Lion.Kanzen

Redpillled anonbro

My post always has a reason, and an introduction that tells that reason. I have seen many complain about the rush. Why don't we create a meta where can some strategies be predefined? AoE have their own rushes. I tried to implement as suggestions, a bit the slinger rush. I'm also in favor of an Archer rush and a scout rush (if we can agree on that unit / class it should be in the game). How should we implement a rush? Our game is asymmetric, not all civs should access the same rushes in a certain way. Factions / Civs should not access the Archer rush or Cavalry rush. At least in the early game. Nations with archery potential, from the days that they have the technologies, to do as archery tradition, should it. On the other hand, A generic rush for most would be with scouts (Cavalry) Others with sword infantry rush. We should allocate technologies to focus on the 3 basic strategies. -Rushing -Booming -Turtling Every player will think ... hummm I chose this faction to performance a rush of archers. In phase one there should be technologies to unlock defenses and for the civic center to defend itself (without garrison units), , in compensation they should have a price and time enough to choose between economical and rush technologies. Each phase should have its own kind of rush, this encourages further development of the faction. Our tech tree in the game is not developed and does not compare to that of AOE, even Delenda is surpasses us. (Without discrediting Wowgetoff's work ...)

how many weeks since this post was opened and not a single tangible solution? Mistakes were made? Yes. The errors of 24 have been improved, that's where we are. I honestly like the mechanics of A24 more than how horrible A23 was. Is it going to be unbalanced? Obviously, it is a game in development. People can stay on A23 if they want to, but many of the complainers don't propose anything, don't patch, don't test SVN, don't appear in The phabricator. How is it possible that we take them into account if they do not make a minimum effort?

https://wildfiregames.com/forum/search/?q=spam&quick=1 And, a ton of players complain about spam in game and in lobby How much does that represent in statistics, of the total percentage of players? Is it a representative sample?

.... It does not matter if we add or not. We will finish doing it anyway.

a question, did you feel that any adornment or decoration was needed or missing? something like an eyecandy stuff for your map.

Where?

no matter what some say, people always ask for more. There are people who think without knowing what the silent majority thinks. There are many fans who want to see a faction from their homeland in the game.

I must add to the Chinese cataphracts ...

nothing generic?

someone made a tv show series .. Anyone know about the symbol, on the banner?

Yes.

Iron Helmets With zinging arrows, powerful crossbow bolts, stabbing swords, and swinging axes all a staple feature of the Chinese battlefield, it is not surprising that soldiers sought to protect themselves as best they could with armour and shields. Leather tunics with metal additions, bronze or iron helmets, and shields of lacquered leather helped to deflect at least some of the missiles and slashing blades that came a soldier's way. Horses were similarly protected, and heavy cavalry with the horse and rider covered entirely in armour became a feature of later Chinese armies. Helmets A soldier's head was protected by a helmet made first of rattan or leather and then, later, of bronze. They were typically of a spherical type covering the top of the ears, protected the back of the neck, and were topped by a simple and low crest. Some metal helmets have stylised projections and engravings similar to those used on shields. Bronze helmets were lined with a softer material to cushion blows and for comfort; they weigh on average 2-3 kilos. Helmets were only capable of deflecting light missiles and glancing blows from a sword, and enough skeletal remains evidencing wounds from arrowheads and swords suggests that armour, in general, was not particularly effective in earlier periods of Chinese warfare. With the wider use of the crossbow and their increasing firepower, especially from the Han dynasty (206 BCE-220 CE) onwards, iron was increasingly used in body armour. Again, small plates were stitched or riveted together to form a semi-flexible tunic which also protected the outer upper arms. Iron was at the same time used to strengthen shields and to make helmets. Helmets of this period take on a hood-like shape with a hanging part to protect the neck but they still offered no protection for the face, even if there are references to iron face-masks in Han military treatises.

