@Stan do you want this to be committed for A26 or A27 ?

Sounds safer indeed. Sometimes I wonder if special buildings should not just all be named special_01 or something to remove duplication

any update?

any update on this?

I believe this is a nice change I agree with, please correct the inlines which others mentioned.

I already voted on the forum for the version with the image on the right.

I also believe this patch goes in the right direction and could be committed so it could be tried in the next RC release.

Thank you @borg- for making this. There might be some reduction in armour maybe for Neomadodes.

I am ok with this.

In D4740#201774, @Freagarach wrote:

This is how we say a patch is WIP. :) (By prefixing the title.)
Regarding the "cannot repair structures not known", it means that once captured a barracks of the enemy, we cannot repair it. Be aware of that. :) (One can check around that, using the hint provided inline.)

In D4740#201764, @Freagarach wrote:

I'll write you some tests when I have some more time on my hands. Feel free to do it yourself though.

In D4722#201974, @chrstgtr wrote:

In D4722#201929, @LetswaveaBook wrote:

I would like to cut the metal cost of fanatics. If the metal cost is fully removed, I am afraid it just will be fairly easy to spam and function as a superior spearman.

Food is gathered more slowly than metal, they’re more expensive units, and have slower train times. I don’t think this is a disqualifying concern.

If anything, they might become like a more expensive, slower trained spear cav that isn’t vulnerable to a spear attack multiplier. I am ok with that.

In D4736#201975, @marder wrote:

In D4736#201963, @borg- wrote:

Yes, they really are units that scare the enemy now, but we must remember that to reach this level it is necessary to sacrifice some of the javelineer training time, and also need time to promote them in the barracks, and maybe spend a little more resources on "tradition hoplite" if you want this promotion faster. The cost of 2 pop seems to me enough to stop a possible "op unit" that breaks the balance.

Then it's ok for me.

About techs, when it involves more than one unit, as is the case with krypteia, so I find it interesting to be in the gerusia, in addition to the fact that you need to spend a little resource to have access to these technologies, instead of screens already available in the barracks or cc.

I am ok with those the apophora & krypteia being researched in the gerusion.
Just the unlock neodamos tech should be available in the all the places where you can train the neodamos. If you don't know it beforehand, you see a unit that needs a tech to be unlocked but have no idea where that unlock tech is being researched, which is a bit confusing imo.

Regarding the noedamos, yes, I can agree here, maybe it can be moved to phase 1, but I think it needs some attack, armor or health adjustment, so it doesn't become op. This unit in phase 1 would make Sparta even more aggressive, and I like that.

In D4736#201967, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

I don't think noedamodes should be available p1: As we learned from mercenaries, spammy units are trouble early in the game. Spartiates can stay in p1 IMO; you could only afford a handful in the early game. Allowing both spartiates and noedamodes in p1 would make the civ too "all in" in p1.
It makes more sense as is. I could imagine them being used after a loss to ready an army quickly for defense. If you wanted them to be earlier, p2 could work.
I am just worried that p3 will become devoid of content if we move so many things to p1, p2.

my problem is more of a meta/ design choice. With the current design of the patch sparta would be a big outlier compared to all other civs. Their "village" phase would now include the senate and the military mess hall, which are both the type of buildings the would normally be unlocked in the city phase as they are... well, not buildings in a small village but buildings of a big city.
So yes, I think sparta should have a strong focus on it's champions, but putting them and the buildings that train them in phase one seems a bit strange to me. That's why just from my personal feeling, the noedamodes would fit much better in phase one, as they are not that "super" unit and it seems more logical to me to have them trained in the barracks in village or town phase.

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

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

Edited the espionage tech description to fit the new mechanic.

I am ok to try it as it is right now.
If it's not ok you can blame me and ping me to make a hotfix/ last minute adjustments.

In D4736#201963, @borg- wrote:

Yes, they really are units that scare the enemy now, but we must remember that to reach this level it is necessary to sacrifice some of the javelineer training time, and also need time to promote them in the barracks, and maybe spend a little more resources on "tradition hoplite" if you want this promotion faster. The cost of 2 pop seems to me enough to stop a possible "op unit" that breaks the balance.

In D4722#201929, @LetswaveaBook wrote:

I would like to cut the metal cost of fanatics. If the metal cost is fully removed, I am afraid it just will be fairly easy to spam and function as a superior spearman.

