Civilians with female voices

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

Reminds me of how a minority of people went absolutely ballistic when I updated the game's default cursor. The entitlement is incredibly unreal. 

[Tapothei]

In case some peeps are blind that includes me, when selecting in area filled with soldier and civilians, there is a button to select civilians only and then there is soldiers only, may it help you a bit.

[ittihat_ve_terakki]

1 hour ago, guerringuerrin said:

@ittihat_ve_terakki 

You’re taking the historical accuracy argument to an extreme. It doesn’t even make sense to debate it. 

When the argument of “historical realism” comes into play, then all other realistic options should also be considered. In some games, there’s a rest mode, day–night cycles and children born from parents etc. You think these realism obligations are ridiculous, yes, because they are. 

Why was the unit called “women” in the first place? I think we should reflect on that. Was it originally chosen with a sexist idea in mind? 

 

1 hour ago, guerringuerrin said:

@ittihat_ve_terakki 

I’ve already seen many people adopt the term “Civilian” without any issue.

“Civilians” is definitely an artificial term and if you observe the games in the lobby you’ll see that everyone calls them “women” anyway. 

 

1 hour ago, guerringuerrin said:

@ittihat_ve_terakki 

Seriously, is having male models working on farms as civilians really that upsetting? It’s kind of funny.

The thing is this: we were already seeing men working in the fields. The ability to use men for farming or gathering fruit has always been in the game.

This is a game and any changes made should add something to the gameplay. This change doesn’t contribute anything to the game, looks like it only serves to satisfy the people who suggested it.

[Deicide4u]

1 hour ago, ittihat_ve_terakki said:

Civilians” is definitely an artificial term and if you observe the games in the lobby you’ll see that everyone calls them “women” anyway. 

Such a strong argument. You should be a game developer, I'm sure many would love to play your games. Who cares how people call them in the lobby, there's so many players who don't care about the lobby. Or who don't even know that the game has a lobby, for that matter. 

1 hour ago, ittihat_ve_terakki said:

Why was the unit called “women” in the first place? I think we should reflect on that. Was it originally chosen with a sexist idea in mind? 

Now, this is written in bad faith. It was called "woman", because that's what it looked like. You could argue that original developers should have gone with the standard gendered villager unit, but people wanted to try something different. AoE is a great franchise, but it doesn't need yet another clone.

1 hour ago, ittihat_ve_terakki said:

The thing is this: we were already seeing men working in the fields. The ability to use men for farming or gathering fruit has always been in the game.

Almost no one used men to gather crops in the fields. Only the AI and some dedicated Sparta player with a lot of Helots.

I really struggle with understanding your opposition to this change. 

[guerringuerrin]

1 hour ago, ittihat_ve_terakki said:

When the argument of “historical realism” comes into play, then all other realistic options should also be considered. In some games, there’s a rest mode, day–night cycles and children born from parents etc.

No, obviously there has to be a cut-off point somewhere, and there are clearly artistic and aesthetic considerations that come into play. In the (probably) most popular historical RTS franchise in the world, there are “villagers” of both sexes. It’s called Age of Empires — maybe you’ve heard of it. 

1 hour ago, ittihat_ve_terakki said:

“Civilians” is definitely an artificial term and if you observe the games in the lobby you’ll see that everyone calls them “women” anyway. 

I don’t know how each civilization historically referred to its non-soldier people. But the term is entirely consistent within the game’s universe. In fact, soldiers aren’t simply called “soldiers” — they’ve been called “Citizen-soldiers” for a long time. So on one side we had “Citizen-soldiers,” and on the other side we had “women.” Does that sound more consistent to you? If you want to put it in those terms, of course not.

1 hour ago, ittihat_ve_terakki said:

Why was the unit called “women” in the first place? I think we should reflect on that. Was it originally chosen with a sexist idea in mind? 

Maybe that was the case. And maybe now someone is fixing it. But you seem to have a problem with that.

1 hour ago, ittihat_ve_terakki said:

You think these realism obligations are ridiculous, yes, because they are. 

What’s ridiculous is pretending those are valid arguments when they’re clearly exaggerations that no reasonable person would take seriously. So if you use ridiculous arguements, thats on you.

1 hour ago, ittihat_ve_terakki said:

The thing is this: we were already seeing men working in the fields. The ability to use men for farming or gathering fruit has always been in the game.

