Leaderboard

I think between 4-8 main cultures would be good with 2-3 separate civs in each. More than that will make the game too complicated. Don't get me wrong I love the idea of having lots of different civs but there is a limit to how unique you can make them without more strategic capability. At the moment there is just not enough content in the game to make loads of unique civs. If you can get definite differences between the cultures im all for having loads of civs, it just seems hard to do. Even in the current version of 0ad the civs are not that different from eachother, making more factions under that seems very hard. Make the cultures really different and then make individual civs under that. People will mainly use the culture for their strategic approach. But still go for it!

This post show you the "main civ" is the culture. All of the "civs" are subciv with customizations. I also propose a GUI that make this forefront. You choose the Culture which have attribute, then you choose a civ in that culture that is tweak to your liking. Could go farther make it so that player can choose "Africans" for instance and then the game randomize a African civ for the player when game launch. Or choose "Hellenes" and the game randomize and give the player a random Greek civ. (of course the player can choose specific civ if player wants, without question). Africans Common Attributes: African war elephants, strong land trading Balkans Common Attributes: Skirmishing bonuses, good sword infantry, high attack, low armor Celts Common Attributes: Weak buildings, fast construction, fast-moving units, Rotary Mill Chinese Common Attributes: Massed infantry, population bonus, use of fire, crossbows Egyptians Common Attributes: Temple and healer bonuses, strong expensive tier 2+ buildings, free tier 1 buildings, mercenaries train instantly Germans Common Attributes: Capturing bonuses, "Ambush" attack bonus within forests, shield wall, high attack, low armor, ox cart dropsite, weak wooden buildings Hellenes Common Attributes: Theater (Hellenization bonus), technology cost bonus, strong sea trade, strong spearmen Iberians Common Attributes: Free circuit of walls at start, "Ambush" attack bonus within forests, monument, flaming pitch, strong fortress Indians Common Attributes: Armored war elephants, population bonus, good archery Iranians Common Attributes: Infantry train very fast but weak, good cavalry, strong land trading, Palace Italians Common Attributes: Good melee infantry, good siege equipment Nomads Common Attributes: Movable buildings, less restrictive territory concept, good cavalry, raiding and looting bonuses, no stone walls (except for Parthians) Punics Common Attributes: Champions trained at temple, mercenary concept is flipped, strong sea trade and navy Successors Common Attributes: Pike infantry, Library, siege tower

I am not creating game, I'm creating mod. I don't care about "new players who will have to learn everything." Tell Rome:Total War player and modder that they should only have 4 civs. lol I think you can see how well I have done with Principate Romans. Once I make new hero textures I move onto something new. German civs maybe to give the Principate Romans proper historic nemesis.

Well you seem to have found your way around quite well as your first post indicates, and in case you have questions you can also join #0ad-dev on QuakeNet. So I guess it might not be the smallest first task, but it still is somewhat self-contained.

I did not say there would be no differences in gameplay. In AOK there are minor difference between civ and yet the civs play very different from each other. The game now have 20+ civ.

That just changes the display of the territory, while I think you'd have less issues by not calculating territory at all.You also shouldn't update interfaces (or rather the components implementing them dynamically. Interfaces are mostly there to allow multiple components to provide the same interface for other components to work with, not to dynamically switch between different implementations. Switching between implementations given that they provide the exact same interface and you only want one of them is however possible if you make that change in a mod where you just provide your modified version of the component and that is the only one used. Could be possible, but a simple change to CCmpTerritoryManager to store whether it is enabled and should actually do something would make this a lot easier.Doing so in a mod would be easy, but I guess this is meant for inclusion in the game at some point and thus using another way would be nicer. Now for how to solve this nicely: You should add a boolean to CCmpTerritoryManager whether or not to calculate territories at all, then return early in most functions, Or simply not subscribing to some messages. I'd suggest storing whether to use territories for a player (since that might be wanted by some) in cmpPlayer and using that and the enabled flag of cmpTerritoryManager in cmpBuildRestrictions to decide whether or not to check territories. IsConnected in cmpTerritoryDecay could need some small modification too. This way we would also support some civs (where we can remove the territory related xml parts) without territory while others have it.

Sub factions are fine - but you really don't need hundreds of sub factions. If you make so many different factions it's too hard and confusing for people to learn the game. Less is better. If you make the difference very small there's no real point in making sub factions in the first place. The idea behind different factions/civs is that you get differing gameplay patterns. So, better have 4 civs which drastically differ in playstyle than have 20 civs who play the same. If you want to make "sub/mini factions" just go the way by making them skins for the existing civs with no differences in gameplay.

Good idea. It would be nice to expose that feature as an advanced option in the "match" configuration panel. I'm going to give it a try

There's no point to have 60 civs where the only difference is stuff like "Infantry unit X can only have 2 hack armour instead of 3" and "this faction has 20% more town center radius", especially if even the graphics are the same for most. Just go with less civs, give the main civ certain bonuses and modify them within the sub factions (if there are some). And then FINISH those factions, make an interesting gameplay for each and you're set. More is not always better.

As topic title..thanks I know trade..but when wood end, what can we do? thanks

60 civs spread over 14 culture Not concerned. On basic level they all use the same units. A spearman in one civ have same function as a spearman in another civ. Most of the differences are a matter of degree. Though, some civ have a few major differences, just use math to see how the major differences stack up. Example: Can use math to see how Principate Romans citizens + slaves econ combo stack up against Republican Romans female citizens + citizen-soldier econ combo. But in most civs a female citizen is just a female citizen and a slinger is just a slinger. Most civs will have access to most unit types, either from barracks or from the mercenary camps. Look at balancing as part of the fun. Plus with so many civ there will be so many variation that not 1 civ can dominate all others, there will likely be a half dozen other civ with good combos that can take down the dominate one. I also do not feel all civ need to be equally balance. I am fine with having underdog civs and dominate civs. More of a challenge to win with an underdog civ. Eventually, with player input/polls and win-loss statistic it can be determine which civ are powerful and which are weak. Can add new sorting tags based on this, "Dominant Civs Only" or "Barbarian Civs Only" or whatever which I think could be very cool.

Rome HBO (2005-2006) the same problem with Gladiator: the reference for art is other piece of art, The Trajan Column look enormous accurated we can compared with Marian Legionaries. . even old fashion pre Marian they look with some credibility. not by an expert eye. We analyze here the latest approach to the Roman world. It is a television series that runs from the completion of the conquest of Gaul by Caesar in 52 BC until his death in 44 B.C. Official highly decorated Attics(Helmets) they portrait the models, with plumes of feathers or horsehair, so characteristic of the films of Romans. As for the Legionaries, in the image (fig. 28) we can see a centurion and several legionaries. The types of helmets carrying unidentifiable archaeologically, but are based on the types that can be seen in the column of Trajan, erected in the early second century AD and one of the most classic to represent the armament of the legionnaires references. http://www.ugr.es/~arqueologyterritorio/PDF3/Perez.pdf the make up and photography edition made realistic this helmet, but I don't think so. are only details to give authenticity.

Holy **** sounds amazing. Aren't you concerned that balancing will be impossible with all that different stuff?

wow, I want.... I want.... is my vision about 0AD MOD based in iron. I want ... I want to help you.

Imperial Gallic G (The Classic ;D ) Robinson considered this the “typical mid-first century legionary helmet” (although the Coolus was probably more common) and it seems to have continued in use on into the early second century AD. The best example was found in the Rhine River at Mainz-Weisenau and is now exhibited in Worms, Germany. Helmets of this style can definitely be dated to the Boudican revolt of AD 61 based on fragments found in rubbish pits at Colchester (now reassembled and displayed at the Colchester Castle Museum). The carrying handle seen on the Weisenau original (and our reproduction) Imperial Gallic I This helmet dates to the same period as the Imperial Gallic H, and is essentially the same design, but is made in the cupric alloy “orichalcum” (brass) instead of iron. Like several other helmets, the original was found in the Rhine River at Mainz, and the original of this particular helmet bears the inscription of a soldier named L. Lucretius Celeris of Legio I Adiutrix. This Legion was stationed at Mainz from 71 to 86 AD, dating the helmet to this period. Although its crest attachment was missing, a round imprint suggests a soldered on disc, indicating it had either an Italian style “twist on” crest holder, rather than the Gallic style “slide-on” crest. Three orichalcum helmets of this style are known. All three show evidence of feather holders, which occur only rarely on iron ones, and it may be possible that in the late first century when iron helmets seem more common, the brass helmets and feather tubes suggest a higher rank, perhaps that of option.

