Thalatta

What is worse, many civs have the same basic techs about things that appeared thousands of years prior. I would use a "rename" if that's what the corresponding civs actually developed, and the impact would be comparable. What worries me a bit though is that, for example, Persians and Seleucids would have almost completely different techs, since one completely preceded the other chronologically. Should their techs be just a rename? Should Seleucid techs be better, but more expensive? Should, as someone proposed somewhere else (with some problems), some civs turn into others (sometimes with choices) along with their Phases? This last thing would solve lots of historical accuracy problems, but would change the game in a fundamental way (maybe something to test on some mod).

Who starts building, and when? Since having idle workers is not a good thing, did you code it such that workers have queued tasks that are done when resources are available? (I know I could test it myself, but I've barely played these last weeks).

@Deicide4u Well, I'm not really adding techs, now for Spartans I'm mostly renaming and removing, and adding a very few to compensate, I think they'd even end with less techs than they have right now. I’m also kind of overshooting with ideas, so there’s somewhere to take from if needed. The point of my posts is not to have a lot of techs, but to make things more historically accurate and interesting, so people that are attracted to that (which I think should be one of the magnets of the game) get more pleased and curious than when reading generic or anachronical names. Regarding a “small number of generic techs and from there build upon each civ's strengths”, I agree in the sense that it would be too confusing to have tech trees that are too different between civs, but that’s not my intention. Hopefully when reviewing other civs the tech tree will converge to something common with a few differences, although many want to differentiate civs even more, to which I agree, as long as it's not confusing. On the other hand, maybe having a lot of techs could allow for civs to be played in a few different ways (and aiming at getting most techs would be a mistake, at least competitively), and also, under certain limits, would be good SP content (which I see as vital to grow the game).

