Do we have an example template?
- Queries
- All Stories
- Search
- Advanced Search
- Transactions
- Transaction Logs
Advanced Search
Sun, Apr 21
Mar 25 2024
Mar 22 2024
Mar 3 2024
Right, the selection pop matching up with the default max pop has a kind of logic to it.
Feb 26 2024
In D5229#223126, @marder wrote:if you want me to test this you need to send me the pmp file.
Feb 23 2024
Feb 14 2024
Feb 12 2024
Feb 5 2024
Great catch!
Feb 2 2024
Feb 1 2024
Commit will include specific name and template name changes, as well as removing the Onager building ability. Onager building will be added back in with another patch when the preview code is fixed.
Also, based on this discussion, we should rename the Lanciarius to Antesignanus. It doesn't roll off the tongue as well, but is better attested in this period, while the Lanciarius is better for later times.
In D5206#222884, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:In D5206#222882, @wowgetoffyourcellphone wrote:In D5206#222836, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:In D5206#222832, @wowgetoffyourcellphone wrote:Hmm, how are we to deal with the Extraordinarius? Promote to Centurion?
Also, suggestion: The Onager could train from the Army Camp instead of the Battering Ram.
The extraordinarius promotes to legionary, I guess that's a downgrade, but it would happen fairly infrequently. I suppose they could convert to centurions, but that would be historically awkward, and then there is also the limit of 8 centurions, so one would have to handle that case somehow.
Yeah, locally I tried having them upgrade to Centurions and the 8 unit limit made it an awkward exploit. Albeit, a rarely used exploit, but an exploit nevertheless.
I think it is fine for them to become legionaries. It isn't too big a loss, and it is a loss the player will have decided to take. One could even consider it a historical nuance, since at some point the allied and roman forces united. Presumably those units might have just been absorbed into the legions.
Jan 31 2024
In D5206#222836, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:In D5206#222832, @wowgetoffyourcellphone wrote:Hmm, how are we to deal with the Extraordinarius? Promote to Centurion?
Also, suggestion: The Onager could train from the Army Camp instead of the Battering Ram.
The extraordinarius promotes to legionary, I guess that's a downgrade, but it would happen fairly infrequently. I suppose they could convert to centurions, but that would be historically awkward, and then there is also the limit of 8 centurions, so one would have to handle that case somehow.
In D5206#222835, @vladislavbelov wrote:elexis found the problem (I'll try to make a patch): this.phenotype = pickRandom(this.GetPossiblePhenotypes()); in Identity. So the current patch is needed only if it's useful for the gameplay.
Jan 29 2024
Hmm, how are we to deal with the Extraordinarius? Promote to Centurion?
I'm down for moving the Onager back to the Arsenal for this diff and commit. But I think we're all in agreement that eventually we'd like to fix it so that it can be built by infantry without OOS. Hopefully for this Alpha, but if not, then for the next one.
Jan 28 2024
Since the Lanciarius and Legionary have their own template naming, I was thinking of making the template names of the Auxiliary Cavalry more explicit as well:
Jan 27 2024
In D5206#222809, @chrstgtr wrote:In D5206#222807, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:In D5206#222806, @wowgetoffyourcellphone wrote:After talking about it a little, I honestly think a fix for the OOS needs to be whipped up before we commit this. I think building the Onager with soldiers is a worthy feature and worth having it work right. Anyone have any thoughts on that?
to be honest, I would be fine with scrapping it, but if the fix isn't too hard/hacky then I would prefer the fix.
+1
Nice to have but I'd rather get the alpha out sooner than to materially delay it for this.
Jan 26 2024
After talking about it a little, I honestly think a fix for the OOS needs to be whipped up before we commit this. I think building the Onager with soldiers is a worthy feature and worth having it work right. Anyone have any thoughts on that?
Jan 25 2024
In D5206#222799, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:yeah I bet there will be a need for balancing, with the main concern being how great a power spike it is. I think it could be addressed by switching the units to veteran, but I would rather try it like this first.
@wowgetoffyourcellphone could you reproduce any of the errors in the ticket with the patch applied?
Jan 24 2024
I've tested this and didn't run into any problems. Anyone else?
