===[TASK]=== Rome Barracks Update

[Stan`]

Okay, thanks for the feedback.

[Lion.Kanzen]

keep the files it can be serve as mod barrack to 2d-3d  century A.D.

[Stan`]

Sure I'll keep it somewhere.

[Trinketos]

I like the desing, can i used for my tupi civ @Stan`?

[Lion.Kanzen]

4 minutes ago, Trinketos said:

I like the desing, can i used for my tupi civ @Stan`?

Tupi? they have Roman Barracks?

[Enrique]

Some shapes for inspiration and/or layout ideas:

[Nescio]

The barracks of other civs have one or two storeys, therefore I don't think it's a good idea to add a third to the Roman barracks.

[Sundiata]

Why not look at actual Roman barracks/fortresses for inspiration? Most of the reconstructions I see have a central structure which they call Principia, the headquarters, which is the central administrative structure/armory/religious centre  of the fortress, surrounded by the barracks and other structures. Here's some archaeological info on the Roman Principia: http://www.curlesnewstead.org.uk/pdfs/curlechapter03.pdf

These examples are from AD period I believe, but I don't think it really matters...

Spoiler

Quote

(D) PRINCIPIA 
The principia was the building that was the headquarters of the fort. It contained offices, archives, a shrine, storerooms, and a strong room where the soldiers' pay was kept. 

 

Principia can be seen here in the centre

 

Clearly visible in the centre

 

Close ups

 

Interesting roof elevations on these reconstructions of actual barracks, surrounding the Principia

 

 

 

[Enrique]

1 hour ago, Nescio said:

The barracks of other civs have one or two storeys, therefore I don't think it's a good idea to add a third to the Roman barracks.

Those layouts are general guidelines. They could perfectly be done within two storeys. I don't think there would be an issue anyway with a 3rd story if the overall height do not surpass too much the standard barracks scale.

 

1 hour ago, Sundiata said:

Why not look at actual Roman barracks/fortresses for inspiration? Most of the reconstructions I see have a central structure which they call Principia, the headquarters, which is the central administrative structure/armory/religious centre  of the fortress, surrounded by the barracks and other structures. Here's some archaeological info on the Roman Principia: http://www.curlesnewstead.org.uk/pdfs/curlechapter03.pdf

These examples are from AD period I believe, but I don't think it really matters...

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Principia can be seen here in the centre

 

Clearly visible in the centre

 

Close ups

 

Interesting roof elevations on these reconstructions of actual barracks, surrounding the Principia

 

 

 

From your references, I can already see quite some structural combinations that are quite similar to the example layouts/structure forms, don't you think?

 

There has to be always a balance between aesthetic (not boring), accurracy (not too "fantastic") and gameplay (follow the layout guidelines of the barracks)

[Sundiata]

45 minutes ago, Enrique said:

From your references, I can already see quite some structural combinations that are quite similar to the example layouts/structure forms, don't you think?

Why not just follow the references? The shape has a function. That elevated part in the centre of the rear end of the structure for example is the sacellum, or aedes (don't shoot me, my Latin is deplorable), a small shrine, which was a recurring element of this structure. 

 

45 minutes ago, Enrique said:

There has to be always a balance between aesthetic (not boring), accurracy (not too "fantastic") and gameplay (follow the layout guidelines of the barracks)

Yeah, but there's no need to reinvent the wheel when you're modeling structures for a historical game and you actually have primary references to work with. Where's the educational aspect of just winging it? Besides, there is enough historical variation to pick and choose from. Granted, the examples date to imperial times, but maybe someone can find a republican parallel. Here's some more inspiration:

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

Some bigger ones:

 

 

Edited July 2, 2019 by Sundiata

[Nescio]

This one looks great:

23 minutes ago, Sundiata said:

 

and it seems to satisfy the criteria: aesthetically pleasing, historically accurate, and conforming to the layout of barracks of other factions.

[Sundiata]

16 minutes ago, Nescio said:

and it seems to satisfy the criteria: aesthetically pleasing, historically accurate, and conforming to the layout of barracks of other factions.

That was exactly the one that poked my interest the most, for the same reasons.

Quote

Hardknott Roman Fort is an archeological site, the remains of the Roman fort Mediobogdum, located on the western side of the Hardknott Pass in the English county of Cumbria (formerly part of Cumberland).

Built between about 120 and 138

This was a typical headquarters building, if small. It had a courtyard, with the remains  a tribunal platform, where the cohort could be addressed, Behind was the trans hall across the building with 3 rooms behind it, including  the cohort shrine, where the standard was stored, and perhaps an alter

 

Spoiler

Principia in the middle

 

Cleaning up the reference a little bit

 

[Enrique]

Then we have a different interpretation of what aesthetically pleasing and not boring mean 

Don't get me wrong, it does fit the bill of passable barracks thanks to the similar layout but for me it barely differs for any other standard roman building. With 70% roof and 30% square courtyard, specially hard to see if you're going to roof the whole perimeter with barely space to show eyecandy or columns under it (because of footprint size restrictions of the barracks template). And the only interesting variation of the roof is in the back of the building.

But just my opinion, maybe Stan can make it work after all.

[Nescio]

16 minutes ago, Enrique said:

it barely differs for any other standard roman building.

[Enrique]

41 minutes ago, Nescio said:

 

Spoiler

 

Lol, I made 10 of those + the textures 

When I said "it barely differs for any other standard roman building."

I meant the following:

This is a villa:

Spoiler

This is another villa:

Spoiler

Another villa:

Spoiler

This is...

Spoiler

Here's another:

Spoiler

So what I meant is that: It may be 100% accurate a real used barracks but it doesn't communicate at all visually what is for, lacking both aesthetically pleasing design (cool) and lacks visual communication of what is used for (gameplay)

 

I'm not saying to re-invent the design completely, but discarding artist touch on the designs (even on a blocking unfinished state) and go for 100% accuracy will reduce the final quality of the asset IMHO

Let's see what Stan comes up with

 

 

 

Edited July 2, 2019 by Enrique
Typos

[Nescio]

1 hour ago, Enrique said:

footprint size restrictions of the barracks template

Good point! It might be possible, though; here are three possible 18×18 footprints (1:10):

yellow: arched entrance; red: colonnade, open on inside, closed wall on outside; blue: two-storey; green: one storey. That said, I'm not an artist, so I'm merely commenting on what I see.

[Edit] In principle the courtyard could be dropped in favour of a shape more similar to those of other factions, e.g.

15 minutes ago, Enrique said:

When I said "it barely differs for any other standard roman building."

I meant the following:

Ah yes, I see what you mean.

15 minutes ago, Enrique said:

Let's see what Stan comes up with

Agreed!

Actually the only Roman structure I really dislike is the civic centre; but that's a different discussion.

Edited July 2, 2019 by Nescio
alternative footprint

[Lion.Kanzen]

2 hours ago, Enrique said:

visual communication of what is used for (gameplay)

In order to reinforce Enrique's concept, visual communication is above all about authenticity or real scale (in this case) we seek to give easy visual understanding in a matter of seconds to the viewer, in the case that concerns me, icons use things that the user is familiar with.

Sorry for the off topic example.

[Anaxandridas ho Skandiates]

.

Edited April 8, 2021 by Anaxandridas ho Skandiates

[LordGood]

1 hour ago, Anaxandridas ho Skandiates said:

visual communication is not "above all authenticity or real scale"

Yes, yes it is. We are not copying reconstructions blow for blow, and at the end of the day, a game's assets need to be accessible and of clear purpose for new players. This is top priority.

[Lion.Kanzen]

Quote

 Communication: a process by which information is exchanged between individuals through a common system of symbols, signs, or behavior

We're communicating with 21st century people who play RTS. Much of the art must be recognized, by average people.

We're making a video game first, not a museum.
 

[Sundiata]

6 hours ago, Anaxandridas ho Skandiates said:

I heavily disagree, visual communication is not "above all authenticity or real scale", I find that notion preposterous. Visual communication is 1/3 and each of the others 1/3. I fail to see what was wrong with the original model in this thread, surely a few tweaks, and on to more important matters? @Stan`? @Enrique? @LordGood?

