Leaderboard

ironic is finding art of yours looking for things to make new things. https://aom.heavengames.com/downloads/showfile.php?fileid=11228 4 years after I made the faction symbol.

Siege Tower and Traction Trebuchet already in the game and looking good. Just need a new skin/model for the Battering Ram. Perhaps use the Greek battering ram model as a base and then add Han Chinese styling. Could maybe even use the same skeleton and animations. Shoushe Nu bolt shooter already removed.

In fact, this soldier model is not in line with historical facts, it is just a "cool" thing that some manufacturers have come up with to sell for money.

If you want, you can give government ministers long swords so they can fight.

1. I can remove the shield from the champion cavalry very easily. I can also give them "cataphract" animations. I will say the Roman cavalry used shields, so are not a good example. Imperial Roman cavalry even used large oval shields, not just small round shields. 2. My justification for giving them a ceremonial long sword is because they are supposed to be "palace guards." If we can justify it, I wish we can keep the longswords. 3. I don't think any units have greaves. What some of them have are lamellar scales. 4. I made a post in that thread that may help us decide which helmets go with which textures.

We are going to make a list of things that we have and another of those that are missing.

voici de map à superbe vue à utiliser sur world machine 1601371074_Earth_86kmix3.png project.tmd

here they are:) i'm not yet convinced of the textures though the smallest size could be like the recent camp but with the option to draw the camp to a bigger square rome_pilum_murale.dae pila_murale.blend

Balancers (some at least) already try hard for all civs to play the same, if all maps play the same as well there is little to look forward to. Except for looks (tho not as bad as it once was) Anatolian Plateau is a great map!

This looks like Total War: Troy

we need some code (patches) to allow to do that.

To be fair there is dog scouting battlefield already in game. It can even fight.

@Stan` think they're usable? @wackyserious, @AIEND is right. I have not seen any reference to calf/shin armor. If we remove that from the textures that would be good. And then we can adjust the pant-boot position to match the puffy part of the mesh.

The Han people do not judge the status of the soldier by the cost of weapons/armor, because the weapons are provided by the state. It depends on the difficulty of mastering the weapon, that is, the level of martial arts, mastering the spear/Ji is more difficult than mastering the sword, so the soldiers who use the spear/Ji should appear later. Mastering the bow is more difficult than mastering the crossbow, so the archer should appear later than the crossbowman (not absolutely, it depends on the pull of the bow and the crossbow, the soft bow is easier to master than the strong crossbow). Using a sword and shield on a horse is more difficult than using a bow or spear/halberd with both hands off the reins, so mounted archers and lancers appeared later than sword cavalry.

There definitely is. Look at eg. Blender or Gimp projects, in blender i believe it is coded in icons are in svg. In Gimp there are larger and smaller icons plus it depends on theme too. https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gimp/-/commits/master?search=icons ... That would be much obliged.

I would be ok with those (but I also wouldn't mind sticking with the current default and just changing the other two). Bronze might be a nice touch. idk. Nitpicking: I would prefer if they all had the exact same diagonal angle. And I would prefer if that angle would be rather steep (Looking at the default windows cursor where the left side of the arrowhead is vertical). Maybe not that much, but you get the idea, for me the attack-sword is a bit too diagonal.

The Gastraphetes, aka Bellybow, animations for the Macedonians could suffice.

That SPEARHEAD is CLEARLY inappropriate!

I mean, you don't have to make a 3D model, you don't need a soldier to hold it. You just need to give it as an attribute to Han Diaolou and Fortresses, Civic Centers, Warships. Because the crossbowmen of the Han Dynasty did not use repeating crossbows. The repeated crossbow of the Han Dynasty is a large-scale weapon with great pulling force. Soldiers only use it on some fixed facilities. This is why we call this type of weapon a bed crossbow, because it is placed in a bed like a bed where there are no wheels.

