Jump to content


Community Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by av93

  1. That reminds me that the slaughter animation should be done with the cavalry dismounted. @Alexandermb ? I suppose that the logic behind the current sexual division of labour is because the citizien soldier concept. Then, like mostly males where the soldiers in ancient culture, you have to represent somewhere women. So let's create a women unit. I don't really know, maybe an older member team can explain. I would say that historically, both genders have worked in every field, specially slaves. Except hunting, specially big animals, that have had a special status, and it have been done mostly by men. But sexual division of labour is a cultural thing If we keep Citizien soldier concept, my opinion it's that cavalry should be only able to hunt wild animal, and not to gather domestic ones.
  2. Another argument against would be that it devalues the importance and uniqueness of the CC But I haven't strong opinion against or in favor, nor I been playing multiplayer since long time. In gameplay terms, that would make conquering much more difficult in third phase, and that should be balanced.
  3. How I forget it. Surely my bias waiting for a big gameplay change. I just hope to see more differences between gauls and britons, and better art for them.
  4. You mean a patch that will fall in (changes) or that there's some patch rotting somewhere? Didnt understand BTW, was thinking specially about the art changes, if they will replace the current celt units
  5. I also did this topic, if it helps. Because now we will have hard counters, filling the tech tree could help balance, while I think that every civ shouldn't have every unit avaliable. Like AoE 2, civ unique bonus and unique techs, and avaliability certain research, could make differenced between the ssme kind of units, making emphasis on some of them, while allowing a variety of strategies It's very far from the quality of @Genava55 or @Sundiata research, but here it's
  6. While changes unit roster messes with gameplay (and this is a sensitive topic, altough we all could agree that the two handed sword champ should be changed), what we know about the unit models and textures? The teams aproves them and they will be implemented for the next alpha?@stanislas69 @Alexandermb Offtopic 1, but related to art, what about remaining placeholders for seleucids and ptolemies (arab javeliner, camel archer variations, judean slinger IRC)? Offtopic 2, but related to historicity, IMHO, Skiritai commando should be renamed to Skiritai runner (commando refers to a modern unit) (It's the way to avoid multiple short topics)
  7. Finally I got internet to download the mod, but sadly my wifi range doesnt reach my pc... I will test the game against the AI... I found my counter proposal, if it's there some idea that could help
  8. Hope that this will go official, including the han civ. (Always have been argued that having this civ away from main 0 ad version, was to show modding possibilites, but now there're some others civs mods... among others reasons) Moar questions.. what will be the role differences between javs and slings?
  9. Will try to comeback to 0 ad and play some multiplayer match next week when I will have internet again. Because this topic have been talked a lot, won't write suggestions, but @borg- have you considered to change hack/pierce/crush to melee/ranged/siege attack? Maybe it's easier to design and balance this way
  10. I would like to know when we will know something, specially what approach of gameplay will follow this fork
  11. I just hope that both teams would have a pacific even a good relantionship. What happens if one of the two teams make an advancement that can benefit both? Just hope that splitting doesn't mean stopping sharing
  12. Humble question, is there a real basis to make falcout as scout units?
  13. Well, IMHO I don't care about cosmetic skins being part of a cash grabbing system. The problem is with F2P games that you can buy an advantage over others players. Developing an RTS it's very difficult, because pathfinding, AI and others... so if this skins makes the game being more polished and bug free, it will be nice. Remember also that is an Indie project: that doesn't justify nothing, but they doesn't have an huge budget.
  14. Then, that means that they're not solved. The re-release will be delayed because this?
  15. Mac issues aren't solved, or the thing that needs to be done is the GPDR thing?
  16. I hope that openage (an opensource genie engine clone) will eventually make a better DE, with gates, triggers, formations, a better pathfinding, while porting the new graphics and animations.
  17. And a Stannable one? Aoe3 explorers autoregen it's life alone, you only need a unit around when the explorer it's in it's 25% aprox of his life
  18. Devs have stopped to dev because the legal changes? I don't understand it. If some of you are working in this changes, that doesn't mean that other devs could still work in programming, don't they?
  19. No se puede. No esta implementado, y quizás habrá cambios al respecto.
  20. 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.
  • Create New...