Nullus

Hi, I recently made a small edit to 0AD, allowing the "wololo" cheat to switch units to an arbitrary player. I wanted to submit this as a patch, so I created a phabricator account and downloaded arcanist. However, when I try to run any arc command, I get the following error: PHP Deprecated: Function libxml_disable_entity_loader() is deprecated in /usr/share/arcanist/support/init/init-script.php on line 92 Deprecated: Function libxml_disable_entity_loader() is deprecated in /usr/share/arcanist/support/init/init-script.php on line 92 [2022-02-05 09:00:38] EXCEPTION: (Exception) Error while loading file "/usr/share/arcanist/src/workflow/ArcanistWorkflow.php": Private methods cannot be final as they are never overridden by other classes at [<arcanist>/src/init/lib/PhutilBootloader.php:275] PHP Fatal error: Uncaught ArgumentCountError: Too few arguments to function PhutilErrorHandler::handleError(), 4 passed and exactly 5 expected in /usr/share/arcanist/src/error/PhutilErrorHandler.php:183 Stack trace: #0 [internal function]: PhutilErrorHandler::handleError() #1 /usr/share/arcanist/src/error/PhutilErrorHandler.php(533): scandir() #2 /usr/share/arcanist/src/error/PhutilErrorHandler.php(319): PhutilErrorHandler::getLibraryVersions() #3 /usr/share/arcanist/src/error/PhutilErrorHandler.php(302): PhutilErrorHandler::formatStacktrace() #4 /usr/share/arcanist/src/error/PhutilErrorHandler.php(419): PhutilErrorHandler::outputStacktrace() #5 /usr/share/arcanist/src/error/PhutilErrorHandler.php(283): PhutilErrorHandler::dispatchErrorMessage() #6 [internal function]: PhutilErrorHandler::handleException() #7 {main} thrown in /usr/share/arcanist/src/error/PhutilErrorHandler.php on line 183 Fatal error: Uncaught ArgumentCountError: Too few arguments to function PhutilErrorHandler::handleError(), 4 passed and exactly 5 expected in /usr/share/arcanist/src/error/PhutilErrorHandler.php:183 Stack trace: #0 [internal function]: PhutilErrorHandler::handleError() #1 /usr/share/arcanist/src/error/PhutilErrorHandler.php(533): scandir() #2 /usr/share/arcanist/src/error/PhutilErrorHandler.php(319): PhutilErrorHandler::getLibraryVersions() #3 /usr/share/arcanist/src/error/PhutilErrorHandler.php(302): PhutilErrorHandler::formatStacktrace() #4 /usr/share/arcanist/src/error/PhutilErrorHandler.php(419): PhutilErrorHandler::outputStacktrace() #5 /usr/share/arcanist/src/error/PhutilErrorHandler.php(283): PhutilErrorHandler::dispatchErrorMessage() #6 [internal function]: PhutilErrorHandler::handleException() #7 {main} thrown in /usr/share/arcanist/src/error/PhutilErrorHandler.php on line 183 I am using ubuntu 21.10 with arcanist version 0~git20200925 and PHP version 8.0.8. Could anyone give me advice about how to fix this?

Won't it be too powerful for the Seleucids to have both champion pikemen and champion skirmishers? Otherwise, I like the idea.

It looks very nice! Do you know if there is a way to cause the fire animation to only be triggered by certain attacks, e.g. flaming arrows?

That sounds really nice, good job! However, it looks like the link to the video of the experiments is broken, could you update that please?

Ideally, only fire damage, such as the Iberian champion cavalry use, would be able to set buildings on fire. So buildings wouldn't necessarily start burning when they drop below a certain level of health, only when they are attacked by these troops. I don't know if that's possible, but it would be the best. That would make it a strategic choice as to whether to use these troops, a choice between capturing and destroying the enemy buildings.

It would be nice if there were some "burning" animation for buildings.

I agree that it would be best to avoid such an extreme outcome, but it seems that at the moment the balance is shifted the other way. Fortifications seem to be basically useless in the late game, against a reasonably large army. Or it could be that I'm just not very good at defending my territory . This seems like a good compromise, and then if players like them, they might be added to a few other civs. It's a pity that no models were made for the Iberians, since they would be the ideal civ for defence-centred differentiation.

