(I'm not sure who; @fatherbushido?); here it is:

https://wildfiregames.com/forum/index.php?/topic/22405-removing-carthag-embassy-limit/

In rP23697#42437, @Nescio wrote:

Yes, but base_swordsman_relax is also present in:

athenians/cavalry_swordsman_a_r.xml
athenians/cavalry_swordsman_b_r.xml
athenians/cavalry_swordsman_e_r.xml
persians/cavalry_swordsman_b_r.xml

and those do define attack_slaughter in their actor files. My point is that, for consistency, either all cavalry should define it in their actor files, or all of them should have it in their variant files, but the current situation is confusing at the very least.

In rP23697#42406, @Nescio wrote:

Checking cavalry swordsmen only:

[units]$ grep -c attack_slaughter */*cavalry_sw*_r.xml

and:

[units]$ grep -c base_swordsman_ready_shield */*cavalry_sw*_r.xml

shows macedonians/hero_cavalry_swordsman_alexander_r.xml and romans/cavalry_swordsman_c_r.xml have neither.

Good to have that done.

In D2708#115113, @Stan wrote:

Cavalry has specific variants depending on the sword that should be replaced :)

Else it seems (TM) complete.

You are probably the only one around who is able to review that. I am not aware of your current policy but commiting that wouldn't appear as a frenzy.

It's probably none of my business but I notice that at every art commit and I don't want to bother artists with that (as it's not important).
In the art folders there is something like 1600 "UTF-8" vs 9900 "utf-8".
It mostly depends on the author and the editor he used I guess.
That's kinda a friday debate but both choices are ok (the first one is the official one iirc, the second one seems more consistent with everything else here).

! In D2684#113668, @ValihrAnt wrote:
The reason for those complaints is that it is unclear what units counter rams and even then some civs don't get those units at all, like the Macedonians for whom it is the main reason they are nearly unplayed.

In D2585#109548, @Nescio wrote:

D930/rP20230 was the last time cavalry walk speeds were changed. I did not intend to imply there were no speed differences prior to that.

In D2585#108703, @Nescio wrote:

Regardless, I wonder why champions are significantly faster than citizens. They have a lot more armour and health and can't gather (hunt). If anything, I'd expect champions to be slower or at most equally fast.
The current differencea between citizen and champion walk speed go back to rP20230, which introduced relative speeds (multipliers). Prior to that template_unit_cavalry.xml, template_unit_champion_cavalry.xml, and template_unit_hero_cavalry.xml all had a walk speed of 1.65; the commit message says: “No significant value change.”

refs binaries/data/mods/public/simulation/components/UnitAI.js from https://trac.wildfiregames.com/attachment/ticket/1907/corral.diff for an example of use of that code block changes.

... related to all I have eaten recently!

If that could help you, there was perhaps some related diff in that file https://wildfiregames.com/forum/applications/core/interface/file/attachment.php?id=23155

In D2491#104180, @Itms wrote:

@voroskoi Maybe you should send a pull request upstream. There is already this PR by a friend but it looks like the NVTT maintainer doesn't want it, maybe they'd rather like your solution.

In rP22723#36471, @Alexandermb wrote:

Why it would mark this as bad while others cavalry_javelinist_x_m use the same variant textures? in any case i copied from cavalry_javelinist_a to _b and see if it fixes it.

up

What is the license of ps/trunk/source/tools/tracelogger/tracelogger_options.sh?
Thanks by advance for the answer.

In rP22266#33457, @Nescio wrote:

@fatherbushido, do you have any advice for us?

In D1798#73886, @elexis wrote:

In D1798#77495, @elexis wrote:

To avoid misinterpretation (there weren't in the above message): "step on someone's toes" is a saying meaning I didn't want to involve myself in that (nor to belittle anybody). But now, I will be classified as cryptic if I don't say more or (insert the adjective) if I give more details. You know me enough to know that I prefer shut up instead of having to proove things ;-)
73

! In D1798#77442, @Nescio wrote:
Forgive me my ignorance, but why not?

does not inherit from any template_*.xml file ⇒ special/

The current rev makes it walk faster than before rP20230 and probably running (fleeing) at the same speed as before rP20230.
Possibly changed in rP22197.

