In rP24779#48517, @Nescio wrote:

The idea of D2986/rP24021 was that outposts have only enough vision range to show themselves.

In D3476#153384, @Nescio wrote:

Is the current situation worse than in previous alphas?

With regards to micro, yes, considerably. Just try it yourself: make 30 cav, use a default formation, and your units will move efficiently and without colliding into each other. Without default formations, stragglers always ended up slower and behind, and could be targeted. This is no longer the case. It basically makes it possible to really mass ranged cavalry, which wasn't really practical before.

D3402/rP24708 already reduced cavalry speed; wasn't that enough?

I judge no. Cavalry remains too fast, and particularly the run multiplier makes escaping very easy.

And could you elaborate how and why you decided on exactly these proposed changes to address the problem?

The idea of D2986/rP24021 was that outposts have only enough vision range to show themselves, but not to reveal their surroundings; posting a soldier would do that.

Is the current situation worse than in previous alphas?
D3402/rP24708 already reduced cavalry speed; wasn't that enough?
And could you elaborate how and why you decided on exactly these proposed changes to address the problem?

This is undesirable. Wall towers are fundamentally different things than free-standing towers, despite their name. The latter shoots arrows by default and is relatively easy to destroy or capture, whereas the former is part of city walls, the purpose of which is to block movement and be hard to destroy.
I'm in favour of removing the <Attack> (and <BuildingAI>) from wall towers and giving them unit slots (turret points), hence D2769, but before that can be done, some actors have to be changed first.

In D3465#153373, @Nescio wrote:

• When attempting to breach city walls, one targets the weakest section. If wall towers were to have less health, then those would be targetted instead of gates or long segments, despite the latter having larger footprints and thus larger openings.

This isn't true in 0 A.D., because you can set up your walls so that destroying the tower doesn't actually open a hole at all, and it's only marginally more expensive.

• Rebuilding a short, medium, or long segment in game is quite easy, but rebuilding a destroyed wall tower is rather annoying, you basically need to demolish the adjecent pieces too,

In D3476#153371, @Nescio wrote:

What exactly is the problem? All cavalry? Only ranged cavalry? Or ranged troops in general?

Cavalry in general became much more mobile with formation-walking, and much easier to micro. This particularly affects ranged cavalry, since it can be used to 'kite' damage. Which iv why...

Have you considered simply lowering cavalry health, making them easier to kill, or attack damage, which is currently a bit higher than that of their infantry counterparts?

... this won't work, since the cavalry is disproportionately strong. The problem is that they can be micro-ed to not take damage at all, and once massed becomes basically impossible to kill, unless you at least equal their range. Which is problematic since cavalry archers outrage everything else but infantry archers, which are naturally less mobile, and less resistant. The only option is melee cavalry, but that isn't necessarily easy to tech into compared to Citizen Solder ranged cavalry.
The problem exists to a lesser extent with cavalry javelineers, but those at least can more or less be kept at bay with any ranged unit.

Wall towers have more health than other wall pieces for good reasons:

• They're the thickest and strongest points, protecting nearby sections (e.g. those of Lugo).
• When attempting to breach city walls, one targets the weakest section. If wall towers were to have less health, then those would be targetted instead of gates or long segments, despite the latter having larger footprints and thus larger openings.
• Rebuilding a short, medium, or long segment in game is quite easy, but rebuilding a destroyed wall tower is rather annoying, you basically need to demolish the adjecent pieces too,

What exactly is the problem? All cavalry? Only ranged cavalry? Or ranged troops in general?
Have you considered simply lowering cavalry health, making them easier to kill, or attack damage, which is currently a bit higher than that of their infantry counterparts?

In rP24787#48512, @Nescio wrote:

Out of curiosity, why exactly was this name chosen? Simply because it's not Greek? The Persians do not particularly stand out this alpha, they didn't even get a proper wonder (unlike the Gauls).

Out of curiosity, why exactly was this name chosen? Simply because it's not Greek? The Persians do not particularly stand out this alpha, they didn't even get a proper wonder (unlike the Gauls).

Build is green

more correct place

Build has FAILED

Build has FAILED

Build has FAILED

This isn't shown anywhere?

Build is green

Build is green

• All CS cavalry 18 build time
• All cavalry speed reduced from x2 to x1.8, and reduced run multiplier.
• Speed tech cost 400F/200W

In D3476#153319, @Feldfeld wrote:

Not really. We had two +10% cavalry speed technologies, now only one +10%. Before we had a +20% health increase for all cavalry, now it affects only champion cavalry and a new one with +10% health.

Fair points. The speed technologies were quite expensive though.

