Grautvornix

In some rare case I also try to recover from my last remaining units to build up a CC and population again - so would not like to give up if I still have units available. But that is a personal feeling...

The discussion is starting to get REALLY interesting now!

From my point of view 100 seems a good start. This is about bulk transport, possibly adding another dimension to the game. What happens if a storehouse is full. The worker would walk to the next nearest dropsite? Question: IN an alarm situation, would we allow garrisoning of transporter units into houses/barracks/stables etc. or only into storehouses/fortresses/camps and CC?

Indeed this would have quite a few implications on settlement layout: Distanced dropsites would need longer to deliver their goods to the CC while currently distance is not relevant at all. Therefore, it might be advantageous to build another CC or camp or fortress or whatever is defined as a potential converter building (converting collected goods to goods inventorized to the player's account). Currently the converter building is the dropsite itself. If we now re-allocate that conversion function to the CC, camp, fortress or whatever, this could have implications. Question: would such constraint (distance to converter building) also affect Petra AI? We need to be careful suggesting these things as gameplay might become much more complex.

@Asher Most likely you are right - realisitically we should aim at the next step with highter priority, but it is often useful to have a strategic goal as well to work towards.

Thanks for the comprehensive answer! @Thalatta Indeed, there are many different playing styles - from competitive MP to relaxed SP (my favourire as an elderly guy). My intention was to start a discussion on naming the various playing levels and referring to them in a way that does not discourage people from trying out the game. Probably too much concerns as everyone should be able to find out that there is an easier setting if a game is too difficult as a beginner when set to "medium", same as there are means to make it more difficult (increased diffulty setting, more adversaries, higher speed, less resources etc.). Just, when initially "opening the box" default setting should be such that people can apprecviate the beauty of the game and its historicaly-appealing gameplay while challenges increase slowly.

@Emacz You are right - I only play SP (both vanilla and Wow's Delenda Est). I have to admit, I never tried your mod so far, but it is on my must-do-next list. Love to try it out and will be happy to let you know my feedback. As for all modders - thank you for taking this effort to introduce so many useful features/try out adaptations of the game mechanics. This is definitiely advancing the game!

Thanks - but it really is a conversion of gameplay and will require a lot of effort. (nevertheless, as you can tell from my enthusiasm - I firmly believe this could be a fascinating change (needless to say that I loved playing settlers in the past... )

What we are discussing is a considerable change in gameplay, but I believe it coud be a quite interesting feature to stimulate more complex strategies than "just" booming or turtling. Frankly, the name "storehouse" somehow implies that goods are stored there. When the storage capacity is exceeded, no further goods can be accepted. Processing of goods (to invest into new buildings, techs or train units) can acutally only be done from your civ's "accoun"t (the to status bar on the screeen). Goods can be added onyl if they are delivered to a CC or fortress. If we store stuff in storehouses, capturing should provide the stored goods to the new owner. If you destroy them, you get the standard loot only. Just, storing goods in a storehouse is great - but you need to retrieve them and add them to your civ's account. this is true both for your own storehouses and the ones captured, i.e. in any case you would need to send some transport to forward the goods to your nearest CC or fortress - and protect them from attacks. Traders could be used for that initially, but later on we can introduce specialized transport modes: civilians/slaves, donkeys/oxen, horse carts depending on the phase. Attacking the transporters would yield the transported goods to your account (very much like traders currently).

@Emacz YES! I do like it. It changes quite some characteristics of the game though. need to watch economy much more closely (and will create possibly more calls for automation )

That is a great idea! Reminds me a bit of the settlers game (settlers 1, 2 or 3) where you needed to organize transport of goods (and further processing) in addition to just mining/harvesting/collecting them. Puts also a bit more focus on the economy than warfare.

@Deicide4u your are right, an this was really not an important suggestion. The issue seems to be (according to some messages I've seen over the years in this forum) that newbies for this game overestimate their capability (like - exaggerated - "Easy is for kids, I have played many RTS already and will manage a serious challenge") an then don't like the game as the AI is perceived too hard. I agree that one should learn to play first. The game - while it should be challenging - should be fun as well for newcomers.

Should we provide multiple models of Kurgans and have a random selection which one to build and show? Or provide the user with options? Or build a fresh one (with bpepples and let it "decay" over time of game into a grass covered kurgan? I don't know....