In D1796#73296, @Nescio wrote:

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.

Those palisades_foo models and templates are not really well defined in my mind.

tomorrow :)

In D1796#73219, @Nescio wrote:

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.

(I never intend to commit that or to use that. It was lines to help me think about that.
Neither plan I to have two things doing the same thing.)

Why do you think that tree is better? (I didn't remember how it is done for the roman walls). It's a true question ;-)

Thanks!
@Alexandermb: that's exactly what I wanted to know!

I will assume I am not the only one to have test it so it's probably my computer which does something weird.

I'd first salute the artwork.
So I hesitated to post something here and I wondered if I was the only one to notice some weird visual.
Is there something wrong in the animation (or in the code?), I have the anti_cavalry formation walking then sometimes putting knees on the ground and standing up doing some kind of squat.

And those two ones (are those good sources?) doesn't restrict legionary to romans:
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/legionary
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/legionary

The fact that one is used doesn't mean that the other is not correct :D
I don't know if those electronic dictionnaries are ok but:
It's explictly in https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/legionnaire
It's in the examples in https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/legionnaire#examples
Only the general meaning without explicit mention to antiquity is in https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/legionnaire
It's not in https://dictionary.cambridge.org/spellcheck/english/?q=legionnaire
(I am not an expert in english - euphemism - not in the position to discuss if this is good or not! Just take that as discussing about things ;-))

Fixed in rP22090 (rome_helmet_agen)

Fixed in rP22090

Fixed in rP22089

Fixed in rP22091 and rP22092

In D1472#72081, @Nescio wrote:

Grouping generic and special technologies together makes sense. In that case we might also consider moving advanced_unit_bonus.json, elite_unit_bonus.json, and phase_village.json into the civbonuses folder and renaming it to autoresearched.

In D1472#72079, @Nescio wrote:

True; I'm willing to update D888 to do that, but before that, two things have to be decided first:

• should we keep unused technologies that were deprecated years ago (D1775)?
• should special technologies (e.g. siege_bolt_accuracy.json) be grouped together in a special directory or should they be grouped alongside ordinary technologies?

In D1472#71402, @Nescio wrote:

How I understand things:

• civbonuses are free and automatically researched and are available to one or more factions, but not all
• special technologies cost resources and are available to one or more factions, but not all
• general technologies cost resources and are available to all factions
• advanced_unit_bonus.json, elite_unit_bonus.json, and phase_village.json are free and automatically researched and are available to all factions

What to do with the special technologies can be decided later; they could be grouped together under special/ (see (D888 (outdated)) or mixed with the general technologies (see siege_bolt_accuracy.json).
This patch only groups the civbonuses.

In D1472#71391, @Nescio wrote:

It's much easier for modders if all civ-bonuses for all factions are simply grouped together in a single directory, hence this proposal.

In D1472#61121, @Nescio wrote:

In D1472#61049, @fatherbushido wrote:

https://wildfiregames.com/forum/index.php?/topic/21563-subfolders-in-simulationdatatechnologies/

Unfortunately I can't access that forum, but thanks anyway.

In D1734#70659, @Nescio wrote:

Serendipity?

In D1734#70655, @Stan wrote:

Of course you said it had deeper meaning in the code so I had assumed you had a hint.

Shirt is just my way to swear it replaces another word.

In D1734#70653, @Stan wrote:

Ah... shirt.

If I ask, it's that I don't know.

Perhaps one could have taken the opportunity to explain where did it come from.
Basically, it had code implications and wasn't only cosmetic (a long time ago).

The idea is more: what are those things?

