Philip the Swaggerless

At the very least, I think this should be the case for eco and building bonus heroes, like Pericles (Athenians), Xerxes (Persians), Britomaros (Gauls), and Ashoka the Great (Mauryans). It would tempt more people to make them. Well, maybe not Pericles so much, but...anyways. I don't understand why Ptols and Seleucids only should have this bonus in terms of balance.

I think the ability to attack units within a given area is a desirable feature and I would like to have it. I just worry that it could backfire. I think it is worth a try to see how it would play out.

Yes, that is what I meant to say. They instead shoot someone they can hit without risk.

Some options as I understand them: Friendly Fire for all ranged units. Units default to not fire if they may hit a friendly, but can be put on a behavior where they attack anyways. Seems like the most "realistic" option and it would completely break the DPS/meatshield dichotomy, but it's not desirable as it sounds like it would cause performance issues. Attack Area/Group: A good feature I think. Melee units would no longer be a meatshield. @real_tabasco_sauce Was there ever an answer to the question of will it make melee even less relevant? Like, once the ranged units are all dead, could you just kite the enemy melee units? Complete overhaul with hard counters: Hard to comment on this without knowing what exactly it would look like. Limited Ammo. Grapejuice mod had limited ammo, which I thought was quite interesting. However, I never played any team games with it. @Grapjas how do you feel about the way the limited ammo concept worked? Another method which I've seen discussed before was having ranged units fire a number of shots and then have a "cooldown" period to wait before automatically having ammo refilled. And perhaps there could be a button to force the units to cooldown in between battles so that they started will full ammo. Here's another question - if we achieved breaking the DPS/Meatshield dichotomy, and melee infantry became the main force of the game, how would you keep the gameplay compelling? Personally I would love to see melee infantry having a role as the main units, but if mostly all you have to do is send more melee to the clump of soldiers fighting, does that stay interesting? So I think we would have to adapt the gameplay to make it interesting. Formations bonuses would probably help, such as was mentioned before cavalry charges being strong against scattered infantry, and other things like that.

I just have it in the technologies folder.

I am looking into making shared line of sight a bonus in my mod, where a Maurya player automatically gets shared line of sight with allies. Is there a special trick to making shared LOS work? First I tried just changing the team bonus to an aura by basically copying the shared_los tech, but that didn't work: Then I tried making it a tech that autoResearched, but that didn't work: I noticed that in template_player there is a specific line for Shared Los tech, so I added my new tech to it: <SharedLosTech> unlock_shared_los arthashastra </SharedLosTech> Still no results... No errors messages, no line of sight.

Won't everybody research cartography anyways? It would be great if it worked on neutral players in diplomacy games.

While looking up research about the civs of 0AD I learned that the Mauryas were huge on spies and informants. Chanakya outlined many uses of them Arthasastra. Here is a quote that would support them having soldier spies. CHAPTER III. THE WORK OF SPIES IN A SIEGE. THE conqueror may dismiss a confidential chief of a corporation. The chief may go over to the enemy as a friend and offer to supply him with recruits and other help collected from the conqueror's territory or followed by a band of spies, the chief may please the enemy by destroying a disloyal village or a regiment or an ally of the conqueror and by sending as a present the elephants, horses, and disaffected persons of the conqueror's army or of the latter's ally; or a confidential chief officer of the conqueror may solicit help from a portion of the territory (of the enemy), or from a corporation of people (sreni) or from wild tribes; and when he has gained their confidence, he may send them down to the conqueror to be routed down on the occasion of a farcical attempt to capture elephants or wild tribes.

...I don't know

Yes, it works just as I wanted it to Yes, it works perfectly when I make the aura type be "global."

Okay, I just tested it by starting some games with an AI teammate while I am Iberians. By checking the replay I confirmed the following: changing my status to enemy removes the building from their units' building panels deleting all my units and cc (becoming defeated) removes the building from their units' building panels changing my status to neutral removes it from their building panel, and if I ally them again it reappears in their building panels. (That is, once I have sent them 1,000 stone and they accept my alliance offer. )

Interesting, I'll test it tonight.

Oh, nevermind. The type "player" aura doesn't work, it has to be type "global".

I assumed I could make a building become buildable based on an aura because that is listed in the TechnologyModifications page: Builder/Entities/_string I was looking into adding an aura to give players allied to Iberians the ability to make an Iberian embassy to make mercenaries. I copied the "iber_player_teambonus" file into my mod's data/auras/ teambonuses folder and altered it. I've proofread this aura and rechecked my directories many times, but I can't get the embassy to show up in the in-game build panel when I click on a worker. I don't see it even when I get to the town phase (the required tech of parent embassy template). I did not include this building in the building.xml file because I want it to only be buildable when the player has an Iberian ally. { "type": "player", "affects": ["Citizen Worker"], "affectedPlayers": ["ExclusiveMutualAlly"], "modifications": [ { "value": "Builder/Entities/_string", "tokens": "structures/embassy_iberian_allied" } ], "auraName": "Saripeko", "auraDescription": "Allies can build Iberian embassies to train mercenaries." } Can auras be used to allow a building to become buildable?

