Grautvornix

Sorry, could not stop phantatasizing: There could be three additional elements: - roads ("buildable buildings/flat walls placed on land, and that can be walked on by everyone, providing a speed bonus") - bridges ("roads on a wall through water") - ramps ("bridge on land") Now imaginge: - the effect of building a bridge through a river that actually blocks ships like a wall blocks an army on land. Of course the bridge could be attacked by a ship (like a wall by an army). - Civs having poor naval skill could instead have good building techs so they can reach that close island with a bridge (I suggest a maximum length needs to be defined) - effect of a ramp to access that mountain plateau that has precious resources or that is only accessible from a well protected side. Of course ramps can be destroyed by anyone. (Owner will be Gaia even if you built it yourself!) - the effect of a road into enemy territory that not only accelerates own troops but also the enemy during his counter attack. Roads would need to be protected. /end phantasizing All this would need considerable amount of changes and certainly is to be defined and assessed carefully in all consequences. A mod would be a good candidate to test such things. I would volunteer implementing it if I could do it at all.

... or actually build roads and bridges? Kind of a special building? A bridge could cross water or represent a ramp to a cliff. This would mean allowing to build elements that would be finally owned by Gaia (very much like some watch towers) - but that can be walked on, then giving a speed bonus and that can be added to and destroyed as well? Destroyed by artillery or ships, I mean. Wild, wild dreams... (unfortunately I am not able to contribute coding at all. I know it is always easy to express some wild ideas and expext others to do the hard work)

Indeed, this game is far from being unfinished although there are many ideas and discussions of extending and further improving it. Frankly, the game works well and is fun to play (both SP or MP). So , I do support the proposal to rephrase that disclaimer from essentially saying: "this game is unfinished and will not completely work, has potentially bugs", etc. to something more positive like: "this game is a full featured early release that is constantly improved and extended by an active community. Many extensions are already available for download as mods, and there is even guidance material available how to adapt the game by yourself and therefore contribute to this community project." Plus I would really suggest renaming the next version from "0AD Alpha 0.0.27" to "0AD 1.0" (and no alpha). I do acknowledge this might be seen as a bit bold marketing but THIS GAME IS ALREADY AWESOME RIGHT NOW and will get even better! Sorry, I had a need to express my view .

If I remember correctly it is 500 BC and 300 AD.

Too bad! Nice try...

One thought: what if you connect the two sentences like: "<hero's name> has fallen in battle and crossed River Styx to meet Hades" In this way we might be able to avoid the linguistic male/female "complexity"...

@Gurken Khanwell described! @bigsmit19I typically do similar things (fields surrounded by houses so that women gatheres can seek shelter quickly). Houses generally make a good barrier against attackers also next to the CC. Attackers would go at the houses first while the CC is firing arrows at them - buys you some time to train some new troops. If I build a tower, I fully staff it and then surround it completely by houses so that attacking enemies can be decimated by the tower while they make their go at the houses. In addition to that - if you focus more on building your economy and using many women with only a limited army - I would probably garrison all my soldiers in the CC when attacked. Particularly in the initial phases, it is almost not possible to conquer or destroy a garrisoned CC and your enemy would waste his forces. Bottom line: if you feel weak, don't attack and only fight back carefully from the relative safety of your CC. Unless you have significant forces, don't move next to your enemy's towers or CC as they would deal significant damage. If you take over a tower, man it immediately. It will provide nice backup for your operation and decimate the enemy even after you left their territory. Attack a CC only when you have large upgraded forces and siege units. Hope this helps a bit, and hope you continue to have fun with the game!

