Prodigal Son

My most recent favorites: New Boysetsfire http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iclvmA_RWfw&list=PLarRXRdKB3_CFsHi9U-9IpCpYvQTh3JWV Russ Rankin (Acoustic, here, he's the singer for Good Riddance) No Use For A Name (been checking them since the singer passed away recently and many of my favorite musicians mentioned it) I'm in a "soft music" mood compared to my average.

I think that's against the general direction the game has gone so far. If it turns out to be used, I've got several extra ideas that could enhance it.

I've made a moddb profile and started adding some info and screenshots. Edit: Tech trees for the first four factions added.

Thanks for the interest:) The map being playable again is just a matter of a few hours work. It only comes down to when I'll have the will. Screenshots won't be really impressive since most unit models are like "closest possible" rather than historically accurate, but I can post some I guess. That reason is why I look for a WC3 skinner and/or modeler. A few small changes will improve the game visuals a lot.

I wouldn't be so sure. Many sources we have are weak and many others are lost. I'm in noway claiming that they certainly used them, but since some sources say they were used for display of power and others that they were actually used in combat, it could be true and even be more common than that. You seem a little overly eager to act like an absolute expert on this which you don't seem to be (unless the language barrier doesn't let me see it someway). Also (3), that would prevent them from using infantry as well since it's slower than elephants (I know they mostly focused on cavalry, don't get me wrong). And a mixed review doesn't always mean much. Anyway we're just making suggestions for a (possible) future addon, and the team will deside. And you probably know more on Parthians than me, I'm just saying don't eagerly take something for granted cause it seems this way, especially when there are some serious doubts. Edit: I think the most valid point for including them, even if the sources don't prove common or even certain use, is gameplay. The Parthians will lack troop variety compared to most other factions. Edit 2: The Europa Barbarorum team on RTW modding, known for their insanely good research, give the Parthians Elephants.

I can't speak of evidence, just a part of a book I found online. But, your argument doesn't mean much. Lack of availability and military reforms happened all the time. Epirus had war elephants only for a couple decades or so, yet they ended up as it's more iconic unit because the campaigns they were used in were well documented. If that Parthian campaign was as well documented, no doubt we'd be speaking a lot about parthian war elephants nowadays (provided that all this isn't made up or mistake by the author, which I doubt but can't be sure).

I partly disagree, but let's not drag this off-topic:)

Yeah when I saw your reply I was ready to say something like "I don't want to distract one of the major contributors from 0 AD to my project, I prefer to see 0 AD finished anyway, even if I see it selfishly it will allow for better ancient era mapmaking:)". So this mostly goes to people here familiar with Warcraft III but not contributing to 0AD, unless someone becomes totally interested in my project which I doubt. The map has 8 planed Civs, some of which might change (each of them has several unique mechanics and bonuses, which I'm not describing now to avoid length). Mostly done: -Romans -Celts -Scythians -Macedonians (which can become Antigonids, Seleucids or Ptolemaics with a city phase choice) To be done: -Carthaginians -Spartans -Athenians (might merge with the previous in Greeks or something) -Persians (might become Pathians if I deside to settle for only hellenistic age) -Other civs are considered as well The core gameplay is mostly influenced by Age of Empires (and 0AD with paired techs and other details). Some differences include: -Soldiers rank up to rank 5 (each rank increases their evasion and critical strike chance) -Towns are built on fixed settlements, somewhat Age of Mythology like -There are 2 gatherable resources, Gold and Lumber (an annoying WCIII limmit) -Most factions require to capture elephants or horses in the wild, or import them at the market in order to build stables. -Similarly, herdables can be captured or trained at the farm. These increase the pop cap and are slightly cheaper than farms in doing so, but they will require some extra micro and protection. -WCIII naval system is limmited, but I've come up with a working solution. You can capture "Greek Colonies" along the shore, train ships there and use them to capture fishing regions (which increase your pop cap) and sea trade routes, which grant gold income. -At fixed locations across the map, randomized mercenary camps appear, changing the options available for each game. I'm also thinking to add structure "resources" as well at those slots, which will be required to be held in order to research top tier upgrades (like iron for top tier weaponforging). There's much more, that's just some things on top of my head. I've posted many of the techs and other ideas I use in the technologies part of the forum as suggestions for 0AD.

