Vantha

I agree, this would help new players. It would also help to have heroes be set to passive by default to avoid them attacking alone.

The Iberians start with a ring of walls around their cc and it is possible for trees to generate inside of those walls.

AI content detector... I'm 100% sure that was chatgpt

Hey, thanks for explaining, those are good arguments. I'm still not fully convinced because let's take berry bushes regenerating (this feature doesn't meet any of the three point you mentioned): - it make such a small difference unless you know it exists you will never notice it - it is outside the usual level of detail in the game - and it has no benefit at all. ...and despite that this feature is still in the game... Anyway, I'm not here to continue this discussion. I understand that appearantly this idea is not welcomed by many players. I have a few questions though regarding fire/trample damage: Will the trample damage by elephants be crush damage? If so will there be an upgrade to increase units crush armour? Did I get right that all buildings under 25% HP will start burning?

I actually agree with you in this point. Having garrisoned units getting damaged would kind of contradict the purpose of buildings protecting garrisoned units. But how about units getting damaged when the building is destroyed? What is so funny about that? What problems? How is adding an upgrade for units crush armour peculiar? As I said I admit that garrisoned units getting damaged would be dumb. But what if units get damaged whenever the building collapses?

Upgrade to increase crush armour of units, upgrade to decrease damage taken by garrisoned units, upgrade to make units heal faster inside buildings,... This is wrong. It's actually the opposite. My rating is ~ 1200 and in most games I play just about 2-3 buildings get garrisoned, so it would basically no difference. When I play Team games I play against better players and most of the time I am the one who is garrisoning units. This would actually be a disadvantage for me. I am not dumb. I understood this was sarcasm. And maybe YOU should read what I am saying because I did repeat it. I already said TWICE that turtling is not a big problem right now. And I NEVER said many players are turtling so there is no need to be sarcastic. Again, this will not "destroy" turtling. This would just make a very very very small difference. You don't need to read my mind you need to read my reply. This is not an argument against it. In that case it would just make no difference. When did I say it was hard to take down ten fortresses and five walls? Read what I'm saying! Please tell me where I claimed that. As I said my rating is ~ 1200 and in many games I play there are no attacks before any one reaches phase 3. And especially in 2v2 with weaker players it sometimes happens that no players attacks until 40 minutes or so. It would be good to encourage weaker players to attack earlier as this would make the game more interesting and more divers. And just because it does not happen to the pros doesn't mean that the problem doesn't exist. Pro players know how to rush and attack earlier. But most weaker players don't because it's harder. I am NOT saying this is a big problem. It's not that hard to understand: THERE IS NO NEED FOR THIS CHANGE. It's not like the game is unplayable without it. I am not suggesting it because it solves any problem. I am not suggesting it to prevent turtling. I am not suggesting it because the way it is now is very unrealistic. But that's not how video games work. Not every change is urgent necessary to solve a problem. Many Things just get added to have new, more, and more divers gameplay mechanics. And not to solve an issue. And that's my point. I am suggesting something new, that would bring maybe new strategies, ... .Additionally, Units getting damaged by collapsing buildings WOULD make sense and be realistic. (You literally can't say anything against that). And as I said would in many ways make small steps into the right direction. And I just want to hear other people's opinions on it. As I said, this idea is certainly not perfect. And it may be bad. But than tell me what's wrong instead of just reading one single sentence I wrote and telling me how wrong it is. And please read everything I wrote before replying.

Please read what everything I'm saying before replying. I do NOT want to prevent turtling. This is just a very small step towards offensive strategies, and it can help to prevent games where nobody attacks for 40 minutes and just builds ten fortresses and five walls...which (I think)- everybody can agree on -is a good thing. Again ... Please read what I'm saying before replying. I never said turtling is the most used strategy and I CLEARLY explained that I know that turtling is not a big problem right now. And again ... Please read what I'm saying before replying. I already suggested also adding a new upgrade that decreases the damage taken by your own garrisoned units. Currently I don't see why this is a bad idea. I'm just thinking: Why not? Why not make this small change to make it a bit harder for extremely defensive players, make catapults a bit better (they're harder to use then rams), also making some bad civs better and open up an opportunity for new upgrades? And garrisoned units taking damage would be very logical and would make a lot of sense( even though this is not my main argument!). Why not? You all might be correct as you probably have more gameplay experience than me. And this might be a bad idea. But, if so, then give me actual reasons. (Please read everything before replying, I don't want to repeat everything over and over again) I hope you understand

Maybe I didn't explain it clearly enough, but my main point is NOT that garrisoned units should take damage because it is realistic. I suggest it because it would open up new opportunities and strategies and prevent turtling ...(as I explained above) I now that the title is a bit misleading... I don't mean the units should deleted or killed when the building is destroyed, they should be ejected just like usual. What I suggest is they take crush damage after getting ejected from the building, that damage does not necessarily need to be enough to kill them.

