@Freagarach, anything that needs changing?

@borg- the idea of D2856/rP24589 was to make the Nisean Horses technology the cavalry counterpart of this one (the Agoge), and vice versa. However, when browsing the civilization overviews I noticed this adds +25% health and +5% time, the other +20% health and +10% time, which doesn't seem fair. Maybe one of them should be tweaked again?

That's clear, I'll insert the icon line.
Before I do, what would be an appropiate cost (resources and time) for the unit?

It's not necessary for the aura to work, and a lightning bolt does not really indicate fear to me.

When adding new content, it's important to explain the reasoning behind it (preferably in the summary), so that if in the future people go through the svn revision history and look at this patch, they can get an idea why what was done was done.
To do:

• link to a relevant forum discussion, if any
• explain why it has an attack
• explain why it is a champion and not a support unit
• clarify whether it's supposed to be a swordsman that happens to have a trumpet, or a trumpeter that happens to have a sword
• figure out a reasonable cost (@borg-?)

• redone from scratch
• new aura
• add generic template

As requested by @Stan.

You should also insert <Classes datatype="tokens">CivSpecific</Classes>.

Thanks! I'll let you know if I spot anything else.
By the way, D2551 is still waiting for a review.

Suggestion?

<Capturable>
  <CapturePoints op="mul">2</CapturePoints>
</Capturable>
<GarrisonHolder>
  <Max op="mul">2</Max>
</GarrisonHolder>
<Health>
  <Max op="mul">1.75</Max>
</Health>

Adding more icons is welcome, but “updating” should be done with more caution.
For instance, D1779/rP22126 established some kind of consistency, with melee weapons having one orientation (bottom left to top right) and ranged weapons another (bottom right to top left). If you look at armor_plates_ranged.png, arrow.png, and arrow_poison.png, you see that's no longer true.
The new forge (blacksmith.png) ison is much cruder and flatter than the old one, not really an improvement.
There are probably a few other things, I haven't checked everything.

It's not a random thought, it's an interesting idea to explore.

• rephrase one more string

You can also update this diff with the corrected strings?

That's what I meant.

• properly svn mv files
• keep names, descriptions, and icons for the hack/armour technologies
• different icons and descriptions for the pierce/shield technologies

The patch is a clear improvement, making gameplay more interesting, in my opinion. The file changes are correct and the patch is complete.
A difference is elephants now benefit too, which was not the case earlier. I don't know whether that's a good thing or a bad thing; it seems a bit more consistent, though.

Lovely!

The technology that has the largest effect on your income is the +25% movement speed increase, both with and without this patch.
Deprecating or merging the trade_convoys_speed.json and trade_convoys_armor.json is fine by me. The rest of the patch is not.

Two identical commercial gain technologies and an additional commercial gain technology for international routes, which in theory is basically the same thing.

You're mistaken, it's not the same thing. An increase in international bonus means that not only does it increase your gain when trading with markets and docks of other players, it also increase the gain of other players when trading with your markets and docks. It's a nice concept and allows for more interesting and cooperative gameplay. For comparison, the cart dock and market have a +0.1 international bonus as well.

What the patch proposes is to "clean up" the technologies by mixing the 3 commercial gain techonlogies in just one.

Gather technologies researched at the storehouse and farmstead have identical modifications, yet it makes sense to have one for each phase. I'd say the same applies to trade gain technologies.

@Nescio, would you like to commandeer? I think you are better than me for this :) Else it will end up in a huge back and forth.

That might indeed be more efficient. I'll also try to test whether the "Promotion/RequiredXp" modification works.

@Freagarach suggested than the fear aura might be more interesting. (We have an icon now)

Could you elaborate?

This is how the apartments look, with a small tower and houses for comparison:

Again I ask to @Nescio to rethink the idea of being available in the town phase, that would be much better for the gameplay

I prefer the city phase, but can accept the town phase.

Yes, I had D2733 in mind when writing this patch. I tried different arrangements and these numbers looked best to me. The improvement is especially noticeable for the Kushites (who have five specific structures) and Persians (who have a lot of technologies); with this patch applied there are no longer scrollbars for those two; only for Carthage (due to the long super dock tooltip) now.

What's wrong with 37?
I don't particularly care about the exact values. If you think these are better, it's fine by.
@Freagarach has a valid point. Would 1.4 and 0.4 be better?

Please don't change the tooltip. The cost change is fine by me.

The druid (brit and gaul healer) also clearly has a sword but can't attack:

Some fundamental questions:

• What should its aura do and why?
• Should it have an attack and why?
• Should it be a champion and why?
• Should it have a build restriction?

The values were not tested, and needs to be improved
The auras were taken as is from DE and probably need tweaks.

While I understand why you're doing this, I would highly recommend writing the files from scratch, rather than copying and pasting from some mod. Delenda Est does a lot of things, and what works there doesn't necessarily work for 0 A.D.'s public mod. Not following the style guide is one thing, having a different approach to template values another.

@Nescio what do you think of the template name? I'm not sure what's the best convention? I suppose other civs could have standard bearers so it make sense they'd be able to recruit them in captured assemblies, but the carnyx player isn't exactly a standard bearer.