In the early days of the Han Dynasty, this helmet with only the eyes, mouth and nose exposed would be used. Judging from the terracotta warriors of the Han Dynasty, it may be the most equipped helmet. This is the Qin Dynasty helmet still in use in the Han Dynasty, they may be different in the shape of the iron pieces, but the general design is the same, and, they are all iron, the Qin Dynasty only has leather and iron helmets, no bronze Yes, bronze armor was eliminated by China a long time ago.

I suggest that you give the winch repeating crossbow to the Han Dynasty as a technology or faction feature to improve the firepower of the city defense, so that you don't have to study the Han Dynasty repeating crossbow that actually has no reference object.

I'll still say a bronzen look makes it easier to distinguish from e.g. the attack cursor.

Yikes.. We got the wrong weapon, apparently.

Goguryeo armor and Han Dynasty armor are relatives, because Goguryeo armor is largely dependent on the craftsmen on the Han Dynasty land they occupied, so many times we will refer to them when restoring Han Dynasty armor.

I asked @Stan` about the prospect of adding the armored body meshes from Terra Magna.

This was why I wanted to give the champion infantry a long sword:

Alright seems like some people like this draft, but unfortunately: This is not possible. the min resolution width of 1280 offers not enough space to put the wfg logo and the build / alpha name in the top menu. This would be possible when dropping support for everything under 1920, but that seems like a bad idea. So here are some alternative drafts: (Do note that those are fixed width menus -> so they don't stretch over the whole screen anymore)

f_armor_dress.dae

minimap_icons.zipminimap_icon_source.zip

@Unkind98 thanks once again for reporting an issue. Chariots aren't supposed to have a melee attack (yet), which is why it errors. I did it by mistake and will be fixed soon. I appreciate it. (github was actually updated just didnt make a release for it yet)

We need to make constructed buildings/foundations remove eyecandy actors, such as grass and small bushes. AOE games do this. @Freagarach is there a ticket?

Are you planning to implement these as a champion unit, or just replace the citizen-soldier models?

Perhaps we can add a cataphract maceman and cataphract archer? As the video said some cataphracts had ranged weapons. Cataphract archer: heavily armoured, 300 health, same attack as regular archer (like a Mauryan archer elephant but more agile and better armoured, with less pierce) The advantage of cataphract archer is being able to survive under enemy fire for longer than regular archer cavalry and not vulnerable to spearmen /melee attacks. Cataphract maceman: counters other cataphracts and do crush damage to buildings?

I kinda agree that 0ad needs some differentiation like this, but it opens up a huge can of worms that the devs and a lot of the community don't seem to want to futz with, as shown by the faction balance thread.

The Gate of All Nations was slated to also include the monumental ramp and other stuff. As designed it was quite interesting:

