Rebased.

Some more fiddling.
Not yet the proper way of defining what effects can occur.

• Operator precedence.
• Turrets can't move -> Turrets can't walk.

The bug fixed here was already present at A23b.

In D1618#94947, @wraitii wrote:

In particular, I'm wary of entity creation. It already takes a fair few µs per entity, and components that cache on unit creation are a big part of that.

I thought about that as well, thats why I first asked on IRC (should have tagged you).

Rebased, extended.

• recieve -> receive.
• JSDOC.

!= false => == true.

In rP22839#37333, @Freagarach wrote:

Build issue solved :)
Thanks both!

Fixes #5579.

It could indeed be a permanent status effect.

Something like this:

"<element name='Modifiers' a:help='Modifiers caused by the status.'>" +
	"<interleave>" +
		"<element name='Affects' a:help='An array of classes to affect.'>" +
			"<attribute name='datatype'>" +
				"<value>tokens</value>" +
			"</attribute>" +
			"<text/>" +
		"</element>" +
		"<oneOrMore>" +
			"<element>" +
				"<anyName />" +
				"<interleave>" +
					"<element name='Path' a:help='Path to modify.'><text/></element>" +
					"<element name='Operation' a:help='What operation to perform.'><text/></element>" +
					"<element name='Value' a:help='The value of the operation to perform.'><data type='decimal'/></element>" +
				"</interleave>" +
			"</element>" +
		"</oneOrMore>" +
	"</interleave>" +
"</element>" +

?

Works like a charm! Thanks @wraitii ;D
I've tried to break this in several occasions but failed to do so, however, code-wise I've little knowledge about this part.

I think @wraitii found this by himself?

ERROR: JavaScript error: simulation/ai/common-api/map-module.js line 44
TypeError: p is undefined

at turn 1092 in replay (SVN 22882).
Not sure but it might be introduced here?

@Angen's inlines.

In D2270#94478, @Stan wrote:

In D2270#94470, @Freagarach wrote:

In D2270#94462, @Stan wrote:

Maybe this should be affectable by tech, (ie researching close combat weapon or whatever) ? Just an idea it would also work having #252

This patch enables a splash to have a minimum range: e.g. when the projectile lands and it has a minRange of 5 m, the first 5 m would not be damaged, only in the range between the minRange and the maxRange damage is dealt.

Yeah I meant be able to change that during the game :)

Oh, I thought focus on the second part ;)
But I thought about adding that (upgradable) here also, but I don't want to spam diffs too much, there's a lot to do already and me creating more diffs is not good for review-morale (although I have a list of diffs I want to create ;) ) and it is out of scope for this one.

Allow only one fleeing order.

In D1496#94455, @Stan wrote:

Patch probably needs rebase now.
But actually this seems to only set the units to use combat variant when in formation.

Yeah, the rest of the code is already there :) At least in SVN now.

In D2270#94462, @Stan wrote:

Maybe this should be affectable by tech, (ie researching close combat weapon or whatever) ? Just an idea it would also work having #252

This patch enables a splash to have a minimum range: e.g. when the projectile lands and it has a minRange of 5 m, the first 5 m would not be damaged, only in the range between the minRange and the maxRange damage is dealt.

In D1496#94055, @Stan wrote:

Yeah though instead of being relative to a range check it's relative to the state.

We'd probably want it to be related to the range right? For it is strange for a unit to be in the combat mood when tasked from the one end of a map to the other?

Forgot to revert previous patch,,,

Rebased and some minor correction.

Refs: rP14449, #1537.

In D781#93951, @wraitii wrote:

The 'AttackerData' change should be put in a different diff I think, if there's not one already.

D2269.

Always not nice when your test passes, you apply a last-minute-change and forget to test that...

In D2218#94255, @Angen wrote:

yes icons should have own folder

Refs: D1745.

In D294#29869, @elexis wrote:

Might want to ask the art department on the public and/or staff forums.

Has there been any progress on this? For I definitively like the sepereate catafalque page :D

Thanks for the in-depth explanation @elexis!
One more question: what is the difference between:
// Translate: context.
and the function translateWithContext("context", text)?