Now for things that I knew were off but had to source more carefully, or things that I found by chance while doing that. This time I quoted some sources, for those interested in reading (didn’t do it for info that got long ago). PART II: Simple things that should be: -Syssition should be Pheideition: Syssition is much more commonly found, but it’s not the Spartan name, the “term Spartans used for the public mess was pheideition (IG 5.1.128.13; 150.1; 155.6) or pheidition (IG 5.1.1507.1, cf. van Wees 2018, 237). Athenian authors called it phidition, or sometimes syssition. Alkman also mentions the word andreion (Alkman 98 Page), while Xenophon uses syskenion (Xen. Lak. Pol. 5.2; for more on terminology, see Bielschowsky 1869, 9–13; Lavrencic 1992, 12–16; Rundin 1996, 207 n. 47). Plutarch explains that the common meals (syssitia) were called andreia by the Cretans and phiditia by the Lacedaemonians”, Spartan History, State and Society, by R. Kulesza. Simple things that could be: -Helot Economy could be Revolt Suppression: in general, better if techs relate to things during the game period, while civ. bonuses. to things that come from before. In this case I thought about the Great Helot Revolt of 464 BC. -Handicraft and Advanced Handicraft could be Bell Krater and Megarian Bowl: these generic names could be substituted by actual pottery types, which appeared after 400 BC and 323 BC, respectively. This also brings the issue of what would happen with a very different civilisation: I think it would be nice for them to have slightly different bonuses, given that techs would be along the same lines, but different. -Periplous (flanking manoeuvres) could be Aulētēs (Piper): periplous is just a manoeuvre (one of many), it’s like having a “galloping” tech in the Stable. Pipers weren’t really necessary before triremes. -Ship Cladding could be Lead Sheathing, and come after Undergirding Cables: undergirding cables are from at least the 5th century BC, and it would be hard to find anything related to hull integrity between the beginning of the game and that. I’m not sure what is exactly meant by ship cladding, I could only find lead sheathing in the 3rd century BC, although I’m not sure if for triremes, but maybe that detail doesn’t matter. A source I used is Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World, by L. Casson. -Iron Plow, Gather Training and Fertiliser could be Terraces, Green Manure and Water Wheel: these don’t seem relevant or interesting for the period. On the other hand, terraces seem to have appeared early in the Classical period, green manure by the end of the 4th century BC, and the water wheel around the 3rd century BC. I’d remove the last one for Sparta since I don’t think there's evidence for it, but maybe give them a Kleroi civ. bonus, explained later. -Improved fletching, iron arrowheads and trilobate arrowheads could be bodkin arrowheads, trilobate arrowheads and pyramidal arrowheads: how and when was fletching improved, exactly? Iron arrowheads are from many centuries before the game. All give damage bonuses, and “with the exception of the three-edged rhomboid arrowheads, which appeared in Greece from the 6th century, were in wide use in the 5th century and declined during the 4th century BCE, the rest of the categories – bodkin, three-edged with barbs, and pyramidal – belong to types that appeared from the end of the 5th century BCE and were used widely through-out the 4th c. BCE”, Bow and Arrowheads from Ancient Macedonia, by I. Bellas. -Fishing Nets could be Murex Fishing, to get extra metal, only for Sparta: nets have existed for thousands of years. I propose this tech for obtaining metal, alongside food, when fishing. Spartans should get their food mostly from farming, while for fishing, “despite this dearth of good harbours, there were still of course Perioikoi who engaged in fishing and trade. The economic significance of fishing in the Mediterranean world generally is often grossly inflated (...). There is, however, one marine resource, the murex mollusc (trunculus or brandaris), which merits special mention (...) ‘royal purple’, obtained by processing the milky secretions of the murex (...). Its production in antiquity was primarily associated with the Phoenicians of Tyre, but among the Greeks the Lakonians and Tarentines were leading producers”, Sparta and Lakonia, by P. Cartledge. -Fishing Nets could be Rolled/Folded Sinkers, for other Greeks: I found the “appearance of these types of net weights in the second half of the 5th century BC”, and “leads made using a rolled sheet in a cylindrical shape are the oldest, while those made using a folded sheet did not appear until the end of the 4th century BC”, although for Athens and others, not Sparta. I think I read this on Ancient Nets and Fishing Gear, by T. Bekker-Nielsen and D.B. Casasola. -Salt Curing could be Tarichos Trade, but not for Sparta: salt curing has existed for thousands of years, only around the 5th century BC salted fish, or tarichos, became a staple food, although for Athens and others, not Sparta. -Gardens and Manors could be Sewerage and Peristyle Courtyards, but not for Sparta: those things appear in archeology at the time of the game for Athens and others, while Sparta had only simple drainage systems and houses. Those bonuses are for more