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. Hypaspists and armaments

    in Gameplay Discussion

    Posted

    15 minutes ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:

    While there are other views on the other side for this matter, it is no surprise that in academic discourse there is no broad consensus.

    Then why are you pushing for the implementation of a specific interpretation?

    16 minutes ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:

    If you would like to see some more sources, some of which I found that also take a similar position from more modern historiography are articles such as "Alexander's Hypaspists Again" by J. R. Ellis.  Likewise, in an article published in 2004 entitled "Philopoemen's Special Forces: Peltasts and a New Kind of Greek Light-Armed Warfare (Livy 35.27)" by Mary Frances Williams, she takes a similar stance, arguing that hypaspists were lightly armed.  Another source that has a similar stance is "The Macedonian Sarissa, Spear, and Related Armor" by Minor M. Markel.

    I didn't look up Ellis 1975 and Markel 1977, but I've just downloaded Williams 2004. Interestingly the article repeatedly calls Alexander's hypaspists heavy infantry, e.g.:

    Quote

    Alexander developed his cavalry into the premier method of fighting in the Hellenistic period and he used heavy-armed hypaspists in battle.[50]

    on page 265 and again on page 270:

    Quote

    Alexander the Great made innovative use of his light-armed troops in pitched battles.[88] He also used heavy-armed hypaspists, some as his bodyguard and others as a special unit that fought with the infantry, in ambushes, and on special expeditions.[89] But they were heavy-armed, and Alexander's hypaspists were not peltasts.[90]

    Again, please find me some recent sources that support your view :)

  3. Hypaspists and armaments

    in Gameplay Discussion

    Posted · Edited by Nescio
    ce

    14 hours ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:

    The following from J. F. C. Fuller's The Generalship of Alexander the Great does a good job of summarising the academic views.

    It's worth noting that book was published in 1958 and academic views change, so your source might be outdated. Also, J. F. C. Fuller (1878–1966) was a British officer involved with organizing the first tank attack (in 1917), a dominant advocate for armoured warfare (hardly surprising), and a prolific writer on a wide range of subjects, from military history to mysticism; his views were already controversial in his own time (thank you, Wikipedia). I'd highly recommend you to look for a few more (recent) sources.

  4. DE Alpha 23b rebundle

    in Delenda Est

    Posted

    11 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

    ResourceTrickle, I just changed line 6 to decimal, from nonNegativeDecimal.

    Yeah, I also did that in my 0abc mod. Others might want to try it out too, which is why I proposed D1323 months ago. Maybe after the feature freeze is lifted :)

    • Like 1

  6. Sound Lead Application - Sam Gossner

    in Applications and Contributions

    Posted

    4 minutes ago, Samulis said:

    That's not a problem, certainly. I personally do think avoiding underscores within arguments is a good idea if we can help it, though- hence the hyphen idea, although if that too is impractical, then underscores it shall be.

    Please use `snake_case`; most content in the 0 A.D. folder already does; consistency matters; and getting files renamed after they're committed is cumbersome.

  8. Problems with multiplayer in MAC

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    20 minutes ago, stanislas69 said:

    Forums, lobby messages, irclogs, lobby IPs list of contributors screen messages and anything people share with us.

    Forums are separate from the game itself, as are the IRC Channel, trac, and Phabricator. The contributor credits lists are on an opt-in basis. As for the lobby, you should inform users what you collect and why, anonymize the data or store it pseudo-anonymized (e.g. encrypted), send users their data when requested, and erase it when reasonable.

    18 minutes ago, elexis said:

    Did you just post personal data online? That's one of the things that isn't clear to me.

    Can I be personally identified by my post?

  10. ===[TASK]=== Celtic Unit Textures

    in Official tasks

    Posted

    13 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

    These are the colors for the Celt female head's hair: 

    

  <group>
    <variant frequency="1" name="color-blonde">
      <color>232 205 123</color>
    </variant>
    <variant frequency="1" name="color-red">
      <color>224 120 16</color>
    </variant>
    <variant frequency="3" name="color-brown">
      <color>120 114 35</color>
    </variant>
  </group>

     

    I definitely see the 3 above colors in the screenshot.

    And here are those colours as defined above:

    hair.png.858d6b222fc086295f1525fa091158d7.png

    I'd say they are tan, orange, and olive. However, the screenshot colours look somewhat different.

  12. Packing and Unpacking Rams and Siege Towers

    in Gameplay Discussion

    Posted

    On 6/6/2018 at 6:15 PM, Loki1950 said:

    He most likely learned to use a keyboard with a typewriter remember those two spaces after a sentence was the standard for over fifty years it's only with the advent of word processing that it changed as for being easier to read all the formal research says there is no real difference in either speed or comprehension.

