Jump to content

av93

Community Members
  • Posts

    975
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

Posts posted by av93

  1. It has been like... 10 years? I clearly remember the first prealphas, and then the first alphas. How the game started to grow, Civs, AIs, MP.

    I was 18 at the time, holy jesus. I did a trip around my country that year, I remember checking 0 a.d progress when I was bored in libraries. The thing is that I got older, I'm trying to spend less time in front on my computer, AoE have been remade (and now I have money to buy it), and I feel that 0 A.D got stuck on the gameplay. Anyway, I think is one of the most amazing open source videogame projects, with a lot of potential and hard work behind. 

    As you noticed, this years I have been less and less active. I put that everything because I spend a lot of time here, and have some emotional value. I probably will look from time to time to the new versions, but overall I'm saying goodbye. 

    Stay safe, enjoy what you like.

    PD: rename that Skiritai Commando to Skiritai runners or ekodromos, "commando" is a modern military notion!

    Just for real now, logging out!

    • Like 3
    • Thanks 2
    • Sad 5
  2. 3 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

     At least in the USA, electrification can improve a lot, just thinking of all of the things that could be electric right now like stoves, heating/AC, trains, cars and trucks. 

    Of course renewable energy and electrification will play an important role in the future society, but we can't just pretend to think to replace all the cars that we have now for electric ones, not only for the minerals required for batteries but all the copper that you would need to bring them electricity. In the other hand, trains and cooking stooves are a very good and efficient way to spend electricity.

    3 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

    I guess people will try to get some of those critical minerals from other planets/moons at some point

    I'm fairle skeptical that this will ever happen. The thing is that in the last century technology have improved in a crazy rate that we just can't think that we have limits.

    1 hour ago, Gurken Khan said:

    When I wrote about free energy promoting waste I was specifically thinking about last century Russia; from what I know (there were at least cases where) one couldn't control the thermostats, so if it got too warm inside one would open the window. Clearly that's not an efficient use of energy.

    Hmm, I can deduce maybe that you're talking about district heating. One of the drawbacks of centralized heating is that you can't adjust the temperature apartment from apartment, but overall is much more efficient than individual apartment heating. Besides that, I agree that electricity shouldn't be free.

  3. There's a central problem: not only our energy sources are depleting but also the minerals that we would need, so going 100% renovables could be impossible. There's no simple enough copper or lithium. Besides that, electricity it's only a 20% of energy use, some parts could be electrified, but the percentatge can't go up much further.

    We go to a decline wether we want it or not. The question is if we distribute and we do the needed structural changes (public transport, producing where we consume, food based on low energy inputs production, less meat, etc.) Of course some countries should growth by justice. 

    The problem is that the real solutions won't be made by politicians and companies because they foucs on short term. It is also related to our human brains that are very good on the short term to avoid predators, but not so good at planning (comparatively, because we have done amazing things)


    But scientifics have been warning that deforestation could lead to new virus sprawls, you know what I mean. 

     

  4. I don't know why I can't enter the webpage and the forums..

    anyway just skimmed to the post and I just want to say two things:

    First, from a political POV, socialism and nazism (fascims) have very different roots and although Mussolini had their origins in socialism, fascisms and nazism have little bridges with the left. 

    Because socialism is not "when the goverment do stuff". It is related to give the means of production to the people and redistribution of wealth. By an state (broadly speaken what we call communist states), by syndicates (classic anarchism and some non-leninist marxisms), or by coops  ("utopian" socialism). Classical liberalism (Adam Smith) defended some government intervenction (and was very vocal against monopolies). 

    Fascism believes in the cooperation between burgouis class and worker class negating the class struggle, that it's a core of the revolutionary socialism, in fact one of the characteristics of fascism and nazism is that they are reactions to revolutionary socialist movements of their countries. As another guy said, the "left" elements of nazism were kicked fast in the early days of nazism, and all the worker rhetoric of nazism and fascism was just propaganda to attract workers to their ranks, not real practice. Also the class relationship within the countries: fascism and nazism rised because they protected industrialist and landowners, while they we're wiped on communist revolutions. 

    I mean, if people want to say that Soviet Union and Nazism we're equal (which I don't think that, while I think that URSS did horrible things) it has to do more in that they were strong states in geopolitical disputes. 

    But, let's be honest, slavery, genocide, senseless wars, corruption and abuse of power have been done by capitalist countries also, from USA slavery, to Leopold II on Congo, or the unnecesary nuclear bombs on Japan. 

    Second, my worries this days are about climate change and the end cheap oil and minerals. A system can't grow without limit in a limited space, and tech can't solve some issues like that and the laws of thermodynamics. Probably we go to a social collapse of the industrial world as we know, and also that leads also to the end of that global era. But I hope that don't lead to fascism and genocidal regimes. Also I would hope that I'm wrong, but there's a lot of data poiting that things are getting worse from a material point of view.
     

    • Like 4
  5. My inspiration would be Dawn of War "Dark Crusade" and "Soulstorm" grand campaigns.

    The empires have different territories and the capital
    If you conquer the capital, you win a special bonus and disables the ability of that enemy to move and attack
    Capital scenarios have special features and objectives, and usually are hard and scrippted.

    Additionally, there' could be neutral territories with some civs that doesn't belong to any empire, but you have to still conquer them.

     

    Nice job!

    • Like 2
  6. 2 hours ago, sanguinariojoe said:

    If you decide to go with a Spanish civil war mod, I might be interested on that. And I am very sorry for the stupid spring:1944 license (not my bad actually).

     

    Well, I could help with some history but without an high deep academic profile, more on the pop side.

