Leaderboard
.thumb.jpg.b85f1db9873287a0d10cd2c7e88579c0.jpg)
Popular Content
Showing content with the highest reputation on 2020-04-23 in all areas
-
Anything regarding formations I am now trying is clearly experimental far from being usable in current state so may or may not work in final version4 points
-
3 points
-
That would basically be saying twice the same; just φαλαγγίτης “phalangitēs” is fine. Same for the Ptolemies. (Those Egyptians were an emergency levy.) We know they were settlers, i.e. had land in a κληρουχία “klērouchia”. But in 0 A.D. military colonies are basically glorified mercenary camps.2 points
-
New version for vanilla : - Food generator is now smarter by using areas. - Players now start with a guarranteed forest near their base2 points
-
As pointed out before, that a buildable wonder is replaced with something more appropiate, doesn't mean the old actor is deleted. 0 A.D. contains a lot of unbuildable assets that are available for maps and mods. The newly created Mausoleum looks great and has been added to the public repository. Stonehenge was built in the third millennium, the Celts arrived in the British Islands during the first millennium. The Uffington White Horse has been roughly dated, but whether it was Celtic or Pre-Celtic depends on whom you ask. Anyway, @Stan` has recently been working on new wonders for both the Britons (see this thread ) and Gauls (see this thread ), which do look promising. The Hanging Gardens may not look bad, but it is historically problematic. Assuming it really did exist (which is doubtful), it would have been Neo-Babylonian, i.e. predating the Persian Empire. (We don't use the Great Pyramid of Cheops as the Ptolemaic Wonder either.) As the new Persian wonder, I'd strongly recommend the Apadana of Darius in Persepolis, an enormous structure which formed the core of the palace terrace, was the location where the Persian king of kings obtained annual tribute from all satrapies, and looked very impressive on both the inside and the outside; by contrast, the Gate of All Nations was little more than a relatively small room with large doors on three sides; have a look at this map (A is #1, GoAN is #4). @Stan`, shoudn't this thread be renamed to “=== Committed === Mausoleum at Halicarnassus”?2 points
-
@sauerkrautpie If this is any consolation, I'll make sure it's still placeable in Atlas as a capturable structure, because some maps may use it. It's also on some maps as an actor. I guess the main issue with having too many structures is the amount of work for balancing it. Also due to the current way we render the GUI, any new icon has a performance cost multiplied by the number of units selected. A feature to allow changing what could be built needs https://code.wildfiregames.com/D2702 points
-
La licencia de los modelos no es compatible con la de 0 A.D.2 points
-
If you have to make a report, use the following thread: Ratings Reports (Archive) Progress Report: td { max-width:200px; wrap-word:break-word;height:20px;overflow:hidden} div.wraptext {overflow: hidden;height:20px;} .ipsAttachLink_metaInfo {visibility:hidden;position:absolute;}
1 point -
It's very rare to see. I asked to Alexander he is making shields right now.1 point
-
No. We know the silver shields were the elite of the Seleucid infantry, e.g. from Polybius' description (book V) of the Battle of Raphia between Antiochus III and Ptolemy IV (the latter won, because the former's 10000 silvershields + 20000 phalangites was outnumbered by the latter's 25000 Macedonians + 20000 Egyptians). What the parade of Antiochus IV (Plb 30.25.5) indicates is that the bronze shields were also “champions”, whereas in 0 A.D. they're simply village phase citizen soldiers.1 point
-
Please reread my post: the 10000 golden shields are not in the Greek text.1 point
-
Action macros Save some commands to a macro and play them when the situation appears (execute order 66). Usefull e.g.: you expect a cav rush. you have one to send rams to a fort and another to pull the rams back and repair them, repeat at wish send all cav back (from a raid) to your farmsteads, which have now produced some animals for them1 point
-
That's actually not true @Angen is working on formations these days and improving their behaviour1 point
-
"Argyraspides" indicates "Silver Shield." One might wonder why these guys don't have silver shields. There's no indication what this corps of men was actually called, so something more descriptive like "Romanized Swordsman," is just as good as anything else.1 point
-
The log files will still be generated see if you can find them then post interestinglog.html and system_info.txt, crashlog.txt, crashdump.dmp that's the way to report any suspected bug remember the log files are overwritten every time you run the game. Enjoy the Choice1 point
-
