-
Posts
2.300 -
Joined
-
Days Won
23
Posts posted by Nescio
-
-
On 4/29/2018 at 11:07 PM, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
Game needs move-attack [not to be confused with attack-move]. Chasing units should be able to attack while still chasing the fleeing enemy unit. Would be nice to see, that way you don't see, f.e., a sword cavalry catching up to a fleeing enemy archer and stop to attack, only to see the archer run out of melee range.
Garrisoned siege towers and warships can already shoot while moving (as of A22), so I suppose you could give camel, chariot, elephant, and horse archers a buildingAI attribute as a temporary solution.
-
9 hours ago, Lion.Kanzen said:
First you'll want to change the size of the right panel. It's defined in /binaries/data/mods/public/gui/session/session.xml
Next you'll adjust what is displayed inside (building orders etc.), which is defined in separate files, located in /binaries/data/mods/public/gui/session/selection_panels_right/
Then you'll have to edit the maximum number of elements and the rowlength for each of those inside /binaries/data/mods/public/gui/session/selection_panels.js
9 hours ago, Lion.Kanzen said:2-The second is add to the top bar on right side of emblem, the current phase.
For the top panel, you'll need the `updateTopPanel()` function inside /binaries/data/mods/public/gui/session/session.js Individual sub-elements are located in /binaries/data/mods/public/gui/session/top_panel/ and loaded by /binaries/data/mods/public/gui/session/top_panel.xml
9 hours ago, Lion.Kanzen said:Sorry he isn't familiar with modding terms. so is confusing even for me.
Who?
-
No, I don't speak Spanish.
1 hour ago, Lion.Kanzen said:@Nescio you know how change GUI session, I mean change the layout. those files in that folder are almost a maze. its difficult find the properly.
What exactly do you want to change? Modifying the GUI can be quite time consuming and frustrating.
-
1
-
-
25 minutes ago, Sundiata said:
Or that... Thanks. My Latin is a little rusty, and by rusty I mean nearly non-existant
Carthago delenda est is not incorrect, however, the ceterum censeo is at least as famous, and without it you'd miss the beautiful alliteration, therefore I have a preference for the full sentence instead of the short-hand
(Actually Polybius wrote Greek, but hardly anyone would recognize “δοκεῖ δέ μοι καὶ Καρχηδόνα μὴ εἶναι.” (I had to look up the exact sentence as well, my Greek is not as good as my Latin.) Likewise, ”ἀνερρίφθω κύβος” is better known by its Latin translation alea iacta est.)
-
11 minutes ago, Sundiata said:
"Carthago Delenda Est"
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem delendam esse.
-
1
-
-
12 minutes ago, wackyserious said:
Which among the three is most significant with relevance to the current factions? Might include them after working with the Umayyads.
Moravia (c. 833–907) was probably the least significant; it interacted both with the Byzantines and the Franks/Germans though.
The Khazar Khaganate (c. 650–969) was a Byzantine ally and trading partner, although there was some tension on the Crimea; it adopted Judaism to be able to trade with both Christian and Muslim states.
The Bulgarian Empire (c. 681–1018) was the great rival of the Byzantine Empire during this period; they competed with each other for control of the Balkans; the Bulgarian Empire came quite close to taking over the Byzantine Empire, but eventually the Byzantines prevailed and gradually conquered them.
The Rus' were Swedes who invaded and settled a vast area between the Baltic and Black Seas, parts of which were later known as Ruthenia or Russia (named after Rurik, founder of the Rus'). Their capital was Kiev. The Rus' launched a raid on Constantinople once but eventually became Byzantine allies and trading partners, converted to Eastern Orthodoxy, assisted in defeating the Bulgarian Empire, and supplied the Byzantines with the first Varangian Guard.
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, wackyserious said:
The current state of the mod depicts that it somewhat highlights the Viking Age. Just like how the Romans and Carthaginians are clustered together in the game to clash each other. Likewise with the Spartans, the Athenians and the Persians and lastly, the Successor states. It just a matter of coming up with something that is cohesive.
You probably should consider including the Rus', Khazars, the First Bulgarian Empire, and Great Moravia then.
-
1
-
-
14 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:
The golden age of Byzantines... my god, lol.
Greatest territorial extent does not say everything.
5 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:So first part is from 700-1000 (?) so not Avars or Persian Sassanids ?
Sasanians are probably early, but Avars were still important in the 9th C:
The Abbasids splintered into many factions during the 9th C:
-
16 minutes ago, wackyserious said:
Maybe someone who's a contemporary of the heroes from the other faction. Or at least from a nearer decade or century.
Anglo-Saxons
- Alfred the Great
- Offa of Merica
Carolingians
- Charlemagne
Norse
- Erik the Red
- Hastein
- Ivar the Boneless
Tagging @Nescio for advice or suggestions.
From those names it seems you're focusing on c. 800 A.D., which is sensible. I'd strongly recommend to include Saint Boniface as a Carolingian hero. Charles Martel and Pepin the Short are also worth considering.
As for the Byzantines, the Justinian dynasty (6th C) is probably too early and has more in common with late antiquity than high middle ages, so I don't think Belisarius, Justinian, and Theodora are suitable. Personally I would recommend the Macedonian dynasty (867–1056), under which the Byzantines peaked, although it's a century later than the Carolingians. They have many potential hero candidates, just look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_emperors#Macedonian_dynasty_(867–1056) for a start.
-
1
-
-
Here's the relevant entry in Brill's New Pauly:
SpoilerEmporiae
(567 words)[German Version]
This item can be found on the following maps:
| | Etrusci, Etruria | Hispania, Iberia | Colonization | Punic Wars | Pyrenean peninsula(Emporion). Sea-trading port, now Ampurias, on the eastern edge of the Pyrenees, in the province Gerona, on the Costa Brava. Sources: [1; 2]. Archaeological activity that was unparalleled in Spain took place here from the start of the 20th cent. and has been extensively covered in several publications [3. 334ff.; 4. 66ff.; 5. 94; 6; 7; 8. 273ff.]. The inscriptions have produced very little; two of them were Christian [9]. Coin finds have been rich and significant [7. 251ff.; 10; 11; 12].
E. grew up from four different settlements. The oldest part is Palaiopolis, probably founded by Massalia after 520 BC (Str. 3,4,8) on the island, today's peninsula, off San Martín de Ampurias, with a temple of the Ephesian Artemis. In any event the finds go even further back in time (as far as 600 BC). To the south lay the harbour, still protected today by a Greek mole. Neapolis, which has been built up in terraces on the mainland beach, probably arose after 500. To the west lay the Iberian city Indike [13], separated from Neapolis by a wall (a description of both peoples in Str. 3,4,8; Liv. 34,9.) Neighbouring it was the Roman colony founded by Caesar in 45 BC. As well, Greek, Roman and Iberian Necropoleis [14; 15] have been uncovered. There have been numerous finds, including many pieces of classical art [16. 275f.].
E. was the starting point for Roman military operations in Spain (Scipiones, Cato [1] the Elder) and developed into a rich city. Invasion by the Franks (AD 265) seems to have been a disaster for E. but it still played a role as a bishopric in the West Gothic period [17]. That came to an end after invasion by the Arabs, although a condado de Ampurias survived [18].
Barceló, Pedro (Potsdam)Bibliography
1 A. Schulten (ed.), Fontes Hispaniae Antiquae, 2, 1925
2 M. Almagro, Las fuentes escritas referentes a Ampurias, 1951
3 A. Schulten, Ampurias, Neue Jbb. für das klass. Altertum 10, 1907, 334ff.
4 Id., Eine unbekannte Top. von Emporion, in: Hermes 60, 1925, 66ff.
5 Id., Forsch. in Spanien, in: AA I/2, 1940
6 A. Frickenhaus, Zwei top. Probleme. 1. Emporion, in: BJ 118, 1909, 17-27
7 M. Almagro, Ampurias, 1951
8 P. García, La España primitiva, 1950
9 M. Almagro, Las inscripciones ampuritanas griegas, ibéricas y latinas, 1952
10 H. Dessau, s.v. Emporia, RE V 2, 2526f.
11 A. Vives, La moneda hispánica, 1926
12 J. Amorós, Les monedes empuritanes anteriores a les dracmes, 1934
13 A. Schulten, s.v. Indiketes, RE IX 2, 1368
14 M. Almagro, Las Necrópolis de Ampurias, 2 vols., 1953/1955 (Reviews cf. Gnomon 26, 1954, 284 and Gnomon 29, 1957, 238)
15 M. Almagro, P. de Palol, La Ampurias paleocristiana y visigoda, (Monografias Ampuritanas, 4), 1958
16 P. García, La España primitiva, 1950, 275ff.
17 Fontes Hispaniae Antiquae 9, 1947, 447ff.
18 Enciclopedia Universal Ilustrada 5, 274.
Anuari de l'Institut d'Estudis Catalans 1907-1927 (Research reports)
E. Samarti i Grego et al., Emporion, in: W. Trillmich, P. Zanker (ed.), Die Monumentalisierung hispanischer Städte zwischen Republik und Kaiserzeit, 1990, 117-144
E. Samarti i Grego et al., La presencia comercial etrusca en la emporion arcaica, determinada a partir de las Anforas, in: J. Remesal, O. Musso, La Presencia de Material Etrusco en la Península Ibérica, 1991, 83-94
R. Mar, J. Ruiz de Arbulo, El foro de Ampurias y las transformaciones augusteas de los foros de la Tarraconense, in: W. Trillmich, P. Zanker (ed.), Die Monumentalisierung hispanischer Städte zwischen Republik und Kaiserzeit, 1990, 145-164
Tovar, 3, 1989, 427-430.
Cite this page
Barceló, Pedro (Potsdam), “Emporiae”, in: Brill’s New Pauly, Antiquity volumes edited by: Hubert Cancik and , Helmuth Schneider, English Edition by: Christine F. Salazar, Classical Tradition volumes edited by: Manfred Landfester, English Edition by: Francis G. Gentry. Consulted online on 26 April 2018-
3
-
1
-
-
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-43899393
(Although not directly related, it somehow reminded me of an earlier genocide discussion
)
-
2 minutes ago, Gyrion said:
Hey guys, could someone possibly help me out? As the title says I am stuck on the difference between Celtiberians and Iberians
Celtiberians are Celts south of the Pyrenees and Iberians are speakers of the Iberian language(s). Not to be confused with the kingdom of Iberia (modern Georgia) in the Southern Caucasus.
0 A.D.'s "Iberians" is basically an amalgam of all peoples that happened to live on the Iberian peninsula, thus merging very different civilizations and ethnicities into a single factions: Iberians, Celtiberians, Vascones/Basques, Cantabri, Lusitani, etc.
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, wackyserious said:
Yeah it is all in the directory, got any more leads on why it produces an error?
1 hour ago, wackyserious said:"special/formations/battle_line",
],Since this formation is the last element of a list, there should not be a comma behind it.
Also, it would be more helpful if you would just post the file next time, rather than quoting its contents
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, wackyserious said:
@Imarok Can you help me identify why I'm getting errors on the civ .JSON, above?
"Emblem": "session/portraits/emblems/emblem_byzantines.png", "Template": "structures/byza_civil_centre", "Template": "units/byza_support_female_citizen", "Template": "units/byza_infantry_archer_b", "Template": "units/byza_infantry_spearman_b", "Template": "units/byza_cavalry_spearman_b", "skirmish/structures/default_house_10" : "structures/{civ}_house"
Do all of these files exist?
-
16 minutes ago, stanislas69 said:
What would be the 500 - 1000 Ad most prominent faction / kingdom ?
Dynasty. Probably the Macedonian (867–1057).
-
1 hour ago, wackyserious said:
@stanislas69 @Alexandermb Should this faction be the next in the priority list?
Could we let them use Lordgood's Spartan buildings pack as their building placeholders?
If someone could create a unit roster for me, I think I can start working on their actor files.
Asking for opinions and suggestions.
@LordGood @Nescio @Sundiata @Lion.Kanzen @wowgetoffyourcellphone plus anyone else who might be interested in this development.
"Byzantine" is a modern term to cover twelve centuries. Rather than trying to contain all that anachronistically in a single civilization, you should chose a single period or dynasty and base your faction on that.
-
14 hours ago, Alexandermb said:
The text didn't speak about torsion but is possibly it may be like picture below. Now that you mention traction it does say that it was a traction catapult but honestly i don't know the difference yet until now, but also speaks about ropes so if maybe isn't counterweighted but pulled by ropes like the ones seen in the drawing but since mod will cover from 500 to 1000 and then 1000 to 1000+ it won't hurt have both.
Traction trebuchets (pulling ropes) and counterweight trebuchets (dropping weight) are two different things. The one you animated is clearly a counterweight, which will be useful in a Third Crusade or late Middle Ages mod, but not in a Carolingian.
Here are a few traction trebuchet images used at Wikipedia:
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, Alexandermb said:
in page 10 or 9 IIRC theres a text who speaks about a lever "catapult" using cilinder wood, two arms and sling as a stolen technology from chinese for trowing rocks but is also seen in two referencial paintings and none of the 3 references has any relation since 1 is in spanish good information page, 2nd is at Age of Charlemagne Osprey book wich was used for both norse and anglo factions and 3rd is another book "Charlemagne's Early Campaigns (768-777): A Diplomatic and Military Analysis".
Yes, traction trebuchets (or mangonel) existed in Europe since the 6th C AD, and possibly centuries earlier in China, however, the one you animated clearly uses a counterweight, not torsion.
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, Alexandermb said:
Trebuchet is almost done just need to sync animations
Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but I was under the impression this mod is supposed to cover the 500-1000 AD timeframe. Counterweight trebuchets first appear in the 12th C AD, thus postdating the Carolingians.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Shiyn said:
I see what you mean. So isnt a matter of rescaling but keeping it tight to 1024. Thats surely a challenge for the current design, the only way it would work would be to remove the portrait radial from middle and put it on the right side and redraw the minimap concept. I kinda tempts me to experiment with it but i wanna make this one something near consistent so i can move on.
You could design a 1920 wide GUI, of course, that's up to you, but that would only be useful as a mod for players who would play 0 A.D. at at least that width.
If you want to redesign the GUI and create a mod that might be included in the main distribution and replace what we currently have, then yes, I'm afraid you'll have to limit yourself to using 1024 pixels, which is certainly challenging.
-
1
-
-
14 minutes ago, Shiyn said:
True, there is no point on implementing this if it cant support native 4:3 resolutions. Would act as a mod for those who want it but it will never make it to the main build.
Actually my earlier design took this into consideration, since i left half screen alone for scretching and cropping, but since we added the left bar now were locked up on 16:10 logic.
Ill give some thought about the options we have here before going deeper with this.Height is not a problem; if something works for 16:9, it will also work for 16:10, 3:2, 4:3, 5:4, and other aspect ratios. Width, in pixels, is the limiting factor. 0 A.D.'s GUI does not handle "stretching and cropping"; it's always 1024 pixels wide, regardless the size of the screen or window used. So if you want to implement your ideas, it's better if all GUI elements are located within 1024 pixels, even if your mock-up's 1920 wide.
19 minutes ago, vladislavbelov said:Yeah, I definitely agree with that. And I think the 1024 width is enough to use for a while.
I worried mostly about the scale for the engine. Because we have issues with that: 1) we don't support scaled fonts yet, 2) we don't support system DPI, no DPI aware yet (i.e. Windows on 125% just scale the game).
Those two things are certainly desireable to have, but probably also quite hard to implement.
-
1
-
-
20 minutes ago, vladislavbelov said:
I mean, doesn't the Fedora support the screen division in a different proportion? And why you don't use a lower scale, i.e. 1.5?
Yes, Fedora can also support arbitrary sizes, of course. Half a screen is just more convenient for me personally (pressing two keys is much faster than resizing a window by moving around a cursor or having to look up a configuration file to specify a size in pixels). And yes, I suppose I could use 1920/1024=1.875 as gui scale. However, that's besides the point.
What matters is the mock-up is 1920×1080, 0 A.D.'s current GUI's width 1024. If the GUI is to be redesigned, it's important to keep in mind that not everyone has the same resolution screen, and some of those who could support it might want to play the game in a different size too. Just extending the used width from the current 1024 to 1280, 1600, 1920, or whatever might be welcomed by some but be inconvenient for others.
-
1
-
-
37 minutes ago, vladislavbelov said:
Is it possible to change proportions?
Sorry, I don't quite understand what you mean. The image I posted is not a mock-up, it's an actual screenshot with an unmodified A22. Just launch 0 A.D. in windowed mode (Options) and press Win+Right to move it to the right half of the screen. GUI elements have fixed sizes, their proportions do not change.
Build Error
in Bug reports
Posted · Edited by Nescio
ce
It seems I'm having this problem too. My operating system is Fedora 28 and yes, I've installed all dependencies listed at https://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/BuildInstructions#Fedora
Outputs: