[Can we agree on this?]

The thing that you are ignoring is that aside from some basic safety, there is little advantage to be had from killing wildlife since their deaths in no way directly contribute to the victory conditions.  If there was some reward such as food, it would become more plausible to have it done that way.  As such, having the units automatically attack wildlife is a liability.  If there is a low hp unit, they will end up dying due to the player simply marching it too close to a predator.  There are cases in which predators do yield food such as crocodiles in Age of Empires.  Even with this potential benefit though, there are definite risks to fighting against violent animals in the game.  Thus, there is more than only one argument against the current unit behaviour.  

[Can we agree on this?]

I would agree with wow.  The objective rarely has to do with actively killing wildlife in 0 A.D, and making soldiers pursue this automatically seems peculiar.  The wildlife wound them, potentially weakening the troops for the next engagement.  The issue is that there is no actual purpose to killing them other than the point that they might need to be killed later.  What reward does the player get?  A good analogy is from mangonel behaviour in Age of Kings.  Prior to the conquerors expansion, they would actively target enemies regardless of the presence of friendly units.  This could prove disastrous.  For reference, here is a highly informative video depicting the destructive power of mangonels.  

 

[Lack of Eastern]

Bear in mind that many times there have been new factions added even when the benchmark has been set.  At first it was just six.  It expanded a lot from there obviously.  Rest assured; there is the possibility of having new civilisations like Thebes, Syracuse, Pergamon, and the Achaean League because the more Hellenic civilisations, the better.  :) 

[Pacing in 0 A.D.]

I chose pacing because phasing is only a mechanic that affects the pacing of the game.  What is being aimed for is regardless of whether phases exist, there should be a major effort to ensure that the early, mid, and late game are distinct and are able to keep the game reliably interesting.  

Concerning sidearms, I would say that they are viable in particular cases.  Let's consider the Roman legionnaire.  First of all, if they had a javelin side-arm, it would be logical for it to be a special attack that can only be done every thirty seconds or so.  After all, they only did one or two volleys during a given battle.  Next of all, in comparison to Velites, they should be slower, more expensive to produce, and have lower line-of-sight.  The possibility of legionnaires being able to use pila should probably only be available in the mid-game as well.  Will mechanics like this make balance difficult and more complex?  Yes, but with a dedicated team and community, progress can be made for a competitive multiplayer game.  

One example of a game that really pushed the bounds when it came to a solid multiplayer experience was Empires Apart from a design perspective alone (There are definite issues with the game in other ways, yet that is a different matter).  Of their six civilisations, there were extremely unique aspects to all of them.  From the multiplayer games I saw, these came together is a fun game to play from that standpoint alone.  

[Pacing in 0 A.D.]

Precisely.  Obviously the spearman is only the tip of the iceberg here; my hope is to shed light on the idea that all unit types can be tailored to general, but the way that they vary from one faction to the next allows enough diversity to make a variety of strategies possible for every civilisation.

[Pacing in 0 A.D.]

I would say that phases are an unnecessary aspect of the game.  The primary point I wished to make is that if phases exist, there should be a definite difference between the feel of one to the next.  Furthermore, the primary thing that I wished (and still wish) to have is a proper feeling of unique early, middle, and late game.  

The spearman actually is an intriguing element of the game since the roles could differ quite strongly from one civilisation to the next.  For instance, the hoplite was heavily armed and fought in close order.  The Persians deployed their infantry with significantly lighter armour (until they started arming soldiers like hoplites).  In general, the tactics Persians tried to use seemed focussed around the notion of anvil and hammer tactics, with the cavalry playing the decisive role while the infantry mainly just supported.  This can be seen in the Battle of Guagemela, where Darius was deliberate about the chariots being the trump card by even preparing the ground ahead of time.  The point is that these infantry were extremely different in how they were used.  

I decided to do a bit of research, and checking on the Athenian hoplite compared to the Persian spearman, there was absolutely no difference in their stats.  The fundamental idea that they both could be effectively deployed against cavalry in head-to-head situations is valid, but there should be distinctions, which I find the striking visual differences do imply.  

[Pacing in 0 A.D.]

All part of my evil masterplan to confound you [insert evil emoji].  In seriousness, though, I wanted to avoid an unnecessary amount of text crunched together and still like the aesthetics of indentation in paragraphs; I also am fond of the eclectic French tastes concerning that matter.  In regards to sanitation, the point is to make it seem like there is something great occurring with the next phase; it should feel rewarding.  While many games seem to naïvely adhere to the Whig Theory of history (things continue to get more sophisticated and better), the important thing is that phases should not just be another technology you press.  If this was a city-building game in which sanitation was an in game mechanic, I would by all means stand by that position.

[Pacing in 0 A.D.]

