Nescio
-
Posts
2.300 -
Joined
-
Days Won
23
Posts posted by 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.)
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, Zeta1127 said:
I just said the Thebans, because I really want them, since they are the biggest hole in being able to do the Peloponnesian War, and to a lesser extent the Greek-Persian Wars, properly. Syracuse is definitely on the short list, along with Numidia, Pontus, and Parthia, for other civilizations to include in Empires Ascendant.
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.
4 hours ago, Lion.Kanzen said:Parthians must be second part I think. with Sasanids and may be Palmyra
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).
4 hours ago, sphyrth said:Before you guys fully hijack the topic:
There was a time when I get a little bit irritated when people mock 0 A.D. as a "Forever Alpha" game. But given the trend that Rome 2 Total War started, no-one should mock the game for being an Honest Alpha.
Agreed, let's be proud of it!
1 hour ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:Not Omega? Or would that be the final patch, definitive edition of 0 A.D., out 4th quarter 2032 for all VR platforms.
That early? I believe you're way too optimistic.
-
1
-
-
42 minutes ago, Zeta1127 said:
which would probably lead to the inclusion of the Thebans.
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.
40 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:Personally I want Numidians and Pontus, Yugurta and Mithridates, classic enemies of Rome.
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.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, stanislas69 said:
Yeah testing svn is key.
I won't say more about it but let's say content sharing might become a bit easier in the future.
We do lack someone with commit access that is dedicated to balancing though I think @Yves wanted to work on that @LordGood also wanted to give it a go.
We can't just recruit someone on the forums though. We don't have a balancing department though it might fall into the programming part which is already crawling under work I don't think elexis sleeps anymore.
To recruit someone we need someone with experience but also someone we can trust and someone for whom we can attest such competence. Which is the hardest part. Once that person is found it should go well. But when and who are questions I really wish I had answers too.
About gameplay mods I'm not even sure you guys test each other mods.
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.
-
17 minutes ago, stanislas69 said:
I care. Also I think we do care not releasing a broken game.
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.
-
5 hours ago, stanislas69 said:
You guys could also play on SVN and report these things before the release. That's also why we have release candidates.
Yeah not much people on SVN but I'm sure you could sort this out
If people really cared to make the next alpha version balanced then this is the way to go.
-
On 14/01/2018 at 10:58 PM, Itms said:
I'm curious to know why you think so
I agree it's a very positive thing for us when people realize we still aim at something even better, but on the other hand at some point we have to create something that is complete and officially released for the general public, don't you think? We will still have Part 2 to start working on, if what you are afraid to miss is the ability to follow developments.
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.
-
1
-
-
The permanent alpha stage is actually one of 0 A.D.'s greatest assets. I hope it'll never be finished
-
4
-
-
24 minutes ago, Phalanx said:
In my opinion, the most popular symbol of the Seleucid Empire is the anchor while, correct me if I'm wrong, the bee and the anchor are symbols of a particular dynasty or royal family. But are all of our Seleucid heroes from the same dynasty or family?
Yes. The Seleucid Empire is the state ruled by the Seleucid dynasty, named after Seleucus I, who founded it; and all Seleucid heroes are Seleucid kings from the same family. The dynasty's symbols are the empire's, and vice versa.
Out of curiosity, what do you mean by “most popular”?
-
The Athenians also have a coin with several of their symbols (olive, owl, ATHE[nai]) as an emblem, so it's not unprecedented.
-
32 minutes ago, Sundiata said:
"probably too insignificant to be included." Although that might be correct, it's also very subjective.
It partially is, yes. (I also think the “Iberians”, an amalgam which includes many non-Iberian peoples, is too insignificant, yet it is included nevertheless.) However, why ought e.g. the Yayoi period be included, other than being Japan in 0 A.D.'s timeframe? Did they heavily influence their neighbours? Did they construct lasting monuments? Have any literary works survived? Have their cults or language reshaped large parts of Eurasia? I fear the answer to these questions is no; merely “being there” and nothing else seems just insignificant.
-
1
-
-
The current emblem looks more like a shield, although it's derived from a tetradrachme coin. If it is to be redesigned, this one might be useful:
The right coin has three symbols of the Seleucid monarchy: the bee (top), elephant (centre), and anchor (bottom), as well as the text “King Seleucus”. (The horned horse on the left coin is another symbol of their dynasty, but I personally like the elephant + anchor better.)
-
The Xiognu/Hsiung-nu (Mongolia) and Han (China) were important civilizations with a lasting influence on eastern Eurasia, including our present world; eventually both ought to be included in 0 A.D.'s main distribution, ideally. They deserve it as much as the Parthians and Romans.
On the other hand, although they fit 0 A.D.'s timeframe, the Go-Joseon (North Korea), Jin (South Korea), and Yayoi (Japan) archaeological periods are probably too insignificant to be included.
-
Is it possible to make the mountain slopes less steep, covered with vegetation, and walkable, but not buildable? That would make the map more realistic and playable.
Also, I don't like those two solid land bridges. Perhaps you could replace them with half a dozen shallow spots in the water were the river can be crossed? A few rocks or stepping stones would look better, I think.
To make it even more realistic, water should stream downwards; the river should have cataracts etc and one end should be visibly higher than the other. I guess that's currently not yet possible though.
-
1 hour ago, Baskom Welford said:
If someone can tell me where to find them I can post the log data.
You need the `interestinglog.html` file; its location depends on your operating system; have a look at https://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/GameDataPaths
-
1
-
-
On 04/01/2018 at 9:29 AM, The Undying Nephalim said:
Or if you prefer the .zip version: https://www.dropbox.com/s/9mykuqcoa7qhqno/Hyrule.zip?dl=0
A zip, great, now I can finally have a look at what you've been doing
You have to correct your mod.json file: right now Hyrule is listed as "game", but it's not a stand-alone game, it's a mod; if you try to run Hyrule without 0ad you get lots of errors. To prevent that, replace your mod.json file with e.g.:
{ "name": "Hyrule Conquest", "version": "1.01", "label": "Hyrule Conquest", "url": "https://wildfiregames.com/forum/index.php?/topic/22638-hyrule-conquest/&", "description": "A Real-Time Strategy mod set in the Legend of Zelda universe.", "dependencies": ["0ad=0.0.22"], "type": "mod" }
Also, when loading the tech trees, there are quite a few warnings.
16 hours ago, Ozerol Notna said:How does armor and damage work? I don't quite get the mechanics. Does it work as damage minus the product of damage multiplied by 0.(armor) or is it damage minus armor?
No and no (I'm assuming this mod doesn't overhaul armour mechanics). AoE uses linear armour. AoM uses percentage armour. 0 A.D. uses exponential armour (if I recall correctly; there was an explanatory page on the subject somewhere).
-
That looks much better! However, something weird seems to be going on with the camel's hind leg.
-
2 hours ago, Alexandermb said:
Btw i used as camel gather meat this:
Nice! But a camel will kneel even further:
-
1 hour ago, stanislas69 said:
I like the rein a lot. I'm not an expert so I believe Wow when it says it's too long.
Yes, it looks nice. Ideally there should be three variants: no reins, a single rein (which can be very long), and a loop rein (as shown; loose but short enough to be reined in).
1 hour ago, stanislas69 said:You realise though that if camels have reins chariots, horses and ponies should have some too
Camels: occassionally. Chariots: certainly. Horse: typically yes, but it depends; Greek cavalry often lacked shields (or carried them on their back) because they needed one hand to hold the reins, whereas Dahae horse archers were skilled enough to guide their mount with their legs and needed both hands to shoot arrows.
1 hour ago, stanislas69 said:Can someone enlighten me as to what cross legged is ?
Sitting with your legs crossed is that your left feet is at the right, and vice versa. A camel is not a horse; you can sit on it in a number of ways. E.g.:
https://www.lindydavis.co.nz/?lightbox=dataItem-ivzutjhc
or:
-
Addendum: during the later Roman Empire the Romans did have “dromedarii” (camelry units); but they were an auxiliary corps, i.e. recruited from non-Roman peoples or local tribes (i.e. Arabs). The same applies to the camelry occassionally listed amongst the Persian etc. armies.
-
1 hour ago, Sundiata said:
Although I agree with most of what you say, I'd be very careful with statements like the one above.
You're right, I could have expressed it a bit more subtle. As usual, my knowledge is limited to the Near East and Mediterranean. Although I know a few things about ancient Africa (modern Tunisia) I know next to nothing about the ancient history of the continent we nowadays call Africa (ancient Libya and Aethiopia). Therefore thank you for correcting me (and please continue to do so; I like to learn new things, and I do hope Kushites and other significant civilizations will eventually be included in 0 A.D.'s main distribution).
The primary motivation for me posting was to distinguish between Arab (a term already used by the Assyrians) and Arabic (which did not yet exist during Antiquity). And the idea behind my controversial statement was that there is clear evidence desert peoples (who were typically called Arabs in their own time) fought from camel-back, whereas there is no evidence for other people who did have camels. E.g. the Parthian army at the battle of Carrhae reportedly consisted of about one thousand cataphracts, nine thousand light horse archers, and tens of thousands of supply camels, but no camelry units.
1 hour ago, Sundiata said:According to some sources camels were introduced to the Sahara as early as early as 500 BC, although most sources put this date much later (2nd century AD) and attribute it to the Romans. These common sources are almost definitely incorrect.
Personally I wouldn't be surprised if dromedary camels existed in and around the Sahara thousands of years earlier; even if the first literary references are from Roman times, it doesn't mean they weren't there long before.
1 hour ago, Sundiata said:Garamantes are actually more known for their horse-drawn chariots (up to 4 horses) which they used to "hunt" troglodytes. So I also think camels should be avoided for Carthagenians unless a clear reference can be found. I must emphasise that I'm not sure about camels not being used by Garamantes during 0AD's timeframe...
There is clear evidence the Carthaginians used both bigae (two-horse chariots which served on the flanks alongside cavalry) and quadrigae (four-horse chariots which were deployed individually in front of the main infantry formation, just like war elephants later). The bigae were gradually being phased out in favour of true cavalry, and the quadrigae were replaced by elephantry shortly after Carthage' conflicts with Pyrrhus. I'm unaware of Punic camelry (and ancient writers are interested in exotic things).
“Troglodytes” means “cave-dwellers” and various ancient authors apply that term to various peoples.
1 hour ago, Sundiata said:Also, camels are usually ridden with loose reins, being steered with a stick, not the reins. So the long reins don't only look good, they're actually accurate...
Yes, I'm aware camels were and are guided by loose reins, sticks, both, or neither; besides shouting. I'm not objecting to loose reins, I was pointing out they were too loose; if they can't be reined in they serve no purpose; I'm asking them to be shortened somewhat (but not to be tight).
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:
You mean Saraceni?
Saracen is the Medieval term for what we nowadays call Arab.
Names which had different meanings in the past are unimportant to be aware of in daily usage, but do matter when talking about specific historical contexts. E.g. modern Calabria (the toe of Italy; called Bruttium in Roman times) is a completely different region from ancient Calabria (the heel of Italy; the modern Salento Peninsula in Apulia).
-
1
-
-
44 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
an Arabic Spear Camelry mercenary unit for the Persians and Seleucids.
Arab, not Arabic. “Arabs” were the only ones who fought from dromedary camel back in Antiquity, although neighbouring peoples also used camels as supply animals.
The word has shifted its meaning too. Before the 7th C A.D. Arab was the demonym for all nomadic and semi-nomadic desert peoples and tribes; those we now call Bedouins, Nabateans, etc. were called by others and called themselves Arab in their own time. And in the Quran (Koran) Mohammed frequently fulminates upon the detestable Arabs (meaning the Bedouins, who were not interested in converting to his monotheistic movement).
Nowadays Arab means someone who has Arabic as his mother tongue. Arabic is derived from the Arabian Peninsula, which derives from the Arabian Desert, which came from the Arab (peoples). To summarize, “Arab” is nowadays an ethnic adjective, “Arabian” a geographical adjective, and “Arabic” a linguistic adjective.
-
1
-
-
On 04/01/2018 at 11:51 PM, Alexandermb said:
I'm planing to make the reins so the rider doesn't look like he is holding the wing.
Example WIP:A few more things to have the rein:
The rein is much too long; if it were pulled, it would have no effect. Also, the rider's arm probably should be resting on its lap (keeping it stretched out for hours is unnecessarily tiresome).
9 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:A cross legged rider variation would be cool but that's up to you.
Cross-legged should actually be the default for the Arab (Bedouin, Nabatean, etc.) archer.
9 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:I'll make some melee camel units for you after work. I had been holding off because the old animations weren't up to snuff.
A (Arab) camel spearman (without armour or shield) is something I'd really like to have.
The Kingdom of Kush: A proper introduction [Illustrated]
in Official tasks
Posted
That's very easy to do yourself. Just create mod containing a tiny file such as:
That should work (and be compatible with any mod or game version).