Nescio
-
Posts
2.300 -
Joined
-
Days Won
23
Posts posted by Nescio
-
-
Whilst the Kushites are not entirely finished, the same is true about all other factions included in game. There are only voices for Greek and Latin; Athenians use Macedonian structure actors; Britons and Gauls share the same unit actors; not all units have corresponding icons; heroes are highly unbalanced, some have superb auras, others are practically worthless; template naming is inconsistent; there are at least three different transcriptions being used for Greek; Mauryas is still spelled incorrectly; etc. Most of these points will probably go unnoticed by the majority of users; however, all factions are rather identical; sure, they look different, but they all play about the same. Additional content is nice but certainly not important .
Rather than including more civilizations (any selection is arbitrary), it might make more sense to move all factions into separate mods (one mod, one civ), and keep only the engine, gaia objects, and shared content in the main distribution, allowing people to mix and match their own civilization roster. Besides, mods such as Hyrule Conquest, Millennium AD, and Ponies Ascendant don't really need the default civs, nor would the not-yet-started part 2: 1-500 AD.
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, balduin said:
For me it is always fascinating how people argue civilization X and Y did not interact. First of all, if two civilization exist then they spread somehow to that part of the world. Second, history as a science has evolved rapidly especially after WWII. We know more about Celts and Germanic peoples than we knew 70 years ago. I picked specifically those two, because National Socialism abused history extremely when comes to Germanic peoples and Celts. We today know that they were immigrants.
Linguists actually figured out that a large population of the world speaks Indo-European languages. The theory is that there must be some sort of common origin. The current model locates this origin somewhere in today's Russia.
Furthermore, we don't know much about the Phoenicians. They where excellent traders and sailors. The Phoenicians had extensive trade routes. However, even today we don't exactly know all of their trade routes. Maybe they were in contact with more African and European cultures than we currently know.
My point is that we should not try to limit the factions we include in 0 A. D. to only the ones we know had direct contact with ancient Greeks or Romans. I would much rather like to see a snapshot of the world as it was around the year 0 a. d.
1 hour ago, (-_-) said:+1
No reason to not include the Far East and Americas. After all, they did exist even if they didn’t interact with the Greeks or Romans (Maybe the Silk Route existed even back then).
This thread is not for such discussions though.
Tin from the British islands was imported into the Mediterranean to produce bronze. Egypt traded directly with India overseas. Roman glass has been found in China. Chinese silk entered the Mediterranean. These are just a few examples. Pre-modern Eurasia formed a single continuum. The Arsacids (Parthians) and Han China peaked before 1 BC and ought to be included in 0 A.D.'s main distribution.
On the other hand, there is no evidence for any trans-Atlantic links prior to 1492 AD. Zapotecs and other pre-Columbian civilizations belong in a separate mod.
However, somehow I get the feeling I'm merely repeating what I wrote myself five months ago.
Let's simply return to the original topic: Alpha 24 name suggestions.
On 5/17/2018 at 7:37 PM, elexis said:(Which means we can gather, lay out some positive arguments for names but spare the judging, voting and cross comparison until then.)
-
1 hour ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
I'm pretty sure, and @Nescio please correct me if I'm wrong, the Antigonid Royal Peltasts were mostly just elite heavy pikemen. Of course, during sieges and other special operations they would use javelins and swords, but in pitched battle they'd just be the elite of the pike corps, used to anchor one of the flanks like the Seleucid Silver Shields.
Yes, you're not mistaken. A peltast (πελταστής) is someone who bears a rimless shield (πέλτη). The term could and was applied to Thracians and other skirmishers, Iphicratean style hoplites, Hellenistic pikemen, etc.
Furthermore, that hoplites, pikemen, and legionaries occassionally used javelins doesn't make them skirmishers by default.
1 hour ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:Make spearmen Hack-only and you'd get rid of this over reliance on swordsmen for the anti-ram role.
What I did in my mod is separating pierce into thrust (spears) and pierce (arrows); spearmen inflict 100% thrust, sabremen 100% hack, swordsmen 50% thrust and 50% hack; rams are vulnerable to all melee units.
-
3
-
-
On 10/5/2018 at 4:19 PM, elexis said:
First thought about D900? Other mods with new civs had this issue too, so you may want to take a look around.
But given that it complains about "structures/gaia_fortress" might relate to some gaia patch?
It sounds like the rmgen wall_builder doesn't ignore gaia in your mod but might ignore it for the public mod.
Thanks for pointing out that patch; indirectly it helped me figure out what I did wrong in my mod. What caused the random map errors was that I had edited the "WallSets" in the {civ}.json files. After I reverted those to the default values, the errors disappeared, and random maps can now be generated again.
Although I still don't understand why the error message complained about a (non-existent) 'structures/gaia_fortress', it is now gone.
-
Thank you for your quick replies!
1 hour ago, stanislas69 said:Did you apply you Gaia patch on your repository ? This looks like one of the fortress is using the wrong civ
59 minutes ago, (-_-) said:Just a guess but it's probably triggering the error on L240 of wall_builder.js, heres L239But I have no clue how "gaia" could be in g_CivData. Maybe you modified "loadCivFiles" in globalscripts/Templates.js? Nevermind.I think the wallsets templates are the issue. Your templates are a *lot* different than vanilla ones and as Stan mentioned, there is a <civ> element with gaia on the parent template which I could not find in vanilla. Maybe you didnt overrule that field in the individual civ templates?