Isn't it possible to set the attack preferences for units in the code, e.g. heroes, ranged, melee? If so, the artillery towers could have a preference for targeting rams. As far as making rams weaker, ever since A23, the game has been heavily slanted towards aggression, and turtling is basically useless. I think this would help make the game more complex than just building an army as quickly as possible. Also, the towers could be made less powerful. I think it would be better to have them in the game and not be very useful, than to not have them even available.

Having the splash damage removed might actually be a good thing, since it would make them less useful against ordinary units. However, they would still be a good counter against siege units. I would expect the functions of the different types of towers to be somewhat as follows. Stone defence towers: P2, counter rushes, only useful against ordinary units. Artillery towers: P3, counter siege units, could make rams less powerful. A few of these could actually provide some defence against an attacking ram until the defending army arrives. Bolt towers: P3, counter heroes, champions, and large masses of units. Not very useful against individual units, slow reload rate, but do a large amount of damage.

It seems that artillery towers were fully developed as far as artwork and templates, but were removed from the gameplay for balancing reasons. https://wildfiregames.com/forum/topic/27156-artillery-towers/#comment-386838 I would really like to see these in the game, is there anything that could be done to add them again? I haven't been able to find the specific reason they were problematic, and if I understand correctly, they were added before being available in a general release. So it seems that with all the balancing changes since then the original problems may no longer exist. Also, if there is a problem, the balancing team could probably fix it. Would this be possible?

Yes, what I had in mind was a combination of the two. However, I disagree about the cons of (1). If anything, I think it would reduce snowballing. In general, during an attack, the attacking army is closely gathered into a smaller group, while the defenders are coming from all directions. The defenders could use this attack-area to more effectively destroy the attacking army, while it would be harder for the attackers to use, since the defenders aren't gathered into a group.

I think that this would be the main usability problem with a pure attack-ground, where the units fire at a point on the ground. Pyrogenesis doesn't actually simulate the physical trajectories of projectiles, so it has trouble detecting if a projectile hits a unit if the unit wasn't specifically targeted. That would make most of the arrows miss harmlessly, even if they landed in the middle of a group. The main area in which I can see this being useful is with ranged units with splash damage, such as bolt shooters. The issue with units walking to targets could be fixed if the ranged units randomly selected targets within a player-defined area. That would also reduce the necessity of micromanagement.

What I had in mind wasn't quite like that, I was thinking that it would be more like a "Target Area" function. Rather than ordering the units to attack a group, they would instead target any units within a selected area of ground. In that respect, it would work quite similarly to attack-ground. However, instead of actually firing at a selected point on the ground, they would automatically target any units within the selected area.

It looks like a nice feature, but the video looks like most of the arrows are missing the target. That make this seem like an extremely inefficient way to use ranged units, since most of the projectiles will be wasted. Would there be a way to have attack-ground, instead of firing at an area of ground, automatically target any units within that area? That would be a better use of the soldiers, and probably better for game performance.

The only issue I see with having a camp for the princess would be that, as I see it, the building is what provides the bonus, so the building could be captured fairly easily, either by the enemy or by a betraying ally. Also, it would be harder to defend. I would think that her husband would want to keep the princess safe within his buildings rather than having her stay in some small camp. Having the princess as a unit would also make it easier to transport her around the map to provide her bonus in different places.

As I see it, the princess's game mechanics wouldn't directly control anything in the diplomacy panel, they would just provide the other player with a strong incentive to keep the diplomatic state at "allied". An example scenario where this could be useful: a Han player is fighting against a some other civilizations, and has a strong allied player. He's afraid that his ally will betray him and take over his territory, so his sends a princess to his ally. The princess provides a bonus to the ally that he wouldn't be able to get in any other way. This bonus is dependent on remaining allied to the Han player, so he if he betrays the Han player, he'll lose his bonus. That would provide an incentive to stay allied, and not betray him. Another example: a Han player wants to form an alliance with another neutral player, so he offers to send a princess. If the other player accepts, that would require an alliance between the two of them, since the bonus couldn't be used any other way. The mechanic wouldn't necessarily be useful in all games, but I think that it would be a nice extra strategy to have available in those games where could be useful.

