Jump to content

Nescio

Community Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2.300

  • Joined

  • Days Won

    23

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Nescio

  2. Option to enable color markers for Units

    in Help & Feedback

    Posted

    37 minutes ago, Elias said:

    I think it would be positive for some players to have the option to add those color circles at the feet of all units, own and enemies, not only when selected but all the time. Mainly because some terrains are really good at disguising units (except when hidden silhouettes are enabled).

    Just an option, disabled by default.

    Yes, please! I too have wanted such an option for a long time. I don't know how difficult it is to make it an option, though. Maybe something for one of the visibility mods (@badosu, @ffm2, @Langbart, @nani)?

    Doing it by default is quite easy, actually; it's already done for heroes. I've written a mod for A24 that does that for all units (including animals) and also for fruit, because fruit can be quite hard to see on some terrains. Here's the mod:

    overlays.zip

    How it looks in game:

    Spoiler

    overlays.thumb.jpg.ef5095dd4487b1cd28938a2c8ed67f99.jpg

     

    • Thanks 1

  4. 0 A.D. A25 gameplay patches

    in Gameplay Discussion

    Civ Differentiation -- Celts -- Loot Bonus?

    in Balancing Discussions

    Posted

    19 minutes ago, Genava55 said:

    If there is a need to make those civs more offensive/aggressive-oriented yes no issue with that. It is a modern misconception to think the 'barbarians' were better at plundering the others. In reality the Romans were by far the most active in this regard.

    Yeah, when it comes to exploitation on a massive scale, the Romans stood out head and shoulders above everyone else.

    What's fascinating is the cultural differences with respect to those slain on the battlefield. Turnus' death in the final verses of Virgil's Aeneid immediately springs to mind.

    Civ Differentiation -- Celts -- Loot Bonus?

    in Balancing Discussions

    Posted

    34 minutes ago, Genava55 said:

    Personally I am 100% in favor of this. I didn't know it was doable from a different way without impacting performance. 

    Yes, increasing loot across the board is doable, and it shouldn't affect performance more than any other technology or civ bonus does. What isn't possible is limit it to only some targets. Anything that you destroy with a melee or ranged (though not slaughter or capture) attack is affected: structures, ships, siege engines, soldiers, support units, even wild animals. So if you're playing Gauls and are short of metal, go hunt in the vicinity of Brennus :).

    43 minutes ago, Genava55 said:

    To see if the bonus should be applied to both Celtic civ or only to the Gauls. 

    Britons, Gauls, Iberians, perhaps others too, I don't particularly care. Also, should all units be better at looting, or only a subset?

    What is still needed is an interesting name and description (i.e. short historical justification).

    Civ Differentiation -- Celts -- Loot Bonus?

    in Balancing Discussions

    Posted

    1 hour ago, chrstgtr said:

    Also, half of @Nescio's response was only about how the loot would apply to all things that are destroyed and not just buildings like the previous suggestion.

    Indeed it was (and it's still true).

    As for your suggestion, it's not only doable, it's actually quite easy. Add a json file under simulation/data/technlogies/civbonuses with the following content:

    Spoiler 
    
{
	"genericName": "Interesting Name",
	"autoResearch": true,
	"description": "Historical justification.",
	"requirements": {
		"any": [
			{ "civ": "brit" },
			{ "civ": "gaul" },
			{ "civ": "iber" }
		]
	},
	"icon": "special_treasure.png",
	"tooltip": "Soldiers gain +100% resource loot.",
	"modifications": [
		{ "value": "Looter/Resource/food", "multiply": 2 },
		{ "value": "Looter/Resource/wood", "multiply": 2 },
		{ "value": "Looter/Resource/stone", "multiply": 2 },
		{ "value": "Looter/Resource/metal", "multiply": 2 }
	],
	"affects": ["Soldier"]
}

     

     

  10. Bibliography and references about ancient times (+ book reviews)

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    Most histories tend to focus on military and political events. The economic and sociatal aspects that support that do not always get the attention they deserve.

    John Peter Oleson (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Engineering and Technology in the Classical World (Oxford 2008)

    This book covers a wide range of subjects written by dozens of scholars and contains a wealth of information and hundreds of references. It's worth a read for anyone who wishes to further their understanding of the ancient world.