It depends, if you play very defensive and are turtling and you have 10 garrisoned buildings, then.. yeah, it will be a lot of micromanaging. But most players don't play very defensive and most of the time have 2 maybe 3 buildings with a few units garrisoned, these buildings will most likely be in areas they need to pay attention to anyways. Plus, even if they lose these units due to the buildings getting destroyed in most cases they would have lost those units anyway. And it's just a few units and not a game changing loss. Of course, every time you destroy one of your buildings yourself all garrisoned units inside that building should automatically ungarrison so you don't accidentally kill your own units by deleting buildings. As I said, this feature won't make catapults overpowered and would just be a small advantage for catapult civs. And most catapult civs (like Athenians, Carthaginians) are one of the worse and less used civs anyway. How about a research technology that reduces the damage taken by garrisoned units from the building getting damaged? Also, garrisoned units get healed, so when a building gets damaged but not destroyed the garrisoned units will get damaged but regenerate back to full health over time.

It always feels wrong to see an entire building collapsing and then all garrisoned units standing on the debris completely unharmed. It would be accurate and realistic to have the units take at least a little bit of damage from the collapsing building. So here's what I suggest, two possibilities: - Every time a building takes damage, all garrisoned units inside the building take a bit of crush damage as well. or - when a building takes damage, units garrisoned inside do NOT take damage, but when the building is destroyed and collapses all units take a larger amount of crush damage that is about enough to kill them. This would prevent turtling (even though I think that turtling is not a big problem right now) as players would now have to think twice before fully garrisoning a fortress because of how easily they could lose all garrisoned units to just a few catapults if they're not paying attention. It would also open new possible strategies. For example, one player retreats and garrisons his units inside a temple to heal them and bring them back to full health. The other player could now attack the temple from a distance with catapults and thus forcing his opponent to ungarrison and stop healing his troops. What do you think?

Is there some sort of "trample damage" from chariots, elephants etc. implemented in alpha 26?

https://youtube.com/watch?v=VNIeR1bMDjc

Bolt shooters do this, but they are very slow and inconvenient to use

Thats why I suggest to include in the error message that cgnat could be what's causing the issue

Yeah, Cgnat seems to block peer to peer connections. It depends on your ISP. At my ISP some people at the customer support would tell you that you need to pay extra and some would just do it for you.

Hi I always got the "Failed to connect to server ..." error when trying to join any game in the multiplayer lobby. I know how frustrating it is and I've seen quite a few players having the same problem. There are a few forum posts etc. about this error but none of the suggested solutions worked for me. I managed to solve the issue and for me the problem was something I've never seen mentioned anywhere else. I'm making this post to help other players who might have the same issue as me. At first check if your firewall or antivirus is blocking 0ad, try port forwarding 20595 and so on ( like mentioned in other posts). But as I said, for me that didn't help. For me the problem was that my ISP was using CGNAT. CGNAT basically means that your router does not have an individual public IP address. It shares a public IP with other devices on the internet. This is how to check if your ISP uses cgnat: https://www.purevpn.com/blog/how-to-check-whether-or-not-your-isp-performs-cgnat/ If your ISP uses cgnat than thats probably what's causing the issue. Just call your the customer support of your ISP and ask them to give your router a public IP address that's not behind cgnat. In my case that solved the problem and it took like 5 minutes. (Also don't explain the problem to them it will just overcomplicate everything). To check if your ISP has given you a public IP that's not behind cgnat just follow the steps in the link above to check. If the issue remains with a public IP address not behind cgnat, call them again and explain your problem in details this time. If the customer support tells you they can't give you a public IP that's not behind cgnat or you need to pay extra just call a few times. sometimes it depends on who picks up wether they want to do this for you. If they really can't and you've tried everything else and the issue remains then the only option I see is to change ISP. I don't how common cgnat is the reason causing this error...but maybe cgnat should be mentioned somewhere in the error message to make it more clear. Also, please note that I'm not a networking pro so feel free to correct me.