.jpg.4d575d1d330147616620e755ddb4c44a.jpg)
Genava55
-
Posts
2.055 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
50
Posts posted by Genava55
-
-
North Belgian/Rhine-Weser Early Germanic cavalry:
Spoiler
Horned helmet from Dusseldorf:
Germanic inclusion:
-
4
-
-
Nice! I like it. Do you want to add the cheek protections? Tell me if you need anything.
-
2 hours ago, Sundiata said:
By the way, this is an early 4th century BC Greek text referring to Persian and Egyptian phalanx formations of the 6th century BC (since the "Greekness" of the phalanx came up recently in another discussion).
The word phalanx is only meaning a tight formation working as a wall with spear hedge. The word has been applied several times for the Gauls. But clearly the Greeks and the Hellenes were those that push the concept to its maximum.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Alexandermb said:
That's nice. Largely good enough.
-
2
-
-
It is one of the Monte Bibele helmets (there are several decorated helmets from there this is why you can find differences between the helmet patterns, Rome at War is mixing two helmets but it is not that much a problem):
A few tentative of reconstruction of different helmets here
On 8/26/2018 at 12:46 AM, Genava55 said:Iron helmet of Monte Bibele with bronze decorations, fourth century BC:
-
3
-
-
30 minutes ago, Diptangshu said:
As we know, Gauls and Britons have a lowered building time for their weak structures. But conversely this gave them advantage in games. As per history, their knowledge of architecture wasn't well and scientific as like that of others(Romans, Carthaginians, Persians or Greeks). So, it's obvious that their building would be rubble. But, this deduction in 20% building time make them more efficient. Again, most of their structures has a population bonus. But think carefully, did a hut like structure has any access to extension option? I think no, so it'll be better and more balanced if Britons & Gauls have a slightly slower building rate and No population extension option by houses unlike others and also weaker Armour for buildings(20% less).
Overall I agree with your proposal, very urban civilizations have a denser population so they should have houses and residentials with a better increase. However, it has nothing to do with science, nor they are more scientific than the others. Greco-Roman houses construction were not applying more scientific principles than their Gallic equivalents. It is another matter for more complex buildings but for houses it is not the case. At this time, engineering has little to do with scientific knowledge but more with practical experience and socioeconomical needs. So I agree, civilizations that were more rural than urban should have cheaper and simpler houses, but not necessarily a population bonus. In the case of the Gallic, maybe it makes sense to give them a strong asset in spreading strategies in regards of the history of the La Tène culture but not necessarily through population bonus by buildings.
30 minutes ago, Diptangshu said:These all disparity makes some civilization really underdog and some of them really strong. Please fix it. Maybe by giving an option for increasing the number of town phase buildings by 1 for each Civic Center was made and by limiting the number of City phase structures.
Good idea.
-
2
-
-
Lepontic/Rhaetian axeman
Lepontic references:
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Rhaetian (Fritzens-Sanzeno-Kultur) references:
Spoiler
-
51 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:
Our elephants haven't that wear in their head.
I hope the Britons will get more paintings too in the future.
-
2
-
1
-
-
What about the inclusion of two-handed swordsmen to the Mauryans?
Arrian, Anabasis Alexandri: Book VIII (Indica), XVI. The Indians wear linen garments, as Nearchus says, the linen coming from the trees of which I have already made mention. This linen is either brighter than the whiteness of other linen, or the people's own blackness makes it appear unusually bright. They have a linen tunic to the middle of the calf, and for outer garments, one thrown round about their shoulders, and one wound round their heads. They wear ivory ear-rings, that is, the rich Indians; the common people do not use them. Nearchus writes that they dye their beards various colours; some therefore have these as white-looking as possible, others dark, others crimson, others purple, others grass-green. The more dignified Indians use sunshades against the summer heat. They have slippers of white skin, and these too made neatly; and the soles of their sandals are of different colours, and also high, so that the wearers seem taller. Indian war equipment differs; the infantry have a bow, of the height of the owner; this they poise on the ground, and set their left foot against it, and shoot thus; drawing the bowstring a very long way back; for their arrows are little short of three cubits, and nothing can stand against an arrow shot by an Indian archer, neither shield nor breastplate nor any strong armour. In their left hands they carry small shields of untanned hide, narrower than their bearers, but not much shorter. Some have javelins in place of bows. All carry a broad scimitar, its length not under three cubits; and this, when they have a hand-to-hand fight -- and Indians do not readily fight so among themselves -- they bring down with both hands in smiting, so that the stroke may be an effective one. Their horsemen have two javelins, like lances, and a small shield smaller than the infantry's. The horses have no saddles, nor do they use Greek bits nor any like the Celtic bits, but round the end of the horses' mouths they have an untanned stitched rein fitted; in this they have fitted, on the inner side, bronze or iron spikes, but rather blunted; the rich people have ivory spikes; within the mouth of the horses is a bit, like a spit, to either end of which the reins are attached. Then when they tighten the reins this bit masters the horse, and the spikes, being attached thereto, pr1ck the horse and compel it to obey the rein.
