Jump to content

Thorfinn the Shallow Minded

Community Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Thorfinn the Shallow Minded

  1. I would be interested to see how you see siege units fitting into the meta (not regarding buildings of course).
  2. I like the clatter sound you have of the shaft hitting the bow, but could it be made a bit higher? As is, it sounds a bit odd, like pieces of bamboo striking. Maybe a demonstration of a medieval warbow might give a better representation of what I'm trying to communicate. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4Vd3KP-LnQ&frags=pl%2Cwn
  3. Just another question because I expect this game to have the same graphical quality as a triple A title. Could the explosion particle effect more emerge from the area of impact as opposed to it just popping into existence? Maybe it's just the slo-mo that makes it look a bit problematic.
  4. I wonder if direction could be integrated into the impact based on the vector of the projectile.
  5. Good work thus so far on an aspect that has been severely lacking. That said, I think we need a sound effect for capturing...
  6. Onto the point that Darcreaver makes, I think there is more validity than most of us give credit to. If there is going to be micromanagement, it should feel meaningful rather than just necessary. A lot of the Age of Empires economic decisions unfortunately like that, and I'd say that providing better automation to economy would allow for a much more complex system to exist. I'd personally like trade and farming to be better expanded upon. Farms could gradually eat up the nutrients in soil, decreasing the gathering efficiency and forcing players to have farms planted elsewhere if they
  7. More just scars all over his body based on speculation. He died around the age of 84, having fought basically to the end of his life. I'd expect a few wounds to have shown up in that time. I can check sometime about more distinct features but can't promise anything detailed.
  8. I'd say that would be the case. If we want to go super accurate, getting him to have a limp would give extra browny points. He was apparently short and not handsome, and privately wore a plain cloak. (See Plutarch's Life on him) I'd make his equipment plain to represent his embodiment of Spartan values if we are to take Xenophon and Plutarch at face value.
  9. Agis III is a problematic hero to Sparta. First, his design is sadly lacking. Having more hitpoints is in no way interesting as it offers no new interesting strategies to the Spartan player other than using him as a beefy hoplite. This issue is further exacerbated by the fact that the one thing he is famous for, bravely dying in battle to a superior force, is nothing unique or remarkable in comparison to most any other Spartan king. Leonidas already serves that function. Finally, 0 AD’s vision is to depict nation-states at the height of their power, not when they were simply a regional bu
  10. I think the main thing is that people who are knowledgeable don't care to admit that they can't give very decisive evidence of its existence or lack thereof, and I don't criticise them for it. Just saying 'I don't know' does little for the conversation. It's a niche subject. Personally I'd say the current iteration just clashes with the Roman aesthetic in a weird way and feels anachronistic. It's a classical design that has been grafted onto something else with no regard for Roman tastes. Granted, I'm mainly just approaching this from a matter of personal bias, so don't take any of this t
  11. Could you say the historical precedent for having the face on the shields? Naturally that comes from Greek hoplites, but on the scutum it looks off. I did a quick look on the web and only saw a reenactor using that kind of design. Personally it seems perhaps a bit too far fetched that someone would paint that on that type of shield, but I'd appreciate some insight from someone more knowledgeable about Roman martial artwork than me.
  12. Sorry, that was my mistake in calling Hipparchus that. I meant to say Aristarchus.
  13. Identifying constellations and seeing their how they moved is precisely why it had applications in navigation. Whether those two can be classified as astronomy, most constellations were named by astrologers. Although it's not as if priests researched these phenomena for the explicit purpose of finding one's way, but their research had uses. Astronomy during this time period was of course practised most famously in Alexandria, where astronomers such as Hipparchus basically proposed a heliocentric model of the solar system. This does not however indicate that these natural sciences wer
  14. Not precisely true. The two disciplines are about roughly the same subject just with different premises and conclusions. Astronomy is simply a scientific approach to understanding celestial bodies. Astrology did primarily have its function in attempting to understand the future, but the contributions it gave were valid for navigation purposes. Even now we use Greek astrological terms for various geographical locations such as the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn. Most of the time the scientific experts of these times were priests, and their purposes were many times just as muc
  15. Here are just a few ideas for technologies that could be introduced for temples: Banking: Temples provide a gradual trickle of metal. Historical justification: Many temples were used for this purpose. A famous example was the Temple of Artemis at Ephesus. Probably the Celtic and Iberian factions would not have access to this. Omens: Small boost in line of sight for all units. Historical justification: Consulting priests was common before battles. Wrath of the Gods (or of God for Monotheistic faiths): Priests give a small attack aura. Linked
  16. The temple is a generally useless building since it provides only healing. The priests are likewise problematic; their vulnerabilities and slow speed make them hard to coordinate with many effective troop combinations. As a result, this build seems to be ignored in most high level play. While I don't wish for it to be a must build structure, but it should be at least viable in some cases. Age of Empires II made it a useful building by two ways: first, it could generate income with relics; and second, monks could be used to defend against costly units like knights through their conversion a
  17. Awesome implementation. It's a subtle touch, but I'd say that the result speaks for itself.
  18. I like what you've done, but currently the wear is only vertical. Slashes from a sword could come from any direction.
  19. Would you clarify who you mean when you refer to 'you?' All of the comments prior to yours have raised valid points that should be addressed in regards to this topic (In my opinion). If the complaints are well-founded, I see no reason why they should not be voiced as long as it is done in a respectful tone. If you have any counter-arguments to anything stated in this thread, I would be glad to hear you out on your concerns.
  20. Age of Empires had a clear idea of what cavalry in the early game did; it scouted. I personally enjoyed this since it allowed for something to do during the slower stages of the game. In 0 A.D. scouting is less important, which is okay since the pacing is different. Due to this, cavalry primarily help bolster the economy. Since these units are highly capable at food gathering when hunting is easy, it often encourages players to mass cavalry for an eventual early rush. I'd personally say this feels immersion breaking. Cavalry were the usually elite, not soldiers that one could expec
  21. A more likely case in most scenarios is that sappers constructed machines using available lumber around the area they besieged. Naturally if the engines were too complicated for field engineers to make on site, I'd say a workshop would be a more likely case.
  22. The differentiation is valid, but I'd say primarily from a practical military perspective. As I'm sure you're aware, they had massively different roles in the battlefield. Having chariots, which required different housing than the typical horseman's, trained at the same building as horsemen is an abstraction but an abstraction I don't mind. Probably, assuming that chariots would have a viable enough role to justify it, the chariot stables as you mentioned would be the best option for making a decent marriage of sensitivity to historicity and gameplay.
  23. I'd say the matter of chariots being trained at one place compared to another is more a matter of taste. Yes the frame would have been made by a carpenter or the like, but that doesn't account for the horses. It's roughly the same logic as having infantry trained at the blacksmith, where their weapons and armour would be manufactured. I prefer the stable since it gives a more intuitive logic to the game compared to a building that's generally used for making siege.
  • Create New...