Adding or removing the <civ> element in the parent wallset template has no effect. And yes, all fortresses, wallsets, and other structures under simulation/templates/structures/{civ}/* overrule the civ element.
And even if a structure would have no <civ>, it results into only a warning, not an error. E.g. if I remove the <civ> from all wallsets (parent and children) in my mod, I get:
"WARNING: The "structures/athen/wallset_city" template has a defined civ of "undefined". This does not match the currently selected civ "athen".
This does not prevent a game from starting.
In other words, the problem is something else in my mod. And skirmish maps start without errors. Only random maps fail to generate.
-
Currently I'm working on my mod ( https://github.com/0abc/0abc-a23.git ) again, reorganizing templates. When I generate a skirmish map, it starts without any errors, but when I attempt to generate a random map, I get six errors, and then it quits:
ERROR: CCacheLoader failed to find archived or source file for: "simulation/templates/structures/gaia_fortress.xml" ERROR: Failed to load entity template 'structures/gaia_fortress' ERROR: Invalid template found for 'structures/gaia_fortress' ERROR: CMapGeneratorWorker::LoadScripts: Failed to load script 'maps/random/rmgen-common/wall_builder.js' ERROR: JavaScript error: globalscripts/Templates.js line 165 TypeError: template is undefined GetTemplateDataHelper@globalscripts/Templates.js:165:1 readyWallElement@maps/random/rmgen-common/wall_builder.js:265:17 loadWallset@maps/random/rmgen-common/wall_builder.js:49:26 loadWallsetsFromCivData@maps/random/rmgen-common/wall_builder.js:33:1 @maps/random/rmgen-common/wall_builder.js:8:20 @maps/random/kerala.js:2:1 ERROR: CMapGeneratorWorker::Run: Failed to load RMS 'maps/random/kerala.js'
I haven't touched any map files or scripts, nor does a `gaia_fortress.xml` file exist, so I have no idea what causes these errors. And because I usually test with a AI vs AI skirmish map, but no random maps, I don't know when these errors where introduced by my mod. Can anyone help me identify and solve the problem? @elexis, perhaps?
(There are also 14 unrelated "Could not remove token 'ConquestCritical' ..." warnings, which can be solved with D1626 .)
-
10 hours ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:
I'd say the remarks made about Genesis 1 Genesis 2 being two separate stories seems plausible given the stylistic and thematic differences despite finding the differences easy enough to reconcile. The flood, on the other hand, being two separate stories merged together, seems to be a clumsier argument in my opinion. The closeness in the text of the "inconsistencies" makes the problems, if they were so, absurd if we are adhering to a documentary hypothesis since they are glaringly obvious to an editor. Admittedly, the only textual criticism I am informed about is New Testament related, yet I think that there are so glaring issues that probably would relate to the following case. First, work with religious texts tends towards conservative ends, attempting to harmonise the texts, making the idea of two stories being merged together implausible due to the so-called inconsistencies mentioned of the flood. Furthermore, it seems unlikely given the generally conservative nature of religious writers that they would mesh together two separate stories. A more likely case would be for there to be two accounts, mirroring the cases of Genesis 1 and 2.
To clarify, I'm not saying there are two separate Noah stories in the Bible; I'm merely pointing out there are *artefacts* of different versions present. It's not a case of a single author who has two different texts before him and suddenly decides to merge the two into one. The different accounts were probably merged (unconsciously) long before they were codified.
Orally transmitted stories tend to evolve; every time a story is told it is slightly different; the story-teller and audience do not always notice this. And when there are different stories or versions alive in a community, they tend to influence each other, and, often, merge eventually. The Iliad is the result of a tradition of many generations, and as a consequence it has artefacts from many different periods and societies: heroes are descibed as chariot-warriors but typically fight on foot; iron is prized as worth more than gold, and shortly afterwards simply said to be useful for making farm-tools; Pylaimenes is killed in book V but still alive in book XIII; etc. Something similar probably happened with the primeval part of Genesis in the centuries before it was incorporated into the pentateuch.
9 hours ago, WhiteTreePaladin said:*The beginning of Genesis 2 can easily be seen as a continuation of the first narrative. It can be difficult to determine where the second narrative actually begins as the first flows so gradually into the second. In Genesis 2:4 there is part of a sentence that mentions the creation of the heavens and earth, but it is either the conclusion of the first narrative or a reference back to it due to the wording: "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,..."
Yes, half-way Gen 2:4 the first narrative ends and the second narrative begins. However, saying "mid-sentence" is misleading. Keep in mind neither word separators, nor capitalization, nor interpunction were used in Antiquity; those were only gradually adopted during the Middle Ages and Renaissance. Where many translations (including yours) have a comma between "... were created" and "in the day ...", many others have a full stop.
Also a note on the numbering: a book is the text of a single scroll; a chapter the text of a single column on it, c. 25 lines; a single line of poetry is called a verse. That the first six days are described in Genesis 1 and the seventh at the beginning of Gen 2 can easily be explained: Gen 1 is already 31 lines long, there is no space to squeeze another five lines below it, therefore those are at the top of the second column.
Chapter lengths are not constant; if a scribe decided to write somewhat smaller he can fit in more lines, and if he uses a greater space between lines he can fill up a column with fewer; as a consequence the longest chapters can be twice as long as the shortest. Although it might sound weird to people depending on text editor software, this is actually quite natural in a pre-modern world; if you hand-write dozens of unlined pages, not all of them will end up with the same amount of text.
