Jump to content

Acumen

WFG Retired
  • Posts

    4.095
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Acumen

  1. Yeah, Michael has it right. The Persian mahouts rode the elephant (while the Carthaginians, coming later in history (if that makes sense), used the tower), and garishly painted their beasts in a similar way. In fact, this image is downright perfect. I've added it to the Persian Profile for future reference.
  2. This is because I have no life beyond this game. I see dancing bananas in my dreams. Celts should just be a matter of looking for Welsh names, particularly the older ones. Yeah, the Middle Eastern ones will be more tricky, but I'm sure we can track things down when the time comes. I think for the most part once we can find sources to thoroughly cover all unit feedback translations, those sources should also turn up a lot of names.
  3. Excellent, those'd come in handy in the future for random unit names.
  4. ZeZar, you'd be amazed how often your questions are already pre-answered by the website FAQ: So to summarise, outrageous bloodletting will be kept to a minimum, in order to avoid outcry from outraged parents. Of course, "blood packs" or someone releasing their own non-affiliated gore mods aren't entirely out of the question, but we need to keep the official release "clean" for the sake of the kiddies.
  5. To the left of the Civ Centre, just above a large white rock? (grey toadstool-capped whatsit)
  6. Hmm, where did you see that, Argalius? I certainly wasn't aware that we'd released a beta. Seriously, there isn't one going on, I guarantee it. Tim used some placeholder text to that effect in the banner for mockups for a website layout he was working on. That's the only thing I can think of. Maybe you looked at the link to it in Tim's sig?
  7. Thanks again, guys. Good try, Jason. I think you're right, but I suspect that was also a quote from the original origin. Actually, I had to do a bit of research for this, but it's apparently credited to Sally Field when she received her Oscar for her role in "Sybil". During her acceptance speech, she said (gushing, no doubt) "Now I know you love me; you really love me!". It's quite famously ripped off as a pop culture exaggeration of self-obsessed praise-mongering. I vaguely recall Jim Carrey quoting something similar in The Mask. *throws himself from his academic ivory tower*
  8. *blushes* Thank you all for your kind sentiments. I don't get anywhere near this level of attention in RL. "You love me! You *really* love me!" - Name that quote.
  9. The plan (and that's all we've got right now) is to use camera tracks similar to the method in AoM. I'm not sure what you mean by making units "look different" in cinematics. If you mean have them fire off custom animations (eg throwing their arms around when they're talking, cheer, etc), then yes, we hope to try and do that.
  10. Right, it all comes down to the degree of uniqueness between the civs. Way back in the mists of time when 0 A.D. started as an AoK mod, then segued over to a full game, the design was still in the mindset of being very much like the mechanics of AoK. Hence, 12 civs was perfectly plausible, because those twelve would be virtually identical (just a few variations in available techs, a couple of unique bonuses, and a Unique Unit to tell them apart). The other end of the spectrum is something like Starcraft, AoM, C&C. 2-3 races that are extremely different (in their resource gathering methods, totally unique sets of units and techs, totally different tactics). We're going for something inbetween those two extremes. Why not make them completely unique? Well, we're constrained by history; the fundamentals of ancient warfare were quite similar from one civilisation to another (compared to the totally alien races of Starcraft). You had your basic building blocks of swordsmen, spearmen, javelinists, archers, support, cavalry, siege, navy, etc, but there was also a lot of variation in culture, fashion, architecture, politics, organisation, available technology, local resources (materials), trade, tactics, available militia, local wildlife, terrain and so on, that influenced the personality of that civilisation. And, as pointed out, balancing is very important to us, and balancing civs with a common base is much easier. Also, there would have been mutiny if we completely cut any civs. And that's why we need to address no more than six civs at the same time. Trying to do all twelve at all at once with that degree of variation would kill us.
  11. I like games that give you a Visibility option in the setup config for that session (so you can choose whether you want SoD and/or FoW), so cheating doesn't have to be the only way to do it.
  12. We opted to divide our efforts into multiple development cycles so that we don't bite off more than we can chew. Plus, balancing twelve civs at once would have been an overwhelming undertaking. The game is released sooner, we gain feedback on what's most desired for future addons, and we can do a much better job on the extra civilisations from the experience we've gained with the first release. So everybody wins. The first edition will cover 6 civilisations who were at their peak in the period 500 BC to 1 AD. The expansion pack will add the remaining civilisations for 1 AD to 500 AD. When the design was streamlined, some proposed civs were also merged because they shared a common base (for example, the Britons and Gauls now branch off from the Celts).
