Thalatta

That’s nice since it's the historical order. But what do people do with Fields in the late game? Just abandon or delete them? And with Corrals after building Ice Houses?

I think the same things should be indicated by the same icons in both the Civilization Overview and Technological Tree, otherwise there’d be a confusing multiplicity of icon representations, and both would look aesthetically disconnected.

Actually, I think I'd need to see the Structure Tree at the same time. Maybe there could be a way to show what's unique there, making text more necessary in the Civilization Overview (not to be redundant in that everything would be just icons). And now that I see, maybe everything following something like the Maurya Heroes structure would work nicely as a combination of graphics and text. And I'd add the Catafalque Bonuses below Team Bonuses, to fill that gap and remove that item from the menu.

There was a discussion regarding whether some people prefer icons (like me), and others text. I think the conclusion was that it could be left for the player as an option. An alternative layout I can think of to show the high amount of info more efficiently (and following also from other games) is the structure of the 2nd one, with the icons of the 1st one, no text (or with name tags like the Heroes on the 1st layout), with the explanation as tooltip when hovering the mouse. One could also have the option to show text beside the icon (or just text, without the icon), but the more experienced players could then choose only icons as a faster reference. I also liked more the upper right images from the 1st layout. Another thing I was thinking about (coming soon in my next batch of suggestions) is that I'd put Catafalque Bonuses inside Civilization Overview to present and concentrate all information from a given civ better (although this would add even more info to this screen).

@CoyoteTango I, and many here, agree, as you can see in my suggestion: This is known and discussed, as is maintaining formations during attacks, I think some have been working on it a bit, but it could be that others are against it, although I fail to see the appeal of preferring fighting blobs of units instead.

Sure, I also only play SP, and I've argued that's what over 90% of players actually do, so it cannot be overlooked as it usually is (if growing the game is among the priorities). But, ideally, whatever is implemented for SP shouldn't be a source of unfairness in MP, and that's why @wowgetoffyourcellphone observation is valuable. Preferably certain things should be automatically banned from MP, but for some reason this doesn't happen, and it has been many times a source of conflict among players.

I've never done anything regarding my suggestions, hoping the ones that resonated more with many would get eventually picked up, since I'm quite reluctant on adding formal requests to the hundreds around. I think @guerringuerrin mentioned that at some point he might do a PR with the better accepted ones, but no idea if something happened. These look nice. Crowded, but tidy enough for that not to be a problem. I have not read everything, but I'm confused about some decisions, for example the penteconter is not an Athenian thing, and was used for centuries before the start of the game. If you want, later on I can make a list of things that seem too inaccurate, with substitute proposals.

@wzyas you are not saying anything that has not already been discussed in the link I've sent you, even in more depth regarding balance between what is automated in relation to added complexity. Please read that thread, you might find some interesting things being discussed. Now, if that is indeed the case for higher-level players, then I find this argument quite convincing. It would make things easier for lower-level players, without making it unfair in relation to higher-level players, which I find a desirable feature.

Is it my turn to ask (again) for a knock back/down effect? Yes, it is realistic (there's a video around of a woman being flung by a "small" elephant), and indeed it would be nice to have it, even when impacted by a cavalry charge, and certain spear/pike "formations" could reduce/cancel it (ideally from the frontal direction only).

In case you will want it, these two are against Very Hard Aggressive AI, both playing with the Athenians. In the first one I outcompeted the AI on economy early game right at the beginning, then it seems I stopped paying too much attention to it. For the second one I’m only barely outcompeted in the first couple of minutes (I guess took a few seconds to set my dropsites, resources being far from the CC). I’m not using auto-queue anymore, to get used to how apparently most people play.

Agreed, like something along the lines of Rome TW selection screen: Yes, that's the positioning I had in mind. Also (related but more in general), in Learn to Play, Catafalque Overview is stated, but the window has as title Catafalque Bonuses, which is a better name to avoid repetition with Civilisation Overview, but I think it would be even better to put Catafalque Bonuses inside Civilisation Overview. This would streamline the menu better, and for this Civ Browser, only two buttons would be needed above "Pick Random Civ".

Of course not, but I was having in mind some marginal use like using that wood to set some small fires and such, so they should give very little wood. It just seemed more realistic than leaving them with 1 food (what if one wants that food?), with the available resource change being a cleaner "completion" of the food gathering process, and the wood gathering presented as a new option.

Maybe buttons to also view Structure Tree, Civilisation Overview and Catafalque Bonuses from there would be useful.

