Nescio
-
Posts
2.300 -
Joined
-
Days Won
23
Posts posted by Nescio
-
-
9 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
The video doesn't lie, but it's kind of selective with its presentation. The author had a narrative to tell, so omitted a lot.
Granted. That's nothing unusual though.
9 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:Perhaps by sheer numbers of people, but at its height, only 8000 actual citizens and maybe double that in military-aged Perioikoi. The pop penalty seems fine to me.
Plus seven helot skirmishers per Spartan citizen. Plus allied troops. Plus mercenaries.
11 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:In DE, I give the Spartans back their walls, but not until Empire Phase after they research Hellenistic reforms to unlock the Spartan Pikeman and Stone Walls.
Sounds a bit anachronistic to me (they erected stone walls in the Archaic and Classical periods, long before they had pikemen or imperialistic tendencies), but it's your mod, so do whatever you like.
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
Every soldier in the game is called a citizen, so yeah, that's a problem with every civ unfortunately.
True. But it is not impossible to correct it.
-
50 minutes ago, Imarok said:
If that is supported by conventional sources,
Yes, all of it is true, common knowledge amongst classicists, and can be easily verified. E.g. Thermopylae is described in detail at the end of Herodotus' Histories VII.
52 minutes ago, Imarok said:we maybe should redesign Sparta?
There are a few oddities in 0 A.D., e.g.:
- Sparta has -10% maximum population limit (in fact it was the largest and most populous state in Greece)
- Sparta can't build walls (yes, neither Sparta itself (it was a collection of villages, not a city) nor any other settlement in their territory (out of fear of revolt) had city walls; the same applied to Rome for a long time; however, the Spartans did skillfully erect stone walls elsewhere)
- Spartan basic units are called citizens (citizenship was limited to a minority of the population, only the elite of society)
-
3
-
9 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
I see where you're coming from but I don't think that's a flaw particular to my idea, since melee units can easily be pummeled at long range already if the enemy archer has a greater range than your soldier's vision.
To clarify, I'm not saying the current situation is good or anything, I'm just questioning whether your proposal, regardless the numbers chosen, would be a real improvement.
6 hours ago, causative said:I believe it already does something like this. Units only berserk against anything that comes within vision range, if they are on aggressive or violent stance. The aggro range for defensive stance is shorter.
What should be changed perhaps is not really the distance at which units start attacking enemies, but the distance they continue chasing them before they return to their original position.
-
1
-
-
Xenophon. Athenian aristocrat, mercenary general, and writer. He's possibly the most important source for what we actually know about Greek and Persian warfare.
See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenophon#List_of_works
-
1
-
1
-
-
36 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
My post wasn't meant to be a definitive proposal. The behavior of ranged units would need to be adjusted as well of course.
Yeah, I understand it's not definite. However, I think a certain stance should mean the same for all units, otherwise it's confusing. Also, attack distance as a percentage of vision range might sound interesting but is flawed in principle: different units have different attack and vision ranges. E.g. if you don't want melee units to be passively killed by default by ranged units, the longest ranged attack range should be less than half of the shortest vision range, which would probably be not a good idea.
-
1
-
-
16 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
Aggressive: Attack any enemy unit/building within 95% of vision range.
Defensive (default): Only attack enemy units/buildings within 50% of vision range.
Standground: Only attack enemy units/buildings within 5-10% of vision range.
Because attack range is often close to vision range, this would imply ranged units will not attack enemies within range by default.
Personally I think the distance at which units start attacking is not the most important; what matters more is how long they will pursue foes and how easy they can be distracted and turn to a different target.
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, WhiteTreePaladin said:
Not saying it's the best option, but it's surprisingly hard to get a consensus on a GUI layout.
Completely true, the GUI greatly affects everyone so a perfect solution might be impossible. I'm not even sure how I want it to be myself
Nonetheless, if the GUI is to be redesigned, it does not hurt at to have a critical look at the position of the mini-map as well, even if it stays unchanged.
6 hours ago, Lion.Kanzen said:I wait for @Nescio reply but is the peace of these game, where you need quickly put your attention in minimap and jump in the action. many of them competitive.
To clarify, I'm not especially arguing for any specific mini-map position; I can see points against every option; but I do believe looking at the GUI of a wide number of games can be helpful.
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, WhiteTreePaladin said:
We tried demos of many options in the past when we were designing the current GUI. Honestly, bottom left for the minimap tends to work best. Our current layout isn't in the actual left corner, but it's close and works well.
Yeah, it works, but does it work because it is intrinsically the best position or just because we're used to it? I'm probably biased since games I fondly remember put the mini-map at the top right (Caesar III, Heroes of Might and Magic IV, Patrician III) or bottom right (Cossacks, Empire Earth, Age of Mythology). Undoubtedly games exist which put it elsewhere and I guess all have good reasons for a specific position.
-
1 hour ago, WhiteTreePaladin said:
Actually, I think it works better on the left for right-handed people. When making a large selection, a right-handed person will normally start at the top left and drag to lower right. If there is a large piece of the GUI there, then they would have to stop before they reached the GUI which makes for a smaller selection rectangle. You could allow dragging / release on top of the GUI, but that's not something most players would intuitively do. This only applies to large selections; smaller selections don't need the extra space.
Interesting. I agree the median person would move the cursor from the top left to bottom right. The position of the mini-map does not block large selections, though:
16 minutes ago, sphyrth said:I'm still arguing that the mini-map should be as a top panel (top-right specifically). Maybe it's my playstyle, but having the mini-map up there is more comfy to glance from time to time.
The position of the mini-map might be especially problematic because it can be viewed and used in different ways. I'm not entirely sure about my own preference either, which is why I've been trying out different positions myself; there are multiple conflicting aspects of it:
- it blocks your playing area view (therefore I want it to be small)
- it gives an overview of the whole game map (therefore I want it to be large)
- it is something to look at (therefore I want it at the left)
- it is something to click on (therefore I want it at the right)
Ideally every player would be able to customize the position under the game options or perhaps even drag it around and resize it. Realistically that would be very hard to implement (and redesigning the GUI is already frustrating enough). Perhaps we should organize a poll to get a vague idea at the prefered position of the minimap (top left corner, centre-left, centre, centre-right, right corner; bottom left corner, centre-left, centre, centre-right, right corner).
-
1
-
2 hours ago, Sundiata said:
Basically, `sorry, we're not quite ready yet, please wait another year
or two`.is exactly what they should have said. It causes frustration among some, but even more anticipation among others. Eitherway, force releasing an unfinished game is really not an acceptable option, and waiting to release it for bug-fixing and polishing would have gained the respect of many..To clarify, I'm not saying I agree with them, but I can understand why they did what they did. Releasing the game at the promised date was perhaps the only promise they could and did keep. Personally I think they should not have announced any release before their product was finished and they had done a decent amount of playtesting, but they made a different decision, and I'm sure they've had good reasons.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Sundiata said:
I disagree completely with that. Why wouldn't you buy it after an extra year of development. At least the people following them would see they're serious about the game... Releasing early feels like a failed cash-grab/desperation.
They put themselves in a position they had to release it. Last year they declared the game would be released in 2017; on February 15 they announced the release would be at March 29. Once you've declared a fixed date you can't simply say `sorry, we're not quite ready yet, please wait another year or two`.
And yes, they were probably desperate for money as well, personnel has to be paid etc.; hopefully for them they make break-even.
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, Sundiata said:
Hmmm... I wouldn't know... Surely, they must have some skills we could cannibalize, no? We could definitely learn something from their publicity... They made it look like the next best thing in classic RTS, even though its not even 1/10th of 0AD...
Their publicity might actually have been their undoing. They grapped attention, raised hopes, and published promising teasers, therefore people had high expectations and they were unable to live up to them. Selling an unfinished game might be a disappointment to many, but if they had postponed their release they would probably have lost most of their potential customers too.
Contrast this with 0 A.D. Wildfire Games does not promise anything, clearly indicates the game is in development, and does not sell it is a product. It's a long-term project and I hope it'll never be finished: the honest permanent alpha stage is possibly its greatest strength.
So what can we learn from them? Nothing we already know: publicity is nice, but focus on developing and improving the game; do not release or endorse an unfinished product. Let players do the publicity instead of the team. Basically business as usual.
-
3
-
-
2 hours ago, Servo said:
@Nescio you will or already updated to A23?
For SP any arrangement is fine as long as the mod is playable like the vanilla. I still prefer the mini map closer to the center and unit/structure interfaces pops out closer to the center and more on the bottom right. This way since the mouse mostly stay along the middle has better feeling of dragging down to it, more faster.
With the resources on vertical to top left the dialogue or chat area will be obstructed?
Yes, I will update this mod to A23, but only after it's officially released, not before.
The reason this mod also changes the GUI is because the default interface does not support displaying five resource types, nor more than 24 structure icons, etc. I'm not entirely satisfied with the results myself, it's a temporary solution, and will be changed later.
2 hours ago, Servo said:Would an automatic pop out of economic and military structure icons be feasible? Say for example the first Econ structure built by a player is a farmstead an icon of it can automatically pop out on 3/4 bottom left(on vertical arrangement), then a drop site and followed by the market when they are built, corral too. This way you don’t need to find it in the map to upgrade. If needed the CC can be first. The same thing should be done on military structures on the bottom right. Though most players make their own hotkey but I think it will help especially if we don’t have hotkeys for most of the structures.
Sorry, I don't quite understand what you mean.
EDIT: If the corners are problematic, why not try putting the minimap in the middle then?
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, Alexandermb said:
Almost there, just need to figure it out what im doing and move the fire at the front of the ship:
It was certainly not launched almost vertically with an arc like that to bombard other ships; your own ship would risk going up in flames (especially if the wind changes direction) before the enemy's. Greek fire was a short range possibly hand-held weapon that would be directed at the target horizontally:
-
3 hours ago, stanislas69 said:
Right, you're free to suggest a better title.
"On PDF" would be more appropiate, or if you're more poetical inclined, "To PDF or Not to PDF". Better suggestions are welcome, of course :)
-
1 hour ago, Sundiata said:
I endorse splitting this discussion
To clarify, I have no objections to moving the discussion into a dedicated thread per se. What I don't appreciate is the arbitrary cut-off point. If posts x+1 to x+10 form a sequence, it wouldn't make sense to make a split starting at x+7, it's better to keep it together.
would have been a better starting point.
1 hour ago, Sundiata said:So, what exactly are the disadvantages of writing in word and exporting to pdf, for a simple country boy like me?
If you have Word, know how to use it, are comfortable with it, and have no desire for anything more efficient (four ifs that do not apply to me but do for many), then write your text in Word and export it as pdf.
1 hour ago, Sundiata said:which text editor exactly would you recommend (that works flawlessly with mac)?
Any text editor will do. Although I don't have a Mac, I'm sure OS X has at least one text editor pre-installed.
57 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:PDF Photoshop with editable feature.
PDF for Illustrator (packed all fonts and images) ideal for offset printing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offset_printing
PDF for office so you can open this in adobe illustrator or adobe indesign
No idea how those work, but Adobe software tends to be expensive, complicated, graphical, and not necessarily better than free and open source alternatives.
-
5 minutes ago, stanislas69 said:
Because it was starting to be about word being a nice piece of software and all wordprocessors being worse than text editors which wasn't really productive.
Then split it from there. I'm not claiming every reply was productive (nor is this why split? discussion
), however, these expelled posts were part of a wider "to pdf or not to pdf", started by Sundiata earlier, and I think a discussion on how to present the material is relevant to the topic it is about.
-
6 minutes ago, stanislas69 said:
Indeed, But it was hard to split it properly ^^
Why was it necessary to split it then?
-
17 minutes ago, stanislas69 said:
Split because it's really irrelevant to the kushites
To start with, I think it's weird to split in the middle of a discussion. Furthermore, I don't understand the "vs" dichotomy: it is possible to use md to generate a pdf. Also, this artificial topic is probably in the wrong subforum. Finally, although somewhat off-topic, it was relevant to other posts in the previous thread, starting from https://wildfiregames.com/forum/index.php?/topic/21602-the-kingdom-of-kush-a-proper-introduction-illustrated/&page=32&tab=comments#comment-353551 until https://wildfiregames.com/forum/index.php?/topic/21602-the-kingdom-of-kush-a-proper-introduction-illustrated/&page=33&tab=comments#comment-354006
-
1 minute ago, balduin said:
@stanislas69 Yes, if you have Word, which I don't have and I don't want to have.
Yes, I can't agree agree more. MS Word is a horrible program that does all kinds of things unasked for and makes typesetting text unnecessarily complicated. Better use any simple text editor than a word-processor.
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, balduin said:
Yes, you can search in PDFs and yes Google is able to index them, but the reason why google can do this so well is because they spend some efforts and resources to make tools and algorithms which are able recognize objects in images and extract text from PDFs.
It depends on how a pdf is made. You seem to be talking about Google Books or some similar project, where physical objects are scanned and afterwards the digital images are gradually analysed and converted into text. However, these image-not-text pdfs are a tiny minority. Most pdfs are made from text files, contain text strings, and are thus searchable. And yes, if you can select a text string and copy it, it will still be a text string when you paste it.
5 hours ago, balduin said:However, I think the content which is mostly about the historical Kushites would make a great wikibook.
Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but a wikibook is little more than a collection of wiki-pages, and has thus the same limitations. Of course, it is not forbidden to make one, but its usefulness would be more limited than a proper pdf (preferably typeset with (Xe)LaTeX
)
The great advantage of a pdf is that, unlike other formats, it preserves and display the contents exactly as defined by its author. It doesn't matter what hardware, operating system, pdf-viewer, installed fonts, etc. you use, the pdf will always look the same everywhere. Also, it's printable; devices, software, ink, and paper may vary, but the printed content is always identical, as intended.
-
On 5/12/2018 at 11:35 AM, OptimusShepard said:
You seem to be assuming wider screens have more pixels, which is not necessarily true. If the resolution is kept the same, taller screens can display more (because a square is the most compact rectangle). A different way to visualize it would be by listing displays by height instead of width:
Anyway, let's discuss your design; missing or unspecified are:
- game build and version name
- hero and catafalque icons
- research in progress
- faction emblem
Furthermore, I'd recommend putting the mini-map at the right side of the bottom panels, rather than the left, because the majority of people are right-handed. Other than that, I like your concept :)
-
1
-
1 hour ago, wackyserious said:
@Nescio Xýlo was choosen to also honor the late Mr. Ken Wood, likewise A23. It was choosen so that the Byzantine Greeks would still have a representation though language, a Germanic word was a first choice but since the highlight was shifted to the Byzantines, we've settled with Xýlo at the moment.
If you want to honour him (he died in 2006, right?), why not just name your mod Ken Wood then? We don't translate Cicero to Mr. Chickpea either, to name just one example.
undefined discussion subject
in Introductions & Off-Topic Discussion
Posted
Not in their homeland, no, they never did, but Spartan colonies had city walls, and the Spartans also repeatedly erected stone walls at Thermopylae and the Corinthian isthmus.