Jan 22 2024
Jan 20 2024
Can haz accepted? :)
How they now look locally:
@vladislavbelov does it address your concerns now?
Jan 18 2024
In D5231#222686, @Stan wrote:Do you need it to be rectangular ?
Commit? :)
Jan 17 2024
50 and 40 pierce are essentially the same, I think.
Jan 14 2024
How is this coming in the community mod. You guys like it?
In D5231#222580, @wowgetoffyourcellphone wrote:
In D5206#222549, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:In D5206#222548, @wowgetoffyourcellphone wrote:Question, what ethnicity did you want the Auxilia Cavalry to be? Also, should it just be 1 rank like the others? Could just make the cavalry promote to cavalry_auxiliary.xml and make the unit Advanced rank.
Would it be a lot of effort to make 3 variants for a new unit? I think it could be really cool to take a skirm cavalry unit like the gallic or numidian cavalry and give it roman equipment. Would that work?
Jan 13 2024
An alternate approach that is not as pretty, but is more efficient.
In D5231#222566, @Stan wrote:Also this should go in breaking changes, whenever Trac is back up.
Isn't it a good enough improvement to just combine the 3 into one texture and reduce texture swapping, etc.?
In D5231#222568, @sera wrote:make the textures less blurry
Doesn't that increase artifacts with gui.scale != 1 ?
Jan 12 2024
Just tried this and it works as advertised and is a great improvement! Can someone pick this back up?
Question, what ethnicity did you want the Auxilia Cavalry to be? Also, should it just be 1 rank like the others? Could just make the cavalry promote to cavalry_auxiliary.xml and make the unit Advanced rank.
Jan 10 2024
I am making portraits and I will commit this soon.
Jan 8 2024
I'm more interested in this now that my Naval overhaul has been committed. First things first are the file names.
Jan 7 2024
Yes, forgot to credit @Lopess for the lamassu statue model.
I'd love if this was rebased so we could try it out!
Jan 6 2024
In D2830#149140, @Stan wrote:@wowgetoffyourcellphone, better name suggestion maybe?
Jan 5 2024
Jan 4 2024
Dec 31 2023
One more reviewer please!
Dec 29 2023
In D5213#222288, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:In D5213#222268, @wowgetoffyourcellphone wrote:In D5213#222265, @borg- wrote:D. A "Corvus" Ship for the Romans. A special ship unit that captures enemy ships instead of destroying them.
Seems very interesting, but to test it to see how it behaves.
I think I'll commit the patch as-is and make the "Corvus" ships a separate patch.
Yeah I think that’s the move. I haven’t tested this most recent version, so consider this conceptual approval.
Follow-up patches can be used to fix bugs and balance concerns.
Dec 28 2023
In D4964#222271, @phosit wrote:In D4964#222269, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:I do recognize the simplicity of setting the rally on an enemy and simultaneously targeting that unit with arrows, but I wonder if some players would prefer independent targeting. Maybe we should ask this on the forum?
I'd implement (and commit) the simple case and implement independent targeting if it's requested.
Dec 27 2023
In D5213#222265, @borg- wrote:D. A "Corvus" Ship for the Romans. A special ship unit that captures enemy ships instead of destroying them.
Seems very interesting, but to test it to see how it behaves.
In D5213#222264, @borg- wrote:E. Make Fire Ships have an 'upgrade' to set them alight; instead of them currently starting to lose health right away, they don't lose health or cause damage until they are upgraded to Flaming. This is very easy to implement (already in DE).
YES PLS.
In D5213#222263, @borg- wrote:we can have an animation for Ramming Ships?
Dec 26 2023
Locally, I created portraits for Ramming Ships and renamed all of the ship portrait files to the new naming scheme (e.g., ship_medium.png -> ship_arrow.png) and amended all of the ship templates.
Dec 22 2023
I think this addresses @borg- 's concerns.
Includes fixes and changes suggested by @real_tabasco_sauce . Map fixes left out of patch for file size limit, but will be in the commit.
Would you guys rather me commit this and then you can test it from SVN or do you want to apply the diff and test it that way? :)
Okay to commit, you think?
Dec 20 2023
The 3rd diff. Takes into account many of @real_tabasco_sauce 's suggested changes.
