Thorfinn the Shallow Minded

Actually it shouldn't. If a civilisation lacks citizen soldiers, they should have an alternative unit dedicated to military purposes in the early game. For Carthage for instance, this could be a local mercenary. The idea would be that they would generally field quality over quantity. As for the packing idea, maybe it might make some good trade offs, but realise that in the early game or most RTS games, the purpose of raiding is twofold: to disrupt the economy of the enemy and to kill units. Each second they spend not collecting resources is a gain for the raider, and every defending unit's death is to the attacker's advantage. Yes, loot is a point of it, but the primary purpose to begin with is simply to force idle time (Economic units not doing their said task.) The packing could take a fair amount of time. As reference: That silliness aside, obviously it shouldn't take too much time, but it would penalise players who do not properly scout and give the attackers a window in which no one is defending. Obviously, this case is for more complex suits of armour and makes the assumption that that a person would not work in heavy armour while carrying their weapons. You said that it would be too penalising, but it should penalise players whose soldiers have been caught with their pants down.

Actually, when incorporating citizen soldiers, it would just be important to distinguish them. To argue that every citizen was equal would be wrong, and those that did not have the time to train would be significantly worse than others, being more like citizens who were given weapons at the moment (Take velites or the Athenian slinger.). As you get to more powerful (from a combat standpoint) citizen soldiers, they would perform all economic tasks much less efficiently. Obviously too, the trade off of building these units is that they usually cost a lot compared to training women or slave units. Also, there is the 'packing' attribute I mentioned earlier. Civilisations with no citizen soldiers could enjoy their own advantages like better economies and generally more powerful military units.

I would personally advocate for historical accuracy being the basis for the continued existence or discontinuation of citizen soldiers. The truth is that this type of phenomenon did occur in history, but I dislike the way it is found in 0 A.D. Working while armed is absurd. If a player wants a citizen changed to a soldier, they should have a "packing" effect like siege weapons in which they change from one role to the other. This would make raiding much more possible as there would be a window of attack. Should all civilisations have it? No. Cultures such as Carthage, which primarily relied on mercenaries, and ones like the successor states had professional armies, should have a completely different system. In later stages of the game things could change for these cultures, but the core design should be around them not having these and vice versa for citizen soldier civilisations (*cough* Marian Reforms). The important thing about having a flexible unit like a citizen soldier is giving the civilisations that have them a trade off so that that feature is not exploited. If people think that militia were ineffective, I would remind them that the Roman military machine during the Republic operated that way. Another point to make is that there could be ways to level up soldiers. On the topic of Rome, assuming that battalions are used, a group of citizens would first be mobilised as just velites. By drilling them, they could be hastati, followed by princeps, and lastly triarii.

Obviously though, there are compromises that can be made for the game. If battalions were introduced, a lot of the existing systems could still be in game but simply with more automation. Individual trees could be replaced by forest patches you assign a crew of workers to harvest from. All sources could be infinite, with the limitation primarily being the gather rate. Resources could be potentially permanently exhausted by assigning additional crews to harvest them at a faster rate, but that practice would have to be used with caution. Pathfinding could be simplified to make formation travel much simpler just by making the obstructions clear. In general though, I think that you have made good analyses of the sub-genres of RTS 0 A.D. could draw on.

One thing that has to be considered that is important is that while adding features that come of as cool is nice, a streamlined intuitive system is necessary for an RTS when people have a limited timeframe to make decisions. If we want to have battles that are rewarding to micromanage, it is necessary to automate other types of systems. That is what made games such as Call of Duty so great to play; players, in focussing on the battles could boost their economy since their basis of supply was built entirely around how much territory they controlled. Age of Mythology also, in making its game, realised that adding favour as a resource required another resource to be cut from the system.

All the same, basic overarching design decisions can be made by the team; specifics would have to probably be left to one person, but a general vision is worth exploring.

One thing to point out is that having both Attic and Koine pronunciations is valid since the Macedonians, Seleucids, and Ptolemies should use that. On that note though, shouldn't Spartans use Doric Greek? There are some phonological differences.

Valid point, wow. The concept I was going after was having two kinds of barracks: one for provincials and the other for immortals. In my opinion Immortal production feels restricted with only one building. The training time can be reduced at the cost of a technology, but that decreases the quality of immortals as well. Immortals should be easier to mass despite a higher cost. One of the appeals I find to it being a provincial barracks is the introduction of different levies from across the empire, which are described in vivid detail by Herodotus. An archery range could be a requirement for levying archers. The thing I find appealing is the idea of training Ethiopian longbowmen, Bactrian axemen, or Lydian javelinists. All of them had unique apparel that should be evident to player, and putting them into a barracks that gives a basis for that would potentially be a good way of explaining why they look so different. To an extent, it's like Carthage's embassies put into one place. Granted, it would be possible to simply have a provincial barracks, archery range, and stable.

A while ago I wrote a concept for making playing Sparta seem more thematic through redesigning some of its core mechanics, giving it distinct early, middle, and late game options to explore. As the response was…not too responsive, I haven’t bothered refining it. Regardless, I want hopefully continue the conversation of increasing the options various factions offer from one game to the next by turning to the subject of Persia, which I find to be misrepresented. First I’d like to first explain the organisation of the Persian army. The numerical majority of forces in the army were provincial levies. These forces were typically not very disciplined and would serve as cannon fodder in many cases. The second kind of soldiers were practically a professional force that mainly consisted of Persians, Immortals. They were infantry, consisting of 10,000 men of which 1,000 were an elite force called Apple-Bearers, the best. In general, this force was a capable army, but the Apple-Bearers were the greatest of them (As a source, I would recommend reading “Immortals and Apple Bearers: Towards a Better Understanding of Achaemid Infantry Units” by Michael B. Charles.). Finally, the nobility formed arguably the best of the Persian military: the cavalry. Thus, having established this, I would propose that there be a provincial barracks. This would serve to train the levies, who would work as citizen-soldiers. Since they would never be professional and drill often, these units should not accrue experience. Their role should be primarily economic, but also should be excellent for dying for the greater good. The Immortal infantry would have two modes, archer and spearman. Hypothetically it could just be a unit that can switch between weapons. Either way, they should be able to beat most citizen soldier infantry, but be beaten by other champion infantry in straight fights. Their advantage would lie in decent reliability alongside multi-purpose roles. Naturally, being a standing army, immortals would be of the champion class. The Apple-bearer could be a number of things. For instance, Immortals could gradually gain experience until they promote into them. Alternatively, they could be a specialised unit that only is trained in one building. Either way, the Apple-Bearer's role should be roughly identical to that of the Immortal, only being much better at it. Finally, cavalry would remain largely the way they are, possibly starting at level two at the cost of a longer training time to reflect their elitism. Thanks for reading my ideas on the subject, and I'd like to know yours.

I suppose that the source does answer that in part. Since Herodotus states that the scales were like that of a fish, it's pretty easy to ascertain what they were shaped like.

I wouldn't call this proof that you're wrong (Herodotus isn't exactly the most reliable source.), but according to him: Now these were the nations that took part in this expedition. The Persians, who wore on their heads the soft hat called the tiara, and about their bodies, tunics with sleeves of divers colours, having iron scales upon them like the scales of a fish. Their legs were protected by trousers; and they bore wicker shields for bucklers; their quivers hanging at their backs, and their arms being a short spear, a bow of uncommon size, and arrows of reed. They had likewise daggers suspended from their girdles along their right thighs. Otanes, the father of Xerxes' wife, Amestris, was their leader. This people was known to the Greeks in ancient times by the name of Cephenians; but they called themselves and were called by their neighbours, Artaeans. It was not till Perseus, the son of Jove and Danae, visited Cepheus the son of Belus, and, marrying his daughter Andromeda, had by her a son called Perses (whom he left behind him in the country because Cepheus had no male offspring), that the nation took from this Perses the name of Persians. This comes from his 7th book around 21 or so. There are also descriptions of other nations who fought for the Persians that could be fun to introduce as easter eggs or as trainable units.

I have never heard of Mauryans employing camels in military. The Seleucids seem to have at one point: the Battle of Magnesia, but they only deployed five hundred Arab camel archers, making it unlikely that they employed them in large numbers. Like the Dahae cavalry archers, these should be represented in the small numbers for situational purposes. I would recommend either making the player have to tech into them, have a long train time, or be expensive. The Persians did use them a bit when Cyrus was attacking Lydia.

I would personally suggest that the Lydians be represented as a separate civilisation. They were for a long time a potent military and economic power. Also, it would be anachronistic to have the Old Kingdom Egyptians present in the game since their time was long gone 2000 B.C. The Hebrews also present a problem chronologically for the 2000-1446 B.C. section since they were not much of a political entity.

They would probably just rely on Periokoi or some foreigners. I would personally say that the latter is a much more likely case since cavalry were generally the wealthier stratum of society. I would personally say that Olynthian Allied Cavalry would be plausible since they were employed during the Corinthian Wars.

Another relevant thing to consider adding is walking empty animations. In that sense, when units are assigned an economic role, they walk using the implements they are using for the task even if they have no resources.

Bear in mind that the 'hippeis' title was from an earlier date probably before hoplites were deployed by and large. If I am not mistaken, this group was not mounted at all. Rather, they were simply the best of the best, being deployed on the right flank with one of the kings. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spartan_army

I like the aesthetics and such, but what is the idea from a gameplay standpoint, or is it just an editor building?

I would not put in too much colour though. Dyes were expensive in that time and were generally reserved for wealthier segments of the population.

My advice would be to not go too far with making the syssition and the gymnasion similar. The former is basically just a glorified cafeteria.

I can't resist.

Strictly speaking, there is little to no historical evidence of the Amazons existing, only foreign writings.

I would have to question the idea behind workers for the Ptolemies being able to fight. They were basically serfs with no rights; why would it make sense either historically or mechanically to have them fight? Regarding exotic animals fighting, that also seems ahistorical.

While you have good evidence and the argument is sound, I would personally see it a different ways. First, Sparta was not unique in being formerly a collection of smaller villages that banded together. That is typically the way that ancient urbanisation occurred in Greece and Etruria. Considering its centralised government, it was just about as unified as cities like Syracuse or Athens. While Sparta did not offer the most aggressive policy in the during the Persian Wars, its habits changed following the Peloponnesian Wars. Much of the time it kept itself busy enforcing oligarchic ideologies on city-states and even heading campaigns against Persia. Definitely this changed following the Battle of Leuctra, but they even had their shot at rising to power through the work of Cleomenes III... which was promptly crushed. Regardless, my hope is for an open-ended design of how players can adapt their play-styles. Definitely there is a focus to Sparta; it is an infantry-centric civilisation, but my hope is that despite that fact, it would remain a potent force that does not always necessitate a passive strategy.

Very true. There are some ideas I had in mind for how the economy and defences could more uniquely function for Sparta, but I have not had the time to put that on paper.

Good questions. As for walls, there is a simple reason that Sparta lacks walls in 0 A.D. They didn't have walls. Granted, later on the city had city walls, but much of what 0 A.D. strives to do is depict civilisations at their prime, and during Sparta's prime, they had none; rather, men were their walls. As for other effects of the reforms, I haven't developed my vision of Sparta much beyond what you see there, but I could see room for other aspects. In the case of @#$% ( not born in wedlock) sons being legitimised (which was a consideration), that could have profound effects on Sparta's economy. During this time of Sparta, the city was experiencing many problems, for although all Spartans had equal rights, gradually some wealthier families acquired land, depriving others. At the cost of potentially weakening your Spartans, there could be technology that makes Sparta a better booming civilisation.