  13. Agreed and understood. In fact, the only thing in the above description that I didn't know about was that the guys actually get a *greater* attack bonus against higher ranked units. That's mightily cool, IMO. It means that during a late game, using your counter-units becomes a much more necessary foil than when you're on a more even playing field in the early game. All I was saying was that you had stated that you intended for each unit to have two bonuses against two other units. I brought this up for cases where that rule wasn't applied, in case there was a discrepancy. If you've got that covered in other areas and were only intending to use that "rule" as a guideline, then never mind. I should stop meddling so you can finally submit this thing. You obviously know what you're doing.
  14. Sorry, I shoulda smilied that. I was trying for irony. You probably already know it and are just looking for solutions, but for the sake of summary, here are the remaining circled ones that don't match that 2-type paradigm that I see in the latest diagram: * Support Units: Only one unit has a bonus against them. There could be another, if you need to allocate more bonuses. (It might seem like a waste of a bonus to be good against things that can't fight, but when you consider Healers, Traders and possibly Standard Bearers when morale gets introduced in an expansion, quickly taking down support units can make a big difference). * Cavalry Javelinist: Currently only countered by Cavalry Archer. * Cavalry Archer: Currently only effective against Cavalry Javelinist. Only countered by Infantry Javelinist. * Infantry Slinger: Has no counter. But, they won't be able to take much of any damage anyway due to their light armour. So, maybe those could be factored against each other in some way to make up the outstanding bonuses?
  15. Okay, enough said. *crawls back to PD* Run with it, Mr Bishop. Given his status, that'd be more of a demotion.
  16. Sounds good to me. By the way, don't feel obliged to grind to a halt over RPS. I was just throwing out ideas. Use whichever works for ya. You da boss.
  17. Thanks, Jason. Really excellent charts. I'll try to say more later, gotta get to work now. Also thanks for charting my off-the-cuff idea; it's a lot closer to traditional Age RPS (falling somewhere between AoK and AoM, I think), although as you can see, it doesn't have anything like the depth and distinctions of your proposal. One thing with the new ones, though: I notice that previously the Onager was bonused against mechanical units (with the Ballista bonused against organic units), while now the Onager seems to have the same function as the Land Ram (bonused against structures). Was that intentional? I kind of preferred the uniqueness to each siege weapon. As always, remember my suggestions are only that, the choice is yours. And I'm not trying to dilute the strategy of it, just trying to find intuitive logic to bridge the gap between traditional AoK/AoM category RPS and your proposed single-unit-bonus RPS (a way to categorise the bonuses to make them easier to learn).
  18. Thanks, Jason. I had a crack at trying to do one this morning, but I think I'll leave it to the professionals. As Ken pointed out, it does indeed have some fatal flaws (Cavalry Javelinists are also bonused against themselves). It was more intended as demonstration of a principle that anything that could be deemed watertight. Anyway, the main point is that I'd like it if there was some primary logic to the associations (a categorisation, such as that above), so it's easier to remember and extrapolate the counters. Otherwise I'm very happy with the concept. A couple of other ideas for alternatives are weapon-to-weapon counters (bow beats sword, etc), and pure class group to class group counters (melee infantry beats ranged infantry, etc), but I haven't had a chance to experiment with those yet. It'd be a lot easier figuring this out if I knew the historical use of these lines, though. I mean, if you were historically faced with a horde of Cavalry Spearman, what line would be your best defense? What are our options for counters?
