So, open questions:
@Freagarach where did you get the errors from? When testing the patch I get no visible errors in-game or in either of the logs. So not sure what the problem is.
Also if the GetTargetPositions function throws an error if it's called without having a target, isn't even your suggestion a bad idea? I.e. calling the function to test if its empty or not, as this would _still_ generate an error?

fix lint issues

In the next update I will fix the linter complaints, but until then:
@alre how do you want to appear in the credits? only with your nick or with your name as well? And if yes what should I put in there :)

fix @Freagarach 's comments

still have to fix the test

update after @Freagarach 's comments

update according to some of the old comments.

From wathcing only the vidoes:
newnew seem the most "realsitic", but I prefer newnopress. More realistic that the status quo, but still smooth.

still have to go through the old comments and change stuff

a little restructure of @alre 's original patch.

Hey @alre if you don't have time at the moment to continue working on this, I could take over if that's ok with you :) I would really like to see this in the game rather soon than later.

In D4342#187676, @wowgetoffyourcellphone wrote:

The field preview glowing Yellow within the radius, but glowing Green outside the radius could communicate this visually.

That or a tooltip hovering over the field preview as you try to place it. Or both.

In D4342#187616, @chrstgtr wrote:

Don’t know how DE code differs, but could everything beyond the CC arrow radius be designated the “fertile land” with auto building farms (even if the fertile land carries no other benefit? I don’t particularly care if the farm stand is there, but auto building farms outside of CC’s arrows would be nice.

In D4342#187591, @wowgetoffyourcellphone wrote:

It's a nice feature. Perhaps to tie the Fields and Farmstead together more, the Farmstead is the builder for Fields? (as in DE)

@Feldfeld @smiley , thanks for your input.

In D3995#187096, @smiley wrote:

As a precursor to this, I think biomes need to be redesigned to allow for extensions before this can be implemented. Currently, this isn't an issue as biomes are primarily cosmetic. But when resources are tuned, its not as applicable to arbitrary maps. Mainland and Continental can currently share the same biome, but would that be the case if resource counts are also the same? One has significantly less land mass for forests and such.

In D4384#187083, @wowgetoffyourcellphone wrote:

For the Eurasian Steppe biome, if we could get Saiga and Onagers into the game, then Horses would be a moot point. We can use Deer, Goitered Gazelles, and Bactrian Camels as well. Dangerous huntables include Brown Bears and Wild Boar. Capturable Sheep and Goats would round out the available meat. Point is, we don't really need Horses to be huntable. :)

Since there have recently been some positive voices for something like this, I will continue.

In D4384#187076, @chrstgtr wrote:

Also, will this eliminate the ability to hunt horses? If so, some maps/biomes may need to be reworked to integrate hunt

In D4380#187029, @chrstgtr wrote:

I don't plan to really use (I already don't corral because it annoys me), but I won't be upset to see someone else try.

Just because something isn't the way you want to play doesn't mean it shouldn't be allowed.

Moreover, this is a nice feature BECAUSE it offers something to multiple playing styles.

In D4381#187025, @wowgetoffyourcellphone wrote:

The neutral territory thing is to allow the player to go hide them somewhere away from the battle. Giving them a territory root though could make them inherently more useful. Don't forget that they give a territory boost for each one built, and you're allowed to build more than the phase requirement of 2 each. See: player.xml

In D4380#186964, @chrstgtr wrote:

Also, it could lead to ever more micro-intensive corralling where livestock is only taken out of stables when it is needed. I like the idea of rewarding, such hard play, although it sounds like a pain.

Oh and the structure tree information needs to be updated.
Missing information that you need pyramids:

Feels generally good and makes the civ more unique, would like to have that in the game :)

In D4383#187020, @Grapjas wrote:

@marder seems like the test failed inbetween you writing the comment and posting it lol. Not sure why though.

In D4383#187012, @Grapjas wrote:

@marder if you use TortoiseSVN like me you can use the right-click menu on the file you wanted to delete -> head over to tortoiseSVN -> click delete. It will then be taken into account when making a patch. Simply deleting it via the os actually won't get registered

In D4383#187003, @Grapjas wrote:

Not sure how to make a patch that includes deleting a file, or if it's even possible. But "simulation\data\auras\units\catafalques\mace_catafalque.json" can be deleted if this patch is to be accepted.

In D1017#186710, @Stan wrote:

@marder ... any interest in this?

agreed, makes sense to me.

This makes the world feel a bit cold and empty, so I think I prefer just the usual darkening (and I agree with @wraitii : this already gets the information across).
But if you want to make an extra option I don't mind.

