Classical Warfare AEA

[Emacz]

16 minutes ago, Thalatta said:

"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 civilization, but are your allies.

Yes, well again the manual isnt perfect either.  Its ChatGPT trying to summarize everything.   But Ill take a look at it and see if we can clean some of it up.

 

16 minutes ago, Thalatta said:

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.

 

what do you mean cut out in the link? Again if you looked at the manual, there are sections that very clearly compare CWA vs BASE.  Look at the infantry base tab.  You will notice all melee infantry are 0% different from Base.  All ranged infantry are 100% of base... thus all "citizen" soliders have same HP.  We used different "armor/resitance" packages to set them apart.  Based Sword dps is 10.7 CWA is 9.5 the manual does that math so you dont have to tell you swordsman are about 10.9% less DPS than base game.  In fact pretty much all "CS" is less DPS than base game, besides the pikeman which is actually up 17%, But are not as tanky as base game. You can check cavalry, champs etc and compare those stats to base game.

16 minutes ago, Thalatta said:

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.

I guess I will look at may 15th and see if i can find what you said.   Again if you say one thing, and someone says something else and they actually play... Ill probably use there terminology for now.  Spiked rollers should be implemented per your suggestion  (I know longer have any conversations between us before may 15th.  If it was in a previous CWA post, remember all my posts got wiped accidently cause they thought i was a spam bot.  If you want to point me in the diretion of this may 15th stuff ill take a look. Thats the best I can do right now)

Edited 47 minutes ago by Emacz

[Thalatta]

23 minutes ago, Emacz said:

what do you mean cut out in the link?

This is the complete sentence:

4 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 in https://jeff-web-sketch.github.io/ClassicalWarfareAEASite/spartans.html

You cut out the part "in https://jeff-web-sketch.github.io/ClassicalWarfareAEASite/spartans.html", and then proceeded to ask if I meant the manual or the website. The answer was written right there all along.

 

23 minutes ago, Emacz said:

Again if you say one thing, and someone says something else and they actually play... Ill probably use there terminology for now.  Spiked rollers should be implemented per your suggestion

I don't mean my historical suggestions (which would be recommended if you want to be more accurate than vanilla anyway), but things that are objectively wrong (in particular, attempts at writing in Greek that you added and weren't even in vanilla). So, if someone says something else, and they actually play, they will still be just wrong

Edited 27 minutes ago by Thalatta

[Emacz]

7 hours ago, ThePoshBarbarian said:

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.

Ok, I downloaded the file from base game and removed the aura... however, You will still get the error for a while.  Im gonna try and get a few more I push through any changes.

Thanks for pointing this out!

Oh wait, @Asher looks like you fixed this thanks,  Although in the future I am now trying to use different branches (im kinda starting to understand them i think) so that if we make one simple change people don't need to redownload the full mod.  

Edited 12 minutes ago by Emacz

[Emacz]

16 minutes ago, Thalatta said:

This is the complete sentence:

You cut out the part "in https://jeff-web-sketch.github.io/ClassicalWarfareAEASite/spartans.html", and then proceeded to ask if I meant the manual or the website. The answer was written right there all along.

Ok, i think I understand what your saying.  I had to reread it 3-4 times and couldnt figure it out at first.  But yes the spartan tab of the website doesnt have all the changes.  The manual is on the website and it has some of the changes from base game.  I honstly haven't been keeping up with the website that much since no one seemed to be that interest.  

 

16 minutes ago, Thalatta said:

I don't mean my historical suggestions (which would be recommended if you want to be more accurate than vanilla anyway), but things that are objectively wrong (in particular, attempts at writing in Greek that you added and weren't even in vanilla). So, if someone says something else, and they actually play, they will still be just wrong

Again this isnt that helpful, so Ill just have to accept that we are wrong until someone else wants to point out where our mistakes are and how to fix them.