For future improvement and upgrade of the faction, some ideas and inspirations:
EBII units:
https://europabarbarorum.fandom.com/wiki/Váru_(Indian_Elephants)
https://europabarbarorum.fandom.com/wiki/Ksatriya_Gadáhasta_Yoddhr_(Indian_Macemen)
https://europabarbarorum.fandom.com/wiki/Ksatriya_Khadgacarmadharas_(Indian_Swordsmen)
https://europabarbarorum.fandom.com/wiki/Cápadhara_Yoddhr_(Indian_Longbowmen)
https://europabarbarorum.fandom.com/wiki/Ksatriya_Árya_Rathas_(Indian_Chariot_Archers)
https://europabarbarorum.fandom.com/wiki/Laghu_Asvánika_(Indian_Light_Cavalry)
https://europabarbarorum.fandom.com/wiki/Prasadhara_Asvanika_(Indian_Lancers)
https://europabarbarorum.fandom.com/wiki/Kauntikas_(Indian_Spearmen)
https://europabarbarorum.fandom.com/wiki/Kseptrayah_(Indian_Tribal_Slingers)
https://europabarbarorum.fandom.com/wiki/Tomara_Kseptrayah_(Indian_Tribal_Levies)
-
A question, the system with the different shield bosses, shield shapes and decorative art chosen randomly will be generalized to all factions?
-
2 hours ago, Sundiata said:
*Not saying that Black Cloaks should be removed from the Athenians (but perhaps a slight increase in cost to reflect their distance to Thrace?)
Alcibiades used Iberians mercenaries, even when he was still serving Athens, it could be a replacement although a bit exceptional. Or the Thracians mercenaries could be simply generic swordsmen with sika-like sword.
Spoiler
3 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:Did they? Battalions of Greco-Macedonian swordsmen? I think not
Neither the Spartans then, if this reasoning is valid (which it is).
-
2
-
-
10 minutes ago, sphyrth said:
So let's say that we create a Faction that does have Barracks. That would...
-
Go against familiarity
"Where's my Barracks!? This civ doesn't have it? Then how am I supposed to get an army going? How am I supposed to play this thing?"
It depends from player to player, but I'm one of those could certainly get used to it . So, it's not much of a problem... for me at least. - Breaks Balance - You have to justify how your faction is going to play without Barracks. Is it intended to be a Support Faction that's filled with Support Units (Traders and Healers), or something else?
Right now, we have the Macedonians as an example. They lack Swordsmen Historically that's being challenged by the forumers here (Macedonians DO have Swordsmen). But let's just assume that it doesn't. You have to balance that faction accordingly, or at least justify gameplay-wise why you're not going to allow any Sword-type units for the Macedonians.
Now that Nomadic (i.e. Barracks-less) Factions are being considered, how would they fit in the game if they're gonna be picked by a player?
Actual the convention is very strict because each building = one specific function (or a very few). This is a legacy of AoE with each faction being a clone from the others. But the convention and the template applied are not mandatory to follow this logic of 1 building = 1 function. The template could be based only on functions directly and be more adaptive to the particularities of each culture. For example a basic military production function and a basic defensive structure at the stage 1 could result to barracks and towers for the Greeks and to an unique building for the Celts like a fortified farm doing the job of both a barrack and a tower (this is just an idea to illustrate my point, not necessarily the right thing to do).
-
2
-
Go against familiarity
-
9 hours ago, Lion.Kanzen said:
We do not have a choice, they are the basis of the rts design, we would get lost looking for realistic buildings in addition to their realistic proportions.
I am not questioning the whole thing. There is totally the necessity to tweak the reality to put it in a game. I am questioning the use of a strict template in which each factions must fit in, a template that is very restrictive in comparison from other RTS games. This template never have been thought to fit most of the ancient cultures.
There was a huge dose of cynicism when I said that the game needed a lot of factions to bring diversity.
-
2
-
-
12 hours ago, Lion.Kanzen said:
Yes but have a nomadic style from late antiquity.
There is little differences between the different nomads in the art. It depends only from which perspective the Huns will be built as a faction. Especially since there is the Xiongnu planned in the mod, a 100% nomadic faction representing the core origin of the Huns. Although the actual Huns in Europe were probably a mixture of people, with a lot of permeability in the side of the nomads as it seen in multiple findings http://www.silkroadfoundation.org/newsletter/vol11/SilkRoad_11_2013_giumliamair.pdf
So if the Huns represents the generic nomads in the beginning of the 4th century AD as reported by Sogdians, then a purely nomadic symbol will make sense. But if the Huns as a faction will be centered on the European Huns from Balamber to Attila and his sons, maybe it will make more sense to use a "bâtard" symbol from cultural transfers.
-
2
-
-
On 9/3/2019 at 3:43 AM, Lion.Kanzen said:
Muahahahahaha.
Technically this is something that have been found in the Altai and is dated to the 5th century BC. But it is possible that the Huns liked a similar symbol that evolved among the Germans. Else, the art of the Avar and of the Hepthalites Huns can be helpful (for the pleasure, admire the Samarkand/Afrosiab Wall paintings).