Anyway, the point is the numbering is descriptive, nor prescriptive.
-
It is not difficult to ignore, explain away, or smooth over internal consistencies, as has been done by many commentators, translators, and readers over the centuries.
However, it is not unusual that when an orally transmitted story is codified, people try to unify different accounts into one text, leaving artefacts in the final version. Something similar is visible in the Odyssey:
- Although books 5-24 focus on Odysseus, he's entirely absent in books 1-4, which concentrate on his son Telemachus, who does little but complain, talk, and listen to others in the palace (1), Ithaca (2), Pylos (3), and Sparta (4); he's sent by Athena-disguised-as-Mentor to find his father, but at the end of the Telemachy he still doesn't know whether Odysseus is dead or alive
- In books 9-12 Odysseus tells the fairy tales of his travels; at the end of book 10 Circe orders him to visit the Underworld to ask Teiresias for advice on how to get home; in book 11 he talks to Teiresias and several others but doesn't ask nor receive any directions; at the beginning of book 12 he's returned to Circe, who gives him instructions on how to sail home, as if nothing has happened
- Odysseus, his son, and two loyal servants massacre the dozens of suitors of his wife in book 22. In book 23 he's reunited with Penelope, the two go to bed, tell each other what happened in the past twenty years, and go to sleep; the Odyssey clearly ends here. However, then we still have book 24, in which Odysseus and Telemachus visit his father Laertes on his farm, suddenly an enemy army shows up, they prepare to annihilate them, and deus ex machina Athena appears, ordering everyone to calm down and make peace. Some commentators consider book 24 to be a later addition and a few translators even omitted it entirely, because they view it as a disappointing anti-climax unworthy of Homer; yet it is clearly part of the text, linguistically and stylistically as old as other parts of the Odyssey
On 10/1/2018 at 7:03 AM, WhiteTreePaladin said:You obviously did some research on this, and it is possible that the section in question could be the result of two merged accounts. However, I don't feel the particular points you listed provide compelling support for that.
We often follow a summary account with a more detailed account, so I think that's not necessarily that odd in itself. I'm especially not surprised that some in Medieval times had unusual alternate explanations for things. (Actually, that's still common today.)
The remark on Medieval Lilith-vs-Eve was intended as a fun fact, not a proof of anything, which is why I put it between parentheses. However, it does illustrate even monks who believe every word of the Bible to be litterally true felt a need to reconcile the two creation stories.
Both Genesis 1:1-2:4 and Genesis 2:4-2:25 are very short, however, it is clear the former is not an introduction nor the latter a summary. It's the same story told differently; some points are longer in the first, others in the second; the order also differs.
Genesis 1:1-2:4 is the creation in seven days; on the third day God creates Earth, plants, trees, and fruits; on the fifth day fish and all animals that live in the water first, then the birds, and blesses them; on the sixth day he creates all land animals; he then made man and woman to rule everything else, and gives them his instructions.
Genesis 2:4-2:25 starts by stating Earth was empty, there were no plants; God then makes man out of dust, subsequently continues to make the Garden of Eden, places man there, and gives him instructions; then he notices man is lonely, therefore he creates animals and birds, and brings them to man, who names them; but because God didn't find any animal suitable to match man, he puts him to sleep, steals a rib, makes woman out of it, man wakes up, and speaks.
To me this appears to be two different stories; likewise, there are differing accounts in Noah's myth. It's not difficult to find articles, books, and scholarly publications on this.
However, I'm not trying to convince anyone; everyone is entitled to his own opinion. I do urge you to read Genesis yourself; it's a short but rich text full of beautiful stories. Reading the entire book might take less than two hours, and it's really worth your time; Gen 1-11 is about a fifth of the total and could be done in perhaps twenty minutes. Read it, critically, think about it, and make your own judgement on it.
-
Another month has passed, development is still largely frozen.
-
2
-
4
-
-
9 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
Interesting that the other myths "confirm" the Bible's telling, instead of the other way around?
Indeed. There are enough similarities between the myths of Deucalion, Noah, Utnapishtim, Atrahasis, and Ziusudra that there is a consensus all these have a common, Mesopotamian, origin. It has even been suggested the "deluge" of the story was a severe flooding of the Euphrates in c. 2900 BC.
It is not unusual that myths are borrowed and retold elsewhere; many (possibly most) Greek myths came from the Near East; e.g Adonis is Tammuz/Dumuzid.
As for the Bible and Torah, Genesis was probably codified shortly after Cyrus allowed the Jews to return from Babylon to Jerusalem, maybe as a consequence of the construction of the Second Temple, subsidized by Darius, i.e. somewhere around 500 BC. The Mesopotamian versions of the flood myth were written down more than a thousand years earlier and it is highly unlikely the Jews living in Babylon for decades never heard or read the Babylonian version.
Anyway, Genesis consists of two different parts, the primeval (Genesis 1-11: creation of the world; Adam and Eve; their descendants; Noah; his descendants, Tower of Babel, etc.) and the ancestral (Genesis 12-50: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob; Joseph and his brothers, the migration into Egypt) history. The latter serves as an introduction to the stories of Moses (Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deutoronomy).
