Jump to content


Community Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by gudo

  1. Well, the Mauryans weren't Hindu. They were Buddhists. It's kind of a defining feature They're colored a bit more subtly than Hindu temples.
  2. This is the best one so far. Easily. I didn't realize that the model was hollow If you want, you can put a little altar or buddha statue in the center of the semi-circular part. Temple 18 was an "apsidal", so that's where the altar would've been. This page has some images of the altars in similar temples.The outside is the important part though. If these altars murder the poly count, don't bother. It's good enough to use in game as is IMO ;P
  3. A @#$%in Plus! That's commit worthy right there All it needs is player color. I was looking at some of the pictures of temple 18, and I noticed a small stone wall at what would be the semi circle area. See here. Maybe add that in, but that last image looks great to me.
  4. Looking better. Is the back of the roof spherical? All you need now is someplace for player color to go. If you could break up the solid grey that is the side of the structure, that would be nice too. Overall, looks very good.
  5. Look at Enrique's Fortress. He did the railing w/textures. Overall, looks outstanding. I'd say change the railing over, then it's ready for a commit. (Also, put those arches on your temple )
  6. Yeah... Decorate the arch like the barrel arches on your Gate. Also, according to the sources I linked, the superstructure of Temple 18 and 40 were both wood. The foundation should be small stones like you have it, and the pillars should be single large stones like you have it, but much of the non-structural bits should be wood.
  7. This very large image of what remains at the site has some period pillars in the middle. They're square, not round. Assuming Mytho's picture is an acurite map, I beleive that those pillars belong to the structure you modled, due to the shape of the foundation and the proximity to the Great Stupa. Most images I've seen of the site have square pillars. Here's another of the same pillars. Here is the remains of one of the smaller structures in Mythos' picture. Note the shadow of pillars across the foreground. There is some ornamental carving, but the top and bottoms of the pillars are still square. [EDIT]The images I've been linking to are images of ASI Monument Number N-MP-220, Temple 18. Here is yet another shot of those pillars. They don't have the double pillars on the front of the structure, but neither does the structure in Mytho's image. Hmm.... According to this link says that Temple 18 was built on the foundations of an earlier Mauryan temple. But this one says that Temple 18 dates to the second century BCE. So it's the right place, it just might not be the right pillars. >_> I still believe the pillars should be square though.[/EDIT] [Moar EDIT]We need Temple 40. It dates to the Maurayan period. SourceMore on Temple 40 including foundation dimensions. Images of what's left of Temple 40.
  8. Yeah, it's available IIRC. Post in the Defense Tower thread. It also has some reference images.
  9. Where's that code? I searched around a bit, couldn't find anything.
  10. Well, the big question would then be what to do for the Maur Temple structure? I think so long as the Great Stupa is big enough, it should be cool enough. The Maur already have the best looking buildings IMO
  11. I don't think anybody's working on making the Mauryan ships. And, there's also their worker elephant which will need special props. Not strictly Mauryan, but there's a need for Wonders for 10(?) of the civs. See the associated thread. Also, there was some talk of creating an African mini-faction. Wikipedia has a great list of images of the Great Stupa at Sanchi if you want to try your hand at the Mauryan Wonder. There's also Dhamek Stupa which used to stand 300 feet (91m)
  12. I think some sort of turret system should be written up as a feature request on Trac. Let's hammer out the details, then write up the ticket.