I think that it's already possible to have techs that are dependent upon diplomatic states, such as the allied bonuses for civs. The way I would plan it, the techs wouldn't have to change diplomatic states, they would just provide an encouragement for the other players to change the states themselves.

For the wagon, perhaps princesses could have slower walk speed and low armour, so to transport them for long distances a cart to also be trained, in which the princess could be garrisoned. The cart could have higher armour and faster speed, which would make transporting the princess safer, but also somewhat expensive, which could provide a balancing disincentive.

Perhaps a more realistic mechanic for the princess would be some bonus that she confers to the civ to which she is sent. For example, the princess would have to be garrisoned in one of the other civ's civic centres, and would then give that building faster training for women, stronger capture resistance, more capture points, or some other good bonus. To additionally represent a strengthened alliance, perhaps the Hans could be able to build their buildings within the territory influence of that civic centre as well, or within a certain distance of it. I don't know if that is possible, but it would be interesting. The benefit of this approach is that it actually would strengthen alliances. Since the civ to which the princess is sent would only get her bonus while they're allied with her player, they would want to keep that alliance. The bonus would have to be good enough to provide a strong incentive, but not a direct offensive military bonus that would make them too strong. This would be a more realistic, organic way to simulate a stronger alliance.

Elephants are probably the most versatile units; they're fairly good against buildings, spearmen, pikes, swords, and seige.

Have the recent changes to those components affected the difficulty of adding them at all? Has there been anything that changed since the last time this was proposed that would make this easier or harder?

Some ideas I had for gameplay diversification. If more experienced players see something that could be better, please point it out so it can be corrected. If players like this, it could be the base for a mod for testing the new playstyles.

That makes sense, and I can see why you wouldn't want civilisation playstyles to diminish options, but there are two reasons I think playstyles would be better. 1. Balance I think that the game really has to make a choice between civilisations that are mostly identical, with only cosmetic differences, or civs that, in some way or other, do end up encouraging different playstyles. Since the consensus on the forums seems to be against identical civs, it seems that civs will have to differentiate in some way. If this has to happen, it's better that it happen in a planned way, so that civilisations don't end up completely unbalanced, and each civ's direction is coherent. If the different playstyles are planned, the playstyles themselves can be balanced without making the civs identical. 2. Options. I don't think that distinct playstyles would diminish the options for player strategies. It might diminish the options available for a certain civ, but it would make more strategies available overall. As it is now, there are certain strategies available to most civs, but civilisations are played in mostly the same way. With distinct playstyles, choosing a certain civ would give you a lot more options for strategy. For example, on a mountainous, rough map, you might want to choose a civilisation well suited to raiding and quick mobility, or you might want to go with heavy fortifications. Or on a naval map, you might want to go for naval superiority, or build a trading fleet to fund a more traditional army. Choosing civs with specialised playstyles would allow any of these strategies, while right now most civs have only slight advantages for any of these plans. Additionally, this could introduce a huge variety for team games. What civ each player chooses could become a much more important decision. One player could go for a powerful economy to fund a mercenary-oriented ally, for example. In short, I think that even if playstyles decrease options for individual civs, they would increase options overall. In my opinion, that's a beneficial trade-off.

Some general gameplay classes for styles I've thought of, just brainstorming for the moment Defensive civ, slow expansion, resistant to rushing Raiding civ, good at building small bases, very mobile, but weaker in a straight fight Trading civ, good at trading, other economy is weaker, vulnerable to trade chain disruption Seige civ, good at destroying cities and heavy fortifications, weak early game Economy civ, powerful resource production, vulnerable to raids destroying production structures Mercenary civ, good at amassing a powerful army quickly, but requires massive resources Naval civ, good at destroying ships, more vulnerable on land

Yes, that probably wouldn't be a very good design choice, it would probably be better to have more than one civ per gameplay style/strategy. The concept I was trying to illustrate was that different playstyles would counter one another, and that each civ would be optimised for a certain playstyle. The counters shouldn't be so powerfull that it's nearly impossible for one civ to beat another that counters it, but it should provide a difficult challenge.