Seems logical.

In rP27531#61121, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

I am seeing this warning all the time.

Define "all the time"? Since I don't get it al all. ^^

In D5109#218249, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

Could you send me your mainlog.txt file?

Please only ask for interestinglog.html. :) Since that contains the errors and warnings, but the mainlog also has private information.

Thanks for the patch, @xctan! I've added you to the "Contributors" group, so the next time you upload a patch, it is built by our CI.
I can't comment on the patch itself, but I can ask you to upload it with context and add yourself to the credits. :)
(See https://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/SubmittingPatches#Makingsomechanges.)

I'll continu the discussion here. What I meant to say was that for constructing towers in neutral territory you'd probably search for a description like the brochs: "Defensive structures (...) that dotted the rest of the islands." from Wikipedia. (IMHO you can bend the historical justification a bit.) My concern for this patch is that the history in the civ.json talks about large towers and so it doesn't match the effect. Change the history and there's no problem anymore. ;P

Just handle ChoiceRoots a bit differently.

I'm not yet satisfied, since when the entity list updates and some entry is removed, the PQ won't notice until it is being produced. (After which it'll silently remove it.)

Include the fix.

In D5119#217678, @wowgetoffyourcellphone wrote:

I think to truly bring out the potential of chariots (and elephants), a trample aura and charge bonus need implemented. But I think these values go a long way to differentiate the chariots on a stats basis.

(I could rebase D1838 but who's going to review that,,,)

@borg- You can close this revision by using the dropdown at the bottom of the page.

Thanks for the reports (and the proposed fix). :)

In D5116#217458, @borg- wrote:

An attack would remove the power to heal.

Because UnitAI is dumb? (For it should work together.)

In D5114#217298, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

In D5114#217292, @Stan wrote:

The onager (British /ˈɒnədʒə/, /ˈɒnəɡə/, U.S. /ˈɑnədʒər/)[1] was a Roman torsion powered siege engine. It is commonly depicted as a catapult with a bowl, bucket, or sling at the end of its throwing arm. The onager was first mentioned in 353 AD by Ammianus Marcellinus, who described onagers as the same as a scorpion.

Later in the same wiki article it says:
"It may have originated in the third century BC." I think there is enough justification. This is also partially why I initially wanted to lock it behind the reforms upgrade, since this indicates an evolution of the army.

One could ask the historians on the forums.

In D5096#216886, @borg- wrote:

@Freagarach is there any way to limit aura just for Macedonia?

One could leave the usual trickle and give the Mace-specific (then +3 to have a total of +4) a (cheap) requiredTechnology that is Mace-specific.
(I have plans to rewrite Aura's to have the same requirements as everything else, but no time for those plans, sadly.)

Read fine.

Is it intended that:

• Once another civ seizes the Macedonian barracks, they get the +4 XP trickle as well?
• Once another civ seizes their Stables they can research the tactical_formation?

@borg- (sorry for the missing dash)

It does make it a bit annoying to commit, so you may want to look into that. ;) You can even copy-paste tabs.

Very nice to see you're into everything. :)

(Notice healers are support class as well, but don't get garrisoned. See in the templates (hint AlertRaiser) what class(es) is(/are) affected and make of that what you want. :) )

Nice additions. :)

I haven't reviewed the logic yet, I'll try that later.

(If a revision takes too long to get out of 'draft' status, one can manually 'request review' using the dropdown at the bottom of the page 'Add Action'.)

Nice feature!
We may need to take into account that this leaks information to enemies.

You can ping me on IRC, or send a PM through the forum. :)
One can start a topic at e.g. https://wildfiregames.com/forum/forum/312-game-development-amp-technical-discussion/. Although I don't think it is necessary for this change.

Reads fine.

Reads correct.

I'll change to \t indentation on commit.

Reads good. Didn't test.

Patch is good, IMHO the feature is an improvement.

Oh, you _were_ already in it. ^^' I indeed only checked the nicks. Sorry,,,

Works, good solution.
This helps a lot!

I failed to ask before, but could you add yourself to the programming credits, please?

Looks good on a glance.

Good fix.

Fine by me.

Looks good, I'll commit it once I find the time to do so. (Anyone else with commit access may beat me to it. :) )

I suggest putting it in the tooltip of the Identity component.

In D4736#215457, @borg- wrote:

@Freagarach can commit it?

When I find the time to do so, yes. ^^

[10:17:29] <elexis1> for D4646 there is also a big thing all people seem to be missing
[10:18:09] <elexis1> each line in cmd_line_args.js should be moved to gamesettings/attributes/
[10:21:53] <elexis1> GameSettings.prototype.Attributes.Biome = class Biome extends GameSetting
[10:21:53] <elexis1> {
[10:21:55] <elexis1> fromCmdLineArgs(...)
[10:21:57] <elexis1> {
[10:21:59] <elexis1> ....
[10:22:01] <elexis1> }
[10:22:03] <elexis1> }
[10:22:52] <elexis1> if we can have a fromInitAttributes then a fromCmdLineArgs can be implemented too

@borg- can you make your patches with Public view policy, please. :)

In D4736#215040, @borg- wrote:

If you decide to commit this, then can you make these changes?

Will do, sir!

In D4736#214979, @asterix wrote:

@Freagarach I believe this could be committed as others expressed their agreements?

I see merely one acceptance and it is outdated (i.e. the patch has been significantly updated since).

Reads correct. Didn't test.