serveurix
-
Posts
235 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Posts posted by serveurix
-
-
Note that most of the games listed here have only their code opensource, not the data. 0 A.D. has both.
-
It's funny because I've seriously thought about a 0ad mod with skeleton armies few month ago. Skeleton legionaries fighting skeleton hoplites with skeleton horses and skeleton elephants. I thought it could be cool.
This might interest you Omri : This idea came to me while I was listening to R.e.I. by Axis Mundi Actum. It's dark and epic, it would suit perfectly.
-
In aoe 3 I was amazed by how the cannons blew the ships apart. Most of the time it was just triangles jumping out, so it was not very realistic, but it still brought something significant to the action.
-
1
-
-
Proud donator
I hope you'll succeed !
-
Has anyone any new reference of other works based on Antiquity featuring alert bells ?
There's a 2011 film called "Immortals", based on greek mythology, in which when a small village is attacked, a watchman rings a big bell to warn the population. The bell is a big metal (bronze ?) cylinder with an opening so the cross-section has the shape of a "C", the opening turned downwards. The cylinder is about 1.5 to 2 meters long, 40 to 60 centimeters large in diameter, and 2 to 3 centimeter thick. It's attached to the roof by one or more ropes or chains attached to the middle of the sheet. There's no clapper, the watchman just hits it vigorously with a mallet.
"Immortals" is not supposed to be historically accurate, but I guess they didn't have the idea from nowhere, so it might be relevant considering it.
-
1
-
-
Wat. O.oSorry if it look a bit crappy, I'm no good!
Man, you're darn good. I wish I could do the tenth of what you did.
-
Walkcycle WIP:
Very realistic. Maybe it's not necessary to have the toes of the hind legs going up.
-
1
-
-
IMHO female can be garrison first, like a evacuation then all infantry stop to work and search the defense towers, turrets and outposts.
You mean waiting for the females to be all garrisoned before garrisoning the soldiers ? No ! It would mean that the time the garrisoning order is given to the soldiers is dependent on the time the last female citizen reaches it's building.
If you mean that the garrison order for soldiers should follow the one for females, see my comment about the two switches. It's (probably) technically more simple and it gives more flexibility to the player. He who can do more, can do less, right ?
- we agree about that protect the vulnerable units.
-The enemy in the first rush, the AI attack near CC that why I build towers near resources and CC, build houses and outpost to protect CC. And if they are in other edge of my city is simple I find the units in towers and set my rally point in the tower. Or tower where the enemy is near.
I'm not sure about what you mean there, and what would be the link with garrisoning priorities.
That is a Example of what happens.
see the Map, is Corinthian Isthmus, see enemy, they attack from my "rear", didn't expect that at all.
Ok, it's clearer with a picture.
So you would like your soldiers working on this rock mine to prioritize outposts and cc for garrison instead of going in the barracks. Well, I'm afraid your proposal won't help to avoid this kind of situation.
in this situation the enemy is *already* in your city. So no matter what your implementation of garrisoning is, you will always end up with such situations : with the way to the closer building being obstructed by enemies and some longer ways to further buildings that are free from enemies.
The alarm functionality won't help you much if you use it once your enemies are already in your city. There's always a chance some units find enemies on their way to the building they want to garrison in, no matter if it's just the closest or the closest of a specific category. The alarm is meant to be sounded when you see your enemies coming, not when you're attacked. That's why cities had watchmen.
I suggest you use your outposts to increase your line of sight, so you can see enemies coming earlier. A few seconds more to prepare yourself for an attack are really worth it.
You should also develop your economy faster. Here are some tips :
- In the first phase, don't spoil your workforce on metal and stone. Almost all your workers should rush for food and wood.
- Build dropsites. They will make you gather faster and allow you to develop economical technologies.
- Build the dropsites right next to the resources. The time of the travel resource-dropsite has a big impact on your economy. For forests, try to find most profitable location, and build new dropsites regularly.
- Develop techs that will make you gather faster in priority.
But on the case you're showing to me, I suppose that garrisoning your stone miners in your cc manually is the best you can do.
-
you use the farms with citizen soldiers?
