In D894#34853, @fatherbushido wrote:

Taking care of other people work is the least one can do.

useless

at this point i feel splitted in half because as mimo stated, tangh would scale better between team placements but will penalize from side to side (diagonal length) trade thus there would perhaps be less gain difference thus a more homogeneus income.
On the othe hand, as temple stated, having a linear route on the diagonal would give a great advantage to a team which is in my opinion much harder to stabilish and to defend because the traders will pass near the territory border thus it may be rewarded ( a team who can mantain such advantage maybe deserves to win ) and a more safer route requires a circular route moving from base to base 1->2->3->4 requiring more time that perhaps may be compensated by that extra gain.

is adding this really necessary?

Also added a “town phase” requirement to the healer.

they train from temples only which is built in town phase

Added a “town phase” requirement to Carthaginian mercenaries.

they train from embassies only which is built in town phase

In D879#34690, @temple wrote:

It might be easier to decide what you want the rates to be at different distances and on different size maps (see the table in my earlier comment), and after that see if you can find a formula that produces them. (E.g., should trading be better than mining? How much should trading at the edges of the map be better than 1-4, and 1-4 versus 1-3?)

nice catch, especially for the mauryan elephant archer template.

Since archers shooting from longer distance have same accuracy as before, the first summary lane is self explanatory and honestly i don't feel the need of a spread increase for such a technology, while i agree that having higher accuracy as reward for promotion is reasonable despite the fact that ranged units doesn't seem to have accuracy issues even at basic rank.

In D879#34443, @fatherbushido wrote:

Agree that capping (not done in the proposal) is more important than taking care of the size of the map.

I am not sure if the trade gain should be capped as long as the player has no info about the trade income before he places the market and estabilish a trade route to the target market and this would be just confusing and perhaps would require players to build many markets in order to "get the best spot" where to place own market.

Agree that tanh or any logistic function will do that job.

I must admit to have no experience at all with such function but seems promising, I will try to get some info about and perhaps upload a new patch with the suggested formula and compare with the only map size scaling.

In D879#34327, @mimo wrote:

First, i've not understood what the numbers in the table correspond to. Could you define them?

The numbers in the table correspond to the total amount of resources carried by a trader per trip in a route between own market, let's say south side of the map, and an ally player on the north side of the map. The amount is the sum of the trader gain + player international bonus + target player international bonus ( i don't agree on that formula because international trade bonus is a reward by itself with no need to donate resources to the target market owner. The syntax in the tooltip " ( GainNumber + international bonus , international bonus "Targetplayer" ) " is confusing ).
Without Tech is the amount of resources carried by a trader.
With Tech is the amount of resources carried by a trader modified by +25% mov speed +25% trade profit +10% international trade bonus.

Then, i agree that some scaling of the gain with the mapSize would be better, but i'm more worried by the square increase of the gain which is not good and should have some kind of saturation. If changing the gain, better do both changes.

I didn't understand this comment. Do you mean an arbitrary constant variable to multiply by mapSize?

updated.

fixed a check into Unknown.js file

updated also the aura description in order to avoid ambiguities.

the patch works and looks quite good.

In D808#33211, @Stan wrote:

What did you change to the sound file ?

In D408#32616, @mimo wrote:

that's too much compared to its price.

the comparison I made was about their performance in battle if compared to champions and their loot. I didn't consider their cost at all.

Of course the +2 can be +3, or adding a bit of food or wathever (i don't really care), but not this excessive loot.

the intent wasn't to simply increase the already existent loot (why shouldn't also a swordsman give wood?)
i will try to rethink that if it is really too high.

In D408#32597, @mimo wrote:

I do appreciate, when commenting that something is too big, that your first reaction is to still increase it!

I could use better screenshots since they want to compare 2 different units and not an ulteriorly increase of the patch effect.
Skiritai is a swordsman and, with this patch, it would have a loot of 15 metal (any other unit has 10 metal loot at rank 3).
Any champion has 20 metal loot.

Also I don't understand that patch and the arguments: wanting to replace trade by loot seems to be a complete nonsense.

Maybe i could have given a more clear explanation. The intent isn't to replace the trade at all (i am sorry if you misunderstood, that would take a bit to explain). I won't discuss about the balance and how the features affect the game in the comments.

For me, it is good that there are differences between an elite soldier and a champion, that leave more choice to the player.

I agree on that one, that's why I raised the question if the champions food and wood loot could be increased by 5 ( a citizen soldier cavalry unit and an infantry champion unit give both +10 food as loot).

For me, the changes on the loot are too big, and i would not agree to include it as is.

I am sorry to have different opinions for 5 more resources per promotion. Having +2 from Basic -> Advanced and +3 from Advanced to Elite for a total of +5 resource could be ok aswell.

the xp is now correctly modified in the simulation

this patch adds xp to the promote technologies with a multiplier of 1.2 on the previous xp amount.

