Classical Warfare AEA

[Asher]

The only thing I would say for now, is that some of the columns don't line up with their "title", at the top part, or they aren't at the top of the column

[Emacz]

A couple more new ideas/features thanks to @stevenlau

Pikeman/Spearman went set to stand ground receive "brace" mixin bonuses.

Formations can now have - resistance to help offset some of the speed bonuses!  So it may be risky to use certian formations, but they decrease travel time.

[Asher]

Anybody have any screenshots they'd want to share?

[Emacz]

9 minutes ago, Asher said:

Anybody have any screenshots they'd want to share?

I can create some in a little I think, making some minor adjustments now that these new features are added.  IE pike and spear dmg reduced if they are in normal stance .

[Emacz]

@Asher here are three examples of Athens Spearman.  Keep in mind you still can't attack in formation, and brace is stand guard.  So if you are in Phalanx and Brace, you only receive the extra resistances until you engage.  You can't move with both of them because brace is 0 movement.

[Nicolaus_von_Kues]

What do you need? Which icons?

[Emacz]

Icons aren't the issue.  Im working with ChatGPT to help with things.  But we had a problem when we tried to recreate actors to look like some of our ICons.  IE the brit hill fort and great hill fort  pictured here:
I actually don't mind the "cc" actor too much, but it would be nice to get it to include some palisades and look likes its more up on a "hill" if thats possible.

[Nicolaus_von_Kues]

11 minutes ago, Emacz said:

Icons aren't the issue.  Im working with ChatGPT to help with things.  But we had a problem when we tried to recreate actors to look like some of our ICons.  IE the brit hill fort and great hill fort  pictured here:
I actually don't mind the "cc" actor too much, but it would be nice to get it to include some palisades and look likes its more up on a "hill" if thats possible.

I'm not familiar with the mod, what are you using these images for?

 

[Emacz]

so britons build hill forts to 'expand'.  We give them (and other trible civs) only one "main civic center" then they expand through "colony" type buildings, brits, gauls, germs can all start doing it p1 with their hill forts, oppidums and  encampments. Iber is a tribal civ but cant expand utnil p2 like other civs with its "castro".  Castros are a liuttle closer to colonies, maybe a little stronger, id have to check all the stats.  Where as the other 3 are weaker than a normal colony and defintely weaker than a cc.

[Nicolaus_von_Kues]

1 hour ago, Emacz said:

so britons build hill forts to 'expand'.  We give them (and other trible civs) only one "main civic center" then they expand through "colony" type buildings, brits, gauls, germs can all start doing it p1 with their hill forts, oppidums and  encampments. Iber is a tribal civ but cant expand utnil p2 like other civs with its "castro".  Castros are a liuttle closer to colonies, maybe a little stronger, id have to check all the stats.  Where as the other 3 are weaker than a normal colony and defintely weaker than a cc.

As a military colony?  

[Emacz]

Yes and no  We created more templates, so it's: template_structure_civic_civil_tribal

[Emacz]

Attached is an updated manual.  It has some base vs CWA comparrions. Id like to think we are near completion, or at least for this alpha  The only thing Im really unsure of is some of the balances between units.  We really need a lot more play testing to conclude that.  There also may still be a few bugs/errors that I havent caught yet.  So if you are interested in testing it out either SP or MP that would be much appreciated.  Please share any feedback here.  Even if it's "this is the worst mod ever"  Although i would hope if that was your opinion you would at least say what makes it so bad so we can consider changing it

CWA_manual_v1.8.0.xlsm

[Asher]

3 hours ago, Emacz said:

Attached is an updated manual.  It has some base vs CWA comparrions. Id like to think we are near completion, or at least for this alpha  The only thing Im really unsure of is some of the balances between units.  We really need a lot more play testing to conclude that.  There also may still be a few bugs/errors that I havent caught yet.  So if you are interested in testing it out either SP or MP that would be much appreciated.  Please share any feedback here.  Even if it's "this is the worst mod ever"  Although i would hope if that was your opinion you would at least say what makes it so bad so we can consider changing it

Me be kinda confuseled about how this spread sheet works, could you explain a little please 

I actually figured it out, newver mind 

Edited August 19 by Asher

[Asher]

Just was using ai to update our site. Do you think the nav bar (home, charts, civ) should go on the side, or the top, like it was?