500F / 500W / 150M

Build is green

password came from javascript, so was CStr already

So we don't forget.

It's a bit late now (seeing we're in String Freeze), but at some point the aura "Inspired Defense" (simulation/data/auras/units/heroes/hero_garrison.json) will need updating to reflect this change.

And I suppose password is using CStr everywhere else?

Build is green

iq is using std::string, converting it to CStr just for this is bad from my point of view

Not really. We had two +10% cavalry speed technologies, now only one +10%. Before we had a +20% health increase for all cavalry, now it affects only champion cavalry and a new one with +10% health.

Fair points. The speed technologies were quite expensive though.

Do you have to use std::string for the username? Can't you use CStr instead?

try to fix macos

Build has FAILED

const
remove log, not really needed

In D3476#153308, @Feldfeld wrote:

In general the ranged cavalry was very nerfed compared to the a23. Now you need stables for mass training, range and attack is reduced, spear cavalry has its bonus increased and sword cavalry is more effective against ranged units, including cavalry of course.

To compensate there are 2 new technologies for cavalry (speed and health) whereas infantry doesn't get any of this. Also now forge technologies that affect cavalry also affects infantry so it makes it a bit easier for cav player since sometimes they will want to fight with infantry too.

In general the ranged cavalry was very nerfed compared to the a23. Now you need stables for mass training, range and attack is reduced, spear cavalry has its bonus increased and sword cavalry is more effective against ranged units, including cavalry of course.

To compensate there are 2 new technologies for cavalry (speed and health) whereas infantry doesn't get any of this. Also now forge technologies that affect cavalry also affects infantry so it makes it a bit easier for cav player since sometimes they will want to fight with infantry too.
The train time of cavalry has been relatively reduced compared to infantry (+2 seconds for infantry when they were at 10, +1 second for cavalry when they were at 15 iirc) so it makes them easier to mass. Also persian for example has 2 technologies that reduces train time by 10% for archer cav
Range is reduced but spread as well so they are more accurate.
The formation change makes it easier to hit and run.

In D3476#153293, @borg- wrote:

In general the ranged cavalry was very nerfed compared to the a23. Now you need stables for mass training, range and attack is reduced, spear cavalry has its bonus increased and sword cavalry is more effective against ranged units, including cavalry of course.

yes, but formation movement is a strong buff IMO, though I guess not really against melee cavalry (but that's mostly relevant in town+ phase).

(the rename was because 2017 refers to Visual Studio, vc should be '141' instead)

@wraitii any opnion?

In general the ranged cavalry was very nerfed compared to the a23. Now you need stables for mass training, range and attack is reduced, spear cavalry has its bonus increased and sword cavalry is more effective against ranged units, including cavalry of course.
I think these changes are very aggressive.
I think we can keep the range and training time as how is it, just lowering the general cavalry speed so that units like spearman have more chances and increase the price of movement technology, but keeping it at p1.

(Refs https://code.wildfiregames.com/rP24563)

Superseded by SM upgrades.

yes, that's because mods are not signed with this key, so they are invalid

After this change the downloadable mod list is empty. I suppose the people who have mods installed might find it weird not to be able to use their downloaded mods anymore but that's out of scope.

In D3476#153277, @borg- wrote:

Cavalry javelin and Archer with less range than infantry? No make Sense.

Cavalry javelin and Archer with less range than infantry? No make Sense.
I dont agree with more expansíve range cav and tech p2.
I agree with Nerf move speed.

Looks alright.

Looks good, refs D1705

Would have been nice, if you explained, that this is the old Persian form of "Xerxes". Xšayaṛša isn't really known ;)

I completely agree, we should also ping everyone here too.

Need to keep in mind this breaks reconnecting walls (wallsets have only one tower template) D1190 for another improvement.

In D3472#153191, @Stan wrote:

Also the texture in the back is scrambled, and maybe too noisy for clarity

Yeah this is obviously WIP and needs new icons and stuff.

I would put the death button on the right

Indeed correct, I missed it because I updated my scripts and failed to notice wraitii renamed it to vs2017 unlike the previous times.

This change needs D3470 🙂

Build is green

Rebased, some slight refactoring.

Think you forgot tests :)

Build is green

Logic error.

Build is green

Check for cmpGarrisonable before using it.

I could see this being very useful in differentiating some civs. Perhaps Romans, for example, only trains soldiers in these groups. Or maybe Champions train in groups. A group can include an officer (2x health, attack aura) and a bannerman (3x health, speed and health aura).

Maybe although if there are a lot more files might make more sense

Seems like a more useful place. But maybe you should rename the files to simd.cpp/h for more general use and preparation for future usage of AVX/AVX2?