I think just making them a little smaller would look nice and closer to the original. But it will look great without them as well, like a more detailed version of the age of mythology lighthouse:)

I'm little by little making an ancient themed RTS on the Warcraft 3 world editor. While I like strategy game design and how it turns out, WC3 is fantasy themed and lacking modeling/skinning skills reduces my enthousiasm (and I turn out to focus mostly on my other hobbies, like writting punk rock music). The gameplay and faction design is mostly done, it was actually playable with 4 factions and AI until I broke many things to alter the core gameplay. Is anyone here familiar with WC3 modding and willing to help or make it as a team? I'd mostly need minor model/skin edits, but anything from triggering/terraining better than mine to just advice or playtesting is welcome. I'm also using 0 A.D. icons on it (I hope it's ok since it's freeware) to give more of an ancient era feel and plan to advertise 0 A.D. within the map and on the hosting forums. If someone is interested I'll post more details.

I've actually found a reference (War Elephants, By John M. Kistler) to 20 Pathian War Elephants being used against the Seleucids in 130bc, so maybe they could have them as well.

About elephants, I've read that there are claims they were used in other campaigns as well but some doubt it. Anyway I'm not suggesting to have them as a main champion unit, but as a tech-unlocked one if this idea gets accepted. About horse archers, sure they were not used as much as by parthians or steppe nomads but they certainly had them. Both in as local troops and as nearby/vassal nomads that they often used in battles. So I believe they could be an unlockable unit as well. I still might be wrong with this or other of my points, I just like this idea a lot and would love to see it in game. Some of those units were core army parts for their factions for sure anyway. Edit (thought of how it could work in more detail, added to the bottom of the OP as well): It could work like, each civ has 2 champion units by default (or more for factions having some civ bonus on this). Those would be the most commonly used or better gameplay serving ones, mixing best with the rest of each civs unit line up. Then with reform techs new ones would replace some of the default champion units (or even some citizen-soldiers in some cases for a bigger cost). Other techs would unlock extra champion units for some civs instead of replacing old ones, when it fits historical accuracy or gameplay. This should generally cost more than reform techs as it would broaden the available unit rooster. The number of extra units granted this way and the cost of the reform/unlock techs could besides following historical accuracy depend on late game faction strenght. So say the Gauls prove weaker in late game, they could have cheaper reform/unlock techs or more extra champions than other factions.

I think they're planed for Seleucids and Ptolemaics. The Persians could also have them as they used them, at least against the Lydians and some part II civs could have them as well.

Thanks:) The icons are just used for a non-comercial map in Warcraft III. Like an atlas scenario, only in Warcraft you can include imported files in maps.

I know, that's why I said it's just a suggestion that's coming from personal preference. Never said it's intended to be used the modern way. Anyway I guess I shouldn't have mentioned it, at least in this topic, it totally distracts from the rest of my post.

I think it's kinda different with it being the main game logo, but anyway, don't wanna make a big deal out of it, just a suggestion:)

Hey and welcome! I think it's great overall but you should sacrifice some length (and maybe make the front part a little smaller overall) to make it better fitting in game.

Extra Italics are my comments on Mytho's comments.

Nice, glad some of them might prove useful:) Do you want me to post the part II specific ones as well? Edit: Since I made the post anyway, here they are: Citizenship: some kind of buff for roman auxiliary troops or turning them into legionares Envenomed missiles: Scythian horse archer also deal a small damage over time (or increases their attack) Full Scalemale: Increases Scythian (or other as well) Catafract armor Lorica Segmentata: Increases the missile protection of legionares Testudo formation: Unlocks it for extra missile protection while in this formation. Steppe Hardiness: Increases the hit point regeneration of Scythian/Hun organic units Scythian (and/or Hun) Civ Bonus: Buildings besides civ centers cost no resources. They are build from pack horses or carts (which can also double as resource drop-points), an extra "worker" unit. Those have a fixed cost and can transform into buildings. Buildings can pack back into a pack horse/cart like siege weapons, and can be redeployed/rebuilt into any other building since it's essential a just a tent. Scythian (and/or Hun) Civ Bonus 2: each phase up grants 2(?) pack horses/carts at the researching civ center. Urbanisation: Increases Scythian building hitpoints and grants them access to some greek (bosphoran units). It disables the ability to pack buildings back into horses. And some ones I didn't post for part I since they are somewhat simular to existing techs but they could be used this way (each one disables the rest): Offensive Core Infantry: Increases the attack damage or attack rate of swordsmen. Defensive Core Infantry: Increases the hit points or armor of spearmen. Pike Core Infantry: Increases the movement speed of pikemen. Guerrilla Core Infantry: Increases the attack damage or attack rate and movement speed of skirmishers. I'm also using celtic war dogs as cheap/weak age I zergling-like units trained from the farm/house for rushes, which is fun and gives a new mechanic to the celts but I guess is ahistorical.

