I dislike the removal of the colony from the metropolis tech also, because that just seems to be a good part of what its supposed to do.

Is it? To me it seemed an oversight. The technology was introduced in rP12753, the military colony in rP14411.

I'm not sure I like the removal of the reveal shore, to me it seems a fun addition. <- Maybe another team member disagrees with me here.
I dislike the removal of the colony from the metropolis tech also, because that just seems to be a good part of what its supposed to do.

No, its fine. The risk of having an op unit is greater for cavalry than infantry.

Any progress on the testing @borg-? This seems like an interesting change.

@Freagarach, anything that needs changing?

@borg- the idea of D2856/rP24589 was to make the Nisean Horses technology the cavalry counterpart of this one (the Agoge), and vice versa. However, when browsing the civilization overviews I noticed this adds +25% health and +5% time, the other +20% health and +10% time, which doesn't seem fair. Maybe one of them should be tweaked again?

Could do that

That's clear, I'll insert the icon line.
Before I do, what would be an appropiate cost (resources and time) for the unit?

In rP24332#47467, @vladislavbelov wrote:

Why do we need libraries/source/spidermonkey/lib/mozjs78-ps-rust*.lib in our repo?

just a note: stats should not be based on visual representation but vice versa

Why do we need libraries/source/spidermonkey/lib/mozjs78-ps-rust*.lib in our repo?

I would like to add an icon to that. A broken sword would be a good icon.

It does show to the players that something is affecting them, which is a must, IMHO.

It's not necessary for the aura to work, and a lightning bolt does not really indicate fear to me.

No icon for units affected by aura ?

You're the balancer, I'm merely stating an observation.

I don't particularly care about the exact values. If you think these are better, it's fine by.
@Freagarach has a valid point. Would 1.4 and 0.4 be better?

Build is green

When adding new content, it's important to explain the reasoning behind it (preferably in the summary), so that if in the future people go through the svn revision history and look at this patch, they can get an idea why what was done was done.
To do:

• link to a relevant forum discussion, if any
• explain why it has an attack
• explain why it is a champion and not a support unit
• clarify whether it's supposed to be a swordsman that happens to have a trumpet, or a trumpeter that happens to have a sword
• figure out a reasonable cost (@borg-?)

• redone from scratch
• new aura
• add generic template

As requested by @Stan.

You should also insert <Classes datatype="tokens">CivSpecific</Classes>.

Thanks! I'll let you know if I spot anything else.
By the way, D2551 is still waiting for a review.

Suggestion?

<Capturable>
  <CapturePoints op="mul">2</CapturePoints>
</Capturable>
<GarrisonHolder>
  <Max op="mul">2</Max>
</GarrisonHolder>
<Health>
  <Max op="mul">1.75</Max>
</Health>

Tnx @Nescio

They look much larger and stronger, basically mini-fortresses, therefore I'd like to see them get more health and capture points.

Suggestion?

Ah I thought I flipped them all sorry.

In D2917#149213, @Stan wrote:

Maybe?

(One can sent the position from AttackDetection.js. (Don't need to get the ent-state then.) Although that may cause the entity to have left the screen already.)

Adding more icons is welcome, but “updating” should be done with more caution.
For instance, D1779/rP22126 established some kind of consistency, with melee weapons having one orientation (bottom left to top right) and ranged weapons another (bottom right to top left). If you look at armor_plates_ranged.png, arrow.png, and arrow_poison.png, you see that's no longer true.
The new forge (blacksmith.png) ison is much cruder and flatter than the old one, not really an improvement.
There are probably a few other things, I haven't checked everything.

In D3287#149238, @Stan wrote:

A random thought I had when reading this patch, Maybe we should have paired techs for things like this, where stronger hack armor means movement penalty and stronger pierce armor means some other penalty.

Accepting the strings (and checkrefs passes).

It's not a random thought, it's an interesting idea to explore.

A random thought I had when reading this patch, Maybe we should have paired techs for things like this, where stronger hack armor means movement penalty and stronger pierce armor means some other penalty.

