phosit

Ok i reinstaled the git repo, but still don't get the xml error. If there is no objection i'll commit it as is.

No, I also use GCC 13.2.1 from the arch repo I'll reinstall the complete git repo this weekend to see if that yields more errors. (Probably ./clean-workspace.sh didn't clean everything)

Curiously i don't get an error about the xml-validator stuff. I made a patch about thous errors I get. @Riesi I added you as "Riesi" to the credits. Is this ok for you? Do you also want your name?

sure

I also use Linux. I didn't encounter this error untill you mentioned it. I don't get it all the times. Propably it's because of the precompiled header. We already use CI.

There is work done towards a alternating placement. But that isn't commited yet Can you upload the replay?

The OPEX cost would make the popcap a less hard limit. Which is good IMO.

I like how the cities integrate in to the terrain. In 0 A.D. the maps who have cities protected by cliffs are mainly acropolises. Which look unnaturally exposed.

It's likely the same error as this one: https://wildfiregames.com/forum/topic/95151-i-dont-know-what-to-do-can-someone-help-me-and-explain

Thank you for all your time. You always had the overview but still commented on many small things. I apreciated that.

Why do you always write statements that contradict itself... Did you generate a "Survival of the Fittest" before? Then it could be due to this bug. I'm working on such a diff (Not the whole map will be flooded)

I don't know what's the cause. Propably there is now less space for the Kushite units... Did you just smooth the shorelines or did you also add a tree?

It's not commited yet. I expect it will be commited untill a27.

To take advantage of the patch you have to get the development version and apply the diff or make a mod out of it.

That's what D5136 tries to do. Doesn't it work for you?

Do you mean "non-visual-replays", started with "./pyrogenesis --replay=<path_to_commands.txt>" ? The code is in "source/ps/Replay.cpp".

IIRC @wraitii and @Langbart use macs. But i don't know if they use M1.

Oh, and there is #2344 which also uses the word "persoality" but with a different notion.

I think for new players understanding AI Behavior {Random, Balanced, Defensive, Aggressive} is easyer then Personalities. I image myself always searching the personality who is most likely defensive. On the other hand it's less abstract to play against a personality instead of a set of attributes. It would be nice if we can play against (the personality of) "the enemy in a campain" outside the campain. I don't agree with the proposed attributes {Aggressive, Defensive, Balanced} because they are only values on the Aggressive-Defensive-Spectrum. I'm more for a single value: Aggressiveness of 0.17 is defensive. Aggressiveness of 0.5 is balanced. Aggressiveness of 0.83 is aggressive. Not realy related to your "Personalities" idea but i would like when AI's have another degree of freedom appart from "AI Behavior" (which should be called Aggressiveness IMO). A new degree of freedom like "Supportivity": An AI which is not supportive never sends their allies resources and does not help in wars of allies. An AI which is very supportive often sends their allies resources and sends many units to help in the wars of allies. (even if the eco of the AI is going to die) About the surrendering there is #2195

Hello Mr.lie, Thank you for the report. Can you try to make and load a new savegame with the proposed fix at https://code.wildfiregames.com/rP27722 ?

Random (not Skirmish or Scenario) don't have a default value. Values from 1 to 8 (inclusive) can be selected. For now the maximum number is 8 so you can't increase it beyond that.

Some tasks are done off of the main thread. (There is an overview.) The most computation (simulation and rendering) is done on the same thread. Only one thread can work on a spidermonkey-context (where the simulation is computed). Copying data from one context to another is performance intensive (compared to not doing it). So splitting the tasks on a per unit level results in much overhead. I think doing the rendering on a different thread has more chances to yeald an improvement. I hope i didn't destroy your motivation. We can always use help. Fell free to join The irc chanel or DM me.

It's relatet to this ticket: https://trac.wildfiregames.com/ticket/3517 The difference I see is that in the ticket there is no place to ungarison the unit, where in your picture there is enough.

I like the idea for the "bonus for fields". Plants need water to grow. I don't see the direct relation to the "more population in CC". People might be less busy carrying water so they can participate in economy or military.

@seeh I know you are interested in that.