     While pacing is most of the time associated with movies or books, most games have a similar format, but the structure can vary from one to the next.  In many this can be due to artificial barriers.  Are these barriers necessarily bad?  Not really, but the important thing for most games that take longer than five minutes is to have a distinct feel to what could be called the early, mid, and late-game.  The most familiar example to many would be Age of Kings, which had ages serving that purpose.  Assuming that all of you are acquainted with some of the strategies of the game, I will simply point out that it offered diverse options from doing a dark age rush, turtling, and then going fast castle often to do a knight rush or just boom; alternatively one could aim for a faster feudal age, and then do a feudal age rush, which most of the time consist of archers or scout cavalry and then going to castle age at a later point, usually hoping that the map control could pay off.  There were many variations to these, but the point I want to make is the fact that there were fairly diverse options for every civilisation.  
    
    Unfortunately, I do not see the current iteration of the game having these options.  To clarify, I understand that the game is in alpha and such things cannot be expected to existed in any full-fledged state.  Still, I find it disconcerting that no one has been able to better define viable strategies for each civilisation.  A pressing issue is the fact that in its current state, 0 A.D, with unique aesthetics, implies that each civilisation will have extremely unique gameplay mechanics on par with games like Starcraft, but when looking on paper, the spearman of one civilisation, although drastically differing in armament and historical context, is practically identical.  This ultimately makes 0 A.D. seem like false advertising; its visuals are almost as different from one culture to the next as in Age of Mythology, yet the gameplay does not follow this.  

    I am not going to say what each civilisation should be like right here and now.  I don’t know enough about many cultures outside of Persia, Hellas, Italy, and the Hellenistic states.  What I do want to argue is that there should be an intentional way allowing civilisations doing things such as rushing, booming, and turtling to some capacity and also in a way that plays to its historical strengths and weaknesses.  Obviously there could be exceptions; Sparta seems impossible to viably turtle with.  What this can broadly mean though is a better attempt at designing things such as the tech tree and phases to fit to encouraging interesting options for all civilisations and then with a stable foundation like that, refining the ideas behind each one.

    One other note to be made is that there should be a feeling of reward to advancing a phase.  These currently feel like some of the most lack-luster aspects of the game.  First, I would advise making them be named things that are more thematic.  Village, town, and city seem matter-of-fact.  I would recommend basing it around legal reforms such as “Code of Laws” and so on and so forth; there could be other ways of doing this, but the main point is that there should be some theme behind them, not just what seems like a placeholder name.  Also, there should be some fanfare or sound when someone advances to a new phase to signify that something great has taken place.  If at all possible, there could even be variations in the music tracks give them slightly thicker musical textures when possible in the subsequent phases.  Lastly although changing the models each phase might be difficult, there could be as simple of changing the textures to look dirtier and staler in the village phase to more vibrant colours in the later phases.

[Watch out with user Canario1312]

This seems to be the correct forum for this topic to me.

[Hypaspists and armaments]

My bad with the terminology.  It seems that I was mistakenly looking at a section referring to caetrati which also eludes to hypaspists.  The point that I wish to make is a small distinction.  Hypaspists according to my findings were heavily armed compared to peltasts, but less so than other phalangites.  Essentially the point is that they seem to have served an intermediary role in the battlefield that would be cumbersome for others.  Why prefer this to simply labelling them as the Macedonian variation of the hoplite, which seems to be the other camp for academics?  First, it seems that, as I have hopefully shown, there is a moderately good amount of support for this.  Why ardently take one side when the other position also has a good basis?  Obviously it would be academically compromising to assert entirely that hypaspists were clearly armed in one way when the primary sources do not give an explicit description of their equipment.  The main reason is to provide a consistent gameplay depiction of these units, which as I see would be designed to be used in a historically informed manner based on the tactics by which Alexander used them.  

I wish that I could say that I found more sources, but I haven't bothered looking for more.  As much as I would like to show some pictures of hypaspists, the photos from that time are a bit low quality, but here are some extremely accurate versions of hypaspists from the critically acclaimed game Age of Empires Online.  

 

[Hypaspists and armaments]

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.

[Hypaspists and armaments]

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.

[Hypaspists and armaments]

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.

[Hypaspists and armaments]

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.  

[New Civ - Israelites?]

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.

[Packing and Unpacking Rams and Siege Towers]

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.

[Packing and Unpacking Rams and Siege Towers]

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.   

[Packing and Unpacking Rams and Siege Towers]

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. 

[Naval Gameplay]

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.

[Ptolemies and Architecture]

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.

[Ptolemies and Architecture]

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.

[Alpha 24 name suggestions]

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.

[What is the Team's Vision of the Game Design?]

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?

[Towers and Outposts]

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.

[Towers and Outposts]

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.