At the beginning, yes, while I have not walls I put my ranged infantry + a few females on farms, where they will not move away. When my enemy comes, I select them, make them drop their resources in the city centre and garrison them in it. The other workers are usually scattered away, so I have no time to garrison them in the cc before the enemy reaches it. That's why I prefer having melee infantry working on trees and far mines.
you must think when the AI Attack, the Ai don't sit to wait for that, even me planned how protect females, but I use females for gathered wood and food and sometimes gold and stone, why? I need citizen soldiers building defenses.
I see your point and Nolanjoker's, but this doesn't answer my questions about the priorities on the buildings when both female citizen and citizen soldiers are competing for it. But more importantly, it doesn't answer my question about the global efficiency of such a system when some units have to travel more than they should do to reach a garrisonable building.
I understand that it's disappointing when you see your soldiers garrisoning in a temple and your female citizen garrisoning in civic centres and towers, because you feel like you lose some strike power. But isn't it also what happens when the enemy attacks a desert edge of your city, and your units garrison at the other edge ? Should we also ask the soldiers to garrison in the military buildings that are closer to the enemy ?
I stay on my position : the primary purpose of the alert should be to protect vulnerable units as quickly as possible, and those units should go to the next non-full garrisonable building. They should not trade some protection time against building's firepower, which is a bonus. Exploiting building's extra firepower is a strategic hack, which is good, and should be encouraged, but should not be automatic.
-
It's almost sure that Hannibal liked to ride his favourite elephant with a tower on its back, but there's no strong evidence that all carthaginian war elephants had a tower on their back. Depictions of battles with towered war elephant troops may have been romanticized, extrapolated from Hannibal's battle elephant.
It's not sure that heavy back towers would have been a great choice for north african elephants (now extinct), which were smaller than asian elephants. The towered elephant Hannibal mounted was described as much bigger and stronger than the other elephants of his army, and was probably an asian elephant. In some texts Hannibal's favourite elephant is called "The Syrian", which lead to think that it was a specimen of the syrian elephants, now extinct, which were bigger and stronger than the other asian elephants (but still smaller than the african bush elephant).
-
If I want garrison quickly in random buildings I don't need the button. Only select all units and garrison manually. And leave the enemy destroy my towers with females inside. Is more useful click the button and wait to females use civilian building to garrison, and citizen soldiers in tower with double attack arrows, ill smash the rushers in seconds.
I'm afraid it would be too complex. What do you do when there's not enough room in a civilian building for all the females ? Should they go to a military building ? Then who has the priority for the military building ? Females (you want to protect them at all cost) or soldiers (you want to strengthen you building) ? Same question for the citizen-soldiers.
When you have female citizen and citizen-soldiers working on one edge of your city, where there's mostly civilian buildings, and female citizen and citizen-soldiers working at the other edge of your city, where there's mostly military buildings, would you make half of your units cross your entire city when you sound the alarm while your enemies are attacking ?
When you sound the alarm the priority should be the safety of the units.
The primary purpose of garrison is to protect your units, additional firing power should be seen as a bonus. And it's up to you to exploit that bonus by assigning your units manually or by keeping military buildings and citizen-soldiers close to each other.
-
Two levels are good, maybe one for citizen soldiers and the other for women, it would be great if you managed to get the women to garrison temples and civ centers first, while the soldiers take to the fortresses, walls, and towers.
I'd be more in favor of a "every unit garrison to the closest garrisonable building" rule. Then choosing to make female citizen work closer to temples (or build temples closer to where mostly female citizen are working) and make citizen-soldiers work closer to civ centers, towers and fortresses (or build towers and fortresses closer to where mostly citizen-soldiers are working) would be a part of your city management.
When you click on the *alert* button, usually it's because you want your units to be protected as quickly as possible. That's why it's called an alert and that's why we make a button to automate the task. If you really want to garrison specific units in specific buildings, you should do it manually.
-
Personally, I'd rather have two switches : one for garrisoning/ungarrisoning female citizen, one for garrisoning/ungarrisoning citizen-soldiers. If you have enough room you just press the two buttons. If you don't have enough room for all of them, you press the first one if you consider your female citizen more precious than your citizen-soldiers, the second one if you consider your citizen-soldiers more precious than your female citizen (it could be a strategical move to have your garrisoned archers firing from the buildings while the enemies are busy killing female citizen).