In D4722#201929, @LetswaveaBook wrote:

I would like to cut the metal cost of fanatics. If the metal cost is fully removed, I am afraid it just will be fairly easy to spam and function as a superior spearman.

Well, about the values I don't think op, but I would be happier with an aura to fatten the animals, like I did in my mod.

In D4744#201960, @wowgetoffyourcellphone wrote:

Crazy me would prefer an even further vision range reduction, which would make scouting more intense and maps feel larger (without needing to increase their actual size). Or perhaps keep the 80 range and adjust the chase range in UnitAI.js

	else if (this.GetStance().respondChase)
		ret.max = visionRange * 0.85; // << This has changed from 100% to 85% of vision range. Stops units from berserking after any enemy unit in vision range.

That is a different topic and only partly related to this current differential. So, Accepted.

In D4744#201960, @wowgetoffyourcellphone wrote:

Crazy me would prefer an even further vision range reduction, which would make scouting more intense and maps feel larger (without needing to increase their actual size). Or perhaps keep the 80 range and adjust the chase range in UnitAI.js

	else if (this.GetStance().respondChase)
		ret.max = visionRange * 0.85; // << This has changed from 100% to 85% of vision range. Stops units from berserking after any enemy unit in vision range.

That is a different topic and only partly related to this current differential. So, Accepted.

In D4736#201963, @borg- wrote:

They have now incredibly strong champions when you combine all available techs and hero auras.
See the Sacred Band Infantry of Carthage on top vs the Olympian champion on the bottom

I don't think that is balanced? But I'm no expert, so tell me if this is ok.

I think it is too op to have champions in phase one. They are super strong and it doesn't fit into the whole phase concept all other civs follow. I think it would be better to put the gerousia in phase 3 and the syssiton in phase 2.

For the Neodamodes: I don't see a huge benefit to have them in phase 3 when you already have better units available. I would rather remove the unlock tech and just make them trainable in the barracks in phase 1, so that you can have some nice strategic decision, if you want cheap units that don't support you eco, or regular units. (Another point is that it is confusing to have the tech in a different place then they are trained, but with my suggestion that wouldn't matter anymore)

Yes, they really are units that scare the enemy now, but we must remember that to reach this level it is necessary to sacrifice some of the javelineer training time, and also need time to promote them in the barracks, and maybe spend a little more resources on "tradition hoplite" if you want this promotion faster. The cost of 2 pop seems to me enough to stop a possible "op unit" that breaks the balance.

Regarding the noedamos, yes, I can agree here, maybe it can be moved to phase 1, but I think it needs some attack, armor or health adjustment, so it doesn't become op. This unit in phase 1 would make Sparta even more aggressive, and I like that.

About techs, when it involves more than one unit, as is the case with krypteia, so I find it interesting to be in the gerusia, in addition to the fact that you need to spend a little resource to have access to these technologies, instead of screens already available in the barracks or cc.

Tnx feedback @marder

They have now incredibly strong champions when you combine all available techs and hero auras.
See the Sacred Band Infantry of Carthage on top vs the Olympian champion on the bottom

I don't think that is balanced? But I'm no expert, so tell me if this is ok.

I think it is too op to have champions in phase one. They are super strong and it doesn't fit into the whole phase concept all other civs follow. I think it would be better to put the gerousia in phase 3 and the syssiton in phase 2.

For the Neodamodes: I don't see a huge benefit to have them in phase 3 when you already have better units available. I would rather remove the unlock tech and just make them trainable in the barracks in phase 1, so that you can have some nice strategic decision, if you want cheap units that don't support you eco, or regular units. (Another point is that it is confusing to have the tech in a different place then they are trained, but with my suggestion that wouldn't matter anymore)

• Grammatical errors @Langbart (tnx so much)
• Champion xp required for promotion from 100 to 120

Crazy me would prefer an even further vision range reduction, which would make scouting more intense and maps feel larger (without needing to increase their actual size). Or perhaps keep the 80 range and adjust the chase range in UnitAI.js

I finally had time to test this so here are my comments:

TEST PLAN
grammatical errors;

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

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

Should fix most lint issues.

Here are my two remaining concerns:
Neodamodes spearmen: the low cost warrior could be a really cheap meat shield in the late game, it would probably be wise to reduce their armor (-1 hack -1 pierce or something).

I would like to cut the metal cost of fanatics. If the metal cost is fully removed, I am afraid it just will be fairly easy to spam and function as a superior spearman.

