Thorfinn the Shallow Minded

It is true that the sources may be old, but the simple fact is that everyone had and has biases. Regarding his views being controversial, his advocacy for armoured warfare was in many ways substantiated by the success of blitzkrieg in the 2nd World War. Many of his writings formed the bases of officer training curricula and are in many ways still used for modern military theory. Furthermore, although he may have believed in unusual views, perceptions of a person should not be the sole thing to shape an understanding of a historian's credibility. If you would like to see some more sources, some of which I found that also take a similar position from more modern historiography are articles such as "Alexander's Hypaspists Again" by J. R. Ellis. Likewise, in an article published in 2004 entitled "Philopoemen's Special Forces: Peltasts and a New Kind of Greek Light-Armed Warfare (Livy 35.27)" by Mary Frances Williams, she takes a similar stance, arguing that hypaspists were lightly armed. Another source that has a similar stance is "The Macedonian Sarissa, Spear, and Related Armor" by Minor M. Markel. While there are other views on the other side for this matter, it is no surprise that in academic discourse there is no broad consensus. Obviously this not in any way an exhaustive list of examples, but I think that it demonstrates that the argument of Fuller, Wilcken, and other historians is still quite plausible.

That is a logical argument, but what you are ignoring is the point that they were consistently deployed for mobile operations in every notable battle. Heavy armour would ultimately weigh them down in these cases. In the Battle of Granicus, their purpose was to support Alexander's cavalry charge on the left flank. On the cavalry's right were a group of hypaspists for the charge. He also placed another block on the other flank, demonstrating their mobility. In the Battle of Issus, the hypaspists were deployed closely to mountainous terrain, where heavy infantry would find it difficult to effectively operate. In the battle of Guagamela, hypaspists were next to the the cavalry and light infantry again. In the Battle of Hypasdes, they supported the flank of the phalanx. Heavily armed hoplites were essentially outdated by the introduction of the sarissa, and the notion of wearing as much as possible does not seem to be a viable stance given their usage in all of these decisive battles. Likewise, of the sources Fuller quotes, all of which are major historians of Alexander, none of them argue for a situational kit. I will admit that there could be some flexibility in what they wore, but the evidence seems to strongly work for them being lightly armed infantry.

That would be an impractical thing to have logistically speaking. If there were multiple types of armour issued, the difficulty maintaining the force would be much greater in supplying them with the correct things. Also, manoeuvres would be harder to execute with practised efficiency if they kept on changing armour and weapons. While soldiers did in some cases abandon heavier equipment for mobile operations, the implications for these soldiers seems distinct from the typical phalanx, and thus a standardised set of armour and weapons for all of these situations seems to be a far more likely scenario. Anyways, even if they did alternate between different things, 0 A.D. has to make some generalisations where it would otherwise be unnecessarily complex; the generalisation in this case seems to be for making the hypaspists have lighter armour.

I would contend that the current depiction of hypaspists in the game is an unlikely case though not necessarily inaccurate. The precise nature of what they wore is ambiguous, making many historians simply guess on the matter. The following from J. F. C. Fuller's The Generalship of Alexander the Great does a good job of summarising the academic views. "Sir William Tarn is of opinion that 'they were heavy infantry, as heavily armed as the phalanx,' and that their difference from the hoplites 'was one of history, recruitment, and standing, not of armament.' Wilcken considers that they were light--armed infantry, 'whose battle-role was to hasten forward at quick march or the double and make connection between the cavalry and the phalanx.' And Grote suggests that 'they were hoplites, keeping regular array and intended for close combat, but more lightly armed, and more fit for diversities of circumstance and position than the phalanx... They occupied a sort of intermediate place between heavy infantry and of the phalanx properly so called, and the peltasts and light troops generally.' Because Arrian records that Alexander made use of them to follow up cavalry, storm walled places, execute rapid night marches and other mobile operations, it would seem probably that they were more lightly armed and equipped than hoplites." Sorry for the long quote, but I wanted to have a full context for the argument which I personally find quite valid. Thus, I would recommend that the units have an appearance more akin to the skiritae and Athenian marines. They could be a bit slower, but the role probably should be the same from a gameplay standpoint.

Actually, the Hasmonean Period is exactly within the timeframe, and during this time the Jews actually had a good deal of interaction with other countries. The Maccabees lasted for roughly 100 years realise. Obviously, the extent of their impact was primarily regional, and the unit roster would leave a lot to ask for, but I would find their incorporation into the game to be a fascinating option much like the Kushites have proved to be.

