In D5001#218080, @vladislavbelov wrote:

In D5001#218041, @phosit wrote:

There are many typos, you don't have to comment on thous.
I'm more interested in what you think about the last revision...

It looks ok I think. Maybe it's not ideal but it's pretty clear what's going on.

Great to see the new placement options fit in to existing map. (And it's great to see they are adopted that eagerly by map makers ;) )

In D5001#218041, @phosit wrote:

There are many typos, you don't have to comment on thous.
I'm more interested in what you think about the last revision...

It looks ok I think. Maybe it's not ideal but it's pretty clear what's going on.

In rP9140#61115, @Manuel1105 wrote:

The email is known and will never be fixed unless changes start…

In D5062#217875, @Manuel1105 wrote:

Well I believe I know why you guys don’t get something’s and funny when you broke in for the direct root and I believe I could screw you over…

The email is known and will never be fixed unless changes start…

There are many typos, you don't have to comment on thous.
I'm more interested in what you think about the last revision...

@marder here are some suggestions:

In D4948#218015, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

Hi @marder I just made a mod so I can test all these on the most recent RC. Everything seems to work great so far, except groupedCircle and alternatingCircle seem to be reversed. They are reversed every map I tried.
What I mean by reversed in this case is I select groupedCircle and the placement is alternating, and I select alternatingCircle and the placement is grouped. No other placements seem to have this issue.

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

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

@sera: Yeah. :/ I hope the examples are enough. Thanks!
@Freagarach: Thanks too! I've changed the quotation marks, they look good in the game and I don't have to escape them. :D

Hi @marder I just made a mod so I can test all these on the most recent RC. Everything seems to work great so far, except groupedCircle and alternatingCircle seem to be reversed. They are reversed every map I tried.
What I mean by reversed in this case is I select groupedCircle and the placement is alternating, and I select alternatingCircle and the placement is grouped. No other placements seem to have this issue.

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

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

Include the context

In D5127#217996, @vladislavbelov wrote:

We don't use 16byte atomics directly, I think it might be under the hood of boost::lockfree::queue. I'm also wondering why it's not linked automatically (by detecting standard library usage)?

Possible references:

• https://github.com/EttusResearch/uhd/issues/410
• https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81358

In D5127#217994, @phosit wrote:

Is this ment to be applied on top of D4634?

The dw-cas is likely used in boost::lockfree::queue and we try to remove boost as a dependency.

I didn't check if it's complete (everywhere where an error-code is printed also the string is printed)

We don't use 16byte atomics directly, I think it might be under the hood of boost::lockfree::queue. I'm also wondering why it's not linked automatically (by detecting standard library usage)?

Is this ment to be applied on top of D4634?

Thanks for the patch, @xctan! I've added you to the "Contributors" group, so the next time you upload a patch, it is built by our CI.
I can't comment on the patch itself, but I can ask you to upload it with context and add yourself to the credits. :)
(See https://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/SubmittingPatches#Makingsomechanges.)

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

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

Remove INVALID_PROGRESS and it's uses.
I'm not sure this should be done in this diff so it's in an own revision.

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

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

Make the flags runtime values so that I was able to converge the test and non-test paths.
Also I rewrote some comments.
I'm not sure if the functions in JSI_VFS should also respect the flags... So I did the change half way ;)

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

Build is unstable, some tests have failed - The Moirai have given mortals hearts that can endure.

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

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

simplify requirements line for rome civ bonus

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

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

• schouldn't -> shouldn't
• OPTIMAL_UTILIZATION -> MAX_QUEUE_SIZE_FOR_OPTIMAL_UTILIZATION
• Add an anonymous namespace.

In D5125#217902, @borg- wrote:

More one question, can capture?

Build is unstable, some tests have failed - The Moirai have given mortals hearts that can endure.