Many scholars believe the primeval part of Genesis (1-11) is a later addition to serve as an introduction to the ancestral part of Genesis (12-50). Also, Genesis 1-11 is the result of merging at least two different versions, which explains why this part frequently contradicts itself, e.g.:
- the first woman is created twice, first simultaneously with the first man (Gen 1:27), later afterwards out of a rib of him when he was sleeping (Gen 2:21-24). (In Medieval times the explanation was that they were two different women, the former, Lilith, considered herself an equal of the man, and was not willing to obey him, therefore God created the latter, Eve, out of Adam, to serve him as an obidient wife.)
- Noah collects one pair of each animal (Gen 6:19) or seven pairs of all clean animals (Gen 7:2)
- the deluge lasts 40 days (Gen 7:17) or 150 days (Gen 7:24)
- Noah releases a raven once (Gen 8:6-7) and (?) a dove thrice (Gen 8:8-13)
Anyway, the story of Noah in the Bible actually confirms a Mesopotamian origin of the myth, not vice versa.
-
2
-
On 9/29/2018 at 4:21 AM, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:
Most people have heard of the story of the flood. Water came down and wiped out most of humanity. This is most famously told in the Biblical narrative of Noah and the Ark. Interestingly, in many mythological traditions such as Norse, Greek, Sumerian, Chinese, and Native American just to name a few, there is a similar story. Obviously there are differences between them, yet it is fascinating that such a story is told on a global level. One of the more prominent explanations for this phenomenon is to argue that it confirms the Bible's story, but for those who would dismiss this, what do you think of the matter? Is it a coincidence and apologists who argue for the aforementioned statement are simply jumping conclusions?
Basically there are two different questions:
- was there a world-wide myth about a flood?
- was there a global deluge?
The answer to both is actually negative. First the former: it takes more than just "there was a flood" to conclude different myths have a common origin. There are numerous trickster myths throughout the world, but that doesn't mean there once was a single myth shared by everyone (nor that there was only one trickster ever, on which all later myths were based). The Greeks had several flood myths (Deucalion and Pyrrha, Philemon and Baukis, Achilles vs Xanthos/Skamander, Atlantis), but these are all separate stories with different origins.
Then the second. It is true global sea levels have been rising over the past thousands of years, albeit at varrying speeds; the increase since c. 5000 BC is practically negligible. What matters more is that continental plates are moving, causing some areas to submerge and others to rise (e.g. the Atlantic Ocean widens at about 2.5 cm each year and Mount Everest in the Himalayas becomes nearly 1 cm higher yearly). It is also true the Black Sea was not always connected to the Mediterranean, the Mediterranean not always to the Atlantic. and the Persian Gulf not always to the Arabian Sea. However, although there are some who argue this might have happened at single, catastrophic events, the majority believes that all these changes happen at too slow a pace for individual humans to notice.
People tend to overlook that flooding is actually quite common. Rainfall isn't constant and river levels fluctuate. Usually rivers stay within their course but occassionally they inundiate nearby areas, sometimes for days, sometimes for weeks. We know from Latin and Italian sources that e.g. the Tiber (Rome) and Arno (Florence) frequently flooded; it was part of normal life; only particularly severe ones enter collective memory, e.g. the Seine (Paris) in 1910 or the Arno in 1966.
Only last month (August 2018) there were severe floodings in Kerala; c. 500 people died, over a million were evacuated to relief camps, five million more were directly affected; and Kerala is a relatively wealthy state with weather forcasts, emergency services, mass communication, and dozens of dams to control water levels. In a different time or area there would have been a far greater disaster.
Given that the vast majority of human population throughout have lived since pre-historic times, and still are living in the present day, near rivers, and that it is not unusual for rivers to flood, it is perfectly understandable (unrelated) flood stories are present in different parts of the world.
-
1
-
Furthermore, you can change the default batch training size and the scroll batch increment ratio in game under Settings/Options/In-Game.
-
2
-
-
Let's approach it differently and rephrase some things more sharply:
- War elephants are highly effective vs buildings in Age of Mythology, therefore 0 A.D.'s war elephants should be battering rams.
- 0 A.D.'s Mauryas can't construct any siege weapons, therefore 0 A.D.'s war elephants should be battering rams.
- Some 16th C A.D. Mughal fortresses had anti-elephant spikes on gates, therefore 0 A.D.'s war elephants should be battering rams.
- Humans can raze stone walls, elephants are much larger and stronger than humans, therefore 0 A.D.'s war elephants should be battering rams.
These statements are all improper arguments. In my opinion historical accuracy should matter for 0 A.D. So far I've not seen any evidence war elephants were used to batter down city walls or gates in 0 A.D.'s timeframe (500-1 B.C.), therefore they shouldn't be effectively battering rams in game.
4 hours ago, Sundiata said:Also, we do actually have period Maurya references about elephants assaulting fortifications. The Arthashastra mentions something called nagarayanam, the art of assailing forts and cities with elephants....
Interesting; could you quote or link to a translation?
4 hours ago, Sundiata said:It is clear from all three of those references that elephants of the attacking armies advanced up to the actual fortifications breaking through the earthworks in the third example...
The third, you mean Livy's account of the siege of Capua? Read carefully. The Romans were besieging the city and Hannibal arrived to rescue his Capuan allies. The "earthwork" is not Capua's city walls, it's simply the emergency fortification surrounding the Roman army camp, probably erected within a few days at most. And the text says the elephants arrived at the earthworks, i.e. they had broken through the Roman field army formation and had now reached the camp behind it. This is yet another example where elephants are *not* used as battering rams.