In D408#32552, @mimo wrote:

So a Cavalry swordman for example would have +5 wood and +5 metal for each promotion! that's really a lot, compared to the price of such unit.
I would rather have put something like +10 xp + 2 metal.

perhaps this isn't the cleaner solution.

In D408#22352, @fatherbushido wrote:

(Tag as request change as the modification code part is incomplete)

this time i uploaded the right diff (sorry but my folder is a mess).

hopefully this is the final diff.

the values are correctly modified.
tested with the D276 + the code bb provided in the comments of such diff.

In D806#32036, @fatherbushido wrote:

In D806#32024, @elexis wrote:

@fatherbushido, do you want to take care of this?

I would recommend Grugnas to print on paper (sorry for the trees)
https://trac.wildfiregames.com/browser/ps/trunk/binaries/data/mods/public/simulation/templates/template_unit.xml
https://trac.wildfiregames.com/browser/ps/trunk/binaries/data/mods/public/simulation/templates/units/maur_hero_chanakya.xml
https://trac.wildfiregames.com/browser/ps/trunk/binaries/data/mods/public/simulation/templates/template_unit_support_healer.xml
https://trac.wildfiregames.com/browser/ps/trunk/binaries/data/mods/public/simulation/templates/template_unit_hero.xml and inherited ones.
Then take a pen and do the stuff.

i didn't get joke?

Retitling the diff too (as non heroes soldier are already allowed). (It can be merge with the other diff imo -> Make the Mauryan healer hero inherit from generic hero templates...)

Since the template_unit_hero has the visible class Soldier, it made me think that Heroes are soldiers by default and if a modder wants to create a non hero soldier he should explicitly remove the Soldier class which is in my opinion inelegant, unnecessary (it is the same thing of adding the Soldier Class) and perhaps not immediate.

template_unit_hero_healer is cleaner but perhaps useless while we only have 1 (or 2).

i agree with this (cunobelin isn't a healer at all).

reupload

the patch contains the the debug test @bb suggested.
@mimo i tried to apply the same logic that entity.js uses to compute the attackRange function but the ai still doesn't take into account the distance restriction change.

updated in order to fit the current version and following the advices.

In D747#31869, @fatherbushido wrote:

@Grugnas @Stan
So?
(Perhaps Chanakya is a Mech though)

In D747#31675, @Stan wrote:

The rounding on promotedUnitHitpoints variable has been removed because units promoted while in phase 3 get some missing hp compared to the max hp.
This simply fix the bug described by the title.

In D409#31652, @fatherbushido wrote:

Well I still don't follow. It's a one liner isn't it?
L62 of Promotion.js (as in your current diff)

updated to fit a22 changes.
actually this also fixes the extra healthpoint for the hellenic civic center

As suggested, the alarms herojoin.xml and alarm_herodead.xml are now used in order to have special sounds for heroes when they train or die.

I will recheck as soon as possible, thanks for the input

Actually having a barrack costing 150 wood and 150 stone is an advantage for those civs who can't train slingers at phase 1 because they can save a significant amount of wood to invest into houses or defensive units / buildings (sentry defense tower) while civs relying on slingers (available for athene and britons only) will indeed benefit from barracks costing wood only since 10x slingers only require 200 wood and 300 stone.

I agree with the change. Indeed Vercingetorix and Fabius Maximus auras seem the biggest auras in next alpha.

In D725#28795, @temple wrote:

Persia though, they're tough. The worst thing is that since the cost is all wood, you can't use some of your starting stone. The other 300w civs are Briton, Gaul, and Maurya, each of which has an eco bonus to compensate.
Having extra buildings isn't an advantage if they cost the same as regular buildings. If I want to switch from cavalry to infantry because opponent made a lot of spearmen, then my stable will go idle. Or vice-versa, and meanwhile another civ could've made two barracks for (almost) the same cost as barracks + stable, and not have any trouble switching their army composition.

So I suggest the Persian barracks cost 200w. (Their stable is 200s.)

Persia has a wide choice of cavalry units to choose between in their stable which costs 200 stone and it it avsilable in phase 1. Carthage can still train mercenaries from Embassies. Probably the number of buildings you build gives more advantage than the number of units available from a single building because units can be trained in contemporary and seems that those civs incentive such strategy.

While capture points for a more expensive and lets say "hierarchically" more important than a dock indeed needs more time to be captured.
The dock is even hard to defend with ships because of its huge size and more units can try to capture it at same time because of it.
Perhaps 30 pierce armor is too low for a super dock considering that any dock has 35.

the revert is welcome.
As far as i recall fanatics haven't been an issue in svn games and more defensive strategies are more intentivated. still some tests could confirm

+4 isn't enough to reach promoted archers but enough to reach archers whenever the tower is built on a slightly downhill terrain (elevation bonus at least won't work as elevation malus).

tweaked in order to affect not-promoted units

In D652#27665, @elexis wrote:

Patch seems ok for me, even if it will make pizza games much harder. But I heard borg- has some concern, so that should be figured out.