  19. Very intriguing, and a most interesting and well-written seminar. I like it (especially the stat distinctions; very helpful). However, what bothers me is the complexity of your table. "Complexity? Hah! That's *depth*, that is!" I hear you cry. "That's strategy!" True, but surely it would take a long time to pick up the mechanics of that? Infantry-Cavalry-Archer has the advantage that it's simple and flexible. Once you learn the mantra, it doesn't take long to get used to using it. I can see quite a learning curve on this, because you're having to memorise the interrelations for each unit without any underlying logic (that I know of) to tie it together. I can see players pausing in the middle of play to pull out that table and think frantically "now what can I use to counter Infantry Archers"? Also, are Super Units and Heroes going to be factored in here, or are they simply going to be assumed to be great against everything, and balanced purely by their limits in numbers? ... I just had a crazy idea. Please pull it apart, as I'm sure it's flawed or it would have been used by now, but here goes. How about basing your RPS exclusively on the unit's weapon, and have units with that weapon have a bonus against a category of classes? For example: Sword - Ranged Infantry Spear - Melee Cavalry Javelin - Ranged Cavalry Bow - Melee Infantry Sling - Structures You'll probably need to adjust that to history's needs, but I think it mostly makes sense (cavalry that can only attack at close-range get massacred by spears, infantry that can't defend at close-range get massacred by swords, etc). Now just ponder that for a little while, and let the logic in those 5 lines settle in your mind. Everything that derives from that hinges on this 5-point system. Ready? Okay, let's move on. So in effect (just focusing on the CSes; assume that the rest are identical to above): Sword - Infantry Javelinist, Infantry Archer, Infantry Slinger Spear - Cavalry Swordsman, Cavalry Spearman Javelin - Cavalry Javelinist, Cavalry Archer Bow - Infantry Swordsman, Infantry Spearman Sling - Structures And to further extrapolate (from the attacker's perspective): Infantry Swordsman & Cavalry Swordsman: bonused against Infantry Javelinist, Infantry Archer & Infantry Slinger. Infantry Spearman & Cavalry Spearman: bonused against Cavalry Swordsman & Cavalry Spearman. Infantry Javelinist & Cavalry Javelinist: bonused against Cavalry Javelinist & Cavalry Archer. Infantry Archer & Cavalry Archer: bonused against Infantry Swordsman, Infantry Spearman. Infantry Slinger: bonused against Structures. And from the attackee's perspective, as far as I can tell there is no overlap. Every CS has two counter-units, other than the Slinger. + Underlying logic (5 weapon vs category sets) makes it easier to remember. + Vaguely historical. (?) + "Backup plan" if your civ doesn't have some units. Each unit has two counter-units. - No unique counters. - Slightly dilutes the distinction between units (Infantry Swordsman and Cavalry Swordsman are used much the same way because they have the same bonus). + Although their counter-units, personal stats, infantry and cavalry's innate special abilities, and the player's civ choice and tech choices will make a big difference. - Still not as simple as Infantry-Cavalry-Archer. - Swordsmen get three bonuses, could be unbalancing. - Slinger is still a "mini-onager" as I couldn't make it fit otherwise.
  20. Europe originally (and currently), but 72% of my lifespan was spent in Africa.
  21. Hmm, I get the impression that you feel we don't pay enough attention to your questions. Well, I think you've established the major reason for it. Unfortunately, we're at too early a stage to really have answers to most of these questions. We have some rudimentary plans for modding, but most of the details will have to be worked out at a later stage, and it's all subject to change. Here goes, though: Yep, that's the idea. Each mod will have its own folder. Mods can be archived into a modpack (all modded files compressed into a single file), which can then be distributed and just dropped into its folder to be picked up by the game. Then at startup, you can specify which mods are enabled, and it'll refer to the files in the modpack in preference to the official ones. So no official files are modified, and most gameplay data can consequently be modded. Yep, including creating new civilisations. You'll probably also be able to just drop modified "loose" files into the folder (using the correct directory tree), so you can develop quickly without having to recreate modpacks, although there are obvious security issues (we'll need to do a checksum validation, at least). And of course, two players won't be able to play the game together unless they have exactly the same mods and patches installed. Probably not an SDK in the traditional sense, but we'll give similar power through modding to change the game that our asset creators have. A lot of game modification stuff will be built into the editors. Some will require a fair a bit of technical acumen (eg editing scripts or XML tables). The general goal is to give modders as much control over "safe" stuff (ie gameplay adjustments that can't be exploited by maphackers to ruin online play for others) as we do. It might not always be easy to do, but we'll endeavour to document it all, even if we can't guarantee a fancy WYSIWYG editor to do every little adjustment. We definitely intend to support them, and they're what will give 0 A.D. a long life. Although we have to do a lot of work on creating the game itself before we have much information about exactly how the game will be modded. Possibly. That's not something that I can answer. Most editors will be integrated into the game, so we'd pretty much have to distribute the game in order to distribute the tools. And the game would be in a pretty rough state in early beta, which probably wouldn't correspond with our quality requirements for released material. Pretty easy. Say you wanted to run some filters on one of the sounds in the game. With any luck, you'd probably extract the audio file from the official game SFX packs, edit the file however you wanted, then create a new mod folder, create a directory tree that matches the location where the file would be if unpacked, and put the file there. If you were going to distribute the mod, you could then create a mod pack from that tree using our utility. When you start up, the game finds the mod, and you can choose to enable it. If enabled, it'll use that filtered audio file in preference. Adding new ones would work on a similar principle. Of course, you'd need to specify places where the file was actually used (eg edit the attributes associated with an actor), and probably update an XML index of sound files to create a handle to it. Wouldn't be much point in modding if they didn't. Gleefully. If we're putting those kinds of tools into the game, obviously we want people to use them. And TCs definitely make the most use of modding capabilities. But hopefully the standard game will provide hours and hours of enjoyment before modding even becomes a necessity. However, though I appreciate your enthusiasm, I would strongly recommend sticking to preliminary design and planning of your mod (if it's necessary to work on it all at such an early stage). You'll probably save yourself a lot of time in the long run if you wait and see what becomes available rather than building assets that might not be compatible with the end game (or might already be in the end game). Since we won't ourselves know how a lot of modding aspects will work until we can implement them, and we certainly won't have those tools available for a long time, we can't give many clear answers right now either. Plans will change, formats will adjust.
