LienRag

And apparently it's a setting that can be set differently : https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=212746

Actually you're right, it's a general problem and not a 0ad thing, I never thought before of testing the behavior outside of 0ad, thanks.

We really need also a stance for Citizens (soldiers or not) "Do what you are fracking told to do please thank you". I'm sick of ordering a bunch of CS to build a palisade or to repair a tower and having to keep selecting them and clicking back to the the building because they keep trying instead to capture a lone tower that is mildly firing at them, and this whatever the stance I put them in. If we have a morale system I could understand that troops would not accept to work under enemy fire, but we don't, so there should be a way to have them do what they're told.

I just tried in a25 and it's not possible (when I hold the key the trackpad freezes).

May I ask what is unique (in the sense of useful) about them ? They're expensive, nearly useless for collecting resources/construction, and die quite quickly in combat...

Kiting would be very nice and help balance the melee/ranged units problem...

Interesting idea, but needs more development.

Well, it was very unrealistic the way it was implemented. If, in a more historical manner, a unit would not be able to try capturing (either machines or buildings) while there is an enemy unit nearby, the fight would be tactically interesting.

Imho retreat and running away cannot really be implemented before there is a good morale system, else people will just "dance" forever. Some units were historically trained to "dance", like Mongol horse archers, but that's very rare and should be specific formations allowed only to those units. Other units trying to "dance" would lose morale with a risk of routing, as was the case historically.

Is there somewhere a description of units that elaborates on what is their specific usefulness ? There are a lot of units and each has a lot of statistics, though the few times I tried to compare them I mostly found that they were quite equivalent...

The few times when I tried they played like regular maps, except unbalanced.

Is this capital o or zero ?

Would be nice to have the delay for calling mercenaries independent from their numbers, then. But could someone explain to me why mercenaries are considered OP ? They cost a lot of a rare resource and they always die fairly quickly when I recruit them...

Actually there are a lots of maps with different-colored grounds, especially ones which look like they've been "pre-tilled". I always wondered if those have a different fertility than others ? Especially the ones that look like chernozem ?

If that's true, that's completely anhistorical and should be reversed. Ranged units have a single advantage historically over melee units, that is being ranged (ability to shoot from a distance, especially from behind protections). Having {melee+ranged} superior to {melee only} is historical and tactically good for the game, but melee are the salt of the earth blood when it comes to destroying the enemy, and the game should reflect that.

It is a good solution, but also it should be possible indeed to reclaim the walls once they go Gaïa.

That is how they worked historically, and why palissades are interesting tactically, so it should stay how it is. That is a problem that needs to be fixed.

Will running be consistent ? Probably through formations : skirmishing formations would be a good fit for runners.

Being old (that is, not a teenager anymore), I struggle with speeds faster than 0,1 x But yes it's a bit boring, and tends to favor micromanagement over strategy. More subtle orders would be nice indeed ("respond to enemies you can fight but do not pursue without any chance of winning"). Probably through formations, and abilities to give orders to the formation specifically (like 'attack this bunch of enemies, not this one in particular). Someone gave me the shortcut to separate wounded units from a lot but I was never able to make it work. Would also be nice to have an order "block the passage of enemy units" (like when trying to capture a building).

True but the UI should then show very clearly which ship can go where and which cannot. It's very frustrating to build a trireme in a port on a river and discovering that it can't go to the open sea because there's a shallow pass in-between.

Not all civs would know how to make an armored ram, so not all civs should have siege workshops, and "log rams" could me made in the barrack or whatever, but have no protection against arrows/missiles.

Don't know, actually. (the crossbow thing wasn't an answer to this question) Specific buildings ? Technologies ? Different rates for collecting resources ? Elating units ?

Crossbowmens' main advantage historically was their range (and the reduced training they needed). It's reasonable that slingers would provide more damage, but it's entirely unreasonable that they would have the same range than crossbowmen.

What I would like to see is a realistic treatment of women. There are women in the game, but civilizations of the first millennium varied enormously on what women could and could not do, it would be nice to that reflected in the game mechanisms.

Yeah, definitely something that would improve the use of defenses without being unbalancing. Great idea !