Grautvornix

Wait a moment: "shipwreck" is the specific treasure delivering wood that is placed on the map onshore or offshore, right? This can be gathered by anyone on land who can reach it, not only traders. "Merchantmen" most likely refers to the trading vessels I guess. I do agree that this is an unnecessary limitation that is hard to understand why. Instead fishing boats and scout ships should be enabled to collect these treasures as well (in addition to the original capability of everyone on land).

According to my experience, shipwrecks ashore can already be gathered plundered by pedestrians/cavalry. Difference is only if the wreck is placed off the coastline and it cannot be reached by land forces. I do like the proposal to extend the wreck collection capability to other ships, but not to all ships: I would propose limiting it to merchant vessels and fishing boats, possibly scout ships just to make thinks a bit more interesting: Fishing boats are available in the first phase so this is an option. Scout ships might not always be built as they have comparatively low value in battle hence treasure hunt capability could increase their use.

I like it a lot!

Just to complete this argumentation here is the link to a short thread about this subject discussing various pros and cons:

I am loving it! Could there be a way to carry over resources from one game to the next in row?

Awesome! Do I interpret correctly that some of the buildings are in a flooded area that is now covered by ice? (or are they being built on ice?)

Frankly, I prefer "has fallen in battle" over "has been vanquished". Ther former is a bit less formal and better understandable to the casual Englisch speaker.

Oops - actually, I wonder if as a player I would be aware that my ally actually trained a hero. I am not so sure to have seen any respective message (or maybe I did not pay enough attention ). Does anyone know more? Given the fact that heroes don't stand out as e.g. in the Ilias I am not sure if we need to inform everyone that one has fallen. Personally, I believe that neutral and adverse players don't need that notification anyway. Allies and observers would be sufficient. Regarding the message, I would not use the words "in battle" as there could also be a Gaia- attack (lions, etc.)

In my opinion, the second one is clearly much better

Thanks! So this idea is not a totally absurd We might need to make sure it is put on the agenda every now and then .

Is it possible in 0AD to ask for peace (i.e. surrender) during or after an attack, with the other party then asking for tribute in return? While I don't think this is currently possible, would it be useful to create interesting constellations? Asan example, the tribute could also possibly also consist in troops? (would work like mercenaries that don't cost population for the receiveing party) This could potentially lead to interesting options where you could regain power after some time and revert the surrender -> extended gameplay, particularly in multiplayer AI matches.

For desert maps (my favourite subject, it seems), good farming area is where there is green patches in the sand. Bad area is where there is no natural green. This could lead to a situation where you initially hunt animals and cut tress and put farmland where the trees used to be.

Agree, this is a particularly interesting feature in deserts where there is an oasis.

GREAT IDEA! You can certainly only get foreign ideas from civs that are known (i.e. that you have discovered/visited or that discovered/visited you). -> Then bringing in fresh ideas/techs could belimited to traders only, i.e. we need to establish a trade route with that neighbor. If you have to go through enemy territory the trader would need to be escorted. If this was the only way there are consequences: -> Trading with others must be possible. This would only work with neutral or allied parties. If everyone was neutral by default - meaning traders, workers or scouts would be initially left in peace, soldiers/armies would be considered an attack / act of declaring war automatically. ->War had to be intentionally declared (make someone your enemy from default neutral). ->Then we probably also need to allow declaring peace again (e.g. ability to surrenders while before being completely destroyed - the other party would request paying tributes). That could be an interesting aspect in gameplay. All this would certainly also neet to trigger a reaction by the AI. Then, new ideas/techs could also be brought in during or after times of conflict (no matter if you win or surrender!). Sorry, I got carried away changing the entire game mechanics... But that could be a unique feature of 0AD.

Particularly on desert maps that have almost no fertile soil? I like it.

Awesome! Unfortunately I am not a programmer either...

Frankly, I had imagined a cistern mostly underground with a small opening on top (covered of course, ver much like in your photographs), but not a tall structure to be mounted only by a ladder. This tall "barrel-like" structure is used to generate hydraulic pressure but how to you get the water "piling up" without natural/eternal hydraulic pressure (aquifer with artesian well or the like)?

Beautiful! Just went through your thread - it is all there (almost) already!

But...that's phantastic!

Great idea! That would be an important tech for desert civs (various techniques for irrigation available) as well as for romans (aquaeducts). Yet, it does not solve the issue of where to best place fields unless the cistern would have an aura.

The point is just that currrently we have "fertile land" (looking like empty fields providing a certain bonus - definitely in DE but also in vanilla) and "general land" (whatever the structure/cover - even paved land, rocky areas and desert areas can host crops. The latter is really a pity: we have such beautiful maps with fertile land (e.g. green areas forming an oasis) and not so much fertile land surrounding it (mostly sandy desert). Currently, it just does not really seem to matter where I put my fields. Also the strategic placement of fields around CC (on paved areas) - while strategically a valid option - looks not very realistic to me, as discussed previously. Potential options are: - distance to CC bonus for fields (increasing with growing distance) or a negative aura of a CC on crops yield. - use water as an additional resource as proposed earlier. This appears too complicated to achieve and would change the game mechanic considerably (building a whole bonus system around rivers, ponds, irrigation pipes/wells/aquaeducts, etc.). - fertility derived from soil type / soil cover could thus create some interesting strategic aspect for gameplay without costing too much effort (I hope) To be further discussed, I believe...

In other words, we don't want that much attention, but just some? Should 0AD stay a hidden jewel? (which it is indeed) The point may be that the smaller the player base, the less contributions we can expect from the community. The entire burden is then placed on the shoulders of a few enthusiasts. (Let me repeat that I am extremely grateful for all that work that went into this beatiful and fascinating game and that I admire your dedication!)

Sure, but first, this is in DE and we should also have it in Vanilla ( I believe), and second, this does not solve the issue of green land vs desert areas. In all the desert maps, the oasis does not make any difference except for some wood and animals to hunt. Placing farmable land is therefore something that needs to be planned for when creating a map, and cannot be automatically derived from a map attribute (type of soil/surface cover).

@wowgetoffyourcellphone: not so sure the player base would revolt if that feature was not totally banned. Should we instead consider incentivising the distance to the next own CC? (or ideally create different levels of farming effectivity depending on the soil type, my little dream, just cannot do that)

@rossenburg I could not agree more! If it is not naming itself how can we increase exposure? Get some big games magazines to report on 0AD?