@Nescio You seem to have completely missed the point of my post: Then you say: I shared the article because it shows that forest elephants today still live north of the equatorial rainforests of West and Central Africa. The elephants from southern South Sudan in the article live at least 100 km north of the nearest equatorial rainforests in an area that's a patchwork of forests and grasslands. Use the satellite view of google earth and you'll clearly see that the equatorial rainforests are a distinct biotope from the forests, scrublands and grasslands of southern South Sudan. Even from space, they're very clearly different shades of green. And that's my point. Even their current range is larger than what experts used to think only a few years ago. As I have clearly pointed out, it's impossible to know how far north these or other related populations reached only a few hundred years ago, because we barely know how far they reach today. Let alone how far they reached 2500 years to 2000 years ago. The climate was different, and all those maps you shared do not accurately represent the African climate more than 2000 years ago. We know this! The Sahara has advanced as much as 200 km in the last century alone! Even Nero's expedition up the Nile in the 1st century remarked on the abandoned towns of northern Nubia and described it as a region rendered into a desert... For the period that's relevant to 0 A.D., from 500 BC to 1 BC, Sudan, especially the Butana, and especially the southern Butana were decidedly more green and forested than they are today. Taking this into account, it becomes impossible to offhand discount the use of forest elephants as opposed to Bush elephants. Neither species of elephant exist in Sudan today. And in South Sudan, where significant elephant populations still exist, the range of forest elephants and bush elephants overlap and they hybridize. More than 2000 years ago, these same habitats would have been found several hundred kilometers to the north as well. *1st and 5th cataract. Meroë lies between the 5th and the 6th cataract. He's describing the savannah of the northern Butana... Yes, and? Those Eritrean elephants are huge. They tower over Indian elephants, so they don't match the descriptions nor the depictions of small African elephants. You can't have your cake and eat it too. What are you arguing for exactly? That the huge Eritrean elephants from that study are related to the ones used in warfare during Antiquity? Which would render the ancient accounts and depictions all wrong... Or are you arguing that Eritrean elephants were smaller than Indian elephants during Antiquity but have since somehow evolved into the large bush elephants from that study? Neither of those theories make any sense. I never argue in bad faith, Nescio. You don't need to tell me that you assume "good faith", because it comes over as if you really mean the opposite. There's 100 km between the Southern Butana and the borders of South Sudan. I'm pointing out that the distance between the southern part of the Island of Meroë and South Sudan is not far. If we assume that forest elephants roamed several hundred kilometers further north from where they do today, which we can, then that means there may very well have been forest elephants within reach of Kush. Notwithstanding the fact that the Butana itself is it's own unique biotope that was home to many animals that have all but disappeared from the region since Antiquity. As far as I can tell, there are no hippo's rhino's, giraffes, lions etc in that region today anymore either. Forest elephants are called as such because they are mostly found in jungles today. But this might as well represent a retreat from their historical ranges. They are far more vulnerable to poaching/hunting because they have the slowest reproductive rate of the three elephant species. Bush elephants reach sexual maturity at age 10 - 12. Forest elephant don't reach sexual maturity until the age of 23! That's a huge difference. And they have a longer gestation periods as well. They can't replace their losses the way bush elephants can, which means that they're the first to go extinct in any given area. And at its height, Kush ruled an area of almost 2000 km north to south, approximately 1000 km north to south during 0AD's timeframe, and traded with regions well over 3000 km away. More than 4000 km if you count India. But you're telling me that they couldn't get elephants from their own backyard (figure of speech)? Again, those forest elephant would have roamed several hundred kilometers further north during Antiquity. They weren't 1000 km away 2000 years ago. That's the whole point! We don't know how far north these elephants once reached. What bugs me about your posts here is that you're peddling a fringe hypothesis that relies on even more speculation and conjecture than the hypotheses you're arguing against. This: You just casually invented an animal to suite your argument. You just casually invented an entirely new subspecies or class of African bush elephant that is smaller than Indian elephants, while no one has ever proven their existence. I don't think I've even really seen it seriously suggested before. In fact, the presence of large bush elephants in South Sudan and Eritrea argues against an overlapping presence of hypothesized small bush elephants and large bush elephants in the same areas, because one would obviously either outcompete or assimilate the other. The only reason that Bush elephants and forest elephants can overlap is because they can inhabit different niches in the same environment. I'm not saying it's impossible that there were historical bush elephants populations that were smaller than Indian elephants, but without even a shred of evidence for the existence of such an animal, I'm very much on the fence about it. For the time being, I'll stick to the "communis opinio", as you put it, or some variation of this more widely accepted hypothesis.

The feature is called "turrets" and it's being worked on. I'm personally notsomuch interested in mounting and dismounting troops (way too much micro). My main thing is just allowing the soldiers in the tower to target nearby enemy soldiers independently from the main elephant attack. So imagine tasking your elephant to batter down a building while the archers on his back shooting at random nearby enemy soldiers.

Yeah, but if at some point people decide visible garrison slots for outposts, gates, and towers are desireable for the default game, then it would be nice to be able to see their heads.