Just update the diff, taking into account the suggestions raised in this discussion, then people can request further changes, or accept and commit this patch. The idea is to do things properly rather than quickly.

(wasn't there some earlier revision where it was discussed?)

Yes, D1036.

What does <LaunchPoint y="3"/> mean? Also, y suggests there could be x and z components.
Furthermore, if it's always 3, wouldn't it be better to set that by default? Same question for <Gravity>9.81</Gravity>.

I assume agricultural products would be the most general term? Do we want that in game?

No, we don't; agricultural products can also include cotton, fruits, cheese, eggs, meat, etc.
Let's keep it simple: all farms provide the food.grain resource, thus let's simply write "harvest grain"; using any different wording can only make things more confusing.

Updated because of D1793/

Updated because of D1793.

As for translations, different languages can have different typographic conventions. Some 0 A.D. translations already use proper punctuation, e.g. l10n/de.public-gui-gamesetup.po:

#: gui/text/quotes.txt:1
msgid ""
"\"Zeus \\[…] established his law: wisdom comes through suffering. \\[…] So "
"men against their will learn to practice moderation. \\[…] Such grace is "
"harsh and violent.\" - Aeschylus (\"Oresteia\", I. 176-183)"
msgstr "„Zeus \\[…] stellte sein Gesetz auf: Weisheit erlangt man durch Leiden.\\[…] Dadurch lernen Menschen gegen ihren Willen, Bescheidenheit zu praktizieren. \\[…] Solch Eleganz ist rau und gewalttätig.“ – Aischylos („Orestie“, I. 176-183)"

Updated because of D1818.

Two days ago I started a poll on the forums – https://wildfiregames.com/forum/index.php?/topic/25628-should-workshops-be-enabled/ – and there appears to be clear majority in favour (19–2).

However, if you open the map, you can see it's actually an island, not a peninsula:

Maybe build time, wood cost, and loot ought to be made proportional to health, e.g. health/50?

On line thickness: yes, the difference between 0.2, 0.3, and 0.4 is noticable when looking at it closely, but is it important, does the exact thickness convey information to the human player? To me it seems these values are arbitrarily chosen, therefore setting one default value won't cause harm; cf. template_structure.xml.

changing vegetables to grain wouldn't work since f.e. the Chinese mod has rise fields instead.

Grain is not necessarily wheat; rice is also a grain, as is maize. And crops are not necessarily edible (e.g. hemp, flax, cotton).
Moreover, the resource type farm fields provide is food.grain.

Why is the format is used if it's not that?

For some people +1 might imply everything is an integer, which is not necessarily true. Anyway, if you think it's better to remove the .0 then I can do that.

The tooltip lies about elephants, quite a stuffed tech, but it should still work out, the part +15% melee and ranged attack damage could be +%(AttackMeleeHack)s%% melee and ranged attack damage, still seems less than more likely to mess up the numbers, as one now only needs to compare that ranged and melee attack is the same, instead of testing that ranged and melee attack and the number in the tooltip are the same?

In the example “+15% melee and ranged attack damage” groups nine modifications; AttackMeleeHack is just one value; so if only that value is changed, the statement is no longer true, because the other damage types are unchanged, thus the editor will still have to rephase the tooltip when he change a modification.
Of course, if there is exactly one phrase per statement, then it's not necessary to update the tooltip with your suggestion, but then the total sentence will be much longer and thus more time-consuming to read and understand, which is problematic for players in game.
Another example: team and civ bonuses; they are also listed in the civ files. Right now if one is changed the editor updates the tooltip in the technology file and can copy-paste it to the description in the civilization file; anyone can see at a glance if they're the same. With your suggestion, the tooltip in the bonus file no longer has to be updated, but the description in the civ file still does, since they're no longer identical.
Besides, how often are values actually changed?

Updated: food, wood, stone, metal.

Personally I think it's perfectly fine some modifications use decimals; there is no reason why every addition should be an integer.
Concerning your trailing zeroes point, for me .0 indicates the number can be a decimal, but not necessarily that it is limited to exactly one decimal.

@bb, @elexis, @Stan, is one of you willing to review this patch?

Do you mean the .0 in the aura descriptions? Good question. Not all additions are integers; e.g. the brit_hero_cunobelin.json aura has:

		{ "value": "Health/RegenRate", "add": 0.8 }

For consistency I chose to give all added numbers a decimal. Besides, it also helps differentiating addition (e.g. +10.0) from multiplication (e.g. +10%).
https://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/EnglishStyleGuide doesn't say how to format numbers in strings, so I suppose it can be argued it's a matter of personal taste. It would make sense to decide upon a standard, though.

The organization of file locations (and names) should be logical and easy to understand, to keep things simple for future additions and mods; if one creates a new file, it ought to be immediately clear where to put it.
I think it's not really important whether auras are located under data/, under templates/, or somewhere else in the simulation/ folder; the important thing is that all aura files are inside auras/.

Still, what's wrong with the current location of auras and technologies?

Hm. I think auras and techs are also templates, just not entity templates.

What do you mean exactly? Auras and technologies are json files located under simulation/data/auras/ and simulation/data/technologies/, respectively; why should they be placed under simulation/templates/ instead?

Actually it's the other way around: with this patch, everything that doesn't inherit from a template_*.xml is inside special/
The reverse is no longer true: D933 moved formations (which inherit from template_formation.xml) into the special/ folder.

