Prodigal Son

Both Seleucids and Ptolemies used military colonies, but it was more common for the Seleucids, who used them not only to make an army of non-natives (something both preferred as dynasties on foreign soil), but also as a much needed means of spreading combat-ready levies over a vast territory.On the other hand, not only the Ptolemies were an economic powerhouse, but the Seleucids as well. They controlled, for most of the dynasty's duration, the majority of the most important ancient trade routes, including the silk road (add to that the fertile Mesopotamia). And while all their fancy units may point to a purely militaristic faction, most of their wars (much like the Ptolemies) were defensive ones or against rebelling provinces. Both dynasties fielded relatively small armies as well, compared to their controlled territory size. So both should be balanced between military/economy, with a slight focus on navy and defenses for the Ptolemies (relied on garrisoned forts/towns and fleets for most of their wars) and on land armies for Seleucids (preferred decisive field battles mostly).I'm not sure how you guys figure out that (all?) Ptolemaic mercenaries where made settlers. Does the author claim this? From my impression on what I've read, they mostly went to gather mercenaries in times of war, which indicates short term service and not settlers. Sure they'd have mercenaries turned settlers (most factions actually did, even Spartans in their late years), but all of them or a vast majority, no.So imo this leaves way for two representations: Seleucids and Ptolemies realistically sharing many traits (like the military settlements) which holds true but makes for less diversity.The direction things are taking now. Seleucid focus on settlers (because they had more of them*), Ptolemaics on mercenaries (because they had more of them). Makes sense without going too far unhistorical (most factions don't get many things they had due to balance reasons anyway) and adds more faction diversity.* If you want to challenge this, try figuring out why the Ptolemies eventually had to train natives for about half of their phalanx to rival the Seleucid one in numbers.

Hi, some nice work there Stico:) However since they don't exactly match something in the game or the exact artstyle, I'm not sure they would fit, or at least not all of them. Someone from the team could know better though.

It could very easily depend on the unit, for more variety. Also, having many champions (which usually are more expensive) also restricts your economy as you have less gatherers, so already each choice has pros and cons. Making them less cost effective as well wouldn't fit in well imo. Neither makes perfect sense historically. Some ancient armies were largely professional or based on cores of elite troops rather than a huge army of militia with a few elites. Some elite units were more cost effective than average troops, scoring victories vs seemlingly impossible odds, while other ones were not and got overwhelmed by lesser units. So the choice should be up to the player instead of almost forcing them to have mostly citizen soldiers and there could also be a variety of cost effectiveness as a balancing/historical flavor factor. Anyway I suggested improved cost effectiveness rather than balanced one for the Briton chariot, to keep it weaker than scythed ones as it should, while worth as a champion at the same time. AOE 2 has some champions weaker but cheaper than normal units and it works.

I can't remember the stats/prices now but it makes sense to me that a heavy scythed chariot should be stronger than a simple one. Could make the Briton one more cost effective to validate it as a champion though. However, as I've said again chariots are a bit strange for me currently. In the game's timeframe they were more of an outdated leftover from older times, and in almost all battles in the era they behaved poorly. I wouldn't have them rank up with new horses and different cart skeleton appearing out of thin air, nor as champion units since they weren't effective enough to justify it. One-rank unit like the spartan skyrites, with high trample damage (second only to elephants) but very easy to run amok would do.

Not bad:) My take on the subject (what could fit on a short hardcore punk song and unfortunately no recording yet): Life After Debt There's nothing but air in your pockets All that you've had, you've lost in a day You look back to days you felt comfort and vanity Indulged in pretension and gratifying ignorance Your culture's erosion Your conscience's a burden The shame that you bear Is avarice and apathy All that you never confront And all that you dream in the dark Never tried to make it stop Never fought but for yourself You're caught in the wake, caught in the wake Never tried to make it stop Now seek saviors in your scourge You're caught in the wake, caught in the wake You've been conservative And now you're buried ever deeper in your @#$% You change your dirty so-called friends By circumstantial needs You speak of devotion To ethics beyond Our humanly worth Excuses and solace While all you need to see is You are the hand that feeds Never tried to make it stop Never fought but for yourself You're caught in the wake, caught in the wake Never tried to make it stop Now seek saviors in your scourge You're caught in the wake, caught in the wake

It won't work this way. Some minor cost/effectiveness imbalance could work as faction bonuses/debonuses, to add historical flavor when applicable, but certainly not on this scale. For example 10% cheaper (than their balanced cost) elephants for the Mauryans, 15% stronger champion cavalry for the Macedonians, or 20% faster trained swordmen for the Romans could work. Something simular is already in game if I'm not mistaken, for example spearmen of the same cost having slightly different stats for different factions.

There are also claims (not sure if there are also facts on this) that there were a larger sub-species of indian elephants used in war, now extinct, even larger than the biggest african elephants. So elephant size and power is a tricky one to balance. Since ptolemaic elephants flead before the seleucid ones anyway, most likely would be (ranked by size): 1) Seleucid/Mauryan Indian Elephants 2) Ptolemaic African Elephants 3) Carthaginian (Forest) African Elephants

I find the current way of building kinda realistic. A barracks or fort would almost always be built near owned lands or new colonies (new civ centers here), not at a random spot in the middle of nowhere. From a gameplay perspective both choices have pros and cons.

Welcome Jack:) Your defeat could be what you said, or you can always lower the AI difficulty if you retry and still get beaten. Do you have any previous experience with other RTS games? You can join the multiplayer lobby for online games, from the game menu.

Yup, that's the word I was trying to find Sanderd and after hearing how it works, your solution is probably better.

A simple fix would be to increase their "footprint" to their actual model size so they can't overlap each other for almost half of their size.

Made me think, Alpha XVI : Pureon, and then, why not, Alpha XVI : Prodigal Son. Stupid jokes aside, Pythagoras and Prometheus sound good to me. Or something more Seleucid related, like Panium (which also includes Ptolemies).

While they look interesting, I think Persian motifs on major buildings (and possibly the color scheme as well) wouldn't be accurate. While parts of the empire certainly maintained their old look/architecture, Seleucid-built towns and structures should have looked more Hellenistic. Not sure what's the best way to keep them different from Greek factions in this aspect and still have them look historically authentic. Maybe Hellenistic style (with minor eastern influences) for major and military buildings and a mix of Hellenistic and Eastern style (maybe as variants and not combined) on civic ones, like houses, storehouses, farmsteads, markets etc.

Nice remake and the roman tower could use a replacement, I'm full for having this in game if it's not already accepted.

Turns out nice:) Not sure about his shirt thought, it doesn't really give an ancient/Celtic feeling to me.

By "all we know about Dorians is them being a part of ancient Greeks" I mean we only have documented accounts of them as migriting and mostly living in the Aegean/Greek region. This does not include all of their background of course, which we don't know currently and might never learn. But what you claim makes no perfect sense, maybe no sense at all, especially the way you support it. Other people moved from the north to Greece as well. Other people moved elsewhere from other regions. See, if I say that Huns, Celts, Turks, Parthians, Mongols, Assyrians, Babylonians and Persians are subgroups of the Ionians or Slavs or Goths, it makes exactly the same amount of sense as saying all those people were subgroups of Dorians.

Even if all those people are somehow related (we all are after all, but I mean them being off-shots of the same large group, to which I can hardly see any evidence), how do you conclude in naming the large group Dorians, while all we know about Dorians is them being a part of ancient Greeks?

So from that quote you end up relating Dorians with so many different people? Based on what?

Many parts of this don't make sense at all. Is that your description of it missing some arguments or you did include every point from the original text?

Programming-wise it shouldn't be hard. A proper concept and balance should be the main issues.

Do you mean they were the first "Greek" settlers? Or the first settlers in general for those regions? The first depends on how you define Greeks. Second one is certainly wrong. On the rest agreed, it's not impossible but it's too hard to know, so we'd better accept we don't know (yet, might find out sometime), rather than make such things appear like facts.

Haven't seen a source for that either. Can't be certain against it, as times before the Dorians reached Southern Greece are actually pre-historic, but I guess that's mostly a theory rather than something with proof.

Dorians were one of various tribes amongst the latest ancient settlers of the Greek region. They certainly wouldn't be the first Greeks, by regional definition. (On "racial" definition don't get me started, most people here in Greece believe in bullshit due to nationalist propaganda). However they were not that many, so if what you say holds true (first time I hear about it though) it's more possible that Dorians were a branch of Celts than the opposite.

Vassals are interesting in RTS, always thought about them missing. Their main features could be a percentage of gathered resources going to their overlord, and possibly the ability for him to train or control some of their troops. Or even reducing their pop cap and adding that amound to the overlord's pop cap. However I'm not sure what's the best way to implement them. Instant defeat if they choose to break off like Lion said (did i get it right?), might be ok-ish as gameplay but not realistic. But then if they can break off, what's the purpose of keeping them instead of annihilating them. It could be somehow desired for exploiting the benefits and then maybe crush them before the totally rebuild though. Or, make them totally fixed for the rest of the match. Overall it could be a nice mechanic but needs a lot of work and balancing.

They are the most balanced and best looking (together with the scenarios, but the later have less host options), so I like them as the first option. Random maps might have more choices, but until texture blending and map generation are improved, they won't look that great (on balance I'm not sure which of them are intended to be unbalanced and which are not). So it's better for the game to promote it's currently best maps. Btw, are the generic Hellenes and Celts updated/rebalanced in line with the main factions? I thought they wouldn't be so I'm skipping the scenarios including them so far.