In D4705#218404, @phosit wrote:

I don't see how any value would be an argument against this diff.

Is this the actual Koine Greek? (Doric Greek may be used for the Spartans, while Koine for the others)

In D5136#218405, @wowgetoffyourcellphone wrote:

Likes: Moving the Champ Cav back to the Temple & Reducing cost of Colonization

Suggestion: Perhaps give a better description to what "Civic Structures" are in the Colonization tech tooltip "(Civic Centers, Temples, and Houses).

Likes: Moving the Champ Cav back to the Temple & Reducing cost of Colonization

In D4705#218375, @vladislavbelov wrote:

Preliminary results for SVN: we have about 60% of users on macOS and 3% of users on Linux who has 0 for std::random_device{}.entropy().

I don't see how any value would be an argument against this diff.

Build is unstable, some tests have failed - The Moirai have given mortals hearts that can endure.

Build failure - The Moirai have given mortals hearts that can endure.

Successful build - Chance fights ever on the side of the prudent.

Successful build - Chance fights ever on the side of the prudent.

fix tooltip warning for legionary and centurion.

Build failure - The Moirai have given mortals hearts that can endure.

fix error in requirements for roman_siege.json
fix tooltip warnings.

Preliminary results for SVN: we have about 60% of users on macOS and 3% of users on Linux who has 0 for std::random_device{}.entropy().

const to all terrain where it's not changed. Also years. The rest looks ok.

In D4981#214724, @phosit wrote:

IMO consistency isn't a goal on it's own but a tool for more readability

For me consistency and explicit links/relations (in the broadest sense) are the core things for programming in any language.

In D5109#218329, @wowgetoffyourcellphone wrote:

Without looking at the specific templates, you may need to replace="" or remove (-) the previous tech requirement.

I'd say leave the temple cost the same. 300 stone is already prohibitive enough in my opinion. The idea is that you can start training them fairly quickly once in p3, but it will be very hard to mass them since its hard to get a lot of temples.

Successful build - Chance fights ever on the side of the prudent.

Build failure - The Moirai have given mortals hearts that can endure.

Correct parent
Boldica shield > correct shield of each civ
Attack 4 > 5 grain rate -30% > -25%

Successful build - Chance fights ever on the side of the prudent.

For me it's an improvement, because 200 food is really expensive at the beginning of the game and I don't research it myself. 150 is a safe number and an improvement anyway. If it's not enough, in the future we can reduce it a little more.

Build failure - The Moirai have given mortals hearts that can endure.

Gaul > Gallic

Without looking at the specific templates, you may need to replace="" or remove (-) the previous tech requirement.

Without looking at the specific templates, you may need to replace="" or remove (-) the previous tech requirement.

Successful build - Chance fights ever on the side of the prudent.

Build failure - The Moirai have given mortals hearts that can endure.

add rolling hills to central island, add map preview pic.

Successful build - Chance fights ever on the side of the prudent.

Build failure - The Moirai have given mortals hearts that can endure.

150 food 20 sec

In D5118#218315, @borg- wrote:

It's a number I can accept but I always prefer safe numbers. 150 with 20 sec would be an improvement anyway. I'm afraid that his numbers make him a difficult and discouraging for rushes.

It's a number I can accept but I always prefer safe numbers. 150 with 20 sec would be an improvement anyway. I'm afraid that his numbers make him a difficult and discouraging for rushes.

ok ill go with 100 food and 20 seconds. If the upgrade becomes ubiquitous (which I doubt), then we can revisit this later.

In D5118#218311, @borg- wrote:

Maybe safe numbers like food 150 and decrease research time to 20 or 30?

Maybe safe numbers like food 150 and decrease research time to 20 or 30?

In D5125#218309, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

In D5125#218306, @borg- wrote:

I think i will increase the attack, +4 of must be better.

yeah, higher attack would be good. It has to be worth the -30% grain gather rate.

In D5125#218308, @borg- wrote:

@real_tabasco_sauce @chrstgtr must request loom tech?

If so, should be searchable in houses again or one technology in the house and another in CC not a problem for you?

I think this technology should certainly be researched from the cc. In that case, I think it would be fine to not require loom.

In D5125#218306, @borg- wrote:

I think i will increase the attack, +4 of must be better.

@real_tabasco_sauce @chrstgtr must supersedes loom tech?

I know that i violate this rule

I think i will increase the attack. +200%/6 must be better.

I'd say a map should try to preserve the feel across the different sizes. That isn't the same as blatantly scaling, in fact constructing counter examples isn't all that hard (eg, think of vertical range of ranged units). Also you already violate this supposed rule with your fix. I'd say a map author should go with the most sensible choice case by case.

Successful build - Chance fights ever on the side of the prudent.

Build failure - The Moirai have given mortals hearts that can endure.

