In D5055#222589, @wowgetoffyourcellphone wrote:

How is this coming in the community mod. You guys like it?

How is this coming in the community mod. You guys like it?

Good with me if it makes other people happy

I'm all in favor now that its 0.15 m/s per unit.

Successful build - Chance fights ever on the side of the prudent.

Successful build - Chance fights ever on the side of the prudent.

Changes speed boost from 0.20 to 0.15 as suggested

In D5179#220217, @wowgetoffyourcellphone wrote:

I think rams in general could start maybe 20% slower and maybe we can keep the 0.2 speed boost per soldier. Thoughts?

I think rams in general could start maybe 20% slower and maybe we can keep the 0.2 speed boost per soldier. Thoughts?

In D5179#220208, @borg- wrote:

I agree with @real_tabasco_sauce about changing it to 1.5 instead of 2, but I don't see any problems with the pers and kush rams.

I agree with @real_tabasco_sauce about changing it to 1.5 instead of 2, but I don't see any problems with the pers and kush rams.

I think it should be 0.15 not 0.2, otherwise the rams could outrun melee infantry, which could be problematic imo. Also, I think the persian and kushite rams should start a little slower owing to their 'big ram' civ bonus. That way they are not faster than the smaller rams when they garrison 12 units inside.

https://gitlab.com/0ad/0ad-community-mod-a26/-/merge_requests/29/diffs

In D5055#218690, @borg- wrote:

I would just reduce the attack rate instead of the attack dmg for ranged. This should have the same effect and perhaps help with performance, by having fewer simultaneous objects.

I would just reduce the attack rate instead of the attack dmg for ranged. This should have the same effect and perhaps help with performance, by having fewer simultaneous objects.

Maybe a little less aggressive for initial tests like +1.20 attack for melee units and 0.90 for ranged? When was armor reduced?

Yeah, sad. ;P

I kinda like the idea of elephants being a bane to your own troops and damaging them. This is pretty historical and kind of takes the place of the old defunct "Run Amok" feature. BUT... I accepted the patch since it is still reasonable to remove it for simplicity's sake.

Its not meant to be a super significant area of effect. The main thing is that the 1 targeted unit isnt the only one damaged when units are very close (basically right under the rock). This will only marginally improve catapults effect vs infantry, but the main interest is that it can create some exciting/funny moments.

In D5053#217074, @wowgetoffyourcellphone wrote:

Would 1 meter be noticeable by players?

Would 1 meter be noticeable by players?

sure I understand, thank you. in this case I don't see any problems and I think it's a good addition.

@borg- the projectile damage must be reduced because the target receives both splash damage and projectile damage.
The targeted unit or structure would receive the same damage before and after this patch.

Maybe keep the damage as it is and just add the splash with the proposed values?

In D4736#215457, @borg- wrote:

@Freagarach can commit it?

When I find the time to do so, yes. ^^

@Freagarach can commit it?

I think catapult efficiency is pretty good right now, so I'm not in favor of changing the root damage. Regarding splash damage, it seems like good numbers.

I think it's an interesting resource, but not sure for elephants.

In D4736#215095, @Freagarach wrote:

@borg- can you make your patches with Public view policy, please. :)

@borg- can you make your patches with Public view policy, please. :)

In D4736#215040, @borg- wrote:

If you decide to commit this, then can you make these changes?

Will do, sir!

accept again after rebase.

@Freagarach the accept of @real_tabasco_sauce is new. @chrstgtr also apparently accepted, just didn't press the button hehe. There were others accepting it, but when editing the patch I removed the old reviews and lost it. Thanks for looking at the patch, I'll make the grammar adjustments. If you decide to commit this, then can you make these changes?

In D4736#214979, @asterix wrote:

@Freagarach I believe this could be committed as others expressed their agreements?

I see merely one acceptance and it is outdated (i.e. the patch has been significantly updated since).

@Freagarach I believe this could be committed as others expressed their agreements?

Successful build - Chance fights ever on the side of the prudent.

Successful build - Chance fights ever on the side of the prudent.

Fix gerousia visible classes.

Successful build - Chance fights ever on the side of the prudent.