Leaderboard

Hi all, after playing for a while, I finally have found some good friends in games. We had a couple of meetups and they were fun. I’m happy that I can find them here. Just wanna thank you and wish everyone a good day! :D

Is Miguel Sanches Baêma the full name? I don't find anything over google scholar: The only place where I can find him is on a forum. But did he publish anything (book, article etc.)? https://recons-iberoceltica.forumeiros.com/t111-os-armamentos-dos-lusitanos-nas-campanhas-de-viriato Thank you for the reference. Although I find it difficult to follow his logic. He says basically that the Celtiberians are influencing the North-Eastern Iberians because there is La Tène weapons in North-Eastern Iberia. In his mind, La Tène weapons = Celtiberian influence. The problem I have with his opinion is that it has been discussed several times in the literature that the La Tène weapons were not typical in Celtiberian context. For example, the La Tène shield boss is more frequent in the North-East than it is among the Celtiberians. The same goes for the Celtic iron montefortino, which is purely La Tène but is not found in Celtiberian context but only in Iberian context: So it is not valid to say that long shields are equivalent of Celtiberian influence and that anything representing long shields is depicting Celtiberian influence. In fact it is probably the reverse that happened, the Celtiberians adopted the long shields during the 2nd century BC, after it was adopted among the Iberians. The problem with your opinion is that it follows this logic: Everything among Iberians is valid for Celtiberians. Everything among Celtiberians is valid for Lusitanians. Therefore everything among Iberians is valid for Lusitanians. In my opinion, this is sophistry. References: https://www.academia.edu/728177/_Patterns_of_interaction_Celtic_and_Iberian_weapons_in_Iron_Age_Spain_?fbclid=IwAR2OWR_RHZeg1RSCqG_oC8G1mMQcbra3rEIvBusM4kDdHtT2L2Xm9m0nA58 https://www.academia.edu/727108/_Montefortino-type_and_related_helmets_in_the_Iberian_Peninsula_a_study_in_archaeological_context_ https://www.academia.edu/29051656/Elmi_Montefortino_nel_Mediterraneo_occidentale

Most competitive players are not playing the game often, so it's not being built for competitive players. The fact that we don't have such diverse civilizations is because there is no design plan and someone to command it. I've even started working on it, but it takes a lot of time, and unfortunately I don't have my free time to spend on it anymore, Besides that the part of 0.ad community is extremely ungrateful. You spend hundreds of hours working on various improvements, to find two or three problems/errors and post on the forum all the time when the new alpha is bad. I said several times that a24 was a work in progress and that a25 would be much better, but they continued to talk a lot of crap. Well the "end" result of the work is an alpha25 much better than alpha24 and 23 as I said. Lack of patience is a problem, especially for those who don't move a finger to help with anything. Basically the alpha 24 - 25 was mostly build by me and @Nescio (gameplay/balance), but we're not working on it concretely anymore, so if no one else is interested in this, players are destined to play with these civilizations / gameplay / balancing for many years, like that how was a23 sling + ram.

It is not I don't want to include it. It is simply a lack of evidences. I heard your opinion but I am not convinced. You claimed a lot of weird things: You claimed the Celts were commonly using scale armor but it is not the case. You claimed there was a Celtiberian ceramic proving it, you didn't provide the evidence when I asked for. You claimed there were accounts from classical authors suggesting its use, but you simply said something weird about Strabo mentioning heavy infantry (which doesn't mean lorica squamata). In the end there is only one plausible evidence in a strictly Iberian context, Llíria. But even a specialist like Quesada-Sanz (which is THE specialist concerning Iberian warfare and armament) is unconvinced about the possibility it represents a metallic armor. So if you want absolutely to depict a scale armor, it should at least be kept for the Iberians.

I think that's what they're shooting for, but I think the style misses the mark. With every icon using the same 2 colors (black and yellow), any "clarity" achieved with the simplified shapes is made moot by the new lack of distinction. Players need icons and buttons to be distinct at a glance. AOEIV's and other games icons don't have this.

