alre Posted May 2 Report Share Posted May 2 16 minutes ago, AIEND said: I should say, "Han" is a race, a civilization, an empire and a dynasty at the same time. just like roman refers to a city and to a republic and later to an empire, and persian is still used to address the language (and not only that) of modern Iran. so just "Han" is perfectly fine and also consistent with the other names currently used. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BreakfastBurrito_007 Posted May 2 Report Share Posted May 2 16 minutes ago, alre said: just like roman refers to a city and to a republic and later to an empire, and persian is still used to address the language (and not only that) of modern Iran. so just "Han" is perfectly fine and also consistent with the other names currently used. I think the only divergence in your example is with the modern state, where Han refers to an ethnic group that is part of China, rather than the whole, diverse country. But this is a side note. I think even if you call it Han China, the players will probably abbreviate it to Han as a measure of practicality. In the same way, Ptolemies have become Ptol and Mauryas have become Maur and Seleucids have become Seles. I agree the best way would be to simply call the civ "Han" as suggested 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alre Posted May 2 Report Share Posted May 2 16 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said: I think the only divergence in your example is with the modern state, where Han refers to an ethnic group that is part of China, rather than the whole, diverse country. But this is a side note. but in present times rome does refer to just a part of a larger country (italy). 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurken Khan Posted May 2 Report Share Posted May 2 19 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said: In the same way, Ptolemies have become Ptol and Mauryas have become Maur and Seleucids have become Seles. So you're suggesting to rename those civs in-game to ptol, maur and sele? Probably not. This discussion is not about colloquialisms and abbreviations, but what the 'official' names should be. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genava55 Posted May 2 Report Share Posted May 2 Since we use Ptolemies and Maurya, I don't see the issue of using Han (which is invariable, like Maurya). 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BreakfastBurrito_007 Posted May 2 Report Share Posted May 2 4 minutes ago, Gurken Khan said: So you're suggesting to rename those civs in-game to ptol, maur and sele? Probably not. This discussion is not about colloquialisms and abbreviations, but what the 'official' names should be. Of course not lol. I am just trying to convey that we should not fight a war over this and just go for the simpler solution: "Han" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AIEND Posted May 2 Report Share Posted May 2 42 分钟前,BreakfastBurrito_007 说: 我认为你的例子中唯一的分歧是现代国家,汉族指的是属于中国的一个民族,而不是整个多元化的国家。 但这是一个旁注。 我想就算你叫它汉中国,玩家们可能也会把它简称为汉作为衡量实用性的标准。 同样,托勒密变成了托勒,孔雀变成了毛尔,塞琉古变成了塞勒斯。 我同意最好的方法是按照建议简单地将文明称为“汉” In fact, "Chinese" is also ambiguous. In modern times, this term usually refers to all ethnic groups in the People's Republic of China, not just the Han nationality. But in the Han Dynasty, Chinese usually refers to the Han people in North China. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurken Khan Posted May 2 Report Share Posted May 2 1 hour ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said: we should not fight a war over this You chicken out or what? Fighting wars is what we're here for !!! jk. I can live with 'Han' and my two cents about this are spent. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wowgetoffyourcellphone Posted May 3 Report Share Posted May 3 Anyone gonna make a patch? 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lion.Kanzen Posted May 16 Report Share Posted May 16 On 16/04/2022 at 5:13 PM, Lion.Kanzen said: Dry seasons sounds good. almost everything looks dead in this season. after April in the middle of May. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 A.D. Most Needed Feature Posted July 15 Report Share Posted July 15 Ditches - we need to be able to assign our units to dig ditches to slow down infantry and funnel cavalry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LienRag Posted August 6 Report Share Posted August 6 On 18/12/2021 at 4:08 PM, Acanthis said: it would be nice if maps had more terrain variation and there were bonuses associated with terrain. It does not ? You mean I've been occupying the higher ground in so many games just for nothing ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grapjas Posted August 6 Report Share Posted August 6 6 minutes ago, LienRag said: It does not ? You mean I've been occupying the higher ground in so many games just for nothing ? Range bonus? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkcity Posted August 6 Report Share Posted August 6 I noticed one thing, the quality and clearity of unit icons has gone down in a26 compared to a25. Let's take an example of persians units from baracks and stable. in a25: From icons I can clearly identify type of units weapon they have and son on. The icons are of managebale quality to give enough information. Now in a26: icons are of poor quality. Can't teel diff between different kind of cavs, had to focus what is what, detailing is not apperant at all. I'm not sure what was the reason to do so, but I think the unit icons should be clear and have some quality and detailing which make things more understable for user. Its also gives better experiene. Can anyone help with reasoning for the reduced quality? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
