Imperial Era
Moderator: Forum Moderators
- Temuchin Khan
- Posts: 1801
- Joined: September 3rd, 2004, 6:35 pm
- Location: Player 6 on the original Agaia map
Re: Imperial Era
I have another new unit idea fir the Arendians. This one is a creature from Welsh lore, the Llamhigyn y Dwr--a giant, man-eating, legless, semi-aquatic, semi-flying toad. I'm no good at picel art, though, so someone else would have to make a sprite, if there's enough interest. But what do you all think? Shall I make some file for this monster?
Check out my new book!
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1956715029/re ... oks&sr=1-1
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1956715029/re ... oks&sr=1-1
Re: Imperial Era
Sorry I've been a little inactive over here, folks. I'm a new father in last few months and am just a little time poor. I really appreciate the feedback, though. Please keep the suggestions rolling in and when I get a little free headspace I'll be back to implement suggestions.
Maintainer of the Imperial Era and the campaigns Dreams of Urduk, Epic of Vaniyera, Up from Slavery, Fall of Silvium, Alfhelm the Wise and Gali's Contract.
But perhaps 'maintainer' is too strong a word.
But perhaps 'maintainer' is too strong a word.
Re: Imperial Era
There is a bug with advancement from Retriarius - the resulting unit is still called Retriarius (judging by its description, should be Retriarius Maior), and they are also missing AMLA data, and as such cannot get any exp at all. It was reported in one of the campaign threads before.
Re: Imperial Era
Congrats UnwiseOwl! May your kids grow up healthy and happy to play and develop Wesnoth!
Re: Imperial Era
The Retiarius Maior (previously called the Fleet Retiarius) is the top of the tree now since the level 3 version was removed, and should have AMLA instead of of promoting. I've pushed an update to it today that should fix that issue. Thank you for the report (and I'm sorry if I missed a previous one!).Kruggov wrote: ↑March 7th, 2022, 3:15 pm There is a bug with advancement from Retriarius - the resulting unit is still called Retriarius (judging by its description, should be Retriarius Maior), and they are also missing AMLA data, and as such cannot get any exp at all. It was reported in one of the campaign threads before.
(Thanks, tr0ll!)
Maintainer of the Imperial Era and the campaigns Dreams of Urduk, Epic of Vaniyera, Up from Slavery, Fall of Silvium, Alfhelm the Wise and Gali's Contract.
But perhaps 'maintainer' is too strong a word.
But perhaps 'maintainer' is too strong a word.
- Temuchin Khan
- Posts: 1801
- Joined: September 3rd, 2004, 6:35 pm
- Location: Player 6 on the original Agaia map
Re: Imperial Era
Nice to see a new version! Any other changes besides the Retiarius line (which I'm fine with, by the way)?
Check out my new book!
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1956715029/re ... oks&sr=1-1
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1956715029/re ... oks&sr=1-1
Re: Imperial Era
Is there any chance that the Auctorias bug is going to be fixed?
- Atreides
- Posts: 1090
- Joined: March 30th, 2019, 10:38 pm
- Location: On the 2nd story of the centre village of Merwuerdigliebe turning the lights on and off
Re: Imperial Era
What's the bug? I searched and it seems a bug was fixed in it in 2017. Looking at the tag it appears fine but it does use some complex syntax so who knows.
Disclaimer: I'm just another fan of the era
Re: Imperial Era
Auctorias is currently nonfunctional; the presence of a Decurion/Centurion does nothing to improve the damage of nearby Legionaries and Bowmen. It's supposed to function like Leadership specifically for Lavinian units, but it doesn't.
Re: Imperial Era
I also thought that I'd successfully fixed it. I will take a look and see if I can find the issue. Input from others very appreciated, I'm very rusty and I was never a WML wizard to start with.
Maintainer of the Imperial Era and the campaigns Dreams of Urduk, Epic of Vaniyera, Up from Slavery, Fall of Silvium, Alfhelm the Wise and Gali's Contract.
But perhaps 'maintainer' is too strong a word.
But perhaps 'maintainer' is too strong a word.
Re: Imperial Era
https://github.com/search?q=repo%3AUnwi ... &type=code doesnt give results.
[race]
id=IE_Lavinian
[filter]
formula="level < other.level"
race=IE_lavinian
[race]
id=IE_Lavinian
[filter]
formula="level < other.level"
race=IE_lavinian
Re: Imperial Era
Typo. Should be "Auctoritas"
You're right that it doesn't seem to be functioning as intended. I am not sure what the issue is.
Here is the code as it currently stands:
Actually, neither this nor ABILITY_IE_FORMATION_DEV appear to be functioning correctly
You're right that it doesn't seem to be functioning as intended. I am not sure what the issue is.
Here is the code as it currently stands:
Code: Select all
#define ABILITY_IE_AUCTORITAS
[leadership]
id=ie_auctoritas
value="(25 * (level - other.level))"
cumulative=no
name= _ "auctoritas"
description= _ "This unit is an officer of the Legion, and inspires all true Lavinian soldiers to greatness.
Adjacent friendly Lavinian (not Nemidian or Auxiliary) units of lower level will do more damage in battle. When such a unit adjacent to, of a lower level than a unit with Auctoritas engages in combat, its attacks do 25% more damage times the difference in their levels."
affect_self=no
[affect_adjacent]
[filter]
formula="level < other.level"
race=IE_lavinian
[/filter]
[/affect_adjacent]
[/leadership]
#enddef
Maintainer of the Imperial Era and the campaigns Dreams of Urduk, Epic of Vaniyera, Up from Slavery, Fall of Silvium, Alfhelm the Wise and Gali's Contract.
But perhaps 'maintainer' is too strong a word.
But perhaps 'maintainer' is too strong a word.
Re: Imperial Era
I'm not sure if this is actually case-sensitive, but the code is sometimes using "IE_Lavinian", sometimes using "IE_lavinian".
- Atreides
- Posts: 1090
- Joined: March 30th, 2019, 10:38 pm
- Location: On the 2nd story of the centre village of Merwuerdigliebe turning the lights on and off
Re: Imperial Era
Hmmm my copy has that uppercased. The file also has a later date so I may have fixed this on my copy and shamefully never submitted it to github.
I checked vs 1.14 IE and it seems the id was uppercased for 1.16. Looks like nothing more than an oversight of a missed conversion.
I checked vs 1.14 IE and it seems the id was uppercased for 1.16. Looks like nothing more than an oversight of a missed conversion.