It looks fine. It's probably pretty good boost, but it doesn't look "special" in the same way that celts' building pop bonus was "special" or mace's siege workshop was "special" in a23. It's the totally unique civ aspects (like the celt house bonus) that I think are the most fun, but are also the most difficult to come up with (in fact, in a23 not all civs had something like this). I very quickly scanned your other civs and something like the helots for Sparta would be more in line with what I am thinking of. Or even Maurya getting 2 heros. One thing I think about that would fit this, would be a civ that is almost just a raiding/nomadic civ. But that becomes very difficult to articulate into a particular bonus.

there are some big caveats here, though, which I would contend make all the difference. See celts building pop bonus, stables, ptol eco buildings now have a cost (although still technically unique it is less so), all civs have rams, all civs have siege factories, multiple civs lost universities, lighthouse changed and as a result is now unused, cav health tech was propagated to all civs which devalued Persian and sele civ, Maury ele is less helpful now, Athens lost p2 champs, Sparta lost champ types, Roman army camp while still unique is also less capable and therefore not used as much. There are more but that is what I can come up with without having to think. I know some of these might be coming back, but there is no doubt that a lot of the game is fundamentally different now. For some civs like mace their uniqueness has basically been almost totally eliminated. The diversity isn’t as bad as it was in a24, but I don’t think it is anywhere near where it was in a23 (as imperfect some things were in a23) I agree that the game should put back in many of the unique aspects that are most noticeably and used

A24 was less diverse than A23, but the idea that A25 is less diverse than A23 is mostly wrong. I guess the idea comes from the fact that nonexistant bonuses were removed from the history page, https://code.wildfiregames.com/D2720. The only actual existant bonus which was removed is the Gaul and Briton population bonus, https://code.wildfiregames.com/D2950. It's also true that every civ getting a stable removed the uniqueness of the Persian stable, but I think that's an acceptable casualty for better gameplay. From A23 to A25 most civs have gained actually existing bonuses, only exception being the Britons who haven't yet gotten anything. The gameplay is far more diverse than it was in A23, which was just infantry spam with an occasionaly early rush. The Carthaginians might not have gained any direct bonuses, but they've also gained the most identity with the mercenary changes. I also don't get from where the notion that the competitive community is pushing for the game to lose civ diversity and how the competitive players are the reason that not enough civ differentiation is done. If there's no one there to make patches nothing will happen.

Yeah, many of the models are fine. Redoing the UV map with new textures, but keeping much of the old model work, could work nicely.

Special things don't mean diverse game-play. Kushites had their pyramids for a while, but it did not affect their game style. So here comes the example of https://code.wildfiregames.com/D4280 which is something that affect the style of kushites. Not by adding something special, but by empowering what we all ready have. There are more examples like this: Naked fanatics: They are totally unique and you can produce them. There is no reason to produce them though. Gauls also get the trumpeter. Athenian Council chamber: You get an unique building to produce heros (I admit, somewhat similar to Gauls, Spartans, Persians and Mauryas). However you only touch the building to train the heroes and maybe you get a tech there. So it is a building with hardly any meaning in the game. Maybe allow it to train (some) champions would be nice or give it a territory root as the Persian and Mauryan palaces have. All helenistic factions get the Theatron: Not that anyone really would consider building them. I would suggest adding them to p1 with cheaper cost and lesser effect (10% territory boost). Once you get to p2, you would be able to do an upgrade to get the full territory boost. It might also open some possibilities for theatron related bonuses. Colonization: This is a unique tech, that you most often don't find any place for in your games. Reducing the price of this technologies to 15ow,150m might create a nice option. Pillars of Ashoka: This could help to diversify the Mauryas, but unfortunately there is currently no reason to build it. An idea would be that if would increase the speed of traders and grant experience to healers withing the range of the pillar. Mauryas: They get something unique of their champions and it deals a lot of crush damage. It is not the the elephant, but mace champion. It is unique, but nobody bothers making it. I think this is because human units have to much crush resistance (Reducing crush resistance might also mean that other units need to be rebalanced. Note: Kushite macemen also suffer somewhat from this problem). Temple of Vesta: When I play Romans, I tend to forget that it exists. If we made it more potent (larger aura range), it would be more of a defining feature Cavalry diversity of Persians: The persians have an amazing number of 6 different cavalry types in their stables. The fact that this diversity is not really used makes this a shame. So balancing all cavalry to give each of them an unique place could help. It would also help if Chariots and Cataphracts were unlocked with the same upgrade (also goes for Seleucids). Finally Kushite mercenary camps: If you want to double down on diversity, you might want to reduce to cost of these camps to 100w,50m to put an emphasis on their uniqueness. So there you find a way to diversify all factions but Britons and Iberians. For britons the was a woad technology proposed in A24. Certainly the Iberians are all ready diverse. I think we could do better in terms of diversity if we only used the thing that we all ready have. Also we could improve our heroes and I welcome any suggestions on

