Jump to content

Thorfinn the Shallow Minded

Community Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Thorfinn the Shallow Minded

  1. Onto the point that Darcreaver makes, I think there is more validity than most of us give credit to.  If there is going to be micromanagement, it should feel meaningful rather than just necessary.  A lot of the Age of Empires economic decisions unfortunately like that, and I'd say that providing better automation to economy would allow for a much more complex system to exist.  

    I'd personally like trade and farming to be better expanded upon.  Farms could gradually eat up the nutrients in soil, decreasing the gathering efficiency and forcing players to have farms planted elsewhere if they want the ground to regain that ability.  Trading shouldn't just be a way to instantly generate resources.  Importing or exporting precious resources or manufactured wares that could provide buffs in addition to setting tariffs could make for a much more immersive experience.  

    That all said, slaves are an important addition.  Having non-citizen residents would be cool as well.


    • Like 1
  2. More just scars all over his body based on speculation.  He died around the age of 84, having fought basically to the end of his life.  I'd expect a few wounds to have shown up in that time.  I can check sometime about more distinct features but can't promise anything detailed.

    • Thanks 1
  3. I'd say that would be the case.  If we want to go super accurate, getting him to have a limp would give extra browny points.  He was apparently short and not handsome, and privately wore a plain cloak.  (See Plutarch's Life on him)  I'd make his equipment plain to represent his embodiment of Spartan values if we are to take Xenophon and Plutarch at face value.

  4. Agis III is a problematic hero to Sparta.  First, his design is sadly lacking.  Having more hitpoints is in no way interesting as it offers no new interesting strategies to the Spartan player other than using him as a beefy hoplite.  This issue is further exacerbated by the fact that the one thing he is famous for, bravely dying in battle to a superior force, is nothing unique or remarkable in comparison to most any other Spartan king.  Leonidas already serves that function.  Finally, 0 AD’s vision is to depict nation-states at the height of their power, not when they were simply a regional bully.  Thus, I think that a different hero should be used.

    Enter Agesilaus, whose force of will affected much of Sparta’s foreign policy following the Peloponnesian War.  He represents a moment in which the city was at the peak of its power before its collapse in the face of Thebes.  

    Thoughts on Potential Abilities:

    Horsemen cost reduction

    (Agesilaus was a firm believer in the use of cavalry, forming one of the first and only effective Spartan cavalry forces.)  

    Attack Aura to melee infantry units

    (Agesilaus was known be a charismatic person, and despite his having a lame leg, he was able to complete his training like other Spartans.  Giving an attack bonus seems like a fair option as a result.)

    Horse Option: Agesilaus can use a form of packing and unpacking to mount on a horse.  This would remove his attack aura if that was implemented at the bonus of extra movement speed.

    (Agesilaus was an adept horseman, relying on that for most of his daily travel.)


    • Like 2
  5. 28 minutes ago, Sundiata said:

    I used to think that Rome-experts were a dime a dozen. I was wrong, lol...  

    I think the main thing is that people who are knowledgeable don't care to admit that they can't give very decisive evidence of its existence or lack thereof, and I don't criticise them for it.  Just saying 'I don't know' does little for the conversation.  It's a niche subject.  Personally I'd say the current iteration just clashes with the Roman aesthetic in a weird way and feels anachronistic.  It's a classical design that has been grafted onto something else with no regard for Roman tastes.  Granted, I'm mainly just approaching this from a matter of personal bias, so don't take any of this too personally or seriously.  

    Just to mention so that I don't sound like a snobbish critic, the other designs look really cool.

  6. Could you say the historical precedent for having the face on the shields?  Naturally that comes from Greek hoplites, but on the scutum it looks off.  I did a quick look on the web and only saw a reenactor using that kind of design.  Personally it seems perhaps a bit too far fetched that someone would paint that on that type of shield, but I'd appreciate some insight from someone more knowledgeable about Roman martial artwork than me.

  7. 32 minutes ago, smiley said:

    I remain skeptical. Aside from identifying constellations and seeing they moved, nothing scientific about it exists. Those two can be classified as astronomy.

    Astronomy did very much exist back then. What Ptolemy did was not astrology. What he did was impressive for the time of a geocentric universe. He even proposed solutions based on science for things the model could not handle. Obviously wrong, but its closer to what science is about.

    Identifying constellations and seeing their how they moved is precisely why it had applications in navigation.  Whether those two can be classified as astronomy, most constellations were named by astrologers.  Although it's not as if priests researched these phenomena for the explicit purpose of finding one's way, but their research had uses.  

    Astronomy during this time period was of course practised most famously in Alexandria, where astronomers such as Hipparchus basically proposed a heliocentric model of the solar system.  This does not however indicate that these natural sciences were of that much use to a common sailor.  Most philosophers were elitists and preferred to keep their findings on an academic level, not for things that could be applied for the masses.  The main point I wish to make is that just because something had scientific methodologies does not mean that it invalidated incidental findings discovered through less scientific approaches.  

  8. Not precisely true.  The two disciplines are about roughly the same subject just with different premises and conclusions.  Astronomy is simply a scientific approach to understanding celestial bodies.  Astrology did primarily have its function in attempting to understand the future, but the contributions it gave were valid for navigation purposes.  Even now we use Greek astrological terms for various geographical locations such as the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn.  Most of the time the scientific experts of these times were priests, and their purposes were many times just as much practical as ceremonial.

  9. Here are just a few ideas for technologies that could be introduced for temples:


    Banking: Temples provide a gradual trickle of metal.  

    Historical justification: Many temples were used for this purpose.  A famous example was the Temple of Artemis at Ephesus.  Probably the Celtic and Iberian factions would not have access to this.  


    Omens: Small boost in line of sight for all units.

    Historical justification: Consulting priests was common before battles.


    Wrath of the Gods (or of God for Monotheistic faiths): Priests give a small attack aura.  Linked with...

    Protection of the Gods: Priests give a small defensive aura.

    Historical justification: Religious figures were often important in imparting a degree of psychological security to soldiers prior to a battle.


    Ceremonial Cleansing: Temples provide a healing aura, and all units get an increase in hit-points.

    Historical Justification: Not all temples were dedicated to healing people, but there were a few examples of these kinds.  As a result, the healing function should not be default in my opinion.


    Sacred Texts: All technologies are cheaper.

    Historical Justification: Religion was an important part of learning in most ancient societies.


    Harvest Festival: Farming output increased.  Priests have aura that helps boosts gathering speed.

    Historical Justification: Most religious holidays were based around agricultural phases in the year, allowing for farmers to more easily know when to plant and harvest.


    Astrology: Ships have more line of sight and move faster.

    Historical Justification: Knowledge of the stars was useful for navigation purposes aside from its religious uses.


    • Like 5
  10. The temple is a generally useless building since it provides only healing.  The priests are likewise problematic; their vulnerabilities and slow speed make them hard to coordinate with many effective troop combinations.  As a result, this build seems to be ignored in most high level play.  While I don't wish for it to be a must build structure, but it should be at least viable in some cases.  Age of Empires II made it a useful building by two ways: first, it could generate income with relics; and second, monks could be used to defend against costly units like knights through their conversion abilities.  

    Conversion can seem cheesy in a game, something practically game-breaking if battalions were introduced, but it makes a valid point: priests should be viable units to train outside of their healing abilities.  Religion played a focal role in life of the ancient times and should not be underplayed.

    One way that temples could be more useful is to introduce patron gods to specific temples.  For example when a temple is built, he player could dedicate it to Athena for a defence and loyalty buff, Poseidon for a horsemen and ship buff, and Hermes for a commerce and movement speed buff in the case of Athens.  There also could be upgrades to improve the abilities of priests beyond healing.  

    Generally though, if there are specific gods available to players unique to each faction, that would of course make balance harder, especially in the case of contrasting the paganistic traditions of most factions to that of the largely monotheistic Zoroastrianism that Persians practised during this time.  Still, I think that an approach like that would be much better than the current iteration of temples and religion.  That said, I would be interested to hear alternatives to this option.

    • Like 5
  11. 4 hours ago, happyconcepts said:

    You complain a lot, much more than I.

    Would you clarify who you mean when you refer to 'you?' All of the comments prior to yours have raised valid points that should be addressed in regards to this topic (In my opinion).  If the complaints are well-founded, I see no reason why they should not be voiced as long as it is done in a respectful tone.  If you have any counter-arguments to anything stated in this thread, I would be glad to hear you out on your concerns.

    • Like 1
  12. Age of Empires had a clear idea of what cavalry in the early game did; it scouted.  I personally enjoyed this since it allowed for something to do during the slower stages of the game.  

    In 0 A.D. scouting is less important, which is okay since the pacing is different.  Due to this, cavalry primarily help bolster the economy.  Since these units are highly capable at food gathering when hunting is easy, it often encourages players to mass cavalry for an eventual early rush.  I'd personally say this feels immersion breaking.  Cavalry were the usually elite, not soldiers that one could expect for a village to field.  That said, I would like to open up discussion for possible alternatives to the current implementation.  Here are a few things I've thought of:

    Have cavalry not hunt or be much more inefficient at it.  This would by far limit their use.

    Make cavalry only trainable in the town phase.  One thing this does that I like is that it still allows for making cavalry a possible but situational hunting unit.  The main downside is that this would make ranged units, unless the meta was changed dramatically, be the dominant type of unit during the village phase in the game.  

    Have an artificial block in place aside from the town phase such as a technology or a building requirement like the corral.  Again this would at least delay their production; I'm just not sure if it would be a meaningful enough change.  


    • Like 2
  13. A more likely case in most scenarios is that sappers constructed machines using available lumber around the area they besieged.  Naturally if the engines were too complicated for field engineers to make on site, I'd say a workshop would be a more likely case.

    • Like 4
  14. 2 hours ago, Nescio said:

    Though in ancient texts chariots (and elephants) were always mentioned separately from cavalry. The pawn, knight, bishop, and rook in modern chess correspond to the foot-soldier, horseman, elephant, and chariot in chaturanga, representing different divisions of Indian armies. Introducing chariot stables would be great, but I don't really expect that to happen.

    The differentiation is valid, but I'd say primarily from a practical military perspective.  As I'm sure you're aware, they had massively different roles in the battlefield.  Having chariots, which required different housing than the typical horseman's, trained at the same building as horsemen is an abstraction but an abstraction I don't mind.  Probably, assuming that chariots would have a viable enough role to justify it, the chariot stables as you mentioned would be the best option for making a decent marriage of sensitivity to historicity and gameplay.

    • Like 1
  15. I'd say the matter of chariots being trained at one place compared to another is more a matter of taste.  Yes the frame would have been made by a carpenter or the like, but that doesn't account for the horses.  It's roughly the same logic as having infantry trained at the blacksmith, where their weapons and armour would be manufactured.  I prefer the stable since it gives a more intuitive logic to the game compared to a building that's generally used for making siege.  

    • Like 1
  • Create New...