Locynaeh

Agreed for the git pros: clearer use of branch (the huge one for me) and release tags remote being THE main standard The submodules possibility I think the shutdown argument is a strawman. The problems are rather in my view: the use conditions of the platform the users'personnal data management by the company how much you're stuck with the proprietary solution So my view is that self-hosting is a good solution over these points but using, for example, an instance of the community (FLOSS) version of GitLab from a provider is OK : Migration is possible in another instance of GitLab Community, self-hosted or not You're not stuck with the proprietary management of issues and all on GitHub for example. I said it for GitLab but the same goes for any git management FLOSS solution (Gitea, Tuleap, etc.).

Hi Ceres, apt pinning is possible but risky if you don't know first precisely what you're doing. If you're not in a hurry, you can wait for a bookworm's backport of 0ad, it will come sooner or later. If you're in a hurry, you may use the flatpack or snap packages of 0ad, which are up to date, until bookworm's backport of 0ad is ready. It would be separated from the Debian packages if you want to compile yourself a version from the repository for testing purposes.

Yes, in this idea, that's why I think that it is almost impossible to get a perfect balancing without playing too similar civilisations (one or two visible differences would not be enought), that's why it could be a good idea to create a kind of optionnal system as proposed by vv221 :

I can only agree with it: for a casual players, tech differences aren't really relevant, unique buildings, items, units, building improvments, etc. things which are really visible are.

vv221 proposes good alternatives to solve the problem which could please everyone. I like both solutions. Maybe the "set" solution is the simplest at the moment ? The "tech tree" solution would the most interesting in the long run I think.

I was thinking the same for a while ! The game seems to be more and more tailored only for hardcore competitors who expect perfect balancing between all civs : something which is impossible without making them completely similar. This withdraws most of the game diversity except graphically and, to some extent, the interest to play different civs to get a different playing experience. The game becomes quickly annoying for casual playsers and generally not hardcore competitors players. I believe the game is not played only by hardcore competitors. Maybe the generalizing civs movement was intentend to get a sens of balancing before re-adding diversity to the game to take it out of its competitor niche market ?