Honestly, while Athenian hoplites weren't bad soldiers (probably pretty decent for their time), they didn't fare very well when matched against other Greek hoplites from Thebes or Sparta. I'd rather this "Fourth Rank" idea go to the Roman Swordsman. The fourth rank being either the Extraordinarius, or (much cooler) a new Republican Centurion unit.

Higher pierce armor also makes them stronger vs. spearmen and pikemen, who still inconceivably use pierce attack. Something to think about.

What if we make subsequent towers and forts get more expensive? First ones, rather cheap, but eventually they don't become cost effective. Just an alternate idea.

Interesting. Essentially a way to apply stats without having to use weird auto-Techs. Also, a way to grab stats from multiple parent templates, essentially. Yes?

Potential icons here:
https://wildfiregames.com/forum/topic/27738-experimenting-with-icons/?do=findComment&comment=422479

In D2739#115739, @Stan wrote:

What about fixing it instead?

It's an improvement. Makes it easier to add civ-specific actors/models later. A bamboo fence for example for the Han (just an example! don't need a long treatise about why this is or isn't accurate).

In D3692#160946, @Freagarach wrote:

The problem I can see is that people think: "Why do I have reduced trade?" because the multiplier is smaller than 1.

If there is to be a default, then why not name it 'Default'? Make things easier to understand for our players.

First, doing something for this is definitely desirable.

Nice little change. Emphasizes the defensiveness angle for Iberians. Commit it.

I honestly think getting combat xp for killing gazelles is kind of ridiculous. Essentially, anything that doesn't fight back shouldn't have xp loot. Anything that does fight back can have xp loot.

On it's own (ignoring the discussion about revamping the tech completely), removing the train time because of the eco boost and reducing the cost to compensate is a good change.

Commit it.

Increase the cost of the prytaneion, which can currently be built very cheaply (100s, 200m) and without much tradeoff in p1.

I've had this victory condition in Delenda Est for a few years now. It's the mod's default victory condition.

Mercenaries should be a rather expensive addition to your army, but their benefits of rank 2, no food cost, and half train time should compensate. Mercenaries can be a good alternative if the player is low on food to train Citizen Soldiers. Or the player can go heavy on Metal and focus on hiring a merc army. If it can be balanced to make both paths possible (Citizen army or Mercenary army), then you got a stew going baby.

A proposal:

Greater concern is a possible economic boom due to reduced training time.

In D3565#160281, @chrstgtr wrote:

Why would anyone want to do this? I wouldn't want to spend resources just to see that the enemy has a soldier fighting my army. Just like I wouldn't want to spend resources to see that my enemy has women farming by their CC because I already assume this.

I don't agree with the constant nerfing of the Fortress.

Some kind of metal working, metal cost, metal gathering bonus, or maybe forging bonus would work for Kushites.

Other alternatives:

I could see this being very useful in differentiating some civs. Perhaps Romans, for example, only trains soldiers in these groups. Or maybe Champions train in groups. A group can include an officer (2x health, attack aura) and a bannerman (3x health, speed and health aura).

To encourage team play from the beginning, we'd need a "Shared Allied Vision" option in game setup instead of moving the Shared Allied Vision tech to Village phase. Perhaps enabling the option could auto-research the tech.

Almost all the "current" screenshots looked more dynamic. Sorry, but true. If it's to simplify the renderer for PBR or some other kind of intensive rendering, then fine.

Uh.... too late I guess, but I found it useful to be able to tweak unit and terrain ambient separately. Ever wonder why people love the way my screenshots look? There is probably not a single map where I use the exact same ambient color for both. But.... okay. I'll adapt to fewer lighting options.

Ehhh, I think it would make sense for a Forge tech to increase armor rather than health, but that's not really the focus of this patch.

Works good in Delenda Est.

Is this DIFF now obsolete?

Part of the problem too with vision techs is that with increasing vision comes an affect on gameplay, namely the command and control the player has on his troops. Since aggression range is completely tied to vision range, when vision range increases the player's troops are more likely to automatically target more enemy entities and engage them without player input. This is why I wish the game would decouple the two things. Then vision increases wouldn't affect units in this way.

If you'd like, you can take inspiration for their look from Delenda Est:

I'd keep the 2 settlements for now. I use the smaller one on a couple maps for decor. We should probably just update them to make them nicer. I could see capturable settlements being a thing, or usable once slotting is implemented.

Works in-game as advertised. Thank you very much. It was one of those really annoying little bugs. It didn't affect gameplay much, but is definitely a quality of experience improvement.

There is a bug. Sometimes the building preview shows the default angle, but when I click to place it the preview flips suddenly and the building gets built backward from what this diff intended.

This fixes it for me! I'm playtesting it now and it works as desired. Good job. I can't speak on the code though.

I like this change from a gameplay standpoint and also from just an aesthetic standpoint. Units will always arrive in an organized way. I removed the Box formation in DE, so I edited unit_actions to make the default Line_Closed, but it all worked as advertised.

I like this patch a lot. One problem I see is that the maps are sorted by file name instead of map name. There could be any number of reasons why these can be mismatched. Ideally it would sort by map name (taken from the map xml file).

Has this concern been made obsolete by the <PatrolWaitTime>1</PatrolWaitTime> patch that was committed?

I would suggest the receiverTooltip text "This unit is burning" come first in the tool tip, then the data.