Isn't it a trumpeter?

• also lower ram metal cost by 50
• raise ram and siege tower <xp> to 50% of health
• give fireraiser a cost, health, and loot, per @borg-

Greek and Roman artillery is described in detail by various ancient authors, Philo and Hero are probably the most important, Vitruvius the most accessable (here is a translation of his section on bolt-shooters). The subject has been studied extensively in modern scholarship. While we have a fairly good idea how torsion engines worked and looked, what their dimensions were, their calibres (two-feet (0.6 m), two-span (0.9 m) and three-span (1.4 m) bolts), and occassionally even local usage, reconstructions can get you only this far. Some key ancient techniques and skills were lost; it's very easy to make a poorly performing engine, but very hard to make an excellent specimen. It's no surprise modern estimates of how powerful they were vary greatly.
Personally I think bolts could penetrate more than one person in theory, but I wonder how common that was in practice.
Anyway, while we care about realism, 0 A.D. is a game, and what should matter most is playability. I sincerely believe a higher pure damage without splash works better than a combination of the two.

I would like to see the three infantry champions trained on assembly and removal of unlock tech, but for this it must be a p2 building.

And remove them from temple, barracks, and fortress, you mean? I'm not necessarily opposed, but maybe it would be better to consider doing that in a follow-up patch, since that would alter gaul gameplay more significantly.

@Freagarach, hopefully I didn't make mistakes this time.

• forgot to save edits to library aura

• and lighthouse a vision range of 200

• improve library aura a bit, per @borg-

Actually I really like the splash concept. However, it has several issues (see summary and earlier posts), hence this patch.
I'd welcome giving e.g. the fireraiser or dragon linear splash and perhaps the plane a circular splash (something for a future patch), but it simply doesn't work that well in practice for trainable entities, which is why I believe this change is a real improvement.

I would say the strongest argument in favour of linear splash damage is realism, since most likely Roman scorpio were used to pierce through several ranks of enemy troops.

Source, please? I suspect that was more the exception than the rule. (Also, several means more than two but not many.)

Maybe increase the range of the lighthouse a little more, like 210?

So I tested how much of a tiny map a lighthouse could reveal.

Since Hellenistic Metropolis is removed of library, what do you think about improving the aura a litle, or move to p2?

No, let's keep it in the city phase. As for the aura, I'm open to suggestions.

I agree with everything

Great!

but I don't think it's logical that "Hellenistic Metropolis" doubles health. Hellenic constructions have +10% health, so why does tech double the value? I don't know if this change should be made in this patch.

Yes, I fully agree with you, the technology seems far to strong. However, I would prefer to see it changed in a separate patch, partially because I'm unsure what would be appropiate values.

Maybe increase the range of the lighthouse a little more, like 210?

That would mean a 36% larger area than it currently has.

And what values would you recommend for the fireraiser's <xp> and health?

It was already used by another technology available at the same structure.

Elephants are very large animals, I'm not sure how giving them a shield would work. Anyway, that's just nitpicking, not a major objection against this patch.
The technology description strings need to be corrected, though.

Technology tooltips were checked and corrected in D3338/rP24564, so you should rebase this and focus on doing the armour→resistance correction in aura descriptions.

The fireraiser also needs health and xp values.
By the way, the siege tower is quite costly (500 wood, 300 metal, 40 seconds); what do you think of giving it a bit more health (e.g. 500→600)?
And perhaps ram metal cost can be lowered a bit (e.g. 200→150)? A tower costs only 100 wood + 100 metal.

Maybe one thing I would like to see -> your call @Nescio , is to add tooltips saying "good vs Buildings" / "good vs Units" ? Maybe too obvious?

If that's done for these two, it should also be done for other units and structures. I vaguely recall having had this discussion perhaps two years ago, but I forgot where and with whom. My main objection is that displaying more text in tooltips in game makes it less likely people will read everything, and also risks drowning more important information.
In my opinion loading screen tips are a better place for discussing the functions of structures and unit types; I'd say it's outside the scope of this patch, though.

Committed as rP24589 by @Freagarach.

Elephants don't benefit from resistance technologies currently, but will with this patch. Is that good or bad?

Well, I'm glad someone looks critically at the actual modifications! I noticed I'm making quite a few mistakes lately, probably the result of writing many patches in quick succession. Rushing things is risky, I know.

• drop metal cost, per @borg-

Maybe something like 50%?

That would mean 200 for the ram and 250 for the siege tower. Fine by me, but in keep in mind that's enough for a basic soldier to promote to elite rank.

fireraise appears on the "survival" map, so it seems interesting to include.

It needs a cost then (resources and time). Any recommendations?

Let's do the assembly changes in D3344, not here.

Shouldn't the xp loot of ram and siege_tower be bigger since in theory you need fight with the soldiers inside?

Perhaps. I assume <xp> depends on how dangerous an unit is, e.g. ranged soldiers are much easier to kill than melee soldiers, but have the same <xp>, presumably because their long attack range makes them more effective when massed; the same applies to artillery.
I have no objections to giving rams and siege towers more <xp>, but it shouldn't be 100% of health. What value would you recommend for them?