I'd rather say that in the current version any not archer relying civs (Carthaginians, persians, mauryans, ptols) have already bad times even if they build a sentry tower while having a structure common for any civ sounds more equilibrate (pizza games are lightnin games anyway).
Despite cavalry can be trained in phase 1 already, sentry towers on the other hand find their only use in phase 1 because replaced by defense towers later in the game and if they can't make the desired effect they will only be an abandoned structure.

patch update

i agree with vladislave because this is "move instead gather" issue occurs while moving in a forest aswell, thus an hotkey would really comes in handy.
By the way grainfields footprint and actor may fit the obstruction size in order to better manage their placement. Ia bigger actor than the real obstruction sizes is tricky whenever a player is trying to dovetail structures in order to optimize space and, f.e. the number of grainfields to place around the civic center.

reverted defense towers range tweak because it doesn't take into account footprint.

In D652#26774, @elexis wrote:

Range mechanics:
The elevation bonus is added, so the range is already 66m + 9m = 75m for the sentry tower and 76m + 15m = 91m. (Notice the range upgrade doesn't affect the height bonus.)

If the idea is to have towers attack archers exactly if archers can attack the tower, then this sentry tower range buff might barely be sufficient, because the entire footprint (9.5 width) is vulnerable, but the arrows are shot only from the center and the footprint of archers (1.5m) is smaller than that of the building (#3381, it's not sufficient to just have 72m range for both).

But it seems to be just sufficient: If an archer wants to attack it, it has to be at least 72m + 4.75m = 76.75m close to the center of the sentry tower. The sentry tower then has 66m+9m = 75m range from the center which can shoot into the archers foot at 75m + 0.75m.
I.e. +1 range is the least buff needed to protect one from archers according to my math.

In D307#22489, @fatherbushido wrote:

In D307#22487, @borg- wrote:

What do you guys think about the change in speed to 17.5? I find it more coherent and realistic.

We could have a discussion on IRC if everyone agrees, what do you think? Would be interesting and we would have to agree more quickly on all these proposals

Sure we could do that tommorow. With a slower speed, I wouldn't care about raising the dps.

revert inherited armor. Towers can still be destroyed by slingers.

cavalry high mobility make towers the only viable defense which is kinda weak.

elevation value considered as float

split the patch in more points

Those maps have particular starting units:

• Gold Rush: 3 women 3spearmen infantry 1 spearman cavalry
• Sahel: same units as in multiplayer games 4 women 2 swordsmen inf 2 skirmishers inf 1 spearman cavalry
• Serengeti: 6 women 1 swordsman inf 1 spearman inf 1 skirmisher inf 1 spearman cavalry

The patch content seems clear enough.

balancing patches are, indeed, a way to keep the game interesting to play despite the future implementations and features. Simply tweaked numbers can change the way to think of a player by finding the best combination between doing economy related action or military action. Pikemen champions actually are supposed to be military oriented only units thus being able to defend buildings from sieges and from troops (same for attack) and have a better overall performance than citizen soldiers in military tasks. F.e. at current walk speed, a simple unit can body block a pikemen, in that way the pikemen won't never reach the target siege (is it ally or enemy) or place in time. With time, i mean to perform what are they designed to do. indeed if a player choose to train pikemen champ it is, the most of time, because he has ranged units(mechanical or organic) to defend which are the main source of damage output. In any case, any other unit will reach the destination much earlier than pikemen, slowing down by a lot the expedition and even let own territory with no defense (if they slowly reached the destination, they will even slowly return back to the source). Perhaps having pikemen champions proportionally slower than other units and their champions counterpart, let pikemen weak point even weaker.
If needed, i can provide a replay in which pikemen movement speed can compromise teamwork actions ( they couldn't reach a point fast enough to defend ally ranged units, the ally retreated and pikemen died to enemy champions because too slow to retreat).
Seleucids have have pikemen champions but they are really rarely trained. probably it is because their reputation precede them. :)

removed the second affects

In D407#23580, @fatherbushido wrote:

(One could also differentiate the techs for the 3 embassies for carth...).
I will suggest to wait a bit finally and include that in a more global thing.

split elite merc diff from the currend diff.

few fanatics can be handled with soldiers. the main issue in my opinion is that they easy bait soldiers and go for women. While towers doesn't deal enough damage, on the other hand palizades and a bunch of woodcutter soldiers may be a valid defense, but it requires time and probably increasing fanatics training time by 5 sec and keep the current armor would do the job.