Thorfinn the Shallow Minded
-
Posts
1.170 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
12
Posts posted by Thorfinn the Shallow Minded
-
-
I wouldn't recommend having rusted blades in the game. Soldiers were expected to properly maintain their weapons, which meant sharpening and polishing. While the presence of blood could be excused on the battlefield, rust less so.
-
2
-
-
Thoughts:
The centaur being able to transition between bow and spear would be a cool and unique option.
Cyclops and the Minotaur were known for eating people. Maybe a special attack could kill a weak unit, providing health or maybe just give lifesteal for one of them.
For Einherjar, one of their famous things was that they would go through a daily cycle of fighting, getting killed, and then resurrecting to feast. Maybe making them able to resurrect in some way that isn't broken balance-wise would be a unique option.
Maybe making the Colossus repairable by villagers would be a fun option.
Perseus is known for having the head, but if you'd like to have it be something that doesn't just repeat Medusa's ability, he also had winged shoes that could let him fly and also had a cap of invisibility.
Sigurd was also known for being able to go invisible due to a cloak.
-
1
-
-
A few thoughts on the gods and associated units in no specific order:
Odin giving a buff to ranged units seems odd. He was associated with the nobles, making a cavalry buff much more logical (His prominent horse also seems to make this a clear choice).
The economic buff makes a bit more sense with Thor since he was a god commonly worshipped by lower classes, but I would extend that helping all economic things, not just mining. Perhaps if you are looking for a more flavourful option I'd say that making his heroes more effective at slaying myth units would be a nice one. Most of Thor's myths are about him killing giants in some way.
Heimdall is responsible in Ragnorak for deploying the Einherjar troops, making those units a better option for him. Baldur is only a survivor of the events. I'd advise giving light elves to Baldur since his good looks were famous. Instead of providing more offensive power to units, I think that a defensive bonus would be better given how he was famous for being virtually invincible.
For the Greeks:
Dionysus was associated with satyrs and centaurs, especially the former.
A dryad unit might be a better option for Demeter given her relation to nature.
Hercules was known for having two main weapons, a club and a bow having arrows dipped in the blood of the hydra, making them venomous.
Poseidon would be a better candidate for the minotaur since it was his bull that fathered the creature.
Artemis might be better suited with the Calydonian Boar, which she sent.
Ares seems a better fit for the centaurs given both of their warlike natures.
-
1
-
-
Since Serapis did have elements of Hades, I would recommend a different god for the Ptolemies like Harpocrates. This deity was basically the Greek interpretation of the child-god version of Horus and played a fairly important role in religion there.
-
2
-
-
One of the main reasons it was removed is because the way that they gave damage bonuses for most units, aside from spearmen countering cavalry, was that it was generally unintuitive. Every unit was a hard counter, making it feel like a convoluted game of rock-paper-scissors than actual warfare. Since 0 A.D. is striving for eventually making warfare that rewards total war style micro and attempting to emulate history, the way that counters exist requires nuance. Given the fact that many features regarding formations have not been released, having a functional counter system based on history implemented is difficult.
I see the reasons that one would introduce hard counters, given that they provide an intuitive model, but there are a few issues I have with many. For instance swordsmen countering spearmen is a peculiar one. In comparing spear to sword, there is a massive difference in reach, making the spearman in most situations have a substantial advantage to the swordsman. While I don't advocate for spearmen being able to beat swordsmen in one-on-one fights, the advantage that the swordsmen have could be simply based on swordsmen having faster movement, allowing them to catch or retreat from ranged units easier, which could be valuable in fights.
On another note, I would question archers having a bonus against melee infantry. They should already be able to kite them effectively. That said, I would say that borg's counter system is a massive improvement to the initial counter system.
As a question, since the civic centre can only produce women, is there any way to make military buildings if all starting military units are killed from early-game harassment?
-
1
-
-
In concept alone, it seems to be a good idea, but social mobility was extremely rare during the ancient times, as Sundiata has mentioned. Only a minority of residents of a nation actually were citizens, and citizens that were not nobles practically never became so except in egalitarian societies like Sparta (relative to other citizens since rights were the same regardless of social status with the exception of kings.). Next, the consumption of meat by lower classes was extremely rare. The predominant thing they would eat were grain products. Lastly, leadership was not solely based on wealth but more so on social status, and the means of reaching the governmental positions varied based on government type. In Athens, Sparta, Rome, and many other ancient states, mayors were nonexistent, instead having positions like Strategos, Ephor, and Consul respectively, and these functioned in a very different way.
-
-
There is an online lexicon, including some basic vocabulary here: http://ancientroadpublications.com/Studies/AncientLanguage/Phoenician.pdf I'm fairly sure that it isn't quite the right dialect, but it could be a good starting point.
All the words are unvocalised, making the reconstruction a bit hard, but Plautus' play Poenus apparently did have some Punic featured in it that is vocalised.
