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

Also, that is very difficult to see on your settings. On lower settings (which are the norm on multiplayer games), it will probably be impossible to see

That's the point of it being camouflaged :D the idea is that it is hidden when it is build inside a forest, but semi obvious to spot when build out in the open. I can upload another video/image to maybe show better how good/ bad it is to spot. But the art is more of a placeholder. One could e.g. also add some small palisades to make it more obvious when out in the open.

rename the component and make it empty as @Freagarach suggested.

During our game I noticed that chaps were leaving their melee target to go and attack some random dude who was firing at range at them (causing them to get picked off) have you noticed that/managed to fix that? (Else, consider this as a bug report. ;) )

In D4305#183526, @Angen wrote:

There was this commit:
https://code.wildfiregames.com/rP24037
negated by
https://code.wildfiregames.com/rP25077

Agreeing on the change. Lobby policies need date update and patch needs a rebase. But reconstructing the patch is easier.

I was feeling a bit overwhelmed by the changes being asked for, but I am working adding all the suggestions recommended. Just need to work out how gui layout and test harnesses in 0AD work. So it might take a bit of time. Adding the comment should be easy enough.

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

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

also nulls in AI (instead of undefined)

more details: https://code.wildfiregames.com/D368#182749

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

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

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

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

I added the besideAllies placement option to Frontier and Ambush

removed some of @Jammyjamjamman 's crazy comments

In D4291#183515, @Freagarach wrote:

I'm really uncertain whether this is something to add to the main game. Certainly the idea is nice, but what technical debt do we add by including it? (It doesn't seem to be much so maybe just worth a shot.)

I would not obstruct main icon, make the pause thing small and move it to the corner

They cannot be repaired, damaged, constructed, do not provide any resource or aura. There is curently no value letiting player to select the bridges. It can even make selecting/commanding units near these entities a bit complicated, so i would just keep it as is in this diff with only actors and not entities.

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

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

small changes, also trigger bots

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

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

• Use translate instead of translateWithContext

In D3544#183142, @Freagarach wrote:

Or even move the responsibility of keeping the correct position to the members. (And get back into formation when we become idle.)

There was this commit:
https://code.wildfiregames.com/rP24037
negated by
https://code.wildfiregames.com/rP25077

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

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

Switched to directly modifying templates instead of using a tech

If you move the Athenian Marine to the barracks or gymnasium, then I suggest you rename the unit back to its original name from years ago: Athenian Ekdromos. Full circle.

If you have it trained from the dock, then "Athenian Marine" still works, but I'd keep it trained only from the dock. Keeps it unique and also keeps it thematic (marines make sense trained from a dock or ship from an in-gameworld perspective).

I'm really uncertain whether this is something to add to the main game. Certainly the idea is nice, but what technical debt do we add by including it? (It doesn't seem to be much so maybe just worth a shot.)

I agree with @wowgetoffyourcellphone about the naming. Also, why is the tech moved to the CC? Why don't we tie it to the hero?

You'll have to use translate with a comment above that explains the word used. See my inline for an example.

In D4308#183448, @Langbart wrote:

The auto-produce icons have all a hand on it.

Aye, they sometimes also have a partly progressed progress bar. Probably something to do with not (re)setting those for ghosts. I will look at that later.

We need horizontal scrolling. ;)

In D4305#183394, @andy5995 wrote:

In my opinion, the bug that this patch was intended to address was fixed, and therefore should be merged, and a separate ticket should be created for adding more features such as those mentioned above. If a lot of extra code were added to this patch, it would take a while longer for the bugfix to get merged while the new code is written, tested, and debugged. Also I think more courteous to the developer, who agreed to fix this bug, and did so in a timely manner.

Okay, point taken. I was thinking about addressing @vladislavbelov's comment more correctly than with a comment.

In D4310#183451, @LetswaveaBook wrote:

I was toying with the idea that it could increase the garrison limit of the building by 20%(or 40%), which would make it a good tech for defense.

Please keep in mind that the garrison limit is not decimal safe, so one could use a percentage but someone (likely me) needs to fix the code first.

I'd rather have you change the templates than apply a tech.

Might be an option. Do have Medium as the median, please. ;)

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

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

This fixes the error about the playerIDs.map function I mentioned in the previous diff.