@wzyas I think there are mods that already handle your first two points. As usual, it would be nice for some, but not for others. I think this is an example of letting the game play for you, as discussed in: I agree it would be nice to have this in the base game. You didn't say what for, exactly. If, as @Grautvornix says, it's to let them regenerate, I'm always for adding little details that enhance realism and complexity, as long as micro and bloatedness is not unacceptably increased. The way I'd implement it is that after fruits are depleted, the fruitless bush/tree remains, and one can then gather its wood (which is otherwise ignored by those already gathering wood, thus, you'd need to manually order their cutting down), or choose to leave it and wait for fruit to appear again after some time. I'd do something similar with all renewable resources, but, again, these things have already been discussed, and there's some people that usually push back against these changes (see below, and read around, just use the search tool). I find "balance" considerations unconvincing since some general regeneration rate could be set as an option, and none to low values shouldn't affect present gameplay in any noticeable way (and high values shouldn't be that high, I see it more as a way to say "yes, this game takes this into account, unlike most RTS!").

Here on Medium AI (on Very Hard I don't outcompete economy early game, but I play quite intuitively, no videos or tips to know optimal build order, for now at least).

Totally agree:

Can you control just gaining resistance from ranged attacks, for example? What would that be, exactly?

Just to give you a heads up, I'm preparing a Thoughts on the Athenians post, with naval combat reserved for its Part II, where I’ll briefly explain how it really was, and what could be done about it to make it more realistic.

Hola @Duileoga, lo que puedo mencionar rápidamente es que las mujeres de los xiongnu tenían mucho poder político (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/researchers-uncover-new-evidence-warrior-women-inspired-legend-mulan-180974774, https://www.bbc.com/travel/article/20231106-the-powerful-women-of-an-ancient-empire), aunque no es claro si realmente peleaban en batallas. Una arqueóloga en esas referencias menciona que es una posibilidad que no puede ser descartada, ya que hay evidencia de que practicaban arquería y montaban a caballo, al menos más frecuentemente que los pueblos túrquicos. Las que sí no peleaban en batallas eran las gladiatrices (gladiatrix es singular), existieron solo como una forma de entretenimiento exótico. Las banfhéinnithe (banfhéinní en singular, no sé si hay una castellanización estándar) son primariamente una leyenda (https://ansionnachfionn.com/seanchas-mythology/na-fianna). El término "amazonas" es mitológico y griego, aunque entre los escitas sí había mujeres guerreras, lo que era más común por dicha zona, y no en Europa Occidental (salvo excepciones). Es así que entre los sármatas (mitológicamente, descendientes de las amazonas) muchas mujeres eran guerreras, y más tarde en las guerras marcomanas los romanos encontrarían mujeres con armadura entre los cuerpos, pensando que eran germanas, cuando posiblemente eran yacigias, una tribu aliada sármata que antes había migrado hasta lo que hoy es Hungría.

Los Nazca son bastante característicos como para ser incluídos, considerando sus líneas, Cahuachi, y que hay espacio entre los Tiahuanaco y los Moches. Los Moches comienzan alrededor del 150 DC, y su extensión no era tanta, una cultura que más correspondería con 64 en el período 500 AC - 100 DC es la Chavín (al menos los primeros 250 años). El término Arawako (que debería ser Arawak, en inglés, o Arahuacos, en español) es confuso, fue dado por los Europeos a ciertos pueblos que encontraron, y hoy en día se usa para una familia lingüística que llega hasta Argentina y Paraguay (https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenguas_arahuacas). El término que tenía el pueblo marcado con 58 para denominarse a sí mismos y su lenguaje es Lokono (los Taínos también parecen incluídos). Esto está bien explicado en el prefacio de https://tiboko.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Arawak-English-Dictionary.pdf. De cualquier manera, en general en el mapa hay una mezcla bastante grande de lo que son culturas, lenguas, y agrupaciones "raciales" (como los pámpidos), así que una posibilidad, dado el período y ubicación, es usar la cultura Saladoide, de la cual se puede leer en https://univ-antilles.hal.science/hal-00968898/file/Chap13saladoid.pdf, y donde se menciona que su presencia llegó al menos hasta el "Cotuan complex", en https://www.academia.edu/figures/7001856/figure-4-upper-orinoco-area-cotua-atures-raudales-atures indicado cerca de Puerto Ayacucho.

That effect is really well done, did you use a trigonometric function to obtain its positioning, or am I just, as usual, overthinking? I was thinking, if the game has some choppy oceanic waters at some point, that could become handy. Besides, that could give different advantages to ships, since Mediterranean ships weren’t ocean-going, unlike northern Celtic ones.

What are them, exactly?

Indeed it looks good, although infantry seems to be moved less than it should on the first video, and the ship way more than it should. I’d reduce the "mass" of infantry (I guess it’s not really possible to throw some to the ground or send someone flying from time to time? :P), and increase it quite a lot for the ship, along with greatly increasing the "dampening" effect of water. Ships getting cramped and not able to break off was a thing, and a weakness for ramming ships, which needed some space to accelerate for ramming, and didn’t transport a lot of soldiers not to be slow, making them vulnerable to boarding in those situations.

Press C while attacking (I agree there should be a more intuitive way). I have no problem beating very hard AI and I never batch produce (only because I haven't played enough matches to get used to it, as I understand it, it gives some advantage).

If you want to be historically accurate (as the mod claims), don't use flags, banners, standards, etc for the Ancient Greeks.