Well my reasoning is listed in the patch summary, so no need to revisit my points. Its just a complaint I heard from 3 different iber players so I thought I would make a quick patch.

fix missing files

I tried enabling the options for mainland, and it didn't work even though the other patches are already committed. What is the update needed for these to work? it isn't clear when looking at the later updates to D4948
If I can figure out how to get them working on a couple maps, I could update these maps and my own two random maps.

translation of "Load Game" doesn't work. It remained in english for me.

In D4770#223734, @phosit wrote:

In D4770#223669, @phosit wrote:

It should be visible by non-host-clients if it's a savegame.

Does anybody have an idea where this could be shown?
An idea was to put it near the "cheats enabled" or "rated game" warnings but there is litle space.

In D4770#223655, @phosit wrote:

Thank you for testing.
I testet "2 humans" localy with two clients.
I could use your help to test it using the lobby. I'll have time on sunday morning (untill 12:00 UTC+2) or evening (from 17:00 UTC+2)

I found a defect myself ^^. When you continue a savegame from the singleplayer gamesetup page, it will start a new one.
I tried to allow to continue a game from the singleplayer gamesetup page but it's not that trivial. I think I'll remove the "load game" button from the singleplayer gamesetup page.

I started testing it tonight, so far no issues. lmk if you want to test the "2 humans" sometime.

In rP27996#61951, @phosit wrote:

How does this relate to #305?

update with siege tower support for targeting

remove inaccurate tooltip

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.

In D5232#222880, @chrstgtr wrote:

I would put a pin in this one until we understand the melee changes. Whatever we do should be done in conjunction with the melee changes, which are undergoing pretty big testing in the community mod. We need to make sure that rams don't die too easy or else it will become a turtle fest.

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.

In D5206#222825, @wowgetoffyourcellphone wrote:

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:

cavalry_auxiliary_b.xml
cavalry_auxiliary_a.xml
cavalry_auxiliary_e.xml

Sound good to you?

avoid oos for the time being

I think I would prefer to remove the onager construction and make another patch that is just re-enabling and fixing the oos.
This patch is already supposed to fix some issues. @Riesi has been waiting on this fix.

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?

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 used 2000 as since this is what is used for the silver shield promotion.

remove max preference and change a comment.

In D4964#222776, @Stan wrote:

Other than having proper tests for it and the notes don't think so.

Gotta test this in MP make sure it doesn't cause unforseen OOS.

@Stan @phosit any more suggestions for this patch?
I added some explanations and did a pass of coding conventions.

me gusta
It looks nice.

fix timer errors when holding autorally hotkey with storehouse, tower, walls, etc selected.

@phosit sort works

make it look nice, add comments to explain

In D4964#222666, @Stan wrote:

Would be funny to shoot all targets, but with a ratio of arrows depending on preference. Probably needs some good UI.

Patch looks mostly good, but the coding conventions are not respected everywhere, I see missing spaces after comas, probably more.

In D5232#222669, @borg- wrote:

I did some tests years ago, 40 is the same as 50, it starts to become perceptive below 35.

@marder when do you plan to finish this?

In D5232#222662, @wowgetoffyourcellphone wrote:

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

yeah I guess its a 1 percent difference roughly. Maybe 30 or 35 would be better

In D4964#222658, @chrstgtr wrote:

In D4964#222657, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

In D4964#222656, @Stan wrote:

Oh right my bad. So it's picking a list of like 20 targets, shoots as many arrows as possible on the favourite one until it goes missing (could be dead or out of range) then moves on to the next one.

I always figured it would attack multiple units at the same time but seems it does not.

yes, exactly. One at a time is targeted.
You were very convincing though, I must admit XD.

Does that mean once a unit is targeted that the building will fire at it until it is dead or out of range? So even if another unit gets closer, the building will still target the first unit?

If so, I could see that being a problem with heroes. Heroes would absorb all arrows, which would mean no dmg to other units and would lead to heroes dying quickly. It’s an edge case but one that would be very annoying

In D4964#222656, @Stan wrote:

Oh right my bad. So it's picking a list of like 20 targets, shoots as many arrows as possible on the favourite one until it goes missing (could be dead or out of range) then moves on to the next one.

I always figured it would attack multiple units at the same time but seems it does not.

scrap updated speed function for now.

In D4964#222618, @Stan wrote:

In D4964#222612, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

actually hold on:

Case 4:

If you miss 12 and 45. at the end of the loop you do

targetIndex === 1;
targets.splice(0, targetIndex + 1); returns [12, 24] 12 is removed 24 is removed too but 45 is not (bad)

This is an impossible scenario tho. The only way 45 could be missed is if 24 was missed, since we are shooting them in order.
so splice(0, targetIndex) is fine after all.