-
15 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
It's called a gameplay convention.
Which is mostly copy-pasted from AoE in our case. Which is itself a convention not based on historical facts but on a legacy from Dune II and Warcraft 1. I am not saying it is bad, this is a practical design that stood the test of time, but it is important to highlight the background of this convention.
My point is that looking exclusively to the unique buildings/tech/units of the game to nitpick what is correct or not is equivalent to focusing on the tree hiding the forest. I am impatient to see the day when a nomadic faction will be added to the game. It will challenge both the coherence of this convention and the historical accuracy.
-
2
-
-
On 9/2/2019 at 9:20 PM, Sundiata said:
I'm a little skeptical. I've heard the claim before. Even saying that it would destroy the Amazon. A hyperbole assumption if you ask me, considering that the Amazon didn't just disappear the last time the Sahara was green (though it was smaller).
About the plankton, some studies have shown that global plankton populations have already dropped by more than 40% since 1950, while others note rapid plankton growth in the North Atlantic, both phenomenon directly tied to global CO2 levels. A greening of the Sahara could significantly reduce global CO2 levels, cooling the climate, and rather lead to the stabilisation of plankton levels. The dust also mostly comes from a specific place in the Sahara (Bodélé Depression), so, if we just leave that place a desert, we should be ok.
Some plankton are dropping, other are increasing, the trend is difficult to assess currently, most scientists are unsure of this publication and remain unconvinced because there is a sampling issue from the data. Most of the monitoring data are not continuous in time and in space.
If you are interested, the impact of an afforestation of the Sahara is discussed here:
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10584-009-9626-y.pdf
-
1
-
1
-
-
On 9/3/2019 at 9:44 AM, Nescio said:
If I recall correctly, AoK only has one or two unique units and technologies per civilization, but no unique structures, or am I mistaken?
But the problem is the same. Do you really think that the Aztec and the Mayans built windmills and treadwheel crane? Do you think they built siege workshops? Do you think that the unique tech of the Aztecs, Garland Wars, is historically accurate to give a +4 attack bonus to the infantry?
These problems with historical accuracies is inherent to the core gameplay of the game. This is the same with 0AD, barracks are not something very common in ancient times.
-
2
-
-
29 minutes ago, Nescio said:
Take, for instance, the rotary mills. Either remove them from the game or add them to all civilizations. It doesn't make sense that only Celts have them.
A lot of things do not make sense in Aoe2 and they still maintain these things (and people are approving) because it will break the balance if removed or altered.
-
2
-
-
35 minutes ago, Alexandermb said:
I belive devs also put that limit because this were the easiest factions to develop and to investigate, i mean their are like the core factions of any ancient era game tbh, if i would make a new game i wouldn't start developing the suevians nor the xiongnu if i have a completly full range of historical documents talking about carthage or rome or even the gauls just like math problems when i study before all my teachers left the country, i wouldn't waste 30 minutes developing a whole math problem from 10 problems if the other 9 can be done in 5 minutes each one, Same that happens to me when doing animations, i don't waste 1 hour animating if i can't find a good perspective of the motion if i can invest that time doing a better helmet.
I agree. Adding civilization only to add civilization, without having a minimum of documentation about them can be problematic if a nitpicker like me appears. Joke aside, faction like the early Germans are tough to document correctly. But I think one day they need to be include to make the transition to the part II. Currently we should focus on those with enough documentation and on the current factions that are in an upgrading process (thanks to people like you).
51 minutes ago, Alexandermb said:I consider adding more civs shouldn't be an estigma to the game nor a pain in the end of the back neither should exist too much discussion about it. A code dev always gonna be worried about code, an artist dev always gonna be worried about art, if i were a programmer dev i wouldn't vote agaisn't or in favor of adding a new civ neither as an artist, i just would say: "Show me the references and i'll see where i can help".
Anyway I don't see why it should be a problem. Most of the differences are cosmetics/esthetics. All the factions follows the same basis for the buildings and the units, so clearly to bring enough diversity, the game need to include a lot of factions.
-
2
-
-
42 minutes ago, Alexandermb said:
1 Be sure to update your SVN, here in my SVN is working properly.
Ok. Weird. I did an update but I have still the issue, both in the editor and in solo matches.
43 minutes ago, Alexandermb said:So only one bronze tone? one darkened like the iberian hispano chalcidean its okay?
The current very dark one for the Celts is excessive I think. This is making the faction weird in comparison of the others. But no problem with using the other shades currently in use in other factions.
-
I use the SVN version but I have this that is appearing, is it normal ?
Spoiler
The healers are very nice by the way
Spoiler
There is still the wooden scabbard on the fanatics
Spoiler
Edit: and do you want to keep the different shades for the bronze helmets? Because currently there is this issue only with the Celts and I am not sure it will be appreciated by the players:
Spoiler
-
1
-
-
Housebarns, an unique building or a bonus of population for the barn/corral?
-
Civ: Germans (Cimbri, Suebians, Goths)
in Delenda Est
Posted
It's @wowgetoffyourcellphone that is deciding, it is his mod.