The hardware request doesn't work, like it should.

@wraitii opnion?

@wraitii opnion?

Successful build - Chance fights ever on the side of the prudent.

• forgot adjusting hero attack time

There are still catapults no ?

Yes, but those don't inflect that much crush damage per second:

                    crush / time = per second
champion elephant : 150   / 1.5  = 100
battering ram     : 150   / 1.5  = 100
quinquereme       : 100   / 5    =  20
stone thrower     : 100   / 7    =  14.3
champion maceman  :  10.5 / 0.75 =  14
artillery tower   :  25   / 5    =   5

Successful build - Chance fights ever on the side of the prudent.

• keep champion elephant damage unchanged, per @Feldfeld
• significantly raise hero damage to twice the champion's

As I said, maybe it’s better to just change the hero status.

Feel free to suggest different values.

I would suggest not to change champion elephant stat so as to keep current balance for them (which has been achieved by the patch I linked)

Successful build - Chance fights ever on the side of the prudent.

Speaking of crush damage, given that rams can no longer attack organic units (D2684/rP23753), there is no longer a need for units to have such a high crush armour as they have now (citizen 15, champion 20, hero 25). 5, 10, 15 (b, c, h) seems far more reasonable now, and would make elephants a lot more effective, though it's probably out of scope here, maybe something for a future patch.

In D2853#122379, @Feldfeld wrote:

I don't understand (in particular the values @borg- suggested), this nullifies half of the work done in D2575(@ValihrAnt). Having hack attack is justified by elephants being good against humans, the walk speed could be justified by armor values (but I can understand why we would want it to be the same as other elephants, that works too).

I don't understand

The point of this patch is that currently melee heroes have typically double the damage of their champion counterparts. Elephants are the exception: champions inflict about 50% *more than heroes*, which seems wrong.

(in particular the values @borg- suggested)

Feel free to suggest different values.

I don't understand (in particular the values @borg- suggested), this nullifies half of the work done in D2575(@ValihrAnt). Having hack attack is justified by elephants being good against humans, the walk speed could be justified by armor values (but I can understand why we would want it to be the same as other elephants, that works too).

Fighting in formation with defensive stance looks like in svn (broken, but not more as it is now).
Formation does not reshape while doing stuff.

Successful build - Chance fights ever on the side of the prudent.

• garrison regeneration rate and territory decay to 10

It should if it is intended as a solution for the scaling problem in D2845 (as the regenRate increase given by phasing affects all buildings). If it does and these technologies are balanced it could introduce more strategy for the capture mechanic

No, this patch changes different stats and is independent from D2845:

• "Capturable/RegenRate" (here) is the permanent (ungarrisoned) recovery rate of a structure.
• "Capturable/GarrisonRegenRate" (there) is the recovery rate per garrisoned unit.

Basically D2845, D2847, and this (D2854) are three independent patches that are only indirectly related. All three could be tried out, reviewed, and committed separately from each other. Each I consider an improment on its own, but they also work nicely together.

Successful build - Chance fights ever on the side of the prudent.

• damage to 120, per @borg-
• give elephants same walk speed as elephant archers (instead of 5% slower)

Successful build - Chance fights ever on the side of the prudent.

In D2854#122354, @Nescio wrote:

Does it affect the regeneration rate of all buildings ?

No, not all structures, only centres, colonies, and crannogs are affected by these technologies:
"affects": ["CivilCentre"],

• lower values

Does it affect the regeneration rate of all buildings ?

No, not all structures, only centres, colonies, and crannogs are affected by these technologies:
"affects": ["CivilCentre"],

In D2847#122273, @Nescio wrote:

How about b 2.5, a 3.2, e 4, c 5, h 10 then? I like the b:c:h 1:2:4 ratio (same as melee damage).

Yes, elephant hero need a better status than champion, i like, but only 75 crush damage for champion elephant makes no efetive vs units and building.

Does it affect the regeneration rate of all buildings ?

I like the changes, and it's something that should have been done some time ago.
The main reason for not training is the long training time, it affects the economy a lot.
My suggestion for values:
Cost 120f and armour 2/2.

Successful build - Chance fights ever on the side of the prudent.

@wraitii (or another team member), are you willing to review this?

• redone from scratch

Successful build - Chance fights ever on the side of the prudent.

For an idea to have more (non-free) tech progression, see D2854.

But is compared to the situation when only attack speed would change.

Actually I would also support a damage increase, since currently spearmen are clearly weaker than swordsmen. Current total damage per second values for comparison:

                      b  ,   c  ,   h
cavalry axeman     : 9.2 , 18.4 , 36.8
cavalry spearman   : 5.5 , 11   , 22
cavalry swordsman  : 8.7 , 17.3 , 34.7
infantry axeman    : 8   , 16   , 32
infantry spearman  : 5.5 , 12.2 , 24.4
infantry swordsman : 7.3 , 14.7 , 29.3

Successful build - Chance fights ever on the side of the prudent.