population with time anyway, which doesn’t make a lot of sense with Sparta. They should go for quality, not quantity. -Wooden Shields, Metal Rim and Improved Shield Alloys could be Molded Greave, Cord Handle and Shield Apron: the present techs don’t make much sense as developments for the time period. Regarding the greave, by “the later sixth century it had been shaped to fit the leg as closely as possible”, the shield’s handle went from a piece of leather to “a cord all round the shield” to have “plenty of spare cord if it should break”, and the leather apron “often attached in the period after the Persian Wars to the lower rim of the hoplite shield. This probably supplemented the greaves in their function, as a barrier against missiles”, Arms and Armor of the Greeks, by A.M. Snodgrass. -Spolas and Linothorax could be Transitional Cuirass and Muscle Cuirass: Spolas and Linothorax should give price and mobility bonuses, not hack armor ones. The preceding bell cuirass had another successor, transitional cuirass, and later muscle cuirass, which seem to me better candidates for hack bonuses, along mobility ones, since it was the actual aim. In addition, new helmet types could give FOV bonuses. During the later 5th century BC they actually abandoned most armor, and adopted the exomis, a tunic. -Xiphos, Iron Weapons and Carburisation could be Carburisation, Quenching and Tempering: all give damage bonuses. The Xiphos and iron weapons appeared too early. Even intentional carburisation seems to be early. The techs I propose refer to very early steel, and evolved mostly in parallel, but an exact timing is really hard to get, with early examples of everything appearing before the start of game, but a more consistent use after it. Still, while there’s very limited evidence (and considerable debate), I’ve found: “the carbon content (...) could be increased by carburization (...). Steel was not only harder than iron; its hardness could be further enhanced by quenching (...), and the resulting brittleness moderated by tempering .(...) welding hard steel sections into or onto relatively soft and bendable iron bodies, clearly demonstrating a high level of understanding of different material properties, and the ability to differentiate between iron and steel (...). Although Greek and Roman craftsmen were unable to melt and cast iron during this period, blacksmiths were able to weld together individual pieces of iron and/or steel”, Metallurgy, Greece and Rome, by T. Rehren. The much earlier Odyssey states that “a blacksmith plunges a screaming great axe blade or adze into cold water, treating it for temper, since this is the way steel is made strong”, but this is sometimes interpreted as simple cooling, which seems weird to me because of what’s actually said, but for now I have no better ideas. Changes that have been already proposed: -The role of trade could be reduced, for Sparta: mostly to enhance civilisation differentiation: “Lakonia, then, was remarkably self-sufficient in useful rocks and minerals as well as agricultural potential, and overseas trade in essentials was relatively unimportant”. “On the west coast of Messenia the best natural harbour was of course Navarino Bay (ancient Pylos), but the Spartans made little or no effort to develop its strategic or commercial potential”, Sparta and Lakonia, by P. Cartledge. -Stable techs could be reconsidered, for Sparta: apparently the Spartans gave importance to horse racing, but didn’t have a big horse breeding program like other Greeks, who could also have a spiked rollers tech for more speed, given that “was beginning to be introduced to Greece (...) for the sides of the horse's mouth”, Arms and Armor of the Greeks, by A.M. Snodgrass. Also, the Xiphos “was eclipsed by the appearance of a more specialized cutting weapon”, the Kopis, which could be a hack bonus tech, being a curved sword recommended for cavalry (by Xenophon for example), but probably not for Sparta. -Not allowing fields near the CC: this was discussed at some point for some civs, for realism, and would end making Sparta way more realistic. Actually, I was thinking that blocks of clustered buildings should not be bigger than a given area, since houses are otherwise abused as defensive structures, rendering palisades and walls useless. -Siege tech and units should be reconsidered, for Sparta, and siege engines should be built (mostly) on the field: as proposed by many, I’d leave the (Siege) Workshop for Engineers, techs, and some simple siege units, but the Engineers should build the bigger engines on location, among other things (like bridges, trenches, traps, as already suggested, and depending on each civ.). They could also give build and repair bonuses. Engineer Heroes like Archimedes for Syracusians (if added) would be nice, able to build unique siege engines (the Claw at least). Spartan unit and tech availability should be revised down maybe, I’ll leave a longer discussion on siege engines en general for later (if ever). Other changes that could be considered: -Kleroi could be a civ. bonus: the kleroi were the Spartiate land allotments where helots lived and farmed. Also considering that their farmlands were among the most fertile, this bonus could give cheaper fields, to compensate for not having the latest agricultural tech. -The role of fortifications could be reduced for Spartans, and some things changed, for Greeks in general: there’s a lot to disentangle here. A bit in general (mostly about Athenians, Boeotians, Messenians, and others, and then it should be decided what to remove for Sparta, all using Ancient Greek Fortifications, by N. Fields): —Towers could have some changes: First, “the building decree of 307/306 BC not only covers repairs to the existing brickwork but also gives specifications for rebuilding the City Wall, including the roofing of the wall-walk or parodos (...) as the simplest means of protecting from the elements the small torsion-spring catapults, probably bolt-shooters, mounted on the curtains: the Athenians were certainly building torsion artillery by 306/305 BC” (later stating “not been invented before the turn of the 4th century BC”). Non-torsion catapults are also mentioned. Then, if one wants to be more historically accurate, “around 500 BC a major innovation, perhaps borrowed from Near-Eastern sources, appears with the addition of two-storeyed towers”, “rectangular in shape” and “with a covered chamber in the second storey and an open fighting platform protected by a parapet at roof level”, and had “the second chamber at parodos level with arrow slits. They were not, therefore, designed to house catapults, but as battle-stations for archers”. If one wanted to use catapults, "the lower chamber was not for catapults - these were housed in the fenestrated upper chamber - but for archers”, thus these catapult towers “dispensed with the fighting-platform roof and instead employed a gabled roof, which was easier to make watertight and thus keep machines dry”, and they had a larger minimum range. A “five-storey tower” is mentioned, but not much is said, while “towers of semicircular plan were stronger, but more difficult to construct. They also had the advantage of providing defenders with better fields of vision and fire”. It’s also said when a “solid base” is used. To implement things properly would require many types of towers, I think the simplest way is to make the Sentry Tower look like a small Stone Tower, and the Stone Tower would be a larger (semi)cylindrical version of that. I would remove Sentries, Crenellations, Arrow Shooters (all should be there already), and Murder Holes (mostly anachronistic, and that’s why multiple towers were built in range of each other), and the Arrow Slits and Catapult Windows techs could be added instead, or if possible in the future they could be mutually exclusive building upgrades (a concept discussed before, and would allow more types of building without overpopulating the construction panel), the latter one giving the look of the Sentry Tower. A Peripoloi (Patrols) tech could be added for either FOV or range, since they were garrisons for the border forts and watchtowers to patrol the mountainous borderlands, particularly during and after the 4th century BC. A change from Sturdy Foundations to Solid Base would seem unnecessary (unless quoting sources is wanted), although Iron Clamps could be considered (which is what the icon shows, and “these were set in lead and can be found all over the Near East, dating from the 5th century BC”, A History of Metallurgy, by R.F. Tylecote), but I’m not sure if they were used in these cases, just that they were used in other cases, so it would be weird as a tower tech. —Palisades, Walls and Fortresses could have some changes: since “materials employed in Greek fortifications may be divided into two main groups: sun-dried mud-brick on a stone socle, and walls built entirely of stone. Completion in mud-brick unquestionably saved a great deal of time and money”, Palisades could be upgraded to mud-brick walls. Since “restoration work to include binding the decaying brickwork with 'wooden baulks'” is mentioned, a Wooden Baulks tech for resistance bonus could be added. Regarding stone walls, “battlements were probably in the form of a crenellated parapet that protected a parodos”, but this seems to have been the case for a long time, and that the parodos “required a more durable paving of slabs. The Athenian inscription of 307/306 BC ordains that the parodos and other portions subjected to wear be given a hard covering (possibly stone) imposed on a 'finger-thickness of sieved earth'”. Proteichisma was an outer stone wall and ditch, since “with the development of mechanical warfare by the Macedonians the function of combined ditch and breastwork is best seen as a more positive countermeasure, other than by sallying forth and physically destroying them”. Dipylon was a double gate that would act as a trap. Fortresses are kind of “imagine we cluster walls and towers here”, I find its techs (Will to Fight, Murder Holes and Professional Garrisons) uninteresting, maybe techs like Stone Parodos (number or rate of arrows bonus), Proteichisma (resistance bonus, or aura to slow down units or only siege engines) and Dipylon (number or rate of arrows bonus) for Fortresses and/or Stone Walls could be considered. I think Spartans should have less techs, and be more self-sufficient (although most of my changes are just renamings), for realism and differentiation. Part III will take me quite a while because I have nothing prepared yet, although I came across some things already.