In rP25953#54571, @Stan wrote:

however at the moment it looks quite bad to me, for almost all units. I can't find template parameters that make the acceleration look worth it.

@marder ^ If no value works how can it be tweaked? It felt that way for turn rates, which were lowered.

In rP25953#54567, @Stan wrote:

So basically if we don't remove this in vanilla, I will get insulted when A26 comes out by the MP community?

In rP25953#54552, @Stan wrote:

It's been a while now. Is it a deal breaker?

In D4319#185358, @nani wrote:

. Frankly I don't know (haven't looked) how to adapt the AI so it can detect this mode. Someone more adept in the Petra AI codebase should be better choice than me doing it.

@nani do you plan to patch the AI so this can be used in SP? For the regular wonder victory condition the AI tries to build a wonder.
If not, then a warning in the description would be necessary. I.e. : this does not work in Single player mode

Edit: I tried to do some profiling on this, but elexis pointed out that you can't just use the same ai vs ai replay to do that, since the game will play out differently.

sounds good to me and as mentioned it increases the consistency (elephant stable).

looks nicer indeed

generally I think this is a good idea, especially for the mercenary camps.

@smiley 's comments

hopefully the final linter update

follow @smiley 's suggestion

the usual after upload linter update

extracted the variables into a json as @smiley suggested. (Hopefully also in a way that makes sense)

linter part 2

fix linter comments.
unify all one space indentations to one tab

Also to add on this: The way the current tooltip is described is to 50% false.
https://github.com/0ad/0ad/blob/master/binaries/data/mods/public/gui/text/tips/savanna_biome.txt
At the moment the biomes do not influence the landscape or the amount of mines see https://code.wildfiregames.com/D3995

In D4328#184285, @Angen wrote:

There are no tips for any other biomes

Not argument to remove existing ones, if something is missing, finish/make it.

as far is I remember it should have been deleted when the loading tips were updated last time

commit number, link to discussion, reason?

So.. this should still take care of the fish problem (no changes to that part of @smiley original patch)
but also bumping the wood amount in all biomes excluding india and reducing the spacing to the player base and between forests (excluding india)
This should hopefully address @elexis concerns.

added garrison tooltip made by @Langbart

I like the look and I think the pause icon makes it ok for colorblind people as well

fixed the bounding box issues mentioned by @Langbart

after talking to @Langbart :
better to see it even if its distorted

In D1729#184159, @smiley wrote:

@marder you should commandeer this revision. I will definitely not address any eventual review comments.

While at it,

I write long stories for short patches that noone (maybe except you) cares about

You should care about that long story too and perhaps see if the concern highlighted was valid.

Abandoning this in favor of https://code.wildfiregames.com/D1729
As I think @smiley knows more about it

Didn't see you already made a patch :D

In D4295#183743, @Freagarach wrote:

(With 'current behaviour' I meant 'click the icon selects the formation'.)

In D4295#183735, @Freagarach wrote:

So you say: ,,Screw the current behaviour.''?

I very much agree with @wowgetoffyourcellphone

removed unnecessary WallPiece from the template

In D368#183671, @bb wrote:

Actually what happens is supposed to happen: [...] The key is to realise that wanting capture and (no)projectile are independent properties.
That being said, this probably should end up in loading tips and hotkey descriptions.

Thanks @Angen
Petra Ignoring camouflaged structures works now

Tested this in a few matches and I generally like it very much. No errors or crazy unwanted behavior, but the hotkey to choose which attack to use only work when attacking units and not when attacking buildings. Then it just defaults to capture.
Maybe because of that it felt a bit hard to control what the units do (capture/ ranged attack /melee attack) but the generla UnitAI logic without specific player input works as I expected it to.

I narrowed down the problem and it seems to be somthing AI/ API specific that I don't understand.

AI still broken

fix a small problem with the obstruction
Still haven't found the reason the Petra attacks.

In D4291#183614, @chrstgtr wrote:

Camouflaged is one thing, but invisible is another. Since visibility will only matter in MP games, I would make it at least discernable on the low graphics settings that the majority of MP players play with.

This is how it looks at the moment out in the open:

rename the component and make it empty as @Freagarach suggested.

In D4291#183515, @Freagarach wrote:

I'm really uncertain whether this is something to add to the main game. Certainly the idea is nice, but what technical debt do we add by including it? (It doesn't seem to be much so maybe just worth a shot.)

In D4291#183490, @chrstgtr wrote:

Does it do anything besides allow the ambushed to hide units?

Fix @Angen 's comments. The function does indeed not require an argument
Fix @Langbart 's comments about garrisoning Support classes and having variants.
Note: The art is pretty much a placeholder, so if someone has a better/ nicer looking thing i'm open for suggestions