It's noteworthy that the hero elephant has significantly less attack damage than its champion counterpart. (70 / 1 = 70 vs 170 / 1.5 = 113)

The idea is nice, the implementation is wrong.
template_unit_cavalry_melee.xml and template_unit_infantry_melee.xml set a first preference to Human, which is inherited by all their children, i.e. this patch removes the second preference (Siege), but keeps the first.
What I would recommend is:

• remove <PreferredClasses> from *_melee.xml;
• set <PreferredClasses> to Human or Organic in *_pikeman.xml and *_spearman.xml;
• set <PreferredClasses> to Unit or Unit+!Ship in *_axeman.xml and *_swordsman.xml;
• remove <PreferredClasses> from *_maceman.xml.

See also D1354.

Was this changed in a24? IIRC rotary mill is City Phase in a23

No, it wasn't, you're right, the rotary mill has a city phase requirement, my mistake.

Maybe update that technology too then (either here or in a separate patch), and also special_war_horses.json.

How about b 2.5, a 3.2, e 4, c 5, h 10 then? I like the b:c:h 1:2:4 ratio (same as melee damage).

The changes are good. Small thing to note though, this makes the upgrade arguably inferior to the macedonian silver shields upgrade (especially for the train time increase). I don't know if this should be considered a problem or not.

After quick playtest I don't think it will have much impact on gameplay for everything not related to combat. For combat (raiding in particular) there might be a need for multiplayer testgames to get a better feel of it.

I think that this nerfs dance up to a reasonable point. Here are some details I got from my testing :
First note that when testing (for everyone that is interested in that) it's important to know the difference between singleplayer and multiplayer. In multiplayer, IIRC there is 1 turn every 0.5 seconds (which makes traditional dancing easier). In singleplayer, things are much smoother. When testing, you should go multiplayer -> Host game (even if no other human players will join you).

• There is one variant of dancing i came up with trying to break this patch, however it works only in singleplayer, not in multiplayer (because somehow this requires perfect timing). It consists in clicking a resource and then repeatly hit the stop hotkey, then back to work hotkey, then stop hotkey again etc. Works a bit differently between attack stances and no attack stances. As i said it shouldn't be a problem but i say it just in case.
• Even if formation dancing is not fixed this should be less of a problem (because it is easier to call out formation dancing) but some players that don't care could still do it i guess.
• Other than that it is still possible to dance between resources (depending on the situation this can require good accuracy from the player though) but despite that it's still good to not waste time turning going for ressources / buildings for the gameplay I think. That also is made a bit easier to call out, and impossible to do for heroes, very situational for cavalry. Dancing with infantry citizen soldiers is harder due to low speed and HP. (But in the end still possible).

Different players have different play styles. Not everyone is interested in competitive multiplayer. Many people are perfectly happy with single-player vs the Petra AI.
The point is that these phase stat increases strongly favour a particular play style, punishing players wanting to explore different strategies.

Actually the technology requires the town phase (as is the case for the rotary mill).

I think this will increase imbalance between heroes instead of putting them on the same level, unless other factors are considered in the same patch like bonuses, combat prowess, etc...

reflag

b 2
a 2.4 i.e. +20% = ×6/5
e 3 i.e. +25% = ×5/4
c 4 i.e. +33% = ×4/3
h 8

I will make tests

In D2837#121886, @wraitii wrote:

The interpolation of the rotation looks fairly bad (it's kind of jerk-y).

Yea I know, this can be improved fairly easily, however didn't want to waste time at it in case the idea doesn't work.

I think I prefer the slower movement, because this is introducing a lot more code (and unitMotion code too).

I find this a worthless argument, if this is better gameplay wise, we should take this. The amount of code is not really relevant then IMO. Though surely one could reduce the number of lines in this patch. But again, don't want to waste my time on that for now.

In D2494#120610, @Nescio wrote:

What exactly?

Look fine.

@Nescio what you think about my Idea?

@Feldfeld @Lionkanzen

@Itms done.

Even as admin, I am blocked by the policy @borg- set! borg, you have to click "Edit Revision" at the top right of the diff description, then change "Editable By" to become "All Users".

oh, my bad :)

A Briton house costs 75 wood + 30 seconds and grants 5 population, so effectively the Briton bonus of +2 population means saving 30 wood + 12 s for each economic or military structure.

Successful build - Chance fights ever on the side of the prudent.

I don't have the permissions to accept it :)

Successful build - Chance fights ever on the side of the prudent.

• finish tooltip

Also, just to makes sure, does that give back the 5 population increase on docks for gauls ?

Yes.

Could this be done by tech?

Yes.

• move brit population bonuses from templates into a separate file

What about increase cost of brit stable to 300w? since can train dogs now.

No, that's beside the point. If D2801 is committed, Britons can train dogs at any stable, regardless which civ built it. Likewise, mace_fortress (which trains champions and heroes) is not more expensive than athen_fortress (which trains nothing).

In D2821#122209, @borg- wrote:

What about increase cost of brit stable to 300w? since can train dogs now.