Nescio
-
Posts
2.300 -
Joined
-
Days Won
23
Posts posted by Nescio
-
-
9 hours ago, Lopess said:
As I understand it, the Han did not use stones in their architecture. So would a modification of the main texture to a mud clay work?
Clay? No, rammed earth is a fundamentally different technique than mud brick or adobe. I vaguely recall discussing that in the other thread.
9 hours ago, Lopess said:A positive point is that the existing structures can be added to the Millennium A.D., thus missing only new units: D (or not?)
The existing structures are not really representative for the Tang dynasty (AD 618–907) either, however, historical accuracy is less important for mods, so feel free to (re)use them in Millennium A.D. Here's a suggestion for an appropiate wonder, the (fired-brick) Giant Wild Goose Pagoda in Xi'an:
Spoiler
-
1
-
1
-
-
50 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
Yyyyyes, I know all that. Thanks for the lesson review though!
EDIT: I had a hand in creating the original actor and we based it on Iphicratean examples. We did not (and still do not) have smaller aspides/medium shields to be able to use for them, hence the "hoplite" shield.
If the Athenian champion is supposed to be the Iphicratean type, then it shouldn't be called ἐπίλεκτος.
29 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:We can't be sure, but probably halfway in size between the Macedonian pelte phalangite shield and the "hoplite" aspis (to show a progression; larger to smaller; Hoplite aspis -> Iphicratean pelta -> Macedonian pelta). The model can also be used for Tarantine and other Hellenistic cavalry. @Nescio is free to disagree.
The important difference is the peltē is rimless. As for its size, have a look at the east side of the Tomb of Payava from Lycia, c. 360 BC (nowadays in the British Museum):
Spoiler
-
1
-
-
There are probably more examples of elite units looking more impressive than champions in 0 A.D.
44 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:Also, the Epilektos is supposed to be from a slightly later time than the Hoplites. The Epilektos represents the Iphicratean era. Lighter body armor, boots, etc.
That's not exactly true: ἐπίλεκτος (plural -οι) simply means ‘chosen’, they were picked troops, selected by the commander to serve as his bodyguard, fight on the right-hand end of the phalanx (the most honourable position), or for some other task. They didn't have some superior equipment that set them apart, nor were they a standing corps. The same is true for the Latin extraordinarii.
In Iphicrates' times Greek states increasingly relied on mercenaries, who could be drilled, disciplined, or dismissed, unlike citizens, who were nominally the equals of the leaders and could sue their commanders after the campaign was finished. Moreover, there was more emphasis on mobility, which is why Iphicrates equipped his troops with boots instead of greaves, dropped the bronze muscle cuirass, and replaced the heavy ἀσπίς with the lighter πέλτη (hence the name ‘peltasts’, for what were essentially proto-pikemen).
-
7 minutes ago, Stan` said:
Towers are not a priority. Prefer existing over new if we really have to fix things.
Wood was the primary building material in ancient China and rammed earth was used for platforms and defensive walls. However, the mod's existing tower has stone architecture (as do some other structures), which is wrong (as is that Qing dragon flag):
-
16 hours ago, alre said:
I know, I was referring to that too. However, more could be done, and I was also thinking about gaia mercenary camps, that were proposed to be integrated from Delenda Est. If that wasn't done, I think something else is necessary to differentiate mercenaries from normal units. For a start, the fact that mercenaries are faster to train is kind of defeated by the fact that in many civs they require their own building. What if the mercenary camp costed much more (mainly food and metal) and at the moment that you build it, a small company of mercenaries spawn next to it? After being built, the camp could have several roles: a building where to train other mercenaries, or one that if you lose it, the mercenaries leave you.
Having map-specific mercenary camps is something I'd like to see too, and it has been proposed multiple times in the past (e.g. here or here). The suggestion to make embassies prerequisites instead of unit-training structures is interesting too. Anyway, proposals aren't either-or.
