Should g_Profiler2 be reset in the destructor? to nullptr or to the pointer g_Profiler2 was bevore the constructor was called?.

Thanks for the patch.

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

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

Linter.

^

LGTM, I was afraid it would mean a too small shadowmap (and thus low quality) on high end settings, but if @vladislavbelov says it's okay then it's fine by me.

I can’t say it’s a performance fix, because the very high setting is for high-end hardware, where it works fine. It’s more like a logic fix.

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

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

In favor of D4680

Superseded by D2710 and retrospectively speaking, unsure if getPointsInBB with filter callback was actually the right call over a simple for loop.

Overlapping logic is present in the tileclasses currently. If a generic bit array structure is desired, it could be placed into globalscripts and TileClass could be updated to use that for the underlying storage.

Yeah, that was already the case before this patch.

In D4704#200584, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

The issue I see is really the slight redundancy.

In D4704#200476, @chrstgtr wrote:

I think this will be a nice p2 wrinkle. It will give the ability to knock out CCs, which will make the game more interesting.

I, however, think we should test this as I am a little concerned that CCs going down in p2 could become an OP strat.

Maybe this type of unit should go to another civ, though. Like @real_tabasco_sauce already said, Kush can already employ this type of strat with merc clubmen. So it may make more sense to give a champ axe strat to a different civ.

In D4713#200579, @marder wrote:

seems like AIEND doesn't like crossbow cav? https://wildfiregames.com/forum/topic/83323-balancing-the-han-release-candidate-1/page/4/#comment-504997

Not sure what to do here now.

In D4704#200477, @marder wrote:

fyi: I will wait either for another acceptance or the end of the discussion (should this go to another civ) before committing this

maybe @wowgetoffyourcellphone or @ValihrAnt can provide some input for the suggestion.

seems like AIEND doesn't like crossbow cav? https://wildfiregames.com/forum/topic/83323-balancing-the-han-release-candidate-1/page/4/#comment-504997

commit: https://code.wildfiregames.com/rP26981

[Gameplay] Han - civil technologies adjustments

In D4713#200561, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

In D4713#200551, @borg- wrote:

In D4713#200441, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

In D4713#200338, @Stan wrote:

Might ask @AIEND specifically.

AIEND seems to support the following lineup, which is not very different:
p1: crossbow, spear, swordcav
p2: archer, Ji (halberdier), swordsman, spearcav, archer cav
p3: champions: infantry crossbow, infantry spearman, cavalry spearman, chariot archer.

For me it's perfect, the only thing i would add is crossbow cavalry. It's a different and unique unit, so why remove it without at least testing it on an alpha first? I think just a few tweaks are enough to make this unit viable.

It's a really awkward unit, at least from team game I played. The range difference between infantry crossbow and cavalry crossbows (at least for CS) made no sense. Also, conceptually a crossbow cavalry unit is confusing: how does one load a crossbow while on horseback?
However, apparently very skilled soldiers could in fact load a heavier crossbow while on horseback. Because of this, I think if a crossbow cav should return, it should be the champion crossbow cav.

In D4713#200551, @borg- wrote:

In D4713#200441, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

In D4713#200338, @Stan wrote:

Might ask @AIEND specifically.

AIEND seems to support the following lineup, which is not very different:
p1: crossbow, spear, swordcav
p2: archer, Ji (halberdier), swordsman, spearcav, archer cav
p3: champions: infantry crossbow, infantry spearman, cavalry spearman, chariot archer.

For me it's perfect, the only thing i would add is crossbow cavalry. It's a different and unique unit, so why remove it without at least testing it on an alpha first? I think just a few tweaks are enough to make this unit viable.

The changes seem good to me.

In D4713#200441, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

In D4713#200338, @Stan wrote:

Might ask @AIEND specifically.

AIEND seems to support the following lineup, which is not very different:
p1: crossbow, spear, swordcav
p2: archer, Ji (halberdier), swordsman, spearcav, archer cav
p3: champions: infantry crossbow, infantry spearman, cavalry spearman, chariot archer.

Refs D4610 rP26815

I'm a bit torn between ugly buttons and overlapping text ^^ At least people are used to overlapping text?

yeah, I already asked them again what they think about the updated version. (Since I didn't understand 100% what exactly they would accept)

AIEND seems not to support the removal of units, though.

Not really a concern, but a note:
This doesn't work while the formation has an attack-move command -> then only the units react who are in sight of the threat, while the rest of the formation stand still and waits for them to return.

I am not sure if this is actually going to be that usable unless the map scripts are explicitly designed to be balanced. And having the overall balance of it tweaked via Gamesettings seems somewhat ineffective. Having the option doesn't really matter if the underlying generation isn't updated too.

true

forum opinion seemed to disfavor any crossbow cav

What about crossbow cavalry p3?

In D4721#200520, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

In D4721#200518, @borg- wrote:

If affects cavalry so stable need able to research this tech too

In https://code.wildfiregames.com/D4713, crossbow cavalry are removed anyways.

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

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

rev to 20%

What @Langbart said should be done at some point. But I just checked and found 88 results for "ModernButtonRed" and I don't have the time right now to go through all of them and standardize them somehow.

In D4714#200481, @marder wrote:

If no one else chimes into the discussion I would revert this to the 20% and we'll see how it plays out in the next RC

In D4721#200518, @borg- wrote:

If affects cavalry so stable need able to research this tech too

rP26961

If affects cavalry so stable need able to research this tech too

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

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

p1: spear + crossbow + swordcav
p2: ji + archer + archer cav + spear cav
p3: spear infantry champion, spear cav champion, archer chariot

Might wanna test units demo

We were talking about https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qH6sSOr-yk8&feature=youtu.be might be of some interest to you too

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.

Indentation, voidptr

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

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

change loot and also change the crossbow tech to be less op.

Single test replays isn’t enough for such kind of changes.

yeah, loot was an oversight. Will change it in the next version

If no one else chimes into the discussion I would revert this to the 20% and we'll see how it plays out in the next RC

ah ok get it now.

no concesus if this is needed right now

fyi: I will wait either for another acceptance or the end of the discussion (should this go to another civ) before committing this

I think this will be a nice p2 wrinkle. It will give the ability to knock out CCs, which will make the game more interesting.

Ok for me. But we should really have a general discussion about what units should be available in which phase (and what civs should be exeptions)

As someone who likes to use autotrain, this isn't the most exiting feature for me.
I would rather go with a build time reduce. (But I won't object if the current version is preferred)

OK, no objections. I would consider this a no-brainer too.

In D4712#200445, @chrstgtr wrote:

I’ve explained more fully in forum, but chariots haven’t been problematic in a25 so I see no reason to nerf them. All theoretical arguments don’t make sense if our real world experience doesn’t reflect these theoretical predictions.

Any nerf to a non-problematic unit can only do harm and make that unit become irrelevant.

Right now, chariots are a “sometimes” used strategy that isn’t the decisive factor in every game. In my opinion, that is the goal: create multiple strategies for each civ that can win a game. Anything less deprives the player of choice and makes the game predictable.

I don't like how it looks now, it seems more generic and less realistic.