Build failure - The Moirai have given mortals hearts that can endure.

• make use of D2844/rP23900 by @Angen to give heroes the same footprints as their citizen counterparts.

Build failure - The Moirai have given mortals hearts that can endure.

Owners added a subscriber: O11: Templates (Balancing).

@Itms, @Stan, the {civ}.json files don't actually affect gameplay balance.

Build failure - The Moirai have given mortals hearts that can endure.

• redone from scratch

Build failure - The Moirai have given mortals hearts that can endure.

Fix the map!

Build failure - The Moirai have given mortals hearts that can endure.

Style fixes mostly from the last round of feedback. I am still digging into the seg fault from earlier. I had a couple questions about some of the earlier comments that I made inline and will update the code after I have a clearer idea of the approach to take!

Yes. Feel free to update the patch, like I did, or if you intend to make further changes, consider commandeering it.
I actually dislike this patch, but if others really think it's an improvement, I have no real objections, worker elephants are not that important.

I do not know the current unit motion as well as wraitii and Freagarach do, so I'm trusting Freagarach's review here ? The C++ changes do not seem problematic at first sight.

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

In D2852#126527, @Nescio wrote:

• training time to 15, per @borg-
• corrected <Loot>

• forgot athen marines

Shouldn't Itms look at it ?

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

• rebased and updated, per @wraitii

• training time to 15, per @borg-
• corrected <Loot>

Just change <BuildTime>10</BuildTime> to <BuildTime>15</BuildTime> cuz D2862.

@wraitii @Stan can you help?

Changes is good, i will like see this patch commited, but feldfeld offline for weaks.

In D2852#126518, @borg- wrote:

Can change author patch?

@s0600204, there is something wrong with the values displayed in the structure tree when launched from the pre-game main menu. It worked correctly before, therefore my guess is the problem was introduced here.
For example, palisades have 200 to 1000 health. athen, mace, spart structures have +10% health as a civ bonus, so for them it is 220 to 1100 health, but not for the others. When opened from a game session, the structure tree displays the correct values, e.g. 200 to 1000 for pers. However, when launching the structure from the pre-game main menu, it displays 220 to 1100 health for all civs, which is wrong.

In D665#126517, @wraitii wrote:

Planning to commit this soon.

Can change author patch?

Planning to commit this soon.

Think I'm staying the mind that this might be worth for a mod but not the base game. I would vote towards abandoning.

I think this could be implemented better following unit pushing, which I do intend to get on someday, so I'm unsetting myself.

@bb pointed out that you mean "400 units on the map", not actually building, so this easily seems worth doing to me.

Care to rebase this one @Freagarach

Seems fine like this given the limited usage.

Vulcan found some stuff in Resistance.js

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

Think @Feldfeld failed to notice ;)

Will commit soon.

@bb 's comments

I think I'm voting towards abandoning this, but I'll let you decide.

Giving this a longer look, I'm doubtful if it's not better in gathering.Enter or in a function somewhere called in APPROACHING/GATHERING. I guess it'll hardly ever happen without also passing through Order.Gather, which seems OK.
I pondered using a "FINDINGDROPSITE" state to regroup the different paths in which we find a dropside, but that doesn't really seem worth doing.

+25% means that city phase technologies are no longer as necessary to win as before, so you can choose to use these resources in another way, like champions if you prefer.

Updated the code following the review from Itms. I still need to check out the seg fault but everything else should be addressed!

Very fun tool to play with, great job! And the code looks pretty nice, it's self-contained and easy to read.

In D2916#126445, @borg- wrote:

+25% seems really good mainly because with the proposed values, the techs cost more wood and metal, so a higher early gain seems better to me. Also makes the techs more attractive at the early of the game, for example, I prefer to make more soldiers than research a +15% tech, at least as long as I don't have a good amount of units.

Fixed in rP23912

Any change should be tested whenever possible.

@Nescio
What would be the appropriate values in:

+25% seems really good mainly because with the proposed values, the techs cost more wood and metal, so a higher early gain seems better to me. Also makes the techs more attractive at the early of the game, for example, I prefer to make more soldiers than research a +15% tech, at least as long as I don't have a good amount of units.

In D2916#126441, @Nescio wrote:

By the way, did you consider diminishing increases, e.g. +30%, +25%, +20% (village, town, city)? While the relative increase per technology would go down, the absolute gain would still go up slightly, but less pronounced than under the current proposal. It would also be a bit closer in spirit to @wraitii's point.
(Again, not a request, just something to think about.)