    I'm thinking what kind of XX century gameplay could provide 0 a.d engine, and suspect that squad and cover system would be minimums

    • Like 1
  7. There's a lot of discussion regarding the artstyle of AoE4. I read some comments that made me think about 0 a.d: now that LODs are implemented, what about a feature that makes all the actors the same variation, just for easier identification of the unit? (IDK if is it what the Medium level of LOD really does)

  8. Keep in mind that they showed angles that normally the player won't see.

    I agree with others about the arrows, both the movement and the size have to be tuned. Otherwise I'm optimistic about the game and the saga.

    In the other hand, the RTS that I play more, AoE 3 seems to be power creeped with US with a lot more of unique features than others civs, and probably will be pretty OP. Good news that we will have an African xpack, with Ethiopians and Hausa people (the second one I don't have any knowledge about them)

  9. Hmm, I see it as innecesary micro with no gameplay benefits. I try to imagine what interesting mechanics could bring that, but I see no one.

    If all weapons/armor resources are created on the forge, they are just extra clicks that you have to balance

    If there's the introduction of new buildings to create the diferent resources, you are creating a chain that can be destroyed or raided for disrupting the economy of the enemy, but also is not so diferent of having diferent military buildings to train dedicated troops.

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
  10. What it's funny about? It's pretty sad, but this is another topic

     

    Anyways, my point was that an historian holding against Darwinist theory have to be taken with a pinch of salt: I don't understand what this politician have to do with the debate. On the other side, this politician doesn't represent what most people think in Spain.

    I enjoy reading other social scientists with other political views that have a fact based research, but Cesar Vidal probably won't pass a peer to peer review. I repeat, he hasn't an official degree, and he says that he was proffesor on a private Christian University that is not allowed to grant full degrees. 

    There will be ever biased views on social sciences (even in natural ones) but this is trend of "historians" that sees Spanish before Spain was articulated and builds his views on cultural essentialism I think that there're not the best sources to search references. I can be wrong of course

  11. Spoiler
    On 14/07/2018 at 11:07 AM, av93 said:

    My highlights of the text:

    - Little evidence of bows and slings: found arrows are for aristocratic hunting. But probably used by low class infantry.
    - Scuta used only in north-east of Hispania

    ·Warfare model

    - The first were one made of individual heroic aristocratic soldiers, followed by companions and low classes. (Spears and some armour).

    - Later was displaced by a standardization of the equipment suggesting a close line formations, but not in a Roman or Greek degree.

    - The warfare changes when Hispania became a Roman-Carthaginian war field and the use of the natives by both armies: introduction of bronze helmets (Monterfortino), Oval shields by Punic influence (not by gaul), lighter spears, more javelins and  the development of the Iberian cavalry (before he riders dismounted to fight at land). Iberians never used spear cavalry and boecian helmets (although they were depicted like this on coins). They used military standards (flags). The author also say that Iberians used mostly a warfare of heavy infantry, light infantry as support and cavalry, saying that it was more similar to the Roman that the traditional stereotype of hit and run and guerrilla warfare: for example Carthaginians allowed native troops to fight in their native way with their original equipment, and there are accounts of Iberians holding the line as heavy infantry., against heavy Roman infantry. The author says that the Iberian revolts against Romans failed because the leadership and organization, not because lack or inferior equipment or tactics.

    - Finally, the Iberians were absorbed by Romans, and the native equipment disappears, including the falcata. Caetrati  (javelins and round shield) would made by a Roman demand, because their army already have heavy infantry.

    ·Warfare aim

    - Never was the destruction or the enslavement of the population, but sacking and later the subjugation of other cities. Honour was individual, and not for the state. There was the devotio, soldier bounding to other noble, to the death. 

    · Defensive structures:

    Were more deterrents than for defending from formal sieges, and outpost existed. 

     

    About culture and language

    There are some cultural essentialism here. And in to some extension, there's some need it, because this is a game and there's a need of a generalization, for depicting the civilization but also for gameplay. But:

     

     

     

    But trying to establish a vague continuum between the differences in Hispania in the past and the present in a so long time (in part argued because climate) isn't very solid. I said that as a grandson of Andalusian and Galician people, with Catalonian fathers. Team have stated before that Euskera isn't correct. You may be right, as far as I know, that the current Euskera is a standardization with a lot of invention (what language isn't?): but using a Latin idiom like Catalan is worse: maybe it could be tried to replace the modern Euskera words for old ones, or use Celtic in absence of Iberian words or language. An option has to be chosen, and it's clear that both are wrong, but trying a non-latin language seems the best option.

    BTW, I'm a defender of the option of showing only the names of the structures and units in the user language, not in the native one, there's a patch somewhere. But there will be the problem of when the units get audio for orders.

     

    About gameplay

    As other said, the problem with the "barbarian" civs are that we have their depictions by their enemies, and weren't centralised states with a more homogeneous culture, social structure and warfare. But I support your idea that a better depiction could be made, relegating this Iberians for the east Mediterranean coast, and adding some more Hispanic civilization.

    The problem is that the team made an agreement of not add more civilizations (although broke by Kushites), and there're a some interesting civilizations that could be added before, because gameplay (Scythians), cultural diversity or geographical diversity (African and Asian civilizations). If we made a little concession to cultural essentialism, and knowing that every single tribe can't be added, we could make a division of:  Iberians, celtiberians and lusitianians.

    If there are good enough materials and references, my suggestion would be make Lusitanians,  for the "iberian" (better Hispanic) skirmisher civilization. Celtiberians could be campaign only.

     

     

     

     

     

    The original source changed, the text was called "La guerra en la cultura Ibera" by Fernando Quesada Sanz

×
×
  • Create New...