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 Tuesday at 21:54 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 Tuesday at 22:13 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 Tuesday at 22:29 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.

[Asher]

25 minutes ago, Emacz said:

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.  

Oh, sorry. I can try to do that from now on...

[Asher]

Just was looking at structure tree for Spartans. I saw that there were palisade spikes, and saw that they slowed and injured cavalry. Shouldn't they also slow, and maybe injure a little bit, infantry? You probably wouldn't want to rush through spikes, and if they are close together, it would be hard to. Also, is there a way for the game to pick random, so like if a unit is going through, it picks random whether the unit gets hurt, and if the unit does, it picks a random value between like 1-2.5, and applies it 

[Thalatta]

On 25/08/2026 at 11:50 PM, Emacz said:

I know longer have any conversations between us before may 15th

That's the date I mentioned. You mean that's exactly the date of the oldest messages you have? Which one is your oldest message from me? If you tell me that I can copy paste previous useful information, which you should have asked instead of keeping asking the same things over and over again.

[Asher]

Just created a PR for the spikes. Slows infantry, and makes them loose 1h/s, and cav still loose what they did before. Also increases pierce resistance to 50, because arrows and stuff probably wouldn't hurt it that much, it would only really add to it 

[Thalatta]

2 hours ago, Asher said:

looking at structure tree for Spartans. I saw that there were palisade spikes

@Emacz, why is that added from vanilla? Where did you read that Spartans are characterised by this? What difference does this have between, let's say, other Greeks and Romans?

[Emacz]

1 hour ago, Thalatta said:

That's the date I mentioned. You mean that's exactly the date of the oldest messages you have? Which one is your oldest message from me? If you tell me that I can copy paste previous useful information, which you should have asked instead of keeping asking the same things over and over again.

Id have too double check, but I probably going to try and spend less time on forums since it doesn't seem to be very productive.  I guess you can always send me a PM, i usually get those notices.  The earliest conversation I have from you is the spread convo from may 22nd, then "Spartans" May 27th followed by "want to help" June 3rd

 

12 minutes ago, Thalatta said:

@Emacz, why is that added from vanilla? Where did you read that Spartans are characterised by this? What difference does this have between, let's say, other Greeks and Romans?

Currently all civs should have.  The main reason I brought it back was because then we can also make cav a little stronger and more useful, even for civs that don't have strong cavalry, they can protect a little with spikes.  Since I'm having a hard time keeping track on forums and I guess understanding some of what you are saying, currently ChatGPT is my main source.  It's said its plausible that all civs during the time would and could have built something similar to help deter cavalry.

[Thalatta]

1 hour ago, Emacz said:

Id have too double check, but I probably going to try and spend less time on forums since it doesn't seem to be very productive.  I guess you can always send me a PM, i usually get those notices.  The earliest conversation I have from you is the spread convo from may 22nd, then "Spartans" May 27th followed by "want to help" June 3rd

Ok, but I see you said "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 accidentally cause they thought i was a spam bot", meaning, that from before May 15 your inbox didn't get wiped out, right? You deleted the multiple pages of messages on purpose because you took the necessary notes, right? Then, you should have the corrections you haven't implemented yet still written around, right?

 

1 hour ago, Emacz said:

Currently all civs should have.  The main reason I brought it back was because then we can also make cav a little stronger and more useful, even for civs that don't have strong cavalry, they can protect a little with spikes.  Since I'm having a hard time keeping track on forums and I guess understanding some of what you are saying, currently ChatGPT is my main source.  It's said its plausible that all civs during the time would and could have built something similar to help deter cavalry.

What I tell you is always pretty clear, extensive, and sourced, you just choose to not pay attention, dismiss it, forget it, ask again, write unintelligibly, and repeat from the start, for then use ChatGPT for it to tell you whatever you want to hear.

But even ChatGPT will tell you things like (just testing it):

• Sparta: Limited/occasional use of stakes; not a defining tactic.
• Macedon: More reliance on sarissa pikes than ground spikes; obstacles used defensively when useful.
• Rome: Most systematic use of stakes and other field obstacles, thanks to strong military-engineering traditions.