Keep in mind that many of the reasons for the lack of viable strategies is that no major work has been done to allow each civilisation to have possible strategies for a number of different situations like turtling, booming, or rushing in any way that seems unique to that civilisation. Until each civilisation can execute any of these to some degree of success (Sparta, for instance would have a difficult time with the first one), the unique unit rosters serves more as a handicap to a good multiplayer experience unfortunately. As is, I think that it's important to think of 0 A.D. on its own terms. In games such as starcraft, the rosters are so radically different, yet each is capable of interesting early, mid, and late-game options. While 0 A.D. does not have to and probably cannot achieve that degree of balance, each civilisation needs a similar vision in its design to effectively deliver a balanced yet varied game experience.

Not precisely: I learned to type with a system rather reminiscent of that idea. Typing without two-spaces seems alien to me, but I'm okay with seeing other people do it. Sorry if I caused anyone distress through my spacing tendencies; that is not at all my intentions and I express my humblest apologies possible without being insincere.

A thing that needs to be realised though is that the game is still in alpha, and any tutorial that is made for that alpha alone could later be outdated in just a few alphas. Balance is a good idea to continue to evolve since that keeps an active playerbase for the game. Trigger warning: I'll next write about game design. Regarding counters. I personally dislike that word as an explanation of how units interact beyond a simple rock-paper-scissors formula. Although it is possible to build on that, it rapidly becomes convoluted. I would look to the previous document which outlined counters for 0 A.D. It was very unintuitive. I personally prefer the term 'roles,' a less loaded concept since counters generally only define units by what they are good against. Can there be some hard and soft counters in the mix? Yes, but there should be more to a unit's design than just that. The ultimate goal embraced by the original makers of 0 A.D. was a combat system that was more like total war, and ideas for how units should operate should be established within that kind of framework. Were there counters in that system? True, yet much of the bases for these were due to the tactics players employed against those units.

Realise that the only difference between biremes and triremes is the rows of oars. Distinctions between the light and medium classes of ships could probably be done in a more intuitive way such as making triremes have better speed but biremes turning better. On another note, most ships (triremes) during this time-period only had 14 men fighting on the deck. This was occasionally augmented to numbers like 40, but those were mainly in instances in which the space for ramming was limited, leading to many boarding operations. As another point, archers were solely deployed as anti-personel troops; their role should be to damage the garrisoned soldiers, nothing else if boarding existed. A key thing to note is that if ramming was implemented, it would cause any civilisation that does not have ramming abilities to suffer as a result. Thus, for one mechanic to exist, the other should as well to allow for balanced and interesting gameplay.

I think that in many ways we actually agree. I was not entirely arguing for a copy and paste of some Greek set, but even if the architecture was limited to just places like Alexandria and Naukratis, these were the centres of Ptolemaic Egyptian culture and should be a major reference for the architecture. Should there be some more Egyptian elements for the more rural buildings? Yes, but much of it should remain Hellenistic. Also, although this issue has been mentioned before, little has been done to rectify the problems (Aside from the house work, which I greatly appreciate). I would have to differ with you regarding the barracks. Although there would be natives levied into the military, that would not warrant a totally Egyptian-looking structure; there could be some graffiti representing that culture and other distinctions, but it would be unlikely that a military run by Greeks would have their buildings built in much any other way. Granted, I am only speaking from a historical perspective and not a gameplay one. Probably it would be hard to distinguish between the two if there was a hardline effort to keep things strictly in a historically accurate depiction. The concern to connect the Kushites with the Egyptians is definitely valid; I personally think that that would be possible by simply using a similar colour palette alongside some other subtleties.

One aspect of 0 A D. that currently is problematic is the architecture for the Ptolemies. In this Hellenistic period, the way that buildings looked was fundamentally Greek. For instance, if you look at pictures of ruins in Alexandria and modern artistic attempts to copy this, the fact that it was a Hellenistic culture is undeniable. While it can be argued that there were other more Egyptian-like areas, Alexandria was the centre of Greek culture. While there is the argument that this makes the game look more flavourful, the blatant inaccuracies it portrays are unacceptable given the core vision of 0 A.D. Here is a reference picture: The current depiction of buildings is as if the Seleucids used the Persian architectural set. I am not saying that there should be a total abandonment of Egyptian motifs in the architecture; they should just be more nuanced. In the Alexandrine catacombs, there are examples of fusions of Egyptian and Greek art, scene here: As the set look right now, the buildings look like they were from the 18th Dynasty, seen in this screenshot. I am not against some structures that are more economic in nature such as granaries, storehouses, and houses retaining these aspects; many native Egyptians remained living a rather native Egyptian lifestyle, but the other aspects need to change if there is to be any effort to maintain an accurate depiction of Ptolemies.

Agreed with Nescio. The simple fact is that Greece (and Rome) had a large impact on the Western civilisation. Even the Ptolemies were essentially Greeks in Egypt. It is just very easy to confuse that fact since the building set, while having a nice aesthetic, is a gross misrepresentation of their Hellenistic culture, instead looking like they were from the New Kingdom. That aside, it is difficult to find many historically significant events or people in history that did not come from Greek words. I would propose Xiphomachaira, or ξιφομαχαιρα, a curved Greek sword. This could be a nice way of highlighting new helmet and weapon variations introduced into the game. Obviously it's basically just xiphos with a few letters added on, but I think that it provides bit more nuance.

I was wondering about the official team statement about the game design. In general, it is fair to say that no one is entirely content with the current design of the game. Everyone obviously has their own idea of how it could be done; for some it is just the addition of a feature or civilisation, yet for others, myself included, they would like to see a more coherent game design present, streamlining the game and making the general vision of the game more original as opposed to the current scope, which seems to be Age of Empires + [placename]. I’m not really trying to give answers for what that should be; I have offered my view already in a number of ways, and others, having ideas which are oftentimes better thought out than my own have made their own proposals. In general though, I have heard no official team response from the ‘reformers.’ Obviously it is difficult to get a consensus on how to change the game, and I am not asking for anything entirely final. Rather, I just want to know what some of the 0 A.D. team members currently think about the issues and their thoughts on the current team’s stance; don’t feel like you have to be codifying some canon statement of the official opinion; I would just like a measure of transparency. To clarify, I have a number of points that tend toward most every discussion: Battalions/combat system: What are the thoughts regarding this feature? Obviously it decreases the possibility of totally microing everything, but the way it could make a much more organic combat system function is alluring. Citizen Soldiers: Some love them; some don’t; others prefer a middle-ground stance. This remains a pretty central part of the original vision of 0 A.D., but is it worth keeping in its current state or in any way at all? Also, is there currently much of an intention to add slaves, who in many cases were the basis of manual labour? Phases: While it makes it possible to easily distinguish the early from mid from late-game, some would find that it is an outdated formula that doesn’t align well with the current design of 0 A.D. Are there plans to make phases more decisive or not exist at all? Clarity of Roles of Resources: Food, wood, stone, and metal, the sacred combination of resources. Is there any intention to potentially make the resources have more specialised purposes to make the game more intuitive or rather attempt to work for a more realistic ideal for how prices function? Ambush Mechanics: As is, there are plans for this to be depicted in some limited way, but how exactly? Is line-of-sight going to be further reduced to allow for players to put more emphasis on having their cavalry screen the area? Is line-of-sight going to become more dynamic like in moba games or Company of Heroes 2 so that obstructions can be places to hide behind? Civilisation Design: Currently there is a general sameness to the way civilisations play despite definite differences in aesthetics. What plans exist for fleshing out the early, mid, and late-game strategies available to each? Is anyone currently working on doing that?

The AI does have some limitations at the moment, yet the end resulting gameplay should not be dictated by the current issues. As the AI develops, it can use better defence algorithms. The AI would still have access to fortresses to assert a major defensive presence and Civic Centres to a lesser extent. Removal of towers would force players to make more strategic placements of their defences due to the large investment required. I will admit that the argument against outposts is less substantial. I find that they offer interesting strategic possibilities for games and it is highly plausible that they were used to some extent; I just am calling to question the fact that 0 A.D. is practically copy and pasting mechanics from Age of Kings with that aspect specifically.

I just wanted to quickly mention that freestanding towers outside of the Roman Empire generally didn't exist, and having them as part of the game aside from just editor buildings would be an inaccurate portrayal of civilisations aside from the Romans. They already have a limited utility with being able to be built only in friendly territory, and walls with their turrets more or less cover that function already. If towers are removed, maps can (and should already) be better designed to allow players to wall since that would be the only viable defence aside from a fortress. Also, outposts in their current iteration are inaccurate as far as I see (I could be incorrect on this matter). I will admit that they provide a fun gameplay options with their line of sight and neutral territory capabilities, however. The only reason that both of these exist is because of former RTS games like Age of Empires having them.

Given how easy it could be to block off that chokepoint, yes.

I'd like corrals to work as they were initially designed and/or scrapping the annoying, micro-intensive animal training mechanic. A lot of the foundations for capturing sheep and other neutral animals are already in place.

Definitely the animations have good visceral look to them. Trees be warned!

One point that you might want to change is the way that the attack is done. Generally in sword fighting (at least from a HEMA perspective) you want to lead with the sword then follow through with the foot. The following, done by a sword and buckler practitioner, shows the general point I am aiming at.

There is some good work to be had here, but your animations currently seem a bit on the unnatural side. The basis for manoeuvring an axe in battle should be from cutting wood, which uses similar principles. In the video series about axemen, the side swipe to demonstrate attacking from the other side was unrealistic. It did not give the axeman much reach, and the attack was slow. This is perfectly natural, however, since the stuntman was aiming to not hurt the otherwise unprotected person. For a note on the one attack done on the axeman's non-dominant side, one of the issues is that the right hand reaches the left hand long before the attack has properly initiated. This means that the grip is experiencing a lot of torque, and since the centripetal force of the axe has not come into play to balance it out, the motion seems extremely unnatural. One animation that could be added for further variety is stabbing with the toe of the axe, a move that is mentioned in various Norse sagas. Keep up the good work!

For Spartans specifically it would be an appropriate type of helmet due to geography and Spartan conservatism.

Some of you might remember this being announced and subsequently cancelled. Well, it's back up. Altogether, it's a pretty fun game, focussing on macro-level playing. I'd recommend checking it out since it's free and browser-based at it's website: https://feudalwars.net

A lot of the reasons for the regrouping is because of the pathfinder. If it is reworked to accommodate formations, that would be the best solution.

Just to respond to some of the criticisms of the system I proposed, I would say that it is as sensible as other alternatives. If it were to be realistic, citizens swapping to the soldier role should go back to their home and rally at a given location. To compare to other options, the idea of using the gatherer>ulfsark mechanic is no better. Weapons and armour appear out of nowhere for that. Also, there is no way of switching back. For that matter, villagers magically summon axes, mining picks, etc. In the case of the timed ability from Warcraft 3, weapons and armour again appear out of nowhere. In the system I proposed, it is not that different. The big change is mainly in that it takes time to switch between roles. If this idea still sounds frustratingly exploitable, I think that it is within reason to have some malus applied to citizen soldiers when they are outside of friendly territory (Technology could possibly change that in the mid-game.). To summarise, 'packing' seems to me to be a sensible marriage between realism and gameplay and should be considered since in many cases for civilisations of 0 A.D., they had no standing army, and it took time to mobilise their forces. There might be some ways it could be improved, yet it is a legitimate option in my opinion.

So I just wanted to give some clarifying comments on how the proposed 'packing' system should work for citizen soldiers. First, if a player does not scout properly and is rushed having no information about it, should they be punished? Yes. However, the extent of the punishment depends on their reactions. Perhaps some units could be damaged, but the assumption behind that system was that a battalion system would be used. If this was implemented, there would not be too much unnecessary micro the player would have to do. The battalion could be damaged, yet since this is the early game and units would not be able to easily one shot other units, the cost would not be extreme. Also since villages are incapable of fielding significant numbers of horsemen, a cavalry rush should not be a concern during this phase. Compared to the timed system or just a quick conversion, I would contend that this would be a fair balance between realism and gameplay; it would also encourage players to actively scout and create interesting strategic situations. A mechanic I would compare it to is the packing and unpacking of siege weapons. There are frustrations when a trebuchet is not well defended, but in the end, it is considered a reasonable mechanic. One point that seems to be misunderstood is the idea of mercenaries. I am well aware of how mercenaries are currently put in the game, and I would contend that it is not a proper system. Mercenaries were hired to fight, and maybe build rudimentary defences. Carthage, as I see it, would be able to train local mercenaries that would have no economic capabilities at the onset of the game. The general point I am making is that yes, citizen soldiers in their current form should not be used, but it would be possible (albeit harder) to balance if they existed in a different form even if other civilisations do not have them.