Page MenuHomeWildfire Games

Nescio
User

Projects

User Details

User Since
Sep 7 2017, 12:14 PM (93 w, 5 d)

Recent Activity

Yesterday

Nescio added a comment to D1935: Anatolian → Lydian; correct Persian specific names.

Also, here is a relevant page from P. T. Daniels, W. Bright (eds.) The World's Writing Systems (Oxford 1996):

Mon, Jun 24, 10:04 AM
Nescio updated the diff for D1935: Anatolian → Lydian; correct Persian specific names.

Revert pers.json corrections; the civ.json files should be checked and standardized for all civilizations.

Mon, Jun 24, 10:03 AM
Nescio added inline comments to D2007: standardize formation tooltips.
Mon, Jun 24, 9:40 AM

Sun, Jun 23

Nescio added a comment to D2005: Standardize "Territory Influence" in tooltips.

We currently show this info for two seemingly random buildings only (one civ's monument, and one civ's pillar). For all other buildings with territory root, this information is not discoverable in-game right now. Having that available, as this commit does, I think is a clear improvement.

Yes, I fully agree with that, I'm just not convinced it should be on a separate line.
Wouldn't it be better to simply add "Territory root." at the beginning or end of the tooltip text string?
Have a look at the farmstead, where the tooltip informs us it's a dropsite for food, important information.

Sun, Jun 23, 11:28 PM
Nescio created D2007: standardize formation tooltips.
Sun, Jun 23, 7:26 PM
Nescio updated the summary of D2006: standardize resource tooltips.
Sun, Jun 23, 7:10 PM
Nescio updated the summary of D2006: standardize resource tooltips.
Sun, Jun 23, 7:10 PM
Nescio updated the summary of D2006: standardize resource tooltips.
Sun, Jun 23, 7:09 PM
Nescio created D2006: standardize resource tooltips.
Sun, Jun 23, 7:07 PM
Nescio added a comment to D2005: Standardize "Territory Influence" in tooltips.

Although I'm not opposed to the idea per se, I'm not convinced the proposed implementation would really be an improvement.

Sun, Jun 23, 5:59 PM

Sat, Jun 22

Nescio updated subscribers of rP22081: Rome Testudo & Anti-Cavalry formations animations:.
Sat, Jun 22, 5:30 PM

Wed, Jun 19

Nescio added a comment to D1957: Basic implementation of extended restricted bartering support..

Another error occurs when the AI has built a market:

Wed, Jun 19, 10:37 PM
Nescio added a comment to D1957: Basic implementation of extended restricted bartering support..

If you select food to sell, you should get a number on the coin? If that is not the case, please report :)

Yes, selling works fine. My problem is the buying part. Instead of bartering a fixed 100 silver and getting +409 food in return, I want to buy 100 food and pay only the silver equivalent.
For comparison, if you go to the supermarket, you don't want to know how much bread you can get with €100, you want to know how much one bread will cost you.
Basically, there is a fundamental difference between a barter-based economy and a currency-based economy.

Wed, Jun 19, 8:46 PM
Nescio added a comment to D1957: Basic implementation of extended restricted bartering support..

Alternatively, keep the resource amounts fixed at 100, and display the currency equivalents:

     || 100 food  | 100 wood  | 100 stone | 100 iron
buy  || −a silver | −b silver | −c silver | −d silver
sell || +w silver | +x silver | +y silver | +z silver
Wed, Jun 19, 8:20 PM
Nescio added a comment to D1957: Basic implementation of extended restricted bartering support..

So I tried out incorporating D1846 and D1957 into my 0abc mod; silver has
"properties": [ "barterable", "currency", "tradable", "tributable" ],
the other four resources only [ "barterable", "tributable" ]. Also, silver, food, wood, stone, and metal have a "truePrice" of respectively 100, 20, 40, 60, 80 (to correspond to the fact they have different gather rates).
When launching a game, building a market, and opening the trade window, this is the result:


Most things seem to work (thank you!), but a few things go wrong:

  • the -100 numbers on top of the sell resources are not really meaningful; what we actually want to know is how much silver we get if we sell 100 of a resource
  • the barter and trade window width apparently only takes the tradable resources into account and overlooks the barterable resources need to be displayed as well
  • the position of the currency resource silver is a bit odd; perhaps we should have three rows: select currency (in case there are more than one), sell resource for currency, buy resource with currency
  • and a js error:

ERROR: JavaScript error: simulation/ai/petra/diplomacyManager.js line 412 SyntaxError: missing ; before statement InitGame@simulation/helpers/InitGame.js:57:1
ERROR: Failed to load script simulation/ai/petra/diplomacyManager.js
The line in question is:

requiredTribute = gameState.ai.HQ.pickMostNeededResources(gameState).find(res => tributableResources.indexOf(res.type) != -1));

What I don't know for sure is what causes the errors (D1846, D1957, me including them, some other file in my mod, or something missing in A23 compared to A24, something else).

Wed, Jun 19, 8:06 PM
Nescio added a comment to D1950: Create "Damage"-container for damage types in templates..

By the way, <FriendlyFire> is wrapped inside the <Splash> node, but shouldn't it be applicable to non-splash attacks as well? E.g. an archer shoots an arrow at an enemy, but the projectile spread causes it to land on another unit of yours right next to the target, then it would be nice to have if that one was wounded, for realism.

Wed, Jun 19, 2:12 PM
Nescio accepted D1995: Fix missing "Damage"-node in examples..
Wed, Jun 19, 12:51 PM
Nescio added a comment to D1950: Create "Damage"-container for damage types in templates..

<Delay> could also make sense for melee attacks, e.g. a unit who plants bombs.

Wed, Jun 19, 12:50 PM
Nescio added a comment to D1950: Create "Damage"-container for damage types in templates..

Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but currently ranged attack has everything melee attack has, plus <Delay>, <ElevationBonus>, <Projectile>, and <Splash>.

Wed, Jun 19, 11:02 AM
Nescio added a comment to D2002: Support for arbitrary attack types..

Thank you for the clarification, that sounds great!

Wed, Jun 19, 10:52 AM
Nescio updated subscribers of D2002: Support for arbitrary attack types..

What does it do? Won't different attacks conflict? And how do units know which one to select?
Also, wasn't @bb working on something similar?

Wed, Jun 19, 10:41 AM
Nescio added a comment to D1950: Create "Damage"-container for damage types in templates..

Ideally different projectiles would also be able to have different damage, therefore what is eventually desirable is support for multiple ranged attacks, e.g. a fortress able to fire both arrows (long range, low damage) and javelins (shorter range, higher damage).

Wed, Jun 19, 10:33 AM
Nescio added a comment to D1950: Create "Damage"-container for damage types in templates..

Melee attack also has range, but no projectiles. You're right, it has no immediate gameplay effects, it would just be a more logical grouping in the xml files. Currently there are already separate nodes for <Bonuses>, <Damage>, <Projectile>, <RangeOverlay>, and <Splash>. I believe <RangeOverlay> is based on <MaxRange> and <MinRange>, so it would make sense to put those (and <ElevationBonus>) inside the same node, and rename it to simply <Range>.
I suggested it because most mods are based on A23, this patch has already broken support for them, requiring them to be updated when A24 is released, so now would be a good time for regrouping other elements.

Wed, Jun 19, 10:15 AM
Nescio added a comment to D2000: standardize aura format.

Thanks, I guessed that was possibly the case, but I wasn't sure.
Anyway, to avoid future confusion, I've inserted a tiny section in the CC:
https://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/Coding_Conventions?action=diff&version=42
Feel free to correct, or revert if I wasn't allowed to.

Wed, Jun 19, 12:31 AM
Nescio added a comment to D2000: standardize aura format.

Sorry, I'm not really familiar with js, nor can I safely say I know exactly the difference between objects and arrays.
What I did is follow D1953#81077.

Wed, Jun 19, 12:15 AM

Tue, Jun 18

Nescio added a comment to D1965: Allow instant-kill for attacks and use it for "Slaughter"..

This would allow enabling special resistances in the future - a unit invulnerable to some damage type shouldn't be killed even if the attack is "instant-kill".

