Page MenuHomeWildfire Games

Allow roman citizen to build sentry towers.
ClosedPublic

Authored by fatherbushido on Feb 5 2017, 4:41 PM.

Details

Reviewers
elexis
Group Reviewers
Restricted Owners Package(Owns No Changed Paths)
Commits
rP19220: Allow Romans to build the sentry tower, revealing the new model from rP18754.
Summary

As discussed with Lordgood in the forum, there is perhaps no real reason to not let roman units build their sentry tower and it could be nice to use that model.
https://wildfiregames.com/forum/index.php?/topic/18003-suggestions-for-0-ad/&page=130#comment-326405

Test Plan

-

Diff Detail

Repository
rP 0 A.D. Public Repository
Lint
Automatic diff as part of commit; lint not applicable.
Unit
Automatic diff as part of commit; unit tests not applicable.

Event Timeline

fatherbushido created this revision.Feb 5 2017, 4:41 PM
Vulcan added a subscriber: Vulcan.Feb 5 2017, 5:25 PM

Build is green

Updating workspaces.
Build (release)...
Build (debug)...
Running debug tests...
Running cxxtest tests (302 tests)..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................OK!

http://jw:8080/job/phabricator/317/ for more details.

elexis added a subscriber: elexis.Feb 7 2017, 11:36 AM

Link to the discussion?

The patch is complete as those are all units that can occur derived from the starting entities, and since those are the only files containing the removed characters.

Since the discussion only contained a "why not", I digged up a bit of history, trying to find out why it was removed in the first place:
In rP18024, scythetwirler made it consistent
In rP16878, mimo renamed the template (#3059)
In rP16285, scythetwirlers balancing branch removed the tower from the roman swordsman

Judging from the last diff, I guess the intention of the last commit was to make it consistent (no wooden walls, therefore no wooden tower).

In rP11860 michael "Removed palisades from Roman infantry prod queue." so I guess you know whom to ask if you want to know more about it. Alternatively post a stronger opinon than a "why not" here and you'll get my ack ;-)

fatherbushido added a comment.EditedFeb 7 2017, 2:16 PM

I guess, you/I/we will wait a long time so.

edit: (but I'll be positive. It's because first wooden tower was part of palisade and as roman have wooden siege tower, they was punished by not having wooden palisade).

elexis added a comment.Feb 7 2017, 2:42 PM

Romans still don't have wooden walls in age 1. Their siege walls occur in age 3.
So if you make those towers available in age 1, you will give them defense buildings in age 1, thus remove the civ specificness, hence leaning towards disagreement with the proposal.

If we have to add the entity because there is a model for it, then it could become an age 2 building perhaps?

I guess, you/I/we will wait a long time so.

Why? There are some active, qualified and related people on the forums who might become alerted when creating a topic about adding the towers.
Also some of our devs might stumble across this differential proposal and post a comment if they have an opposing opinion.

In D129#4517, @elexis wrote:

Romans still don't have wooden walls in age 1. Their siege walls occur in age 3.
So if you make those towers available in age 1, you will give them defense buildings in age 1, thus remove the civ specificness, hence leaning towards disagreement with the proposal.

If we have to add the entity because there is a model for it, then it could become an age 2 building perhaps?

?

I guess, you/I/we will wait a long time so.

Why? There are some active, qualified and related people on the forums who might become alerted when creating a topic about adding the towers.
Also some of our devs might stumble across this differential proposal and post a comment if they have an opposing opinion.

fatherbushido abandoned this revision.Feb 7 2017, 2:51 PM
elexis edited the summary of this revision. (Show Details)Feb 7 2017, 2:55 PM

If we have to add the entity because there is a model for it, then it could become an age 2 building perhaps?

That refered to LordGoods comment "It's a wasted building otherwise"

elexis edited the summary of this revision. (Show Details)Feb 7 2017, 3:03 PM
Imarok added a subscriber: Imarok.Feb 7 2017, 4:35 PM

A little offtopic, but is it intended, that siege wall and palisade have the same icon?
(Until know I didn't knew rome has a siege wall, because of the palisade icon)

This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.

edit: (but I'll be positive. It's because first wooden tower was part of palisade and as roman have wooden siege tower, they was punished by not having wooden palisade).

Didn't get notified you had add/ited that before answering the questionmark. I asked the original contributors to get closer to the primary source.

In D129#4528, @Imarok wrote:

A little offtopic, but is it intended, that siege wall and palisade have the same icon?
(Until know I didn't knew rome has a siege wall, because of the palisade icon)

Thanks for fixing the reference in https://code.wildfiregames.com/D137