real_tabasco_sauce
-
Posts
1.813 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
38
Posts posted by real_tabasco_sauce
-
-
57 minutes ago, Atrik said:
Now if the goal is to divide people in distinct group "us vs them" as you said, I don't think this is a good thing to do.
The goal, surely, is to maintain integrity in the tournament organized by @70H4NN2S, and for that matter in the 0ad multiplayer lobby. If players are openly cheating using a mod that is supported by the in game mod downloader, I think that's an issue. Don't bring up less available and less abused means of cheating as a way to excuse proGUI.
Since there are so many other upsides to the proGUI mod, why don't you either remove the automated eco or disable it for multiplayer. Maybe another option would be to add a setting to allow a host with progui disable the automatic eco function for all players in that host. It seems like that would be quite difficult to set up tho.
53 minutes ago, 70H4NN2S said:I started the tournament without any rules related to mods, how do you want to do it? Like, you will have to check each game from all the players to see if somebody activated proGui and co in some moment. They can activate it just in the later stage. That's to much work for me to do. I have already enough by trying to get the teams playing and to get as many players as possible, so that the game can consist at least of a 3vs3.
I would really need some help, because i can't spend so much time on the Tournament.I would just suggest making the word official on what mods are permitted. I think the respectful players will oblige and anyone that doesn't will get called out eventually.
-
I am not in this tournament, but I suggested to @70H4NN2S to come up with a list of allowed mods for the tournament. proGUI should not be in this list as it gives the user abilities that are not possible in normal 0ad, aka cheats.
I am fine with people using it in casual games, but i'm noticing the 'If you can't beat em, join em' trend, and its troubling. In addition to the unfair part, it is doing so much eco for the player which normally requires lots of attention because its an important part of the game. So it goes against a key principle of RTS games: multitasking.
-
8 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
Play the Imperial Romans in DE and say they aren't distinct from the Republican Romans.
Well the buildings have like 80% overlap. But thats not a major issue.
8 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:14 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:Well the greeks are split up by civilization, not by time. In general, I think one well-polished, sophisticated and fun civ is better than two poorly differentiated 'sister' civs that are individually more bland.
Well, me too, which is why we'd make those sister civs not bland, duh.
I just find it much better to simplify or rather synthesize down to just one civ. Which involves pulling from the more interesting units and structures and putting together a streamlined civ. I also would say adding an additional roman civ would make the other civs seem under-appreciated. Also, adding a whole civ outside of 0ad's timeframe seems like it could be a bit of an issue with the historians too.
We don't need all the stuff from the imperial era, just enough to show the changes in the military going into imperial rome.
However, if someone comes along down the line and makes an imperial rome civ for vanilla 0ad, all you would have to do is remove the onager from the existing romans, and make sure the imperial romans start with legionaries. So, whats the harm in my patch?
Its not like we are forever fixed in making decisions like these.
-
I'm sorry they kicked you out for balance. Many TG hosts will be more inclusive than this one. I think some players get far ahead of themselves trying to set up a 'pro' TG. If you are persistent and improve, you will find spots more regularly. And you will also find nicer hosts
That is one downside to the community mod. Because the player base is split, it is harder for players to find games.
My hope is that it can become a CTE instead of just a fixed and balanced version of the base game.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
"Marian Reforms", although contested, is still something in the zeitgeist that people know. Whether Marius himself imposed all the changes or they happened over the course of a generation with Marius' "innovations" only being one part, the name is still evocative. And my point was that although some things are hotly contested (people still argue over the way hoplites held their spears), as a game designer you have to make a decision one way or the other. The controversy can be detailed in the <History> tags and the players can delve deeper if they wish.
agree totally.
4 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:I don't think it would be a shame to split up the Romans. Was it a shame to split up the Greeks? I don't think so.
Well the greeks are split up by civilization, not by time. In general, I think one well-polished, sophisticated and fun civ is better than two poorly differentiated 'sister' civs that are individually more bland.
4 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:My suggestion for the base game would be to present "Romans" as one civ, and then the player can choose their era/epoch after the game launches with a cool pop-up choice in screen. This adds an element of surprise for the other players.
I suppose that could work, but I still think this would be less enjoyable than to present it as an upgrade. Splitting the civ would mean both roman civs share a lot of units and structures, so it would be hard to defend them as being distinct.
Since we know time flows in one direction, it makes a lot of sense for these later developments to be unlocked after growing a city, not before. In this case, just a few differences in the roster completely bring quite a difference in how the civ is played. I am sure players would like to be able to wait to make the decision than to be stuck with one version of rome when they would rather have picked the other.
As an upgrade, the element of surprise is equal if not better than the pre-game customization option, since there is less time to react to the change in strategy. Of course, the opponent can scout and guess that the opponent might research the reforms based on the economy choices.
The upgrade as I have designed it is supposed to unlock some powerful units at the cost of losing access to many CS units. This makes the economy susceptible to raids, and if the economy fails, it will be hard for rome to afford the legionaries to defend itself.
If this was a standalone civ, you couldn't produce this gameplay dynamic. At least not in a streamlined way.
-
So what do you think about changing the name to something like 'imperial army' or 'imperial reforms', the idea being to introduce military changes that occurred as rome became an empire.
I understand the idea of the 'marian reforms' is contested as @wowgetoffyourcellphone pointed out.
-
16 minutes ago, Genava55 said:
But I strongly disagree. I think it is simply Sulla using lithoboloi with lead projectiles. As Appian could not say that Sulla threw "lead stones" against the tower, he used a word he was familiar with for ammunition made out of lead.
Oh so more like a volley than one machine projecting multiple lead chunks.
in other words "Sulla killed many by means of catapults shooting twenty of the heaviest lead bullets at once," has a double meaning.
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, Genava55 said:
You can include two reforms, one from Marius and one from Augustus.
Perhaps the thing to do would be remove the attribution to Marius, and call it something else. 'Military Reforms', 'Imperial Reforms', 'Professional Army', 'Imperial Army'.
-
7 hours ago, Genava55 said:
The whole article is reviewing the claims of Rihll and is concluding there is little support for it.
No, only one chapter.
7 hours ago, Genava55 said:Personally I am not convinced by the idea that 'glandes' could only have been thrown by Onagers.
I don't say this, only that they were used once by a catapult, and that a two armed torsion catapult would be much less suited for this task, so it may have been a one arm catapult.
7 hours ago, Genava55 said:While most specialists on the topics expressed the opposing view.
The authors appear to entertain multiple possibilities, but explain that the lack of evidence renders the situation fairly inconclusive.
Im not cherry picking information, this was something you did not share with us earlier, so I figured I should share it. It seems you are certain that onagers are a much later development and you refuse to entertain the possibility it could be anything but.
I agree with @wowgetoffyourcellphone here. It is pretty cool in my eyes to research the marian reforms. The point of this upgrade is to let the player undergo the transformation of the roman army that occurred before 0 a.d.. Onagers are first mentioned about 150 years after, and may have been mentioned in 86 BC providing an area of effect role.
Why not let Rome play out this evolution over time? The reforms also get rid of the roman citizen cavalry and extraordinarii which is also accurate coincidentally.
5 hours ago, Genava55 said:distinctive features like the segmentata
These could have been first used anywhere between 53BC to 20AD, which is not too long after the marian reforms.
This is why it doesn't make sense to separate the time periods. Republican and prinicpate rome are two timeperiods, but time is a continuum, so just let the civ evolve with an upgrade.
It would be so sad to split the content between two civs, rather than let the one civ remain with depth, intriguing mechanics, and cool gameplay.
There's not enough information to say for certain the onagers were earlier than 0 A. D. but there is enough for ~ 100AD, which I think is enough to add to the game, considering it is locked behind an upgrade that symbolizes later roman developments.
-
1 hour ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:
Apparently a battle in 86 BC used many lead shot launched from catapults. Its hard to say what machine might have done that but it seems to me that a 1 arm onager would be most up to the task.
I suppose this could have been done with torsion catapults too, but it would seem much more difficult and risky.
I think this, in combination with the ~100 A.D. mention of a 1 arm catapult on some ram-type machine, is enough to conclude that the roman civ's use of onagers is plausible. Apollodorous doesn't portray it as some new invention either.
The idea of the marian reforms upgrade is that it brings the later rome character to the army in a streamlined way. For example, melee CS and the extraordinarii champions are traded for legionaries. I think it makes sense for the upgrade to allow the onagers in the same way since it is a later siege weapon.
-
The onager discussion begins on 690.
Apparently a battle in 86 BC used many lead shot launched from catapults. Its hard to say what machine might have done that but it seems to me that a 1 arm onager would be most up to the task.
I suppose this could have been done with torsion catapults too, but it would seem much more difficult and risky.
-
@wowgetoffyourcellphone @Genava55
Can either of you access this article: https://www-jstor-org.oregonstate.idm.oclc.org/stable/10.2972/hesperia.80.4.0677
I found a few things from here about catapult invention and the use of shot from catapults.
if not, ill add some excerpts. basically its far from conclusive in general, since the 1 arm catapults are mostly organic materials.
-
Are there any more comments on this? Maybe should I make a poll somewhere?
-
2 hours ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:
The real question to ask is what can an onager do that other siege weapons in the game can't? I'll admit that it's cool, but having a redundant unit added to a roster is unnecessary noise that a player would have to deal with.
Well the idea is that the onager serves an area of effect role to target bundled up infantry. It will be only moderately effective against buildings, but its simple design compared to the ballista means it can be built in the field by legionaries.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:
The point is that 0 AD does not represent factions over a broad period of time. It is supposed to be a snapshot, and the Punic Wars represent a period where the Roman Republic was still fairly functional and the soldiers were still militias.
That seems like a massively limiting design constraint. just 100 years (punic wars) is the 'Snapshot' allowed? And well before 0 A.D. ? We already have a lot of content well outside of this. Why can't we have flexibility and the freedom for the civs to change over time? Its not like the cities in 0ad are built instantly.
I thought the approach was to look at a 300-500 year span and pick the important/impactful/interesting developments for content.
2 hours ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:I would endorse representing a Roman civilisation from a later point to be able to show Caesar conquering Gaul,
Wouldn't this be a bit outside of the 'snapshot' you suggest? Also, I would find it goofy for two civs to exist for rome, when they can fight each other. As if the two civs are different, when really they are both just 'rome'.
The idea of the reforms technology is to unlock the beginning of the transformation of the army. So sort of the end of republican rome.
-
17 minutes ago, borg- said:
I have two question pls. Did the Marian reforms extinguish veles, hastatus.. of Roman army suddenly or was it something progressive? Another question, did the first Marian legionnaires still work or were they full time soldiers?
I did some researching before the marian reforms patch and it seems the reforms are rather contested in terms of their attribution to marius. My understanding is that there were reforms, but they were progressive, turning the army into more of a standardized professional force over time. Maybe it is fine to call it marian reforms since it is what people are familiar with. I think they existed but the regular legionaries were prioritized.
If you think it would be good for the reforms to emphasize the veles as an eco unit, I could add a modification for -25% damage for CS units.
-
2 hours ago, Genava55 said:
As far as I remember, people were still objecting the idea to go beyond the Punic Wars for the Romans, notably @Thorfinn the Shallow Minded
So I doubt they would like to mix the Principate period into the current Roman civ.
It would seem very strange to me to not allow content ~ 0 A.D. into 0ad's time frame. Also, I think it would be sad to disallow principate period content just because it's later on. The principates romans are still just romans.
-
19 minutes ago, Genava55 said:
Ammianus Marcellinus (4th century AD)
This is the guy that thought it was the same as a scorpion, at least according to wikipedia.
So it seems they were commonplace during battles in the 4th century and may have been invented in 2nd century or possibly much earlier by greeks. Thanks @Genava55
Given that we already have content from the late 1st century, Is the early 2nd century really too late, even if its after a reform tech which would be accessed late in the game? I understand that the early roman empire was fairly peaceful, so maybe that could explain the lack of records of their use.
1 hour ago, Genava55 said:I would say there is no evidence for its usage during the Roman republic and if we decide that Philo of Byzantium indeed mentioned onagers, then the Greeks were the first to use them.
I think it would be fair for the romans to begin the transition into the "imperial" timeframe. especially since this began before 0 a.d., and I wouldn't be against giving the athenians an onager in the future if we consider philon's machine an onager.
-
Would it be reasonable for the romans to access Onagers after researching a military reform tech? One source says onagers came about much later like 300ad, but that source also says they were the same as a scorpion which is funny.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onager_(weapon)
However some sources say they may have been used as early as 300 bc.
So the approach in my patch https://code.wildfiregames.com/D5114 was to lock them behind the marian reforms tech so that they emerge in the late game, just as they likely emerged later in ancient rome. It seems reasonable to me given the lack of specifics when it comes to their invention and use in war.
-
Alright, this looks awesome! I'll go ahead and add it to the onager patch and credit you.
-
1
-
-
46 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
1 potential "game changer" bonus: The Marian Reforms for the Romans comes to mind. Not every civ should need this, but maybe 3 or 4 of them should have something on this level, not just the Romans. Maybe the Macedonians can choose between Argead or Antogonid dynasties. Maybe the Han can choose Western or Eastern Han. Just spitballing here.
I made a 'han diplomacy' tech for the xiongnu that follows this approach.
On the standard, I pretty much agree for the most part, but I feel like even if we set one, we would probably start to stray from it since the civs have different unit availability and playstyles. For example it kind of makes sense to give the spartans 3 unique technologies since they have such a simple unit roster.
-
1
-
-
@70H4NN2S do you have a list of allowed mods? I think it would be good to do for competitive play so the abilities of all the players are fair.
-
1
-
-
Do you have enough free storage on your storage device? If there isn't enough storage space, it can really slow down the computer in general. If you are above 90% full, it could possibly help to free up space.
-
1
-
-
I think this looks great!
-
1
-
TG Tournament
in General Discussion
Posted
And the version on gitlab has compatibility check disabled? That's pretty disingenuous since that allows players to use the mod when their opponents don't have it.
I am not asking you to remove it from mod io, since players can get it elsewhere and the cat is already out of the bag so to speak. Also, it is ultimately your work, so its up to you. I do think this is a mistake of your doing and that if you go on to make a version for a27, it should be a GUI mod only (as advertised), not a cheat mod.