Fix filesystem

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

Don't go after the chickens.

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

More includes for the header god

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

I assume the rest of the ” \n -> ”\n is not done to not cause needless retranslations.

Maybe fix RLInterface...

Folding this into D3129

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

On a full PCH build, it took 414 seconds with the patch and 438 without. About 5% better.

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

Did a clean no-pch build, hoping this builds.

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

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

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

Hard fall down the rabbit hole. Most of the header changes should be sound, the precompiled changes might be looked at more, but some testing locally has shown them to be positive overall. I've also made ScriptInterface.h not include boost, since we could forward-declare. Not so easy with the component manager ATM, but that has other problems.

The function doesn't work for compatibility mode, it hides the real system. It's ok for the features detecting, but bad for statistics.

Fixed by D613 Thanks for the test case @Teiresias

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fix macOS warning

More changes. This removes boost from the precompiled headers (except in the GUI one because of scriptInterface.h).

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

Actually rebase --'' the header was removed

Because we need to support the minimum version. Ideally there would also be one on very latest.

Rebase

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

Why not go to gcc10?
Also, the list is not exactly the same as the one listed on https://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/BuildInstructions#DebianUbuntu ?

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

Rebase, in order to check everything is okay so this can be abandoned.

Need to look at https://code.wildfiregames.com/rP24227#inline-5455 too

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

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

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

Fix PCH (I think) and remove the preocmpilde change, had doubts it was worth it.

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

Rebased for CI. Will commit soon.

If it does, then this makes structures with local auras significantly more effective, especially temples.

(it's also a bit odd that the aura is above the building description imo)

There are various tooltips, and what's listed in them and their order is a bit of a mess:

• when hovering over an entity icon in the right selection panel, the order is name, classes, auras, identity tooltip, costs, other stats
• when hovering over an entity icon in the structure tree, the order is name, costs, identity tooltip, auras, other stats
• when having right-clicked on an entity icon to open the detailed information, the order is name, costs, other stats, identity tooltip, auras, classes, built by, trains, researches

I wouldn't say so, no [...]. It doesn't imply the building is basically useless without a garrison, imo, which it is (see Towers saying "additional arrows", which implies that there are some by default).

Feel free to propose a different <Identity/Tooltip> string.

Further, I'm not sure we shouldn't make a different aura, since adding defense bonus for the outpost feels slightly wrong (there's no wall...)

Both the “outpost” and wall segments have a parapet, so the resistance bonus is appropiate. The aura name ought to be changed, or perhaps indeed have a separate copy for the “outpost”. (And maybe a third for the siege walls, which are noticeably lower?)

(incidentally, at this point, is there really an advantage to an outpost over a wall tower?)

The “outpost” is really cheap, can be built outside your territory, and is available in the village phase. A wall tower fires arrows when garrisoned, like towers (and unlike other wall segments).

In D3098#138013, @Nescio wrote:

Isn't that already implied by the “Wall Protection” aura tooltip?

• forgot obsolete stoa loading screen tip

In rP24217#45312, @Nescio wrote:

Does this affect auras? If so, shouldn't their ranges be adjusted too?

They are -> https://code.wildfiregames.com/D2759#131258
That being said, this might actually be a large change for some buildings with small auras, I'm not sure.

Does this affect auras? If so, shouldn't their ranges be adjusted too?
And territory influence radius?

I've made a ticket: #5872
I do think this can be cleaned up further a bit, but I don't really want to spend too much time on this right now.

Isn't that already implied by the “Wall Protection” aura tooltip?

Some wording in the outpost tooltip such as "Garrison to provide vision range" would be useful imo.

And I would argue that new players regularly get confused about this. This is somewhat besides the point, but IMO we can't just ignore the utter influence that game has had/still has on our player base.

To be clear, I'm not saying we should it ignore entirely, but on the other hand, we shouldn't assume everyone is familiar with Age of Empires either.

I wouldn't call it a dealbreaker in this instance, though I might wonder if the outpost/watchtower tooltip is accurate nowadays.

It is:

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

Also, something odd is going on with the Fortress random map:

In D3098#137995, @Nescio wrote:

Why exactly? Age of Empires is a different game. We don't highlight that fireships in 0 A.D. are different from theirs, or explicitly emphasize in game that infantry can build and gather, or that structures have territory and can be captured.

Well, the same is true of a lookout, to an extent. Certainly doesn't have to be a tower.

True. As pointed out earlier, I opted for “Lookout” to be able to avoid the word “tower”.

I guess either "Observation Tower" or "Lookout Tower" then.

If “tower” is to be part of the name, then I'd prefer “watchtower” (clearer and shorter) to “lookout tower” or “observation tower”.

If we go with Watchtower, which is definitely accurate, we need to acknowledge that it is _not_ the same thing ad the various AOE Watchtowers, which may or may not be obvious to players.

Why exactly? Age of Empires is a different game. We don't highlight that fireships in 0 A.D. are different from theirs, or explicitly emphasize in game that infantry can build and gather, or that structures have territory and can be captured.

In D3098#137989, @Nescio wrote:

As for “observation post”, this can be anything, including a half-buried bunker, or a car that can move around.

Well, the same is true of a lookout, to an extent. Certainly doesn't have to be a tower.

OK, so I forgot about Atlas rebooting stuff but not really too.

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

As for the Age of Empires series, their tower terminology is not constant, as I wrote elsewhere (https://code.wildfiregames.com/D2551#129902 ; also, in Age of Empires III, the tower is called “Outpost”). Moreover, they're often sloppy when it comes to language, confusing “ballista” and “catapult”, or “fireship” and “demolition ship”, calling a building a “blacksmith” (i.e. a person), and introducing an ahistorical “siege workshop”. So I'd say Age of Empires is a great example of what 0 A.D. shouldn't do.
As for “observation post”, this can be anything, including a half-buried bunker, or a car that can move around.
I wouldn't mind renaming the current “outpost” to “watchtower” (no space), since that is a correct term.

Fix notes remove cpp 14 changes as they break the CI

Atlas still segfaults

Works on my mac, but you need to run cd build/premake/premake5/ && bin/release/premake5 embed to re-generate the scripts.c file. It's versioned afaik.

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

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

As written here -> https://code.wildfiregames.com/D3098#137968

In D3098#136741, @Nescio wrote:

As pointed out earlier, I opted for the latter to avoid association with towers.

Then again, type "watch tower" in google images to get plenty of things that look exactly like our outpost/lookout platform :p (in fairness, guard tower does too) . "lookout", interestingly, provides mostly pictures or tourist-platforms (or instagram models) there.
I would also argue "lookout" can apply to natural things such as a tree, whereas watchtower doesn't.
I'm wondering if "observation tower" wouldn't be the most apt word. But then again, Wikipedia literally finishes the summary of that with Observation towers that are used as guard posts or observation posts over an extended period to overlook an area are commonly called watchtowers instead.

In D3075#137951, @vladislavbelov wrote:

That sounds a bit unsafe. Since two parallel object creations depend on the global state.

Well, yes, but as I noted in the diff summary it's not actually all that parallel, since we have a handshake process for setting up such things, which got slike this:

• Client/server connect -> Server handshakes
• Client handshakes back
• Server responds to the handshake <- this is where the server create the GUID
• Client receives and Authenticates <- this is where the client writes m_GUID
• Server receives the authentication request <-- this is where the server checks GUID

Also move the setups to the hooks subclass so that I can remove them from the interface, as noted by Vladislav

This seems to fix the issue for me. @Stan can you confirm?