Nescio
-
Posts
2.300 -
Joined
-
Days Won
23
Posts posted by Nescio
-
-
Apparently I broke it again:
Unfortunately mod.io forces the uploader to click "go live".
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Sundiata said:
Sure, but regarding the civs we have in-game, I'd say all of them used archery.
There is a difference between "having archery" and "using archers in combat". If it is attested they did, then yes, I agree they should have bowmen in game.
4 minutes ago, Sundiata said:Iberians used archery in combat since the Mesolithic (oldest depictions of combat in Europe):consists
Be careful, it is perfectly possible the Iberian cave art was not made by Iberians. "Iberian cave art" (dated before 3500 BC) is cave art located on the Iberian peninsula; the "Iberian civilization" is that of people who had Iberian language(s) (dated after 700 BC) as their native tongue.
6 minutes ago, Sundiata said:Since the Britons depicted in-game are Celts, I don't see why they wouldn't use archers. Never recorded in high numbers in battle, but I believe present nonetheless...
There were Celts and Celts, and there can be huge differences between them. Find me one attestation for the Britons specifically and I'm happy.
-
1
-
-
41 minutes ago, Imarok said:
Crush is reserved for buildings damage.
Yes, and that's problematic. Historically macemen were highly effective vs armoured units and slingers vs foot archers (because they could outrange them). However, in 0 A.D. all soldiers have ridiculously high crush armour, which make crush damage units not very effective.
-
2
-
-
7 minutes ago, Sundiata said:
Archers is another one of those units that every civ should have, without exception. Even Sparta could have Helot Archers, mentioned before by @Hannibal_Barca. Even Vercingetorix massed Celtic archers at Alesia... Some civs should just have better archers than others (perhaps only after specific town-phase upgrade for archery heavy civs), but it shouldn't make a huge difference in village phase i.m.o. I don't see the logic behind limiting historically accurate units in some civs... Yeah, I get it gameplay, but this is a good example of how its actually messing with the gameplay. Where it is historically accurate, civs should have acces to those units that can help mitigate some of their weaknesses.
Rome and Sparta frequently deployed Cretan archers. At its peak Athens funded a standing corps of thousand Athenian citizens - all archers, of which two hundred had horses (the Scythian "archers" did not participate in warfare, nor did they fight with bow-and-arrow; they were state slaves who performed police duties and were equipped with ropes, sticks, and paint). It is well attested Gauls had foot archers who fought alongside (spear) cavalry. So who are left then? Britons and Iberians, although it's not impossible they deployed archers too (archery is a basic skill known by mankind for millenia).
However, I disagree with your "without exception". Not giving a specific faction archers should remain possible.
-
3
-
-
And I've just written a mod to show my suggestions: siege.zip Feel free to try it out yourself
1 hour ago, stanislas69 said:/me wonders what happens if you Garrison the engineer in a fortress just after making him make a ram.
A very good question! Because I had no idea either what would happen, I play-tested how 0 A.D. would handle it. It turns out the unit training is paused as long as the trainer is garrisoned; a sensible solution.
-
2
-
-
Things that are possible right now:
- lower battering ram base damage and give it a bonus attack vs gates or defensive structures
-
prevent battering rams from attacking non-mechanical units by inserting
<RestrictedClasses datatype="tokens">Organic</RestrictedClasses>
in their attack - give all factions a battering ram in town phase
- enable siege workshops for all factions (they're already there) in town phase (and remove all siege weapons and technologies from the fortress)
- introduce a new, vulnerable unit, a siege engineer, which can train battering rams and siege towers
- lower battering ram and siege tower movement speed to about 50% of the slowest melee infantry
- give all melee infantry a restricted "ranged" attack vs siege, ships, and structures (and restrict their normal melee attack against those classes), to ensure they are all equally effective
- and probably quite a few other things I can't think of at the moment
-
2
-
Oops, wrong topic
-
The last A22 version of 0abc can be obtained from https://github.com/0abc/0abc-a22.git
I'll gradually redevelop this mod for A23, available at https://github.com/0abc/0abc-a23.git
-
Quote
WARNING: mod version of 0abc-a22 may only contain numbers and at most 2 periods, but found '0.0.22.105'!
Why limit mod version numbers unnecessarily?
