Prodigal Son

Could work this way. I like the idea of Seleucids (or successor in general) founding Civ Centers only with their heroes, it's quite close to reality. Another idea that came to mind is giving all factions a mercenary/auxiliary camp, but limited to 1, which will train all available mercenaries each faction had. Then the Carthaginians (and Ptolemies?) could have the ability to build more mercenary camps to represent their focus. Or Ptolemies could have Greek + Native + Mercenary barracks. Military Settlements could have another weakness instead, since one of their main points was actually to be a form of loyal defenders at the founded spot and they had quite capable military units. Units produced there could be able to work only on farms (the land granted for their services, as this should be their only occupation besides combat). So the player would either have a portion of his farms on newer, less defended/frontline regions, or have to move other units there to work on more resources. Might be a bit confusing though with some citizen soldiers not being able to work on any resource like the rest.

I actually liked the first one better, you could work on that one and slightly change the shield as LordGood suggested.

Those three articles could provide great ideas on improving the successor states' armies both on authenticity and gameplay: SeleucidsMacedonPtolemiesThey have quite a lot of detail on unit types and equipment, overall and periodic strategies, balance between professional, levy and mercenary troops, navies etc and they seem very accurate to me. Edit: I've read them two or three days ago, but some highlights on top of my head and suggestions accordingly (trying not to repeat my suggestions on page 1): Seleucids: Catafracts could be a late game non-champion unit or even better an upgrade of the citizen spear cavalry, as the article suggests that they where an update of the line heavy cavalry while companions/agema remained the elite standing cavalry. Seems valid to me since their numbers at the battle of Magnesia are much larger than those of the royal cavalry.They actually relied more on settlers than the Ptolemies and far less on mercenaries, besides Cretan Archers and Galatians. They could have a Galatian cavalry unit if Ptolemies get an infantry one, for variety. Wikipedia has the Galatian cavalry as the Seleucid cataphracts in Magnesia but that seems wrong in many ways.Macedon: Cavalry declines, phalanx grows bigger (and heavier later on), many new unit types, but mostly relied on mercenaries, besides in times of dire need, to spare the now limited locals who have been drained by constant wars and immigration to the east and Egypt.Could give them the Thracian Black Cloak unit at the Civ Center (makes a nice combo of mercenaries/vassal levies with Thessalians and Agrianians) and move the phalanx only to the barracks, to simulate a mercenary army until "major" war times. This could also make for an early Philip scenario, with only cavalry and light troops before the foundation of the phalanx.Later companions, or "sacred squadron" seem to be a heavy skirmishing cavalry instead of a lancer force, probably to preserve the now small Macedonian nobility. They probably weren't that warlike and brave anymore either, at Pydna they didn't even try to fight, probably preferring to stay as a subdued but ruling class instead of risking death.So the true elite of late Macedon are the royal peltasts/agema a phalanx force able to fight in other roles as well.Thyreophoroi could be added, as well as kestros slingers, a special late slinger unit that could even be made a champion for some variety.All of the above might not be that valid if Macedon in game represents Alexandrian Macedon, but I think it's more interesting to have the faction span a bit of a time period, like it's the case with most other factions.Ptolemies: They relied too much on mercenaries. I know it's a Carthage trait for the game but we could consider something similar for them.Added to that or instead of it they could have two versions of the settler camp, one "Hellenistic Military Colony" with Greek/Macedonian/Thracian/Galatian units and one "Native Military Colony" with Machimoi/Ethiopian/Nubian/Nabatean units. Then the Seleucids could get the Hellenistic one as well with some extra tech for reduced training time to simulate them having more settlers. Likewise, the Ptolemies could get an equivalent tech for the native one (or it could even become a general successor trait with a thracian one for macedonians)Then the ptolemies could train machimoi phalanx on the native and grecomacedonian phalanx on the hellinistic one. Town center could get some hellenistic light troops like thyreophoroi (mercenaries?), citizen levy cavalry etc.They seem to have thorakites/romanized troops as well, and in their very late years even a largish force of roman mercenaries/deserters who also played part in the court matters.Other: Perhaps another way of differentiation could be done with the hero auras. I haven't paid much attention to the ones proposed so far but they could be somewhat faction speciffic.Maybe each hero could have two auras, one factional and one personal.Successor heroes, known for their recklessness and heroic cavalry charges could have something according to that.Roman heroes could have something more generic, buffing all their troops or units in formation.Celtic heroes could buff attack, charge or movement speed of their melee units.Iberian heroes could buff their skirmishers.For something completely different, Greeks could get an ability representing the oracle of Delphi. Offering a (set?) small amount of metal would give a random prediction, either encouraging or demoralizing troops (+/- attack or attack speed) for a period of time. A bigger amount of money could bribe the oracle for an encouraging prediction. Could be at the Temple.The Threatron, and perhaps other cultural buildings for other civs (arena, hippodrome, stadium, druidic temple etc), could get a festival/games/races ability. At some cost, it could provide increased work rate for a while after activated, simulating happeness. Perhaps this could be altered/expanded into autogathering a "culture points" resource, together with temples, wonders and civic centers which could slowly lead to a cultural victory under a special victory condition, instead of just copy-pasting the Age Of Empires wonder mechanic.(Out of place) Besides elephants, chariots should get damage frenzy as well.

Cretan mercenary loyalty wasn't that guaranteed. Around 150bc, Seleucid Cretan mercenaries abused their power when they found themselves in numbers, controlled a puppet king and wrecked havoc in Antioch, firstly oppressing and then butchering the revolting population. I'm not sure about nubian archers, but since nubian spearmen are documented for the Ptolemaics, I can't see why not archers too. At least it's little risky guess, not something out of place.

Some progressive punk metal:

Could work this way yes. However limiting them instead would include a training phase which is quite a must for Spartans. Edit: Also tying them to one per farm (or one per farm + house) would work as a risky/limiting factor for the early game. You'll have the options to: Go for a classic playstyle, without phase I champions.Risking your economy by going full on early farming and abusing your wood production to field the biggest Spartan hoplite force possible.Try to find a balance between the two.

I like him, let's see how he turns out:)

Based them on their real traits, and since most of them tried to establish an Athenian hegemony or counter rising threats to it's existence, most of them were aggressive. I know some have major similarities as they are but they can be reworked accordingly by the team to better fit various roles. Other factions should have much more variety.

Did some Athenian ones, tell me if they're any good: (first 3 by Mythos, Italics are my added ideas on them) 1) Alcibiades AI Personality: Overconfident, even when defeat is inevitable. Boisterous. Quick. Backstabber. Raider. Expansionist. Oligarch.Strategies: Raids a lot. Attacks often with small to medium forces. Doesn't build walls at all. In team matches, has a 10% chance of switching allegiance on his ally if tributed enough resources. Tries to build his 1st expansion rather quickly, at the 10 minute mark if possible. Builds new expansions often and whenever possible, even if he can't defend them (this guy will probably lose lots of Civic Centers in the course of a match). Favors naval expansion and raiding on water maps (he fought mostly as admiral besides some sieges and raids).2) Pericles AI Personality: Thoughtful. Eloquent (and comforting/convincing with his advice to the player as an ally when you’re pressed hard). Democratic (but despotic over allies, might ask for resources in return for sparing units for allied protection or “to build something huge”). Defensive. Turtler. Builder.Strategies: Turtler, so builds lots of defenses, walls, towers, etc., around his starting base, while being fairly aggressive with his navy. Tends to build more Temples and other structures, and goes for the Wonder victory more aggressively than other Athenian AIs. When he expands he prefers to do so by destroying enemy expansions and building on them (he sent off many settlers, most of them replacing captured enemy or revolted allied populations - could work with capturing instead of destroying as favored tactic, which fits most other Athenians AIs as well)3) Themistocles AI Personality: Quick wit. Humorous. Cunning. Aggressive. Alliance builder. Democrat.Strategies: This AI is the most aggressive with the navy and builds more docks than the other Athenian AI variations (Aims for having more ships than any other player?). He goes for the Long Walls upgrade as soon as possible and uses stone walls to section off parts of the map. He is extra aggressive against the opponent in the other team who is playing as the Persians. He also temps other players on the enemy team to join his team with promises of tribute, especially if those enemy players are Greek or Successor factions. He might even send some chats/taunts to individuals in the enemy team to sow dissent, and even lie about other players. 