Leaderboard

This thread has been initiated to revisit the discussion concerning the historical accuracy of the Iberian civilization as depicted in the game. The aim is to consolidate relevant information, provide a comprehensive overview of the issue and its origins, and facilitate constructive dialogue focused on identifying potential solutions. At present, the primary concern regarding the Iberian civilization in 0 A.D. (A27 at the time of writing) is that it represents a composite of various groups from the Iberian Peninsula, encompassing populations with distinct languages and distinct historical backgrounds. This issue emerged early in the development of 0 A.D., largely because the Iberians were favoured by one of the project's key early contributors: https://play0ad.com/interview-of-tonto_real/ In this interview, there appears to be notable confusion between Celtiberians and Iberians, which may have been intentional. Geography and languages Unravel the origin of foreign assets The Iberian civ in 0 A.D. has three heroes: Caros is a Celtiberian chieftain leading the coalition during the second war, Viriato is Viriathus, a famous Lusitanian war leader who resisted Roman hegemony and finally Indibil is a chieftain of the Ilergetes, an Iberian people from the North-Eastern part of the peninsula. Therefore, only one of the three heroes is properly Iberian. The regular units are also making direct reference to other people with the skirmisher called “Lusitano Ezpatari” (which means Lusitanian swordsman but whatever), “Kantabriarko Zaldun” (Cantabrian cavalryman), the priestess of Ataekina/Ataegina (Ataegina was a goddess worshiped in the western part of the peninsula, probably a Lusitanian cult originally). There is also the “Leial Ezpatari” (loyal swordsman) which is a direct reference to the “devotio” reported by Romans to describe the vow of Celtiberian warriors to their patron/chieftain. There is also the issue that the chainmail body armor is used extensively by the units, while there is no evidence that the Iberians used it. It seems to have been adopted much later by a few Celtiberian and Lusitanian warriors, simply because those peoples have been subjugated after the Iberians. Both the wonder and the temple are based on the sanctuary of Cancho Roano, related to the Tartessian culture and abandoned around the 5th century BC. So, it is not purely Iberian, it depends on the interpretation of the Tartessian culture. It is a minor issue but I think it was important to mention it. For me, the problem with the current representation is that it is misleading. Players do not understand the differences between the various peoples mentioned, particularly the Lusitanians and the Cantabrians. Portraying them as an original component of the Iberians is awkward. Especially since it is historically confusing because the Lusitanians and Cantabrians appear quite late in the conflicts with Rome. Many wars between the Iberians and the Carthaginians and Romans never involved the Lusitanians or the Cantabrians. What are the possible solutions? 1. Clean up all foreign elements from the civilization and make it a purely Iberian civilization. This simply means removing and replacing assets. 2. Split the civilization into two or three. In particular, create a Lusitanian civilization and a Celtiberian civilization. This means removing and replacing assets for the Iberians. Then create new assets to make one or two other civilizations. 3. Keep the foreign elements within the Iberian civilization but separate them by having them appear in specific buildings, specific technologies, etc. to show that they belong to another culture neighboring the Iberians. My opinion Solution 3, keeping the foreign element but separating them and distinguishing them for the Iberian core, is the most compatible with the original vision of tonto_real (aka Ken Wood). It would also bring more diversity in the Iberian civ. We can for example add specific Lusitanian buildings to integrate them properly as allies, to distinguish them from the core roster. The effort is moderate.

I don't think it necessarily says anything. It's interesting, sure. But there is noise here that limits it's usefulness. Notably, this doesn't account for differences in player skill for each civ. You would need to control for player differences to make real conclusions. It also obviously lacks any data for military strength. For example, I personally find ptol to be one of the stronger civs. But, in my perception, it isn't chosen by highly skilled players that often while it is frequently chosen by lesser skilled players. Many players using ptol also build settlements before min 13, which naturally slows down their eco boom, but may give them a strategic advantage that isn’t captured in the statistics I would also consider iber to be a decent to good civ. But whenever it is chosen it automatically boosts other civs too, especially gauls, because of it's team skirm bonus. So it's relative value is depressed.

My point is the tooltip isn't actually describing the DPS — it's describing the unit's combat stats. 7.2 (+1.1) damage at 1.25 second intervals. At no point does it show the calculation based on the damage dealt in one second (the 6.6 shown the hovering element) BUT... ...I get your point here. Makes sense. Hack Damage Reduction seems a good choice Yeah it's pretty the same way as aoe2 shows it but using brackets. It's not that obvious but I agree with you: let's avoid cluttered ugliness Your hopes has been heard. @vanz sorry for flood your thread with off-topic discussion

I don't understand why. That would be rather confusing, the tooltip should start by describing what is the element you are hovering, and in this case it's the DPS. Agree, but I was talking about trying to reduce the texts on the lines where stats are displayed, the small description below ofc aren't a diminishing the readability. I would prefer not call the damage reduction % be called "Bonus Resistance" to not be confused with a bonus like in dps, but indeed "Resistance to Pierce attack" is maybe not the best, so i named it "Hack Damage Reduction". It's rather obvious anyways that it is a reduction from incoming attacks. It might not be that obvious that the (+1) here is the bonus, however if i try to any variation of : 3 Base (+1 Bonus) Hack Resistance Points it becomes ugly... So I think I'll leave it like this and hope I'll pass the@guerringuerrin validation

There there, you were right, too much indents . I tried few things around your suggestions and that's what I think is best. Added some details for buildings too so that it's easier to differentiate base arrows and arrows from garrison too. Thoughts?