  12. Naval game seems badly unbalanced in A24

    in Gameplay Discussion

    Posted

    On 16/03/2021 at 6:26 PM, yorks_lad said:

    Hi @Alar1k It was about 1 minute of game time. 3 Javenileers were firing from land at a trireme. I saw one of the javelineers killed so I left them at it thinking the Trireme would win. About a game minute later I went back - no Trireme. Since then I've been bombarding land with Quinquiremes, and they are not doing very well against people but okay against buildings as was mentioned above, but I had to keep pulling out my Quinqiremes as archers from the land were inflicting serious damage. I played with ships quite a lot in A23 and never experienced damage from archers like this before. Perhaps I just haven't played enough to see this happening.

    So far it's rather anecdotal. Could you (or someone else) upload a replay showing triremes being destroyed by javelineers or archers? I've been unable to reproduce it; on my end individual triremes easily kill ranged troops.

  17. Naval game seems badly unbalanced in A24

    in Gameplay Discussion

    Posted

    Are you sure it's a lot worse than in A23 or earlier releases, though? Yes, a lot has changed in A24, but not that much for ships: ship technologies have been replaced and the quinquereme attack was adjusted as part of the artillery overhaul, making them more effective vs structures and less vs units. However, biremes and triremes haven't been touched.

    I ran a quick test in A24 of ten basic cavalry javelineers vs one trireme (no technologies) and to my surprise, the trireme won.

  18. balancing defensive structures test mod

    in Gameplay Discussion

    Posted

    That's quick!

    Any selection is essentially arbitrary. I could have included more patches, or fewer. Of the selection I made, I believe the first patch (D2845) is the most significant

    10 minutes ago, maroder said:

    I didn't notice a big difference from the archer reload time.

    The archer change (D3668) shouldn't make a difference; their damage per second stays the same; I included it only because in my mind it's rather similar to the structure attack patch (D3672); an arrow is an arrow.

  20. Macedonian wonder

    in Official tasks

    Posted

    5 minutes ago, m7600 said:

    Ok, then maybe you'll like this update. The central courtyard now has 16 columns on each side, and each side of the porticoes has 12 columns. However, you can see that in the case of the porticoes, the columns are too close to each other. The building now has the size of the Hanging Gardens. If I have to accommodate more space between the columns, then the model will be larger than the current Persian wonder. I don't know if we want that. Probably not.

    Thank you very much, I certainly do appreciate that! And no, the structure shouldn't become larger. I actually how the porticoes look. (The frontal entrance still needs to be improved, though.)

    5 minutes ago, m7600 said:

    By the way, I read what you wrote about the doors, I'll tackle that issue next. But I want to resolve the issue about the columns and the veranda first. Speaking of which, you can see that the latter now stretches across the entire right side. I'll replace stone columns will be replaced with wooden beams.

    Could you make the veranda lower and narrower and give it a simpler roof? Or make it perhaps a simple fence?

    Please read http://www.macedonian-heritage.gr/HellenicMacedonia/en/C1.1.1.4.html again.

    6 minutes ago, m7600 said:

    And maybe I'll have to make the entire building have less height, it looks perhaps too high right now.

    I don't think you should make the structure lower, it had two storeys and the front was tall and meant to impress.

  21. Macedonian wonder

    in Official tasks

    Posted · Edited by Nescio
    see link

    Have another look at this frontal view, I find it particularly helpful:

    On 23/04/2020 at 12:43 AM, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

    PalaceAigai1_EN.jpg

    It also shows the platform on the right side of the building, upon which the veranda may have stood.

    Of course, there is a risk of confirmation bias, with people making new reconstructions looking at the reconstructions done by others (like we're doing right now :)).

    52 minutes ago, Genava55 said:

    Is the word Veranda really appropriate?

    http://www.macedonian-heritage.gr/HellenicMacedonia/en/C1.1.1.html

    Maybe not. [EDIT]: go to .4: http://www.macedonian-heritage.gr/HellenicMacedonia/en/C1.1.1.4.html

    52 minutes ago, Genava55 said:

    Are the columns on the right side clearly identified?

    https://www.jstor.org/stable/43636542?seq=15#metadata_info_tab_contents

    The columns of the right portico of the front side, I believe so; all maps and reconstructions I've seen so far display them.If you meant columns of the veranda along the right side of the building, not that I know of; hence why I'm speculating they may have been wooden.