None of the sources indicates elephants were actually ordered to attack gates or city walls. Elephants are occassionally mentioned in descriptions of sieges, yes, but so are archers and cavalry, and those are not effectively siege weapons either.
4 hours ago, Sundiata said:So as you can see, I'm not arguing that elephants are siege-equipment, or that it should be their primary purpose.
Good, we're in agreement on this then.
4 hours ago, Sundiata said:I'd like to emphasize (again) that elephants weren't primarily used as siege-equipment, but removing this very soft abstraction from the game (not really even an abstraction, more like a rarity), whilst swords and spears and even arrows can take down structures, is utterly ridiculous in my opinion.
There seems to be a misunderstanding here, I never said elephants shouldn't be able to attack structures. What I'm saying is that war elephants shouldn't be organic battering rams. In 0 A.D. they clearly are: a battering ram inflicts 150 crush damage per 1.5 s, a war elephant 150 crush + 20 hack damage per 1.5 s, so elephants are not very effective vs massed human soldiers, but can actually raze a structure quicker than a ram can. In my opinion this should really change.
PS Not exactly Apelles, but still enjoyable to look at:
-
1
-
2 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
I guess saying "many examples" was an error. But one I can think of is Pyrrhus at Argos (where he was slain by a roof tile thrown by an old woman).
Yes, Pyrrhus' army included elephants, however, they were not used to batter down city walls or gates either. Plut. Pyrrh. 32-34 describes what happened during that chaotic night in Argos:
Spoiler32. At dead of night Pyrrhus came up to the walls of the city, and finding that the gate called Diamperes had been thrown open for them by Aristeas, was undiscovered long enough for his Gauls to enter the city and take possession of the marketplace. But the gate would not admit his elephants, and therefore the towers had to be taken off their backs and put on again when the animals were inside, in darkness and confusion. This caused delay, and the Argives, taking tile alarm, ran up to the Aspis and other strong places of the city, and sending to Antigonus called upon him for help. [2] Antigonus marched up close to the city, and lying in wait there himself, sent his generals and his son inside with a considerable relief-force. Areus also came, with a thousand Cretans and Spartans (the most lightly armed). All these troops united in an assault upon the Gauls and threw them into great confusion. And Pyrrhus, who now entered the city with shouts and cries by way of Cylarabis,1 noticed that the Gauls did not answer his men with any vigour or courage, and therefore conjectured that their response was that of men confounded and in distress. [3] Accordingly, he led on faster, pushing along the horsemen in front of him, who were making their way with difficulty among the water-conduits, of which the city is full, and were in peril of their lives from them. And now, in this night-battle, there was great uncertainty as to what commands were given and how the commands were carried out; men straggled and lost their way among the narrow streets, and generalship was of no avail owing to the darkness, confused shouting, and confined spaces; both parties therefore were unable to accomplish anything and waited for the day.
[4] But when at last it began to grow light, the sight of the Aspis filled with armed enemies greatly disturbed Pyrrhus; moreover, among the numerous votive-offerings in the market-place he caught sight of a wolf and bull in bronze, represented as closing with one another in battle, and he was dumbfounded, for he called to mind an ancient oracle regarding himself which declared that it was fated for him to die when he saw a wolf fighting with a bull. [5] Now, the Argives say that these figures were set up in their market-place as memorials of an ancient event. Namely, when Danaüs first landed in the country, near Pyramia in the district of Thyreatis, and was on his way to Argos, he saw a wolf fighting with a bull; and conceiving that he himself was represented by the wolf (since both were strangers and were attacking the natives), he watched the battle to its end, and when the wolf had prevailed, paid his vows to Apollo Lyceius (the wolf-god), attacked the city, and was victorious, after Gelanor, who was at that time king of Argos, had been driven out by a faction. This, then, was the significance of the dedication.2
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2008.01.0060%3Achapter%3D32
33. Dejected at this well as because none of his hopes were being realized, Pyrrhus purposed to retreat; but fearing the narrowness of the gates he sent to his son Helenus, who had been left outside the city with the greater part of the forces, ordering him to tear down part of the wall and succour those who rushed out through the breach, in case the enemy molested them. [2] Owing to the haste and tumult, however, the messenger brought no clear orders, but actually made a mistake, and the young prince, taking the rest of the elephants and the best of his soldiers, marched through the gate into the city to help his father. But Pyrrhus was already on the retreat. And as long as the marketplace afforded him room for withdrawing and fighting, he would turn and repel his assailants; [3] but after he had been driven out of the market-place into the narrow street which led up to the gate, and encountered those who were rushing to his aid from the opposite direction, some of these could not hear him when he called out to them to withdraw, and those who did, even though they were very ready to obey him, were kept from doing so by those who were pouring in behind them from the gate. [4] For the largest of the elephants had fallen athwart the gateway1 and lay there roaring, in the way of those who would have turned back; and another elephant, one of those which had gone on into the city, Nicon by name, seeking to recover his rider, who had fallen from his back in consequence of wounds, and dashing in the face of those who were trying to get out, crowded friends and foes alike together in a promiscuous throng, [5] until, having found the body of his master, he took it up with his proboscis, laid it across his two tusks, and turned back as if crazed, overthrowing and killing those who came in his way. Thus crushed and matted together not a man of them could act at all for himself, but the whole multitude, bolted together, as it were, into one body, kept rolling and swaying this way and that. [6] Little fighting could be done against those of the enemy who were continually being caught up into their ranks or attacking them from the rear, and they wrought most harm to themselves. For when a man had drawn his sword or poised his spear, he could not recover or sheathe his weapon again, but it would pass through those who stood in its way, and so they died from one another's blows.
