Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Diatryma

0 A.D Romans should cover more than 1 century

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, Genava55 said:

Sorry to disappointing you but:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/8907425/Romulus-and-Remus-symbol-of-Rome-could-be-medieval-replica.html

Moreover, "SPQR" started to be used only through the 1st century BC.

Indeed. that's why you need use something similar to my suggestion.

 

The Capitoline She-wolf (Italian: Lupa capitolina) takes its name from its location—the statue is housed in the Capitoline Museums in Rome. The She-wolf statue is a fully worked bronze composition that is intended for 360 degree viewing. In other words the viewer can get an equally good view from all directions: there is no "correct" point of view. The She-wolf is depicted standing in a stationary pose. The body is out of proportion, because its neck is much too long for its face and flanks. The incised details of the neck show thick, s-curled fur which ends with unnatural beads around the face and behind the forelegs. The wolf’s body is leaner in front than in the rear: its ribs are visible, as are the muscles of its forelegs, while in the back the musculature is less detailed, suggesting less tone. Its head curves in towards its tail; the ears curve back. The children themselves have a more dynamic posture: one sits with his feet splaying to either side, while the other kneels beside him. Both face upwards. They, too, are lean, with no trace of baby fat.

https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/ancient-art-civilizations/roman/roman-republic/a/capitoline-she-wolf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Genava55 said:

Moreover, "SPQR" started to be used only through the 1st century BC.

It's not known when exactly it came into use, but it's use by the late republic is generally believed. So is the late republic not even republican enough?   

If we remove the SPQR, including the old, original one in game that I was just following, then we just went from 4 Roman symbols to 0...

Or should they all just be replaced with ROMA?   

 

1 hour ago, Genava55 said:

I honestly didn't know that.

 

I'm not going to make any more symbols for the Romans unless someone who actually knows something about the Roman Republic creates a dedicated post detailing which symbols to use, and why, with clear period, primary references, and an explanation of what, and what not to do (none of that armchair stuff). I also don't want to make anything that can be misconstrued as Rome II TW rip-off. 

How can there be no Rome-experts on this forum? I thought they were a dime a dozen? 

Edited by Sundiata

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Sundiata said:

It's not known when exactly it came into use, but it's use by the late republic is generally believed. So is the late republic not even republican enough?   

If we remove the SPQR, including the old, original one in game that I was just following, then we just went from 4 Roman symbols to 0...

Or should they all just be replaced with ROMA?   

 

I honestly didn't know that.

 

I'm not going to make any more symbols for the Romans unless someone who actually knows something about the Roman Republic creates a dedicated post detailing which symbols to use, and why, with clear period, primary references, and an explanation of what, and what not to do (none of that armchair stuff). I also don't want to make anything that can be misconstrued as Rome II TW rip-off. 

How can there be no Rome-experts on this forum? I thought they were a dime a dozen? 

@Thorfinn the Shallow Minded 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sundiata said:

Or should they all just be replaced with ROMA?   

Roma is indeed attested on Roman coins.

image.thumb.png.600cb8f7ed8cd71da5b0224a04b5893f.png

1 minute ago, Sundiata said:

It's not known when exactly it came into use, but it's use by the late republic is generally believed. So is the late republic not even republican enough?   

Well, the Roman faction is only about Polybian era isn't it? In the book of Mary Beard, she says it can be traced up to Cicero era:

image.png.d19880886e4f5e1f970ae509d775cf29.png

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Genava55 said:

Well, the Roman faction is only about Polybian era isn't it?

Apparently it is...

A terribly poor choice in my opinion. The game is set from 500 BC to 1 BC, which is already aggravatingly random and constrictive. Then people started telling me that the Romans actually only depict the Republic era Romans. Why? What's the point of this? Now I'm learning that they don't even represent the republic, but the Polybian era (290 BC - 130 BC) specifically... Whaaaaaat??? Who decided this?? How does this make any sense? What's the added value? We have Vercingetorix, Cleopatra, Amanirenas, Caratacus, Boudica, Cunobeline etc, all contemporaries of Gaius Julius Caesar, or even post-dating him, but we refuse Caesar himself in game, because he post-dates the mid-republic. Pffff... This doesn't make any sense people... All it does is make referencing impossible... It honestly just sounds like someone that was trying to sound smart and people went with it. 

It doesn't make any sense to restrict any faction to an only 160 year sliver of it's 1000 year existence. Especially not one as iconic as the Romans... Does the actual Roman faction in game actually conform to these dates? Plus it exacerbates the historical cringe when the Romans in game meet anybody other than Carthage and Iberia (and neither of those factions are all that historical either). 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Sundiata said:

Apparently it is...

A terribly poor choice in my opinion. The game is set from 500 BC to 1 BC, which is already aggravatingly random and constrictive. Then people started telling me that the Romans actually only depict the Republic era Romans. Why? What's the point of this? Now I'm learning that they don't even represent the republic, but the Polybian era (290 BC - 130 BC) specifically... Whaaaaaat??? Who decided this?? How does this make any sense? What's the added value? We have Vercingetorix, Cleopatra, Amanirenas, Caratacus, Boudica, Cunobeline etc, all contemporaries of Gaius Julius Caesar, or even post-dating him, but we refuse Caesar himself in game, because he post-dates the mid-republic. Pffff... This doesn't make any sense people... All it does is make referencing impossible... It honestly just sounds like someone that was trying to sound smart and people went with it. 