    I can be wrong, of course; I'm neither an archaeologist nor an expert of the site in question.

    41 minutes ago, m7600 said:

    Even if I did incorporate it, it would be a problem in terms of game play, because it would require a mostly empty footprint, like @wowgetoffyourcellphone pointed out. Unless we fill it with pottery and other ornaments, but I don't think that would work. I don't know, I'd have to try. Yet, there would be a further problem, which is that the building would be much longer, it would be considerably longer than the model for the Hanging Gardens of Babylon.

    Yeah, I know, I'm actually fine with omitting the secondary courtyard at the back. When I first suggested it, I didn't know how your model would compare to other structures, but your more recent screenshots make it clear it's large enough and there is no need for the extension.

    41 minutes ago, m7600 said:

    Asymmetry can look really good... when it's done correctly. I'm not questioning the architect's skills, I'm questioning my own ability to represent this historical building in an accurate way... That being said, did the veranda have stone columns, like the ones that are in the screenshot that I posted? Or do you think they were made of wood? Was the roof of the veranda probably made of the same material as the rest of the roofs of the building?

    Again, I'm speculating, yet I doubt it was as monumental or durable as the central courtyard. My guess is the veranda was made from more perishable materials.

    41 minutes ago, m7600 said:

    Yeah, but I wanna get this right. Or at least as right as possible. If artists can do whatever they want, then it would be kind of pointless to consult classicists and historians. I think that for a project like 0 AD, we always have to reach a balance.

    Perhaps it's best to include the platform on the right side but omit the veranda (which we don't know how it looked like).

    Getting the number of columns of the central courtyard (and frontal porticoes) right is more important to me.

    • Like 1

  22. Macedonian wonder

    in Official tasks

    Posted

    17 hours ago, m7600 said:

    Wait, disregard what I said before. You're talking about the central courtyard, I thought you were talking about the front side. I don't know if I can fit 16 in the courtyard, but I'll give it a try.

    Yes, I was talking about the columns of the central courtyard.

    As for the front side, the porticoes to the left and right of the entrance had twelve columns each :).

    You might want to have another look at the last image in this post.

  23. Macedonian wonder

    in Official tasks

    Posted

    Another minor detail: could you indicate the back doors at the left and right sides? (Doors are just a different part of the same texture, right?) You can find the correct locations in e.g. the first image of this post.

    1 hour ago, m7600 said:

    @Nescio Is this ok for the veranda?

    On the other hand, I wonder if it's really necessary to add it, since in some reconstructions they decided to omit it, in this one for example:

    39 minutes ago, Genava55 said:

    Probably disagreements between archaeologists, the footprints of the remaining building can be difficult to interpret:

    http://en.protothema.gr/palace-of-aigai-biggest-building-of-ancient-greece-opens-to-public-photos/

    https://www.aigai.gr/www.aigai.gr/en/explore/palace.html

    Edit: Either open and uncovered, or open but with columns and covered by a roof.

    (The following is also true for many other archaeological sites.)

    What we have today is the platform, the foundations of the walls, and the remains of some columns. It is therefore known where the walls were, how many rooms the building had and what their sizes were, the locations of the doors, and also that it had two storeys. What we can't say for sure is how tall all of the walls were, how high the roof was, how many windows it had or where, and not even the locations of the internal stairs (which were made of wood, not stone). The purpose of reconstructions is to give an idea how the author thinks something may have looked like. A critical attitude and making up your own mind is always healthy.

    Indeed, that specific reconstruction does not show the veranda. Nor does it include the extension at the back with the secondary courtyard, which is excavated and the dimensions are known. Consequently your model doesn't include it either. That's fine, we could justify it by assuming the extension was a later addition that did not yet exist when Philip II was alive.

    As for the veranda, we know it was there and that it extended along the full length, from back to front; the platform upon which it stood is there. What we don't know is how exactly it looked. It may have been entirely wooden (I'm speculating here). I suggested adding it because it would make the building more interesting to look at when rotating the view. (Symmetry is nice and all, but also a bit boring.)

    What you do with all this information is up to you.

×
×
  • Create New...