first/third person games need first/third person features. such mode will be either useless or require complete game redesign

You like to distort as it suits you.... Strabo's quote rejects the fallacy that heavy armor would be almost non-existent. If that were the case, there would be no heavy army as Strabon expressly reports about the Lusitanians. This "expert", to justify the obvious representation of the squamat loric on the Sant Miguel vases, suggests laughable "cloth armor". No surprise, I've seen "experts" interpret the heads of wolves that figure on the breastplate as "lion". Still on the various representations in ceramics, they are reputedly considered Celtiberian and Lusitanians: On the other hand, I quoted former Portuguese diplomat Miguel Sanches Baêma, a specialist in Military History, and who, more than a historian and interpreter, reproduced the weaponry with the techniques of the time. But what counts is his opinion. And the innovations that come in your mind.

For the bipene axe, there is a plausible find as a votive axe: For the mask helmet, it is plausible the Cantabrians used such. But I don't think it would have been such bearded mask helmet. I think something like this more plausible (this is an italic chalcidian helmet):

I can only agree with it: for a casual players, tech differences aren't really relevant, unique buildings, items, units, building improvments, etc. things which are really visible are.

The origin of the Ambakaro first appeared in the first Europa Barbarorum mod for Rome Total War. Alongside other units that are inaccurate. All those units have been removed for Europa Barbarorum 2 because there was actually no evidence for such things. And I am saying that as a part of the team.

I agree very much with the type of civ uniques @chrstgtr is proposing. Unique techs are fine, but from a non competitive player perspective they don't make much difference for the unique felling of a civ. It is way better to have something unique that you can easily see and experience. I.e. some phase two champ, the war dogs, the workers ele or as an extreme example the Scythians from DE who have a completely different gameplay. @ValihrAnt for that reason I also agree that D4280 is superior to the alternative D4233

Bonjour merci pour vos informations cela m aide beaucoup à bientôt

I think he wants to remake the building models. If so, then this would be the perfect time to make new textures.

Ciertamente, pero en un número que permite la formación de un ejército pesado (infantería y caballería), de lo contrario, el historial de Estrabón no tendría sentido, si fuera como algunos afirman "casi inexistente" ....... "También celebran concursos, para soldados y caballería con armas ligeras y pesadas, de boxeo, carreras, escaramuzas y combates por escuadrones". - Strabon. De modo que, apareciendo en la fase 3, ya serían pocos por sí mismos, constituyendo una mayoría (derivada de las fases 1 y 2) tropas ligeras, reproduciendo fielmente las fuentes clásicas. Permítanme reproducir una exégesis, del ex diplomático portugués Miguel Sanches Baêma, especialista en Historia Militar, que corrobora algunos puntos ya planteados, a continuación en portugués, creo que comprenda: En cuanto a las pezuñas, creo que en la fase 1 se podrían ir sin pezuñas, usando el vendaje alrededor de la frente y el cabello, como se representa actualmente en algunos honderos de la civilización ibérica, en la fase 2 creo que se podrían usar pezuñas de cuero y que hay varios modelos, en la fase 3, como ya he comentado, creo que se podrían usar cascos de bronce (montifortinos y calcidicos) aunque también se podrían mezclar con los de cuero si le place. En cuanto al atuendo de infantería o caballería ligera, sugeriría la reproducción del traje de un preso gallego representado en el Arco Romano de Carpentras, sur de Francia: La figura en cuestión es la de la derecha, con un casco de Montifortino colgando arriba y una falcata a sus pies. (ver: http://www.manuelgago.org/blog/2017/12/11/o-guerreiro-perdido/) En cuanto a máscaras y bipenes, se hace referencia a las monedas que conmemoran la victoria romana en la guerra cántabra, en época de Augusto, además de las reproducciones artísticas de la historia militar:

