Looks good and cleaner as the version before. Only thing is that this is now civ-specific data that is not stored alongside the other civ-specific data, but rather in the naming convention.
On the other hand the civ data is already not stored in one place. Not sure if @Freagarach has a strong opinion on what the right place to store such information would be.

As everyone here seems to like this change: I will look at this again in the next time and see if it is a good idea to commit it as it is now (or if it needs more work)

In D4791#204313, @Stan wrote:

Not sure why you need to remove the variant from the actors but not the actual variant?

now that we have rP27122 (which do look really good btw!)
@wowgetoffyourcellphone should we revisit this idea but with civ specific designs?
Or do you want to commit the designs you made?

alright, build looks better now.

• reminder to myself: delete the approach variants on commit

fix the tooltips

checkrefs

In D4771#203576, @vladislavbelov wrote:

Just leave gif here:

I would say it is a precursor to that

yes and no. It does not help when you one shot a unit, but from what I've seen it looks a bit better when two larger groups of units fight against each other (as UnitAI normally also tends to target the same unit) or when you attack/ capture a building.

problem: changing the prepare time leads to bad animation glitches.
The only way to get nice looking animations (without changing the c++ part) is adding the delay to the repeat time, as there the animation is correctly adjusted to the time.
This means that the units would attack at the same time at first, but then slowly get out of clock (until they find a new target).

idea seems good, just doesn't work like this

yeah, as the description says, it's an old patch and WIP.
Just wanted to get opinions if that (trees heaving health an using the sinking animation) is something worth to pursue.

In D4771#203181, @Freagarach wrote:

A random thought: Does this mean trees lose health when hit by stray arrows?

In D4762#203174, @Freagarach wrote:

We might first want to design what we want it to look like?

In D4769#203129, @Grapjas wrote:

EDIT: You probably mean they are stuck with that value as opposed to randomized each attack. Well, that is a choice indeed.

In D4769#203121, @Grapjas wrote:

This idea is kind of growing on me tbh. You could also set the PrepareTime once on unit creation. I kind of dig the idea that not every soldier has the same reaction time.

works successfully with the inlines

In D4771#203118, @Stan wrote:

Maybe it would make more sense to do it in the ResourceSupply component, like the damage levels used for the Carthaginian buildings.

@Grapjas is correct, just changing the prepare time is enough.
Therefore no need to change the timers every time their called.

In D4769#203055, @Grapjas wrote:

afaik PrepareTime is only used on the initial attack, didnt fact check though it's off the top of my head. In that case i think you can achieve the same result by making that gap for randomnization wider and leave the RepeatTime unaltered. Not sure about all the OOS stuff so i leave that to someone else.

just some experiments as I couldn't stop thinking about it.

In D4769#203032, @Silier wrote:

This will totally break simulation

In D4769#203019, @Stan wrote:

Mmmh won't that break all the balancing by changing DPS?
Also gotta be pretty confident to do random in the core of the sim should be tested in MP

yeah, I still plan to continue this and get it done for a27

true. I will update it once we have settled on the order

In D4767#202915, @lyv wrote:

Pompeii and Empires is also problematic.

The "too little space" errors have been present since the maps were introduced, so I don't think we should particularly rush without checking for completeness.

As per the PM, maybe better to just go through all maps and fix them all in one go.

What do you think?

any more opinions on this from anyone?

In favor of rP27042

Ah I messed that sentence up in all ways possible.
Should be: since only infantry can garrison in barracks now.

Another question is if this should also remove these functions itself as well, to not stack dead code

better than the current situation.
Everything seem to work.

let -> const

In D4750#202235, @s0600204 wrote:

In D4750#202204, @Freagarach wrote:

A globalscript fix would be [...] way more work with added chances of breakage.

Indeed it was (and is): P282

I haven't exhaustively tested it; by all means leave it until after A26 gets out the door.

ah that's what you meant.
Yeah what Stan said, same button, just accept again if its ok.

In rP26956#58608, @Grapjas wrote:

What is expected from "This commit now requires verification by auditors."?

In D4697#202408, @wowgetoffyourcellphone wrote:

In D4697#202056, @marder wrote:

thx for the acceptance, but I still think this part of the summary has to be done to complete the change:
Building stats (health & capture points) will probably need to be adjusted to accommodate this.

This would probably require quite a bit of testing and would be facilitated better if the patch was committed.

In D4750#202188, @Langbart wrote:

P277 complains as well. (There should be more template files listed, but after the first entry it stops.)
@s0600204 is the one who wrote the structure tree and recommends to do the fix via globalscripts.

Well that was what I tried at the beginning, but I got an annoying error that ApplyValueModificationsToTemplate() is not a function and had no time to investigate further.

Note that: python checkrefs.py -tax still gives me locally the following error:

checkrefs was complaining again:

nice idea! sound good

planned for a27. but no further update right now.
Mostly a question of what artwork we want to use.

nah not really

In D4746#202048, @Stan wrote:

Sounds safer indeed. Sometimes I wonder if special buildings should not just all be named special_01 or something to remove duplication

thx for the acceptance, but I still think this part of the summary has to be done to complete the change:
Building stats (health & capture points) will probably need to be adjusted to accommodate this.

I am ok to try it as it is right now.
If it's not ok you can blame me and ping me to make a hotfix/ last minute adjustments.

In D4736#201963, @borg- wrote:

Yes, they really are units that scare the enemy now, but we must remember that to reach this level it is necessary to sacrifice some of the javelineer training time, and also need time to promote them in the barracks, and maybe spend a little more resources on "tradition hoplite" if you want this promotion faster. The cost of 2 pop seems to me enough to stop a possible "op unit" that breaks the balance.

I finally had time to test this so here are my comments: