real_tabasco_sauce

If possible, it would be a nice touch to hide the observer flares of players you have muted.

Screen Recording 2024-09-03 155206.mp4 This is with a higher P value (P = 5, so +/-25% error) for demonstration purposes. To be honest I think its pretty close to ideal for xbows. I went with P = 4 in the PR: https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/pulls/6960

I just added some hero balance adjustments Kush: Champion discount hero is now -30% for the axe champions and has no tradeoff. The debuff for enemy healers is now 100%. Nastasen has a higher damage buff which now also applies to elephants. Mauryans: Edict pillars have a smaller radius and can be built closer. Edict pillars now include a 10% movement speed buff and a +15 HP buff for traders and Human units. Persians: Xerxes is currently just a weaker version of the Gaul's viridomarus. Xerxes eco buff radius increases to 100 meters, and includes +25% build rate instead of +15%. Xerxes gains a range aura helpful for offensive tasks: Siege, Elephants, and champion infantry +25% HP. These auras are mostly mutually exclusive except for when using elephants and champion infantry for defense. Han: Wei Qing debuff against enemy cavalry radius increased to 45 meters to improve its affect versus ranged cavalry.

Well it can attack 1 unit at a time like the ram ship. When u want it to go boom, u start the burning and the ship gets faster and more agile. Then it go boom. So it think it will be interesting when u choose which fireships to ignite. For instance u may not want to ignite all of them, u may just need one to gain an advantage.

All the above counters are not hard counters. With good micro, arrow ships can beat an equivalent amount of ram ships. In general, fire ships and ram ships play pretty similar as they are both melee, except that ram ships do better vs arrow ships, and fire ships do better versus ram ships. in aoe2, pikemen "counter" knights but actually lose convincingly in a 1v1. The idea is its a resource counter, and its the same idea here. The civ that just has arrow ships (kush) is probably cooked in this balance, but tbh it was cooked before anyway. I'd be down to give them fire ships.

Ok, I went and did some pretty large changes to navy, really curious to see how this plays out: All ships have 1 population except for the siege ships. Arrow ships are somewhat expensive, general purpose ships. They are weak to ram ships and can kill fire ships quite quickly. They are also pretty effective versus land units. Ram ships are cheap and fast and can take out arrow ships (trade better than 1 to 1) and siege ships. Fire ships are very good against ram ships. They trade well in normal fire ship mode (damaging 1 unit at a time), and can instantly "add fuel" to quickly burn up, dealing damage upon death. It takes only 10 seconds for the ship to burn up. The ship is also a little faster when burning. Both melee ships are now capable of destroying docks in reasonable time. Siege ships do more splash damage with a larger radius so they are pretty effective against ships as well as buildings long as you keep them safe. The idea with the above is that civs with fire ships will be going after enemy ram ship or going after arrow ships to tip the balance in their favor. With ram ships, you can try to maneuver them to quickly destroy ranged ships and use your arrow ships to stop fire ships. I'm going to add an attempt to improve pathing at the expense of some ship overlap. After a round in the community mod, I'll do adjustments to the ship techs as needed.

No, I think the system is fine. The only "distortion" was that ram armor was skewed to be overly vulnerable to hack and nearly invincible to pierce. So the damage/armor system didn't distort anything, its just the values for rams were a little extreme.

Im not sure what part is "recent projects and solutions" Just to be sure, I am using Visual Studio not VS code. I can select it from the startup dropdown: It doesn't really do anything though, as I still need to open it. Its not that big a deal, I guess I was just used to switching between solutions and available views.

How do we feel about letting rams have comparable pierce armor to buildings (currently far greater), and slightly upping the hack armor (6 -> 7) The idea is to make rams slightly harder to destory with just a handful of antiram, and more forgiving if all you have nearby are ranged units. Obviously, you will still be in trouble if you task all your ranged units to try and kill a ram in the middle of a battle.

What should have happened? pyrogenesis.sln being hidden? Frankly, I liked that it was so readily accessible there.