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2008.01.0060%3Achapter%3D33
34. But Pyrrhus, seeing the stormy sea that surged about him, took off the coronal, with which his helmet was distinguished, and gave it to one of his companions; then, relying on his horse, he plunged in among the enemy who were pursuing him. Here he was wounded by a spear which pierced his breastplate-not a mortal, nor even a severe wound-and turned upon the man who had struck him, who was an Argive, not of illustrious birth, but the son of a poor old woman. [2] His mother, like the rest of the women, was at this moment watching the battle from the house-top, and when she saw that her son was engaged in conflict with Pyrrhus she was filled with distress in view of the danger to him, and lifting up a tile with both her hands threw it at Pyrrhus. It fell upon his head below his helmet and crushed the vertebrae at the base of his neck, so that his sight was blurred and his hands dropped the reins. Then he sank down from his horse and fell near the tomb of Licymnius,1 unrecognised by most who saw him. [3] But a certain Zopyrus, who was serving under Antigonus, and two or three others, ran up to him, saw who he was, and dragged him into a door-way just as he was beginning to recover from the blow. And when Zopyrus drew an Illyrian short-sword with which to cut off his head, Pyrrhus gave him a terrible look, so that Zopyrus was frightened; his hands trembled, and yet he essayed the deed; but being full of alarm and confusion his blow did not fall true, but along the mouth and chin, so that it was only slowly and with difficulty that he severed the head. [4] Presently what had happened was known to many, and Alcyoneus, running to the spot, asked for the head as if he would see whose it was. But when he had got it he rode away to his father, and cast it down before him as he sat among his friends. Antigonus, however, when he saw and recognised the head, drove his son away, smiting him with his staff' and calling him impious and barbarous; then, covering his face with his cloak he burst into tears, calling to mind Antigonus his grandfather and Demetrius his father, who were examples in his own family of a reversal of fortune.
[5] The head and body of Pyrrhus, then, Antigonus caused to be adorned for burial and burned; and when Alcyoneus found Helenus in an abject state and wearing a paltry cloak, and spoke to him kindly and brought him into the presence of his father, Antigonus was pleased with his conduct, and said: ‘This is better, my son, than what thou didst before; but not even now hast thou done well in allowing this clothing to remain, which is a disgrace the rather to us who are held to be the victors.’ [6] Then, after showing kindness to Helenus and adorning his person, he sent him back to Epeirus, and he dealt mildly with the friends of Pyrrhus when he became master of their camp and of their whole force.
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2008.01.0060%3Achapter%3D34
2 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:give every civ the battering ram
Yes, I fully agree, preferably in the town phase.
-
1 hour ago, dmzerocold said:
I had issue on my system, now im downloading DEV version again , i want to test translation / voice on my side
if possible , i may need your help.
1 hour ago, asterix said:mini- mod is much quicker
1 hour ago, dmzerocold said:Could you please explain to me how ? if its ok for you , or introduce me a person who can help.
Basically:
- make a new directory in 0 A.D.'s local mods folder (see https://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/Modding_Guide#Wherearethemods )
- put a `mod.json` file there to allow your mod to be detected and loaded in game
- place your audio files under `{yourmod}/audio/voice/persian/civ/`
-
copy the templates of the units you want to use your audio files, place them under `{yourmod}/simulation/templates/units/`, and insert
<Lang>persian</Lang>
between "<Identity>" and "</Identity>"
-
launch 0 A.D., go to Settings/Mod Selection, then select your mod, click "Enable", "Save Configuration", and "Start Mods".
-
1
-
1 hour ago, Sundiata said:
Elephants were notorious for breaking down gates on the Indian subcontinent, to the extent that fortifications were specifically being designed to withstand elephant attacks (pikes on gates and a secondary lower wall, to keep whoever is on the back of the elephant from scaling the primary wall). The Mauryas are in the game...
Mauryan fortifications? Or something from many centuries later?
1 hour ago, Sundiata said:Elephants seem to have been an element during sieges... As much a liability as an asset, but an element nonetheless.
So they were also used to break sieges. So perhaps that should be one of their explicit bonuses. They'd need to be more mobile than they are now though... Can't their obstruction box or whatever be reduced in size to allow them to move more smoothly. I mean, it's an organic unit, not a rigid log.
Let's first have a look at those three sources cited.
