Forums
-
Welcome
-
- 5,4k
- posts
-
- 38,6k
- posts
-
- 16,9k
- posts
-
-
0 A.D.
-
- 51,1k
- posts
-
- 28k
- posts
-
- 48,2k
- posts
-
- 30,3k
- posts
-
- 45,7k
- posts
-
- 148
- posts
-
- 597
- posts
-
- Who Else?
- By AlexHerbert,
-
.thumb.jpeg.67ef5b5dc6d918163efa04cd5336830d.jpeg)
-
Who's Online 10 Members, 3 Anonymous, 2.185 Guests (See full list)
-
Topics
-
-
Posts
-
They do! @Thalatta is just master trickster here! -
By guerringuerrin · Posted
I like this behavior much more than what could be seen in my videos from the previous commit. I'm not sure to what extent it will be possible (or desirable) to make the behavior more realistic, but getting them to rotate a little when they are pushed would be really good, as it would make the behavior more realistic and, in many cases, could help open up paths for them to move through more quickly. But, in fact, I think this result is quite acceptable. And what I like most about this new patch is that the elephants entering the narrow path looks much smoother and more natural. They’re still clumsy and slow, which is fitting for something so large and heavy. But the movement flows much better than in the previous version, which felt stiff and a bit “dumb” -
Well here you are trying hard to make the geometry show it's limits In the first example, a rectangle pushing another one against the wall is kinda expected to do this slide. In the second example on open terrain, I see you manually try to aim for the elephant's center, despite it trying to rotate!! But you can actually try to tweak values even without recompiling : in `pathfinder.xml` you have the parameter `SolidPushSpin`, which makes the circle pushing/soft pushing impact more or less units spins. Currently it's low (0.25), if you increase it, your elephants will spin faster in that case, but this also means elephants moving shoulder to shoulder might also wiggle a bit more.
-
.thumb.jpg.b21ca1d0c15fb56b42c39b25a0a40815.jpg)
Even though I love archaeology, we shouldn't treat it as the ultimate source of truth. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. For one thing, very few Iron Age graves have been discovered in Ireland, and what we do find inside is always subject to bias. We find bows and arrows in Celtic princely graves in Central Europe, but these are hunting weapons; objectively, we shouldn't interpret them as weapons of war. The reason I support the Gauls having archers and not the Britons is simply because we have historical accounts of archers deployed in the battlefield for the Gauls. There is no such account for the Britons for our time period. -
By scr0llbaer · Posted
Though history is of course full of such violence (I don't insist on that "pregnant" feature, but raiding civilians/women is harsh enough), maybe another interesting feature (both from gameplay and historical accuracy perspective) could be the option to capture/enslave civilians (less "harsh" maybe, but only slightly) (and nvm you usually already have enough civilians mid-game).
-
