Freagarach

Can you please clarify when this happens? For I can't really reproduce?

If you feel it's useful, @nixcoder, there are probably plenty of others that feel it's useful So feel free to make a patch! (I find this feature necessary as well.)

(Note this is the case already at least since A23b.) The turreted units fire on their own, while the garrisoned units increase the number of arrows a building is able to fire. (Turrets are those units you see on a wall and garrisoned units are not visible, e.g. when you garrison a CC.) The main differences to bring with D1958 is that we can have turrets on moving entities and that you can define a turret to be present from the moment the entity exists. Thanks @wowgetoffyourcellphone! Do you happen to have a disabled variant of that too? ^^

Because it is confusing to have two different actions with the same icon?

With D1958 (a.k.a. turrets) nearing its completion, can I request a few icons, please? action-occupy-turret (and its disabled variant) (this is a cursor) occupy-turret leave-turret For use in https://code.wildfiregames.com/D3773.

Reading all this, it seems we're quite on the same page. The devs are in for some fair (as in honest) attention on other platforms and you have had the courage to stand up and say "Okay, I want to give it a shot."; to me that sounds like a match. I'd suggest you get in touch with @Sundiata to see what has been done/can be done, wait for @Stan` to come back to discuss any implemtation and (very important) join #0ad-dev once in a while (preferably during the CET zone) to get yourself updated on the status of development. There is indeed a list on trac, but nothing beats some good old contact with some real dev I am by no means trying nor willing to replace @Sundiata, but riding a tandem just makes the ride easier, as long as you want the same direction (and to me it seems you want). PS Disclaimer: I'm in no means high enough in the hierarchy to make speak on behalf of the entire team, I've joined it merely a year ago ^^ So take this as a personal suggestion.

Sorry to have to keep you waiting. I'll fix the meat icon and remove the ability to "delete" an entity entirely. And I'll ping you when it's done

(In the game as of http://trac.wildfiregames.com/changeset/25116.)

I find it strange that OnRangeUpdate doesn't detect dying entities, because it does with UnitAI (you can check that by warn(uneval(msg));), if you kill entity A in range of entity B, you will see entity B will receive a range update . But perhaps you meant that a dying entity does not remove its morale influence from nearby entities? Then you should indeed use OnDestroy (or OnOwnershipChanged, for that will also account for deserting entities).

1. No clue (@user1?) 2. https://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/GameDataPaths

"ApplyMoraleEffects" says it receives multiple entities, but according to what calls it, it merely uses one entity, namely "this.entity", whereas "ApplyMoraleInfluence" actually receives an array of entities. I'm pinging @wraitii on the stacking, for I would as well say this is correct.

We're fixing it.

Thanks for the nitpick (I only have SVN at the moment, so I couldn't/can't test myself, I'll fix and update whenever that is possible.)

I guess you mean Phab:D2175, @wowgetoffyourcellphone? For the others, feel free try it out and suggest improvements (Or take over the diff and finish it ^^ )

@allalongthetower This should be better. NoViolenceA24.pyromod

|0| I made the mod off SVN, not A24b -_-' I'll fix it.

You did see this: did you?

Also, @wowgetoffyourcellphone pointed out in the other thread, that not the fortress was designed to be smaller, but that the other structures became larger over time.

Thanks Does this work with A24 or SVN? For debugging I suggest that you follow the whole chain, so indeed it starts with one entity that applies the morale influence, an entity entering its influence should receive the OnValueModification message, calls RecalculateValues which should do the stuff you want. Put some warn(uneval(<variable>)) there to see what is going on. You could also choose to do it backwards. Warn something in the function you want to be seen executed (ExecuteRegeneration), if it isn't, trace back what should call that (CheckRegenTimer) to see whether that is called. That said, I don't see anything really wrong in your code, but I haven't tested it yet either. If you don't figure it out with the above I will take a closer look!

Very, very nice! (I hope that vanilla will someday include something like this as well, since battles of the past were primarily not fought on strength but on morale.) The snippets look way cleaner than what I have implemented a long time ago in my own mod xD (Your link is not alive.) Perhaps a silly question, do you clean on ownership change? Since on init the owner is INVALID_PLAYER, which will have no allies, I guess.

Hi and welcome to the forums. Sorry that no-one has responded to you before, it must have slipped through all the posts. I think with autostart-disable-replay one needs to give more options, like the mod(s) to start, --mod=mod --mod=public, but also what map to start, and the players. Regarding the replay limit, since those files take not very much space, and users can just delete them, I don't think it is going to be implemented. Perhaps an option to disable saving replays could be added. Well, I play on lowest setting possble, but still need some more memory than this. I'd say you need to have 1GB to be on the safe side of things. There is some work done on being able to reduce fancyness, but it hasn't been added yet. Do note that M$ W7 can take up quite a bit of resources (although it seems with you it is using merely ~300 MB on idle? how did you get it that low xD ).

A very nice city you've build there!

Ancient patch: https://code.wildfiregames.com/D880

Let me explain a little how balancing is done nowadays (with no active balancer in the development team). Players (usually not devs, for they play too little or not high enough level) spot something that they think needs addressing, e.g. the unit production times being too long. They discuss that with other players. When they find themselves in a position backed by a number of other (esteemed) players, they can choose one of several courses of action: State a number of times that there is a problem, and it _needs_ to be addressed. Create a patch on Phabricator that addresses the issue, and point fellow players to discuss there, with a reference to a forum post describing the issue and the opinion of several other players. Create a thread on the balancing subforums, that states the issue, (perhaps even with possible fixes) and hope someone else makes the patch once a consensus has been reached, which, obviously, will link to the thread. Guess what will be not effective [EDIT]: @badosu beat me to it

Feel free to improve them: https://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/Localization.