Okay, I will read about schemas and then look at EntityLimits. I suppose all the programmers laughing? I don't get it. Thanks!

I would like to have PerAlly added to Limit Changers, so that the number of restricted units/structures you can make is limited by the number of allies. I don't have any programming experience other than working on a team bonus mod for some weeks. I've done a little reading about JavaScript. It doesn't seem like it should be hard to get a count of Allies. But I don't really know how to even start when it comes to the component files. <EntityLimits> <Limits> <ArmorerCart>1</ArmorerCart> <CivicCenter>1</CivicCenter> <Pillar>0</Pillar> </Limits> <LimitChangers> <ArmorerCart> <PerAlly>1<PerAlly> //Meaning that the player can make 1 Armorer Cart per ally. </ArmorerCart> </LimitChangers> <LimitRemovers> <CivilCentre> <RequiredTechs datatype="tokens">phase_town</RequiredTechs> </CivilCentre> </LimitRemovers> </EntityLimits>

I like the idea. For the Emissary, would he give his entire civ's vision to his allies, or only the emissary's line of sight? I had thought about making a civ's initial scout have shared vision, although I haven't looked into how to technically implement it. I feel like a benefit like that should start early if it is to be helpful. That is another really cool idea. Beyond my knowledge to implement. What civs do you think these ideas would be good for? @wowgetoffyourcellphone I took a look at Delenda Est and if this refers to the Scythians it looks like you accomplish this by having the carts "upgrade", and "unpack." But is there a way to donate a structure/unit to an allies? I was actually considering giving Kushites the ability to make gift elephants at a cheaper price, which cannot fight, but then "upgrade" into an full fledged war elephant, immediately changing ownership to the ally in whose territory they upgrade at.

*added Athenians to original post*

Thank you guys. I should've updated here, I was able to get it working. The reason it wasn't working was because of the capitalization of Forge class

Since the "affects" line of the Philosopher technologies is sometimes "structure," it won't work to include the replace feature in the actual technologies. I've decided to give the Philosopher "Shell" technologies, where after you click it it replaces all technologies with the one you clicked on. And then you just click on the icon again and researches the actual technology. "modifications": [ { "value": "Researcher/Technologies/_string", "replace": "philosophy_skepticism" } ], Edit: Better yet, I can make the real technology have "autoResearch": true, and then once the user clicks the shell tech the real tech automatically researches.

Tokens worked. Excellent! Now I am trying to make it so that the Philosopher can only research 1 of 5 available technologies. Do you know if there is a good way to do it? I believe it is possible with nested tech pairs, but it would be annoying for the player to have to sort through 5 different techs. My other idea was to include a modification line in the tech to make it so that once one tech was researched the others would disappear. I tried this: "value": "Researcher/Entities/_string", "replace": " ", This didn't work, and is undesirable anyways because it has to apply to all the units that the original technology "affects." The other possibility I thought of was to have negative tech requirements, but I don't know if that is even a thing. What I mean is that the tech cannot be researched of the listed techs are researched. What I tried below didn't work: "requirements": { "all": [ { "tech": " !philosophy_aristotelianism, !philosophy_platonism, !philosophy_stoicism, !philosophy_skepticism" } ] (From looking around it seems like "!" negates what comes after it? Did I mention I am nub?) If you have any good ideas I'd appreciate it again. Thanks.

Oh wonderful! I am excited to get home and update it. Thank you

Okay, I kind of figured it out... if my modification line says... "value": "Trainer/Entities/_string", "replace": "units/{civ}/support_philosopher_b", ...it works, but "replace" literally replaces all units in the civic center with the one new unit.. "add" and "append" do not work and give errors. If I replace multiple units ( "units/{civ}/support_philosopher_b units/{civ}/support_female_citizen etc..." ) that's no good because not all civic centers use the same units, and some even have heroes. If someone else knows another word that will simply add my unit without replacing existing ones let me know. Otherwise I can have it be produced from some random building that doesn't produce units...like a field...

Thanks. I tried "append" and "replace," but those didn't work either. I also tried changing the production queue line to the way it appears in the xml files., "ProductionQueue/Trainer/Entities", with append, replace, add, but nothing works. I'm not experienced at this so after the first one didn't work I just tried many things.

Well, if it is a team bonus it is still technically an aura, so I don't think that would change things. However, I want it to be contingent upon the Athenian player making an academy so I that is why I have it as a structure instead of a team bonus.