Man, you could be the one that makes the "icon tooltips" option for the game, that's an amazing start.

Uh... the guy JUST started playing, him taking that time in a huge map is not weird at all. You can do that? Congratulations. Do you want cookies? Besides, if he doesn't want to play like a clicky robot, but build a nice city with over 1000 units while waging war, he's free to do so (PC allowing). And then some ask "Why is the 0 A.D community so small?"

Yes, the calculations mentioned are basically flight archery: arrows falling vertically to a target, which is, by far, not the way it was done. For "flat" archery, the simplest way to fix the approximate calculation is to evaluate the y (named z in the code, doesn't matter) CDF between -1.5 and infinite (meaning it never goes above the target but hits instead, it should actually be some big number, but far away from the target the probability density is low anyway, and all considers the distributions are the same as before, thus ignores physics, other methods could be considered), and get 86.67%, which multiplied by 73.35% from x gives a total of 63.57%. If one wants to apply the circular correction, the infinite part has to be ignored, thus only a half-square (73.35%*73.35%/2) is semi-circularised (the factor pi*1.5*1.5/(3*3) is still valid, since it should be half of both, which cancels out), giving: (63.57%-(73.35%*73.35%/2))+((73.35%*73.35%/2)*pi*1.5*1.5/(3*3))=57.8%. I got the probabilities numerically (counting points falling on those shapes, which could be readdressed if wanted), and got 63.6% and 59.7%, which confirms the calculations. For just the square and circle from before I get 53.8% (which indeed is (73.35%)^2) and 46.1% (which was calculated as 42.26%, the approximation of circularisation gives then a 4% difference, which is 2% for semi-circularisation).

Or better pathfinding, or larger bodies of water. So is depth somehow taken into account already? Maybe, haven't played many water scenarios.

Careful. It's not the distribution that you are multiplying, it's each value. Otherwise, you would be changing the amplitude (height), not the standard deviation (width). And this works only because you are applying it to a normal distribution of mean 0 and standard deviation 1. On a side note, there are many "bell shapes": Cauchy, hyperbolic secant, etc, the normal distribution is a Gaussian, and before you mentioned "variance", keep in mind that's the square of the standard deviation. I counted 3 given the phrase I quoted. But now I went to the code and I understand what's going on. You calculate first values for normal distributions for x and y (mean 0, standard deviation 1), and then you multiplied them by the distance spread (which changes the standard deviation of the resulting Gaussian, as explained before). Well, this shouldn't give you a square (I thought you were integrating with wrong limits to get the probabilities, but I think that's the part you are doing with a CDF calculator). This is the relevant part of the code: const distanceModifiedSpread = ApplyValueModificationsToEntity("Attack/" + type + "/Projectile/Spread", +this.template[type].Projectile.Spread, this.entity) * predictedPosition.horizDistanceTo(selfPosition) / 100; const randNorm = randomNormal2D(); const offsetX = randNorm[0] * distanceModifiedSpread; const offsetZ = randNorm[1] * distanceModifiedSpread; data.position = new Vector3D(predictedPosition.x + offsetX, predictedHeight, predictedPosition.z + offsetZ); Which I'm going to simplify, in python, and fix distanceModifiedSpread = 60, for 100000 points: N = 100000 predictedPosition = {'x':10,'z':10} distanceModifiedSpread = 60 for _ in range(N): randNorm = (random.gauss(0,1), random.gauss(0,1)) offsetX = randNorm[0]*distanceModifiedSpread offsetZ = randNorm[1]*distanceModifiedSpread data_position = (predictedPosition['x'] + offsetX, predictedPosition['z'] + offsetZ) I get this density plot: So, not a square. That's acceptable enough, but bear in mind that your calculations are approximations. When you used the CDF calculator to integrate a Gaussian with mean 0, standard deviation 1.35, between -1.5 and 1.5, and got 73.35%, and multiplied by itself, you are indeed calculating the probability of hitting a square. Then you multiply that by a factor telling you how much smaller is the circle respect to the square, but that multiplication is having the hidden assumption that the probability distribution is the same in all points of that square (that's what multiplication really means, weighing all elements the same way, and that's why integrals and convolutions are more powerful). If you want to get the exact result, you have to multiply first and integrate later (or use the CDF calculator, but that's for the weak :P). The actual CDF can be found for example in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh_distribution, since it's related to the problem of having a "two-dimensional vector Y=(U,V) which has components that are bivariate normally distributed, centered at zero, with equal variances , and independent".

In 1D, but in 2D, with 2 spreads, at twice the distance inaccuracy should increase by 4 times (given how areas change with distance). What is super difficult is trying to understand what is that you are trying to say. A pair of independent spreads, then you multiply them by the spread? Do you have 3 spreads then? Not even counting target movement? What are x and y, exactly? Please, define things. In any case, assuming x and y are positions, of something in reference to a center, they shouldn't be independent, you should have the condition x2+y2=R2, with R being the displacement from that center, and this changes your integration limits and makes the CDF circular. If I understand correctly, that something is the arrow, so that circular CDF gives you landing point probabilities (this is a simplification, because the linear horizontal velocity, both longitudinal and transversal, and the quadratic vertical velocity of the parabolic movement will result in an elongated shape on the floor, which is also a simplification when not accounting for air drag, wind, etc). I guess then with some random generator you decide where the arrow fell, and evaluate proximity to nearby units.

Maybe worth mentioning, here they have the best preserved example in the world of a manuballista mechanism, from the 1st century AD. I always like to visit these weird unique items in museums, we are all familiar with the Roman semi-cylindrical shields, but not everyone knows there's only one remaining, the scutum from Dura-Europos, at the Yale University Art Gallery: https://artgallery.yale.edu/collections/objects/5959.

Agreed, that's my point. Regarding oppida, I was having them in mind when proposing making more use of palisades (and walls for relevant civs, I seem to remember Gauls had them), this could be combined somehow with "specialised CC". Palisades don't have to enhance turtling too much, just delay some rushes and small attacks. I think the discussion was that, even when doing that, the player doing the capture would then turn around things instantly, giving too much advantage, and some proper conversion time was being proposed to avoid this. It seemed to me that things were getting unnecessarily complicated, and the base garrison concept would address all issues at once, on top of bringing some control (card ordering) and realism (siege-looking sieges). I'm just proposing it for if someone with modding skills finds the idea interesting and wants to test it, before anything else.

Well, if some small path appears, I agree, although not for a paved road, you could end with some weird street layout if where random units are walking is taken too seriously.

Indeed, but how historical seem to you many of these fortresses, and how much just a product of nostalgic AoE2 cloning? (something that I've seen discussed many times already). I don't think removing them from some civilisations, not only to make it more historically accurate, but to differentiate civilisations more, should necessarily mean to unbalance the game, but that balance should be found in their differences, otherwise it's just "similar vs similar" (agreed that it would take more work). On a somewhat different note: shouldn’t Germans not have stone walls? At least less so than Sparta (which eventually had, but late, and still this doesn't appear in the game). People are complaining already :P, and will even more when poorly garrisoned ships are stolen like a candy to a baby. Regarding damage distribution, I'd say leave it to the player to decide, by ordering the cards of the units garrisoned (and have some panel somewhere where you can set a default order, to greatly reduce micro). Calculations is something to test, surely in some mod first, and then decide, hard to know beforehand those details, but this is the only simple nice way I see to have siege engines do something that resembles actual siege, and use something more realistic and engaging than capture points (wasn't proposed by me, I just extended the idea to ships). EDIT: I misremembered, virtual combat was proposed for ships and normally garrisoned units, and I extended it to siege and proposed base garrisons in place of capture points:

That's why I still swear on having a non-controllable default garrison on buildings, ships and siege engines against which one has to enter in "virtual combat" that would act as capture resistance and turn around limiter, and would made boarding and siege make more sense

@NationGamer090 I think this has been discussed, it would be a nice addition, but I think there might be problems with pathfinding. Palisades and walls already work like a painting tool (just keep shift pressed), so that shouldn't be much of a problem, I guess. Regarding palisades, I never use them, are they used in MP? I think they should be the preferred defence building early on, but seem underpowered to me. I think they should be faster to build: for Spartans, a house costs 150 wood and is built in 50 seconds, while a palisade costing the same amount of wood is built in over 2:30 minutes. This seems unrealistic, given that houses are more complicated to build, but none of that is really a problem, the problem comes if they are, on top of that, not even used because they are mostly useless. Or maybe people don't want to increase defensiveness in the game.