As with everything, discussions on the forum are nice and all, but what's needed is someone to actually do the work. If nobody creates a patch, nothing would happen.
12 hours ago, LetswaveaBook said:I hope that they don´t give them automatic rank 2, since that would be a hell of a difference. +1 armor (equivalent to +10%HP),+25% HP and +20% attack. I would hope that instead the are given a smaller bonus like only +20% HP instead of promotion.
Ranged troops don't get higher resistance or attack damage. Moreover, there is already a technology that makes mercenaries start at advanced rank (added in A22). And keep in mind higher ranks are worse at gathering. Fundamentally the idea is to make mercenaries somewhat in between citizens and champions.
-
On 12/12/2020 at 3:58 PM, Nescio said:
It's clear the Han had a great variety of tall, free-standing towers. This is something where China differs from the Mediterranean. To reflect that, it would by nice if the Han could have (at least) three towers:
- a two-storey tower in the village phase, costing 100 wood;
- a three-storey tower in the town phase, costing 200 wood;
- a four-storey tower in the city phase, costing 300 wood.
Han model of a two-storey tower:
Spoiler
Han model of a three-storey tower:
Spoiler
Han model of a four-storey tower:
Spoiler
-
11 hours ago, m7600 said:
I can take a shot at it, but I'll need some references. If anyone wants to provide them, that would be great.
Have a look at this thread. Stone walls, paper lanterns, and Qing dragon flags are some of the things the Han shouldn't have: 0 A.D. is not a Disney film. Perhaps you could start with designing a new fortress or new towers?
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Ceres said:
Transifex says: "15 days free trial"
And after that? I am puzzled.
That's for companies, I suppose (and there is an exemption for free and open-source projects such as 0 A.D.).
Individuals can sign up and join projects without having to pay anything: https://www.transifex.com/signup/?join_project=0ad
-
1
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, Ceres said:
I have not yet looked into the translation business of 0 A.D.
-
1
-
-
One thing people love is 0 A.D.'s attention to detail and historical accuracy.
Including the Han into A24 was discussed some time ago. It didn't happen. To the best of my knowledge, none of the issues of the Han mod has been solved since. I fail to see why it's suddenly good enough to be included right now.
Again, I'd love to see the Han included in game, if possible in A25, and no, not everything has to be perfect. Nevertheless, the most glaring flaws should be addressed first.
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, alre said:
Considering the striking difference in price, simply being an otherwise unavaiable kind of citizen soldiers is not enough of a difference to justify any mercenary unit. I hope mercenaries get a strong rework in a25, at that point having both citizen and mercenary versions of the same unit could actually make real sense.
There is a proposal to make mercenaries start at advanced rank: https://code.wildfiregames.com/D3699
-
2
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, maroder said:
My bad, my collection of antique maps is not that good. But would you agree that generally the farming was not done in the middle of the city? As you said, maybe inside the (in this case old) city walls, but not in the very heart of the city.
Yes, I fully agree the current situation is far from perfect. Nevertheless, I'm unconvinced limiting player freedom (or breaking the AI) is the way to go.
-
15 minutes ago, maroder said:
So what I hope would be gained by any of the proposed changes would be a city layout that looks more like this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wolf-Dietrich-Klebeband_Städtebilder_G_123_III.jpg
That's actually a depiction of Rome in the 16th C AD, when the city was still much smaller than in Augustan times and people were farming inside the old Roman city walls.
-
1
-
3
-
-
4 minutes ago, Stan` said:
Renaming 200 files and breaking all mods yeah
That's actually doable to get committed, A24 had several such changes.
5 minutes ago, Stan` said:Changing a 3D model or a texture to a better one not really.
I meant art improvements, some examples I've requested more than once on these forums in the past. Britons and Gauls shouldn't have a donkey trader, Athenians and Spartans should. The SQPR ought to be removed from Roman wall textures. The Roman civic centre needs to be replaced. Macedonian dock. Wall towers.