Sounds great (e.g. structures immune to pierce damage)!

Tue, Jun 18, 8:01 PM
Nescio added a reviewer for D2000: standardize aura format: bb.
Tue, Jun 18, 4:54 PM
Nescio edited reviewers for D1953: every technology modification on a new line, added: bb; removed: Stan.
Tue, Jun 18, 4:53 PM
Nescio added inline comments to D2000: standardize aura format.
Tue, Jun 18, 4:39 PM
Nescio added inline comments to D1938: Easier introduction of new damage types..
Tue, Jun 18, 3:52 PM
Nescio added inline comments to D2000: standardize aura format.
Tue, Jun 18, 3:49 PM
Nescio updated the diff for D2000: standardize aura format.

"gather speed"

Tue, Jun 18, 3:06 PM
Nescio updated the diff for D2000: standardize aura format.
Tue, Jun 18, 2:56 PM
Nescio updated the summary of D2000: standardize aura format.
Tue, Jun 18, 2:45 PM
Nescio updated the summary of D2000: standardize aura format.
Tue, Jun 18, 2:36 PM
Nescio created D2000: standardize aura format.
Tue, Jun 18, 2:34 PM
Nescio added a comment to D1935: Anatolian → Lydian; correct Persian specific names.

The question is whether the "Name": field in the {civ}.json files should equal the generic name or the specific name. Looking at all those files, it seems currently:

  • athen, cart, gaul, kush, mace, spart use English common names
  • brit, pers, ptol, sele use native language
  • iber, rome could be both
  • maur uses English "Ashoka the Great" for one but Sanskrit "Acharya Chāṇakya" for another

Maybe it should be standardized in a future patch; this one simply sticks to maintaining the status quo.

Tue, Jun 18, 12:51 PM
Nescio added inline comments to D1999: correct Roman specific names.
Tue, Jun 18, 12:36 PM
Nescio created D1999: correct Roman specific names.
Tue, Jun 18, 8:13 AM

Sun, Jun 16

Nescio added a comment to D1950: Create "Damage"-container for damage types in templates..

Thank you for this patch. Next question, should we also have a <Range> node? E.g.:

<Attack>
  <Ranged>
    <Damage>
      <Hack>0.0</Hack>
      <Pierce>12.0</Pierce>
      <Crush>0.0</Crush>
    </Damage>
    ...
    <Range>
      <Max>72</Max>
      <Min>0</Min>
      <Overlay>
        <LineTexture>outline_border.png</LineTexture>
        <LineTextureMask>outline_border_mask.png</LineTextureMask>
        <LineThickness>0.175</LineThickness>
      </Overlay>
    </Range>
  </Ranged>
</Attack>

instead of:

<Attack>
  <Ranged>
    <Damage>
      <Hack>0.0</Hack>
      <Pierce>12.0</Pierce>
      <Crush>0.0</Crush>
    </Damage>
    <MaxRange>72.0</MaxRange>
    <MinRange>0.0</MinRange>
    ...
    <RangeOverlay>
      <LineTexture>outline_border.png</LineTexture>
      <LineTextureMask>outline_border_mask.png</LineTextureMask>
      <LineThickness>0.175</LineThickness>
    </RangeOverlay>
  </Ranged>
</Attack>
Sun, Jun 16, 9:24 PM
Nescio added a comment to rP22379: Wrap damage types in a Damage element in XML templates to prepare for….

Interesting, thanks! It hasn't made it yet into the ODE: https://www.lexico.com/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&filter=dictionary&dictionary=en&query=genericize

Sun, Jun 16, 9:10 PM
Nescio added a comment to rP22379: Wrap damage types in a Damage element in XML templates to prepare for….

"genericizing" [sic], a neologism? English already has "generalize".

Sun, Jun 16, 8:58 PM
Nescio updated the diff for D1953: every technology modification on a new line.

Updated because of rP22379

Sun, Jun 16, 8:49 PM

Thu, Jun 13

Nescio added inline comments to D1965: Allow instant-kill for attacks and use it for "Slaughter"..
Thu, Jun 13, 10:28 PM

Wed, Jun 12

Nescio added a comment to D1950: Create "Damage"-container for damage types in templates..

