All Activity

Hello Bennett and welcome to the community, those are interesting thoughts! Thank you for sharing them! Indeed, snapping of Walls to other objects e.g. Walls of allied players would be great. This paragraph ignores the Team Bonuses, which would be strategically enhanced by your idea. I think of it as a social problem that shouldn't be limited by technical solutions. I like the idea of having the possibility to build only a small amount of buildings (quality or quantity) in allied territory. To be honest, it would be easier to read, if you would use the 'Numbered list' function for numbered lists as well as paragraph spacing for new paragraphs. But that note from me should not influence my thoughts on your ideas.

Well, using something like Claude code you can provide a local folder with local git and you don't need to upload anything. Claude would work on your folder directly (it is said to save tokens as well ).

Ideally, after placing ladders beside walls, they would let you post (wrongly called "turret") your troops slowly on top of enemy walls. In the meantime, having a tech that gives a wall capture bonus sounds actually reasonable and uncomplicated for the time being. One would then just post troops on them and unpost them on the other side. EDIT: can that actually be done? Give a capture bonus ONLY for walls?

This is indeed just a conceptual study (hence the documentation so devs can understand quickly what was done and why) and it appears to work. I'd be delighted if we could integrate it into the main game at some stage. So far it works ok as a mod, I just don't know how I could push that into the game myself (I do remember the controibutor must be registered and most of all, he needs to understand and be able to explain his code, which I cannot). And frankly, this is such a tiny function that we should not devote too much energy into and instead focus precious development time on more important things. Bottom line: if it s is simple to iuntegrate, go for it, if not, leave it a mod.

Here are the heightmaps for my Scenario 1,

I got the A24 version working by following the install instructions carefully. For Atlas, just open the .pmp file from the scenario folder.

maps

That's expected, you need to download the prebuilt shaders for vulkan or build them yourself. There should be a script for it https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/src/branch/main/source/tools/spirv/get-nightly-shaders.sh

You beat me to it

There is a theory that the Trojan Horse was a battering ram, and that the works of Homer reflect his time period at times rather than the period the stories take place, so I suppose an Archaic Greek battering ram is not inconceivable.

Whenever I open the in development game, I get this

The description makes it seems as the Greek gate was not that weak. Pure speculation on my part, but i think the boulder might be loosely based on real breaching tactics (in reality with logs or maybe even axes, but in the poem one hero with a huge rock is enough). The descriptions of the rock being narrower on one side, Hector having to gain momentum to strike, part of the Trojan force climbing the wall while the rest walked through the gate. There is also the theory of the Trojan horse being loosely based on some forgotten bronze age siege engine, but i'm not so sure of it.

What was the purpose of the siege ladder, to help "capture" the fortified area? For now could you extrapolate that into a tech that gives them for capture attack?

Hey there, I´ve been thinking about ways to improve the team vs team gameplay and I came up with something probably very obvious but still not implemented in the game. I was thinking, that being able to place certain buildings in your teammates area or at least being able to connect walls could be extremly usefull. Just think about the map "2 seas" wouldn´t it be extremly cool to be able to build a huge wall along your teams territory without being forced to expand your teritory along the whole lenght of the map? Being ablet to connect your own with your teammates walls would also lead to a much more safe defense as when you try to build your walls as close to eachother as possible. And it wouldn´t only benefit if you want to build crazy line defense. It would probably also lead to a greater variety of nations being played in pvp. The reason for this would be that buffs that a certain nation has, e.g. Cushites, which posses the Great Pyramid or the Small Pyramid, can not only be used for oneself, but also for the whole team, which would give the whole team an immense buff in comparison for to what they may lose by picking a weaker nation. And yes even though there are only 3 nations with buildings such as the Small Pyramid (Cushites, Mauryas and Iberians) it would benefit them and allow more interactions between you and your teammate. (Maybe you can add the Romans if you add the building "Via" which gives units walking on them a buff in their speed) Now lets face the problems: 1. Being able to place anything in your mates territory could also mean that you can place a barrack close to his civic center, switch teams and kill him. The solution would be that you can only place buildings in your teams territory when you play fixed teams. 2. How can I make sure, that my mate dosen´t trolls me by blocking of all my space? Here are two solutions either you can disable the function before starting the match or you can disable it in the match at any give time. 3. Wouldn´t it be broken if my team would be able to place e.g. their barracks in my territory, so they can always produce units when I am under attack. As it saves them a lot of time and is way safer then walking to me with their units? (And also it would be basically be the same as one player but with three heads (I think you get what I mean) And I agree, its a valid concern but I think this could be fixed by not allowing every building to be placed in your teams territory (e.g you can place the Great Pyramid or maybe even a tower, but not a barrack or houses) I hope it wasn´t too much of a burden reading my post and let me here your oppinion

Also, all this could be kind of connected to something I mentioned before in https://wildfiregames.com/forum/topic/124829-a-call-for-umbrella-factions/#comment-758892: The Archaic period mentioned (800-480 B.C.) would be the last two phases here, starting with the rise of the city-states (which are actually small regions, by "Athens" in vanilla one should understand the whole Attica) and continuing with important colonies that continue independently (Syracuse in this example). The Mycenaeans would span from around 1700 to 1150 BC, while the Greek Dark Ages would correspond to the second phase. The diagram tries to represent how people identified themselves, and when dialects were first attested (Mycenaean being first), but not how they are related between them (thus, this is an attempt to a civ/tribe/city-state tree, it's certainly not a linguistic tree). The Greeks would keep identifying themselves with their tribes/dialects, but this didn't mean much regarding alliances (although some cultural similarities could be singled out for gameplay purposes).