So, as I've told you before with many things: you are wasting your energy and not being more accurate than vanilla if you indiscriminately add at the same level stuff that is irrelevant for some and characteristic for others.

Edited 8 hours ago by Thalatta

[Emacz]

1 hour ago, Thalatta said:

Ok, but I see you said "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 accidentally cause they thought i was a spam bot", meaning, that from before May 15 your inbox didn't get wiped out, right? You deleted the multiple pages of messages on purpose because you took the necessary notes, right? Then, you should have the corrections you haven't implemented yet still written around, right?

I think i have notes some where... but again keep in mind its mostly me working on the tempaltes/files and sometimes i get sidetracked and then start working on something else and forgot.   If there is something you were really passionate about fixing, Id rather you pestor me about it than assume Im gonna remember and go back and do it   Ill take a look over notes in a little.  Ill also say this, there are some things that I change that for some reason don't work/arent seen by other people.  Not 100% sure whats going on with that sometimes.  Its more technical unit stuff, like I can train ephors and diplomats, but most other people when they play can't for some reason.... even though we have same version of game.  I dont think these are the types of things your talking about, but its pausble that I might see a description that someone else sees the old version.  Im still relatively new.

 

1 hour ago, Thalatta said:

 

What I tell you is always pretty clear, extensive, and sourced, you just choose to not pay attention, dismiss it, forget it, ask again, write unintelligibly, and repeat from the start, for then use ChatGPT for it to tell you whatever you want to hear.

But even ChatGPT will tell you things like (just testing it):

• Sparta: Limited/occasional use of stakes; not a defining tactic.
• Macedon: More reliance on sarissa pikes than ground spikes; obstacles used defensively when useful.
• Rome: Most systematic use of stakes and other field obstacles, thanks to strong military-engineering traditions.

So, as I've told you before with many things: you are wasting your energy and not being more accurate than vanilla if you indiscriminately add at the same level stuff that is irrelevant for some and characteristic for others.

Yes I know!  ANd when i asked if I should restrict them for now it said not yet.  Again part of it is a balance thing.  But they seem to be quite ineffective at moment anyway   so ill need to fix that first.

[Asher]

Just found 3 unit files in the structures folder for Persians, are they supposed to be there?

[Asher]

So, I've been getting this error:

WARNING: [ParamNode] Could not remove token 'phase_city' from node 'Techs'; not present in list nor inherited (possible typo?)

WARNING: [ParamNode] Could not remove token 'phase_city' from node 'Techs'; not present in list nor inherited (possible typo?)

WARNING: [ParamNode] Could not remove token 'phase_city' from node 'Techs'; not present in list nor inherited (possible typo?)

anybody know how to fix it?

[Emacz]

22 minutes ago, Asher said:

So, I've been getting this error:

WARNING: [ParamNode] Could not remove token 'phase_city' from node 'Techs'; not present in list nor inherited (possible typo?)

WARNING: [ParamNode] Could not remove token 'phase_city' from node 'Techs'; not present in list nor inherited (possible typo?)

WARNING: [ParamNode] Could not remove token 'phase_city' from node 'Techs'; not present in list nor inherited (possible typo?)

anybody know how to fix it?

Yes and no, i havent found out which buildings they are yet, they are most likely.  AI can sometimes help me track them down.  Its on the list of things to do

[ThePoshBarbarian]

On 25/08/2026 at 11:21 PM, Emacz said:

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.  

Tested, no more errors on my end. Can now hunt camels.

[Emacz]

2 hours ago, Asher said:

So, I've been getting this error:

WARNING: [ParamNode] Could not remove token 'phase_city' from node 'Techs'; not present in list nor inherited (possible typo?)

WARNING: [ParamNode] Could not remove token 'phase_city' from node 'Techs'; not present in list nor inherited (possible typo?)

WARNING: [ParamNode] Could not remove token 'phase_city' from node 'Techs'; not present in list nor inherited (possible typo?)

anybody know how to fix it?

Finally figured it out, Im a little embarassed to say what it was. But its all good now! (Once I push it through to git, Im gonna clean up a few more things first so you will still see the error until its updated on the git site)

 

Edited 27 minutes ago by Emacz