• rephrase one more string

ERROR: Errors executing script event "Press"

You can also update this diff with the corrected strings?

That's what I meant.

• properly svn mv files
• keep names, descriptions, and icons for the hack/armour technologies
• different icons and descriptions for the pierce/shield technologies

Fixes the issue indeed.

You can also update this diff with the corrected strings?

The patch is a clear improvement, making gameplay more interesting, in my opinion. The file changes are correct and the patch is complete.
A difference is elephants now benefit too, which was not the case earlier. I don't know whether that's a good thing or a bad thing; it seems a bit more consistent, though.

Would be more interesting since there are heroes/catafalques/structures with an attack bonus already and having such a fear aura could be interesting. Just my two cents ;)

This intimidation aura instead of the encouragement one

Build is green

Lovely!

The technology that has the largest effect on your income is the +25% movement speed increase, both with and without this patch.
Deprecating or merging the trade_convoys_speed.json and trade_convoys_armor.json is fine by me. The rest of the patch is not.

Two identical commercial gain technologies and an additional commercial gain technology for international routes, which in theory is basically the same thing.

You're mistaken, it's not the same thing. An increase in international bonus means that not only does it increase your gain when trading with markets and docks of other players, it also increase the gain of other players when trading with your markets and docks. It's a nice concept and allows for more interesting and cooperative gameplay. For comparison, the cart dock and market have a +0.1 international bonus as well.

What the patch proposes is to "clean up" the technologies by mixing the 3 commercial gain techonlogies in just one.

Gather technologies researched at the storehouse and farmstead have identical modifications, yet it makes sense to have one for each phase. I'd say the same applies to trade gain technologies.

Cleaner.

@Nescio, would you like to commandeer? I think you are better than me for this :) Else it will end up in a huge back and forth.

That might indeed be more efficient. I'll also try to test whether the "Promotion/RequiredXp" modification works.

@Freagarach suggested than the fear aura might be more interesting. (We have an icon now)

Could you elaborate?

Build is green

Fair enough. (Didn't want to commit it and then find out you wanted to adjust it to compensate 😉.)

This is how the apartments look, with a small tower and houses for comparison:

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

I prefer the city phase, but can accept the town phase.

Better fix?
I'm not too sure what this does, @Freagarach feel free to commandeer.

@Nescio, would you like to commandeer? I think you are better than me for this :) Else it will end up in a huge back and forth.

Yes, I had D2733 in mind when writing this patch. I tried different arrangements and these numbers looked best to me. The improvement is especially noticeable for the Kushites (who have five specific structures) and Persians (who have a lot of technologies); with this patch applied there are no longer scrollbars for those two; only for Carthage (due to the long super dock tooltip) now.

With free houses I used to need one and a half to two workers continuously constructing houses to keep up with only CC training, right from the start. As it stands now, this may be more of a handicap than a bonus.

What's wrong with 37?
I don't particularly care about the exact values. If you think these are better, it's fine by.
@Freagarach has a valid point. Would 1.4 and 0.4 be better?

Please don't change the tooltip. The cost change is fine by me.

This seems to fix a relatively serious issue and it's straightforward & sane in general -> accept.

Relates to rP24504 most of all.

@wowgetoffyourcellphone, better name suggestion maybe?

Adjusted player placement so that they spawn further apart (on low player numbers) which reduces the imbalance in player positions.
I didn't yet replace the unreachable trees on mountains by their actor variation, because some of them are placed with a TerrainPainter which requires a template.

Yes it does.

Please be aware that having such a long build time seriously impacts an economy. The saved wood cost is much less than the cost of the workers constructing the houses. (Yes multiple workers, since having one worker constructing is not enough to keep up.)

In rP24492#46874, @Nescio wrote:

I'm certainly looking forward to your fundamental redesign of the layout!

Now that civ-specific structures have been restored to the page - and thus there's more text in the civStructures subsection - do you remain happy with the subsection sizes you've chosen?