Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
MishFTW

New Civs

   53 members have voted

  1. 1. Indians?

    • Yes
      43
    • No
      10
  2. 2. Chinese

    • Yes
      45
    • No
      8

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

62 posts in this topic

Yeah, 6 factions is plenty. Any more than that and the game would be overwhelming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The more civs the better, I think. I mean, Age of Empires always had plenty of civs. I never felt even close to being overwhelmed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The more civs the better, I think. I mean, Age of Empires always had plenty of civs. I never felt even close to being overwhelmed.

0 A.D. civs are a bit different to Age of Empires. In AoE you had the same units shared between civs, with each civ only having a subset. In 0 A.D. the civs will be more unique, each having their own sets of units, although there are lots of similarities like spearmen and archers. I still think lots of civs are good, but we need to be careful when comping with other games that the analogy is accurate. e.g. if Starcraft had 12 civs as unique as the current ones (if that would even be possible) that would probably be overwhelming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my general point was to give more variety to the game. historicity aside, dont you think it would be fun to play a game where historically accurate mayans, romans, huns, and indians to all wage war against each other at the same time? admittedly, three of these four civs or rough equivalents to them were all in AOK, but lets face it, AOK wasnt as accurate as it could have been (though was still quite fun). in my own case, i had thought it would be fun to recreate scenarios from several other RTS games in 0ad, like maybe the greek campaign from Empire Earth being completely redone in 0ad since it matches perfectly for that timespan, or perhaps the attila campaign from AOK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An Indian civ would make more sense than the Chinese as an addition to Part I. Why? Simply, there was more meaningful contact (direct trade; wars between Acheamenid Persia/Macedon/Selucids and assorted Indian states) than with the Chinese. And, in the likely event that there'll be a campaign based off Alexander's conquests, then there'll likely be Indian units floating round in the editor anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why can't we just stick to our guns with the civs we get? 6 civs is enough for the first part of the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, that totally backfired. Apparently I need to be less subtle about my sarcasm.

We're not adding factions to part one.

/discussion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like more to add more (different) units/buildings to each civ than to add more civs with less content. Yeah, in both AoE, AoK and AoEIII the factions were almost the same (AoE3 had less units and some were shared, so they could have different models, but it felt pretty much the same civs). Starcraft and AoM had only 3 civs, but they were very different between them, so it rarely was a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I did not like about AOE3:The Asian Dynasties is that the Chinese, for instance, had something like 20 different units. I like units with defined roles. If units are doubled up (say, 2 different citizen-swordsmen), then there needs to be a good reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I did not like about AOE3:The Asian Dynasties is that the Chinese, for instance, had something like 20 different units. I like units with defined roles. If units are doubled up (say, 2 different citizen-swordsmen), then there needs to be a good reason.

We certainly don't do anything like that. In fact, we've reduced the number of units we had originally intended to include by combining the crossbowman and the chu ko nu into different rank states of the infantry archer.

I'd like more to add more (different) units/buildings to each civ than to add more civs with less content. Yeah, in both AoE, AoK and AoEIII the factions were almost the same (AoE3 had less units and some were shared, so they could have different models, but it felt pretty much the same civs). Starcraft and AoM had only 3 civs, but they were very different between them, so it rarely was a problem.

What other types of buildings would you have in mind? Personally, I'm under the impression that our building set is fairly comprehensive in function.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We certainly don't do anything like that. In fact, we've reduced the number of units we had originally intended to include by combining the crossbowman and the chu ko nu into different rank states of the infantry archer.

Indeed. I should have made clear that I was replying to Pedro. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

personally, i think it would be good for scenario design if some (for want of a better word) less-distinct peoples could be simulated with a few editor-only unique units and buildings and perhaps a reskinning technology which visually changes units (so, for example, hellenes/romans could be "reskinned" to SIMULATE the etruscans)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

personally, i think it would be good for scenario design if some (for want of a better word) less-distinct peoples could be simulated with a few editor-only unique units and buildings and perhaps a reskinning technology which visually changes units (so, for example, hellenes/romans could be "reskinned" to SIMULATE the etruscans)

Egypt Pre Hellenic, or Babylon,or Hittite Empire are more interesting than Etruscans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Egypt Pre Hellenic, or Babylon,or Hittite Empire are more interesting than Etruscans.

They're kind of out of the timeline set for 0 AD (500 BCE-1 BCE). And Part 2 should be set for 1 CE-500 CE.

EDIT: Not that I think they'll ever be part of 0 AD. Its very mod-able, so I wouldn't be surprised if someone adds them eventually.

Edited by Cassador_Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It tends to be easier to stay active and motivated when we have fewer responsibilities. The great majority of the team are students, so naturally we have a lot more time to spare during the summer and on breaks. Simply put, there are four ways in which we could be spending our time:

Studying

Socializing

Sleeping

Developing

You get to pick 3. Naturally, game development often falls by the wayside (because nobody really wants to be a hermit). The good news is, it's Christmas break, so there's a possibility you may see something from us in the next month. Stay tuned.

On spot :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aren't they just Greeks with a funny language?

ehm... no! <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sarmatians.

Yes, personally I think Sarmatians should be a faction in Part 2 instead of one of the two Roman factions. Their history ranges from 6-5 BC to 4 AD so it'll fit in the scope of both Part 1 and Part 2 too. :brow::whistle3:

Don't kill me for this. tongue.gif

Edit: My bad, I meant 6-5th BC to 4th AD

Edited by hhyloc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, personally I think Sarmatians should be a faction in Part 2 instead of one of the two Roman factions. Their history ranges from 6-5 BC to 4 AD so it'll fit in the scope of both Part 1 and Part 2 too. :brow::whistle3:

Don't kill me for this. :P

My vague idea would be to add Sarmations in a big 2.5 content patch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well if the sarmatians had a peak of only about a decade, wouldnt it be better to have some larger group from the region with the sarmatians represented to some extent or as a divergent path? maybe the scythians?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well if the sarmatians had a peak of only about a decade, wouldnt it be better to have some larger group from the region with the sarmatians represented to some extent or as a divergent path? maybe the scythians?

he meant AD 400.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0