I don’t intend to debate the merits of each change. But what I can say is that something like the globalization of siege factories made some civs less unique because things like Mace’s “quick siege push” strategy or Persia’s mass cav with health bonus is now no longer unique. While I agree a25 has more players playing with more strats this diversity seems to be a function of unit balancing and upgrade changes, which is distinct from civ diversity where I think we can still improve.

Disappointingly, for most people it is reversed.

Hello, To be able to add new textures to the game you need to create a mod. You can see wiki:ModdingGuide for reference. Then you need to create the following directory structure art/terrains/{your_biome_name}/ This folder will contain all the terrain types. You need a file called terrains.xml in that folder. Here is an example. <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="no"?> <!DOCTYPE Terrains SYSTEM "/art/textures/terrain/types/terrains.dtd"> <Terrains> <Terrain groups="{your_biome_name}" /> </Terrains> Here is an example of a terrain file <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?> <terrain> <textures> <texture name="baseTex" file="types/{your_biome_name}/{your_texture_name}.png"/> <texture name="normTex" file="types/{your_biome_name}/{your_texture_name}_norm.png"/> <texture name="specTex" file="types/{your_biome_name}/{your_texture_name}_spec.png"/> </textures> <material>terrain_norm_spec.xml</material> </terrain> Then you need to create the following folder art/textures/terrain/types/{your_biome_name}/ and put your textures in them. In the end you should have something like: art/terrains/{your_biome_name}/{your_biome_name}_{your_terrain_name}.xml art/terrains/{your_biome_name}/terrains.xml art/textures/terrain/types/{your_biome_name}/{your_texture_name}.png art/textures/terrain/types/{your_biome_name}/{your_texture_name}_norm.png art/textures/terrain/types/{your_biome_name}/{your_texture_name}_spec.png mod.json IMPORTANT: The name of your XML file must be unique, or it will conflict with existing textures.

I believe that the most prudent would be to adapt the existing textures (fitting in the appropriate places) with these new ones and then render again with the changes. (spec_ ,norm_ etc textures). Creo que lo más prudente sería adaptar las texturas existentes (encajando en los lugares apropiados) con estas nuevas y luego renderizar nuevamente con los cambios. (texturas spec_, norm_ etc).

Hola Duileoga, personalmente me parece que las texturas de las unidades son bastante buenas. La idea de utilizar las estatuas gallegas como referencias es buena. Los descubrimientos arqueológicos sobre las armas son bastante escasos para los Lusitanos, afortunadamente es posible inspirarse en las estatuas gallegas y los descubrimientos entre los Vetones. De hecho, creo que ya ha hecho bien en incluir un edificio para los Vetones, que permitiría incluir explícitamente unidades Vetones. Los Cantabres también podrían formar parte de la lista para diversificar. Hay varios elementos únicos que se pueden utilizar. Incluir a los Gallegos, los Vetones y los Cantabres tiene sentido para mí. Existen vínculos culturales entre estos pueblos con los lusitanos. Sin embargo, empezar a incluir todo y cualquier cosa que apareció en la Península Ibérica, no tiene sentido. Estoy de acuerdo en que se deben usar armadura orgánica y linotórax. Las fuentes literarias son claras sobre este tema, existía este tipo de protección entre los combatientes. Lo mismo para el armadura de malla, parece ser solo para la élite, pero es algo que se usa. Por otro lado los discos de bronce o la armadura de escamas no lo es. Para los discos de bronce, no parece haber ninguno en el oeste entre los Vetones, además, los discos ya no se utilizan después del siglo IV a. y por lo tanto no hubo ninguno durante las guerras de Lusitania. Para las armaduras de escamas no hay evidencia de su uso aparte de una cerámica encontrada en el este de la península entre los íberos. La interpretación de esta cerámica está lejos del consenso y la literatura tampoco menciona explícitamente este tipo de armaduras. Aparte de los argumentos de mala fe, no vi nada que probara su uso. En cuanto a los cascos con máscaras, la única interpretación plausible es la de una moneda de la región de Cantabria. Creo que es más prudente dejar la exclusividad de su uso a una unidad Cantabre. Como el hacha doble. En cuanto a las evoluciones de las unidades con la experiencia, estoy de acuerdo contigo en que es necesario poner reglas para mantener una coherencia. Esto es importante para los jugadores que necesitan ver rápidamente las diferencias entre unidades. Creo que, de hecho, la versión básica no debería tener un casco, luego cascos orgánicos y luego cascos de metal. También se puede hacer lo mismo con el par, que aparecería en algunas unidades solo en un nivel superior.