Thank you for your review.

What makes it special though.

Let's have a look at what's in the different simulation/templates/ folders:

• everything under rubble/ inherits from template_rubble.xml
• everything under trigger/ inherits from template_trigger_point.xml
• everything under units/ inherits from template_unit.xml

What's so special about the special/ folder is that what's in there (except for formations) does not inherit from any of the generic template_*.xml files.
other/territory_pull.xml is special because it's unlike anything else and has no parents.

Makes me wonder why that folder is called "other" and notthing relating to "gaia"?
So should the "other" folder be moved to gaia afterwards?

The other/ folder contained a lot of different things under A22, but since then gaia objects (ruins, treasures) have been moved to gaia/ and units (catafalques, plane) to units/. I agree the existence of the other/ folder is confusing and that it would be better to deprecate it. Because everything what's left under other/ inherits from template_structure.xml, it would make sense to move all those other/ files to structures/ in a future patch.

Why not? These pyramids are ruins, a source of stone.

This revision is now accepted and ready to land.

Feel free to implement this (and other patches); I can't commit myself.

You're correct in stating there is a difference between "acropolis" (citadel) and "plateau" (geological feature); I can accept your changes to the "Decription": strings.
However, I disagree with your "Name:" string changes. Although acropoleis are typically Greek, the word can also be applied to similar features in similar cultures. There is no need to change the map names, therefore please revert those.

Ignore my previous post, 66 was already changed, you just corrected 103 accordingly.

You forgot to change the same string in line 66.

Updated.

Updated, now with map files (let's see what Vulcan does).

Yes, "vegetables" ought to be "grain". While at it, could you also remove the number of gatherers? Other resource templates (e.g. fish, tree) don't have this and the current and maximum number of workers are already displayed in game:

Restricting this update to buildings. For units this to work it needs to enable recomputing range overlay on unit motion what could become expensive.

Personally I would strongly recommend to correct it for all entities, including moving units, not just for structures.
At the moment the range overlays are incorrect, because they do not take the elevation bonus into account. Displaying incorrect information is worse than displaying no information at all.
Performance is of lesser importance; range overlays are options that can be turned off.

"Must be constructed in neutral territory. Has no territory radius effect. Trains all 'mercenary' units."

The military colony does have a territory radius and a different name.

Perhaps you could also include some related corrections for consistency and completeness?

• cavalry units → cavalry
• infantry units → infantry
• mercenary soldiers → mercenaries

Line 103 appears to be identical to line 66, so you might want to correct that one too.
However, because neither the civ bonus nor the structure are implemented, it might be better to just purge both.

You're correct in stating that those palisade files are rather messy. I have no solution for it, they're all being used in different maps. All this patch does is merely reduce the amount of duplication in those palisade files.
Anyway, those fourteen palisade files could be subdivided into:

• five buildable (front row): tower, short, medium, long, gate
• three extra: curve, end, straight
• three spikes: angle, small, tall
• three towers (back row): fort, outpost, watchtower

Short answer: not all structures have to buildable in any game. It's perfectly fine if there are some non-buildable structures available for specific maps.

Updated, now with map files (I predict Vulcan will fail because of that).

Updated because of rP22133.

This is the current content of the cart_elephant_stables.xml template:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<Entity parent="template_structure_military_elephant_stables">
  <Identity>
    <Civ>cart</Civ>
    <SpecificName>Carthaginian Elephant Stables</SpecificName>
  </Identity>
  <VisualActor>
    <Actor>structures/carthaginians/stable_elephant.xml</Actor>
  </VisualActor>
</Entity>

A patch for what to do what?

Updated.

As for the AI, sword, spear, maceman, etc. are not hard-coded, neither as classes nor as templates, so the AI should be able to continue handling them after renaming.
On the other hand, Cavalry and Infantry are hard-coded classes (attackPlan.js, baseManager.js, headquarters.js, startingStrategy.js, worker.js). Personally I agree camels, chariots, and elephants ought to be separated from cavalry. I guess there are three equivalent options to make AI handle those:

• introduce a Mounted (non-visible) class and replace the hard-coded Cavalry with it
• insert || statements where the AI code asks for Cavalry
• duplicate the Cavalry-related code for Camel and Chariot

I am still thinking the thing has to be thought a bit more :-)

Well, I'm open for suggestions and criticisms.
A new template_structure_defensive_siegewall.xml might make sense too, I'm not sure.

Why do I think this proposal is better than the current situation? First of all, there is a lot of duplication in those palisade files, which could be reduced by introducing a shared palisade template.
Secondly, there are some fundamental differences, e.g. you can garrison units in or on other walls, but not palisades.
Yes, the Roman siege walls currently have the different *_wall_* templates as their respective parents, but they are rather similar to the city walls and have only the ordinary five (turret, short, medium, long, gate), whereas there are fourteen palisade files, most of which inherit from template_structure_defensive_wall.xml.

Are they structure or gaia things (and so on...)?

Personally I consider everything that inherits from template_structure* to be a structure and thus belongs under structures/ (ideally, all except territory_pull.xml ought to be moved from other/ to structures/, but that's a different discussion) and everything that inherits from template_gaia* is a gaia object and thus belongs under gaia/. Mutatis mutandis for other templates.

Updated script: