Fix test.
The Iberian cheap skirm bonus isn't removed, maybe others too, I didn't go through them all. That's a problem with rP19093.

I played around a little more, and apparently with two on the team the bonus will be removed but with three it'll stay. There's lots of diplomacy changes at the start, maybe that could be somewhere to look, just a guess.

Confirmed. CalculateAffectedPlayers` computes the correct players however and RemoveTemplateBonus seems to be called correctly too, but I didn't investigate further.
Also found #5109.

The Iberian cheap skirm bonus isn't removed,
That's a problem with rP19093.

Which is fun as the test plan was

Test Plan

You can check that your ally iberian team bonus is indeed removed when he's defeated.
Take care to test resign and defeat.

And that's exactly the cost one which is broken.
edit: (already in a22)
edit edit: the issue should be in rP19092 (not only for defeat but also for diplo changes)

In D1426#58338, @elexis wrote:

Also found #5109.

That was annoying me. Guess I was too focused on this other stuff to realize it was a bug. :/

We should decide something on gaia.
I think at the moment gaia isn't affected by technology? At least the advanced/elite bonuses.
Currently auras affect gaia but this patch would change it so that they wouldn't affect gaia.
However, gaia entities can still have auras that affect players.

In D1426#58808, @temple wrote:

We should decide something on gaia.
I think at the moment gaia isn't affected by technology? At least the advanced/elite bonuses.
Currently auras affect gaia but this patch would change it so that they wouldn't affect gaia.
However, gaia entities can still have auras that affect players.

I'm fine with both features: auras do not affect gaia (does not have use on gameplay, so if it can save performance it's a good change) and gaia auras can affect players (i don't think we have currently such use case, but can be nice for scenarios).

In D1426#58809, @mimo wrote:

I'm fine with both features: auras do not affect gaia (does not have use on gameplay, so if it can save performance it's a good change)

For example that sele hero that affects enemy building health, with the patch it won't apply to gaia buildings.

and gaia auras can affect players (i don't think we have currently such use case, but can be nice for scenarios).

For example the kush relic which gives enemy women -15% gather rate.

So I'd probably lean the opposite way, player auras can affect gaia but gaia can't have its own auras.

In D1426#58814, @temple wrote:

In D1426#58809, @mimo wrote:

I'm fine with both features: auras do not affect gaia (does not have use on gameplay, so if it can save performance it's a good change)

For example that sele hero that affects enemy building health, with the patch it won't apply to gaia buildings.

but gaia is supposed to be only a nuisance, not a real oponent, so it's not a problem.
For some maps (like jebel barkal) where the main interest is gaia, i think that should only be a temporary state with as a goal to move it as an extra player (would need changes in gamesetup, with possibly a dedicated ai).

and gaia auras can affect players (i don't think we have currently such use case, but can be nice for scenarios).

For example the kush relic which gives enemy women -15% gather rate.

That can be useful when designing some scenarios, don't you think so? But i agree not really useful in a standard game as long as it affect all players equally.

In D1426#58817, @mimo wrote:

but gaia is supposed to be only a nuisance, not a real oponent, so it's not a problem.

Suppose I have a choice between one hero that decreases enemy's attack by 20% and another that boosts my health by 25%. Normally those should have the same effect (1/.8 = 1.25), but if gaia's not affected by auras then the first one's useless.

For some maps (like jebel barkal) where the main interest is gaia, i think that should only be a temporary state with as a goal to move it as an extra player (would need changes in gamesetup, with possibly a dedicated ai).

Yes, it's better if the city was a player. Once we have that then gaia will basically be irrelevant, so okay for it not to be affected by techs or auras.

(Gaia also has the disadvantage that it doesn't have territory, so most buildings are set uncapturable currently. Having a fixed playerID means either max 7 players or finally increasing that number which needs some engine changes and scrolling for the gamesetup)

hero that decreases enemy's attack by 20%

I agree that it would be useful to the player, but the argument is only valid for gaia-maps (units of defeated players may be neglected) and it would also be useful for gaia maps if we could spawn Elite and Advanced units that actually have the according stats too.
The IMO most relevant part would be consistency.
But actually looking at the 3 changes in this patch, all of them are independent of the gaia question.
I'm ok with ignoring gaia and moving to a playerID > 0 eventually, but please in a separate patch to not add a 4th diffs to this diff. I can write a ticket.