Although the fix is correct (floats should generally not be checked for equality), I am still dubious about that GCC bug.
Camera precision doesn't matter that much, and the tests are fixed, so removing myself as auditor

By the way, did you consider diminishing increases, e.g. +30%, +25%, +20% (village, town, city)? While the relative increase per technology would go down, the absolute gain would still go up slightly, but less pronounced than under the current proposal. It would also be a bit closer in spirit to @wraitii's point.
(Again, not a request, just something to think about.)

If change to +15%, what you think about increase farm base gather rate like +5%?

You can keep 20% if you believe that's better. It would mean an effective increase, but 15% each would mean a reduction. I'm not requesting changes, I wrote my previous post to encourage you to critically think about the proposed changes another time.
As for base gather grain rates, infantry has 0.25, slave 0.35, female citizen 0.50, i.e. a 1 : √2 : 2. I'm not saying those values are great, but I think tweaking them would be outside the scope of this patch.

For most resources the old (1.15 × 1.15 × 1.5 = 1.98, i.e. a 98% increase) and new (1.25^3 = 1.95, i.e. a 95% increase) are about the same, however, for food the numbers mean an increase, from +65% (i.e. 1.15 × 1.15 × 1.25 = 1.65) to +73% (i.e. 1.2^3 = 1.73). 15% each would mean a decrease, though, to +52% (i.e. 1.15^3 = 1.52). Nonetheless, I think lowering food gain would be better than raising it, though.

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

Use CanBarter rather than HasMarket.
Test cmpPlayer and add a unit test for cmpPlayer.SetPlayerID while I'm at it.

In D1751#126426, @Imarok wrote:

(Also never used arc with git, so no idea how that would work…)

In D1751#126422, @wraitii wrote:

Code looks good, I failed to test this because patch doesn't include images (and arc-patch doesn't work on my git here apparently).

Generally I like this patch, it's a clear improvement over the current situation. A few things to think about, though:

+25% gather rate (+20% to food tech)

For most resources the old (1.15 × 1.15 × 1.5 = 1.98, i.e. a 98% increase) and new (1.25^3 = 1.95, i.e. a 95% increase) are about the same, however, for food the numbers mean an increase, from +65% (i.e. 1.15 × 1.15 × 1.25 = 1.65) to +73% (i.e. 1.2^3 = 1.73). 15% each would mean a decrease, though, to +52% (i.e. 1.15^3 = 1.52). Nonetheless, I think lowering food gain would be better than raising it, though.

keep food + wood, because the metal will often not be available. The cost of metal has increased for other techs, so it seems fair to keep only food and wood.

Don't players practically always start with a stone quarry and metal mine adjacent to their starting centre, each worth 5000? I think making metal more important in early game won't harm. That said, if you believe food + wood is intrinsically better than wood + metal, I don't have serious objections.

Fishing Net, cost 100 food --> 200 food, 40 research time.
Salting Fish, research time 40 --> 50.
Stockbreeding, cost 50 food --> 100 food.

I never liked these technologies (I'd prefer to see them disabled, but that's a different discussion), however, why do they cost only food?

Market techs are not included, I will make a patch for all market technologies.

Fair enough.
gather_wicker_baskets.json did not need tweaking?

According to Wikipedia there should be sources that attest of the armoring of dogs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogs_in_warfare. Maybe in some of the classical sources there is mention.

You mean:

Gifts of war dog breeding stock between European royalty were seen as suitable tokens for exchange throughout the Middle Ages. Other civilizations used armored dogs to defend caravans or attack enemies.

and:

In ancient times, dogs, often large mastiff- or molosser-type breeds, would be strapped with armor or spiked collars and sent into battle to attack the enemy. This strategy was used by various civilizations, such as the Romans and the Greeks.

None of that is sourced. Moreover, armour does not necessarily mean chain mail. It's not even clear if Britons actually used body armour (ask @genava55), so why should their dogs?

Code looks good, I failed to test this because patch doesn't include images (and arc-patch doesn't work on my git here apparently).

Build failure - The Moirai have given mortals hearts that can endure.

Build failure - The Moirai have given mortals hearts that can endure.

Rename file
Build will fail because of EOL props

According to Wikipedia there should be sources that attest of the armoring of dogs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogs_in_warfare. Maybe in some of the classical sources there is mention.

Quick request changes over the _b thing that can be deleted now.

This was actually reported a little over 2 years ago ;) : https://wildfiregames.com/forum/index.php?/topic/23518-alpha-23-planning/page/12/&tab=comments#comment-356440
(staff forum thread)

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

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

A "serious" rebase.

Gather techs Standart values:

Hey, any news?

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

Use alarmally_1.ogg. Consistently name it flare.