All Activity

:B https://www.youtube.com/@titovicent1952

I think there is a misconception here. Country (or countryside) doesn't equate to farmlands. The semantic flexibility of the Greek ἀγρός (agros) hinges on the shift from a functional unit to a geographical zone. The meaning diverges based on the narrative focus: it either refers to "farmlands" as a collection of tangible assets and wealth (emphasizing what a person owns), or it refers to the "countryside" as a rural region (emphasizing where a person is, which is often the case in the New Testament). This distinction is most visible when the plural is used to describe the "open country" surrounding a settlement; in these instances, the word ceases to be about farming specifically and instead serves as a spatial contrast to the urban center. Essentially, the word transitions from a private asset (singular field/plural estates) to a public landscape (the rural surroundings). See: https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry=a)gro/s In the Gothic Bible, there are several references to fields, contexts that unambiguously refer to fields in an agricultural sense, whether in the plural or singular. For example, in Matthew 6:28: "And why do you worry about clothes? See how the flowers of the field grow. They do not labor or spin." In this passage, the Gothic Bible uses haiþjos, the singular genitive of haiþi. It is the ancestor of the English heath and heathen. https://www.wulfila.be/gothic/browse/text/01/06/28.html#S1097 Therefore, I insist, weihs designates either a village or the country in its geographical sense. Not farmlands. If weihs was translating the word 'farm', it would have been used at least once in that sense. There are about ten instances where the Bible unambiguously mentions one or more fields. Similarly, that's why current translations of the Bible distinguish between country and fields.

Mmh that sounds like it could have adverse effects.

https://youtu.be/EUNYxijiRLQ

For structures: a Greek "embassy" type thing for Persian. Units: a Greek mercenary spearman, a Greek mercenary swordsman.

Hi there! I am working on a mod that adds mercenary stuff (currently working on the "Ten Thousand" for the Persians). I probably wouldn't make that great of models for units and structures, would someone want to help by making the models?

@Obelix this is exactly what I was referring to - keep the discussion going - and sorry fo the wrong threat (bit off-topic) just spawned another idea...

I mean, that I don't see teams for players in the overlay

i.e.

Is this work around because of some coding limitations? Naively, I would think of normal bridges (the Persian was a particular case) as a structure that behaves like the port and the wall: start on one shore, finish on another (under certain depth/lenght limits), and the construction animation doesn't have to be that accurate (none is)... maybe there's some problem about walking on top of it if done in this way?

I don’t see any relevance in this line of argument. Proto‑Indo‑European dates back to the Neolithic; its origin is probably around 4000 BC, which means it is even further removed from Proto‑Germanic than Proto‑Germanic is from our modern languages. In this situation, we’re comparing things that simply can’t be compared anymore. The purpose of this discussion is to try to understand what vocabulary speakers of Proto‑Germanic might have used to refer to their settlements. The Cimbri migrations took place around 100 BC. I don’t see the point of going back that much further. And if you want to talk about the reconstructed PIE form *ḱóymos, it did indeed yield *haimaz in Proto‑Germanic, but it also produced κώμη (kōmē) in Ancient Greek and káimas in Lithuanian, both of which can be used to refer to a village. Kōmē is precisely the form chosen to designate the first phase (village) for Greek civilizations in the game… So it’s a bit inconsistent to criticize that choice on the grounds that the older PIE form doesn’t necessarily refer to a settlement. That’s really stretching the argument, and I don’t see the point of it. In your message, you criticize me several times for relying on place names that date from a few centuries after the Cimbri period, but in the end, you are constructing an argument based on reconstructions of a language that predates Proto-Germanic by several millennia. Once again, I don’t understand the point of your message. I never said that Old Norse or Old English was older than the other. I’m simply saying that the source you used (Lehmann) suggests that the word þurpą originally referred to a farm, and that the meaning “village” appeared later. In this discussion, the only reason to use medieval Germanic languages is to understand the semantic evolution of words from Proto‑Germanic onward. The context we’re interested in is Proto‑Germanic. In Old Norse, as in Gothic, the word derived from þurpą seems to have preserved its original meaning, that of a farm or agricultural estate. This supports my initial point: the meaning of þurpą in Proto‑Germanic must have been “farm.” And there is no doubt that Old Norse preserved the meaning of “farm” or “agricultural estate.” This is very clear in the poems of the Edda, especially in Hávamál and Vafþrúðnismál. In the Danelaw and in the earliest written records from Denmark, we see that þorps refers exclusively to secondary settlements that depend on a larger primary settlement. In those cases, þorps can refer both to hamlets and to isolated farms. We see the same thing in medieval Scandinavian law codes: þorp retains the meaning of “farm” as well as “village.” There is, however, a notable case in medieval Swedish law where þorp still means specifically “farm” in Old Swedish, which seems to have preserved this original meaning even longer. The evolution of the Germanic languages clearly shows this semantic shift from “farm” to “village.” It’s an understandable shift, since it follows the same pattern as Latin villa, which eventually gave the word “village.” I have taken the time to demonstrate that studies of place names generally indicate that -Heim was used in the oldest layer of place names. Without exception, these studies show that there were several periods characterized by different dynamics in the rules governing the naming of new settlements. It is clear that the trend involving -Dorf emerged relatively late, and this precisely explains what we observe in the various Germanic languages. There was a semantic shift that accompanied the social changes that transformed Germanic societies.

merged

@ThalattaThanks for this great idea for the Persians! We had some discussions a while ago about building bridges and could not really agree on how the bridge would be supported. Now if we could define a special ponton ship that can be linked in, say, up to 5 segments, then we might be able to create a bridge. And it can be destroyed like any other ship. Question is only how we could offer this as a possible option for path finding (topic: "objects you can walk on")

That would be awesome! I've been and hope to be adding more wonders and a capture mode would make good use of them.

Thanks for all these resources!

That's cool stuff to add to my bookmarks I'm not really into modding units, but maybe this web can be useful for you too: https://docs.wildfiregames.com/templatesanalyzer/

https://docs.wildfiregames.com/entity-docs/r28/components/ @Vantha gave me this link a while ago, but no idea where I was supposed to find it.

Is there a list of the xml tags for units and structures?

@Stan`this is what the Height part of Obstruction is for, only for turreting.

I do! If you want, I’ll throw together the wonder stuff and you can take a look at it.

2 years ago i made this topic, maybe time to resurect it :

I don't find it worths a hotkey place. I just click the call to arms icon at the bottom.

@Atrik I think my repeated second quote from the second paragraph may have caused some confusion, but if I understood correctly, their response was referring to my suggestion of using “order one unit” when building a house with civilians who are already farming. Yes, it doesn’t work when using Shift. It’s only meant to prioritize a single order. If you want to queue multiple houses for construction, the best approach is still the standard method using Shift. You are right. I was wrong about this

When you queue multiple houses using the traditional method (Shift + click), units won’t go and build any pending farm foundations until they finish their previously assigned tasks. Civilians don't actually farm on fields unless building the farm was part of their order queue so I don't know what this discussion is about. They might build the unfinished field, but they won't farm it. They will look for another thing to build OR go idle.

https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/pulls/8422