This option would have the advantage to let the player decide at which moment he want to garrison each type of unit when there's not enough room for all (like waiting for 50% of the units of one type to be garrisoned before garrisoning the units of the other type, this kind of stuff).
But that's just my opinion.
-
By definition, yes : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProselytismKind of like the Roman persecutions of the Christians? Or the Seleucid persecutions of the Jews (Maccabean revolt anyone?)? Or the Aztec subjugation of the Mayans? Or the Hindu persecution of the Buddhists in the 7th century?
Proselytism is the act of attempting to convert people to another religion or opinion. [...] Though the word proselytism originally referred to Early Christianity (and earlier Gentiles such as God-fearers), it now refers to the attempt of any religion or religious individuals to convert people to their beliefs, or any attempt to convert people to a different point of view, religious or not.
But anyway, what I wanted to say is that what drives soldiers is not always proselytism, but you always need a bit of fanaticism to send people to war. And in antiquity that fanaticism was mostly religious, and the promise of an afterlife was one of its aspects.
-
I have the impression that ancient pagans were less fanatic and more religiously tolerant than dark age and medieval monotheists
You seem to mix up fanatism and proselytism. An incentive to risk your life (like the promise of an afterlife) is fanatism, trying to convert everyone and eliminate other religions is proselytism.
-
Instead of suggesting not using Wikimedia projects as sources, I find it better to do so, and if errors are detected, fix them both in the game and upstream.
+1
-
1
-
-
actually, the Carthaginians are Berbers
Not exactly, but the carthaginians used berbers mercenaries in their armies, especially archers.
-
Despite of which one is used or if a new one is modeled, I think that a symmetrical building is the way to go, which seems to be more historical accurate. Looking for references, every important building I found is totally or almost-totally symmetric.
I agree. Plus, a symmetrical architecture would make the identification of the building more intuitive to new players, because it's more consistent with the rest of the game.
And I agree that the cornice at the top should be minimal or removed. It's too glorious and sophisticated for a military training building.
-
Aesthetically it's nice, but if I was a Celt warrior, I would certainly not mass infantry men with torchs behind a line of trees close to a Roman camp like that !
And I would probably not attack on a open terrain under full moon's light !
PS: I like the dog with the knife in his mouth.
-
As you can see, they do not at all resemble the kind of bell that Itms is bringing up.
Itms said his icons were temporary, and was calling for better artwork.
Horn served a similar purpose and were able to be carried by a single person.
Do you have any sources about horns being used as city alarms in ancient Rome/Greece/Carthage/Egypt ?
-
And the mirror towers are purely fictional (they may appear in Atlas for fun, though).
-
As far as I know, it is not possible to build lone wall towers in the main game. However... you CAN build double wall towers in the game, by first placing one tower, then extending its wall just enough so that a second tower emerges beside the first. At that point, you can left-click to lay the foundation. Double towers are probably much better anyway (mutual fire support and all that).
Yeah, but it's more than twice the price in stone...
-
Those buildings are superb ! Ptolemies are going to be the most beautiful civ of the game.
The fact that the temple is all open kinda bugs me, where are the priests supposed to come from ?
-
whereas calvary would have high push capacity that comes naturally
Cavalry doesn't really push other units I think. Cavalry can charge on infantry, but horses facing infantrymen without momentum can't really push them. Pushing is relevant for units fighting shield against shield.
The devs plan to implement charging, of course. I don't know how they'll do, the most logical to me would be to make horses run on a small distance, and any infantry unit on that path would be projected a few meters away or would fall on the way and be suffering trampling (the idea is that the units lying on the ground don't stop the cavalry).
Each obstacle (line of soldiers) encountered by the cavalry would reduce the distance of charge. So if the infantry formation is very small (2-3 lines for example), the cavalry is able to cross it, continue riding until they're far enough, turn back and charge again, if the infantry formation is large (6-7 lines for example), the cavalry is able to break the first lines but stops before it can cross the entire formation, and has to fight in melee.
Now for infantry you're right, pushing is effectively more realistic than charging : enemies are pushed, not projected.
Your 0 A.D. Screenshots
in General Discussion
Posted
@jaimele : waow o.o