Actually I disagree; damage is a mass noun, unlike resources.

Wed, Jun 12, 11:19 PM

Tue, Jun 11

Nescio added inline comments to D1846: Adds a "properties"-property to resources and let mods be able to prevent resources from being bartered, traded and/or tributed..
Tue, Jun 11, 10:22 AM

Mon, Jun 10

Nescio added a comment to D1935: Anatolian → Lydian; correct Persian specific names.

Arbitrarily including some diacritics and omitting others would probably make things more confusing, don't you think? Besides, a single symbol can have different meanings in different languages—those four you call “simple” are already used differently in modern European languages, e.g. French cité is equivalent to Italian città.
In Old Persian, accents were not written, so we don't have to worry about those. However, vowel length is indicated and should thus be properly transcribed.

Mon, Jun 10, 8:04 PM
Nescio added a comment to D1935: Anatolian → Lydian; correct Persian specific names.

Yes, I highly value consistency as well, no disagreement here. However, I'm unsure what you meant with your last remark. Currently diacritics are used in at least some of the specific names of cart, kush, maur, pers, and rome, as well as in those of the Greek factions (athen, mace, ptol, sele, spart).
Anyway, let's limit this patch to the Persians only—it's already expanded far beyond the first diff (changing one of occurrence of Anatolian into Lydian).

Mon, Jun 10, 7:02 PM

Wed, Jun 5

Nescio added a comment to D1935: Anatolian → Lydian; correct Persian specific names.

You mean the use of letter signs for numbers? That's actually quite common. Keep in mind the “Arabic” numerals reached Europe only in Medieval times.
You're probably familiar with the Roman numerals (I=1, V=5, X=10, L=50, C=100, D=500, M=1000).
A similar system, the so-called “Attic” numerals, existed in the Greek world (Ι=1, 𐅃=5, Δ=10, 𐅄=50, Η=100, 𐅅=500, Χ=1000, 𐅆=5000, Μ=10000, 𐅇=50000).
In manuscripts, however, the newer Ionian system from Milete was used (Αʹ=1, Βʹ=2, Γʹ=3, ... , Ιʹ=10, Κʹ=20, Λʹ=30, ... , Ρʹ=100, Σʹ=200, Τʹ=300, etc.).

Wed, Jun 5, 11:49 PM
Nescio updated the diff for D1953: every technology modification on a new line.

Here you go, now with correct spacing.

Wed, Jun 5, 11:27 PM
Nescio added a comment to D1953: every technology modification on a new line.

Is it? Good to know. But shouldn't it then also for cost, requirements, and affects?
E.g. upgrade_rank_elite_infantry.json:

{
	"genericName": "Elite Citizen-Infantry",
	"specificName": {
		"mace": "Pentakosiomédimnoi",
		"spart": "Pentakosiomédimnoi",
		"athen": "Pentakosiomédimnoi"
	},
	"description": "Upgrade all of your citizen-soldier infantrymen to Elite rank.",
	"cost": {"food": 500, "wood": 0, "stone": 0, "metal": 500},
	"requirements": {"tech": "phase_city"},
	"requirementsTooltip": "Unlocked in City Phase.",
	"icon": "upgrade_elite.png",
	"researchTime": 40,
	"supersedes": "upgrade_rank_advanced_infantry",
	"tooltip": "Upgrade all of your citizen-soldier infantrymen to Elite rank. This increases their military prowess, but decreases their resource gathering rates another -25%.",
	"modifications": [
		{"value": "Promotion/RequiredXp", "replace": 0}
	],
	"affects": ["Infantry Advanced"],
	"soundComplete": "interface/alarm/alarm_upgradearmory.xml"
}

or should it be:

{
	"genericName": "Elite Citizen-Infantry",
	"specificName": {
		"mace": "Pentakosiomédimnoi",
		"spart": "Pentakosiomédimnoi",
		"athen": "Pentakosiomédimnoi"
	},
	"description": "Upgrade all of your citizen-soldier infantrymen to Elite rank.",
	"cost": { "food": 500, "wood": 0, "stone": 0, "metal": 500 },
	"requirements": { "tech": "phase_city" },
	"requirementsTooltip": "Unlocked in City Phase.",
	"icon": "upgrade_elite.png",
	"researchTime": 40,
	"supersedes": "upgrade_rank_advanced_infantry",
	"tooltip": "Upgrade all of your citizen-soldier infantrymen to Elite rank. This increases their military prowess, but decreases their resource gathering rates another -25%.",
	"modifications": [
		{ "value": "Promotion/RequiredXp", "replace": 0 }
	],
	"affects": [ "Infantry Advanced" ],
	"soundComplete": "interface/alarm/alarm_upgradearmory.xml"
}
Wed, Jun 5, 8:50 PM
Nescio added a comment to D1936: Load damageTypes from "simulation/data/damagetypes"-files..

Shouldn't the folder be called simply damage/, to match the <Damage> node of D1950? For comparison, we have resources/, not `resourcetypes/.

Wed, Jun 5, 12:05 PM
Nescio added a comment to D1950: Create "Damage"-container for damage types in templates..

By the way, should the Armour damage types also be in some (the same) kind of container? I guess not because Armour can only have the damage types as options? (But then there is "Foundation".)

No, I don't think it's necessary; for comparison, <Cost> has a <Resources> node, but <Loot>, <Looter>, and <ProductionQueue/TechCostMultiplier> don't.

Wed, Jun 5, 12:02 PM
Nescio updated the diff for D1953: every technology modification on a new line.
Wed, Jun 5, 11:55 AM
Nescio created D1953: every technology modification on a new line.
Wed, Jun 5, 11:37 AM
Nescio added a comment to D1938: Easier introduction of new damage types..

So that's why the AI strongly prefers sabremen (hack) and ignores spearmen (thrust) in my mod!
Perhaps the damage strength value should default to 1/n when undefined?
Or even better, set it in the proposed damage files (D1936); for comparison, the resource files have a "aiAnalysisInfluenceGroup" setting.

Wed, Jun 5, 9:28 AM

Tue, Jun 4

Nescio added a comment to D1950: Create "Damage"-container for damage types in templates..

How do D1936, D1938, D1945, D1946, and this one (D1950) relate? Any particular order in which they ought to be committed or are they completely independent from each other?

Indentation

template_unit_ship_fishing.xml
template_unit_siege_ram.xml
Tue, Jun 4, 7:37 PM

Sat, Jun 1

Nescio added inline comments to D1935: Anatolian → Lydian; correct Persian specific names.
Sat, Jun 1, 6:02 PM
Nescio added a comment to D1936: Load damageTypes from "simulation/data/damagetypes"-files..

In principle I think D1936 and D1938 are a welcome improvement; I was merely wondering whether or not it would make sense to wrap the damage types inside a <Damage> node and yes, thus change all relevant templates; cf. D1711.
As for capture attack, it has a Value (which affects Capture Points), not damage types (which affect Armour and Health). I don't think Value should become a damage type; for comparison, time and population are resources that are treated differently from the others.

Sat, Jun 1, 5:36 PM
Nescio added inline comments to D1935: Anatolian → Lydian; correct Persian specific names.
Sat, Jun 1, 5:31 PM
Nescio added a comment to D1936: Load damageTypes from "simulation/data/damagetypes"-files..

code is what is used in the templates and data files, and name is what is displayed by the GUI and marked for translation, right?

Sat, Jun 1, 12:37 PM
Nescio updated the diff for D1935: Anatolian → Lydian; correct Persian specific names.

Atossa, Hystaspes.

Sat, Jun 1, 10:15 AM
Nescio updated the diff for D1815: match unit classes with templates.

Updated because of rP22328.

Sat, Jun 1, 10:03 AM
Nescio updated the diff for D1935: Anatolian → Lydian; correct Persian specific names.

Also updates the hero specific names and descriptions in the pers.json civ file.

Sat, Jun 1, 9:51 AM

Fri, May 31

Nescio added a comment to D1936: Load damageTypes from "simulation/data/damagetypes"-files..

Perhaps it's just me, but I have a hard time trying to imagine what a damage subtype could be, conceptually. Resource subtypes I can understand: you gather fruit, fish, grain, meat at different rates and you get food. But damage types? If fire, ice, lightning magic all affect the same armour (magic), then they're effectively the same; and if they would have different armour types (fire, ice, lightning), then they would be effectively fully different damage types.
The trac ticket doesn't mention subtypes either. Wouldn't your code be much cleaner without?

Fri, May 31, 8:03 PM
Nescio added a comment to D1936: Load damageTypes from "simulation/data/damagetypes"-files..

Why the subtypes? Damage types (crush, hack, pierce) are children of attack types (melee, ranged, slaughter), not the other way around.

Fri, May 31, 7:40 PM
Nescio updated the summary of D1762: Give Fortress a territory root.
Fri, May 31, 7:17 PM
Nescio created D1941: merge archery tradition.
Fri, May 31, 7:10 PM
Nescio added a comment to D1938: Easier introduction of new damage types..

Sounds great! Does it also remove the need to set the damage type in every attack component of every template?

Fri, May 31, 5:35 PM
Nescio added inline comments to D1935: Anatolian → Lydian; correct Persian specific names.
Fri, May 31, 3:44 PM
Nescio added a comment to D1935: Anatolian → Lydian; correct Persian specific names.

Put some information at https://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/SpecificNames (can be changed later).

Fri, May 31, 3:04 PM
Nescio updated the diff for D1935: Anatolian → Lydian; correct Persian specific names.

Updated, now indicating vowel length and using š.

Fri, May 31, 1:40 PM
Nescio added a comment to D1935: Anatolian → Lydian; correct Persian specific names.

Then let's use š in Old Persian.
Also, could you create a page https://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/SpecificNames, so I could write down a few things there?

Fri, May 31, 12:52 PM
Nescio added a comment to D1935: Anatolian → Lydian; correct Persian specific names.

Do you want to have vowel length indicated, e.g. Latin hastātus? And for Sanskrit, do you want to use ś or sh?

Fri, May 31, 12:40 PM
Nescio added a comment to D1935: Anatolian → Lydian; correct Persian specific names.

The specific names are specifically non-English, so I'm not sure that style guide would be the appropiate place. I vaguely recall @Itms stating he wanted to write a page on transliterations months ago, but undoubtedly he's busy with other things.

Fri, May 31, 12:08 PM
Nescio added a comment to D1935: Anatolian → Lydian; correct Persian specific names.

Not all diacritics are accents :) And yes, we already use accents for Greek (e.g. mace_civil_centre.xml has “Agorá”); furthermore, the game has no problem with displaying polytonic Greek either:


But that's not the point. The game can handle š, no problem; however, not all people, apparently; currently š is written in three different ways in the templates, which can only lead to confusion, therefore I was bold and standardized it. The advantage of sh is that people won't think that the caron/haček is merely an accent and can thus be omitted, which is not true: š is not s.

Fri, May 31, 11:23 AM
Nescio added a comment to D1935: Anatolian → Lydian; correct Persian specific names.

No, there is nothing wrong with š itself (in fact, I would prefer it), however, it apparently leads to confusion, because some files have š, more sh (e.g. Kurush Cyrus), and others s (which is wrong). Because English has sh but not š, I standardized it.

Fri, May 31, 11:02 AM
Nescio updated the diff for D1935: Anatolian → Lydian; correct Persian specific names.
Fri, May 31, 10:36 AM

Thu, May 30

Nescio added a comment to D1790: Separate stable from barracks.

Thank you for reviewing and committing this, I appreciate it! The fewer inconsistencies in the templates, the better. Are you also interested in doing D1794?

Thu, May 30, 11:23 PM
Nescio updated the diff for D1794: template_structure_defensive_wall* simplification.

updated

Thu, May 30, 11:21 PM
Nescio added inline comments to D1790: Separate stable from barracks.
Thu, May 30, 10:55 PM
Nescio added a comment to D1846: Adds a "properties"-property to resources and let mods be able to prevent resources from being bartered, traded and/or tributed..

Actually I'm looking forward to having the currency feature, as is @wowgetoffyourcellphone, I believe. And that a feature is not (yet) used in the main game doesn't mean it's useless. Isn't improving mod support good enough a reason? Same for D1718.

Thu, May 30, 10:42 PM
Nescio added inline comments to D1790: Separate stable from barracks.
Thu, May 30, 10:18 PM
Nescio updated the diff for D1790: Separate stable from barracks.

Here you go

Thu, May 30, 9:23 PM
Nescio added a comment to D1935: Anatolian → Lydian; correct Persian specific names.

Well, I always assumed the generic name ought to be the English equivalent of the specific name; e.g. pers_champion_infantry.xml Anusiya “Persian Immortal”: anušiya- means “a loyal follower”, i.e. companion, which was how the Persian inscriptions refer to them; Herodotus calls them ἀθάνατοι “immortals” and that's ended up as the most common name for them in English.
Likewise, I don't have any objections to translating asabara in one template as “light cavalry” and in another as “heavy lancer”.

Thu, May 30, 4:13 PM
Nescio added a comment to D1935: Anatolian → Lydian; correct Persian specific names.

Yes, apple-bearer may be the correct term for that unit, however, it is not a translation of the specific name: aršti- is a spear, not an apple.

Thu, May 30, 3:44 PM
Nescio added a comment to D1935: Anatolian → Lydian; correct Persian specific names.

Other units have shields too, and pers_infantry_spearman_b.xml is called Sparabara “Shield Bearer”.
There is a word ạrštika “spearman”; pers_arstibara.xml (introduced in rP10912; not in design document) is called Arštibara “Persian Apple Bearer”, which also seems wrong: an apple is not a spear.
Also, I'm not sure whether we should write š or sh; x or kh; and c or ç; both options seem to be in use.
The more I look, the more things I see.

Thu, May 30, 3:36 PM
Nescio added a comment to D1935: Anatolian → Lydian; correct Persian specific names.

Sparda is the Persian name for the whole region; the Greek and English equivalent is Lydia (although Lydia proper is smaller than the kingdom/satrapy of Lydia); similarily, Bābiruviya “Babylonian” isn't exclusively reserved for the city itself (Babylon/Babel), it can apply to anyone from Babylonia (the region/Chaldean kingdom/Persian satrapy/Roman province).

Thu, May 30, 2:49 PM
Nescio added a comment to D1935: Anatolian → Lydian; correct Persian specific names.

Yes it makes sense, unless they were city states like greece.

No, the Persian Empire was organized in about two dozen satrapies, which correspond to kingdoms or peoples conquered by the Persians, e.g. Egypt (Mudrâya); Sparda corresponds to the kingdom of Lydia (conquered c. 546 BC), which reportedly extended from the Aegean to the Halys.
Had the Persian wars been successful, then all of Greece would have been united as a single satrapy; but because the Persian army was defeated, those poor Greeks had to wait for the Romans.

Thu, May 30, 2:02 PM
Nescio added a comment to D1935: Anatolian → Lydian; correct Persian specific names.

As for Sardian, Sardes was the capital city of Lydia; in English it's common to refer to the Lydians as Lydians, not Sardians, though.

Thu, May 30, 1:19 PM
Nescio added a comment to D1935: Anatolian → Lydian; correct Persian specific names.

Perhaps we should also replace takabara with pasti(sh) “foot-soldier”, because the petasos was characteristic of Greeks, not Lydians.

Thu, May 30, 1:15 PM
Nescio updated the diff for D1935: Anatolian → Lydian; correct Persian specific names.
Thu, May 30, 1:04 PM
Nescio added a comment to D1935: Anatolian → Lydian; correct Persian specific names.

Might want to see when that was broken.

rP10387 (javelinist) and rP13625 (archer).

Thu, May 30, 12:58 PM
Nescio added a comment to D1935: Anatolian → Lydian; correct Persian specific names.

Interestingly, the names appear to be correct in https://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/Civ%3A_Persians:

  • Sardian Auxiliary Spardiya Takabara
  • Sogdian Archer Suguda Thanuvaniya
Thu, May 30, 12:52 PM
Nescio added a comment to D1935: Anatolian → Lydian; correct Persian specific names.

Good question! I knew asabara means “horseman” and ratha “chariot” and thus assumed the other phrases were also proper. But I looked it up (in here); apparently takabara means “petasos-bearing” (a petasos is the wide hat worn by Greeks). The archer's specific name seems wrong too: vaçabara means “shield-bearer”; θanuvaniya is “bowman”/archer.

Thu, May 30, 12:46 PM
Nescio added a comment to D1935: Anatolian → Lydian; correct Persian specific names.

Yes, Lydian is the language of the Lydians, just like English is the language of the English—but we don't call the English “Germanics” because their language belongs to the Germanic branch of Indo-European. For units, the generic names are typically translations of the specific names; translating Spardiya “Lydian” with “Anatolian” is simply wrong.
And no, “Persian” is certainly not better. Both the Persians and the Greeks differentiated between the various ethinicities in the Achaemenid empire—as do we in 0 A.D.:

  • pers_cavalry_archer_b.xml: Babiruviya Ratha (Babylonian Scythed Chariot)
  • pers_cavalry_javelinist_b.xml: Mada Asabara (Median Light Cavalry)
  • pers_cavalry_spearman_b.xml: Katpaduka Asabara (Cappadocian Cavalry)
  • pers_cavalry_swordsman_b.xml: Varkaniya Asabara (Hyrcanian Cavalry)
  • pers_champion_cavalry.xml: Bakhtrish Asabara (Bactrian Lancer)
  • pers_infantry_archer_b.xml: Sugda Vaçabara (Sogdian Archer)
Thu, May 30, 12:25 PM
Nescio created D1935: Anatolian → Lydian; correct Persian specific names.
Thu, May 30, 12:01 PM

Wed, May 29

Nescio added a comment to rP22266: moves territory_pull.xml from other/ to special/ and updates the only file in….
Placeable
Unplaceable

Most things are placeable, so that would imply units etc should be moved into there; I don't think that would be an improvement.

Wed, May 29, 9:36 PM
Nescio added a comment to rP22266: moves territory_pull.xml from other/ to special/ and updates the only file in….

No, I'm not saying territory_pull.xml is a structure, certainly not. However, I don't think it qualifies as a modifier either; if it does because it has a territory influence, then all entities that have a territory component would qualify as modifiers too; (in)visibility doesn't change its modifying properties.
The core issue is that something which inherits from template_*.xml goes into */, something which should be unplaceable goes into special/, but it's unclear what to do with something which doesn't inherit from any template but is supposed to be placeable; currently territory_pull.xml is the only such file, but who knows, there might be more miscellaneous files in the future.
Unfortunately, I don't have a real solution; I only see problems with all options proposed so far.

Wed, May 29, 8:53 PM
Nescio added a comment to rP22266: moves territory_pull.xml from other/ to special/ and updates the only file in….

It does not modify the property of an entity component but it does modify the TerritoryInfluence weight at the position of the entity, correct?

The things that spring to me my when reading modifier are auras, technologies, and maybe those special/player/ files; territory_pull.xml is not more a modifier than a structure is.

Gatherrate for the field aura entities in DE.

Those field entities inherit from template_gaia_farmland.xml so properly ought to be under gaia/ or farmland/, not other/.

maybe we could have a 'templates/scenario/' folder for everything that can be used for scenarios which have no place elsewhere.

We already have campaigns/ and skirmish/ folders; don't you think adding a scenario/ folder would add more confusion?

If we can construct one reasonable entity template that doesn't have some kind of effect, then other/ isn't to be deprecated.

The problem is that other can mean about anything and nothing. If our purpose is simply to solve the concern raised, then yes, moving territory_pull.xml back into other/ would do that; however, to me that feels more like postponing a problem rather than a real solution (having unambiguous folders where it's immediately clear where a new file should go to).

Wed, May 29, 7:37 PM