I'm not trying to put presure on anything, just suggesting things, knowing there's still much to change. On your examples, I'm aware of most of them but I believe they are rather speciffic situations instead of combat rules: - Swordsmen could hamstring elephants with heavy casualties if they were well drilled and brave. Imagine an equally brave and drilled pikewall though. It would butcher the beasts much more easily, if they dared to charge it. - Archers could kill some cavalry at range and generally get butchered at the first contact. I get what you did there, and as I said it's ok, balance comes first and I'll love the game anyway. Maybe though Spear Cavalry could beat archers as well, as it should be no different than Sword Cavalry in this aspect, and Skirmisher Cavalry get beat by archers instead, representing that it generally didn't charge, so at range archers have the advantage of extra range, stability and a bigger target. - Archers should be the kinda the same vs swordsmen and spearmen, again I find the examples situational. Sword or spear doesn't change armor/shield, and the change in mobility and melee attack vs a mostly defenseless at close range target should be minor.

I'm not entirely sure about the formation system and how it will turn out. So far all the best RTS games I've played use single unit combat, with unrealistic but balanced unit counters, kinda like 0 AD is now. It could turn out well though if worked correctly. I think I've seen it suggested before, maybe a Total War like combat system would fit better with formation combat. Or there's the other way, of soft counters and unit roles instead of fixed hard counters. Warcraft-esque style. The article I've linked above has an interesting part about this. The most easy solution overall would be just keeping the Age Of Empires style hard counters that are now in the game while trying to make them as realistic as possible without breaking balance.

Up to this it sounds great: I like the idea of fixed value per building appearing at the market and the market also slowly generating them. It could also work combined with a percentage of fallen enemies as captive slaves. However the rest sounds overcomplicated for an RTS.

How about an aura for some units, like champion cavalry and elephants, that slightly reduces the attack damage or attack rate of nearby enemy units, representing their intimitation? A tech version of it ("elephant bells") could make elephants even more fearsome. A "(Promise of) Afterlife" tech at temple could simularly slightly increase the attack damage or attack rate of organic units. A Faith tech at temple to increase Priest hit points. A Coinage tech could give an amount of metal per ally in game each X seconds. (Would this need triggers to be implemented first?) A Fire Arrows tech to make archers, ships, and structures more effective against structures, ships, siege and war elephants. A "Footwear/Boots/Sandals" tech to increase infantry speed. A Gladius tech to increase Roman Swordmen attack or slightly reduce their attack while increasing their attack rate. A Heavy Horses (Mounts) vs Swift (Fast) Horses tech pair to grant cavalry hit points or speed accordingly. An "Import Elephants" tech that allows factions who occasionally used War Elephants an extra champion unit without breaking balance. See here for more related ideas. An "Imported Construction Techonology" that makes previously weaker Roman Ships/Siege/Structures on par with or slightly better than greek and carthaginian ones. A Linothorax tech that makes hoplites slightly faster and slightly more ressistant to missiles. A "Logistics" tech that makes Roman infantry cost half population. Or reduces their training time. A "Loom" tech that increases female villager hit points. An "Athletic Games" tech that increases citizen soldier (or champion to simulate famous victors?) hit points and/or movement speed. A Marksmanship tech to increase the attack damage or attack rate of archers. A Medicine tech to increase/add hit point regenaration of human units (all minus celts). Will we have regeneration? A "Herbal Lore" tech that increases druid healing (celts) An "Advanced Blacksmithing" tech to increase Celtic melee unit attack on village phase. A "Crossbreeding" tech to increase war dog hit points and/or attack A "Trimarcisia" tech to increase/add hit point regeneration of Gallic Champion Cavalry. All these are a little offering from my Warcraft 3 custom ancient RTS, some are my ideas, some other are copied from games like age of empires and total war, maybe some would fit into 0 A.D. I've got a few extra more that could work for Part II civs.

Are the unit counter roles desided to work as they are now? Will they go away or change once formations are implemented? Some of them seem unrealistic like: -Swords Counter Elephants. Spearmen, especially pikemen should be better than this due to range and swordsmen should be weak or unbonused in this field. A fire arrows tech could also work as an addition to skirmishers (who are already bonused). -SpearCavalry weak against Archers but SwordCavalry strong against them doesn't make much sense. There's actually quite a lot more like those, no point going in detail I guess. I know it's hard to transform realistic combat into balanced rock-paper-scissors and it wouldn't be gamebreaking for me even as it is now. I'm just wondering if there's going to be any focus on making it as realistic as possible and how the combat system will finally work in general. There's interesting article here quite short while informative and a part of it discusses balance and counters (even if it mostly has fantasy/sci-fi examples).

I like your new one better LordGood:) The blocky roof on four tiny collumns looks a little strange on the old one.