4) Miltiades AI Personality: Vengeful. Oligarch. Aggressive. Strategies: Likes mass hoplite armies (since he's in the early era of almost exclusively hoplite warfare) and also Thracian peltasts (due to his Thracian rule). Favors upgrades to these units. Attacks frequently, especially vs enemies who have attacked him first (and Persians?). Builds a fleet on naval maps but doesn’t focus on it as much as the previous Athenian AIs. 5) Cimon AI Personality: Oligarch. Aggressive. Builder. Alliance builder.Strategies: Likes alliances, especially with Spartans. Favors attacks, especially on Persians. Builds temples and walls and civic buildings. Slightly in favor of hoplites and peltasts over other units (Thracian ties like his father Miltiades), slight naval focus on water maps. 6) Thrasybulus AI Personality: Democrat. Aggressive. Expansionist. Loudmouth but good speaker. Alliance builder. Stubborn/Persistent.Strategies: Frequent naval victor, focuses on navy on water maps. Likes to attack and expand, especially against spartans and athenian oligarchs. Might attack even when outnumbered. Likes diplomacy and asking for tributes. Wall builder. 7) Iphicrates AI Personality: Democrat. Aggressive. Expansionist. Reformer.Strategies: Focuses on military tech upgrades. Likes ranged and champion units, especially peltasts, marines and the city guard (with smaller shield and longer spear i think those represent iphicratian hoplites right?). Attacks, raids and expands quite a lot, especially vs spartans. 8) Demosthenes AI Personality: Democrat. Great speaker (should have some of the most impressive taunts, and some special badmouthing for everyone allied to a Phillip AI). Alliance builder.Strategies: Focuses on upgrades that make construction, recruitment and technology faster/cheaper (could be the athenian boomer?). Likes alliances. Favours attacks against macedonians and tries to convince his allies to attack them as well. Naval focus on water maps. 9) Leosthenes AI Personality: Democrat. Prestigious. Alliance Builder. Aggressive. Reckless.Strategies: Recruits a huge, balanced army, the most cavalry heavy of all athenian AIs (they had thessalians on their side among others during the Lamian War, could even make him focus mostly on cavalry). Loves alliances, especially with other Greeks. Aggressive, especially vs macedonians. Might storm enemy defenses even without enough siege equipment.

Could be one way of doing it, but it would be better if each faction's boomer for example plays a little differently depending on the actual's charachers personality. Or one faction could have two different raiders if it was a common strategy for them.

No clue on coding difficulty but if we settle them to be this way (or anyway, just having knowledge of how many to do: 3, 7, 8, more for the team to choose from?) I could come up with a list of personality proposals per faction accordingly to Mythos' format, and maybe adding some more details.

Yup, got you:) Still differentiation should focus on giving various strengths and weaknesses, not making some of them overall much stronger/weaker by default, when difficulty can sort that. So a naval focus AI will be stronger on naval maps, while a raider and a boomer AI on the same difficulty should be approximately equals to each other on a land map. Made me think: Maybe add AI personalities per faction equal to max player number (8?) minus one (or 8 for a round number), so we can have every AI under a different name on any situation?

I thought difficulty would be another setting additional to the AI character. Besides that, agreed on the rest, that's kinda what I said with different pros and cons, giving (dis)advantages depending on the situation/map etc.

