Build has FAILED

Build has FAILED

Build has FAILED

Applying the changes on top of the latest version of 0 AD to hopefully fix the build error.

The druid (brit and gaul healer) also clearly has a sword but can't attack:

Again I ask to @Nescio to rethink the idea of being available in the town phase, that would be much better for the gameplay.

Rebase.

Cost and description by @Nescio

Build is green

Green std::vector, Red std::deque, Blue Vanilla

Use vector as it's generally faster

I like the sound.

Build is green

Courtesy of @Samulis

While I understand why you're doing this, I would highly recommend writing the files from scratch, rather than copying and pasting from some mod. Delenda Est does a lot of things, and what works there doesn't necessarily work for 0 A.D.'s public mod. Not following the style guide is one thing, having a different approach to template values another.

Well ideally I wouldn't be writing those template files because balancing is not really my department. It's also much more painful to start from scratch because templates are not hotloaded.

,

The druid (brit and gaul healer) also clearly has a sword but can't attack:

• What should its aura do and why?

Carnyx was an instrument used in warfare to incite troops to battle and intimidate opponents, So aura is corretly.

Build is green

Build has FAILED

fix most of the comments

Some fundamental questions:

• What should its aura do and why?
• Should it have an attack and why?
• Should it be a champion and why?
• Should it have a build restriction?

The values were not tested, and needs to be improved
The auras were taken as is from DE and probably need tweaks.

While I understand why you're doing this, I would highly recommend writing the files from scratch, rather than copying and pasting from some mod. Delenda Est does a lot of things, and what works there doesn't necessarily work for 0 A.D.'s public mod. Not following the style guide is one thing, having a different approach to template values another.

@Nescio what do you think of the template name? I'm not sure what's the best convention? I suppose other civs could have standard bearers so it make sense they'd be able to recruit them in captured assemblies, but the carnyx player isn't exactly a standard bearer.

Isn't it a trumpeter?

well, we do not need now bunch of code in JSI_Network::StartNetworkJoin

@Nescio what do you think of the template name? I'm not sure what's the best convention? I suppose other civs could have standard bearers so it make sense they'd be able to recruit them in captured assemblies, but the carnyx player isn't exactly a standard bearer.

Just to make sure that the standard champion infantry will still be training and not replaced by carnyx.

Build is green

Haha I wasn't sure :) Parent has 3 so original was 2 and this version makes 1

Years, but LGTM.

Build is green

I expressed it badly I think. I meant -2.

Update armor

Maybe lower the armor a little more, to 2 is welcome.

In D3320#148946, @Stan wrote:

@borg- are you fine with the fact it can attack?

@borg- are you fine with the fact it can attack?

Build is green

Forgot to add the standard bearer to the list

Build is green

With only one aura seems fine and safe to me.

Rebase, some fixes

Hardware became unsupported.

In D3346#148906, @Stan wrote:

We're in FF btw

In D3319#148179, @Nescio wrote:

+5% health seems rather inconsequential. I suppose one could add +5% attack damage as well, but then we get the same problem.
This patch needs feedback from more people, so I'd say keep it for A25.

Build is green

Yes, for another patch. The rest seems ok to me.

• also lower ram metal cost by 50
• raise ram and siege tower <xp> to 50% of health
• give fireraiser a cost, health, and loot, per @borg-

We're in FF btw

In D3346#148800, @Stan wrote:

Will it make a profileable difference?

In D3278#148895, @Freagarach wrote:

I know, but how often do you want them to be at exactly that position?

Build is green

Build is green

I know, but how often do you want them to be at exactly that position?

Working as advertised. Might be weird to validate my own patch ;) But we two agree xD

Greek and Roman artillery is described in detail by various ancient authors, Philo and Hero are probably the most important, Vitruvius the most accessable (here is a translation of his section on bolt-shooters). The subject has been studied extensively in modern scholarship. While we have a fairly good idea how torsion engines worked and looked, what their dimensions were, their calibres (two-feet (0.6 m), two-span (0.9 m) and three-span (1.4 m) bolts), and occassionally even local usage, reconstructions can get you only this far. Some key ancient techniques and skills were lost; it's very easy to make a poorly performing engine, but very hard to make an excellent specimen. It's no surprise modern estimates of how powerful they were vary greatly.
Personally I think bolts could penetrate more than one person in theory, but I wonder how common that was in practice.
Anyway, while we care about realism, 0 A.D. is a game, and what should matter most is playability. I sincerely believe a higher pure damage without splash works better than a combination of the two.

Comments

I guess I'll approve it for process, but this was written upon my request so I'm both judge and party :P

Remove the function

In D3278#148874, @Freagarach wrote:

Although I have to say that I do not see the need and it merely adds pathfinder strain. IMHO.

Although I have to say that I do not see the need and it merely adds pathfinder strain. IMHO.

Looks relatively safe.

Yeah, I'd rather not have the champions here except for the carnyx, and that's a discussion for another patch.

Build has FAILED

I would like to see the three infantry champions trained on assembly and removal of unlock tech, but for this it must be a p2 building.

And remove them from temple, barracks, and fortress, you mean? I'm not necessarily opposed, but maybe it would be better to consider doing that in a follow-up patch, since that would alter gaul gameplay more significantly.

In D2494#148836, @Nescio wrote:

Source, please? I suspect that was more the exception than the rule. (Also, several means more than two but not many.)

@Freagarach, hopefully I didn't make mistakes this time.

I think on the whole this looks pretty good & is a very worthwhile improvement.
There are two things I'd like to change, but one can be done later:

• It seems to me you should always use SetupServerData+TryToConnect now instead of SetupConnection directly. This would also reduce duplication. This IMO needs to be changed.
• The match password is only used to get the connection data. Once one has that, one could in principle 'illegally' connect to a game. Since the g_NetServer already knows the match password, you could add it to the netclient & validate on Authentication that the password is valid. This would reinforce the security. This can be done for A25 though IMO, as it's not critical (could also be merged with D3075 which is kinda similar).

I'm accepting it as part of the balance / gameplay, not the code.

• forgot to save edits to library aura

Build has FAILED