wowgetoffyourcellphone
-
Posts
10.211 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
491
Posts posted by wowgetoffyourcellphone
-
-
2 hours ago, stanislas69 said:
Why the added complexity ?
I don't see how it's any more complex than the standard schema. It's just different.
-
How about instead of the Han Chinese having Barracks, Archery Range, Stable, and Workshop, they have Academies, which group units by weapon type, as such:
Crossbow Academy
- Is a bit more expensive than the others, but the crossbowmen train faster and have low health. Good for massing.
- Crossbow Infantry
- Crossbow Cavalry
- Crossbow Siege, aka Shoushe, unlocked in City Phase with a Ballistics tech
Sword Academy
- Sword Infantry
- Sword Cavalry
Spear Academy
- Spear Infantry
- Spear Cavalry
Archery Academy
- Optional
- Bow Infantry
- Bow Cavalry
Siege Tower is built at the Fortress, or we figure out a way to make the Siege Tower buildable by units.
-
2
-
Thanks for bringing this up. That's 98 destructs and foundations, a big task, but minus 20, for 78 total new meshes/actors. Again, a tall order, but I think once someone has done a few, they'll get an efficient workflow going and bang out the last three quarters rather quickly. Don't forget the game needs more scaffolds too, but those can be rather modular and easy to put together once the individual props are built.
Just need a new artist to come along, as the current ones are rather busy: @LordGood is on buildings [workshops, stables, ranges], @stanislas69 is working on getting the new horses integrated into the actors and reviewing other artists' work and looking to improve props, like helmets and weapons, while @Alexandermb is working on animations. I am just a hanger 'round making new unit portraits for cavalry based on Alexander's new horse and I have meager Blender skillz. This foundations/destruct modeling task would be a good one for a bounty, since it's so large but tedious. @Itms
-
1
-
-
It's also interesting to note that the skeletons of Bactrian and Arabian camels are nearly identical. Most visual differences are not caused by actual skeletal morphology. Just interesting to note.
-
1
-
-
On 12/21/2017 at 6:14 PM, Sundiata said:
Yeah, Celt refers to celtic speaking people, who had close cultural affinities to each-other. Gaul is a geographical area (inhabited by Celts). People of Gaul referred to themselves as Celtae, not Gauls. Gaul as a political unit is a result of Caesar's conquest, who couldn't successfully subdue the area's north of the Rhine, and thus designated them a different people, so he could say he conquered "all of Gaul". But it seems Gallic and Germanic nobility spoke the same language, and the differentiation between the two is controversial to this day. Anyway, pre-Roman Gaul never formed a single political entity, so the term Gaul itself is pretty vague as well
But less vague than Celts, indeed..
"Continental Celts" just seems less romantic than "Gauls," ironic as my use of the term "romantic" is in the context of our discussion. I think people know what we mean when we say "Gauls" though, so it kind of sticks. The Greeks called themselves "Hellenes" and everyone else "Barbarians."
More specifically, it's probable that mainland/continental Celts referred to themselves more along tribal or confederation lines, rather than as all-encompassing "Celtae", similar to many peoples throughout history, the Native Americans for instance, who thought of themselves along tribal lines, rather than as some kind of pan-American racial identity. 
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, mimo said:
@wowgetoffyourcellphone phase_city_imp should supersedes phase_town_imp and not phase_town_roma (same problem with phase_imperial_imp). That prevented the ai to update to these phases in some tests i was doing.
Fixed locally. Will push to git soon.
-
1
-
-
-
I am still getting this glitch, even after unloading all mods and make sure there are no random unversioned files in my local public mod folder. Any ideas?
-
I think just in front of the hump for Arabian. Between for Bactrian yeah.
-
The boeotian helmet mesh is exported at the wrong position. In the actor it rests at the head prop point. If you change that to helmet prop point it's all screwed up.This isn't a problem for the gastraphetes who will never remove the helmet in a normal game, but if you want to use that mesh for other units/helmet actors, then the mesh will need to be scaled/repositioned. LUCKILY I ALREADY DID THAT FOR YOU.
It was a btch getting this right because at first I didn't know what was happening when I saw it goofed up on the heads of other units.
Rename it to hele_boeotian so it doesn't overwrite the current hele_helmet_t
-
2
-
-
What makes battering rams OP is that they can inexplicably mow down enemy soldiers too.
-
2
-
1
-
-
The Celtic horses could definitely use a retexture anway. It does look better than before.
-
1 hour ago, Tomcelmare said:
Alexandermb, will you implement your new horse model to the chinese, for Terra Magna mod?
Modders should wait until the assets are committed to public mod or else you might be duplicating your work.
18 minutes ago, stanislas69 said:@Alexandermb The UV map on some of the horses is uncommitable as is. Maybe you could make different variations of the horse for different uvs ?
I started making cavalry portraits.
Then ran across this.
If the UV map can't get worked out, then maybe the tack can be a prop instead, like the player color bandin the first one.
-
If camels were improved, I'd add more camel units to DE.
-
2
-
1
-
-
25 minutes ago, Alexandermb said:
@stanislas69 we have the blender file of the camel ?
I think the camel could use a whole new mesh, IMHO. And needs to be slightly bigger now that horses are bigger.
-
Just now, Alexandermb said:
it would be a great release if the old unit is nuked.
Exactly, 100% new and improved.
-
Any new love going the camels' way? I think the camel mesh and unit animations could use a revamp after @Alexandermb's very successful work on the cavalry.
It would be excellent to have both Arabian and Bactrian camels: 1 and 2 hump. Then we can work on the rider textures and props to look more authentic. Right now they're just based on Persian units.
-
2
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, gameboy said:
It's unbelievable that I've built a new solution, but the problem still exists.
I can't believe it either. A solution come soon.
-
1
-
1
-
-
You're a wrong message. j/k, Needs an autobuild.
-
1
-
1
-
-
-
On 12/18/2017 at 5:50 PM, Alexandermb said:
Files with pony-horse (added fauna pony)
Horse_new.7zIf this is pretty much done, I can start making unit portraits for you. I have the next 9 days off of work.
-
1 hour ago, SirPope said:
I think the market should be based off of a resource that can't be collected in the game. Like a form of currency. It's determining how much 'money' a civ has that is hard. 10% the price of a building added to the currency amount? When you buy something, reduce the amount of currency that civ has, and have it trickle to the max amount (like a tax basically). I don't know if they had currency in 0ad.
Yeah, for DE I'd like to add a Coin resource, which is the resource you trade with and buy resources with, and is what I was basically advocating for H:C but with Rupees. Coin would be used to hire mercenaries and stuff like that and represent money or currency. Yes, they had advanced coinage in the 0 A.D. time frame.
Problem is maintaining component files that will constantly be deprecated. So, I refuse to add stuff like that until Beta is reached.
-
2
-
-
25 minutes ago, Sundiata said:
Also, constantly referring all this super cool and iconic stuff to a fictional part 2 makes me a little sad
I want lorica segmentata and the colosseum
DE brother, DEEEE.
-
1
-
1
-
-
22 minutes ago, Sundiata said:
0AD has pases, which could be used more logically to represent the different developmental stages of an individual civ. We're not talking about stone age to late iron age like age of empires, but a logical evolution from the Early Republic (phase 1), to Middle and Late Republic (phase 2), and eventually the Roman Empire (phase 3). You can even add a phase, why not? A lot of people would like to see this kind of evolution in their civs as they play the game. It's more fun, and makes you more emotionally invested in the game, if you see "your people" evolve, not just expand.
If you do that for the Romans, then wouldn't you have to do that for all the others? Phases are city growth, not jumps in time*. It's one of the things that separates the game from AOE. It depicts a civilization at a particular point in time, usually it's peak within a certain time frame. Punic Era for the Romans just makes a lot of sense when you look at Carthage and how huge that conflict was.
*Having jumps in time would be an awesome campaign idea for the Romans, actually. You'd progress from one Roman faction to the next in a campaign. Having full-factions for the Roman eras allows you to delves deeper into those eras than if you just had 1 Roman faction with Ages.
22 minutes ago, Sundiata said:Also, I'm honestly allergic to splitting the same civilisation in to different factions (Romans) on one hand, and then amalgamating a bunch of other civilisations in to a single faction (Gauls, Iberians) on the other.
Some factions are longer-lived than others. The Roman Empire spanned 1000 years and went through massive changes many of the other civs did not. How much development can we depict with the Iberian faction? I seriously don't know.
Amalgamating the "Gauls" into one faction may seem like the team's being boneheaded and Greco-Italo-centric, but what you can do with the Gauls civ is make it depict any number of a dozen tribes in a scenario or campaign; the same with Britons. With the Iberians you may have a point. I would split them into Iberians and Lusitanians.
We're getting way off topic now.
-
2
-
An idea for Han military production buildings
in Rise of the East
Posted · Edited by wowgetoffyourcellphone
Maybe the first time? I don't think the learning curve would be all that bad to be honest. Are people confused by Carthage?