I recive this warning:

needs rebased: iber_champion_cavalry -> iber/champion_cavalry

May I suggest that the effect cause half the damage, but last twice as long? So as to make the effect more likely to be noticed by the players.

I really like this. It finally implements something that's been desired for 10 years.

This looks and works very awesome. I agree with Wraitii in that I hope that we can have it extended for Battle for Middle Earth style battalions as well (where they are trained as a battalion and cannot be disbanded; extraneous units possible, such as officers, bannermen, etc.). But as an Empires Ascendant feature, this works pretty well with the banding and disbanding. One thing I noticed in Atlas though was when I playtested it, different ranks of the same unit could not be banded together. I assume this is not intentional.

Patch needs rebased after https://trac.wildfiregames.com/changeset/24001

The only thing I don't like about this patch is that the player name ribbon has been reduced in height, and hence the civ icon background is not visible. That was the only small bit of civ specific UI work in the whole game. Other than that, this patch works wonderfully and should be committed.

Palisades could go into a structures/common folder, at least until palisade models can be created on a per civ basis (if ever; largely a palisade is a palisade, not much culturally happening there, so I imagine the Palisades objects being common amonfg multiple civs for quite a while longer).

If you make women build everything, even military buildings and fortresses and stuff, then you should go the DE route and change "Female Citizens" to just Citizens (male and female) using the phenotype system.

In D2863#122792, @borg- wrote:

I would keep thureophoros for athen and thorakites for sparta and cloak for mace.

One type unit per civ.

I agree with this change. No problem with it.

I agree for the most part. I've always hated the "Persian Hall" as a buildable structure.

Sounds fine to me.

Interesting diff. What kind of gameplay feature do you envision supporting?

Is there another differential for the Seleucid Cavalry Javelinist? It's also a Persian unit.

Commit? lol

Looks good in-game. Great job.

Anything in particular blocking this one?

This commit was to implement a design decision made long ago to make the Uffington White Horse the Briton wonder. Any discussion here should be about technical issues.

The selection problem is fixed, but there's a related problem I did not notice until now. When trying to task a unit to capture/attack an enemy building in the FOW:

I don't know anything about tests, but I applied the diff and can confirm it stops the errors.

I guess allowing modifications to add new bonuses is maybe out of scope / not doable yet?

I'm not sure, but I don't think this was fixed. Units still randomly enter run mode even after the autobuild.

Not sure if related, but I got this in the game uploading loading a map:

I suppose you should go all the way and rename any "mauryans" folders too.

athen_champion_infantry
athen_infantry_spearman_b
mace_champion_infantry_a
pers_kardakes_hoplite
spart_champion_infantry_spear
spart_infantry_spearman_b
thebes_sacred_band_hoplitai

In D889#35586, @Nescio wrote:

Update: a squircle is too difficult for me to create, but I could do a rounded rectangle:

Please have a critical look at the corners. As you can see it has the same issue as the elongated circle. I would recommend against it, but if you insist, I could add this shape as well.

Hi, sorry. This is what I mean when I say "lozenge":

As for the other shapes, they may be useful in the future. Honestly, I think a selection of rectangles for mechanical units would be nice, specifically siege, perhaps lozenge shaped, rectangles with rounded corners.

Tried the patch. The healer's changed selection is nice. It works because it is a totally different class of unit from the rest, so should stand out from the rest as well. Looked good. Approved. Also, the b/a/e chevrons worked as promised after the filename change.

This may need fixed since the last changes moved a lot of GUI files around.

Eh, so you're mixing the audio flavor of the civs, instead of keeping them distinct? That's what you're doing, essentially.

In D705#28169, @mimo wrote:

Can you check again with the new version? i did some tests, and the ai trained ships at the shipyard. Maybe something which was fixed with the latest changes in the patch.

Tested it on a Cycladic Archipelago skirmish map. AI does indeed build a Shipyard. Nice.

In D623#25916, @elexis wrote:

In D623#25910, @wowgetoffyourcellphone wrote:

Does it need to be player color? Why not just white or gray, currently not any player color? I agree the blue line is kind of an odd choice.

Why not? Did you try it? It looks nice and expected IMO

delenda est, which annoyingly has a copy of the Player component for any reason

Does it need to be player color? Why not just white or gray, currently not any player color? I agree the blue line is kind of an odd choice.

IMHO, for gather commands you should see the target briefly flash white for visual verification. Same with attack command, maybe flash white, maybe flash red? Anyway, seems like it should be a different thing from this arrow indicator.

In D517#23832, @s0600204 wrote:

So, what I'd like to suggest is that if you "accept" this revision, I can then commit it so as to get the changes into vanilla-0ad. That would mean that you could remove the copy of globalscripts/Templates.js from your mod (one less file for you to have to track changes to...).

Then, once D295 is also reviewed, accepted and committed (because I think the changes that will need to be made will be easier and cleaner after that), I can revisit the upgrades-with-production-queues problem and find a way to display them (and properly). Okay?

Oh thank you. I forgot it was in globalscripts. I thought it was in the components folder and when I saw it wasn't there, I thought I had removed it. I removed the offending file and reapplied the patch.

Hi, I tried these files and I don't see the Upgrade units being displayed in the Trainer bar. Is that the intention?

Tested it. Works great.

I definitely like this change!

May I suggest a different approach? Renaming the parent templates entirely, to be more logical?

Sorry, not sure how this would be more fun. It's micro heavy.

Works as advertised. I cannot comment on the code itself, but the end result gives the desired functionality as requested.