Citizen-soldiers don’t gather food as quickly as civilians. If a player chooses to use them on farms, that’s a gameplay decision. They’re accepting the trade-off in exchange for having their farms/CC/base better defended.

The addition of a male model for what are now civilians responds to the reasons already stated.

1 hour ago, ittihat_ve_terakki said:

This is a game and any changes made should add something to the gameplay.

I’m not sure where you got that definition from, but it’s far from correct. There are artistic and aesthetic decisions that add nothing directly to gameplay, yet they are there precisely because this is a game — and they add aesthetic value. There’s even a mod that replaces trees with pink cubes and metal deposits with yellow rectangles. I invite you to start using it, since apparently having attractive 3D models has no value to the gameplay experience. 

1 hour ago, ittihat_ve_terakki said:

Looks like it only serves to satisfy the people who suggested it.

Yeah, maybe you are right on this. Maybe there are people who have been working on the Art Team on this game for more than fifteen years or so, making it look better every single day. Improving every single model, adding different variants for the same unit. So yeah

Edited 4 hours ago by guerringuerrin

[real_tabasco_sauce]

1 hour ago, ittihat_ve_terakki said:

This is a game and any changes made should add something to the gameplay.

I think that's a bit restrictive no?

3 hours ago, ittihat_ve_terakki said:

The justifications being offered are “historical accuracy” and “realism.” If that’s the case, then we should also add mechanics like sleep, rest, parents having children, a full day–night cycle and redesign the entire game from scratch. We should also reconsider how a “hero” can survive after being hit by 50 arrows.

The only harm to gameplay is the sound queues really, which can be improved upon. Visually, i think they are distinct enough. Despite attacking realism (which I agree with to some extent), you seem to be upset about something unrelated to gameplay, could you elaborate?

[ittihat_ve_terakki]

14 minutes ago, Deicide4u said:

Who cares how people call them in the lobby, there's so many players who don't care about the lobby.

This is a very condescending statement. You’re basically saying you don’t respect the people who play the game. I don’t know who you are, but you’re not who you think you are. 

 

17 minutes ago, Deicide4u said:

Almost no one used men to gather crops in the fields.

This comment was a response to the guy who said, “Haha, I guess seeing men working in the fields upset you.” We could already see men working in the fields before. In fact, using soldiers for farming is actually a very good strategy in the mid-to-late stages of the game. 

 

20 minutes ago, Deicide4u said:

I really struggle with understanding your opposition to this change. 

And I'm actually amazed at how determined you are to defend this change, even though it adds nothing to the game. 

 

21 minutes ago, guerringuerrin said:

It’s called Age of Empires — maybe you’ve heard of it. 

That sounds a lot ChatGPT. Lol are you copy-pasting directly from ChatGPT? 

 

21 minutes ago, guerringuerrin said:

I don’t know how each civilization historically referred to its non-soldier people. But the term is entirely consistent within the game’s universe. In fact, soldiers aren’t simply called “soldiers” — they’ve been called “Citizen-soldiers” for a long time. So on one side we had “Citizen-soldiers,” and on the other side we had “women.” Does that sound more consistent to you? 

Just like no one says “Lusitano Ezpatari” and simply calls it “jav,” the term “civilian-something” doesn’t really mean anything in practice. People will keep calling them "women". That’s not going to change no matter how brilliant you believe your idea is. That’s why this feels like a meaningless change, it doesn’t add anything to the game except confusion.

 

30 minutes ago, guerringuerrin said:

There are artistic and aesthetic decisions that add nothing directly to gameplay, yet they are there precisely because this is a game — and they add aesthetic value. 

 

I’m obviously not against artistic work, nor could I be. But we all know this wasn’t an artistic or aesthetic change. It looks more like something that came out of someone obsessing over a minor issue and trying to smooth out a “flaw” that wasn’t really there in the first place. It even feels like the late effects of a “politically correct” trend. Visual changes can absolutely affect gameplay and player experience. However, removing the concept of “women” from the game doesn’t strike me as an artistic decision at all. 

 

33 minutes ago, guerringuerrin said:

Yeah, maybe you are right on this. 

I guess we’ve finally found some common ground there.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

11 minutes ago, ittihat_ve_terakki said:

It even feels like the late effects of a “politically correct” trend. Visual changes can absolutely affect gameplay and player experience. However, removing the concept of “women” from the game doesn’t strike me as an artistic decision at all. 

How is removing "women" part of a "politically correct trend"? Sounds backward to me. If you look at it in that light, then we have removed representation. 

[ittihat_ve_terakki]

Just now, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

How is removing "women" part of a "politically correct trend"? Sounds backward to me. 

I agree. However, the role of women in that period of history wasn’t exactly prominent. Reflecting that in the game, where women are seen as simple laborers, can understandably feel uncomfortable from a modern perspective. That’s probably why a political approach emerged, like “at least let them be equal to men, even if it means making them just as weak.” 

 

This change felt so unnecessary to me that I’m now finding reasons for it on their behalf. 

[Gurken Khan]

On 02/03/2026 at 6:09 PM, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

So, here's where being game developers and designers matters. It's where we who make the game make decisions based on a vision for the game. Every change we make angers some players, delights others, and has zero impact on others. We can't (and won't) swing back and forth after only a couple weeks of play. The time to make your voice heard was months ago. We've had several release candidates and the pull request is 9 months old and was committed to the repo 6 months ago. As far as I'm concerned, the feature is staying, and the only things I personally will entertain are ideas on how to improve it (and I'd wager many of the other developers would agree).

While I tend to agree in parts, I don't like the absoluteness and I don't think it's realistic or desirable. Not all people will test and voice their opinions during development and I think that's fine and valid points can come up later; for example I think the German wonder should be changed. And there happened to be a guy making a lot of decisions on - I believe - a24, and reverting those decisions is an ongoing endeavor, if I'm not mistaken.

On topic: I think it would be good if soldiers and civilians are audibly distinctive.

On 02/03/2026 at 6:09 PM, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

So, here's where being game developers and designers matters. It's where we who make the game make decisions based on a vision for the game. Every change we make angers some players, delights others, and has zero impact on others. We can't (and won't) swing back and forth after only a couple weeks of play. The time to make your voice heard was months ago. We've had several release candidates and the pull request is 9 months old and was committed to the repo 6 months ago. As far as I'm concerned, the feature is staying, and the only things I personally will entertain are ideas on how to improve it (and I'd wager many of the other developers would agree).

While I tend to agree in parts, I don't like the absoluteness and I don't think it's realistic or desirable. Not all people will test and voice their opinions during development and I think that's fine and valid points can come up later; for example I think the German wonder should be changed. And there happened to be a guy making a lot of decisions on - I believe - a24, and reverting those decisions is an ongoing endeavor, if I'm not mistaken.

On topic: I think it would be good if soldiers and civilians are audibly distinctive.

On 02/03/2026 at 6:09 PM, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

So, here's where being game developers and designers matters. It's where we who make the game make decisions based on a vision for the game. Every change we make angers some players, delights others, and has zero impact on others. We can't (and won't) swing back and forth after only a couple weeks of play. The time to make your voice heard was months ago. We've had several release candidates and the pull request is 9 months old and was committed to the repo 6 months ago. As far as I'm concerned, the feature is staying, and the only things I personally will entertain are ideas on how to improve it (and I'd wager many of the other developers would agree).

While I tend to agree in parts, I don't like the absoluteness and I don't think it's realistic or desirable. Not all people will test and voice their opinions during development and I think that's fine and valid points can come up later; for example I think the German wonder should be changed. And there happened to be a guy making a lot of decisions on - I believe - a24, and reverting those decisions is an ongoing endeavor, if I'm not mistaken.

On topic: I think it would be good if soldiers and civilians are audibly distinctive.

[Gurken Khan]

On 02/03/2026 at 6:09 PM, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

So, here's where being game developers and designers matters. It's where we who make the game make decisions based on a vision for the game. Every change we make angers some players, delights others, and has zero impact on others. We can't (and won't) swing back and forth after only a couple weeks of play. The time to make your voice heard was months ago. We've had several release candidates and the pull request is 9 months old and was committed to the repo 6 months ago. As far as I'm concerned, the feature is staying, and the only things I personally will entertain are ideas on how to improve it (and I'd wager many of the other developers would agree).

While I tend to agree in parts, I don't like the absoluteness and I don't think it's realistic or desirable. Not all people will test and voice their opinions during development and I think that's fine and valid points can come up later; for example I think the German wonder should be changed. And there happened to be a guy making a lot of decisions on - I believe - a24, and reverting those decisions is an ongoing endeavor, if I'm not mistaken.