This seems that it can look better, I'll try! You don't see the cursor, but, this is the header of the tooltip because you are currently hovering the Damage Per Second stat. Then, you get the breakdown so first indent. Then a second indent because it is a breakdown of the attack. So I think It's how it makes the more sens.

Haha Keep in mind that I'm barely familiar with 0 A.D.'s numbers. I've always found them very hard to read, and in general, I'm pretty lazy when it comes to numbers. If you don’t mind, I’ll get a bit picky and suggest the following changes. Damage Bow: 7.2 (+1.1) Pierce Bonus: 15% Interval: 1.25 seconds “Damage per Second” doesn’t really make sense in the context of the tooltip. I’d also remove the indentation or just use a single level. In the case of the damage tooltip, double indentation only adds confusion. I’d also try this alternative layout which I find better than the first : Bow Damage 7.2 (+1.1) Pierce 15% Bonus 1.25s Interval Or: Damage Bow 7.2 (+1.1) Pierce 15% Bonus 1.25s Interval I think these layouts improve readability and allow the player to quickly understand the structure of the tooltip. And the third one is my favourite

Yes all correct, however if you feel like double checking is that because it's not that intuitive?

Let me describe it to see if I understood it correctly: The Bow of this archer has 7.2 of base Damage + 1.1 Damage from the first Ranged Attack damage (15%). I asume if you research the second Pierce damage, the % bonus will be higher It also has a base Pierce Resistance of 1 + 2 from two Pierce Resistance upgrades researched. EDIT: also the 6.6 we see in the sword next to the portrait is the real DPS of the Bow, as it has an interval of 1.25 second. That's a boonGUI legacy feature

Thanks @guerringuerrin. The previous iteration wasn't satisfactory because it didn't help that much to estimate upgrade levels. I think I much more prefer it now and I think it's easy to read. (on screenshots you don't see the cursors but each tooltip correspond to the stat you hover ofc)

Yes, it's just a small mistake of using a wrong variable for price calculations to make it alike a constant product market maker. Well... More or less since there is also the orders themselves that you get for the price of the first resource bought (if you buy 500 food, you get the whole 500 food for the price of the first food unit), however this will always be smaller then the base barter malus. So really we just need to fix what I'm linking to, in the above.

may I suggest that this problem is patched by using a proper market maker algorithm in the game instead of one that's improvised? constant product is one that immediately jumps to my mind, that is actually applied in solutions with real money involved.

See the image. Art on some of the trees should be corrected, as to not block the view as much. It's making it vary hard to guess where the base of the tree is, or where or when a storehouse needs to be placed. Bug: The trees are blocking the view of the ground beneath them. Desired state: Trees should not block the view. Map: Lake with Temperate biome. Also affects all random maps with the temperate biome, maybe some others. Version: 27.1

Ain't gonna happen, unless in a mod. When you place a storehouse, it'll turn red to tell you it's too close. Back off by a meter and boom, it's placeable. This takes no more than a second.

That was fun, although I was late to the party as I missed it completely. Whats the story about "borgs second account" agride? A imposter? I know borg as "borg_" and "borg-" in the lobby, although I see a borg. now too in the leaderboard. Also for me "favella" is a phrase chanted when enemy riders run in a strong point and you can take them out fast. As they come to the wrong hood... But I heard it for bad internet too.

That's sad. But that problem has a solution. The moment it happens, you just collectively let a 4v1 on the cheater. Until he's out of the game, everyone is on cease fire.

If the trees from AoE2:DE as seen in the screenshot you provided are your measure of pretty, sure. I think most people would agree that realistic trees are prettier, though?

It's not that easy to display so much stats on limited space. I also disliked that units had stats that you cannot know unless you check the xml, such as the splash radius. I've just added a bunch more details to ModernGUI tooltips.

Alt+Shift+S (enable silhouettes), it's disabled on your screenshot. Edit: ah actually foundations don't produce silhouettes lol

Well, pretty trees have bigger treetops than trunks. So unless I understood you wrongly, you cant have pretty trees that dont block the view?

@Seleucids got a mod for you

Perhaps it's inertia from A23 days? The Fortress used to be the ultimate building you'd build to access some of your civ's best units/unique techs. In A24, it got demoted to a strong defensive building, but some things remained. I don't think we should change anything, though. WTF is a very strong tech that needs to be hard to get. Unique techs for some civs (like Mace, Han and Romans) make sense in a Fortress, as they are also very strong. Heroes can also turn the tide in a battle. Seleucid heroes being trainable from CC is just a civilization advantage.