Panormus (Palermo), 250 B.C.; Plb 1.40:
SpoilerMeanwhile Hasdrubal noticed the terror displayed by the Romans whenever they had lately found themselves in the presence of the enemy. He learnt also that one of the Consuls had departed and gone to Italy, and that Caecilius was lingering in Panormus with the other half of the army, with the view of protecting the corn-crops of the allies just then ripe for the harvest. He therefore got his troops in motion, marched out, and encamped on the frontier of the territory of Panormus. Caecilius saw well enough that the enemy had become supremely confident, and he was anxious to draw him on; he therefore kept his men within the walls. Hasdrubal imagined that Caecilius dared not come out to give him battle. Elated with this idea, he pushed boldly forward with his whole army and marched over the pass into the territory of Panormus. But though he was destroying all the standing crops up to the very walls of the town, Caecilius was not shaken from his resolution, but kept persistently to it, until he had induced him to cross the river which lay between him and the town. But no sooner had the Carthaginians got their elephants and men across, than Caecilius commenced sending out his light-armed troops to harass them, until be had forced them to get their whole army into fighting order. When he saw that everything was happening as he designed it, he placed some of his light troops to line the wall and moat, with instructions that if the elephants came within range they should pour volleys of their missiles upon them; but that whenever they found themselves being forced from their ground by them, they should retreat into the moat, rush out of it again, and hurl darts at the elephants which happened to be nearest. At the same time he gave orders to the armourers in the market-place to carry the missiles and heap them up outside at the foot of the wall. Meanwhile he took up his own position with his maniples at the gate which was opposite the enemy's left wing, and kept despatching detachment after detachment to reinforce his skirmishers. The engagement commenced by them becoming more and more general, a feeling of emulation took possession of the officers in charge of the elephants. They wished to distinguish themselves in the eyes of Hasdrubal, and they desired that the credit of the victory should be theirs: they therefore, with one accord, charged the advanced skirmishing parties of the enemy, routed them with ease, and pursued them up to the moat. But no sooner did the elephants thus come to close quarters than they were wounded by the archers on the wall, and overwhelmed with volleys of pila and javelins which poured thick and fast upon them from the men stationed on the outer edge of the moat, and who had not yet been engaged,—and thus, studded all over with darts, and wounded past all bearing, they soon got beyond control. They turned and bore down upon their own masters, trampling men to death, and throwing their own lines into utter disorder and confusion. When Caecilius saw this he led out his men with promptitude. His troops were fresh; the enemy were in disorder; and he charged them diagonally on the flank: the result was that he inflicted a severe defeat upon them, killed a large number, and forced the rest into precipitate flight. Of the elephants he captured ten along with their Indian riders: the rest which had thrown their Indians he managed to drive into a herd after the battle, and secured every one of them. This achievement gained him the credit on all hands of having substantially benefited the Roman cause, by once more restoring confidence to the army, and giving them the command of the open country.
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Plb.+1.40&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0234
Numantia, 153 B.C.; App. Hisp. 9.46:
SpoilerThe Arevaci convened immediately, even in the night, at Numantia, which was a very strong city, and chose Ambo and Leuco as their generals. Three days later Nobilior advanced and pitched his camp twenty-four stades from the place. Here he was joined by 300 horse and ten elephants sent to him by Masinissa. When he moved against the enemy he placed these animals in the rear where they could not be seen. Then when battle was joined the army divided and brought the elephants into view. The Celtiberians and their horses, who had never seen elephants before, were thunderstruck and fled to the city. Nobilior advanced at once against the city walls, where the battle raged fiercely, until one of the elephants was struck on the head with a large falling stone, when he became savage, uttered a loud cry, turned upon his friends, and began to destroy everything that came in his way, making no distinction between friend and foe. The other elephants, excited by his cries, all began to do the same, trampling the Romans under foot, scattering and hurling them this way and that. This is always the way with elephants when they are enraged. Then they take everybody for foes; wherefore some people call them the common enemy, on account of their @#$%leness. The Romans took to disorderly flight. When the Numantines perceived this they sallied out and pursued them, killing about 4000 men and three elephants. They also captured many arms and standards. The loss of the Celtiberians was about 2000.
Capua, 211 B.C.; Liv. 26.5:
Spoiler[1] while matters stood thus at Capua, Hannibal was drawn in opposite directions by the desire to take the citadel of Tarentum and to hold Capua. [2] however, regard for Capua prevailed, a city on which he saw that the attention of all his allies and enemies was concentrated, and one destined to be a striking example, whatever might be the result of its revolt from the Romans. [3] accordingly, leaving in the land of the Bruttii a large part of his baggage and all the heavy —armed, with picked infantry and cavalry he hastened into Campania in the best possible condition for a rapid march. in spite of his swift movement thirty —three elephants managed to follow him. [4] he encamped in a closed valley behind Tifata, a [p. 19]mountain commanding Capua. as he approached, he1 first captured the stronghold of Galatia,2 overpowering its garrison, and then directed his march against the besiegers of Capua. [5] and sending word in advance to Capua, stating at what time he proposed to attack the Roman camp, so that they also, making ready for a sally, might at the same time burst out of all the gates, he inspired great alarm. [6] for on one side he himself attacked, on the other all the Capuans, cavalry and infantry, sallied out, and with them the Carthaginian garrison, commanded by Bostar and Hanno.