I know I'm a broken record, but I'm still a fan of renaming the sword unit to Argyraspides Thorakitai. The only time we see these "Romanized" units were at the Parade of Daphne, and Polybius and Bar Chovka suggest that they were Argyraspides Phalangites who were retrained, with Antiochus's intent to first reform the entire Argyraspides unit to this style (as it was the Royal Guard unit and most important) and then adopt it along the rest of the Seleucid army. Renaming it makes the unit feel more elite also, as opposed to just a cheap copy. I remember when I first downloaded the game, I didn't know if my "Romanized Thorakitai" were just copies of Principes, or if they were actually an elite unit. Renaming would help players make that connection (and make the unit feel cooler XD )1 point
-
@user1 Lictor_Caesar (me-host) Mativen1983 (leaves) I won and my ranking is the same. commands.txt1 point
-
I wouldn't say this is enough evidence for the prevalence of studs on that sort of shield, but I did find a piece of pottery that might be a reason to depict them:1 point
-
79 files sound manageable, but I assume you also want to do the carry animations, while at it? EDIT: Where are my manners, thanks for the list!1 point
-
It is not ironic. I just said it is a very good work and i appreciate it? Is that suppose to mean i think he is upset about it I googled two times yesterday night and now, yes i found an article about Wessex people building it. But i also said i think single civs are covering for more. It doesn't matter anyway. ? It also came up in the mind, but there must be a room for few button. I thought about if multiple choosing is possible, but probably it is not :/ However, i got the point Thanks for the answers. I guess the ideas is not welcomed at all. There is nothing much to say.1 point
-
@wowgetoffyourcellphone Better now nay ? I missed the apply button T_T
1 point -
Well, it does hurt in terms of historical accuracy. But it seems we need special builders able to construct useless eyecandy structures, which does sound nice IMHO1 point
-
One can bring it down to one: "Alt-F4" or "Super-Q", you can find the shortcuts for that. Nevertheless, I agree ^^1 point
-
Stonehenge was built by the Wessex peoples way before the Celts where in Britain Enjoy the Choice1 point
-
I've played almost every day since I downloaded the game a year ago, and so far there's only one design feature that bothers me: it takes 6 CLICKS to exit the game. Menu Exit Confirm Continue Exit Confirm UI design should almost never include confirmations. They give a false sense of security and according to (I believe it was him) Jared Spool (or his buddy Jakob Nielsen) more data is lost when tools use confirmations than when they simply accept the input. If those are killed, we're down to 4 clicks. If I want to see the stats screen (where I have to click 'Continue') I can go look at it. Why is it a required step to exit the game? I understand there may be a desire to exit the game being played, but not terminate the application itself. Perhaps 2 menu items, 'Leave Game' and 'Exit 0A.D.') Then it's only 2 clicks: Menu Exit 0A.D. If not, at least it's down to 3 steps Menu Exit Game Exit 0A.D. which is heaps better. Thanks for a marvelous game.1 point
-
So, what's the problem again? I'm not understanding what the problem is. The in-game Leonidas is on the left, with the (probably) accurate transverse crest. The only problem with the portrait is that he needs some salt in his beard. The fun '300' style Leonidas is on the right. The one on the right could use a custom texture that makes the crest black like in the film, but other than that it works just fine. The '300' Leonidas portrait does suck though, lol. But if one or the other is remade, then it would probably be good to just remake the other too.
1 point -
The current portraits are placeholders. Ideally each hero ought to have an unique portrait. If you think you're up to it, don't hesitate to go ahead. Feel free to use this 5th C BC bust from Sparta for inspiration:1 point
-
Some more pic's (thank's Lion.Kanzen) https://imgur.com/a/4bJe7By
1 point -
Currently in 0 A.D. the Seleucids have five champions (pikeman, swordsman, cavalry, chariot, elephant), but players have to choose between “traditional” (pikeman + chariot) or “Romanized” (swordsman + cavalry), so effectively they have only three. Historically this doesn't make sense, since heavy cavalry was used in combination with pikemen; e.g. at the Battle of Magnesia (190 BC) the Seleucids fielded c. 16000 pikemen and c. 8000 champion cavalry, as well as scythed chariots and war elephants (Livy 37.40). Therefore I for one would be in favour of removing this artificial choice.1 point
-
I haven't been able to found any photos from inside the hall of the K building https://blog.nightly.mozilla.org/2017/02/20/fosdem-2017-nightly-slides-and-video/1 point
-
I prefer MS-Paint1 point
-
1 point
-
if everyone agrees for me thats the most acceptable option. Charioth shouldn't promote and neither should gather meat.1 point
