Should be renamed "Hill Country" or something like that.

Is this rebased for A27?

Right, it's just an alternate approach.

In D5317#227188, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

There might be cases in the future where this plays pretty nicely. A potential application is to limit the attackers of a hero to some number so that hero baiting and hero sniping are both mitigated partially. Then, hero hp could come down a little which would in turn help with some of the rather cheesy hero raids.

This works as expected and I think it's an improvement to behavior.

Also fixes unit_dancing_test_triggers.js

In D5313#227078, @sera wrote:

You missed at least maps/scenarios/unit_dancing_test_triggers.js

let -> const in Attack component. Nothing else changed from previous patch. Everything works now.

Is Lint's comment preferring const important at all?

Was missing a forward slash in Attack.js

Finds remaining instances of this in the techs

In D5313#226790, @Stan wrote:

https://github.com/0ad/0ad/blob/master/binaries/data/mods/public/simulation/components/Attack.js#L677

Adds component change

In D5313#226790, @Stan wrote:

https://github.com/0ad/0ad/blob/master/binaries/data/mods/public/simulation/components/Attack.js#L677

In D5313#226778, @Stan wrote:

According to this though the previous code was valid https://github.com/0ad/0ad/tree/master/binaries/data/mods/public/simulation/components#L677 (Because the code isn't)

Where did you see the spread was wrong?

Only difference I see so far is the number of fishing boats has increased, which is good.

Perhaps "Scenario Editor" -> "Atlas Scenario Editor"?

Do we have an example template?

Right, the selection pop matching up with the default max pop has a kind of logic to it.

In D5229#223126, @marder wrote:

if you want me to test this you need to send me the pmp file.

Great catch!

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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?

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?

I've tested this and didn't run into any problems. Anyone else?

Can haz accepted? :)

How they now look locally:

@vladislavbelov does it address your concerns now?

In D5231#222686, @Stan wrote:

Do you need it to be rectangular ?

Commit? :)

50 and 40 pierce are essentially the same, I think.

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?

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.