On topic: I think it would be good if soldiers and civilians are audibly distinctive.

[guerringuerrin]

1 hour ago, ittihat_ve_terakki said:

That sounds a lot ChatGPT. Lol are you copy-pasting directly from ChatGPT? 

Yeah, I'm not an english native speaker and my english is not very good so when I need to write long sentences I use it for quick translation. It is better to use others translators like google translate which sometimes can make very literal translation that are not quite common in native english speaking. The the arguments are my own.
 

1 hour ago, ittihat_ve_terakki said:

Just like no one says “Lusitano Ezpatari” and simply calls it “jav,” the term “civilian-something” doesn’t really mean anything in practice. People will keep calling them "women". That’s not going to change no matter how brilliant you believe your idea is. That’s why this feels like a meaningless change, it doesn’t add anything to the game except confusion.

You missing the point. You said:

2 hours ago, guerringuerrin said:

“Civilians” is definitely an artificial term and if you observe the games in the lobby you’ll see that everyone calls them “women” anyway. 

And I argued that currently the soldiers are in fact commonly called citizen-soldiers (not civilian-soldiers) , then calling Civilian to the former women is consistant with the naming convention the game already has and you seem to completely ignore.
Here are some examples of the use of this term or you can just use the search bar and look for the amount of threads with this naming. Just in case you still believe I think is my brilliant idea:

This is from 16 years ago and I leave some more in the spoiler

Spoiler

 

 

 

1 hour ago, ittihat_ve_terakki said:

That’s why this feels like a meaningless change, it doesn’t add anything to the game except confusion.

And if its that meaningless, what's the big deal? It's ok if you don't like the change.
I'm just discussing some of your arguments that I don't agree or I find exagerated(historical) or just totally false from game design perspective, like saying: "This is a game and any changes made should add something to the gameplay."
I just asked why is a bad change and from that point we are discusing arguments. That's all.

I do agree this change added some confusion, but not because there is now a male model and a new naming for the former women but because the male voices are the same as citizen-soldiers and now player is forced to look to see what is selecting/spawning.

1 hour ago, ittihat_ve_terakki said:

I’m obviously not against artistic work, nor could I be. But we all know this wasn’t an artistic or aesthetic change. It looks more like something that came out of someone obsessing over a minor issue and trying to smooth out a “flaw” that wasn’t really there in the first place. It even feels like the late effects of a “politically correct” trend. Visual changes can absolutely affect gameplay and player experience. However, removing the concept of “women” from the game doesn’t strike me as an artistic decision at all. 

It's ok if it doesnt strikes you.
I guess I wasn't that wrong when I said some people are just upset because they think this is a change based on political ideas.
 

Edited 2 hours ago by guerringuerrin
adding one more spoiler

[Gurken Khan]

On 02/03/2026 at 6:09 PM, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

So, here's where being game developers and designers matters. It's where we who make the game make decisions based on a vision for the game. Every change we make angers some players, delights others, and has zero impact on others. We can't (and won't) swing back and forth after only a couple weeks of play. The time to make your voice heard was months ago. We've had several release candidates and the pull request is 9 months old and was committed to the repo 6 months ago. As far as I'm concerned, the feature is staying, and the only things I personally will entertain are ideas on how to improve it (and I'd wager many of the other developers would agree).

While I tend to agree in parts, I don't like the absoluteness and I don't think it's realistic or desirable. Not all people will test and voice their opinions during development and I think that's fine and valid points can come up later; for example I think the German wonder should be changed. And there happened to be a guy making a lot of decisions on - I believe - a24, and reverting those decisions is an ongoing endeavor, if I'm not mistaken.

On topic: I think it would be good if soldiers and civilians are audibly distinctive.

[AlexHerbert]

5 hours ago, ittihat_ve_terakki said:

You can tell this isn’t a positive improvement from the fact that everyone will continue to call this new farmer unit “women.”

I call them "Civilians," checkmate and gg.. 

Edited 3 hours ago by AlexHerbert
To add emoji

[guerringuerrin]

51 minutes ago, ittihat_ve_terakki said:

I agree. However, the role of women in that period of history wasn’t exactly prominent. Reflecting that in the game, where women are seen as simple laborers, can understandably feel uncomfortable from a modern perspective. That’s probably why a political approach emerged, like “at least let them be equal to men, even if it means making them just as weak.” 