Dec 17 2023
I tested.
In D5213#221936, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:Idk about repeat times making dps hard to understand while keeping the system of counters in place. We simply don't need damage multipliers here, as we have 3 damage types and 3 armor types.
The main reason to change repeat time was just for damage, so the pierce damage could just be changed to 14 or 15 pierce if you would like to keep the repeat time 1.5s.
The thing about heavy counters is the more you have of each, the faster they compound, so while a counter might not look that strong in a 1v1, when you up it to 10v10 you can start to imagine how it impacts gameplay. When I tested it on the first version, a player with ram ships would surely rather run and hide even when against half their number of arrow ships.If you want stronger counters from the values I suggested, then lower the armor slightly: From the values I had, I think all you would need to do to is lower arrow hack and crush armor, lower ram ship pierce armor, and lower cata ship hack/pierce armor by 1.
Dec 16 2023
In D5213#221930, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:Ok I did more testing, and I can confirm that the counters are very strong. An example would be a 6 ram ship vs 6 arrow ship fight, where the arrow ships win with ~90% total HP, not a single ship lost.
I sought to simplify and loosen the counter system with these ships, so I made a set of suggested revisions below. Basically, arrow and ram ships should be a little like land units, where massed up ranged units are strong, but can be beaten with the right combination of other ships.
so here we go:-All damage multipliers removed
-scout ship: 50f 80w (pressuring enemy fishing ships should be a bit exclusive with training your own ships), garrison space -> 10 (slighly up the setup required to execute early raids with lots of units). Acceleration multipler 2->3. Range = 40, armor = 4h 2p 5c
-arrow ship: 120w 80 m, 55 range, repeat time 1250, prepare time 625, armor 4h 6p 4c
-Ram ship: 50 f 100w 50m (50 food symbolizes extra acceleration as in scout ship), available p2, acceleration multiply 3, armor 5h 4p 7c
-Siege ship: ranged reduced to max 80 min 24. armor 4h 5p 6c, 125 crush, 50 splash crush, (more in line with regular catapult, but faster firing and less range)I have tested these and they result in much less strict counters.
omg, please no 3 and 4 resource costs. What is it with you guys? ;) Also, weird repeat times. 1, 1.5, 2.0 (etc) are easier for most players to visualize the dps.
Dec 15 2023
This diff adds several new Naval Technologies and fixes Loading Tip text. It disables the formations from the previous patch, but they can be re-enabled in the future.
In D5213#221881, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:Honestly, I don't think that is all that crowded. I think it can be a bit more streamlined by not including the 'marines' tech. I think this would be appropriate (if there was/when there will) be a capture ship class. Since for the meantime, they would just be captured by land units in theory, I don't think the tech would contribute much to gameplay.
In D5213#221880, @borg- wrote:I will test soon, thanks for this patch.
In D5213#221878, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:would 2 per warship class and 2 general techs be too cluttered? That's how its set up in my unit upgrades patch, but they are superseding techs.
In D5213#221845, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:In D5213#221758, @wowgetoffyourcellphone wrote:In D5213#221757, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:In D5213#221751, @wowgetoffyourcellphone wrote:Play the patch first lol
well, I just meant that the counters might be too strong, but we can tweak values later. All in all its a pretty great system. I only played it for 15 or so minutes, but this coming weekend I will finally have time to do that and a few other things.
I didn't run into any errors.What do you think about making this a complete package with all new techs too? The current Dock techs are supremely generic and don't really fit the new paradigm.
Yeah I would much rather we have a set of specific upgrades than many generic ones. That being said, one or two more general purpose techs would still be good.
In D5213#221870, @phosit wrote:Propably i argue too much with realism again...
Fire Ship
- Countered best by Arrow Ships
I don't think that an arrow can extinguishing a fire or sink a ship. I'd agree with "- Countered best by ranged Ships".
Dec 14 2023
Works at focus-firing the arrows from a Fortress, etc., but i can't seem to choose the target manually. Is there a hotkey or something? I think arrow targeting should override rallypoint setting. I think that's the case for most games. Though, I do like seeing the rally flag on the current target. hmmmm, perhaps a new "target flag" actor?