Rebased after D2138/rP22866.

In D2221#94243, @Nescio wrote:

What do we do against the duplication?

var item = sprintf(translate('• '));? I don't know for sure, just a guess.

One may think of a global itemize-function, like in LaTeX? Store every seperate caption as part of an array and use the itemize-function to combine?

In D2138#94180, @wraitii wrote:

Thanks for the patch.

Thanks for committing this!

Thanks @wraitii for committing this!

Related albeit not the same? #2503

Fix test.

• Rebased.
• Adressed inlines.
• Included melee.

Ugly-coded prove of concept for Melee Attack: X hack, Rate: Y second(s) (Zx vs Classes):

My concerns were fixed in rP22849, thanks @Alexandermb!

In rP22839#37392, @Alexandermb wrote:

Can you check if this was fixed with the latest changes? my internet have been worst this days.

This was at rP22844, the issues I raised a concern about are fixed :)
No worries, take your time!

Removed redundant cmpFormation.

units/pers_champion_infantry...
ERROR: Could not load animation 'art/animation/biped/infantry/spearman/run_ready_shield_shieldsmall.dae'
ERROR: CSkeletonAnimManager::GetAnimation(art/animation/biped/infantry/spearman/run_ready_shield_shieldsmall.dae): Failed loading, marked file as bad

(Currently) unwanted.

"Make a unit look uncontrollable." by removing buttons when uncontrollable. The unit looks exactly like an enemy unit whilst selected now.

ERROR: Could not load animation 'art/animation/biped/infantry/swordsman/idle_relax_shieldsmall.dae'
ERROR: CSkeletonAnimManager::GetAnimation(art/animation/biped/infantry/swordsman/idle_relax_shieldsmall.dae): Failed loading, marked file as bad

• Full obseletion of coloredText.
• colorPlayerName in lobby.js is not called continously so not performance critical.

In rP22839#37331, @Stan wrote:

@elexis can you confirm this fix both the corinthian helmet issue and @Freagarach build issue ?

Build issue solved :)
Thanks both!

the AI can (and will) now train (Briton) war dogs and (Mauryan) elephant archers

Did you try this? Because I just observed two (not significant, I know) PetraAI vs PetraAI-matches and they did not produce a war dog (nor a Kennel, but even when I intervened and built a Kennel no wardogs were trained).

More changes. Basically, the coloredText is obselete now.
One thing I'm not sure about: the names in the lobby, I'll look into that this afternoon.

Test.

When multiple projectiles: Rate instead of Interval.

In D1808#93495, @Nescio wrote:

No, of course not, please be critical!

Yeah, but I do not know how the message gets conveyed ;)

In D2138#93461, @Nescio wrote:

So there *is* objection and I will revert to the desired behaviour.

It doesn't really matter how you call it internally in the code, as long as it is done consistently. However, for user-facing text strings it's best to be precise. (I actually only noticed 0 A.D. does it wrong today, because of your patch; thank you.)

I removed the whole differentiation between them and used Interval for both ^^.

• cmpIdentity -> cmpUnitAI.

ToDo:

• "Make a unit look uncontrollable."

In D1808#93493, @Nescio wrote:

Reason for my hesitance: the diff title only talks about aura descriptions, while there is actually a modif-change (yes also one class change). This *could* make it hard to track down possibly.

Well, I only included it here because of your earlier remark, but I could exclude it again, if you think that's better. I don't mind either way, it could be done in a minute.

For me you don't have to do it :) As said, I agree, but I'm usually trying to play the devil's advocate to create a full picture. I hope you don't mind...

Changes look good. No errors in game. binaries/data/mods/public/simulation/data/auras/units/heroes/sele_hero_seleucus_victor.json: { "value": "Attack/Melee/Damage/Pierce", "multiply": 1.2 }, debatable but it does standardise the description so I agree.
Reason for my hesitance: the diff title only talks about aura descriptions, while there is actually a modif-change (yes also one class change). This *could* make it hard to track down possibly.

In D2246#93462, @Nescio wrote:

Is there something wrong with Vulcan today? Why does it simultaneously succeed and fail?