This seems to solve the chase problem for siege? (And attack-move changes can be saved for a24.)

I'd be okay with 30m minimum range for both bolt shooter and catapult.
Not sure if catapult needs a nerf or if I just play badly. When units are clumped up one shot can do enormous splash damage.

Getting compiler warnings with gcc 7.2.0.

../../../source/ps/ModIo.cpp: In member function ‘void ModIo::StartDownloadMod(size_t)’:
../../../source/ps/ModIo.cpp:320:82: warning: ‘new’ of type ‘DownloadCallbackData’ with extended alignment 64 [-Waligned-new=]
  m_CallbackData = new DownloadCallbackData(sys_OpenFile(m_DownloadFilePath, "wb"));
                                                                                  ^
../../../source/ps/ModIo.cpp:320:82: note: uses ‘void* operator new(std::size_t)’, which does not have an alignment parameter
../../../source/ps/ModIo.cpp:320:82: note: use ‘-faligned-new’ to enable C++17 over-aligned new support

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

Don't see an answer to the bonus question

minimal count of members in formation enforced to 2 using xml formation schema

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

In rP21754#30322, @elexis wrote:

Lineendings are always forgotton, better leave it out of the master commit I'll do a commit for the accumulated files

Lineendings are always forgotton, better leave it out of the master commit I'll do a commit for the accumulated files

The eol-syle:native property wasn't added to the new functions_msgbox.js somehow. Will be fixed in the so-called "upcoming commit".

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

it's already crowded imo. tab anyway.

Looks like a valuable feature.
If it's getting crowded, this could be made optional.

One should consider crowdyness for these stuff, maybe at some point we need to push the bars in the option menu.

In D1458#59893, @temple wrote:

In D1458#59879, @mimo wrote:

In D1458#59831, @temple wrote:

Then you (or somebody else) has to accept the patch, as simple as that. I also don't have time nor interest to discuss further the way stances should work in attack-move, so if anybody is interested, he should commandeer this patch, otherwise i'm fine with the first version and will commit it when accepted.

I accept moving the pack lines, I don't accept changing the attack-move behavior.

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

In D1458#59879, @mimo wrote:

In D1458#59831, @temple wrote:

Then you (or somebody else) has to accept the patch, as simple as that. I also don't have time nor interest to discuss further the way stances should work in attack-move, so if anybody is interested, he should commandeer this patch, otherwise i'm fine with the first version and will commit it when accepted.