-
That solved it, it now appears to work:
-
15 hours ago, jonbaer said:
Where should bugs of mod.io be posted / reported? I ended up w/ the following today while doing a fetch (from official alpha not SVN) ...
Yeah, I've just tried out the mod selection (with official A23 package for Fedora 28) and I have the same issue when I clicked "Download Mods" (perhaps because there were not any to be selected?):
-
24 minutes ago, Alexandermb said:
@stanislas69 i think torching buildings its already possible by adding what i did years ago. doesn't matter wich distance i use to attack the tower, they don't use their attack melee animation.
Sidenote: They are swordsman.Just insert
<RestrictedClasses datatype="tokens">Structure</RestrictedClasses>
into `template_unit_infantry_melee.xml` melee attack and insert
<RestrictedClasses datatype="tokens">Unit</RestrictedClasses>
into their (new) ranged attack, to prevent them from "torching" enemy units.
-
16 minutes ago, aeonios said:
A lot.
Since it's on average about a year between releases that's a lot of time to get stuff done though. I plan on starting with graphics and random maps and then moving into multiplayer performance and fixing/improving other multiplayer issues, and then maybe improving gameplay in a few important ways. I'm intending to make a24 a really big improvement over pretty much all previous versions, as far as I possibly can.
I'm still not really sure what you mean by that. o.O
Not on average; 23 releases in eight years works out at a mean of about four months each. Other than that, great, I'm looking forward to your contributions
-
5 minutes ago, stanislas69 said:
Okay but how does that work out for the game though ? We can't decently have three units trainable per animal in corrals for instance can we ?
So it only makes sense from a wild animal point of view, in which case that's fine.Only calves ought to be trainable :) They can be slaughtered directly or later be upgraded (or promoted?) to cows or oxen. And there are a few other possibilities I can think of for mods.
-
24 minutes ago, stanislas69 said:
Yeah.
I think too much in term of game contents where it will make no difference unless we create one template per type.
Yes, that's exactly what I want. We already have separate templates for the lion and the lioness (no lion cubs yet, unfortunately), and I think we should have separate templates for the bovines too, e.g.:
gaia/fauna/cattle_bull.xml
gaia/fauna/cattle_calf.xml
gaia/fauna/cattle_cow.xml
gaia/fauna/cattle_ox.xml
gaia/fauna/sanga_bull.xml
gaia/fauna/sanga_calf.xml
gaia/fauna/sanga_cow.xml
gaia/fauna/zebu_bull.xml
gaia/fauna/zebu_calf.xml
gaia/fauna/zebu_cow.xml(And ideally also mithun, yak, banteng, water buffalo, aurochs, gaur, wild yak, kouprey, and the wild Asian water buffalo.)
-
4 hours ago, Alexandermb said:
That black-and-white pattern looks nice, but I'm not sure how common it was in Antiquity. The modern Friesian Holstein breed, now widespread, did not exist back then.
2 hours ago, stanislas69 said:Yeah cows could definitely use horns. With male and female variants.
As you probably know, "male cows" are called bulls; castrated ones are called oxen, bullocks, or steers. Ideally every bovine in game should have calf, cow, ox, and bull variants.
53 minutes ago, Sundiata said:Maybe goats could be allowed to walk on even the steepest inclination?
There are many different species of goat, all are used to rough terrain, but not all can scale steep cliffs.
-
Did you try if the .DELETED (rather than .DELETE) suffix still works?
-
Can't you see the settings before you join a game? (I don't know, I've neither the time nor the ambition to try out multiplayer.)
-
2
-
-
0abc contains close to three thousand xml files and as a result setting up the AI when starting a new game takes minutes instead of seconds, which is quite annoying. If caching solves this I'm interested.
-
1
-
-
Just now, stanislas69 said:
The main advantage is allowing players to download your mod through the game interface
Basically you have to run a command like
binaries/system/pyrogenesis -mod=mod -archivebuild=binaries/data/mods/mymod -archivebuild-output=mymod.pyromod -archivebuild-compressAnd go through the form there on modio. So people can download it directly through the interface without having to clone a github repository. Also, all files will be cached making them smaller and in some cases faster.
https://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/Modding_GuideIt makes the game faster? Well, I might try it out later, if and when I have a A23 version available.
-
10 minutes ago, stanislas69 said:
@Nescio Do you have plans to submit your mod for download on mod.io ? If so do you need any help packaging it ?
Thanks for the offer, but right now I'm not interested. I've signed up over there to have a look, but it looks overtly complicated (graphical), plus I don't see the added value for me personally. Uploading a new version of a mod to github can be done in seconds via a command line.
Besides, I still have A22; A23 has not been released as a Fedora package yet.
-
37 minutes ago, Sundiata said:
Most civs in-game had cattle, and it was very important to them, both for meat as well as spiritually, especially the bull was a powerful symbol to most cattle rearing cultures in history. So, most civs should be able to train cattle.
All true, but there is more. Nowadays we keep cattle primarily for milk and meat, and secondarily for their skin, to make leather from. Historically, however, their primary function was to provide oxen for ploughing the fields; their faeces were also used as fertilizer. No oxen meant less crops and smaller harvests. Cattle also represented wealth, especially amongst Germanic peoples, but also elsewhere in Eurasia. It is hardly surprising cows and bulls feature prominently in many mythologies.
-
1
-
-
-
8 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
I think Dacian architectural references are okay for the Thracians in lieu of good references. As far as units go, I think the Dacian units would at least look distinct from Thracian units:
- Dacian units are partially influenced by Romans (some chainmail, etc.), Sarmatians (cavalry, head gear, etc.), Celts, and Germans.
- Dacians would have Roman-type siege weapons.
- Dacians would have an even more nerfed navy than the Thracians.
- Thracian units would have a somewhat Greek influence.
- Perhaps visually, Dacian units would have more long sleeves and long pants, while the Thracians would have short sleeves and pantless tunics. Just a general observation.
One important thing to keep in mind is that most of what we know of the Thracians is based on Greek sources from the late 5th C BC and most of what we know of the Dacians is based on Roman sources from the early 2nd C AD; a lot can change in 500 years and this could easily explain the "Greek vs Roman"-influence. E.g. Thrace had Roman-style swordsmen when it was a protectorate of Rome during the 1st C BC and AD, until it was reduced to a Roman province by Claudius, after which Thracians formed one of the largest ethnicities in the Roman armies.
It is unknown how exactly Thracian(s) and Dacian(s) are related, but it is clear they formed a continuum. Yes, there were differences, but the most important one is that Thracians lived south of the Danube (and hence most of their archaeology is done by Bulgarians) and Dacians north of the Danube (and thus mostly Romanian archaeologists do the work on them).
7 hours ago, Lion.Kanzen said:Thracians are more kind Greek and Dacians more Germanic.
Thrace was closer to Greece, so yes, one would expect they were more influenced by them than were the Dacians. After the Celts invaded the Balkans, some of them settled beyond the Danube - a lot of Celtic warrior graves have been found in Dacian area - so Dacians had a stronger Celtic influence than had the Thracians. (I'm not too sure about the Germanic element and would be interested in more information on this.) Furthermore, the closer to the north-east, the higher the Scythian influence on both Dacians and Thracians, up to the point it can become virtually impossible to distinguish them.
-
1
Kushites are too weak
in Gameplay Discussion
Posted
You're assuming the 7th C BC Iberians are the descendants of the 7th M BC "cave-people". That's a big if. History is not static. People can migrate and a lot can happen in thousands of years. I don't know about Spain specifically, but in most of Europe the "original" populations have been replaced more than once over the past five thousand years.
Again, same problem. The Britons were Celts and Celts only started to migrate to the British islands gradually after 800 BC. What others did in Neolithic times is irrelevant here.
Yes, they do. Slingers are different from archers, but they can counter them.
To clarify, I'm not opposed to Briton and Iberian archers per se, but I'd like to see a reference first. Failing that, I agree it's better they don't have archers until then.
I vehemently disagree with your radical idea. Archers and slingers were quite different units. Archers were typically massed and thus quite effective vs massed targets (including cavalry) but also vulnerable themselves to projectiles. Greek sources repeatedly state slingers easily outranged archers and that slingers were loosely organized (they needed space for swinging their slings); they were effective vs archers but vulnerable to cavalry.
Slingers could sling anything from large stones of over 500 g (high impact, shorter range) to lead bullets of less than 5 g (too small and fast to see or dodge, highly penetrative, very hard to extract) and everything in between.