[Asher]

@Emacz, could you check out the site, see how it looks, and if I should change anything. Others are welcome to see it too 

[Emacz]

3 hours ago, Asher said:

@Emacz, could you check out the site, see how it looks, and if I should change anything. Others are welcome to see it too 

Looks pretty OP! I will have to PM you to see how you are using AI.  Wondering if I can share the updated manual with you when we make changes and if that can change stuff on the website.  For example, currently Legacy of Marathon is not an Athens tech.  But if we bring it back you would just have AI scan that manual and make changes? 

[Asher]

46 minutes ago, Emacz said:

Looks pretty OP! I will have to PM you to see how you are using AI.  Wondering if I can share the updated manual with you when we make changes and if that can change stuff on the website.  For example, currently Legacy of Marathon is not an Athens tech.  But if we bring it back you would just have AI scan that manual and make changes? 

Yes, I think I could just have the AI scan the manual to update the site

[ThePoshBarbarian]

Whenever I'm playing on a map with camels on it, and whenever I hover my mouse over a camel, I get an error message, and the camel isn't selectable.

ERROR: JavaScript error: simulation/components/Auras.js line 116 AuraTemplates.Get(...) is undefined Auras.prototype.CalculateAffectedPlayers@simulation/components/Auras.js:116:38 Auras.prototype.Clean@simulation/components/Auras.js:244:8 Auras.prototype.Init@simulation/components/Auras.js:18:7
ERROR: JavaScript error: simulation/components/Auras.js line 116 AuraTemplates.Get(...) is undefined Auras.prototype.CalculateAffectedPlayers@simulation/components/Auras.js:116:38 Auras.prototype.Clean@simulation/components/Auras.js:244:8 Auras.prototype.OnOwnershipChanged@simulation/components/Auras.js:489:7
ERROR: Script message handler OnOwnershipChanged failed
ERROR: JavaScript error: simulation/components/Auras.js line 171 AuraTemplates.Get(...) is undefined Auras.prototype.GetType@simulation/components/Auras.js:171:23 Auras.prototype.IsRangeAura@simulation/components/Auras.js:196:14 Auras.prototype.GetRangeOverlays@simulation/components/Auras.js:89:13 RangeOverlayManager.prototype.UpdateRangeOverlays@simulation/components/RangeOverlayManager.js:29:51 RangeOverlayManager.prototype.OnOwnershipChanged@simulation/components/RangeOverlayManager.js:67:8

I looked through some of the files and I think(?) I found the issue, in `simulation\templates\gaia\fauna_camel.xml`, line 3 to 5

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<Entity parent="template_unit_fauna_hunt_skittish">
  <!-- start delete --> <Auras datatype="tokens">
    structures/corral_garrison_medium
  </Auras> <!-- end delete -->
  <Footprint>
    <Square width="2.5" depth="5.0"/>
    <Height>5.5</Height>
  </Footprint>
  <Health>
    <Max>50</Max>
  </Health>
  <Identity>
    <GenericName>Dromedary</GenericName>
    <SpecificName>Camelus dromedarius</SpecificName>
    <Icon>gaia/fauna_camel.png</Icon>
  </Identity>
  <Loot>
    <xp>10</xp>
  </Loot>
  <ResourceSupply>
    <Max>200</Max>
  </ResourceSupply>
  <Sound>
    <SoundGroups>
      <select>actor/fauna/animal/camel_select.xml</select>
      <order_walk>actor/fauna/movement/camel_order.xml</order_walk>
      <death>actor/fauna/death/death_camel.xml</death>
    </SoundGroups>
  </Sound>
  <StatusBars>
    <HeightOffset>6.5</HeightOffset>
  </StatusBars>
  <UnitMotion>
    <WalkSpeed op="mul">0.45</WalkSpeed>
    <Acceleration op="mul">0.45</Acceleration>
  </UnitMotion>
  <VisualActor>
    <Actor>fauna/camel.xml</Actor>
  </VisualActor>
</Entity>

I checked the other animal entities, the cows, pigs, and sheeps, they don't have the aura part in their xmls.

[Asher]

25 minutes ago, ThePoshBarbarian said:

I looked through some of the files and I think(?) I found the issue, in `simulation\templates\gaia\fauna_camel.xml`, line 3 to 5

I am not seeing the file in the mod. It is in the public folder though. So, is something in the mod causing a problem with the base game file? I added the file, and took out the line you said, and pushed it to github

Edited 6 hours ago by Asher

[ThePoshBarbarian]

Ah sorry, forgot to specify. The camel file is from the base game files, so this would have to be edited and included in the mod files.