In D4380#199738, @Freagarach wrote:

In D4380#199705, @LetswaveaBook wrote:

Also there is another problem with garrison space: When you go to the next phase, the GarrisonRegenRate increases and is no longer 0.

I guess we'll need D4679. ;P

Seems also to be a windows only issue. No problem with Ubuntu. @vladislavbelov is it acceptable to use the windows proprietary overload with an #ifdef?

In D4736#201901, @Freagarach wrote:

I'm not @Stan, but you have to make your edit policy less strict. E.g. all users.

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

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

champions also needed to be changed. I checked eles and camels. Camels are 80 just like cav and eles are 100 by design.

In D4722#201914, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

I think we are in feature freeze, but this is a really good change. Is it possible this makes it in a26?

I think we are in feature freeze, but this is a really good change. Is it possible this makes it in a26?

It says permission denied for me too.

In D4744#201905, @marder wrote:

Have you checked if this includes eles and camels? / Or should they stay as they are now?

But yes more opinions on this would be nice.

Have you checked if this includes eles and camels? / Or should they stay as they are now?

I'm not @Stan, but you have to make your edit policy less strict. E.g. all users.

@Stan could you tell us why it cannot be accepted?

Fine with me. Let's see if anyone else has objections.

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

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

removed infantry change, cavalry now sees 80 meters.

Ok I will change the unified vision back to 80 for both infantry and cavalry which is the current value for infantry.
The most important thing is the cav change imo.

In D4744#201868, @marder wrote:

I don't have any better ideas tbh.
Vision range is just a topic that is very intensively discussed, so not sure if we should make a move this alpha.

Related discussions just for the record:
D3487
D3486
D3776
https://wildfiregames.com/forum/topic/37850-revealing-attackers-in-fog-of-war/
https://wildfiregames.com/forum/topic/18003-suggestions-for-0-ad/page/156/#comment-510998

Edit: there are probably more, those are just the ones I had in mind

I don't have any better ideas tbh.
Vision range is just a topic that is very intensively discussed, so not sure if we should make a move this alpha.

In D4744#201863, @marder wrote:

In D4744#201861, @chrstgtr wrote:

I'd prefer to have vision a decent bit farther than any units actually engage. This diff's proposed value seems fine. Slightly larger seems fine too. I want to avoid a situation where units quickly die to stronger enemy units that come into vision and immediately destroy your troops before you can react (archers and sword cav come to mind, here)--players should have a chance to at least react and adjust/reinforce.

For siege, I would be fine with them having the same vision range as other units. Whether than means slightly expanding units vision range or slightly decreasing siege's range. Here, though, I would like to avoid a situation where troops can be under attack by far away siege that units can't see.

Fair enough. The problem could be what "slightly" means. Catas have right now a range of 100, which is nearly double the archer range.

Also see the discussion in D3492 about this.

In D4744#201861, @chrstgtr wrote:

I'd prefer to have vision a decent bit farther than any units actually engage. This diff's proposed value seems fine. Slightly larger seems fine too. I want to avoid a situation where units quickly die to stronger enemy units that come into vision and immediately destroy your troops before you can react (archers and sword cav come to mind, here)--players should have a chance to at least react and adjust/reinforce.

For siege, I would be fine with them having the same vision range as other units. Whether than means slightly expanding units vision range or slightly decreasing siege's range. Here, though, I would like to avoid a situation where troops can be under attack by far away siege that units can't see.

In D4744#201860, @marder wrote:

In D4744#201811, @chrstgtr wrote:

Personally, I would unify all vision ranges for units (women, siege, CS, champs, etc.).

I agree that all human units (CS, support, cav, eles ect.) should have the same vision range and from my feeling even 65 would be fine for that (slightly larger than the archer range).

On the other hand, siege with a much larger attack range needs a much larger vision range in order to work properly. So we either need to keep that for them or reduced their attack range.

In D4744#201811, @chrstgtr wrote:

Personally, I would unify all vision ranges for units (women, siege, CS, champs, etc.).

Lgtm

In D4511#201856, @Langbart wrote:

Larger buildings appear to continue having this problem.
even more vision?

In D4511#194122, @Langbart wrote:

Maybe even more vision, I can't see the progress on bombing the house unless I move closer.

Looks fine to me.

• Auras removed
• +1 hack armor
• Remove metal cost, half the cost of metal goes to food and half to wood

Remove othismos aura.

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

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