I'm fully aware the art team is very small and can't do everything at once. However, when there are already so many things that still need to be improved, I don't think it's wise to include a lot more assets that really need to be replaced.
-
8 minutes ago, Stan` said:
I don't think any civ had perfect art before they made it in the game. According to some people the Mauryas are not really accurate, and we need to redo all the kushites roofs.
Some civs had placeholder buildings, so didn't even have a full roster.
Of course, not everything has to be perfect. However, blatant anachronisms or fantasy elements ought to be avoided. And it's very hard to get something changed once it's in game.
-
While I would love to see the Han included in 0 A.D., I don't think they're ready for inclusion yet. Sure, they're more complete than other candidates, however, they're qualitatively inferior to the civilizations in game. Balance isn't the issue, art is. The mod as is contains things from much later dynasties, such as the Song (AD 960–1279), Ming (1368–1644), and Qing (1636–1912). Furthermore, some structures need to be redesigned (see this thread), a Bactrian camel needs to be added (dromedaries don't live in Central Asia), and unit textures deserve a critical look (currently it's very hard to see the player colour).
-
1
-
-
15 hours ago, chrstgtr said:
(2) they have a higher pop cap than most civs;
3 hours ago, LetswaveaBook said:and +10% pop cap. In previous alphas they had similar bonuses, but the other strong civs dropped a lot. On the same time the environment shifted hugely in favour of Mauryas as suddenly archers and elephants used to be a burden on a civ and now these units are a great asset. Also the meta became more defensive which meant that players are more likely to take advantage of the 10% higher pop cap .
2 hours ago, Yekaterina said:and remove the population bonus
39 minutes ago, a 0ad player said:the higher pop cap
Yeah, the higher population cap is problematic. I never liked it and would prefer to see it removed: https://code.wildfiregames.com/D2535
[EDIT]:
2 hours ago, Yekaterina said:rams
All civilizations have rams in A24.
-
How about differentiating camels from cavalry? A proposal: https://code.wildfiregames.com/D3735
-
4
-
1
-
-
On 18/04/2021 at 3:54 PM, maroder said:
If its worth it depends if you like a more realistic city layout. There are some people who would like that (again, see top post) but also people who are ok with the current unrealistic layout. I am just wondering why so many areas of the game are closely based on history, but the standard build order involves that the heart of the cities are turned into one giant farming area.
And again: the goal is not to make the game hyper-realistic. With the right solution we don't have to sacrifice a fun gameplay. The goal is to find a solution that is fun, but looks better/ and is more realistic than the status quo.
While I'm not necessarily opposed to realism, I remain unconvinced the proposed solutions are improvements. The easiest option is not always the best one.
I don't particularly like it fields are placed around civic centres, however, I already can (and do) build farmsteads at the edge of my starting territory and place fields there. I fail to see what's gained by forcing fields to be moved away.
-
1
-
-
For the record, the worker elephant was actually considered not that great in A23 and made cheaper and trained more quickly in A24, but also easier to kill to compensate; see https://code.wildfiregames.com/D2852
-
3
-
-
7 minutes ago, Freagarach said:
Maybe, just maybe, we could use the cultures? Have the cultures use different kind of structures. E.g. the Greek cultures use X and Y, the Celts use Z.
As I wrote, it's fine for some factions to share structures. As for cultures, if you mean something along the lines of this forum thread, I don't think that's a good idea: culture is fluid and overlap should be possible, e.g. Iberians having some things in common with Gauls and some with Carthaginians; or Seleucids with Macedonians and with Persians. (I also favour extending the “wooden structures” civilization bonus to the Mauryas, but that's a different discussion.)
-
1
-
-
18 minutes ago, Nescio said:
(As for implementation, someone should improve the AI to use the (already existing) DropsiteFood, DropsiteWood, DropsiteStone, and DropsiteMetal classes instead of Farmstead and Storehouse.)
That would also give more flexibility to modifications that don't want to blindly follow the public standard and allow e.g. removing stone and metal from the civic centre, dock, and worker elephant.
