Build is green

builderr-debug-macos.txt
ld: warning: text-based stub file /System/Library/Frameworks//CoreAudio.framework/CoreAudio.tbd and library file /System/Library/Frameworks//CoreAudio.framework/CoreAudio are out of sync. Falling back to library file for linking.
ld: warning: text-based stub file /System/Library/Frameworks//AudioToolbox.framework/AudioToolbox.tbd and library file /System/Library/Frameworks//AudioToolbox.framework/AudioToolbox are out of sync. Falling back to library file for linking.
ld: warning: text-based stub file /System/Library/Frameworks//ForceFeedback.framework/ForceFeedback.tbd and library file /System/Library/Frameworks//ForceFeedback.framework/ForceFeedback are out of sync. Falling back to library file for linking.
ld: warning: text-based stub file /System/Library/Frameworks//CoreVideo.framework/CoreVideo.tbd and library file /System/Library/Frameworks//CoreVideo.framework/CoreVideo are out of sync. Falling back to library file for linking.
ld: warning: text-based stu

See https://jenkins.wildfiregames.com/job/macos-differential/3090/display/redirect for more details.

Build is green

builderr-debug-macos.txt
ld: warning: text-based stub file /System/Library/Frameworks//CoreAudio.framework/CoreAudio.tbd and library file /System/Library/Frameworks//CoreAudio.framework/CoreAudio are out of sync. Falling back to library file for linking.
ld: warning: text-based stub file /System/Library/Frameworks//AudioToolbox.framework/AudioToolbox.tbd and library file /System/Library/Frameworks//AudioToolbox.framework/AudioToolbox are out of sync. Falling back to library file for linking.
ld: warning: text-based stub file /System/Library/Frameworks//ForceFeedback.framework/ForceFeedback.tbd and library file /System/Library/Frameworks//ForceFeedback.framework/ForceFeedback are out of sync. Falling back to library file for linking.
ld: warning: text-based stub file /System/Library/Frameworks//CoreVideo.framework/CoreVideo.tbd and library file /System/Library/Frameworks//CoreVideo.framework/CoreVideo are out of sync. Falling back to library file for linking.
ld: warning: text-based stu

See https://jenkins.wildfiregames.com/job/macos-differential/3093/display/redirect for more details.

There was an older diff by @mimo I believe with stronger reductions. I would in fact be in favour of slightly stronger reduction.

D76 for the record.

You mean D76? As @scythetwirler pointed out there, basic infantry should have at least enough vision range to be able to see common attacks, hence why I opted for 70, which is the attack range of archers (towers actually have effectively more than that, due to their elevation bonus).
Also, D76 had vision range increases for higher ranks (advanced, elite, champion), whereas this patch treats them all equally.

In D3486#153825, @Nescio wrote:

You mean D76? As @scythetwirler pointed out there, basic infantry should have at least enough vision range to be able to see common attacks, hence why I opted for 70, which is the attack range of archers (towers actually have effectively more than that, due to their elevation bonus).

I feel like that issue should block this patch, but that issue should also be fixed (it seems, intuitively to me, that it should be rather easy to do).

I would probably like 60 for most melee units, 70 for most ranged units, with ranged siege being possibly higher (possibly not, depending on how we update UnitAI). Siege ram and other support units should get much smaller values, like the kushites priest currently.

I feel like that issue should block this patch, but that issue should also be fixed (it seems, intuitively to me, that it should be rather easy to do).

You mean the tower range?

I would probably like 60 for most melee units, 70 for most ranged units, with ranged siege being possibly higher (possibly not, depending on how we update UnitAI).

Why should ranged soldiers have more vision than their melee counterparts?

Siege ram and other support units should get much smaller values, like the kushites priest currently.

Support units already have smaller vision ranges (female citizen 32, healer 30, slave 12, trader 60, elephant 50, fishing boat 30, merchant ship 50) than soldiers, this patch doesn't change that. (Should it?)

In D3486#153832, @Nescio wrote:

You mean the tower range?

No I mean that units can't see their attacker in Fow/SoD.

Why should ranged soldiers have more vision than their melee counterparts?

Not necessarily any reason, but it's somewhat convenient. That being said, in 0 A.D. they're also faster, so we can probably give them equal range.

No I mean that units can't see their attacker in Fow/SoD.

That's true both with and without this patch, so why would that block this patch specifically?
D3487 addresses that, though, by giving all units a vision range of 100 (the opposite approach of this patch).

I like the changes in this patch, especially with the idea of having scouts, a specific unit for vision.
It doesn't seem a disadvantage to me being hit by boolt shoters and not being able to see, it's part of the game, improve your scout.
Why the difference between camel, cavalry and chariot?

I'm not sure if 70 is enough for archers with archery tradition for example.
I think these little diversifications between chariots, camels and horses are unnecessary.
I would be happy if we had a unification between infantry and cavalry. I think 75 is a reasonable number for everyone, although elephant and siege weapons may have different values.

I think these little diversifications between chariots, camels and horses are unnecessary.

Camels are visibly taller than horses, both in reality and in game. Given that elephants have a higher vision range than cavalry and cavalry than infantry, it is reasonable for camels to have a vision range in between elephants and cavalry. And for the same reason I put chariots in between cavalry and infantry.