maybe I'm wrong. Instead, they were good traders and, if thinking about Vikings, great sailors. I purposely have not mentioned an existing civ to give this rather as a vague example.

Imagine a scenario map where different "parties" need to take the carawanserei and defend it to win the game. Oh, and here are some photos with interesting trees: https://www.qwant.com/?client=ff_android&q=sacred+trees&t=images

How about a Caravanserai? Or would such a building be too large? Anyway, maybe the 3rd link for photos can serve as inspiration for you arts pros. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wikiCaravanserai https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sa'd_al-Saltaneh_Caravanserai https://www.qwant.com/?client=ff_android&t=images&q=Caravanserai PS: I understand that they are not really sacred places, but maybe you could regard them as important places to replenish resources and to rest and get back energy (health)?

Could this be an option to be toggled before the game starts? Thus, people who don't like this idea could play 0ad as before. What happens when chariots/ supply wagons get destroyed? Would units depending on them just die (starve), or rather abandon the troops and try collecting food (and maybe other resources) in the vicinity? (thus, the player would lose control over them?) I assume that it's quite realistic that troops without enough resources deserted in history, maybe except for some fierce/ elite units (that would stay until they starved).

Well, I find @davidsrsb's idea really nice. Any would not restrict it to elephants. Maybe some kind of supply wagons as a new unit would be interesting, but I don't know how accurate this would be for different civs. @wowgetoffyourcellphoney @Yekaterina @maroder @wraitii (sorry, there editor does not work nicely on mobile browsers when inserting @<username>)

Interesting. Would you purpose this not only for elephants? @Stan`h @Freagarach Would this be programmatically possible? Would the game remain playable? Maybe we need a separate thread, though, for the topic on "supplies".

Why do you not send your IP address to trusted friends/ forum users and connect directly? I never play online because of all these unpleasantries, so please don't ask me.

It could also be something small as bones and stuff hung in some trees (if discernable enough), could it? Or one larger tree that is special on its own; same for a larger rock/ monolith? Should these places have some capabilities like healing wounded units or increasing attack within a certain perimeter?

@andy5995y Maybe you would like to consider adding a brief description of what this mod does? (not technically but from the player's perspective) Thanks for keeping up the great work! PS and OT: Inserting text after @<username> seems to be problematic in the mobile (Android) browser on this forum. Text gets eaten by the editor, and then I cannot delete the remaining letter ("y" in this case). Is there a known solution for this? @Stan`

Would it make sense to make her even "dumber" in terms of not being omniscient, in sandbox mode, or as a separate toggle? Admittedly, I'm asking this question more out of curiosity rather than because Petra is too hard to fight (well, we set her to 'medium', so we still have lots of possibilities for challenges). It could be interesting to see her behaviour of she didn't know where her opponents are (just like for human players without an unrevealed map). But on the other hand, it might not be worth the effort to code such an optional setting. @FreagarachoWould it be complex? PS and OT: I cannot delete that misplaced "o" letter when using the mobile (Android) Firefox browser, sorry.

@Freagarach Does Petra account for e.g. a wonder of an enemy only when she really sees him, or can she "see" the opponents even if not yet encountered (i.e. "behind the scenes")? Does she know that an opponent is e.g. Iberian before its first real encounter?

See above.

@dave_k @Stan` Should this info about the hostname and IP mentioned in the Wiki or maybe even in the game itself (as a tooltip)?