    Enjoy the Choice :) 

    Lack of interpunction is also slightly unpleasant (I didn't write "difficult", mind) to read :)

    Also, "the" standard is relative; I have dozens of 20th C books and even a few from the 19th C, however, I just checked, none of them is typeset with two spaces after a full stop. On the other hand, typewriting is a category somewhere in between manuscripts and printed media; yours is an interesting suggestion.

    18 hours ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:

    Not precisely: I learned to type with a system rather reminiscent of that idea.  Typing without two-spaces seems alien to me, but I'm okay with seeing other people do it.  Sorry if I caused anyone distress through my spacing tendencies; that is not at all my intentions and I express my humblest apologies possible without being insincere.  :) 

    There is no need to apologize.

    You did not cause distress.

    At least not to me.

    I was just curious.

    Therefore I asked.

    To me, using more than one space suggests sentences do not belong together.

    As if they all could have been in separate paragraphs.

    Like this.

    It's not difficult to read.

    But it's unusual.

    Therefore it catches the eye.

    And somewhat distracted me from the words itself.

    Unconventional typesetting can have that effect.

    Anyway, it might just be me.

    Thank you for your reply.

    • Haha 1

  13. Packing and Unpacking Rams and Siege Towers

    in Gameplay Discussion

    Posted

    6 hours ago, aeonios said:

    One thing I quickly noticed when reviewing the existing civs was that a lot of our civs have extremely thin unit rosters. Like sele, which has exactly 3 infantry units and 2 cavalry. How are you supposed to create an RPS balance system with only 5 units, most of which aren't even counters to each other? Some civs are ok but for a lot them there's just not enough there to work with.

    5 hours ago, stanislas69 said:

    I guess the reason behind sele is that it's a very recent civ which unlike Kushites was included before being finished :)

    See DE for more units ideas.

    also see the respective design document :)

    5 minutes ago, fatherbushido said:

    Last time, I checked, there were a lot more units for sele (but perhaps the discussion is not about a 'mod' or things have changed since).

    In both A22 and A23 the Seleucids have the following unit roster:

    • barracks: infantry spearman, infantry pikeman, infantry javelinist, and cavalry javelinist (all village phase) and horse archer (town phase)
    • military colony: infantry swordsman, infantry archer, cavalry spearman (all town phase mercenaries)
    • fortress: infantry pikeman, infantry swordsman, cavalry spearman, chariot, and war elephant (all city phase champions) and stone thrower and siege tower (both city phase siege engines)

    They have no battering rams, bolt shooters, infantry slingers, or cavalry swordsmen, however, the game would be a bit boring if all civilizations would have a fully complete unit roster.

     

    • Like 1

  14. Is there a way to create unit variants?

    in Game Modification

    Posted

    1 minute ago, stanislas69 said:

    You plan to have different territory types ?

    Aren't there already? (own ally neutral enemy - how is the territory of "neutral" players called, by the way?)

    9 minutes ago, aeonios said:

    Heh. Those are great but things like being able to set what territory classes a structure will decay in seem more important, or making damage bonuses something sane rather than "meleeCavalryBonus".

    Additive bonus damages (e.g. +3.0) would be nice to have too. As would de-hardcoding damage types to allow modders to add, edit, or remove damage types, rather than forcing everyone to stick to the hack/pierce/crush scheme. Another thing I'd like to have is the ability to have units occupy more than one garrison space slot (e.g. infantry one, cavalry three). I could go on, but ignore me; I'm sure you already have more than enough to do. Besides, there is still a feature freeze, right?

  15. Packing and Unpacking Rams and Siege Towers

    in Gameplay Discussion

    Posted

    36 minutes ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:

    A thing that needs to be realised though is that the game is still in alpha, and any tutorial that is made for that alpha alone could later be outdated in just a few alphas.  Balance is a good idea to continue to evolve since that keeps an active playerbase for the game.  Trigger warning: I'll next write about game design.

    Regarding counters.  I personally dislike that word as an explanation of how units interact beyond a simple rock-paper-scissors formula.  Although it is possible to build on that, it rapidly becomes convoluted.  I would look to the previous document which outlined counters for 0 A.D.  It was very unintuitive.  I personally prefer the term 'roles,' a less loaded concept since counters generally only define units by what they are good against.  Can there be some hard and soft counters in the mix?  Yes, but there should be more to a unit's design than just that.  The ultimate goal embraced by the original makers of 0 A.D. was a combat system that was more like total war, and ideas for how units should operate should be established within that kind of framework.  Were there counters in that system?  True, yet much of the bases for these were due to the tactics players employed against those units. 

    Why do you type two spaces after each sentence? It's slightly unpleasant to read.