It's not about "let them be equal to men". They are not showed as equal. 

4 hours ago, guerringuerrin said:

Historically, agriculture was a task carried out by the whole of civil society—within families or communities. I think this change aims to represent that. 

Edited 3 hours ago by guerringuerrin

[guerringuerrin]

28 minutes ago, AlexHerbert said:

I call them "Civilians," checkmate and gg.. 

How dare you....

[ittihat_ve_terakki]

9 minutes ago, guerringuerrin said:

Yeah, I'm not an english native speaker and my english is not very good so when I need to write long sentences I use it for quick translation. 

You missing the point. You said:

And I argued that currently the soldiers are in fact commonly called citizen-soldiers (not civilian-soldiers) , then calling Civilian to the former women is consistant with the naming convention the game already has and you seem to completely ignore.
Here are some examples of the use of this term or you can just use the search bar and look for the amount of threads with this naming. Just in case you still believe I think is my brilliant idea:

I think you’re the one losing context here, probably because you’re arguing in a language that you are not good at. I gave that example because you defended changing the name “Women” and said, “I’ve already seen many people adopt the term ‘Civilian’ without any issue.” And the examples you showed were messages from before the update anyway. No, the people who actually play the game don’t call them that. Maybe a small group on the forum approaches the issue from a nerdy, overly technical angle and see things with such classifications. But I’m talking about real matches in the lobby, what players actually say in-game, not forum terminology. 

 

11 minutes ago, guerringuerrin said:

And if its that meaningless, what's the big deal? It's ok if you don't like the change.
I'm just discussing some of your arguments that I don't agree or I find exagerated(historical) or just totally false from game design perspective, like saying: "This is a game and any changes made should add something to the gameplay."
I just asked why is a bad change and from that point we are discusing arguments. That's all.

You’ve portrayed yourself quite innocent here but that’s not how it happened. I was actually simply expressing my opinion in a normal way, I didn’t even tag you. Yet you jumped in with “And what you’re saying here is nonsense.” It wasn’t some calm, neutral “I just asked why it’s a bad change and now we’re discussing arguments, that’s all.” That’s not how it unfolded.

I’m not sure whether to attribute this to a lack of language nuance or something else entirely.

But if you genuinely value the idea of freely expressing opinions, then you shouldn’t immediately try to shut down views you dislike by labeling them as “nonsense.”

Turning the issue into a kind of TG mainland with your allies and then framing it as “I was just sharing my opinion” doesn’t work.

18 minutes ago, guerringuerrin said:

I do agree this change added some confusion, but not because there is now a male model and a new naming for the former women but because the male voices are the same as citizen-soldiers and now player is forced to look to see what is selecting/spawning.

 

Yes it adds confusion and nothing else. That's my point.

19 minutes ago, guerringuerrin said:

I guess I wasn't that wrong when I said some people are just upset because they think this is a change based on political ideas.
 

Politically speaking: Removing women altogether isn’t exactly a brilliant move either.

I think it would have made more sense to keep the “women” unit and maybe even make it a better. Right now, the game has completely erased the only position women held. The “women” unit had its own unique role and abilities. Even her voice alone added a sense of balance to the game. Removing it now feels like an almost anti-women move. At least Ptolemaic hero Cleopatra is still around thankfully lol

The update, claimed to bring “realism,” actually introduced wizards who deal things like “aura damage” into the game.

19 minutes ago, AlexHerbert said:

I call them "Civilians," checkmate and gg.. 

If you genuinely say, “Let’s produce some CiViLiAnS” while playing, you are a robot bro.

 

[AlexHerbert]

28 minutes ago, ittihat_ve_terakki said:

If you genuinely say, “Let’s produce some CiViLiAnS” while playing, you are a robot bro.

 

Nope... I genuinely say: "I am currently initiating a large-scale demographic expansion program focused on the sustainable deployment of non-military economic personnel." 