-
1
-
-
In 0 A.D. all civilizations have exactly the same basic structures: a house for population, a farmstead for food, a storehouse for other resources, etc. This is basically inherited from Age of Empires, which had a granary (for fruit and grain) and a storage pit (for fish, meat, wood, gold, and stone). Age of Empires II had three structures, a mill (for all food), lumber camp (for wood), and mining camp (for gold and stone). Age of Mythology broke with this convention of all civilizations having the same buildings:
- The Greeks have a granary for food and a storehouse for wood and gold.
- The Egyptions have a granary for food, a lumber camp for wood, and a mining camp for gold.
- The Norse have a movable ox-cart for all resources.
- The Atlanteans have citizens that double as builders, gatherers, and dropsites and for economic technologies they have an economic guild.
- The Chinese have a storage pit for food, wood, and gold.
This worked great and gave each civilization a different feeling.
In principle 0 A.D. could differentiate civilizations by giving them different structures too. With four resources there are already 15 possible combinations for dropsites:
-
a single structure:
- food+wood+stone+metal
-
two structures:
- food, wood+stone+metal
- food+stone+metal, wood
- food+wood+metal, stone
- food+wood+stone, metal
- food+wood, stone+metal
- food+stone, wood+metal
- food+metal, wood+stone
-
three structures:
- food+wood, stone, metal
- food+stone, wood, metal
- food+metal, wood, stone
- food, wood+stone, metal
- food, wood+metal, stone
- food, wood, stone+metal
-
a structure for each resource:
- food, wood, stone, metal
Other combinations are possible too (e.g. food+wood, food+stone, food+metal). And combined with the house, corral, and market one can get many more possibilities.
Of course, not every single faction must have completely unique structures, it's perfectly fine for multiple civilizations to share similar structures. However, the point is there is no compelling reason why all civilization should continue to always keep exactly the same basic structures.
Currently there is a great desire to see 0 A.D.'s civilizations further differentiated from each other. However, the current proposals can fundamentally be summarized as “the same basics + something unique”, which means they'll remain quite similar to each other (as is the case in Age of Empires). By varying the basics instead one could easily achieve a more different feeling for each civilization.
What do you think?
(As for implementation, someone should improve the AI to use the (already existing) DropsiteFood, DropsiteWood, DropsiteStone, and DropsiteMetal classes instead of Farmstead and Storehouse.)
-
5
-
Adding auras or minimum distances is quite easy to implement. The trouble is the AI: Petra does not understand auras, never builds more than one farmstead, and will try to place fields as close as possible to the civic centre. Forcing fields to be moved away from the civic centre thus leads to a poorer single-player experience (and also reduces player freedom). I wonder whether it's worth it. Also keep in mind the multifunctional civic centre isn't entirely realistic either.
-
2
-
Addition of Han Chinese to 0AD
in Game Development & Technical Discussion
Posted
The bixie (píxiū) as a mythological animal (a winged lion-griffin-chimaera), yes, that certainly existed in Han China. The Parthians are known to have gifted lions to the Han court, which probably contributed to their popularity. Two more examples of Han statuettes (both under 10 cm), one jade, one bronze:
https://www.christies.com/en/lot/lot-6268189
https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/823655
Bixies as an architectural element is a quite different story, though. Here's how they're used in the 0 A.D. Han mod:
One detail that particularly struck me is that stone orb. It's important to realize the dragon, bixie, qilin, and guardian lion are all distinct animals. In more recent times, Chinese guardian lions (shī) were erected in pairs in front of government buildings, the left one the female (yīn) with a cub under her left pawn, the right one the male (yáng) with a cloth ball under its right pawn. I don't know of any bixies with a ball. Nor of large stone animals in front of Han-dynasty government buildings. If you do, please let me know.
To summarize, while it's a nice detail, it got the details wrong.
I'm not advocating simply removing the stone bixies from the structure: the stone platform and the stone stairs are problematic too. I don't see an easy fix here.