It doesn't make any sense to restrict any faction to an only 160 year sliver of it's 1000 year existence. Especially not one as iconic as the Romans... Does the actual Roman faction in game actually conform to these dates? Plus it exacerbates the historical cringe when the Romans in game meet anybody other than Carthage and Iberia (and neither of those factions are all that historical either). 

Personally, I would have preferred a Roman faction going from the Latin Wars to the Anthony's civil war. It is more interesting to have a faction that can evolute, from the Camillian army to the Cesarean army. Moreover, there aren't any strict boundaries for the Roman evolution. Nor for the culture, nor for the society, nor for the army. Things like the "Marian reforms" never existed, these are the kinds of popular beliefs spreading over the Internet. 

 

Edit: but it isn't the place to discuss this. For the ships symbols, I suggest the Janus double-face, the She-wolf with a ROMA writings and the Pegasus. There is a coin with an eagle from the thied century bc, I put it above. It could be used as well. 

Edited by Genava55
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Genava55 said:

Personally, I would have preferred a Roman faction going from the Latin Wars to the Anthony's civil war. It is more interesting to have a faction that can evolute, from the Camillian army to the Cesarean army. Moreover, there aren't any strict boundaries for the Roman evolution. Nor for the culture, nor for the society, nor for the army. Things like the "Marian reforms" never existed, these are the kinds of popular beliefs spreading over the Internet.

Thank you!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you both are being too hard on the original designers. One of the premises of the game was that each faction would be represented by a slice of time, preferably at a moment of their greatest strength or at some interesting point in their history. Since almost every other game about the Romans depicts them during the principate or triumvirate, it probably made sense to choose the Punic War era for their depiction. 

"But the Seleucids!" - the Seleucid reform feature was just supposed to be that: a feature, something special for them to make them stand apart from the other civs, almost like a bonus. It was never meant to be applied to all the other civs. Not to say it couldn't be though.

 

Edited by wowgetoffyourcellphone
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

I think you both are being too hard on the original designers. One of the premises of the game was that each faction would be represented by a slice of time, preferably at a moment of their greatest strength or at some interesting point in their history. Since almost every other game about the Romans depicts them during the principate or triumvirate, it probably made sense to choose the Punic War era for their depiction. 

Yeah maybe it was a bit harsh. In fact, I understand the choice of the Polybian era, but it makes the things quite complicated to keep everything accurate within this time-frame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

I think you both are being too hard on the original designers. One of the premises of the game was that each faction would be represented by a slice of time, preferably at a moment of their greatest strength or at some interesting point in their history. Since almost every other game about the Romans depicts them during the principate or triumvirate, it probably made sense to choose the Punic War era for their depiction. 

"But the Seleucids!" - the Seleucid reform feature was just supposed to be that: a feature, something special for them to make them stand apart from the other civs, almost like a bonus. It was never meant to be applied to all the other civs. Not to say it couldn't be though.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to insult anyone. I was just frustrated to find out that the Romans specifically depict the Polybian Era Republic, which makes all the symbols wrong, including my own, as well as the original Roman symbol that has been in the game since god knows when, without anybody pointing it out. Now there's no symbols, just plain sails... 

The in-game description and wiki pages really need to be changed, because they don't say anything about Polybian armies and allude to Empire. What about the multistoried Civic Center? That doesn't look right for the time. Even the temple. Shouldn't it look a lot more like the earlier Etruscan temples? The towers? There's probably a lot more issues I'm ignorant about...

I appreciate the idea behind depicting an earlier, not often depicted era of Roman history. It just makes things very difficult. Furthermore, I believe we are not taking full advantage of the phases. They don't need to be the same for each faction! Romans evolving from early, to mid-, to late republic is perfectly logical and doable. Restricting Romans specifically to the mid-republican era is just less than ideal. I wasn't even excited about limiting the Romans to the Republic, let alone to a sliver in time of that republic... 

Edited by Sundiata
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sundiata said:

 I appreciate the idea behind depicting an earlier, not often depicted era of Roman history. It just makes things very difficult. Furthermore, I believe we are not taking full advantage of the phases. They don't need to be the same for each faction! Romans evolving from early, to mid-, to late republic is perfectly logical and doable. Restricting Romans specifically to the mid-republican era is just less than ideal. I wasn't even excited about limiting the Romans to the Republic, let alone to a sliver in time of that republic... 

I'll reiterate my 0 A.D. Epochs vision. ;) 

 

Where cultures can be explored in detail based on a period of time. Say, you as a player choose the Romans as your civ, and the match Host has chosen Classical Epoch, then your Romans would be the Polybian Romans. If the Host has chosen the Medieval Epoch, then your Romans would be the Byzantine Romans. etc. :) 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/28/2019 at 2:50 PM, Sundiata said:

Then people started telling me that the Romans actually only depict the Republic era Romans. Why? What's the point of this? Now I'm learning that they don't even represent the republic, but the Polybian era (290 BC - 130 BC) specifically..

Decisions of the original designers aren't set in stone. If it makes more sense and people agree, things can be changed. (I don't have the authority to say if that is applicable to this case)

  • Like 4

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  

×