In D1523#62158, @Stan wrote:

I always have been wondering though what the real purpose of the specific name is. Is it like dog mastiff or mastiff (Insert Latin name here)

I feel a bit stupid.
That bar is displayed when you click on a unit? But currently, there is already such a bar at another place isn't it?
Or is it relevant only for group selection of units?

In D1725#68444, @Stan wrote:

Should I say Patch by:
Fork 0AD then ?

You are welcome.

moves gaia/fauna_* to gaia/fauna/*
moves gaia/flora_* to gaia/flora/*

(I had personnaly never heard/read ForwardSlash before reading that diff :-). I didn't know the concept of hypercorrection, thanks.)
My main interrogation is was it considered to change in those other places refering to the same thing?
I guess there is a good argument to not have done it, the commiter may know better than us. (I can see a good reason).

The proposal is about adding a tooltip to something existing. If I was in position to attribute adjectives, I would qualify that of nice and desired (#4130).
I wonder what is the link between an AI and a tooltip.
Did the new AI read tooltip?

np
edit: The question had to be asked (as it had been asked: https://wildfiregames.com/forum/index.php?/topic/24732-de-alpha-24/&tab=comments#comment-361505).

For the dictionnary advice, you should give that to the guys who write that on the internet, not to me.
And I also read books like "History of Early India From the Origins to AD 1300" and indeed in chapter 6, we can read "The Emergence of Empire: Mauryan India" followed by "The Mauryas and their World".

Mauryans is not a proper word.

(I wonder if the concern shouldn't be removed, as the pointed bug was not really related to that patch)

(I wonder if the concern shouldn't be removed now?)

(About SoundGroup there is in soundmanager/SoundManager.(cpp/h) and soundmanager/scripting/SoundGroup.(cpp/h) an entity_id_t source parsed all over the place which is unused everywhere iirc. The end leaf is ItemForEntity but one had to climb the tree.
By the way I have strange things when typing @leper, is it a phabricator formatting issue?)

ref https://wildfiregames.com/forum/index.php?/topic/21146-officers/

https://wildfiregames.com/forum/index.php?/topic/21563-subfolders-in-simulationdatatechnologies/

(I wonder why that thing https://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/SubmittingPatches#Makingsomechanges was written ; I post that randomly here)

GetAffectedPlayers did a strike

(if l16 of the deleted file was a hint, l29 is another)
So for future readers there are related dummy cmp and interfaces (js and cpp) related to that template.

I guess moving one line is something bad and it s better to keep that obvious broken loop.

It was mainly here since the beggining (sim 1) as something for the original territory idea. There were even some map using that templates (latium iirc).
#41 is one of the entry point for that
All those grounds were copied when sim 2 was commited.

For geologists. (Not that I care about those things (anymore).)

refs #4783 for tooltip
refs D388 for the previous 'balance' tweak

Just for archeologists

The bug fix is
https://code.wildfiregames.com/rP19092#29903
It was an obvious 'copy paste' error I did (mixing two ways of writing things). Straightforward.

• so it looks that the relevant case (about that useless clean call) is when the aura source owner is defeated. If so, there is several solutions.

Wonders are cleaned twice if a player resigns doesn't look like an ownership / defeated one.

(((One source of redundant clean is that they are done for all auras of a given entity. Clean(name) was a possibility, but it didn't seem worth the value)))
In the context of that diff, I wonder which situation trigger a (true) duplicate Ownership / Defeated call to clean. If so, there exists a (clean?) way to avoid it.

The global listening was perhaps not needed in rP21712

Unit tests:

capsule time:
when the typo/copypaste/bug fix and another thing can be split, perhaps could they be split.

(To be more explicit, it doesn't solve the issue it aimed to solve)

For any android reading that:

\begin{noteforwhoneedsit}
don't forget the other missing isinworld checks in that file when calling getposition
\end{noteforwhoneedsit}

Doing that first could have been an option:

if one would want to start its dev from this rev, here is the fix: