Thorfinn the Shallow Minded

It's a tad ironic that the Spartans are the ones using it.

I think that Delenda Est's model is a good idea, but I'm not sure about how intuitive it is. Choices are good, but overloading a player with too many is a substantial risk. Clicking everything until it's all gone is a problem more for the player than the system in my opinion. When it comes to these technologies, timing is key, and resource efficiency is important to effective build orders. When a player chooses a melee armour upgrade, they are making their melee infantry better, which in turn encourages them to train more. They could try to balance the unit composition with a ranged attack upgrade, but that would divert resources from unit production or other critical technologies. Obviously the blacksmith wouldn't be the only building for unit upgrades ideally speaking. There could be ones that focus on improving the training of units at the barracks. All of these work into establishing a tempo to the game. I don't mean to act as if I don't appreciate a lot of the ways Delenda Est has changed the game; it's a great labour of love, but at the same time, the more choices, the less meaningful they become to me. Thus, I think that restricting choices to tier three would make for more engaging options. Furthermore, a faction such as Sparta might have great infantry, but since their cavalry and ranged units were rather subpar, probably the only tier three upgrades they would have would be for melee armour and melee attack.

The blacksmith upgrades seem rather meaningless to me for a number of reasons. First, they affect things too universally. Compare things to Age of Empires II, and the difference is stark. In 0 AD, there is a distinction given in attack upgrades but not defence in the case of ranged versus melee. Also, the technology cost seems outrageous in the case of the wood necessary to research the armour upgrades. Last, only two upgrades make concern of teching into a specific unit combination practically a nonexistent other than worrying about the cost. My proposal is to have three upgrades that are cheaper but have a less wide range of effect: A line of melee armour that would primarily affect infantry but also cavalry to a small degree. A line of armour upgrades for horses that only affect cavalry. These upgrades would be a bit more expensive than the former. A line of armour for ranged units. Lines of separate attack upgrades for melee and ranged units. There could be armour upgrades for elephants specifically, but that might be too situational. All of these upgrades would also operate under further limitations. Basic experience level infantry would only benefit from tier 1 upgrades, advanced could enjoy the benefits of tier 2 as well, and elite and champion units could work with the tier three upgrades. Ranged units would have fewer available armour upgrades since armour was less prevalent for them, and the upgrades available would probably only affect advanced, elite, and champion units. The reasons for using this system to me would be that the experience system would fit more organically into the game design and veterans would matter more. The third tier for armour might also, with a benefit, have a tantalising choice such as what was originally hoped for like heavier armour at the cost of movement speed.

I'd personally say it's rubbish. It provides no interesting strategic options because it's factions counter some factions while being countered by other factions. There's a flat out buff or nerf that the player has no way to take advantage of except during those specific match-ups. I personally wouldn't say that Romans were that case. Although the Roman military was exceptional, much of its success was based around its ability to take advantage of the diplomatic turmoil in Greece, leading to its ability to defeat them in detail by and large.

While cattle and sheep were not primarily used for food production, there isn't anything to represent those resources, which makes that kind of abstraction fair enough in my opinion. What I don't like about training animals at corrals is how micro-intensive it is for very little in the way of enjoyment. It's basically a grinding mechanic. Having the animals spawn from the building would be a much better alternative to me, but the training was initially considered only placeholder use for the building anyways, which probably warrants just scrapping training altogether. I do like Nescio's idea about auras for specific animals garrisoned.

One thing I might recommend is to give them a champion cavalry unit. Boetians were some of the few Greek peoples known to field a respectable cavalry force if I am not mistaken. Either that or perhaps the confederacy bonus could have something to do with that.

Generally speaking about anything Herodian sounds a bit questionable. I would have a priest unit be their champion, with abilities to provide economic buffs and other important aspects. The Hasmonean period was essentially a theocratic government, and the position of high priest had strong political and religious authority. I think that a Hellenised unit would be also quite interesting. There was a lot of conflict between Greek values and Jewish ones at this period, and perhaps a player could decide between the two, the former making that unit available.

By and large I agree, and the thing about melee units is basically what I was going for. As to whether they should add any projectiles, I'm not against that approach, but it might make their role unclear. Obviously making them incapable of dropping some boiling water would be an abstraction and one I could live with, but I think that if there is a difference between melee and ranged units, it should be intuitive, of which I would say my proposal generally is.

As the current system works, if a unit garrisons in a building, that structure regenerates loyalty and, if it is a defensive one, they add to the arrow count. Personally, I would prefer it if melee and ranged units offered distinct functions for garrisoning. Ranged units could add arrows, but not contribute much to the loyalty, and melee units would only provide a substantial boost to loyalty. I think that this approach would make defending and attacking buildings more nuanced since one kind of unit would be good as anti-personnel at the cost of keeping it vulnerable to capture if there would be a substantial enough force present. Melee units might make the building resistant to capture, but occasional sorties would be necessary to mount if the player wants the structure to stay up from direct attacks.

While I'm not the hugest fan of hard counter systems, the one you've devised seems like an intuitive one, which I greatly appreciate. I'll look forward to seeing the results.

Sorry to criticise that racing game posted, but it's nothing compared to Big Rigs.

I personally don't care for the addition. It seems overly ornate for a a military structure or at least too round for an otherwise square-ish aesthetic. Granted, that's just my opinion.

Oh thanks, those will definitely be useful.

When I said readily available, I was talking about something that doesn't have say, a 159 dollar price tag attached to it. The Comparative Lexicon you mentioned is out of print... I'm just not very optimistic. The last one is the most inexpensive, standing at a price of 21 dollars, but there's no certainty that the vocabulary listed would even be ample enough to work for names. That's why I and others kind have given up on that idea. If anyone does have access to these resources, I'd be more than happy to change my mind. Hebrew seems to be the easiest and coolest option; we can just rename the civilisation Kosher Carthage for good measure.

Fair enough. That said, I don't have any reason to think that the team would add in another faction, and there are others that I would say are more on demand such as Thebes, Corinth, Argos, Syracuse, Tarentum, Epirus, Rhodes... basically everyone wants more Greeks and only Greeks. Those who say they don't are in denial. Silliness aside, there are plenty of responses that could be given that are less Jewish sounding. The Greek voice acting mainly consists of "What is it?" (not a traditional greeting). At least according to a forum post that apparently quoted a scholarly source, there might be indication that it Shalom was employed quite regularly in Punic even as a greeting: Š-L-M I [Heb. s̆-l-m]v. pi’’el 1. GREET SOMEONE (+ 'lt)CIS I 5510.6/7 (Pu) qr’ lmlqrt ysp ‘lty l s̆lm wlyrhy bmqm [z], “As for him who calls to Milqart, they shall continue to greet him and make him welcome in this city.” Cf. Arabic sallama 'alā.ŠLM II [Heb. s̆alōm]n.m. 1. PEACE, specifically PEACEFUL RELATIONSKAI 26 a I 11/12 (Ph) ws̆t ‘nk s̆lm ‘t kl mlk, “And I made peace with every king.”ŠLM III 3. PROSPERITY, WELL-BEINGKAI 26 A III 1/4 (Ph) wbrk b’l krntrys̆ ‘yt ‘ztwd hym ws̆lm w’z ‘dr ‘l kl mlk, “May Baal-KRNTRYŠ bless Aztwadda with long life an [sic] well-being and might greater than that of any king.” – CIS I 5511.4 (Pu) dr s̆lm wmnh[t], “A time of prosperity and peace.”Source: Krahmalkov, Charles R. Phoenician-Punic Dictionary. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters, 2000. 462-64.

I would definitely find the Hasmonean Jewish nation to be a fantastic addition to the game, but I can't agree with you on the basis of including Proto-Berger, which isn't even linguistically Semitic to my understanding. Another thing I would like to quickly point out is that Classical Hebrew's phonology is generally based on what is called Tiberian, which comes roughly A.D. 800, in Judaea, not from European Jews. A further issue with carelessly making an amalgamation of the two separate languages is the repercussions that would have on the transliteration. If Aramaic seems like a better option, then we should go over Hebrew. What concerns me about attempting to do Phoenician or Punic is the general lack of any good scholarly lexicons readily available (Unless I've missed something). What would be done for more obscure words other than haphazardly bringing in another language? Obviously Hebrew and Aramaic are hardly the best options, but they are certainly the easiest not correct ones to depict well.

I was wondering about the current consensus of what language is being used for Carthage. From some people, I have heard that Hebrew is being used, but there are a good number of differences in the ways that the words for various buildings are used and Classical Hebrew in things such as vocalisation. If Hebrew is the language of choice, I would like to move forward with a more systematic transliteration and potentially see about some voices done for them.

Glad to hear a consensus has been made, and the idea of the actual alphabets seems fun. If that's the case, let's just not add in Iron Age Irish and try to depict Ogham.

I just wish that popular culture based its understandings of the Middle Ages from this game. "Yeah, all of the male peasants made Schwarznagger look like a wimp."

I said that they should be implemented in a historically informed way; if that makes them rarer, then so be it. Likewise, I never said that women should be replaced with slaves. I instead stated that slaves should, for civilisations in which labour was primarily conducted by slaves, be the primary economic unit. I have otherwise simply pointed out some alternative ways to represent women that seem more informed. In these discourses, respect is critical to healthy communication, and while I assure you that I am fallible, I do actually try to make coherent arguments; please look more carefully and criticise valid points. My apologies if this seems offensive, but I don't appreciate being taken out of context.

I suppose I should clarify. Currently they seem to represent free women, and in that specific case, I can't really say it makes much sense except for factions in which women had an expanded role. If female slaves are available, I think that the argument for them doing hard labour is viable. It doesn't seem very accurate, but there is a point in which 0 A.D. has to separate itself from historical simulators. I think that we can work to be more intention, however about accurate depictions. Perhaps Vestal Virgins could be a trainable healing unit for Rome. Also it seems that women were the priestesses for Athen's cult of Athena, and a handful Athenian women who were citizens apparently were merchants.

Women in 0 A.D. basically fill the function of villagers in the game, but I don't think that enough consideration has been put into how they function especially for a game that attempts to pay close attention to history. First, it is odd to have them as the primary economic unit when slaves by and large filled that role. This been mentioned before so I'll leave it there. Next, while there are exceptions such as amongst various Celtic tribes and Sparta, most societies had women restricted to household related duties such as bearing and raising children, and doing other indoor activities at least to my understanding. This comes to my main point; women shouldn't be available to a faction unless there is good precedent for them having a larger role. Of course they didn't necessarily go out to chop wood or mine, but that is an RTS abstraction that I think can still exist. Granted, I am mainly speaking from a general knowledge of women's place in the ancient world from my familiarity with Roman and Athenian societies and at that, my study on the subject has hardly been thorough. I would appreciate any thoughts on the matter: especially concerning cultures I haven't mentioned.

Not a specific unit, but I'd say that there should be a cheat code entitled: "End him rightly." This would make all sword units have ranged attacks that look like slinger projectiles.

I would say, however, that the flaw isn't necessarily with the presence of citizen-soldiers but their implementation. It should take time to mobilise troops, which could make the effects of a rush significantly more devastating as working time can be lost during the time the soldiers are preparing to defend themselves and then during the time they demobilise. It could be even harder if the rusher continuously cycles between different gathering areas, forcing the defender to take an active role in defence if they wish to survive. I've mentioned this idea before, but in fairness, few people seem to appreciate this concept. Definitely though, Darkreaver's concept is much better than the current iteration of the citizen-soldier.