Jump to content

Nescio

Community Members
  • Content Count

    2.030
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    21

Nescio last won the day on September 5

Nescio had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1.452 Excellent

3 Followers

About Nescio

  • Rank
    Primus Pilus

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Beta would mean the game is feature-complete and no new mechanics will be added; 0 A.D. is not at that stage, hence alpha. There is a roadmap (https://trac.wildfiregames.com/roadmap), but no date. While team members are busy or working on technical and complicated tickets (e.g. upgrading SpiderMonkey 45→52→60→68→78), it makes sense to continue improving other things, such as art or gameplay. Not every patch has to be accepted and committed, of course. However, if something seems an improvement or an idea worth trying, it's better to have it merged sooner rather than later, to give people
  2. Currently there is a backlog of about 50 open gameplay patches; see https://code.wildfiregames.com/search/query/4pPnEvE_Ol0A/ for a full list. Not all of them are ready to be merged; some have been ignored so far, and many need to be rebased because of commits in the months since they were last updated. Earlier today I've rebased those patches that have been accepted at some point: https://code.wildfiregames.com/D1762 (gives fortresses a territory root; see also this forum poll) https://code.wildfiregames.com/D2493 (make siege engines uncapturable) https://code.wildfireg
  3. The saris(s)a was discussed by various ancient authors and its length is know to have varied over time. The numbers I mentioned are all attested. For more details, see Christopher Matthew “The Length of the Sarissa” Antichthon 46 (January 2012) 79–100 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0066477400000150. The justification for giving different civs different pike lengths is that, while 0 A.D. aims to cover the entire 500–1 BC timeframe, each faction is mostly focussed on a particular point in time; e.g. Macedonians on Alexander the Great, and Ptolemies on Ptolemy IV, and Romans on the Second Punic Wa
  4. Out of curiosity, is having say three knives used by all civs worse than each civ one knife only they use?
  5. Yes, currently they arch their backs a bit (like a “C”), which I imagine is quite tiresome. The men should stand upright (like an “I“): Indeed, structures are not to scale, nor should they be; maps in 0 A.D. are much too small for that. I doubt even a giant map would reach a kilometre across. On the other hand, rabbits are disproportionally large, which is fine, they're already difficult enough to see when zoomed out. So no, I'm certainly not arguing everything should be of one and the same scale. However, the differents parts of an entity ought to be about proportiona
  6. Aelian Tactica §18–19, Arrain Tactica §16–17, and Asclepiodotus Tactica §7 describe cavalry formation in detail. After rereading those a few times, I made a drawing of the various formations actually used by ancient cavalry: Colour scheme: red is the squadron leader, blue the rear commander; magenta the flank guards; green the leader of the second line; yellow the standard-bearer; black the front line; grey the other horsemen. From left to right: first row: square formations, used by Persians, Greeks, and Sicilians. They're simplest to form and hold together, but also the
  7. Although in 0 A.D. pikes are visibly longer than spears, they're represented shorter than the were in reality. When zooming in, it seems 0 A.D.'s pikes are about twice as long as the men: Let's say a man is 1.8 m tall, then these pikes are 3.6 m. We know from Hellenistic authors pike length varied over time (I posted a summary in this post), but even the shortest (4.8 m) were a third longer than 0 A.D.'s, and the longest (7.68 m) over twice as long. I vaguely recall humans being about 4 Blender units tall (@Stan`?), so I guess the current pikes are 8 Blender units. It would be grea
  8. Another image, to make the difference even clearer range_comparison.svg: black: a structure with a footprint of 120×60 (wonders in 0 A.D. are up to 60×60) blue: range calculated from edge (proposal?), in steps of 20 red: range calculated from centre (current situation), in steps of 20
  9. Doubtful. I don't think any classical Greek (i.e. athen, mace, spart) cavalry had shields. (Greek pottery tends to depict mounted hoplites, who fought on foot.) The situation is different for non-Greek cavalry (Paeonians serving under Philip and Alexander where known to have shields). During Hellenistic times (i.e. ptol, rome, sele) some Greek cavalry types adopted (large) shields (aspis or thureos, not peltē). Horse armour appeared as well, though probably the exception rather than the rule (hence reserve for ptol and sele champions). As for classical Greek horseman equipment, the m
  10. Indeed, with differentiation I do not mean enforcing specialization; hard bonus attacks are ugly and ought to be avoided. With differentiation and more unit types I simply mean units with different values; e.g. Rome ought to be able to train both hastati and principes, the latter of which has higher resistance and metal costs (chain mail), but is otherwise identical; likewise, Macedon ought to have Macedonian (lancers), Thessalian (spearmen), Paeonian (javelineers with shields), and Odrysian (javelineers without shields) cavalry; they all have different statistics, yet perform the same functio
  11. Everything in that video looks great! The pair of oxen ploughing a field and the click-drag-click road construction and plot assignment are things I'd love to see in 0 A.D. as well. I suspect that game has much higher requirements, though. To be clear, I'm not opposed to unit battle groups, in fact, I'd love to see them in 0 A.D. too. (Though I'd recommend sticking with the historically attested 4:2:1 ratio for heavy infantry, ranged infantry, and cavalry; the Macedonian 256, 128, 64 and the Roman 120, 60, 30 are probably a bit too much; 40, 20, 10 is probably reasonable.) Howeve
  12. For battalions etc. to work, the engine needs to be able to comfortably support thousands of soldiers, like in Cossacks. That's currently not the case in 0 A.D. A battalion is a military unit in between a company and a regiment or brigade. Greeks liked doubling (1, 2, 4, 8, 16, etc.). In Macedonian armies, sixteen pikemen formed a lochos (file), sixteen lochoi a syntagma (square, i.e. 16×16=256 men, plus five supernumeraries), which was the smallest tactical unit. Light infantry was organized in files of eight, the smallest tactical unit was a hekatontarchia (nominally 128 men plus f
  13. For Hellenistic warfare specifically, the following nine troop types are listed by Aelian Tactica §2, which is largely similar to Arrian Tactica §2–4 and Asclepiodotus Tactica §1 (all three go back to a (now lost) treatise of Poseidonius, which in turn is based on an (also lost) Tactica by Polybius): infantry: hoplites, i.e. heavy infantry, equipped with (partially) metal armour, greaves, heavy shields (aspis), and long spears or pikes peltasts, equipped with lighter armour, boots, smaller shields (peltē), and shorter spears; hence more mobile psiloi, i.e.
  14. Everyone, a note on terminology: unless explicitly stated otherwise, “light” means “ranged” and “heavy” means “melee” (i.e. troops that fought in formation). The terms refer to their rôle on the battlefield, not to the heaviness of their arms and armour, as some people mistakingly assume. A few modern authors also use the term “medium” for troops that could fulfill both functions, though that term is not as widespread. This observation is worth a bit more attention. There is more than one reason for this. Firstly, it's indeed mostly true: light troops indeed had much the same func
  15. See the in-game manual: . (Period): select idle worker / (Slash): select idle warrior \ (Backslash): select idle unit The keys are actually customizable; see the default.cfg file. This is solved in the development version (A24): 23921
×
×
  • Create New...