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

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

This mostly uses existing code that's used for Frontier and Ambush to create the TeamPlacement drop down box, and adds the same options to Mainland and African plains, plus adds the "Beside Allies" placement option.

In D4291#183490, @chrstgtr wrote:

Does it do anything besides allow the ambushed to hide units?

Does it do anything besides allow the ambushed to hide units?

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

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

Fix @Angen 's comments. The function does indeed not require an argument
Fix @Langbart 's comments about garrisoning Support classes and having variants.
Note: The art is pretty much a placeholder, so if someone has a better/ nicer looking thing i'm open for suggestions

Apply the patch and compile the game

Ok

Run the game and open the developer overlay

Ok

Check that checkboxes and dropdowns work

Ok, but I would change the style of the dropdown. Increasing the devCommandsText even more would also look good, sans-16 fits nicely.

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

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

Fixed a string

Why not averaging a bigger area for each corner?

Sorry for the long silence, I didn't really find time to come back to this. Anyways, should I now replace every translateWithContext with translate? Or should the code be retained in cases like these: "caption": translateWithContext("gameFinished", "Quit"),? I suppose not, because "Quit" is "Quit" no matter how you see it, but I want to be sure.

In D4310#183450, @ValihrAnt wrote:

I think the tech needs to be rethought for it to get used as more than a late-game stone sink. I absolutely don't care about health or capture points for civic buildings, especially if it also increases the build time. Getting this tech forces me to waste more time setting up temples for champion production while also affording fewer of them. Looking back, it actually used to reduce build time but was changed due to fear of being op. Going in a circle and just having it reduce build time is one idea or could probably have it give a health boost to defensive and civic buildings as another.

I think the tech needs to be rethought for it to get used as more than a late-game stone sink. I absolutely don't care about health or capture points for civic buildings, especially if it also increases the build time. Getting this tech forces me to waste more time setting up temples for champion production while also affording fewer of them. Looking back, it actually used to reduce build time but was changed due to fear of being op. Going in a circle and just having it reduce build time is one idea or could probably have it give a health boost to defensive and civic buildings as another.

It’ll be interesting to see how the bonus applies to 10 pop house civ.

It pretty much negates the early disadvantage of being forced to have idle time or skip baskets and afterwards it plays the exact same as it did for the Celts. Additionally, it allows them to execute the instant spear cavalry rush more comfortably.

The auto-produce icons have all a hand on it.

How do you like the extra hand and orange color

One thing worth noting is that while the "official" min resolution at the moment is 1024x768 the game actually requires in some places already more than 1600x800

Added Valihr to the reviewers since I need someone.

Revision that changes gameplay should have [Gameplay] in the title, this will automatically subscribe the Balancing Advisors, see e.g. D4309.

Thumbs up from me.

In D3998#183438, @JCWasmx86 wrote:

After an hour I destroyed all her four CC and she started to retreat to a central point in the middle of the map, after a short time the Ai committed suicide and I won.

@Langbart I wasn't able to reproduce it. (The red ones won at the end, the blue one did nearly nothing).

After an hour I destroyed all her four CC and she started to retreat to a central point in the middle of the map, after a short time the Ai committed suicide and I won.

@Langbart I wasn't able to reproduce it. (The red ones won at the end, the blue one did nearly nothing). But if the AI kills itself instantly this means either:

In D4291#183435, @Langbart wrote:

Optional:
(1) if the variation would be switchable after selecting the structure that would be good.

Optional:
(1) if the variation would be switchable after selecting the structure that would be good.

In D4305#183394, @andy5995 wrote:

Also I think more courteous to the developer, who agreed to fix this bug, and did so in a timely manner.

Thank you @Jammyjamjamman for fixing the error so quickly. This solves the problem in the referenced ticket.

In D4307#183399, @Freagarach wrote:

Please consider D2927 (and its commit).

Glad you made it, good to have some new gameplay patches being made.

One small suggestion:

(Notice this brings a whole new idea for a can of worms in my head: that item should just be a "thing" (object) of its own. That would simplify the queue code a lot. ^^ )

Please consider D2927 (and its commit).

Duplicate of D2432