  13. @Gen: I know the idea behind the turrets I was just hoping I could do a quick hack by mounting a unit onto another unit. Tried a few things, and it didn't work. Anyways, regarding turrets: I did some digging through the code, and found this in UnitAI.js (lines 893 - 917. Note the last line. "ATTACKING": { "enter": function() { var cmpAttack = Engine.QueryInterface(this.entity, IID_Attack); this.attackTimers = cmpAttack.GetTimers(this.attackType); // If the repeat time since the last attack hasn't elapsed, // delay this attack to avoid attacking too fast. var prepare = this.attackTimers.prepare; if (this.lastAttacked) { var cmpTimer = Engine.QueryInterface(SYSTEM_ENTITY, IID_Timer); var repeatLeft = this.lastAttacked + this.attackTimers.repeat - cmpTimer.GetTime(); prepare = Math.max(prepare, repeatLeft); } this.SelectAnimation("melee", false, 1.0, "attack"); this.SetAnimationSync(prepare, this.attackTimers.repeat); this.StartTimer(prepare, this.attackTimers.repeat); // TODO: we should probably only bother syncing projectile attacks, not melee // If using a non-default prepare time, re-sync the animation when the timer runs. this.resyncAnimation = (prepare != this.attackTimers.prepare) ? true : false; this.FaceTowardsTarget(this.order.data.target); }, I bet we can change that to something like: if unit has turret turret.FaceTowardsTarget else this.FaceTowardsTarget As I said though, I'm just a tinkerer. I don't think I can do it, but this is probably where the magic should happen.
  14. I'm no coder, just a tinkerer. I'm probably confused Super dirty hack I tried: Change the turret prop to: <prop actor="units/athenians/infantry_archer_e.xml" attachpoint="root"/> Got this: It's the Athens archer actor, fully textured, propped, and animated. When the tank moves, the archer plays it's move animation. When the tank attacks, the archer plays it's attack animation. The projectile even comes out of the right place. I'm short on time, I'll speculate later.
  15. You can't send commands to props afaik.
  16. I think it would be better to link to the relevant Wikipedia articles than try to make new ones. Wikipedia has a much larger and knowledgeable user base after all.
  17. Agree. And a message should show for the players involved. Something like "Player 2 sent you 300 food" and "You sent Player 1 300 food"
  18. Check the credits. You're in the 'Art - 2D' section.
  19. I think there's a bit of a mix up here. I was talking about my proposed system whereby the market own gets all of the trade resources. I am aware of how the current system works, in fact, I mistook it for a bug and filed a report. >_> Regarding the "1.5 times is pretty big already" bit, I still maintain that a large bonus won't be a problem if we balance with foreign trade in mind. There's no "foreign trade bonus" but rather a "domestic trade penalty." You're absolutely correct here. Plus, there's a considerably larger initial investment involved in building your own civ center + market when compared to using your ally's market. I'll agree that with the start up costs in resources and especially time, a bonus smaller than 2x will still be quite the incentive.
  20. The foreign trade bonus must be greater than double for the foreign trading to be better than domestic trading from a pure resources/time view. If you can get a trader to your allies base, then you can get a citizen solider there and build your own market. If foreign trading is worth double or less than domestic trading, then trade with your own market at that point will be better than trade with your ally (the special case for when foreign trade is worth double domestic trade means you'll get the same resources/time, but in half sized increments twice as fast.) Though, this ignores the net benefit for the team, which is probably what you're thinking about. When you trade with yourself for 1 unit of resources, a round trip for the trader nets your team 2 resources (2 for you.) When you trade with an ally for 1 resource, your team nets 4 resources (2 for you, 2 for your ally.) I believe your worry is that trading in this fashion, while it balances it for any single player, makes trading unbalanced for the team as a whole. What we need to do is change the way we're looking at (and talking about) the issue. We're saying "foreign trade is worth double" when what we should say is "domestic trade is worth half." Instead of balancing domestic trade then doubling it (the current mindset) we should balance foreign trade, then halve it. The current mindset will give us good domestic trade and either overpowered or under-powered foreign trade. The "balance foreign trade first" mindset will give us good foreign trade, and poor domestic trade. This is clearly the better option in my opinion.
  21. Yeah, the foreign trade bonus is going to have to be raised, regardless of what happens with respect to your patch. Trade is just poorly balanced as it currently stands. I propose that the foreign trade bonus be raised to 110% so that, even while you'll be getting resources half as often, it's still worth more to do foreign trade. One last thing that needs to be done still I think is that the tech system needs to be updated to include trading techs. This way, late game trading will be strictly speaking, better than gathering to free up extra population for fighting.
  22. Why not replace the "Map Description" box with the "Game Options" box? The rules take screen real estate priority IMO. We can hide the map descriptions behind a tab. That should keep the screen from being too cluttered, and the description will still be available for those who want it.
  • Create New...