• Add forgoten .bind(this)
• Inline pData

According to elexis all heights should be scaled by the map size.
For me this makes sense for hills and mountains but definitly not for waves or shores.
I'm uncertain if the sea ground height should be scaled by the map size. Conceptualy it should be treated like hills but in practice a deep see ground hurts performance and isn't noticed by players.

https://wildfiregames.com/forum/topic/93787-unit-specific-upgrades/?do=findComment&comment=543463
Well, the idea is that these upgrades will often fit right below the unit they affect. If they were all in the forge, the forge would be way too cluttered.
The general idea of these upgrades is that they are a decent bonus overall, simiilar in strength to the first two blacksmith upgrades, and that they push the unit a little further into its 'role'.
For instance, the clubmen and axmen sort of become more suitable for raiding because of their speed and the cavalry spearman becomes better at taking out cavalry and providing quick damage.

I see you thought about putting tehcns in the barracks and stables. What if we make it to the forge? I personally would find this much more interesting than the standard technologies we have today. A set of technologies, for spearman, another for skirmishrs etc.. I think it would be much more interesting for gameplay, for the player to be able to choose which units to give emphasis and priority.

I think it's correct now @real_tabasco_sauce

In rP27531#61124, @Freagarach wrote:

In rP27531#61121, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

I am seeing this warning all the time.

Define "all the time"? Since I don't get it al all. ^^

I encountered this issue while trying to use _SC_NPROCESSORS_ONLN to retrieve information about the available CPUs on the fnf system.

Seems logical.

In rP27531#61121, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

I am seeing this warning all the time.

Define "all the time"? Since I don't get it al all. ^^

In D5109#218249, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

Could you send me your mainlog.txt file?

Please only ask for interestinglog.html. :) Since that contains the errors and warnings, but the mainlog also has private information.

Bring it back.

In D5109#218248, @borg- wrote:

Probably cuz new Roman civ bônus. Need rebase

Probably cuz new Roman civ bônus. Need rebase

The "Water Level" switch(dropdown) would contain

No Water
Shallow (The current Flood)
Deep (The aoe-like Migration)
Rising

Well this sounds like features that should be part of a dedicated flood map. I think players that want to play migration will find the migration map and only want to play that, rather than selecting a sub-generation of a map that is all about flooding.
I like your plans for flood, so maybe we should just keep them separate.

In D5129#218240, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

In D5129#218186, @phosit wrote:

1. Add a switch to Flood and make Flood better.
2. Make a new Migration, add a switch to the new Migration and then delete Flood because it's just a bad version of the new Migration.

It feels like 1. is less of a hurdle.

Well, the layouts are a bit different, mainly the tree placement and resource distribution.

"Different" isnt necesarily better or worse.

Also, I have already done the 'new migration' part : )

The bigger hurdle is decideing that we need a new map. *And* then deciding that we delete Flood.
Whereas deciding to change resource distribution of Flood is a trifle. (Adding a switch is a even smaller trifle.)

I think it might make sense to let migration stay as is written, but let the 'switch' be some probability that the water is shallow like flood (unless it could be set by the user, I'd need some help to do that).

That's exactly what I imagine: The passability should be selectable like the placements on other maps. I'd like (help) to implement the switch.

I like that flood has these kind of square hills and mountains. I am thinking about scrapping the little impassible cliffs on the current migration center island and adding in these set elevation hills.

I also hate flat mountains.

its true that you would probably still 'migrate' if the water is shallow. Its just easier.

Successful build - Chance fights ever on the side of the prudent.

Build failure - The Moirai have given mortals hearts that can endure.

Make it a member function in CampaignMenu.

In D5129#218186, @phosit wrote:

1. Add a switch to Flood and make Flood better.
2. Make a new Migration, add a switch to the new Migration and then delete Flood because it's just a bad version of the new Migration.

It feels like 1. is less of a hurdle.

fix javelin cavalry inheritance. This is probably not your error so i'd still like to see your mainlog if possible.

In D5109#218225, @borg- wrote:

I got errors, probably civbonuses.

Do we want the empty towers to hold up against enemy territory? I think probably not.
In outpost.xml, this line seems to let them decay only to enemy territory, but I tried adding it to the tower template and it didn't work. I am not sure how to overwrite "neutral enemy" which is inherited from template_structure.

<TerritoryDecay>
  <Territory>enemy</Territory>
</TerritoryDecay>

Successful build - Chance fights ever on the side of the prudent.

Build failure - The Moirai have given mortals hearts that can endure.

Here is a version where the territory does not influence. If I increase it to 9 for example, a house can be built. 8 seems to turn off the influence of territory.

In D5120#218226, @borg- wrote:

Just remove the root territory, this way it will act as an outpost. What do you think is better, remove or leave the root territory? The territory of a stone tower is large, you can even build a fortress.
@real_tabasco_sauce @chrstgtr

Just remove the root territory, this way it will act as an outpost. What do you think is better, remove or leave the root territory? The territory of a stone tower is large, you can even build a fortress.
@real_tabasco_sauce @chrstgtr