In D5120#217909, @chrstgtr wrote:

In D5120#217903, @borg- wrote:

@chrstgtr @real_tabasco_sauce @wowgetoffyourcellphone

What is preferable, fortress p3 neutral, fortress p2 neutral (maybe increase cost to balance) or tower p2 neutral?

For me, towers in neutral during p1. That allows you to rush with towers, which would be an interesting dynamic (like outposts in a23 but stronger). After p1, towers can be easily captured so they can’t stand alone.

Forts in neutral is a little too close to Roman camps. But forts will be harder to build (cost/time) and stronger (HP). This will make them

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

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

update with packed actor by @nifa, fix packed onager not moving.

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

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

The rest looks ok.

allow legionaries to build all buildings.

In D5109#217908, @borg- wrote:

You need to update your snv and the patch. There is already a new civ bonus, and legionary engineers are doubled.

If legionnaires are not champions, then it is not necessary to limit their buildings, they should be able to build everything.

In D5120#217903, @borg- wrote:

@chrstgtr @real_tabasco_sauce @wowgetoffyourcellphone

What is preferable, fortress p3 neutral, fortress p2 neutral (maybe increase cost to balance) or tower p2 neutral?

You need to update your snv and the patch. There is already a new civ bonus, and legionary engineers are doubled.

In D5109#217906, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

I don't prefer the tech pair because of a couple reasons: 1. it implies a choice between two, when it was really an evolution of the army. 2. it forces the player to decide between full champions or no champions, which is not ideal for players, as they would still want access to some champions in either approach. I know as it is written it has a lot of moving parts 'under the hood', but for the player things will appear pretty intuitive.

I don't prefer the tech pair because of a couple reasons: 1. it implies a choice between two, when it was really an evolution of the army. 2. it forces the player to decide between full champions or no champions, which is not ideal for players, as they would still want access to some champions in either approach. I know as it is written it has a lot of moving parts 'under the hood', but for the player things will appear pretty intuitive.

In D5109#217904, @borg- wrote:

I'll be right there. This patch really is labor intensive, so I'm also willing to accept a simpler and less risky approach here. Maybe just a technology of choice between common champions or legionaries? If you choose legionaries, only the champion cavalry is removed, all other units remain as they are. I don't really care about that detail anymore. The difference with legionaries is that they would be champions that cost more than a traditional champion, but they can build structures and onagers. This choice also frees the centurions. I would actually be fine with that.

I'll be right there. This patch really is labor intensive, so I'm also willing to accept a simpler and less risky approach here. Maybe just a technology of choice between common champions or legionaries? If you choose legionaries, only the champion cavalry is removed, all other units remain as they are. I don't really care about that detail anymore. The difference with legionaries is that they would be champions that cost more than a traditional champion, but they can build structures and onagers. This choice also frees the centurions. I would actually be fine with that.

Okay, I can change the story. Historically, the most correct thing would be for the fortress to be built on neutral territory, but I don't know if this is behind any interesting changes in gameplay. Maybe move to p2, but I don't know how strong could it be.

More one question, can capture?

Is it possible to adjust the visual by editing normal textures instead of making the strength more than 1.0?

Build is unstable, some tests have failed - The Moirai have given mortals hearts that can endure.

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

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

tooltip wording.

In D5120#217887, @Freagarach wrote:

I'll continu the discussion here. What I meant to say was that for constructing towers in neutral territory you'd probably search for a description like the brochs: "Defensive structures (...) that dotted the rest of the islands." from Wikipedia. (IMHO you can bend the historical justification a bit.) My concern for this patch is that the history in the civ.json talks about large towers and so it doesn't match the effect. Change the history and there's no problem anymore. ;P

I'll continu the discussion here. What I meant to say was that for constructing towers in neutral territory you'd probably search for a description like the brochs: "Defensive structures (...) that dotted the rest of the islands." from Wikipedia. (IMHO you can bend the historical justification a bit.) My concern for this patch is that the history in the civ.json talks about large towers and so it doesn't match the effect. Change the history and there's no problem anymore. ;P