-
Are there issues with the current system? Yes, but the line between soldier and gatherer can still be more subtle than what DarcReaver argues. There are a few issues with the current system, some of which have already been mentioned:
Citizen-soldiers can instantly react to an attack. They shouldn't. This would properly penalise a player that does not have adequate knowledge of what an opponent is doing while rewarding opportunistic raids.
Citizen-soldiers are a broad generalisation for the roles of men in society. Most labour at least in the Greco-Roman world was done by slaves, which should be implemented in some way. It is questionable to have citizen-soldiers be able to mine resources. Furthermore, women are overly generalised. In most Greek and Roman societies, they mainly did housework, not collecting resources. There would be some exceptions such as maybe Spartan and Celtic women.
Cavalry probably should not hunt. They represent the nobility, who would not be doing much personally to gather food.
-
1
-
-
As a similar point, I read that women were occasionally druids as well. While I can't remember the book's title, it seemed academically legitimate enough to cite. For those who are more familiar with druidism, I would appreciate your thoughts.
-
3
-
-
As one recommendation, add a depiction for temples of Serapis. Serapis was an important symbol of Ptolemies themselves. There are a few visual references to how they looked such this coin for an Alexandrian part. While this doesn't need to be a standard replacement, I think that having it as a variant or even just and map editor prop would be good.
.
-
2
-
-
I would personally beg to differ on the lack of presence of two-handed swords. Hallstatt and La Tène sword blades were unusually long, and although what is left of the hilts seems generally too short to accommodate two hands, this could be the result of them using degradable materials for the rest. Hallstatt swords are even identified as longswords, which is usually an identifier for swords meant to be used with two hands. Granted, I will admit that I was not able to access sources that could provide decisive evidence for either side and I am by no means an expert on Celtic weaponry. Furthermore, the reason that these swords are called longswords may be simply to contrast with much of the shorter blades, making the issue no easier to exactly resolve.
That all said, I can't really say that you're wrong, Geneva. The subject just seems slightly more complex than you depict it. Would you mind clarifying your objections?
-
There's no reason to doubt that he was a proper Roman citizen given his social standing. Technically the Turks had not arrived, making that argument a little difficult to make. What is better to know about Santa is that he had a tendency to punch heretics (i.e. the council of Nicaea).
-
1
-
-
I think that there are a couple things to be gleaned from the opening post. First, it seems that the team of fork can commit changes more easily than through WFG, leading to bugs and other issues being fixed. Since these three presumably trust each other well, they are able to work uninhibited, making the overall pace of development considerably faster it seems. While these seem to be minor, they are quality of life improvements by far that need to happen at some stage.
In honesty, I along with others am intrigued by how substantially the gameplay will change though.
-
2
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, Sundiata said:
I'd argue that there are indeed moral truths, but I'd be arguing from the perspective of a theist who believes in something absolute. Something perfect. But those things are highly contentious, and from a philosophical perspective, comparing moral truths to mathematical proofs sounds kind of metaphysical.
That's fair. My point wasn't to declare that there were moral absolutes even if I do believe in them. The point was to establish that a deontological ethical system generally starts with a presupposition like that. The question of why there are such wildly different value systems if there are moral absolutes that deontological ethics bases itself around is fair, but I think that the point that would be the easiest explanation is that to a deontologist, there is a perfect set of rules to follow to live a moral life. Not everyone or potentially even anyone fully understands them or can articulate them.
As a secondary point, although I can assume that you are generalising about the people who do or do not believe in moral absolutes, it stands to reason that even an atheist might believe in them. Why they would, I'm not sure.
What I do find interesting is that by and large, you don't seem to argue for any specific universal morals, which seems sensible since as far as I gather, conscience comes from personal experience in your opinion. What use then, is there in attempting to use moral 'truths' if they are simply a result of the human mind? Humans are fallible and any similarity could be considered mere coincidence It seems better to use logical reasoning with utilitarian ethics to create coherent system that could potentially be applied to any context regardless of socio-cultural differences.
-
3
-
-
So I guess there are a few questions regarding this. Are there any substantial design differences in mind? How does the fork AD team hope to create a different culture from the WFG team to ensure that both individual voices are relevant while also pushing towards a common goal?
-
1
-
1
-
-
Perhaps I have been framing the concepts from the wrong starting point. Yes, deontological ethics tends to derive itself from various codes, but where do those codes come from? In most cases, the deontological ethicist would argue that it is from something similar Plato's ideas about forms. The codes are a written form of various moral truths that exist, just as mathematical proofs represent various natural constants that exist.
...And here's something else.
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, Genava55 said:
The problems arising in the deontological perspective is often the same: contradicting rules. The trial of Eichmann is in fact solved by calling what we called virtue. I agree totally with MacIntyre for this, in the end all ethics end to the virtue to solve their own weakness.
