because much of the discussion is tangential, and they mostly just shoot down the patch.

In D4744#202074, @borg- wrote:

In D4744#202069, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

putting this in the forum was a mistake :c

Why?

In D4744#202069, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

putting this in the forum was a mistake :c

putting this in the forum was a mistake :c

In D4740#201764, @Freagarach wrote:

I'll write you some tests when I have some more time on my hands. Feel free to do it yourself though.

It fixes all the problems referenced in the ticket.

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.

A27

@Stan do you want this to be committed for A26 or A27 ?

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

any update?

any update on this?

I believe this is a nice change I agree with, please correct the inlines which others mentioned.

I already voted on the forum for the version with the image on the right.

I also believe this patch goes in the right direction and could be committed so it could be tried in the next RC release.

I am ok with this.

In D4740#201774, @Freagarach wrote:

This is how we say a patch is WIP. :) (By prefixing the title.)
Regarding the "cannot repair structures not known", it means that once captured a barracks of the enemy, we cannot repair it. Be aware of that. :) (One can check around that, using the hint provided inline.)

In D4740#201764, @Freagarach wrote:

I'll write you some tests when I have some more time on my hands. Feel free to do it yourself though.

In D4722#201974, @chrstgtr wrote:

In D4722#201929, @LetswaveaBook wrote:

I would like to cut the metal cost of fanatics. If the metal cost is fully removed, I am afraid it just will be fairly easy to spam and function as a superior spearman.

Food is gathered more slowly than metal, they’re more expensive units, and have slower train times. I don’t think this is a disqualifying concern.

If anything, they might become like a more expensive, slower trained spear cav that isn’t vulnerable to a spear attack multiplier. I am ok with that.

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

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

Edited the espionage tech description to fit the new mechanic.

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 D4722#201929, @LetswaveaBook wrote:

I would like to cut the metal cost of fanatics. If the metal cost is fully removed, I am afraid it just will be fairly easy to spam and function as a superior spearman.

In D4722#201929, @LetswaveaBook wrote:

I would like to cut the metal cost of fanatics. If the metal cost is fully removed, I am afraid it just will be fairly easy to spam and function as a superior spearman.

Well, about the values I don't think op, but I would be happier with an aura to fatten the animals, like I did in my mod.

In D4744#201960, @wowgetoffyourcellphone wrote:

Crazy me would prefer an even further vision range reduction, which would make scouting more intense and maps feel larger (without needing to increase their actual size). Or perhaps keep the 80 range and adjust the chase range in UnitAI.js

	else if (this.GetStance().respondChase)
		ret.max = visionRange * 0.85; // << This has changed from 100% to 85% of vision range. Stops units from berserking after any enemy unit in vision range.

That is a different topic and only partly related to this current differential. So, Accepted.

In D4744#201960, @wowgetoffyourcellphone wrote:

Crazy me would prefer an even further vision range reduction, which would make scouting more intense and maps feel larger (without needing to increase their actual size). Or perhaps keep the 80 range and adjust the chase range in UnitAI.js

	else if (this.GetStance().respondChase)
		ret.max = visionRange * 0.85; // << This has changed from 100% to 85% of vision range. Stops units from berserking after any enemy unit in vision range.

That is a different topic and only partly related to this current differential. So, Accepted.

Crazy me would prefer an even further vision range reduction, which would make scouting more intense and maps feel larger (without needing to increase their actual size). Or perhaps keep the 80 range and adjust the chase range in UnitAI.js

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

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

Should fix most lint issues.

I would like to cut the metal cost of fanatics. If the metal cost is fully removed, I am afraid it just will be fairly easy to spam and function as a superior spearman.

In D4380#199738, @Freagarach wrote:

In D4380#199705, @LetswaveaBook wrote:

Also there is another problem with garrison space: When you go to the next phase, the GarrisonRegenRate increases and is no longer 0.

I guess we'll need D4679. ;P

Seems also to be a windows only issue. No problem with Ubuntu. @vladislavbelov is it acceptable to use the windows proprietary overload with an #ifdef?

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

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

champions also needed to be changed.

In D4722#201914, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

I think we are in feature freeze, but this is a really good change. Is it possible this makes it in a26?

I think we are in feature freeze, but this is a really good change. Is it possible this makes it in a26?

In D4744#201905, @marder wrote:

Have you checked if this includes eles and camels? / Or should they stay as they are now?

But yes more opinions on this would be nice.

Have you checked if this includes eles and camels? / Or should they stay as they are now?

Fine with me. Let's see if anyone else has objections.

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

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

removed infantry change, changed cavalry change to 80 meter

Ok I will change the unified vision back to 80 for both infantry and cavalry which is the current value for infantry.
The most important thing is the cav change imo.

In D4744#201868, @marder wrote:

I don't have any better ideas tbh.
Vision range is just a topic that is very intensively discussed, so not sure if we should make a move this alpha.

Related discussions just for the record:
D3487
D3486
D3776
https://wildfiregames.com/forum/topic/37850-revealing-attackers-in-fog-of-war/
https://wildfiregames.com/forum/topic/18003-suggestions-for-0-ad/page/156/#comment-510998

Edit: there are probably more, those are just the ones I had in mind

I don't have any better ideas tbh.
Vision range is just a topic that is very intensively discussed, so not sure if we should make a move this alpha.

In D4744#201863, @marder wrote:

In D4744#201861, @chrstgtr wrote:

I'd prefer to have vision a decent bit farther than any units actually engage. This diff's proposed value seems fine. Slightly larger seems fine too. I want to avoid a situation where units quickly die to stronger enemy units that come into vision and immediately destroy your troops before you can react (archers and sword cav come to mind, here)--players should have a chance to at least react and adjust/reinforce.

For siege, I would be fine with them having the same vision range as other units. Whether than means slightly expanding units vision range or slightly decreasing siege's range. Here, though, I would like to avoid a situation where troops can be under attack by far away siege that units can't see.

Fair enough. The problem could be what "slightly" means. Catas have right now a range of 100, which is nearly double the archer range.

Also see the discussion in D3492 about this.

In D4744#201861, @chrstgtr wrote:

I'd prefer to have vision a decent bit farther than any units actually engage. This diff's proposed value seems fine. Slightly larger seems fine too. I want to avoid a situation where units quickly die to stronger enemy units that come into vision and immediately destroy your troops before you can react (archers and sword cav come to mind, here)--players should have a chance to at least react and adjust/reinforce.

For siege, I would be fine with them having the same vision range as other units. Whether than means slightly expanding units vision range or slightly decreasing siege's range. Here, though, I would like to avoid a situation where troops can be under attack by far away siege that units can't see.

In D4744#201860, @marder wrote:

In D4744#201811, @chrstgtr wrote:

Personally, I would unify all vision ranges for units (women, siege, CS, champs, etc.).

I agree that all human units (CS, support, cav, eles ect.) should have the same vision range and from my feeling even 65 would be fine for that (slightly larger than the archer range).

On the other hand, siege with a much larger attack range needs a much larger vision range in order to work properly. So we either need to keep that for them or reduced their attack range.

In D4744#201811, @chrstgtr wrote:

Personally, I would unify all vision ranges for units (women, siege, CS, champs, etc.).

Lgtm

In D4511#201856, @Langbart wrote:

Larger buildings appear to continue having this problem.
even more vision?

In D4511#194122, @Langbart wrote:

Maybe even more vision, I can't see the progress on bombing the house unless I move closer.

• Auras removed
• +1 hack armor
• Remove metal cost, half the cost of metal goes to food and half to wood

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

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