Hmm so i've found an unfortunate property of VS: VS automatically hides things from the gitignore in the file explorer. Now this is mostly fine when it's just files, I can click "show all files" and all the hidden files, including ones needed to build the game, are revealed. I can then build the game. However, the pyrogenesis.sln is hidden in the solutions page: which means one must navigate to build/workspaces/vs2017/pyrogenesis.sln each time to build the game. If I comment out "build/workspaces/vs2017" from the gitignore, pyrogenesis.sln appears in this menu. Its not a huge annoyance, but it would make things a lot smoother if I could just turn off "hide gitignore files" like it seems can be done in VS code: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/77939177/how-to-prevent-visual-studio-from-hiding-files-and-folders-in-gitignored

These look great! these could be used when I update the community mod changes into the development version.

Do any windows builders have an idea what's going on here? Im trying to build on my clone of the gitea instance, and i've just ran update-workspaces.bat. For some reason, I cannot find vs2017 in VS. I figured something didn't go well, but there were no error messages. Furthermore, the folder vs2017 exists in git bash, but it appears to be nonexistant in vs2017. Edit: solved. VS hides things from the solution explorer if they are in the gitignore. Ive refreshed VS and closed it/opened it to no avail.

What's a good way to test someone's PR? Do I check out my own branch based off of their fork's branch?

my goodness, it made computeShortPath suuuuper slow. Green is with the if moved to the functions that call entityDistanceOrdering. Blue is the patch as is, with the check for P inside entity distance ordering.

Ok, I'll go ahead and try it. As long as some semi-redundant code is ok. But if a unit got another unit's target data, they would choose the same target no? I suppose its trading the task of finding nearby enemies for finding nearby units, but maybe it could be a future improvement.

When do trees get deleted? Does it apply to Roman siege walls? If immediately and yes, then it could easily be abused to eliminate enemy's wood supply. Could also be a concern for Athenian Walls in neutral territory. The walls have to be completely built in order to delete the trees.

I found a workflow that works pretty well for me. I can do a 'git remote update' to get the new changes to the master repository and then make my branches based directly on the remote.

Do you think the 'if' in EntityDistanceOrdering is wasteful (since it is done for each unit and each target)? I could move it out to where the stable_sort()'s are called and make an EntityDistanceOrderingRough, but this would be a little bit redundant code wise.

Thanks for the heads up. I doubt OOS will be a problem, but I typically make a test mod and send it to a couple people for testing before releases.

mm i think its fine only because you know what civs are capable of strong rushes like that. Also, imagine taking your starting cav off of chickens just to go find that your opponent is gauls and has been eating up chickens, so you are already at a disadvantage. Then, if they can see you, they also get info on what civ you are for free.

Knowing the enemy civ lets you know the range of options your opponent has. This is fine to know at the game start. If you find out at 1:00 minute game time that your opponent is mauryans, then you may only have a minute to prepare for a big rush.

Well i'd personally disagree with that. Knowing what civ you are up against helps you plan things out. Especially against civs that have strong early game units which you are unlikely to have time to notice. For instance if you don't realize you are against Maury and you aren't prepared to defend from a huge rush.

Yeah knowing your enemies are up a phase is very valuable information. It is often easy to tell by territory changes in explored territory, but it does encourage some scouting. For instance if they are up very early you know you might be dealing with mercenaries or some other rush soon. On a separate note, I'd like it if territory lines were not visible in fog of war.

Here are the details on this part of the reforms: Swordsmen -> legionaries, rank 3 swordsmen skirmishers -> lanciarius, rank 3 skirmisher both are trainable from the cc, barracks, and army camp for 50f 50w 15m after the reforms Cavalry availability remains the same spearmen, no matter what rank, will become "Conscript spearmen" that cannot promote. The reasons for this change was that the power spike of suddenly having so many rank 3 swordsmen from spearmen specifically was too strong. At the same time, losing the spearman unit entirely would put the civ at risk to cavalry. Also, the conscript spearman fills an economic hole that would be too problematic after the reforms.