Vantha

That's something I've also noticed. I still prefer Bing Chat just because it's free and good enough for what I need it for. That's a very interesting idea... and from what I can tell it actually worked pretty well. You probably have a good reason to do it like this, but isn't that task perfect for something like autogpt? Also, I might be wrong about this, but doesn't Chatgpt Plus use the exact same browsing mechanism as Bing Chat? That's true, he can't and there's no way for him to tell whether I'm lying. I just personally have a clear vision of how I want the texts to be like and therefore write all texts myself. Also, I like doing research myself on these topics, so having Bing Chat or Chatgpt do everything would cut off the interesting and fun part for me.

The problem is that many people have only tried the free version of Chatgpt. And to be honest I don't really understand to hype around Chatgpt. Yes, it is good at creative tasks, but that's it. When you try to do research with it or ask simple logic questions, it completely fails. So, yes, it is correct, you totally shouldn't use the free version fo Chatgpt for anything serious. But, Bing Chat and Chatgpt Plus are miles ahead of the free Chatgpt. They use Gpt 4 instead of Gpt 3.5 like free Chatgpt and can browse the internet. This makes them 10x more useful than basic Chatgpt. Now, I know people will critizise this, but I personally use Bing Chat every day for doing research or troubleshooting. And when I say research I don't mean asking it for information, because all it does is checking the first few search results, which I can also do myself. Asking it to explain complicated texts or connections between topics has actually helped me a lot and saved me countless hours. I don't have Chatgpt Plus but it's said to be similar to Bing Chat. @Stev asked if Gpt could be used to help with coding and while I haven't tried to use Gpt 4 for coding, I have to say Gpt 4 with internet access is very good at helping with troubleshooting, that's why i think it should be able to do basic bug fixing. Still, after all, you are right, it's best to help in other ways if you don't know how to code. Btw, don't worry I haven't used anything Ai related for the encyclopedia.

I guess you could help with bug fixing. Have a look at some tickets and paste the related code into GPT, ask it what the problem is and to fix it. I don't know how well this works but you could try.

Also, I opened a pull request for Spartan champions, infantry and cavalry. It would be nice if someone could look over it and check everything.

So I can't just edit the version number in the mod.json file to run it in A26? Ok.

I installed the mod, when opening the structure tree I get lots of errors, it can't find icon png files. Did I do something wrong in the installation process?

That does make sense. I just thought the only way to get units of higher ranks is to have them fight.

Ah, ok, that makes sense

The Roman army camp description says: "Train Advanced Melee Infantry", but in the army camp you can just train swordsmen and spearman units that are called and look the same as the ordinary units you can train in the barracks. However, when right clicking the icon to produce the units in the menu of the army camp, the soldiers are shown to have more health do more damage and have lower gather rates than the ones from the barracks - just like champions. And I have tested it: they are actually slower at collecting resources and probably have more health and do more damage too. But even though these units keep their different stats(when mixing them with other units, when garrisoning them), in some ways the game does not differentiate between those two types of swordsmen/spearmen. When selecting units of those two types they just get added and shown in the same "stack"(I don't know how it's called) in the UI area where selected units are shown. It seems like the army camp is supposed to train champions. There are unused game files for Roman spear/swordsmen champions in the code and it seems like they are supposed to be trained at the army camp. Because units trained there just behave like champions but are called and look exactly the same like "normal" units. Do you have any idea why that's the case?

In /binaries/data/mods/public/simulation/templates/units there are .xml files of units that are not in the game. For example: -Spartan Champion Pikeman -Carthaginian Champion Pikeman -Han champion archer

I found a few game files for units that are not implemented in the game. I am wondering: is this intended? And what's the purpose of having game files that are not used?

Actually, there are some Sanskrit Text to speech tools out there, but I don't know how good they are. For example: https://huggingface.co/spaces/CjangCjengh/Sanskrit-TTS

You should check out http://beta.elevenlabs.io It's a voice cloning tool,but they also have pre-made voices there. cloned voices give even better results. The text2speech is so good you actually can't tell if it's AI generated or not.

Interesting...I have never heard of this site... it's one of the only few that support chinese

I am currently working on descriptions for the Spartan heroes.

I'm just interested... Which text to speech tool did you use?

Oh, ok I'll try that

I get the following error when opening:

Do you still need players? I would like to participate, but I'm just ~1300. Is there anything like minimum level requirements?

The worker elephant of the Mauryas does that. But I agree it would be nice for all civs to have a mobile resource dropoff site. It would make hunting all over the map in the early game easier.

sounds a lot like ChatGPT to be honest

I'm not sure what exactly you mean, but it could be that the units are in formation. If that's the case just select the top left formation to not have any formation. You should then be able to select single units.

What prompt did you use?

To me it happened in a 4v4 tg on a map called "Sahel Watering Holes". I was able to right click the tree but the units couldn't collect would and just stood in front of the tree/wall because the tree trunk was completely inside of the wall. In the next game (also 4v4 tg) on Mainland map in the standard biome a tree was partially inside the wall. In both cases the trees inside the walls were single trees (not part of a wood line).

The Iberians start with a ring of walls around their cc and it is possible for trees to generate inside of those walls.