Thorfinn the Shallow Minded

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.

There has been a lot of discussion of how the meta of 0 A.D is haphazard, with typically only one strategy dominating the game. These points have merits, but while buffing and nerfing a single type of unit may seem like the best/easiest option, it seems better to look at the units in the context of which faction they are in since there should be a large difference between the functionality of a Roman Triarius to that of a Mauryan counterpart. Thus, I would like to use a single civilisation, Sparta, as a general template for this approach. The focus will basically be on the units, but the changes should affect other parts of the game. As another note, I will be using generic names to make the article more user-friendly. Please understand that my intention is not to make completely formed document but instead a base by which others can provide feedback; my hope is that some of this would see presence in the base game, but regardless, this approach should lead to a better purposed approach to both design and balance. There are limitations to this since 0 A.D. does not depict development chronologically, but my hope is that this method is a reasonable balance between the dynamics of history and gameplay. Village Phase Units: Spartan Hoplite In considering how to make Sparta, having the most prominent unit type withheld until the late game seems an absurd choice. Rather, this unit should play a central role throughout the game for Sparta. Training: Although the player would start with one Spartan, training more would require the construction of the mess hall, a building that trains heroes and provides the basis of upgrades to the Spartan units. After this structure has been completed, Spartan hoplites would be able to be trained at the Civic Centre. Spartan hoplites have long training times, which can be quickened with later technologies, but in general, this unit would be difficult to mass. Besides boasting a large defense, one of the biggest advantages would be a decently ranged aura to buff friendly mêlée infantry units' attack and defense. By researching the technology "Tyrtaean Hymns," the slow Spartan movement could be increased to allow them to better match the speeds of faster units. On the other hand, "Squires" would allow this aura to affect helots, making them significantly better at fighting. Later upgrades could make Spartans cause a fear aura, make their train time much faster, or simply buff their stats. Simply speaking, the player could have a great deal a freedom in customizing their Spartans to the needs of their game. Spartan Women: Women in the current meta are weak and vulnerable units. The same should not be said for Spartan Female units. With a faster movement speed and higher hp pool, these units should be able to better hold out against raiding until help arrives. Aside from building defensive buildings, they should offer an inspirational aura that makes helot units perform much better when fighting in their territory. Nonetheless, this makes them only support units albeit valuable ones. The only disadvantage they, like the Spartan hoplite, would suffer from is a long training time. Women would be trained at the Civic Centre only. Helots: Making up the next part of the Spartan roster, Helots should play a central but unique role that reflects their class. Helots would be strictly armed workers, wearing only the lightest equipment. Like the aforementioned units, they would only be trained at the Civic Centre but at a faster rate. When fighting alone in friendly territory, they would be mediocre at best, but outside, they would be only cannon-fodder unless Spartans with the right upgrades were nearby. In the later phases, a technology could be researched to free specific ones for a certain cost, making the freed helots significantly better in combat and lacking the penalties in neutral and enemy territory. They would benefit, as already mentioned, from the presence of specific units. Skiritae: Yes this unit would be available at the village phase and would be the only unit trainable at the barracks during this phase. It would retain all the features it currently possesses. Its main value would be as a harrassing unit at this point, but it could also be used to deal with raiding units your opponent would field. It would benefit from Spartan auras, making sending a Spartan hoplite in conjunction with a raid an excellent choice for heavier damage. In later parts of the game, this unit could see action in raids but as other units become more efficient with this function and Skiritae benefit from fighting near Spartans, their role would become one of bolstering flanks of formations. Town Phase: Periokoi: Like the Spartan hoplite, this would be a frontline unit, but despite its lacking powerful auras and the large stats of Spartan hoplites, they would be a force to be reckoned with, almost on par with standard Athenian hoplites, and potentially better if a Spartan hoplite is with them. Their gather rates would be decent, not as good as helots but better than Skiritae, but the main advantage would be the ease by which they could be massed. These would be trained at the barracks. Boetian Allied Cavalry: These units would be expensive but potentially powerful even in small numbers. Unlike the Skiritae, which are both shock and frontline troops, Allied Cavalry would only be shock troops. This would require researching Boetian Alliance, however. These cavalry would be spear cavalry and trained at the barracks for the standard cost plus some metal. Altogether, I would see this as more of a force to field if an enemy uses a mainly ranged unit composition or as a means of harassing some workers. City Phase: Spartan Pikemen: In the final phase there would be the option to reform the Spartan military, modernizing it. The results would be that Spartan hoplites would be transformed into the following unit, making their training time significantly faster while still retaining powerful stats. The aura they formerly had would be gone though, and they would be expensive to maintain in production for very long. If timed correctly though, a Spartan player could beeline to this technology, hoping to quickly overwhelm their opponents. This could be just one of a few options for how Spartan hoplites could evolve. If the player wished to maintain quality over quantity, they could research a technology that favors the aristocrats. Yet another path could be a way of getting some of both things, allowing @#$% sons to be legitimized. Since each of these could favor specific unit compositions, it would allow the player to operate with that framework in mind, having build orders that could play to the different strengths. Olynthian Skirmisher Cavalry: As technologies could gradually make Boetian cavalry more purposes towards supporting Spartan phalanxes, this unit could arise as a potential trash unit as resources dwindle and raiding becomes a matter of resource efficiency. These units would be cheap due to them being levies of allies have an average training time. While they would be pretty squishy, their speed and affordability would be their selling point as resources grow scarce.

I think that Horus should be replaced with Isis. The Isis Cult was a far reaching religion that embodies Ptolemaic culture; elements of Isis are incorporated into Hellenistic religion, much like the case of Serapis.

I'll admit that the current system is a bit messy. That's to be expected since the larger plans of implementing in depth combat, charging, and other integral parts of the game have not come to fruition. Strictly speaking, counters do not have be in the game, and even with counter systems, there is not always as fluid and desirable gameplay as we would like. Also, there are variations between civilisations. A hoplite should seem extremely different from Persian Sparabda (forgive me if I misspelled it.) The former should be slow and heavily armoured, very difficult to kill with ranged weapons or any other weapon from the front and have a long training time to represent the rigorous regimen any soldier needing to take up this position would require. The latter would be quick to train since they were probably levies and only a disposable meatshield to allow more efficient troops like cavalry to eliminate the enemy. Thus, it would be easier to look at units individually from one faction to the next and through that figure out how each unit should be used.