I would say that while you do give valid points, but in my opinion the issue of a deontological system is usually due to flawed interpretations of the practitioner, not necessarily contradictions inherent to the moral code. A good example would be in Isaac Asimov's Robot series, where the three robotic laws can take wildly different interpretations. Are they flawed because of that? The only way to fully critique the merits of a deontological ethical system is to examine the actions of someone who followed one perfectly, which is admittedly difficult to do. Luther and Calvin, while they could be called "good" men, were more than willing to admit their own faults.
-
1
-
-
Most people broadly believe the same values apart from a few differences, but what is the reason that something is good is that way? Typically there two major sides to the idea: deontological and utilitarian. In summary these are the general assumptions.
Deontological: Things are good simply because they inherently are. (Example: You should not steal. Thus, stealing to feed one's family is unethical.)
Utilitarian: Good things are defined by what benefits the most people the most. (Example: If you can save your family's lives by stealing, that theft is ethical.)
Granted, they can be more nuanced than just this, but I find that these are good starting points. I personally lean towards a deontological view, but obviously that's just my own view. What are yours and why? Bear in mind, regardless of whether you might think one thing, the other, or not have any definitive stance, please be respectful of others and keep personal attacks to a minimum.
-
2
-
-
Simply because there were a lot of anti-Semitic aspects in 20th century (and generally throughout history) does not mean that the topic should not be mentioned. As there seems to be no racist comments, I only find that it does a disservice to the Khazars and Jews to actively not mention them just because of the controversies.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Currently it seems that territory is lacking in giving anything very meaningful to 0 A.D. Granted, I like the concept of territory and have no wish for it to be removed. It provides a sense of logistics to the game and makes players feel rewarded when they construct a fortress on their frontier. That said, for such a graphically obvious thing, it's strange that its function seems to only relate to buildings. I would personally suggest that the territorial borders play a larger role in the game to justify their presence.
Being inside of home or allied territory could confer a benefit to units such as increased armour and movement speed.
Being in neutral and enemy territory could provide movement penalties, and particular civilisations known for scorched earth tactics could possibly even make hostile units slowly lose health when standing in their territory. I particularly like this concept since it would make healers, extremely underused units, have more relevance to extended attacks.
Mercenaries and potential unit types could actually have bonuses outside home territory.
These are just a few ideas I came up with on the matter; I'd be interested to know what other thoughts people have.
-
2
-
-
@(-_-)That could potentially be the case, but it depends on where the spear hit and the type of armour used. All to often, in part due to the depictions of media, the effectiveness of armour is severely underplayed.
As for whether the changes would be applicable to a non-battalion based combat system, it's certain that it wouldn't be as straightforward, but I think that the implementation would still be viable. Players would just have to think of their archer and javelin units as dealing out area of effect damage as opposed to them being extremely accurate snipers. Their purpose would be for doing things such as skirmishing and other things that are historically informed.
-
2
-
-
I'd honestly say that it's a pretty good game. To call it a mere Age of Empires clone is a disservice. It features diverse civilisations to make for engaging match-ups. The primary issue that I think has caused the backlash that has been in the community is because of misplaced advertising. They called it a spiritual successor of Age of Empires when in fact it was a multiplayer focussed game with only barebones features for singleplayer. Had they actually been transparent about the evident lack of singleplayer features from the very beginning, potentially stating that they would include those in subsequent updates, I think that the reception would have been less mixed. There is also the issue of bugs, but given the amount of major developers that release games in similar states, it seems fair to note that this oversight, while not excusable, is understandable within the context of modern publishing standards.
-
The title might be a bit misleading, but the point is to open discussion about the use of lambdas for Spartans (and Alphas for Athenians). I've read a fair amount of classical sources, and nome of them attest to the use of either letter for those cities. There is only one particular case in which Xenophon (if my memory serves me correctly) notes that soldiers of Sikyon were able to be identified by the sigmas on their shields. This, however, does not give any evidence for the presence of letters on other peoples' shields. Furthermore, I have never seen a piece of pottery depicting either letter on a shield. The only basis for these letters seem to be from secondary sources. Granted, I am only pointing out that I have found little evidence of the letters when of course absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, yet I do find the lack of evidence to be compelling. If anyone does have some source to counter my lack of findings, please do show me, but otherwise, I think that it would be much better to not use letter based textures for shields unless Sikyon is added to the game as a faction.
On a separate note, while I was checking this, I noticed that there are no textures for braided hair of Spartans. Their hair being that way is mentioned on a number of occasions by Herodotus and Plutarch. As is, we are missing the chance to see the glorious sight of Spartan hair billowing through the wind, something that everyone deserves to see.
-
3
-
Borg Expansion Pack Mod Release V 1.0.5
in Game Modification
Posted
Why have a unit like that? It is totally ahistorical. Whacking at the ram with a sword or spear makes more sense given the fact that the best way to disable a ram is to kill the operators.