Bronze Lamellar Helmets. <Reserved> as we saw earlier, the Han dynasty, It conserved varied equipment from even 1000 years before... And that even the bronze helmets from the time of the Shang dynasty, They were still valid to use in the Han dynasty. Zhou whole piece bronze helmets (1046 - 771 BCE) Why Bronze and not Iron? Because China had low metallurgy skill and were technologically behind in comparison to the rest of the World. it take less time and effort to stamp out sheets of bent steel and joining it with studded or threads rather than forging one solid piece from bronze. "Iron" is also much more common and lighter than bronze. Lamelar is often more "breathable" and flexible than a solid construction used on Xia helmets. There were quite a few surviving examples of helmets and armors prior to the Eastern Han. However, after the Eastern Han and in particular during the Tang and Song, armors were not allowed to be buried with individuals and were strictly controlled by the state. And as the state fell, the armors were either destroyed by its enemies or remade into other objects. That's probably why most armors after the Eastern Han did not survive to this day, unfortunately. <Reserved> iron is more common and cheaper than bronze. It looks like the switch to the lamelar construction may have been cost. The Chinese made their iron first as cast iron, then converted it wrought iron if needed. (Cast iron is too brittle for weapons, and possibly weapons as well). The iron pieces may represent the typical unit size of the blocks of cast iron converted to wrought iron. To make a larger piece, like a single iron helment, you would have weld together smaller blocks of iron, which was more work than to switch together smaller blocks as they did. The cast iron helmet would be too brittle for combat, heavy too. We have actual surviving samples of Han period armors, and they are all forged steel. We also have Zhuge Liang's treatise on steel , forging all armors ten times as the standard practice. Han period steel armor making was a very labor intensive process. Keep in mind, the Chinese produced their iron first as cast iron, then converted it to wrought iron later if they needed to. For many applications, they could use cast iron directly. Base on what others have posted, it seems the Chinese add carbon back in to their wrought iron to produce steel, but it is possible they converted some of their cast iron to steel directly. You have to remove carbon from cast iron to produced steel, and remove even more carbon to make wrought iron. It is well known that cast iron is not suitable for making weapons, and a lot of tools, although some tools, like a rake, shovel, you can make out of cast iron, and the Chinese did. The same source also mentioned that there are low carbon steel scales with carbon content of .1-.12%, and medium carbon steel scales with two types of grains wielded together. The smaller grains have .2% carbon while the larger ones have .5% carbon. -Traditional Chinese Craftsmanship, Armor Recovery, p 216 - 217 Also, this was before the monopolization of iron and widespread expansion of blast furnaces owned by the state under Wudi. There should be a greater scale of production of steel later. Zhuge Liang's Instruction on making steel armor state that it was standard procedure to forge all steel armor five times. Also, the Roman armors are not carbon steel, they are mostly hardened wrought iron, there is a difference. Much of the carbon, manganese, sulfur, phosphorus, and silicon content in the wrought iron are in slag fibers within the wrought iron. This meant that its harder to heat treat than carbon steel.

We're going to focus on the archaeological references for standard and hero helmets. And I see that the Chinese influence is present in other cultures. Defining what is a hero helmet in 0 A.D? It would be defined as a helmet that craftsmanship goes beyond the standard design for a simple soldier. by the way, this art is of excellent detail, even the skin reflects the intensity that a soldier should be in the Han dynasty.his face is burned either by the sun or by the intense northern weather. https://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?796470-Han-Dynasty-Era-Armor I will leave a link with a backup copy on the web. In case anyone wants to read more. http://dragonsarmory.blogspot.com/2016/08/han-armor.html?m=1 Mirror TWC thread. https://archive.is/Hbjxn a movie that has an acceptable visual reference is "Red Cliff" Until middle of Han period, there seemed to be a general lack of helmets for the massed infantry. Despite the fact that most of the Chinese are familiar with the legacy of bronze plate helmets from as early as the Shang Dynasty (1600BC-1040BC) One explanation was that due to the fact that the Han engaged in an endless struggle mainly with steppe nomads who wore little to no armor, as such most of the combat would be of skirmishing nature~ thus most of the incoming harm would come from arrows rather than blows of halberds and spears as it was in the ages before. Mid- Late Han Commanders. As chariots became obsolete by the 1st Century BC, the armor of the officers became more flexible and also more voluminous, as they are more and more expected to wade in and fight in cavalry melees. Elaborate scale aventails began to appear to protect the general's neck and chins, pauldrons became longer in conjuncture with mailed sleeves, plate helmets began to appear as well (though the Chinese always had plate helmet as early as the Shang dynasty.)

The design you sent looks pretty good, I'll look at it carefully tomorrow. I need to research the helmets, even by dynasties, I don't know much about Chinese culture or the evolution of metallurgy in their military equipment.

I will try tomorrow. I'm more worried about not having found a suitable helmet. We need make a new one.

luego voy a intentar eso, voy descansar.

interesting... i will take this as reference

was trying mixing both techniques, we could definitely have better results in complicated cases. estaba probando mezclar ambas técnicas, definitivamente podríamos tener mejores resultados en casos complicados.

What the f....? hello? he is using cheats. What the f....? (but with more cursed words) ---silence------ 0:46--- You have to be a F... loser. in the qualifiers!

I use it as a color and shade reference, ideally combining both styles.

I made a sketch of what the composition should look like with the helmet.

someone should work on this.