real_tabasco_sauce Posted August 6 Report Share Posted August 6 (edited) 1 hour ago, Darkcity said: I'm not sure what was the reason to do so, but I think the unit icons should be clear and have some quality and detailing which make things more understable for user. Its also gives better experiene. Can anyone help with reasoning for the reduced quality? well, you might just be more familiar with the a25 icons. I oftentimes think the yellow on the cappadocian cavalry is hyrcanian cavalry, but this is because i don't play persia very much. In a couple of weeks, I am sure you will be familiar with them. Also (unrelated), is there a reason the second image is darker than the first? I wonder if thats some graphical difference between a25 and a26. Perhaps the settings are not the same, back to default. Edited August 6 by real_tabasco_sauce Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
go2die Posted August 6 Report Share Posted August 6 3 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said: well, you might just be more familiar with the a25 icons. I oftentimes think the yellow on the cappadocian cavalry is hyrcanian cavalry, but this is because i don't play persia very much. In a couple of weeks, I am sure you will be familiar with them. I'm sure someone will make mod which will return back old nice icons, new one too dark hard to see, sorry dont want Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
go2die Posted August 6 Report Share Posted August 6 Icons replaced, but still cav 3d models are also so ughly maybe bext version but not interested in 0.26 at this moment, oldicons.zip Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sevda Posted August 6 Report Share Posted August 6 18 minutes ago, go2die said: 'm sure someone will make mod which will return back old nice icons, new one too dark hard to see, sorry dont want That's me! Which alpha would you like to return to? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stan` Posted August 6 Report Share Posted August 6 @wowgetoffyourcellphone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wowgetoffyourcellphone Posted August 6 Report Share Posted August 6 How were the old portraits "nicer"? The quality varied greatly, they had no consistency in lighting or camera settings, and a lot of them still used the old unit models from 2005. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wowgetoffyourcellphone Posted August 6 Report Share Posted August 6 I have had in mind to revamp them one more time, specifically cavalry, and use the same horse colors for specific classes of cavalry. White for melee cav. Beige or brown for ranged cav. Etc. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizaka Posted August 6 Report Share Posted August 6 (edited) lololol I love han. It's like Carthage w/ Maury w/ Persia put on steroids. +10% pop (Maury/Persia) TWO +20% dmg heroes (Persia/Carthage, both of which have just 1) ministers (new sword cav p1 (YAY!). (CARTHAGE!!! But p1) cheap will to fight equivalent upgrade for ranged units (1200 food, 1200 wood) critical as the only way to win with archers is to make sure you're 1-2 upgrades ahead. Also, will be critical for long games where people don't do will to fight usually. Edited August 6 by Dizaka 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurken Khan Posted August 6 Report Share Posted August 6 1 hour ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said: I have had in mind to revamp them one more time, specifically cavalry, and use the same horse colors for specific classes of cavalry. White for melee cav. Beige or brown for ranged cav. Etc. From the old portraits @Darkcity showed I couldn't make out the weapons either; except for the bow? Maybe you could try to bring the weapons as much to the foreground as possible. Color coding sounds good, but besides white, brown and black I don't know what other distinct color you would use. Green? Another thing could be "face coding": with the old portraits two were facing left, two right (CS cav); I feel it helps with quickly orienting if there's not a majority facing in the same direction. Thx for your efforts. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sevda Posted August 6 Report Share Posted August 6 What about, instead of controversial pictures, we replace them with English text instead, for example a button with a label "spearman" will train a spearman after you click on it. 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m7600 Posted August 7 Author Report Share Posted August 7 7 hours ago, Darkcity said: I think the unit icons should be clear and have some quality and detailing which make things more understable for user. Sure, in theory, I don't think that anyone would be against that. But consider what your suggestion entails. The best way to do this for a single portrait is to have an artist make it from scratch, either entirely in 2D (Photoshop, Gimp, Krita, etc.) or a combination of 2D and 3D (Blender, Zbrush, etc.). That's feasible for a single portrait, like for one of the heroes. But when we consider just regular units, mercs and champions, we're talking about hundreds of portraits. Given that, it's much more expedient to make the portraits using the game's models and textures, as it's currently being done. There's also a sort of middle-groundish solution, which is to use a combination of MakeHuman, some of the game assets (helmets, armor, etc.) and a little bit of 2D painting and editing. That's the workflow that was used for the hero portraits. But there are far more non-hero units than heroes. So, at the end of the day, it's just more expedient to stick to the current way of making the non-hero portraits. But if you, or anyone else, wants to talk a shot a portraits, then by all means, go ahead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.