Detailed info about helmets seen into the Trajan Column exemple. Introduction. how accurately Roman arms and armour were portrayed in classical sculpture? There has been a lot of debate in particular over the helmets worn by legionaries. A lot of armchair-critics and historians often scoff at the idea of using stylised sculpture such as reference for Roman equipment. However, they seem to forget that Rome, as a militaristic imperial power, would have had soldiers present everywhere, and so artists would certainly have had an idea about legionary armour based on what they had seen. For example, historians used Trajan's column and the column of Aurelius, and said that the helmets depicted with the rigs on the bowl didn't exist. However, there is a genuine helmet of that style in a museum in Hamburg: the helmets miles and auxilia used in the dacian wars were of "weisenauer type at other war monuments (that were most probably built by legionnaires that were in actual service in dacia and moesia) the armour of the roman soldiers conforms with archaeological finds. i.e. the legionnaires wear mostly lorica hamata, squamata and plumata. also their helmets have no rings, different cheek protectors! and the 4 dacian falx types are correct too. under editing... . More likely, the Italic D was the product of a single workshop producing a more decorative type for soldiers who might wish to shell out a bit more for splashy headgear. Since the Italic D has integral brass cross-braces placed flat against the skull, providing a double-thickness of metal at a critical point, it is tempting to speculate that the superior performance of this type versus the Dacian falx is what led to the decision to retrofit cross bracing to all helmets in the Dacian theatre Imperial Gallic helmets, which Robinson believed were the products of Celtic craftsmen in Gaul, featured a pair of distinctive embossed eyebrows on the forehead region and tended to be carefully made and elaborately decorated. Imperial Italic helmets, which Robinson saw as the product of less-skilled copycats in Italy and elsewhere in the Empire, lacked the eyebrows and were somewhat more roughly made. The differences in decoration and workmanship tended to diminish as time went on; the last two Italic types classified by Robinson, the Hebron (Italic G) and Neidermorter (Italic H) helmets, were as carefully crafted and well-decorated as any Imperial Gallic helmet. The Roman combat experience in Dacia under Domitian (AD 81-96) and Trajan (AD 98-117) produced further developments in helmet design. The ability of the wicked Dacian falx, a two-handed sickle-like sword, to reach over the Roman shield wall and pierce a helmet like a can-opener forced the Romans to come up with countermeasures in the form of two iron bars riveted crosswise across the helmet scull (alternatively, two thick bronze strips might be riveted to the top of a bronze legionary or auxiliary helmet). This started as a field modification, as seen on several Imperial Gallic helmets with the crossbars hastily riveted right over the decorative eyebrows. An illustration by Peter Connolly, seen above right, depicts this type of modification to an Imperial Gallic H helmet. Crossbars are seen on some, though not all of the legionary helmets on Trajan’s Column. Imperial Italic G The original example of this distinctive helmet was found in a cave near Hebron, Israel, and was thought to be captured war booty of the Jewish Zealots of the Bar Kochba Revolt during the reign of Hadrian, ca. AD 133-135. Consequently, it is the one helmet that can be convincingly dated to the period covered by Legio VI Victrix and is the preferred helmet of our legion. The Imperial Italic G represents the earliest Roman helmet discovered in which the post-Dacian Wars crossbars were probably part of the original construction, as evidenced by the brass lunate decorations applied between the crossbars. Finally, this is probably the most accurate helmet made by the Deepeeka group in India