Hi everyone, I have (another) strange idea for discussion: Currently, there are three cases of trading: Manually at the market place with "the world". Automatically using traders or merchant ships with yourself. Automatically using traders or merchant ships with your allies. In any case, the goods you are "buying" have a price but these resources seem to be available in unlimited quantities. As an example, when I run out of metal and have no more mines, I barter for metal which seem available basically without limits (whatever the price) until the end of game. Rhetorical question: Where do these goods come from? Idea 1: What if I could trade with my ally only until my ally's stock runs out ? Idea 2: What if we introduced a "world resource cap" similar to the world population cap? (that can be configured) This would mean that at some point there is no more wood or no more metal on the map and the only renewable resource is food --> you can train more workers/women but possibly no more soldiers. In such case, it can be part of the strategy to plan your resources wisely before they run out deny resources to your enemies. Resources would be limited to what is available on the map plus possibly a bit more on top whatever the cap, i.e. if metal reserve is depleted that's it. In this case one needs to be inventive and do e.g. a women rush (like the famous chicken rush/sheep rush that was discussed previously, but more as a joke). I successfully did women rushes on rams already, so it is not totally out of this world Introducing constraints to the game can be quite fun sometimes - like currently in several maps that just don't provide a CC and the only way forward is building a harbour, collect stuff until there is enough stock to actually build a CC. So, I'd be interested to hear your opinions...

Indeed, of course you are right! Just trying to help collecting the ideas for this index. I do agree there is a need to improve on pathfinding.

There were at least two discussions: 1) This one in favour of sing the roads in maps as a feature - 2) and also this one regarding building actually roads (the roads discussion starts a bit down the contribution list with this post):

That's great news! Looking forward to it!

And another one:

OK here is one more:

@Lion.Kanzen Would it be useful and possible to create kind of an index or a table listing different ideas, pointing towards the respective thread where they were presented and discussed? Something like "Name of Proposal", "Short Description" , "Thread where it is discussed". This could probably be an introduction page to this thread that is regularly updated as new ideas come in.

Just saw an old ticket (#1437 Decide on land unit fishing, 12 years old, last comment 6 years ago). Was it ever decided not to implement? If so then we can close the ticket possibly. Else here could be another little idea from the past. This means any land unit (pedestrian gatherer) can go fishing at the coastline if there is fish in reach (depends on the map, some even had fish on land by mistake). This might require a new animation for the gatherer, hence it might be a lot of effort for a small benefit. Other than fishing boats, single persons probably cannot deplete fish completely as its regeneration rate might be high enough. Does anyone know? In sparse naval maps with very limited resources this could allow for a specific strategy using javelineers or archers to fish while establishing defense against incoming ships.

Indeed, sorry for bringing old ideas up again, did not know - but I believe they are still useful. This thread is intended to collect them so we create a reservoir of ideas(just in case someone is looking for new things to implement ).

Sorry this, is a better thread (instead of "==[Brainstorming]== for cheats units"): I just remembered Settlers V where there was the ability to put pit traps and booby traps (not very historical though), able to create limited damage (killing one enemy soldier). If I recollect some reports on the strategy used by Julius Caesar in his siege of Alesia, Romans were using traps as well to protect their backs from approaching enemies. We could thus place a line of limited defense like a "mine field". This would require a new game mechanism but might be a cool feature to add at a later stage. What do you think?

Right Probably the wrong threat (apologies!) but I just remembered Settlers V where there was the ability to put pit traps and booby traps (not very historical though), able to create limited damage (killing one enemy soldier). If I recollect some reports on the strategy used by Julius Caesar in his siege of Alesia, Romans were using traps as well to protect their backs from approaching enemies. This would require a new game mechanism but might be a cool feature to add at a later stage. What do you think?

Cool, but burning pigs able to destroy buildings would probably be more realistic (although this is really cruel practice).

Frankly, I'd think this would be a bit too far fetched. Anyone of the population can find and collect a treasure, but not a farm animal (finding ok, but not collecting, I believe).

So thanks a lot for taking the effort to create this new map!

Beautiful map - and seems a little bit constrained on wood, if I see correctly - which is very good! (If all resources were plentiful, there would be less strategic challenge.)

Sounds like a great plan!

... if available.

That is a great idea! During recent discussions it became obvious that some ideas have already been discussed several times in the past. Those discussion were valuable and shall not be lost!