[7] the Romans in their alarm, so as not to leave one point undefended by rushing in the same direction, divided their forces among them as follows: Appius Claudius was placed facing the Capuans, Fulvius facing Hannibal: [8] Gaius Nero, the propraetor, with the cavalry of six legions took his place along the road leading to Suessula, Gaius Fulvius Flaccus, the lieutenant, with the cavalry of the allies in the direction of the river Volturnus. [9] the battle began not only with the usual shouting and uproar, but, in addition to the noise of men and horses and arms, the non —combatant populace of Capua disposed along the walls produced so much shouting, together with the clashing of bronze,3 such as is usually kept up in the still night of a lunar eclipse, as to divert the attention even of the combatants. [10] Appius was easily keeping the Capuans away from the earthwork of the camp; on the other side a larger force, Hannibal and the Carthaginians, were pressing Fulvius. there the sixth legion gave way, and after it had been forced back, a [11??] cohort of Spaniards with three elephants managed even to reach the [p. 21]earthwork, and had broken through the Roman centre,4 and wavered between the hope of breaking through into the camp and the danger of being cut off from their own troops. [12] Fulvius, on seeing the alarm of the legion and the danger to the camp, bade Quintus Navius and other first centurions to attack the cohort of the enemy fighting beneath the earthwork. he said that it was a very critical moment; that either they must be allowed to pass —and [13] it would be less of an effort for them to burst into the camp than it had been to break through the solid line —or else they must be disposed of beneath the earthwork. [14] also that it would not involve much fighting; they were few and cut off from their own men; and if the battle —line, which in the panic of the Romans seemed to have been broken through, should face against the enemy from both sides, it would enclose them between two fronts. [15] Navius, on hearing these words of the commander, snatched a standard of the second maniple of the hastati from the standard —bearer and carried it towards the enemy, threatening that he would throw it into their midst if the soldiers did not quickly follow him and take a hand in the battle. [16] a huge frame he had, and his arms added distinction; and the standard held aloft had attracted citizens and enemies to the sight. [17] but when he had pushed through to the standards of the Spaniards, spears were then hurled at him from every side, and almost the entire line turned against him alone. but neither the numbers of the enemy nor the mass of weapons could beat off the attack of such a man.
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Liv.+26+5&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0158
Yes, armies with elephants besieged cities, however, in all three examples it is clear the fighting took place or started outside the city walls. The usage of elephants as living battering rams is not mentioned.
-
4 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
There are many examples of elephants being used to batter down city gates
Are there? Please find me one clear reference for 0 A.D.'s timeframe (500-1 B.C.).
-
See https://trac.wildfiregames.com/browser/ps/trunk/binaries/data/config/default.cfg lines 256, 314, and 315.
- single click: select unit
- double click: select all visible units of the same type
- treble click: select all visible units of the same type and rank
- with alt: include offscreen units in selection
"LeftBracket" and "RightBracket" mean the keys representing the [ and ] characters on an US-qwerty keyboard, i.e. <AD11> and <AD12> respectively (the eleventh and twelfth key on the fourth row from the bottom).
All of the above works fine for me (Fedora 28).
-
The European parliament (representing the EU's population) decided the proposal can be adopted in principle. The text is still a draft. Now it's up to the European council (representing the governments of the EU's member states) to decide upon the precise wording and turn the directive into law. In other words, it's still possible to change the more controversial articles into something vague and ineffective, but that's up to your national ministers.
And remember it's not the end of the road. Nothing is permanent in politics.
-
Including a large number of civilizations but separating them into epochs sounds rather arbitrary for me. For instance, the Early Middle Ages have a lot more in common with Late Antiquity than with the Late Middle Ages. Of course, one could subdivide them into shorter epochs, but then you'd also have more cut-offs of factions which belong in multiple groupings. Besides, these epochs are heavily eurocentric. Furthermore, some might prefer geographic groupings (e.g. only Indian civilizations, but none from Europe or elsewhere) rather than chronological ones.
A more sensible approach would be to put all factions into separate downloadable mods (one civ, one mod), giving people the freedom to decide for themselves which ones they want to install and use. It would complicate multiplayer a bit, though, because players have to have the same mods active to be able to join a game.
-
2
-
-
Your suggestion reminds me of Empire Earth.
-
2
-
-
However, if you only want to try out new sounds (or other content) you created, writing a tiny mod is far more efficient.
-
2
-
-
Just now, dmzerocold said:
thanks , can i have both public version and development version installed on my system at the same time ?
Yes, you can have as many different versions installed as you like (provided you have enough free disk space).
-
16 minutes ago, dmzerocold said:
Can i have access to development version of game? because if i can hear and see these voices in action , i may improve them (add emotion / or maybe finding better phrase) before game publicity release
To browse files: https://trac.wildfiregames.com/browser/ps/trunk/binaries/data/mods/public/
To install: https://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/BuildInstructions
To propose and discuss changes: https://code.wildfiregames.com/
-
1
-
Ranged Units
in Gameplay Discussion
Posted
Interesting; I'm especially curious as to where that number of "only 1,500 archers" comes from. According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gaugamela#Size_of_Persian_army "the main weapon of the Achaemenid army historically was the bow and arrow, and javelin." And according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparabara "nine rows of archers would be protected by one row of shield-bearers." However, we all know Wikipedia is not a reliable source.
The most important of Alexander's biographers is Arrian. Gaugamela is described in book III. He also provides numbers for the Persian army:
Arrian doesn't break the numbers down into heavy (melee) and light (ranged). And yes, Arrian wrote five centuries post factum and modern scholarship tend to view his round numbers as exaggarations and poetic licence.
An example of a battle where the light troops are listed separately from heavy infantry is Herodotus' description of the Greek army at Plataea:
There were seven helots per Spartan; the Greek army as a whole had about twice as many light troops as hoplites (69500:38700). Perhaps the army was somewhat smaller than the numbers given by Herodotus, but there is no real reason to doubt his troop ratios.
Anyway, "a general analysis of army compositions" based on a single number from Wikipedia does not exactly convince me. Nor does calling it "not extremely unusual" help.