You shoot them in order, but you don't cancel the loop when one is missed. Only when you're out of arrows or targets.

also, missing 12 and then ending the loop would mean the index is 1 not 0

actually hold on:

revert to removing as needed

ohhhhhh
so using splice outside the loop pretty much can't do the job in one line.
Thanks.
I suppose I could push those to a list and traverse the list to splice each from targets, but that is no better than simply removing them 1 by 1 in the loop.
Perhaps I should just revert to what worked originally.

@vladislavbelov are those with this fix or without? I can't reproduce any of those with the fix. I can't use vulkan and I don't know where .cache/0ad is on my comp.

killedTargets->targetIndex

https://code.wildfiregames.com/rP27223
could it have something to do with this?

In D5206#222594, @vladislavbelov wrote:

see https://trac.wildfiregames.com/ticket/6888#

I'd like to note that #6888 contains 3 different issues (4 maybe). OOS is unrelated to the current diff.

Also it'd good to have a test or a warning if someone made a similar breaking change (if it's possible).

In D5055#222589, @wowgetoffyourcellphone wrote:

How is this coming in the community mod. You guys like it?

yeah I think something along those lines would be cool

Ok I think I should leave it as is unless you and @Stan are confident something should be changed.
The newer version only computes preferences if they are needed too btw

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.

@phosit how would you work the preferences in there for addTargets? If the preferences have to be done 1 by 1 anyway, I don't see why entityId shouldn't be added at the same time?
Is it problematic that I changed addFocusTarget to use an entityId to make things easier in fireArrows?

clean up a little

In D4679#199624, @chrstgtr wrote:

In D4679#199512, @wraitii wrote:

In D4679#199184, @Freagarach wrote:

That sounds like good play then? And reckless play from the defender? There are walls to fend off these kind of raids?

While I would +1 that this makes sense, it might lead to big gameplay changes

In D4679#199547, @Freagarach wrote:

s/might/will
;)
We can experiment with this in the next alpha.

Yeah, I suspect it will cause some pretty big meta changes in late game (after the initial two mines are depleted and men are no longer standing right next to the CC). Namely, I think it is going to create a pretty big turtling incentive and make players do those gimmick attacks much more often.

I think this is the one : )
Thanks to @Stan @phosit for suggestions!

@phosit any idea about the issue here?

@phosit do u think it is because I no longer have the UnitAI target (whatever that means :) ) when I am selecting from this.focusTargets?

I made some changes like @phosit suggests. I think it could be pretty slick, but for some reason when I add a target to this.focusTargets, no arrows come out.

In D4788#222448, @Stan wrote:

They are not matching naming conventions though should be _0X

In D4788#222444, @wowgetoffyourcellphone wrote:

I'm more interested in this now that my Naval overhaul has been committed. First things first are the file names.

Hi @Riesi could you click 'accept' under the 'Add Action' tab, if you agree the patch adequately fixes the problem.

Link focusTarget selection with rally point selection
-Much simpler for the user
-less code needed
-can't degarrison and target separate enemy units.

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.

Ok I’ll rearrange the patch when I’m back. I think I would just integrate the focus targets call into the command for setting the rally on an enemy unit.

In D4964#222259, @phosit wrote:

The hotkey is inconsistent:
If you right-click you set a relay point _except_ if you click on an attackable entity.
If you ctrl + right-click you order an "force-move" _except_ if you click on an attackable entity.

IMO right-click should set the relay point and the arrow-target.
I don't know if there is a big usecase to set the target independent of the relay point. (cavalry/chriot/siege-tower could also target a different entity they are going to)
If there is a usecase an other hotkey should be used.
Currently alt is used to order one unit of the selection. ctrl + alt could be used as "a subset of the selection" which in this case is the garisoned entityes.

clean up, rename variables, and add comments.

Well, i can clean it up and add inline comments that explain what happens in building-attack in unit_actions.js. @Stan @Freagarach any suggestions?

Hi @Riesi we are waiting on another person to accept this revision, since it uses a different approach to introduce the reforms units.
if you would like to test it, you can apply the patch using svn as follows:
download raw diff and copy it all
paste it into a .diff file (romans.diff)
then do svn patch romans.diff

I looked at the values and things seem pretty good. fireships will probably need a balance pass, but they are already pretty op.

I think we can scrap the trade ship tech to reduce clutter a little. The existing trade techs already affect merchant ships as I understand.

Oh, ship_arrow_attack is naval oxybeles, so I think you are just missing it in this patch. Disregard my inline comment in that case.

fixed for siege towers