  22. I concur with Michael. The AoM campaign is by no means the best of its kind (I'm replaying it at the moment, and was appalled by frequently corny script and occasionally dire voice acting), but the technical capability to deliver the plot through in-game cinematics, the use of dynamic cameras, special particle effects, and a character-focused storyline made it more interesting. In my view, it is focusing on strong central characters that creates an emotional attachment to a scenario. I simply couldn't get into the Age of Empires campaigns because the fixed camera gave inadequate opportunities for character development and cinematic techniques. Slightly OT, but I personally prefer to have access to several unrelated campaigns in preference to one long linear one. It has its disadvantages (particularly that they all have to start at basic difficulty and build up), but: a] I feel a greater sense of accomplishment when I have shorter milestones ("I've completed the Terran campaign" rather than "I've completed 12 scenarios of the singleplayer campaign; 18 still to go"); b] I can work on several campaigns at once, and have the freedom to switch if one stumps me. ie I can't get past the 5th mission with civ x campaign, so I'll have a crack at civ y's.
  23. Agreed, we seem to have moved beyond milking to other purposes for domestic animals, so that'd be cool if we could domesticate the sheep too. I've moved him over to domestic animals (I gave him a Yield -- quite arbitrarily -- of 8; feel free to adjust as appropriate). Also defined those camel and elephant traits (created a Special: attribute, and moved some other stuff from other animals into that attribute, since I'd lumped them pretty arbitrarily with Nature beforehand). Also created a Fattening attribute specifically for the Pig to distinguish from its Yield. Fixed all the stuff in the index too.
  24. Okay, thanks, Ken. I've proofread the text and put up the new version here. In addition to the off-the-cuff points I posted last night above (post #11), here's a few more: * Note to self: Need to modify a part of the website FAQ where we say that the only flying units are cosmetic birds (Albatross, Flamingo, Goose, Hawk, Parrot, Seagull, Vulture), due to the Dragon (though obviously that unit has to stay under wraps). Jason, this also means that you need to be able to account for selectable flying units in your entities, something we'd previously discarded as unnecessary. * And Jason, obviously the entity attributes for these animals need to be taken into account in the entities (eg IsBreedable/IsHerdable boolean, CorralYieldRate attribute, etc). * The Whale and Wildebeest are down as Fearful/Passive animals; however, they're defensive. Maybe they just don't put up much of a fight, but if they do, shouldn't they be considered Dangerous Consumable Animals? * You might need to explain it further, but for the Pig, I *think* you mean that it starts with 150 Food, and uniquely fattens over time (at a rate of 50 extra Food every 15 minutes). If so, what should its Yield per minute be when it's in a Corral? Does the Yield differ depending on how fat the Pig is, or is it a constant? (Have left the text as-is until that's resolved.) In other news, I seem to have picked up a dose of 'flu, and all my body wants to do right now after work is crash out. So it looks like my checkup to ensure all the right parts have been moved between forums is going to have to wait. I had a quick look and I think it's okay, though. The pinned index should be able to account for everything.
  25. Great job, Ken. Extremely diverse and representative assortment. Assuming that Art Dept don't mind modelling, texturing and animating all these fellows, we're going to have ourselves quite a menagerie. I've been preoccupied with merging the DD versions tonight (hopefully I'll have it finished before I go to bed), so I've sent this to work and will read it over in detail in tomorrow's lunchbreak. All I've done tonight is set up the href links for all Fauna Object sections. Just a couple of quick thoughts off the cuff ... a] I'm surprised that sheep aren't considered domestic animals. Was that uncommon in the period, or is there some other reasons, such as that they aren't milked? Since sheep were quite a common domestic in the Age games, people might try to domesticate these guys a lot out of habit. b] Is it okay if I add some of the special traits we've created for camels and elephants (stench aura, trample damage, etc) to their wild equivalents here?
×
×
  • Create New...