That's what I was planning on doing, I am just not very familiar with JS, and was hoping someone could help with that

Also, do you think boats are a little too weak? In my mod, I had increased resistance and health on arrow ships and siege ships, and lowered damage on the ram ship. What do you think?

Yes, I had been thinking about doing other boat changes, and it looks like you already did them

But that's caps with teeth, just caps I think would be safe to place in the Archaic period, maybe even from before, down to the Iliad, which has no mention of such things (EDIT: obviously just a log would appear somewhere around here first, so it would be fine to start in 776 BC with a log and soon after either capping it, for more attack, or having a shed for it, for more resistance). Regarding the boulders mentioned in the Iliad, I can only guess, but apparently (can't remember myself since I've read it 25 years ago) they were used by the Trojans against the Greek fortifications (if such a thing even existed), and not the other way around. This could be both because the Greek fortifications (and gate) would have been much weaker, and because the terrain played against them (the plain coming mostly downwards from Troy to the shore, and the Greeks having not much of a choice than to build on low ground). And although there are no reliable sources regarding superhumans lifting impossibly heavy boulders, there are cases of boulders being rolled down for defensive purposes, from Xenophon's Anabasis ("when the rearguard, so advancing, had reached a ravine which they must cross in order to strike up the steep, at that instant the barbarians began rolling down great boulders, each a wagon load, some larger, some smaller; against the rocks they crashed and splintered flying like slingstones in every direction") to New Zealand, according to https://teara.govt.nz/en/rock-limestone-and-clay/print ("the defenders would hurl stones and roll boulders onto the enemy").

I've seen some sources describe it as 450 BC, which would be some 30 years after the end of archaic period. So might be close enough to assume something similar already existed in late archaic period. But probably better to just have the log ram and other early methods.

https://www.oriental-studies.org.ua/en/smirnou-syncretism-in-the-religious-life-of-ancient-palmyra-in-the-3rd-century-сe/ I'm going to leave this here and let you know that I'm working together with other developers in Palmira. I am working on the symbology of Palmyra and it is complicated to choose symbols for a very syncretic city. It's impressive, but there aren't many images or details online about this faction. Apart from sculptures and other objects, there aren't many clear images from the 3rd century. There is very little art from that period; the original gods of Palmyra are almost entirely unrepresented. It's interesting that they had an anonymous god just like the Athenians. They had Bel and Baalshamin, two gods from different triads. Baalshamin is similar to Canaanite Baalshamin but more advanced and does not share a monotheism like Yahweh, it is a syncretism between Baal and the god El. He has armor, which indicates that he is a warrior god.(similar to Semitic gods in armor fighting in the skies). I am developing a new eagle, I don't know if as an emblem or as another symbol. Baalshamin is probably a kind of Semitic Zeus; he appears alongside eagles as a symbol. Being an economically Semitic civilization, the gateway to the Silk Road, it is a city of trade and many foreigners with their gods. This city and its civilization should be in the game. It's unique, a cultural mix of things. Visually, they can be unique. This god is represented in what some call the anti-classical style. All that we see represented in late art, the lack of realism and naturalness in favor of facial expressions. https://pressbooks.bccampus.ca/cavestocathedrals/chapter/late-empire/ This will also be useful later on.

Yes, that's also in Campbell's book: "the vertical blade, flanked on either side by five triangular teeth, was perhaps designed to cut into mud-brick". But none of this confirms it belonged to a log being carried by troops, as mentioned, it's dated from the late 5th c. BC, a time where there were already ramming "engines". But we would need to additionally know: were they targeting stone walls? Mud-brick walls? Wooden palisades? A gate? For the last two probably it would work, for the first two, I would need to see more concrete evidence. Looking at the representation, it would seem that they are running towards the gate:

There is a theory the Olympia one was specifically designed for breaking mud bricks. The Trajan column actually shows Dacians attacking a Roman fort by holding a metal capped wooden beam (too late for this discussion, but at least it's some evidence that this sort of weapon existed in antiquity).

I like the idea of turret points on boats. I think it would go well with #8957. In my opinion we also need some logic to allow shrinking turetable unit model's => When a unit is turreted on a boat, it become 20% smaller. Just for visual consistency with boats being a bit smaller then they should. Also as you pointed out, units should die when the boat sinks.