I like it, good idea:) However it's best to have them with different pros and cons rather than stronger or weaker. Alcibiades as described here should be a lot weaker than the other two. Also how about, instead of Alcibiades, someone who mostly lead Athenian land forces? (cause he mostly fought sea battles while on Athenian side, like the other two, and for the most part he fought against Athens). Like Iphicrates (reform/tech focus - light troops & champions, offensive, anti-Spartan), Miltiades (mass hoplites, anti-Persian), Chremonides or Leosthenes (offensive, with a slight focus on cavalry compared to other Athenian personalities, Greek diplomacy, pro-Ptolemaic, anti-Macedonian).

To me they look more like AOM than AOEO. They're great, even if somewhat different. I think you guys are severely exaggerating it, just look at this: However some parts of the game have minor (but still bigger than the ptolemaic structures) visual cohesion issues, like the Persian Ram (and ranged siege weapons to a point), some ships and some environmental textures.

Athens: CononChremonidesMacedonians: Alexander I of EpirusAlexander II Of EpirusEumenesCassanderPerdiccasCraterusArchelaus I of Macedon (slightly before the period that portrays them but he paved the road for Philip and Alexander).Persians: DatesMardoniusArtafernesMemnon The RhodianAriobarzanesCyrus the YoungerArtaxerxes V (Bessus)Could also add many satrap names but I guess noPtolemies: Scopas of AetoliaSeleucids: AchaeusCould use some Bactrian and Pergamene names like Epirot ones for Macedon?I'd also remove those after Sidetes, since they where essentialy puppet kingsSpartans: Cleomenes III (the one who did the pike reform)CleombrotusPausaniasNabisAreusAdd I/II etc like for other civs?Romans: Many of the existing general names are post-marian. I'd replace them with others like the following unless marian reforms are addedLucius Aemilius Paullus MacedonicusGaius Marius (could be used I guess)Quintus Caecilius Metellus MacedonicusQuintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus CunctatorTitus Quinctius FlamininusLucius Mummius AchaicusManius Curius DentatusPublius Decius MusPublius Valerius LaevinusLucius Cornelius Scipio AsiaticusPublius Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus Africanus NumantinusGaius Claudius NeroGaius Terentius VarroLucius Aemilius PaullusMarcus Claudius MarcellusGaius Flaminius NeposMarcus Atilius RegulusAnother way of doing it could be limiting the AI names to the few most iconic ones per faction. Not sure what's best here, covering more parts of history or giving something more memorable? Maybe each AI name could also be accompanied by it's translation in the language of the player's civ. So when facing "Kurush The Great" as Athens, you would be getting something like "Kurush The Great (Cyros o Megas)".

The new map looks great:) Btw are those new ground textures or different lighting effects? Either way it's beautiful. Also, will ground texture cohesion get some love in time? It usually needs some better overlapping at the edge points between different ground types and on the visual style as well. Both in quality and it's darkness/saturation/etc. Lastly I'd suggest making berry bushes a bit more obvious while on grass.

I like all three Evil Dead and Braindead as well. I always thought it's funny how Braindead and LOTR are by the same director.

They look good to me. Could make the all a standard length but it might not be the best as description. What's it with the extra civs like Pontians, Pergamenes, Lusitanians, Nubians and Thracians? The rest could be part 2 civs I guess, with some of them fitting for both parts, but those are BC civs. Are they some minifactions that are sure to make it?

An alternative male villager (with all the functions of females) in the editor should do imo. There's one already, the slave, Greek looking though. Maybe one for each civ?

Yeah this issue has annoyed me as well, but I'm pretty sure it will be fixed in time.

This is sad news, it will delay the game at least a little bit. But it's your choice and job anyway. Btw I loved your Diadochi mod for RTW (you're the same Redfox right?).

I think this somewhat covers it, saying the funds will go to hire Redfox for a year: http://play0ad.com/indiegogo-fundraiser-wrap-up/

The latest album (early 2013) from my favorite band: