Jump to content

Nescio

Community Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2.300

  • Joined

  • Days Won

    23

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Nescio

  1. Nescio
    Shall we settle at 20% of the length then, just like the relief?
  2. Nescio
    Great! Hopefully I wasn't too annoying with all my minor detail requests
  3. Nescio
    It would be better if the axe was held still closer to the end to make it more effective in combat (cf. the sword's grip). The weapons' lengths seem reasonable, the colours I don't know (what kind of materials were used? bronze?) Also, are the shields supposed to be flat or curved? A wooden panel covered with animal skin (heavy) or an animal skin spanned on a wooden frame (much lighter)?
  4. Nescio
    The sword of the man on the left is hard to see because of its thinness. The central person should hold the axe lower, certainly not at the middle. Otherwise the axe seems fine to me. The sword'sblade length could be reduced slightly more, but it already looks much better.
  5. Nescio
    While I like discussing with you, I know nothing about the Dinka or other peoples in that part of the world. If you say so, I'll believe you. I'd just like to point out the obvious isn't always true. (E.g. up to the present day most people believe the Black Death was spread by rats, although different modern sciences have proven that can't be true - but that's a different topic.) No, I don't want to make everything smaller, I just like to avoid an unrealistically long sword. In fact, I have no objections at all if the axe is longer than the sword, or shorter for that matter; I was just referring to the 10 cm ruler in this image:
  6. Nescio
    Actually I do not think historical records necessarily prove anything, however: Archaeology can only provide evidence for what can be found, not for what can't be found or is lost. Or for something intangible, such as no “significant cultural changes”, which to me sounds either arrogant or ignorant. I fully agree. Archaeology, historical records, comparative linguistics, and genetic sequencing can show indicate something individually, but only in combination with each other they become really valuable. The sword blade seems still longer than the man's leg, so perhaps you could shorten it a bit more? The axe is partially obscured by the rotation of the unit, however, the axe head shown about a dozen posts earlier was less than 15 cm, so perhaps use that as an indication for the total axe length.
  7. Nescio
    Hard to prove for a people with no written history Man 1.8 m, sword 0.8 m, blade 0.6 m, handle 0.2 m, works out at a ratio of 9:4:3:1. Axe I don't know, probably something similar. I think it's realistic if the total weapon length is about half the total man length. So assuming the sword is currently about 70% the unit's length, then multiply the sword length by 0.7 (because .7^2=.49).
  8. Nescio
    That explains it, thanks for the clarification. Not at the end, but not half-way either; it looks more like at 20%. Anyway, try it yourself, grap some kind of stick and swing it, trying for different positions, half-way, at a quarter, at the end. You'll notice a significant improvement if you hold it lower. Yes, nowadays. Currently European males are 20-30 cm longer on average than their counter-parts of three centuries ago. While I won't deny individuals could occassionally exceed two metres (e.g. Goliath), I do believe the average length in Antiquity was clearly shorter than it is today. Anyway, if the man in question was indeed 1.8 m, then the blade is even more in need of a length reduction (2/3 of 1.8m is 1.2m, while 2/3 of 1.6m is 1.06m).
  9. Nescio
    Forgive me for posting some criticisms The hand should hold the weapon at the end. Holding it half-way significantly reduces the weapon's swing, range, and impact. Also, shouldn't the ancient epsilon axe head be attached to the stick at the three points? E.g.: https://ixquick-proxy.com/do/spg/show_picture.pl?l=english&rais=1&oiu=http%3A%2F%2Fbaidun.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F06%2FWP_EG_1001bw-900x598.jpg&sp=94a22a6c5f322922527f5dad2abaf8e6 The blade seems too long. Let's assume an average male was 1.6m; ancient swords seldom had a blade longer than about 60 cm (please correct me if the khopesh was indeed much longer); therefore the blade ought to be less than a third of the unit's length. Currently it looks more like two-thirds, appropiate for Early Modern (European Renaissance) swords, but not really for Antiquity.
  10. Nescio
    Personally I dislike terms which do not include “population”, for several reasons: including “population” makes it immediately clear all terms are related and deal with the same concept all internal names (template attributes, data files, etc.) include “population” and I'd rather stay as close as possible to those to keep things logical for modders and programmers “housing” I tend to associate with “houses”; and “housing limit” could be interpreted as a limit to the number of houses, which is something different than a limit to the population. Furthermore, you can reach the maximum population limit without building any houses; in fact, a house-less mod is not inconceivable; and it's perfectly possible to assign population bonuses to units and population costs to structures. “growth” or “growth limit” seems too generic Switching to population size / population capacity / population cap (instead of population / population limit / maximum population limit) is a possibility but I'm unconvinced it would be an improvement, because each of those alternative terms could be applicable to the individual as well as to the total.
  11. Nescio
    If. People here are willing to help, however, assisting is a bit difficult if we don't know what you're doing exactly. Creating an account and setting up a (public or private) repository on github or gitlab can be done in a few minutes. You don't have to do it, but it'll certainly make things easier, for us and for you.
  12. Nescio
    It is not only verbose, it's also precise and clear, whereas “maximum population” is ambiguous, as it could mean A or B. Besides, people will probably abbreviate them to pop? / limit? / max? anyway To summarize how I view it: “population bonus” is what some structures grant “population cost” is what units typically have “population” is the sum of the population costs of all a player's actors “population limit” is the sum of the population bonuses of all a player's actors “maximum population limit” is the setting, defined before a game is started; nevertheless it can be changed by in-game technologies (e.g. Mauryan civilization bonus) and auras (e.g. Wonder)
  13. Nescio
    Population / population limit / maximum population limit for the three values seems perfectly understandable to me.
  14. Nescio
    It would be really great if those three could be finished and subsequently included in A23. Having them in underused mods is nice and all, but they really deserve a much wider public.
  15. Nescio
    Is it? Small Athens and Sparta defeated the massive Persian Empire on several occassions. The large Seleucid Empire avoided pitched battles against lesser opponents, because they could not afford to lose a section of their hard-to-replace army. The Roman Empire with a population of possibly a hundred million was overrun by Germanic tribes numbering rarely more than tens of thousands. The Mongols conquered the very rich, powerful, and vastly more populous Khwarezmian (Persia) and Song (China) empires. Et cetera.
  16. Nescio
    Here you go: https://wildfiregames.com/forum/index.php?/topic/23904-global-multipliers/ Actually I think the game is too fast paced and it won't hurt if unit training times were increased (which I have done in 0abc). Lowering the batch time multiplier (i.e. making it more effective) is something I don't like, because it favours the rich and powerful (who are already at an advantage), thus making the game more unbalanced.
  17. Nescio
    Do you think units die to quickly and would like to double their health? Halve their speed? Reduce structure capture points? Increase unit training time? Change the batch time multiplier? Make technologies slower to be researched? Tweak loot? Alter gather speed? All that can be done easily. This mod just contains a single file that multiplies such values globally by 1 (i.e. no net effect). You can use it to set them to values you prefer. It is also possible to replace "multiply" with "add" or insert other lines of code. All you have to do is download the zip (attached, 2 kB), extract it, put the folder in the `0ad/mods` directory, launch the game, select, enable, and save the mod, and click start mods. This tiny mod should be compatible with any mod or game version. global_multipliers.zip
  18. Nescio
    That's very easy to do yourself. Just create mod containing a tiny file such as: { "affects": ["Structure", "Unit"], "autoResearch": true, "genericName": "Global Multipliers", "icon": "imperial_phase.png", "modifications": [ {"value": "Cost/BuildTime", "multiply": 3.0, "affects": "Unit" }, {"value": "ProductionQueue/BatchTimeModifier", "add": -0.2, "affects": "Structure"} ] } That should work (and be compatible with any mod or game version).
  19. Nescio
    Anyway, back to the original topic, perhaps we should advertise our alpha status a bit more prominently, perhaps by an explanation on the game's FAQ or About page, e.g.: ‘0 A.D. is sometimes being mocked as a “Forever Alpha” game. When work started back in 2002 (?) some optimistically claimed the final release might be “perhaps within a year or two”. The reason it is still in Alpha stage now is because Wildfire Games values quality above speed and does not intend to release an unfinished product. You can be assured the game is constantly being improved and updated: however good it may be, it can always get better. We're proud of being a permanent alpha!’ (Just my two cents.)
  20. Nescio
    Thebes, Syracusae, and Epirus (Pyrrhus! Illyrian skirmishers, Macedonian pikemen, Tarentine cavalry, Egyptian elephants, and Molossian war dogs) are relatively easy to add in any mod by just re-using Greek actors. However, that is not in line with 0 A.D.'s intention of high quality and differentiation. Yes, the Athenian, Macedonian, and Spartan currently look the same, but I'm aware that's being gradually worked on. No, the Parthian Empire (Arsacids) definitely belongs in the first part. It peaked around c. 150 B.C. and most of its later history consists of internal strife between various dynasts dying to be king. Around 120 B.C. the Han sent an embassy to Parthia to negotiate an alliance vs the Xiongnu (which was uneffective because of the communication logistics). A Parthian embassy famously met with Sulla around 95 B.C. (the ambassador was executed shortly afterwards). Because of our Roman-bias the Parthians are nowadays best known for crushingly defeating the much larger Roman army at the Carrhae in 54 B.C. (the victorious general was later executed). The Parthian Empire was already in decline before 1 B.C. The Sassanians and Zenobia's Palmyra do belong in the post-1 A.D. timeframe (as do the Britons). Agreed, let's be proud of it! That early? I believe you're way too optimistic.
  21. Nescio
    Thebans, Spartans, and Athenians are nice, but Syracuse was arguably the largest, most powerful, and influential of all Greek city states - despite being located on Sicily. They were the arch-enemies of Carthage for centuries (Rome was a late-comer, starting out as a minor Carthaginian ally), invented the quinquereme (penteres), and had Archimedes. Yes, Numidia, Pontus, Parthia, and Armenia are really needed to cover the 200-1 B.C. timeframe. However, work on those has not yet started, whereas the Han, Kushites, and Xiongnu are partially done, and would also be nice to have in the main distribution.
  22. Nescio
    Getting consensus is the hardest part. The reason there are several mods is because different people have different opinions, which is perfectly fine. I've briefly tried out DE, MW, VP, and HC, in single-player, and subsequently deleted them. Multiplayer I've never played, because I'm not really interested, nor have enough time for it. The perfect person to do the balancing should have plenty of time (that disqualifies the team, who are already busy with other, more important things), have no opinion of his own (that disqualifies anyone who created a mod or complains on the forum), is patient, reliable, and able to force through decisions if there is no consensus. I'm sceptical such a person will show up.
  23. Nescio
    Re-reading my post I think I should have emphasized the “really”. I certainly did not intend to imply the team does not care about balance. I fully realize time is limited and the team can't do everything. My point was to underline that if multiplayer-players really want a balanced game, they should frequently play-test the newest development version. The only way to convince others to tweak something is by providing evidence, e.g. a large number of test games with the current values. Forum proposals and one-game examples are occassionally useful but generally insufficient.
  24. Nescio
    If people really cared to make the next alpha version balanced then this is the way to go.
  25. Nescio
    Alpha means everything is still possible and anything could be changed. Beta means the focus is on bug fixing and balancing, but not new features. Officially complete means you can not expect any improvement. A few examples: RTW has non-working features (e.g. morale), a dumb AI (weak cavalry charging head-on into a pike formation), and a complete lack of balance (economy increases exponentially with the number of cities; once you have acquired enough territory the scales tip in your favour and you can fight the whole world simutaneously and still win). AoE was a great game but partially unfinished, RoR was also released prematurely. AoK had new features but broke balance, TC just added content. AoM was balanced, but TT was of lower quality. Now, about twenty years later, they have been re-releasing these games. But did they actually solve any of the issues the original games had? No. Therefore I believe we should treasure 0 A.D.'s permanent alpha status.
×
×
  • Create New...