[Thalatta]

On 19/08/2026 at 5:09 PM, Emacz said:

CWA_manual_v1.8.0.xlsm 530.96 kB · 7 downloads

Was having a look at it now:

Unit Tiers

-"Auxiliary" would be better than "Allied". "Allied" is way more general than what you want.

-I guess you couldn't solve how to change Champions to Elite, and the XP progression as Recruit->Seasoned->Veteran, which would be better according to the terminology actually used.

-You seem to characterise Mercenaries other way around. They should be veterans selling their services (maxed XP), and would use local equipment if it's better (affected by Forge techs).

Glossary

-"Auxiliary" now seems what you defined before as "Allied", and "Allied" seems to be what it should. I would have then thought that in Unit Tiers you made a mistake, but then all the following tables repeat that.

 

The rest is quite a bunch of information that would require a lot of time to understand. Maybe something friendlier eventually would be to somehow briefly state the differences with vanilla in https://jeff-web-sketch.github.io/ClassicalWarfareAEASite/spartans.html, for example. And in "16 historically accurate civilizations", that's simply not true, at most you could write "16 civilizations (striving to be historically accurate)". I guess you have still focused mostly on units stats, since there are simple corrections I think I already mentioned to you that are still not implemented, in the Spartans for example.

[Asher]

5 minutes ago, Thalatta said:

And in "16 historically accurate civilizations", that's simply not true, at most you could write "16 civilizations (striving to be historically accurate)".

Ok, I changed that. Thanks for saying something

[Emacz]

2 hours ago, Thalatta said:

-"Auxiliary" would be better than "Allied". "Allied" is way more general than what you want.

@Thalatta I thought Auxiliary was mainly a Roman term, form of "alliance".  

 I guess you have still focused mostly on units stats, since there are simple corrections I think I already mentioned to you that are still not implemented, in the Spartans for example.

 

2 hours ago, Thalatta said:

The rest is quite a bunch of information that would require a lot of time to understand. Maybe something friendlier eventually would be to somehow briefly state the differences with vanilla

Are you looking at manual or website, cause the manual very clearly has some of the differences, HPs of units, DPS, etc.  Some of it can't be compared cause we have units that didn't exist in vanilla, and we do cavalry in 4 classes, so its not quite apples to apples.

 

2 hours ago, Thalatta said:

I guess you have still focused mostly on units stats, since there are simple corrections I think I already mentioned to you that are still not implemented, in the Spartans for example.

Yes mainly focused on unit stats, balance as of late.  But as cant keep track of all sugestions.  So if you want to remind us again, I can look into it.

[Emacz]

If a file is not in mod, but is in base game there shouldn't be an issue because the mod uses basegame files that wernet included.  I will take a look into the camel.  We did change some things with fauna in general, but it was more for the domesticated ones.

[Thalatta]

5 minutes ago, Emacz said:

@Thalatta I thought Auxiliary was mainly a Roman term, form of "alliance".  

"Auxiliary" is an English word, meaning "helper" or "helpers", which in Latin are "auxilium" and "auxilia", respectively. The Romans would use the term "auxilia" for non-citizen subject units that would usually preserve strong local cultural traits. Thus, when you say "auxiliary", in English, I'd assume you are going beyond the Latin "auxilia", and generalising a very similar situation (which is actually not that common, mostly for vast civilisations). And that's what you seem to write in the Glossary. The problem is that for "Allies" you also write that they can be "subjects", and since this is strictly not true (are their part of your civilisation, or allies?) it ends overlapping with what "Auxiliary" means. You then decide to use "Allies" for what it seems to be better described as "Auxiliary". "Allies" should be those who are not part of your civilisation, but are your allies.

 

26 minutes ago, Emacz said:

Are you looking at manual or website... Some of it can't be compared

The "bunch of information" is the manual. That "friendlier eventually would be to somehow briefly state the differences with vanilla" I mean the website, but you literally cut out "in the link". Just to compare what can be compared.

 

29 minutes ago, Emacz said:

But as cant keep track of all sugestions.  So if you want to remind us again

As I've told you many times, just take notes. I see I sent you certain corrections on May 15, and that nothing changed the next day when you said you already corrected them. You are the one that has to check if corrections are properly implemented, to keep repeating the same things that are already written down (as has happened already with other things) is never going to work for me.