And, I forgot to say, doesn't give unfair advantages, quite the contrary, unfair would be to force a group of people use an UI scheme that makes things harder for them.

Also, if some people prefer text and others icons, it would be great if both are menu options. This way @wowgetoffyourcellphone's improvements can stay under the text option, and if some day someone wants to do the icon variant, then that's added under the icons option, nothing is wasted and everyone is happy, I guess.

And is it possible to merge it with the other simultaneous thread? (Maybe not). The opposite happens to me... icons and numbers give me the vibe, a bunch of text boggs me down. Besides, in the text the numbers are written down also. Yes please. And simple ship ramming animations

Yes, but with textiles I didn't mean the product, but the natural resources you gather to almost inevitably end with textiles, so I used it like an easy to understand category. Maybe the correct name should be (natural) fiber. Also, for some types of food, like wheat, you have to plant, grow, sow, and process it to get bread and beer. Those are manufactured goods, and invented ten, maybe hundreds, of thousands of years after the simplest clothing, as was the process to separate the gathered ores from metals, although yes, they are not "manufactured" since they existed all along.

All that I think is one of the most important things to solve right now in the realm of stuff that can be off putting for new players. I agree with your edit later on: to show icons instead of text (and hovering on them would show the text), not only looks nicer but after a while one will interpret all that information much faster, which should be the point.

There's a silly detail: should it say 'Unlocks "Scale Body Armor."' or 'Unlocks "Scale Body Armor".'? I feel the 2nd one, not only because I prefer British punctuation, but because I guess the "." is not included in the tech? And to end with ".", like the other points. I agree with visual elements, that's why when "somehow showing if it unlocks another tech, unit or building would be nice" was mentioned I wondered if a small icon instead of bullet points could be something to be considered. Yes, I totally see it would be gameplay breaking, only a mod could consider something like this right now, but things like keeping or killing sheep for either textiles or food would make things like Corrals more interesting. Also, it would come from many sources: cotton, hemp, flax flower, silkworms, shearing sheep, and animals for leather or fur. Water is interesting, lots of city-building implications with that, although maybe not necessarily as a main resource, but as connected structures and auras, since location matters a lot. Also, what is nice about the main resources is that they are like categories: there are many types of foods, wood, stones, metals (and textiles), but only one type of water (which I would cluster with foods). Combining all this, a system similar to Rise of Nations would be nice: to have lots of different resources, but all falling into these 4 (5) main categories, the difference of gathering one thing or the other being some (small for starters?) bonus (or unlocking special stuff, eventually). This could also make things like Markets more interesting.

Anything to make these tooltips more readable, I enjoy. I'd like to see how those resistances on buildings get more readable. I agree with removing "level", and anything unnecessary for that matter. Unrelated: what is that star? Glory from Delenda Est? Why does it take that resource? I would have loved to see textiles as a fifth resource though, when thinking about all kinds of historical resources, the usual 4 and textiles seem the ones needed to cover most things. It seems to me it’s ignored because that’s what most RTS have done (and could have many sources, both animal and vegetal).

Is there a way to also show ranges of buildings that shoot arrows? To know where to place buildings. Ideally showing all these ranges when pressing something, while not cancelling the placement process.

Added slingers and javelineers to my (very preliminar) proof of concept with no bonuses (tweaked a couple of numbers from before). Following what I said before (Javelineers: high pierce attack, low crush defense, high dodging, Slingers: high crush attack, low defenses, added very high dodging), I get what you want: archers are more all-around (deal decent damage and have average resistance), slingers are strong against ranged units (and very weak, as I wanted), and javelineers are quite strong against cavalry (from a distance). Maybe there's something not quite right becase I didn't verify everything, it's a matter of fine-tuning.