    • Confused 1

  16. Packing and Unpacking Rams and Siege Towers

    in Gameplay Discussion

    Posted

    Personally I'm in favour of letting the game evolve and see where it goes. Although 0 A.D. is far from perfect, it is promissing nonetheless. Every alpha is a significant improvement over the previous. Gameplay and balance are not great, true, but we're still in the alpha stage. Besides, people will always be complaining, myself included :)

    Luckily it's quite easy to modify the game and to distribute modifications. The problem is not a lack of vision or a shortage of ideas, but an abundance of different overlapping and conflicting visions. Radical changes will please some, but alienate others. I'm not in favour of the tyranny of democratic dictatorship. Getting consensus is often hard, but if you fail to convince others your suggestion is an improvement, then it might not be a good enough solution.

    Is the svn version still in feature freeze, by the way?

  22. Kushites are too weak

    in Gameplay Discussion

    Posted

    57 minutes ago, Sundiata said:

    But I'm not arguing anymore for them to have recruitable archers (that was only in my first post on this topic).

    Yes, I'm aware; we've already established Britons shouldn't have archers (and Gauls should).

    59 minutes ago, Sundiata said:

    But as you said, the Britons depicted in-game are Celts, and the Celts of mainland Europe employed a lot of archers according to Julius Caesar:

    Caesars frequently mentions the Gauls using archers. However, he also invaded Britain (end of book IV, start of book V) and describes several battles there; he repeatedly states the Britons use chariotry and cavalry, spears and javelins, but he never mentions they had archers, bows, or arrows.

    1 hour ago, Sundiata said:

    That makes no sense whatsoever...

    Just to entertain you: if there was evidence for the use of quinqueremes and war elephants in Mesolithic and Neolithic Britain (which there obviously isn't), then you could argue that they may have used them in the bronze age, but seriously, what kind of comparison is that? Comparing a simple and ancient bow (which was definitely in use in Neolithic Britain) to the incredibly complicated quinquereme or war elephants (which definitely didn't exist in Neolithic Britain)...

    It's not a fair comparison, it's an exaggaration :) My intention was to show why I prefer "there is evidence they had", instead of "there is no evidence they had not".

    • Like 1

  23. Kushites are too weak

    in Gameplay Discussion

    Posted

    1 hour ago, Sundiata said:

    Ok, so why not indeed, for the sake of gameplay, give slingers and archers the same unit-roles, with the same damage in terms of stats. Slingers would just have a slightly higher range/lower accuracy and archers a slightly lower range/higher accuracy. I think that's intuitive enough, no?

    Right now we have two distinct unit types, archers and slingers, in game and it works. So why is there a need to merge them? We might as well merge horse archers and cavalry javelinists or bolt shooters and stone throwers.

    1 hour ago, Sundiata said:

    It's not that I disagree with no archers for Iberians and Britons. I'm fine with slingers... I just disagree with overly absolute statements, and the idea that the bow disappeared from Iberia and Britain when their neighbors were using it and its use was widespread in the Mesolithic, Neolithic, Antiquity and the Middle Ages. It didn't just disappear in the Bronze Age.

    I'm not saying archery completely disappeared, I'm merely questioning whether it was still being used on the battlefield, and asking for a tiny bit of evidence.

    1 hour ago, Sundiata said:

    Not all the inhabitants of the British isles were Celts though, so what "other" did in Neolithic times is definitely very relevant here, because there's no evidence that they simply disappeared, and they would have influenced the British Celts, which explains some of the differences between them and mainland Celts (like roundhouses)... 

    Let's exaggarate it a bit for the sake of argument: there is no evidence the Britons did not have quinqueremes or war elephants, some of their contemporary trading partners did, so they might have had them as well, we don't know, therefore give the Britons quinqueremes and war elephants in game.

    1 hour ago, Sundiata said:

    "Near-total population replacement" (of the Mesolithic people) is not the same as total. There is always some form of continuity, even if its minimal, but this can sometimes have significant implications. Modern Europeans are at least partially descended from their Mesolithic and Neolithic forbearers, even if it's just percentages we're talking about. 

    True, but the resulting society and culture is very different from what it used to be before the population influx.

    • Like 1

  24. Wow, 100.000 dudes running at the same time, 60FPS, Black Masses...

    in Introductions & Off-Topic Discussion

    Posted

    25 minutes ago, elexis said:

    Like this one? It looks like the units don't have hitboxes, so tens of thousands of collisions less to test.

    1 minute ago, vladislavbelov said:

    Units doesn't collide with themselves (can go through other units) AFAIK, that makes the problem much easier.

    True and true, Cossacks was undeniably a much simpler game – but we've also advanced eighteen years.

     

×
×
  • Create New...