real_tabasco_sauce

I suppose if you treat it as additional storage capacity (not for fighting, but capable of fighting, so no buffs), it could work out ok. But even still, it would complicate any attempts to scale down ship models to improve ship pathing.

I agree with you that turreting units on boats is cool, but I think once the novelty wears off, this won't bring much enhancement to multiplayer. First of all, in the PR, the range of garrisoned units is doubled, which would result in 140m range archers when combined with archery tradition. So by needing to make turreted units stronger to make a difference on water, you risk adding balance exploits when the ships are brought near land. also, a major complaint of prior navy gameplay was the need to garrison soldiers for ship effectiveness. Needing to garrison much of your total population space on ships to properly fight on water meant a constant labor of garrisoning and ungarrisoning ships to switch between fighting on land vs. sea. Also the current naval design splits ships into classes with distinct roles. By making a ram ship capable of ranged attacks, the arrow ship would be somewhat redundant. My opinion is that the proposal is better off as a standalone mod.

The units are already more expensive than their infantry counterparts, just much better. Both champion and CS cav take a while to mass up, but their pop efficiency is very strong. Making them cost more will just delay things somewhat. I would prefer to nerf the unit itself (i.e. speed).

yeah I can do it np

I think it is pretty nice! and you can presumably share custom hotkey setups as a .txt file. I think it is useful, and simple enough that it fits with the existing intrastructure.

I really do not suggest applying this idea. Modifying unit speed according to their health just implements a huge amount of gameplay inconsistency. It is important that units respond to commands and behave as expected. I suppose there could be niche scenarios in mods where the ability to do this could be useful, or possibly for new unique units, but you have to ask yourself what benefit to gameplay this will realistically bring. To me, the idea is just not well motivated, it seems like throwing in some inconsistency for no reason at all. On the realism argument, I have said this before, but making specific aspects so realistic while leaving other aspects of the game very unrealistic sends mixed signals about what kind of game this is. I think we would be better off just changing those units' base stats to begin with.

I was in a game where it was used quite recently. I think its just that people prefer the comfort of knowing their position to come up with strategies before the game starts. I like it both ways.

it wasn't play tested enough and there was lots of mixed opinions on it.

they seem good to me!

Renaming the civ is fine, just be sure to really hunt down every last “pers”. I see some discussion again of coalitions, or the idea of selecting specifications with each phase, but I maintain the position that these are awkward for gameplay. Myself and others have a lot of comments on this in the “coalitions” discussion @Genava55 linked.

As an alternative, perhaps we could add a capture defense boost (technically a capture attack addition or a multiplier) for specific buildings, like the CC and fort. Also, we could change the default hero contribution to capture point regeneration (currently +1, which is negligible).

I was referring to the fortress. I agree that more points would be good. On the last point, I don't recommend adding an additional point of complication to a mechanic that is already complicated, as you mention in your OP. I agree with the other stuff, especially the need to nerf the high volume capturing scenario and not the small volume. To clear up some confusion about the nerfs that I introduced ahead of R28: by increasing the default regen rate, we essentially increase the number of units needed to achieve the "high volume" capturing scenario. At the same time, you are punished less for having an empty CC, giving you time to garrison it. I don't say that its perfect, but its better now, and in my games I see people go for siege more often.

This was already the case, adding regen rate just shifts the curve rightward. Also, I don't get how adding 1000 points would help that much in the cases you bring up. 5 seconds to maybe 5.5 or 6 seconds?

totally, there needs to be some pushing. Or just remove the option that stops formations from being disbanded as it is pretty much only useful for the exploit.

i thought there was an issue already but I am not finding it.

That is probably beyond my time/abilities but I know it has been discussed. I think it would be a great opportunity to enrich gameplay (multi-projectile siege, unique units, ships perhaps).

currently food resources all have the same carry capacity.

@wraitii had some ideas on this as well. I do think just not stopping the units as in the second video is a decent short term solution. Typically, you are not often telling your whole army to do a 180° turn compared to turns of 90° or less. And even in the case of the 180 degree turn, the effect is not really worse than before. It could go in com mod when i have time to put one together.

We currently calculate paths immediately for only 40 units, while the remainder figure out their path in time for the next turn. What this means unfortunately is that the remaining units have to stop for a whole turn and then accelerate from 0 m/s. Screen Recording 2026-03-28 195209.mp4 Instead, we can let units continue on their previous path so that they don't stop and have to re-accelerate. The downside here is that units will continue in the wrong direction a little if you tell them to make a 180 degree turn. Screen Recording 2026-03-28 194829.mp4 There are probably better long-term solutions, like giving large selections a really quick and dirty "guess" path before calculating the new paths. seem like an upgrade?

storehouse and farmstead technologies apply only to civilians. thoughts?

yeah there were some issues with that for sure. Basically the distance values between compilers seem very slightly different in some cases and that difference compounds quickly to cause problems. It might yet be doable.

Currently the keywords are somewhat inaccurate. I suppose if you play enough 0ad it could become a lifestyle.

Needing to add units to ships for firepower meant that investing in water would require many of your land soldiers. This means players would get flotillas full of soldiers and they would hardly ever return to fighting on land. Moving soldiers between ships and land to optimally fight on both land and water was unnecessary tedium, and usually players just didn't do this. Furthermore, with the guessing game about how many soldiers are in your ship versus the enemy ship, it was difficult to strategize (not to mention the random arrows). Lastly, requiring soldiers for ship effectiveness meant you always had to deal with the clumsiness of garrisoning different ships with the right amount of soldiers in order to fight.

That would not make the mechanic obsolete, it would just be an easier way to snipe. Attacking ranged units beyond melee and then running away when ur melee is all gone will remain. Significant balance changes would be needed to actually make it obsolete.

The design of the game is such that you select buildings and produce from them. This is part of managing the economy which is also in the design document. Economy automation mods are fine to use in single player or against players that have this mod, but I don’t think they belong in vanilla 0ad.