"Medium" in 0AD (= "Normal") I believe is intended for players having reached some intermediate playing level. Newbies are really recommended to start with "Very Easy" or "Easy" otherwise it can become a bit frustrating quickly - and that's what the game says. Although the classification is correct, there is a bit of "affecting the player's pride"and not everyone can stand this (I know, grown-ups should be capable of taking a defeat in "Easy", but we should also aim at creating a "fun" experience). We might rename the levels to be more inviting, as e.g. "Very Easy" might be felt as embarrassing, especially for experienced players of other RTS. Can I therefore suggest to rename teh levels to something like this (just a proposal) : Very Easy --> Beginner, Easy --> Intermediate, Medium --> Advanced Hard --> Professional Very Hard --> Advanced Professional We might add a note somewhere (in the tutorial or in teh help text or tips&tricks?) that if you are mastering "Very hard" you should be ready to go for multi player with human opponnents and will find adequate challenges there. I'd be interested to read your opinions!

@AlexandermbGreat stuff!!!!! For the Roman Army camp, however I am not sure, but I would believe that they might not have taken the time and effort to implement paved stairs but rather wooden stairs. What do you think?

Great stuff! Very clear interface. - Could that be extended with a "compare" view? (we typically have discussions on actual stats for unit 1 of civ A vs that unit 2 of civ, or these questions "how do I counter xyz") Could this be integrated into the "Learn-to-Play" section? If any possible accessing the actual valid stats in the very game version it is called from? (so whatever balance changes are introduced in the future , this view would always be correct)

Me neither, for me it is the magical mix between building something beautiful and functional, and win the war. And I do enjoy SP session for hours sometimes.

Agree except for capturing gates.

If we cannot decide leave the dicsion to the user! I like it.

My non-scientific ahistorical assessment: People on the lower end of society were always somehow farmers and sometimes ordered to do lumbering. I am not sure if in these times specialized professions were so common (like lumberjack, other probably) Don't take my assessment serious, please.

Just saw this beautiful screenshots by @wowgetoffyourcellphone showing a roman city built around a central paved town square/piazza: The game is rightfully famous for many things - but also for allowing to build beautiful scenarios. Just, if you happen to not use the ATLAS map/scenario editor, how can you build your city around a paved area? Many maps already provide such an area from the beginning, but you need a lot of planning ahead in order to allow sufficient space for builduings that can only be build in a later phase (temple, wonder etc.). Would it be possible at all to allow building a kind of paved area during the game? The typical issue would remain that it needs to be an object that can be crossed also by the pathfinding algorithm. As such it needs to be a building that, while visible, is not blocking and acts rather as a decal with a specific aura (e.g. market features, agora/politics, negative aura for files/reduced soil fertility). Upgrades from sand to gravel to cobblestone would increase the strength or range of the aura. If such thing can be implemented, it could open other interesting possibilities as well: building roads (movement speed), bridges (can be crossed by land forces but not by ships, can be destroyed by ships), channels (can be crossed by ships but not by land forces). Also we could designate/build areas of fertility/watered areas if the respective technology was invented. For each there could be technology steps (wooden bridge, up to stone bridge, farm lane to planked path to paved road etc.) Just dreaming a bit ....

Frankly, introducing textiles as an additional resource is good idea but you would need infrastructure to create that: at least specific fields that grow textile plants or corrals producing sheep, spinning mills and weaving mills. Adding new resource types remains a challenge as if would affect many apsects of game play. A while ago I started suggesting to add water as a resource as this could create particluar situations and game challenges in those desert oasis maps. see also and also a bit further down this discussion we go ntinot he subject of water as a resource and how it could look like in gameplay:

Isn't the bell intended to be a general alarm no matter if units can go inside that building or not? It does not say "come home to me" but "go, look for shelter" I fdo agree that we should have a garrison of 1 to a lookout. It used to be the case in earlier versions of the game. The intent was to permanently occupy a gaia lookout and keep it (avoid decay). This has changed a while ago. Now you can claim a lokkout and it will not decay.

Well unless this is linked to the individual experience of each citizen soldier: advances in fighting capability/ranking up would then coupled to an individual gathering capability decrease. Newly trained uniots would have full capability (for a CS) decreasing with each fight. In the end you woudl have an army of fighter pros that are not good for any gathering anymore while the newbies can very well help in the economy but are less powerful in battle. Sound interesting to me.

If it was for SP only, I would recommend this as an optional setting to chose from. For MP games I am not so sure.