Fireraiser should be included?

The fireraiser doesn't have a cost, so I don't think giving it a loot is appropiate.

This needs a rebase.

@Angen, @borg-, @Stan, opinions on this?

Ranged units are supposed to die quickly and avoid melee, so I think they should no longer get resistance increases, but I'm unsure whether to include it in this patch.

Animals belong on the countryside, so I don't think adding a city requirement makes much sense.
If it's to be done, you can do it simply by inserting a line into template_unit_fauna_herd_domestic_cattle.xml.

• iber monument sounds, per @Freagarach
• restore foundation resistance, per @Freagarach

• don't add it to cart, kush, pers, per @borg-

Gauls also have an extra farming technology (D2668/rP23803) and there is a proposal to give them a carnyx aura unit (D3320), so yes, Gauls seem to have an advantage over the Britons, so maybe the celt_structures bonus should be limited to brit only. However, that discussion belongs in D2841; doing one bonus at a time makes patches simpler, so let's concentrate here on the proposed cavalry bonus.

• insert “idle” in health_regen_units.json tooltip, spotted by @Freagarach

This patch is heavily outdated, most of these string changes have been committed as part of D2821/rP23837, D2892/rP23865, and elsewhere

Thanks! I was just checking how to do this scripted ;)

Here's a script for indenting json files:

They're weak, so I wouldn't make it too high. I don't really see how killing civilians would make you a better soldier. How about 10%?

While breastplates, scale armour, and chain mail existed and were used, leather, linen, wool, and cotton were very common materials for body armour.

How about the armour (hack resistance) technologies costing food and metal, and the shield (pierce resistance) technologies costing wood and metal?

I would keep the xp,

For me no problem If u want keep xp.

Fine by me, if the value is proportional to their health. I'll leave it up to you to choose a suitable percentage.

Then just check next week whether they're still there, and if so, manually retranslate them on transifex.

translations will take care of themselves :) probably they did copy paste, maybe transifex will screw it with auto translation, but we can just add comment there, maybe @Gallaecio could force clear these after this is commited but there is still chance they will reuse old translations?

If strings are changed they are automatically prompted for retranslation, so committing this patch (without the builder entities line, of course) most likely means those characters will be gone too (in a few days).

Rename a few, per @Freagarach:

• metropolis.json → hellenistic_metropolis.json
• unlock_reformed_army.json → reformed_army_sele.json
• unlock_traditional_army.json → traditional_army_sele.json

+5% health seems rather inconsequential. I suppose one could add +5% attack damage as well, but then we get the same problem.
This patch needs feedback from more people, so I'd say keep it for A25.

I think some of these techs now get too generic names for quite specific techs.

Generally I prefer technology with file names making it clear what it does (hence training_naval_architects.json → ship_cost_time.json), but for these specific files I think it's fine to have their file names match their names displayed in game. But yeah, generic names often tend to be rather, well, generic.

traditional/reformed armies

This one I particularly dislike too. I considered unlock_macedonian_infantry.json, respectively unlock_romanized_infantry.json instead, but that didn't feel particularly satisfying either. As I wrote earlier, suggestions are welcome.

colonization

To me, special_colonization suggests there exists an ordinary colonization too (which isn't true) or that it affects the colonization of some special entity or class (which isn't true either).

metropolis

I dropped the “Hellenistic” part because it seemed superfluous, there are no non-Hellenistic metropoleis in 0 A.D.
Metropoleis/-ēs/-ises (in the modern sense of the word) were something that emerged during the Hellenistic period and continued in Roman times.
The word metropolis literally means mother-city and originally had a different meaning, e.g. Sparta was the mother city of Taras (Taranto). Colonization in the archaic period is not the same as urbanization in Hellenistic times. But I digress.

Look forum.

While I have no difficulty changing, renaming, or deleting images, adding them tends to fail on my end (unlike text files), probably something to do with how arcanist and phabricator interact. So if you have a new icon, perhaps you could ask a team member (@Stan?) to commit it for you separately from this patch.

• 20% health, +10% time, instead of +10% food
• added a cavalry_health requirement

@Angen, would I be right in thinking that you've set the language of 0 A.D. to "English (United States)"?

Oops, I forgot I'm using the UK translation, that explains the difference. When using the US default the problem does show up:

Now we've identified the troublesome character (U+FEFF), we can grep for it... which reveals that the kush template elephant_stables.xml has it lurking between the first two (visible) characters (Ỉ and ḥ) of its SpecificName.

Please fix that string as well in this patch.

Could you briefly recapitulate how to use it in a template? Say I want to have an animal start at 100 food, fatten to a maximum of 500 at 1 per second, and after it's killed, decay at 2 per second.

• fix maps/scenarios/sandbox_mauryas.xml, spotted by @Freagarach

Did you check the maps? (Sandbox needs an update.)

No, I didn't, I should have. It was late and I kind of forgot I renamed a template.

How about supersede "horse breeding"?

Good point!

Affecting other civilizations seems to me a very big step now.

It is. Should that be left out?