That being said, @Nescio DID publish an image of an HQ with a collonaded courtyard. THAT is what the game needs, because it is the single most important feature of almost all Greek/Roman architecture, colonnaded courtyards and colonnades and later arch-galleries. The Ptolemies need it, the Seleucids need it, everyone needs a bit more colonnaded courtyards.

I agree entirely with this. Visual communication, authenticity and real scale are indeed 1/3 each, or something like that. There always needs to be a balance. The layout of the Principia/Headquarters building isn't even that different from the other barracks in-game. It's actually quite similar...

 

5 hours ago, LordGood said:

We are not copying reconstructions blow for blow, and at the end of the day, a game's assets need to be accessible and of clear purpose for new players. This is top priority.

Historical accuracy and visual communication don't need to be mutually exclusive. A lot of your work illustrates this. We're not saying that we need a scientifically measured historical reconstruction of the Roman Principia, but why not just follow the general plan? Form and function... Especially for a civilization so well studied as the Romans... 

 

I made a quick concept based on the Headquarters buildings I shared earlier. Just imagine this with lots of military props like shields, spears, banners, practice dummies or whatever... Adjust the scale as you like... Feel free to use a more monumental entrance. Make the elevated roof of the sacellum in the rear of the building more prominent, or use more stone in the texture, or whatever... This structure doesn't look like any other structure in the Roman building set. With some military props, it will be immediately recognizable as the "barracks". And it would actually be accurate, more or less. 

The historicity in 0AD is a great source of value and a big distinguishing feature for this game. There are already plenty of mediocre representations of Antiquity in pop-culture. I know this game can do better, and in many respects it already is. It's one of the things i love most about 0AD, and it would be nice to see us all build on this, rather than dumbing it down, which puts us in direct competition with much bigger commercial studios. 

Spoiler

No:

 

Yes:

 

Edited July 3, 2019 by Sundiata

[Nescio]

2 hours ago, LordGood said:

Yes, yes it is. We are not copying reconstructions blow for blow, and at the end of the day, a game's assets need to be accessible and of clear purpose for new players. This is top priority.

Yes, I fully agree.

4 hours ago, Anaxandridas ho Skandiates said:

@Nescio DID publish an image of an HQ with a collonaded courtyard.

Actually Sundiata posted it, I merely quoted the image I liked most.

15 minutes ago, Sundiata said:

I made a quick concept based on the Headquarters buildings I shared earlier.

Which again shows how limited my graphical skills are

On 7/2/2019 at 5:56 PM, Nescio said:

 

 

[Lion.Kanzen]

Quote

Historical accuracy and visual communication don't need to be mutually exclusive. A lot of your work illustrates this. We're not saying that we need a scientifically measured historical reconstruction of the Roman Principia, but why not just follow the general plan? Form and function... Especially for a faction so well studied as the Romans

That's the idea but... We don't use realistic scales. Even the walls are affected by this fact. 

Walls are authentic in many cases.  But the proportions are still based on those suitable for the game.

For example, we still have the issue of the Roman civic center.

Spoiler

Most of that doesn't fit (size) in base layout.

 

With ships if I have this problem, especially when it comes to putting actors inside.

A certain realism is faded with scale.

https://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/ArtScaleAndProportions

Edited July 3, 2019 by Lion.Kanzen

[LordGood]

2 hours ago, Sundiata said:

Historical accuracy and visual communication don't need to be mutually exclusive. A lot of your work illustrates this.

My man, I never said it had to be. But where it is, visual communication takes precedent. It took quite a while for me to be able to do this too but, the most accurate building in the world - even if it follows the designated layout - is subpar if it does not clearly show its function in the design.

For the record, I'm not against using the Principia as a base for the roman barracks, I just need to make sure we know our priorities here.

Historicity and aesthetics go without saying, it is the visual communication that tends to go over the artist's^* head, so we put emphasis on it.

 

_{*sources: me, my head. a lot. Dont make my mistakes}

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

2 hours ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

With ships if I have this problem, especially when it comes to putting actors inside.

A certain realism is faded with scale.

For this example, what I would do is scale up the tent and each tower to better scale with the units. The ship's hull can remain the same size.