Grautvornix

You are certainly right generally - but it may depend also a bit on the actual situation - if that catapult is going to destroy your defense tower, wall or fortress in no time, it might be important to suppress that first.

I believe this occurs only as kind of "loot" when destroying your enemy's buildings (and killing some enemy soldiers as well) plus when you kill someone carrying goods (workers, women, traders, ships). This is oit particularly recycling as I believe it is not related to the original cost of a unit/building.

Absolutely - and I do appreciate that! This threat therefore may be not particularly useful anymore

Sorry to add my twocents, but this might indeed be one of the reasons for so many disagreements in balancing causing some changes back and forth and back again: MP vs SP. I have to admit that I like the proposal to add a fundamental switch if the game is played MP or SP.

Well, as far as I know elephants, rams, bolt shooters, cavalry, champions, fanatics. Depends on the civ. never paid so much attention to catas as they are slow and I believe relatively easy to destroy. (My main concern is actually elephants. Only javelineers or slingers?)

Thanks, looks cool! Would be nice if this could be available in mod.io from within the game (I know I am lazy )

But I believe this information is collected anyway when enabling feedback.

Win10 (soon Mint, I hope) and Win 11.

Yep, you are right! And probably difficult to implement if used in SP with AI. Lets put this into the bin.

"Many posts on the forums should be ignored because they’re made by people who have absolutely no idea what they’re talking about. " @chrstgtrAre you suggesting to ignore proposals unless they are coming from an expert? (Point taken - I know my suggestions a shooting mostly into the blue and are not realistic to implement nor historically solid, but I though this might trigger discussion and thought processes). Personally, I'd thought however Wow knows what he is talking about...

In some other games, spies could be developed into assassins able to damage or destroy a building or hurt/kill someone important. Would it make sense if you trained a group of, say, 5 to 10 spies that are available do a little "revolution"? Guided by you within the enemy territory they would have limited time to carry out their mission (e.g. 10s) before they are revealed. (a similar mechanism existed in Settlers V I believe. There, it was an element of strategy and suspense. Main purposes was to destroy bridges, but this is not possible yet in 0aD). Possibly too much of a change in gameplay and too much coding needed - also for the AI.

But - I believe the proposal was not to do that by default but as a research technology (addon at later stage with individual cost per tower (e.g. stone).

Sure, but this could be a way to increase the value of walls without changing their resistance to attacks. Not sure if walls are popular element in the current version as they are relatively easy to attack and destroy. Garrisoning troops does not add much defense as far as I have seen and these troops are still quite exposed and get killed quickly. Walls also do not reduce attack range of an enemy shooting over the wall thus hitting everything that is in range inside a wall ring. I'd like to use walls more to deny access to a valley or protect farms or markets or to simply protect a CC. Certainly an element of turtling... I believe, a good wall system with towers and fortresses was effective to some extend (e.g. troy) until siege engines were refined. Attacking would mandate having adequate siege equipment and not a few (strong) cavalry etc. taking down a wall element.

It also keeps you units healing and protected.

Just some thoughts: Bolt shooters might be a good counter, but they are too slow. So, should heavy spear cavalry be better or pikemen? Somehow I don't like that slingers seem to be a good counter. Is that realistic at all?

That is a great idea - we discussed it a few times but without result yet. Would be deligthed if such feature could be implemented! As an example were this was discussed:

This is also now fixed! Looks beautiful and informative. Is is now very well visible that 0AD is alive. Thank you very much!!!!!

Somewhat related - I'd be interested in discussing countering elephants ...

Also it could be a good start to provide the necessary background information and also pictures portraying these civs, their typical buildings, heroes, force structure and typical features and technologies. We would then need the artwork as well. As far as I have observed (e.g. for the Kushites or the Han), adding a new civ is quite an endeavor - rewarding but still a lot of work.

From the game strategy point of view capturing and manning a tower or barracks or temple currently establishes a nice foothold in enemy territory and provides backup before entering into serious battle. I would rather not change the current behavior too much.

Frankly, I'd rather not change movement speed of the current ships. Transport capacity is payload and not crew, so that adding soldiers should not increase rowing speed. From the game perspective I would also not like to reduce speed if loaded. What I would suggest, however, is to show if a ship has a payload or not (like a garrisoned building). Identifying which ships to select from the fleet in oder to land an army is sometimes quite time consuming and error-prone.

So, would it be useful to have a different AI for the different levels? (easy to medium = Petra, difficult = another one, very difficutl=yet anpother one etc.) Certainly they'd behave differently but this is like real players that have different strategies.

Maybe we should define a different policy as follows: If I conquer a building or a CC, those people can produce only the units they were used to produce - except for any champion units (the "ruling class" of that kingdom that has been pushed aside due to the conquest). After you conquered a kingdom, it is unlikely that that kingdom has the ability (and the will) to exactly match your capabilities. As an example, if Maurians conquer a gaulish CC they cannot expect to get worker elephants from the CC, but they might get gaulish melees etc. This would lead certainly to a mixed population - my player colours would be borne by my own troops plus the ones of a different Civ - the ones I have produced in the conquered areas. In the above example i would have gaulish troops as part of the Maurian army. Complex, confusing or interesting? i'd be curious to hear you opinion!

Frankly, it does make sense: glorious expansion extends the max population cap but you still need the corresponding number of houses. Actually, I believe this was the same since at least A26, if not longer.

Do we have to decide for every player? I am not so sure: If it is too much info for small screens, and on larger screen users feel there is too much unused space why don't we introduce a config switch to enable it? (there is also settings for slower graphics adapters/slower CPUs, together with the corresponding tooltip). Default would be off so thte game is by default well playable. Enabling means testing it on your screen. If you like it, then keep it, if not, don't.