I think you introduced a memory leak on Windows. This shows up in the test output failing them.

In D4714#200437, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

If someone else approves as well, I'll go ahead and accept it.

That is not how it works. xD If you agree with the patch, you may just accept it. :)

Can you show some screenshots and fix the lint warnings? :)

I’ve explained more fully in forum, but chariots haven’t been problematic in a25 so I see no reason to nerf them. All theoretical arguments don’t make sense if our real world experience doesn’t reflect these theoretical predictions.

• reduce the size of the dialog for the openURL(url) function, it was added with rP15062 and is with 600px unnecessarily long
  • The box showing the link is very useless and can be removed, it is broken anyway for very long links e.g. Multiplayer → Game Lobby → Terms of Service → View online
    • The conformation box for opening URL's has already be removed for Mod selection → Help → Modding Guide/ Visit mod.io
• reduce the button size for the case there is only one button on the dialog box
  • make it adoptive to the text length a little bit, but the button should not stretch across the entire message box window
• Pick a height for the red buttons, just enough to hold two lines of text and the proportions of the message box are aesthetically pleasing, 40px looks good. These confirmation options are not supposed to be very long. The string "Quit and View Summary" from rP25978 should have simply be "Summary".
  • Alternatively

my idea would be a two size solution. One for short words / one lines and one for two lines.

In D4713#200322, @marder wrote:

In the spirit of keeping our civs unique and highlighting the interesting historic aspects of each civ (and after reading more in here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_Han_dynasty )

I would vote to not use archers for the Han, because it seem that while they were used, they just weren't nearly as popular as the crossbow.

And looking over to e.g. Gauls, we see that not every civ needs an archer.

(Damage value need still be adjusted, this is just about the rooster)

In D4713#200338, @Stan wrote:

Might ask @AIEND specifically.

Great! Thanks @marder
If someone else approves as well, I'll go ahead and accept it.

I agree, anyone disagree?

Why metal loot if dont cost metal?

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

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

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

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

@wowgetoffyourcellphone 's suggestion, but as paired techs

uploaded the wrong diff. this is the correct one

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

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

@wowgetoffyourcellphone 's suggestion but as paired techs

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

Might ask @AIEND specifically.

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

I full agree @marder

In the spirit of keeping our civs unique and highlighting the interesting historic aspects of each civ (and after reading more in here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_Han_dynasty )

Ok! thanks for the changes. It gets my approval, but I will wait to see what others have to say.

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

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

crossbow hero: 55 range, 60 damage

Fine by me.

any objections to the remaining changes?

I have other opnion. Very strong but high price.

I would approve, but I think @chrstgtr has an objection

In D4710#200177, @borg- wrote:

Not better just add limit of trained mercs?

In D4709#200269, @marder wrote:

55 damage is fine by me. I overshoot with the 28/ forgot about the lower repeat time.

I would be ok with having the hero on foot.
I am with @borg- the 50% is too much (for all soilders). 20% seems fair to me (15% seem too little) and I think will still make a considerable impact.

maybe we should just remodel the art of war tech.

Makes sense

In D4707#200233, @Langbart wrote:

The right solution chooses a consistent height for all red buttons and makes the size of dialogues with one button shorter.

In D4713#200264, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

@marder
I think the cavalry_crossbowman_b should be removed. If this is done, the archer cavalry should be returned.

55 damage is fine by me. I overshoot with the 28/ forgot about the lower repeat time.

In D4713#200267, @borg- wrote:

Yes, start with crossbow is unique and fun.

Yes, start with crossbow is unique and fun.

In D4709#200262, @borg- wrote:

For sure 50% is an extremely unbalanced value. 20% is a fair value, but next to technology it can be op, so I would keep 15% for technology and 15% for aura.

@marder
I think the cavalry_crossbowman_b should be removed. If this is done, the archer cavalry should be returned.

For sure 50% is an extremely unbalanced value. 20% is a fair value, but next to technology it can be op, so I would keep 15% for technology and 15% for aura.

In D4714#200253, @borg- wrote:

I don't think it's interesting to switch from technology to aura. This is a unique technology and we need more of that kind of technology in the game. I think 20% is a fair value.

@borg- feel free to accept if you like it. The sooner the balancing patches get merged the sooner RC2 comes and maybe becomes A26.

Looks like fun. Overall, the unit scares me less than fanatics. I think some sneak attacks on buildings should be interesting, but I still think ax is a unit that needs to be reworked.

I don't think it's interesting to switch from technology to aura. This is a unique technology and we need more of that kind of technology in the game. I think 15% is a fair value.

@borg- thoughts on this? They will now join fanatics and athenian champions as p2 champions.
One issue could be combining these units with noba clubmen for a crazy siege attack, although I doubt the resources for that could be acquired in time.

@real_tabasco_sauce No, it's not wrong to accept, in fact, we are more inclined to committing patches that have been formally accepted, since it's hard to get a consensus, it can give us a sense of majority.

I would say it is better to replace it entirely because between the hero's aura and the global upgrade, I think the hero is far more interesting. In my opinion, it should be replaced with with @wowgetoffyourcellphone 's suggestion, and maybe the price should be adjusted accordingly.

I think it's fair.

This seems like a no-brainer to me. Is it wrong for me to accept? I think almost all balancers will agree on this.

Hi @marder
I have 2 suggestions:
The promotion experience hero can remain -50%, but I think he should be on foot. The mobility of the hero is very significant, because this means cavalry units will have a hard time benefitting from the hero if they are much faster. I have also noticied it is a little unfair how some civs have all cavalry heroes (rome) while for some civs, they are all on foot (sparta).
One of the heroes should be on foot, and I would say the promotion experience one is the most appropriate.
The other suggestion is to bring back the damage of the crossbow hero to 60 as a middle ground (28 over 3 seconds is 9.3 dps which is really weak for a hero). Instead it's range should be brought back down to 55, like the crossbow cavalry champions.

I think this is fine since they train from temples.

If you have too much time, wrap the function in a loop and see if the probability of each civ is now roughly equal when you draw 1000000 times.

Setup:

• create LongStringLocale for bundled languages (build-archives.sh).

python3 generateDebugTranslation.py --long --languages "ast" "ca" "cs" "de" "el" "en_GB" "es" "eu" "fi" "fr" "gd" "hu" "id" "it" "nl" "pl" "pt_BR" "ru" "sk" "sv" "tr" "uk"

• start

binaries/system/pyrogenesis -conf=locale:long

Impact

Thanks for the update. No need to add the po files an automatic script takes cares of them :)

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

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

Performed refactoring in accordance to basic design principles and added translation to user-facing messages.

rP26969

sounds good

Well we agree. We were talking about it with Vladislav. The issue is that as of right now we don't have a way to restrict options per platform (e.g. the option menu doesn't know about the hardware and there is currently no coded way to make it aware of it) this is something we hope to have for A27

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

fix tooltips

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

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

ah yes, my bad.