Edited 2 hours ago by AlexHerbert
To add emoji

[guerringuerrin]

 

56 minutes ago, ittihat_ve_terakki said:

You’ve portrayed yourself quite innocent here but that’s not how it happened. I was actually simply expressing my opinion in a normal way, I didn’t even tag you. Yet you jumped in with “And what you’re saying here is nonsense.” It wasn’t some calm, neutral “I just asked why it’s a bad change and now we’re discussing arguments, that’s all.” That’s not how it unfolded.
[...]
But if you genuinely value the idea of freely expressing opinions, then you shouldn’t immediately try to shut down views you dislike by labeling them as “nonsense.”

Look, if you felt attacked or ofended in any way, I apologize. I don't want to portrait myself in an innocent way nor my intention was to attack you. I discuss arguments in a public forum about a public matter that many players are discussing. There's no need to tag me for me to answer you about what you put here. I didn't insulted you I didn't ordered you to shut up and is OK if you don't like the change. I'm not here to change your mind.
But yeah if your argument is: 

6 hours ago, ittihat_ve_terakki said:

The justifications being offered are “historical accuracy” and “realism.” If that’s the case, then we should also add mechanics like sleep, rest, parents having children, a full day–night cycle and redesign the entire game from scratch. We should also reconsider how a “hero” can survive after being hit by 50 arrows.
[...]

I answer this is nonsense, or "this doesn't make sense". Because is an overexaggeration (or however is it spell. Not using chatgpt to avoid unnecesary comments) that leads anywhere. Why? Because you can use that argument to almost everything the game, which leads to doesn't even have a game in the first place. Yes, the change has some historical ground and I told you: 

1 hour ago, guerringuerrin said:

Historically, agriculture was a task carried out by the whole of civil society—within families or communities. I think this change aims to represent that. 

And about this:

56 minutes ago, ittihat_ve_terakki said:

1 hour ago, guerringuerrin said:

I do agree this change added some confusion, but not because there is now a male model and a new naming for the former women but because the male voices are the same as citizen-soldiers and now player is forced to look to see what is selecting/spawning.

Yes it adds confusion and nothing else. That's my point.

I agree about the audio feedback, not about the models or because naming has changed from women to civilians

 

56 minutes ago, ittihat_ve_terakki said:

And the examples you showed were messages from before the update anyway.

Yes, I wanted to bring this up because that's kind of a very characteristic mechanic of the game and it's a naming used for years, and even today. I get your point about "talking about real matches in the lobby, what players actually say in-game, not forum terminology." I'm a real player too. I play almost everyday, for years. Yes in lobby we commonly say "bring your army", "javs", "javcav", "make soldiers" etcétera. Still I've seen ppl in lobby start using civilians for former women and they are not robots. You say "civilian" is artificial and I argued that too. What about "villagers", would be better? Less artificial from your POV? Is honest not ironical question.

56 minutes ago, ittihat_ve_terakki said:

Politically speaking: Removing women altogether isn’t exactly a brilliant move either.

I think it would have made more sense to keep the “women” unit and maybe even make it a better. Right now, the game has completely erased the only position women held. The “women” unit had its own unique role and abilities. Even her voice alone added a sense of balance to the game. Removing it now feels like an almost anti-women move. 

Women are still there and I don't think someone had the intention of removing them or undermine them. Because, as we were discussing here, the intention were not political. Were historical. 

56 minutes ago, ittihat_ve_terakki said:

The update, claimed to bring “realism,” actually introduced wizards who deal things like “aura damage” into the game.

I don't get if this is some kind of joke or irony. As far as I know there has been aura damage and other types of auras for a long time

Edited 1 hour ago by guerringuerrin

[Tapothei]

Might as well introduce an option to spawn females/males civilians only, mix is the default in the "preference" setting. The idea is being able to satisfy old player base as well as future players. In my case I'm calling them Civilians nonetheless as they are the tags given in this version 28 and they are mixed now. Others call them "woman" despite the change and its fine, its a term for nostalgic players to indicate past terms for this new change moving forward as a tidbit in loading screen for new players.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hf-62WEaVtY

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

@ittihat_ve_terakkiBro you claim to be someone "actually playing the game" as if no one else here does, and yet what makes you come onto the forum is an issue like this? Have you not heard about sniping, champcav, booming/turling issues, fanas, and all sorts of other gameplay issues that we discuss.

Definitely it seems that theres something extra bothersome to you about this change that you haven't mentioned.

[guerringuerrin]

46 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hf-62WEaVtY

haha they even talk about 0ad in the chat. interesting