Ah, ok. So there was some misunderstanding then on my part too. From what I know and have seen, the lack of diversity doesn't have any greater reason than noone simply going out of their way to implement it or lead the implementation of it. I just recently started making some patches with the goal of implementing economy bonuses for civs and a problem that I encountered is that there isn't any design plan for how different/assymetrical the civs should be, what should be their playstyle (or should civs not be nudged into any playstyle), about how many bonuses, unique technologies for each civ should be targeted.

My remarks on this topic are not limited to 0 A.D., it is my experience with all strategy games allowing both single player (or human vs. AI) and multiplayer (mostly human vs. human) that there will be two distinct groups of people with clashing visions on where the focus should be between: balanced choices (civilization choice should not bring an obvious advantage/disadvantage), symmetrical gameplay, fair games based on skill diverse choices (including "easy mode" and "hard mode" ones), asymmetrical gameplay, game results can rely in part on luck We obviously can’t have both at the exact same time, this is why I tried to suggest options allowing to switch between one approach and the other. Of course I am not saying people are advocating *against* diversity in the civilizations But this lack of diversity is in my understanding a consequence of the push for balance/fairness. Because it is too tedious to balance wild deviations from the civilizations baseline, such deviations will be dropped if we do not think of the more relaxed solo or coop play against AIs. --- EDIT: Just to avoid confusion, I am talking here about *lack* of diversity compared to what 0 A.D. could be, not *loss* of diversity compared to some older release.

Buenos días/tardes/noches; -Hola @wowgetoffyourcellphone , si no es mucha molestia me encantaría que usted hiciera las texturas nuevas (¿podrían ser para edificios y unidades por igual?). No se que diferencia hay entre texturas normales y espectaculares pero en cuanto las vea se me borrarán las dudas . Disculpen las molestias*

Yes, this irks me as well. As much as I think projectile dodging is lousy as a skill mechanic, homing projectiles are a big stylistic mismatch for an ancient warfare RTS. Apparently they ditched all AoE2's elevation based attack bonuses too. It's a very odd choice considering the game sells itself on other terrain effects like the concealment-inside-forests thing. In my book a next-gen history RTS ought to have all the terrain effects.

Champion cavalry has entered the chat and would like to have a word.

You'll have to garrison a spy in the structure for that.

Well the goal is to have it in Vanilla so other mods can use it too.

Yeah https://www.moddb.com/mods/hyrule-conquest is a mod with a lot of fancy features: - Knockback - Stun - Amphibious units - Civ Specific UI - Batalions - Stealth And a few other features. Sadly we still haven't been able to port it to A24, and it's still not working for A25.

The Lusitanians are Indo-Europeans, their language betrays that. On the language of the ancient Lusitanian: "According to my opinion, this is a Celtic branch (possibly before the split between goidels and Britons, and a third or branch) of an archaic type" - Armanda Pita (1999: 260-263). Recent DNA analyzes show that the atlanto-Western populations are descended from northwestern Iberia, for it is said that these populations are proto-Celtic. "If the Ice Age glacial advance forced the Palaeolithic Europeans to seek shelter from climate in places such as the Atlantic Lands End of NW Iberia, Finisterre [...] The subsequente climate change and ice retreat allowed the people sttled for such along period in the Atlantic coast of Iberia to return to Europe."