[New release: Alpha 15 Osiris]

Congrats and thanks for the hard work:)

[===[COMMITTED]=== Crocodile]

It looks nice. Maybe make the teeth advertisment-ish-ly white as well:)

[Ways to differentiate gameplay for each faction]

To add to the idea, why not make it so that a certain civilization (in this case, Iberians) have units that can ghost through trees by ignoring collision detection? Sort of like how Star Craft miners ignore collision. Perhaps that in order to balance this, can only attack when they're not colliding with trees.

Another idea would be to borrow from the two most well-known MOBAs. Both League of Legends and DOTA have bushes that grant the players invisibility, which would work well for ambushes (and it's a huge gameplay element). This idea is less faction-specific than the one above, however.

Finally, simply have the Iberians be stealthed when near trees. I believe that Warcraft III's Night Elves and LOTR BFME2 Elves did something to this effect. I'm no programmer, but this sounds like the most conservative option available.

The bushes idea seems the most interesting to me on this. And perhaps Iberians could get some short of better cover or bigger damage bonus when ambushing. Warcraft actually hides night elf, bandit and other units in the night, as long as they remain idle. So implementing a day and night circle could provide an alternative ambush mechanic this way.

[Some Ideas On Navies]

• If possible programing-wise, it would be nice to have ships land a number of marines for ground operations/raids. Then, unless some of the marines return, the ship can't move again/gets destroyed/gets reduced combat ability. (Inspired by Rome II)

Marines could depend on faction. For example greeks could have hoplites without body armor (only helmet/shield and spear or sword) and later on thyreophoroi, Romans could have hastati/princeps, Persians could have archers.

A tech could adjust/alter marine type on ships (maybe one melee and one ranged per faction), which besides different traits while landed, could give different combat bonuses to the ship.

Another tech could increase the number of marines but slow down the ships.

An Athenian tech "Chorigoi" (I thought this was the name but a google search applies it to threatrical play sponsorship, might be something else for ships I can't recall now) could reduce Trireme cost, simulating rich citizens taking the duty to found the cost of a trireme.

[Ways to differentiate gameplay for each faction]

Yeah, looks like the Seleucids should have the Military Settlement idea instead of the Ptolemies. And then the Seleucid heroes can have the ability to found new Civic Centers. With the Military Settlements (MS), they can expand quickly, but since MSs are weaker than CCs, they are more vulnerable to attack, making the periphery of the Seleucid Empire weak, but the core strong.

Ptolemies, maybe just go with 2 barracks, one for "home grown" Greek and Egyptian troops, and one for Mercenary troops (call this a "Mercenary Camp", which is super cheap to build because it is a bunch of tents, but the units are somewhat expensive).

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.

[===[TASK]=== Celtic unit icons]

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

[Ways to differentiate gameplay for each faction]

Those three articles could provide great ideas on improving the successor states' armies both on authenticity and gameplay:

• Seleucids
• Macedon
• Ptolemies

They 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.

[Nubian Archer in Ptolemaic Army]

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.

[Mythos_Ruler's Playlist]

Some progressive punk metal:

[Ways to differentiate gameplay for each faction]

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.

[Ways to differentiate gameplay for each faction]

With Alpha 15 nearly upon us, I started to think recently about ways to differentiate the gameplay for each faction. Not to just give bonuses and techs (although those are important), but to really change how each one plays compared to the others. I have a few ideas I would like to share (and a couple I have already implemented on my local copy of the developers version of the game). During our discussion here, I can add the more interesting and feasible and sensible ideas to the list.

Athenians

Technologies: Let's really leverage their Gymnasion. I'd like to give them a whole new interesting tech tree just there at the Gymnasion. I start to detail some cool stuff here, and continue adding ideas in this thread: http://www.wildfiregames.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=16631&p=273189

Ditto goes for their navy. I was thinking of giving their Docks a tech that unlocks ship repair when the ship is near the dock (basically right next to it). That's detailed in the link above as well.

• How about an Iphicratian Reform buffing peltasts and marines and maybe unlocking the city guard (under a new name?)

Britons

War Dogs: I think it would be neat to have 2 different breeds of War Dogs available at the Kennel, Mastiff and Wolfhound. Each one would have different bonuses. Maybe you have to unlock one or the other. And perhaps the Britons start each match with a free Kennel.

• I've had the idea of dogs as zerglings, weak, cheap and fast, but a mass army of dogs might look weird.

Carthaginians

I think Carthage plays uniquely already, with their ethnic Embassies and their Naval Shipyard. How can we make the Naval Shipyard more interesting?

• The naval shipyard could be given an attack, extra hit points and the ability to garrison a number of ships. Maybe it could be limited to one and give the dock the ability to train warships as well.
• They already have too many units, but maybe Mauritanian Archers and Numidian Cavalry could be replaced by some Lybian skirmisher and Levy Cavalry in the civ center and moved to the barracks only, for more realism (Towns training native units).

Gauls

Ideas?

• A Pillage ability to gain resources by attacking structures. Do they have it already?
• Did you add the trimarcisia tech? It could be extended to more cavalry units than just the champion and coupled with the pillage ability make a rapid raiding force that strikes, generates resources (or just raids workers), retreats nearby to take advantage of the superior regeneration rate and strikes again.

Iberians

Implementing some kind of "Ambush" ability is key for these guys. They already get the free set of circuit walls at the start of the match. I think an Ambush ability would round them out nicely. The problem is making it useful and easy to use and not overcomplicating its use. The easiest way would be to just give Iberian units a large attack bonus vs. enemy units in column formation, so that when an enemy column is marching by, the Iberian player can attack its flanks and induce a lot of casualties.

Harder would be to give a "real" ambush ability where the Iberian units become invisible to enemy players somehow until the trap is sprung. The key here would be to make it worthwhile for the Iberian player to use this ability at all, because while they are lying in wait for the enemy, they're not doing anything else useful.

Also, flaming munitions, like javelins. Would be nice to be able unlock this and have enemy units or structures become engulfed in flames and steadily lose health for a period of time.

• Ambush could be an ability making them invisible near trees and even behind low hills that normally wouldn't block LOS.
• Could allow them to move while on ambush, but have it available only for some light troops for balance.

Macedonians

Macedonians could be our "baseline" civ where they're just a pretty good example of default gameplay. Except for the fact that they should get a Siege Workshop for all of their siege engines.

• A "Perseus Reform" could arm pikemen with chainmail giving them extra armor or hitpoints
• A Royal Peltasts tech could rearm hypaspists with javelin and sword giving macedonians a missing unit class
• They made much use of Thracians, especially later on. Could give them the Blackcloak unit or a tech for phalanx train speed representing incorporation of Thracians in the phalanx.

Mauryans

I think the Mauryans play uniquely already, with their large number of champions and abundance of elephant units, especially the Worker Elephant. Adding the "animal capture" feature as planned will really make these guys interesting (capturing Elephants and Horses to give training bonuses to elephant units and cavalry).

Another idea is we can somehow include their caste system in the game.

• I'm in favor of chariots as non-Champions. (for other civs as well). Maybe a scyrite-like one-rank unit. And make both elephants champions.

Persians

These guys play differently already, with their Stables and Palace. Could maybe reduce their infantry health further and consequently add some more training speed techs to really turn them into the Zerglings originally envisioned.

• Could do with Sparabara, maybe reducing their cost as well. Then on phase II or III could give them the Kardakes or a hoplite mercenary as a non-champion, but more reliable line infantry.
• See Mauryan chariot idea.
• I'd give them the elephant as champion as well, even if rarely used. And/Or a scythian horse archer, which was more commonly used.
• Maybe we could have a large empires trait for some civs: Persian, Seleucid, Mauryan (and maybe Egypt?) which would give all of them more champions than normal.

Ptolemies

Military Settlements. In my local copy of the game I've made the Ptolemies start with a Civic Center as normal, but instead of building additional Civic Centers to expand, they build their Military Settlements instead. Military Settlements are then the Ptolemies' chief method of expansion. They are weaker than the main Civic Center and cast a smaller territory influence, but are cheaper and build faster. It means they can expand quicker, but their expansions are also more vulnerable.

I also moved the Lighthouse to Town Phase to really make its desired bonus (lifting black map off all water) have an impact for the Ptolemy player.

• Could use a non-native phalanx unit instead. And have machimoi pikemen as a cheaper and faster trained alternative on phase II or III, appearing later on as in history.
• Can military settlements deposit resources?
• How about an auxilary/mercenary camp with the nabataean camels and nubian archers, replacing those with some skirmisher and levy cavalry for the civ center. Seems more realistic to me. (Towns training native units).
• Could use a Thracian Unit.

Romans

They have the Army Camp, which is an interesting structure, as it can be built within enemy territory. Same goes for their Siege Walls. So, how can we make these things more useful and used more by good players?

Marian Reforms: Can we include this somehow? Becomes available in City Phase and once researched all infantry turn into Marian Legionnaires (champion infantry)?

Could we have the Romans start each map with a free Temple of Vesta and then give it some kind of bonus (like greatly increased unit and building stats around it)? Maybe then it is a game-loser for the Roman player if it is destroyed.

• Army camp and siege walls could be made cheaper or faster to build if they're not currently used I guess. (Btw I've read that romans took the fortified army camp idea from Pyrrhus, so I guess Hellenistic kingdoms often used those as well).
• Marian reforms could be a major change: Hastatii/Princeps, Triarii and Extraordinarii turned into Marian Legionaries, trained at barracks, fort and army camp from now on. Could also replace all of the cavalry arm with gallic/numidian (even germanic) auxiliaries, which were the backbone of roman cavalry in the later times BC. Lastly Velites could turn to auxiliary skirmishers while some auxiliary light spearmen (weaker than triarii) and auxiliary cretan/syrian archers are added. It should be an expensive tech, strengthening sword and missile troops while weakening spearmen and improving citizen cavalry while losing the champion cavalry.
• I'm strongly in favor of a logistics tech either giving a reduced train time bonus to infantry or reducing their population cost (to half or something). Romans should have a way of fielding or replacing heavy infantry easier/faster than other factions.

Seleucids

Hellenistic Reforms: I was thinking of giving the Seleucids a choice once they reach City Phase of unlocking a "Traditional Army" or "Reform Army." Each one would unlock different champions and techs. For instance:

Traditional Army

• Agema Phalangite
• Scythe Chariot

Reform Army

• Romanized Swordsman
• Greek Cataphract

They also have Stables, like the Persians. So, overall, I think they'll be a nice unique faction.

• Again, I'm in favor of chariots as non champions.
• Companion/Agema Cavalry should be a champion instead, maybe replaced as a normal unit by Thessialian/Macedonian/Galatian or some eastern cavalry. They could be in the traditional reform army, backing the slower elite phalanx (should be silvershields imo, agema pikes should be macedonian late era/ptolemaic), while the thorakite/romanized swords form a more average speed army together with the slower than companions but better armored cataphracts.
• Or could overall go with my large empires idea and add them all.
• Or Cataphracts could be a tech upgrade for Companions sacrificing speed for armor.
• Could use a Galatian unit.

Spartans

I think we should keep it simple with the Spartans. But maybe leverage their 3-tier cultural hierarchy (Peers -> Perioikoi -> Helots) somehow.

• I think Pikemen should come as a "Cleomenian Reform" of the Spartan Hoplites not together with them (or maybe the perioikoi hoplites as well). Skyrites then could be made a full champion unit.
• What I use (or plan to) in my warcraft mod is Spartan Hoplites, while elite, being available from phase I. As the limited landowning class though, they are limited to 1 per farm (could also make them 1 per farm + house if needed to limit them even more). So the Spartan player can choose to have a very small elite army early on. In my mod they'll also have an aura increasing allied attack/attack speed a little and maybe one doing the opposite to enemy units, representing them being valued/feared (btw I do the later with elephants as well). That could also be an effect of the agoge tech.
• Then later on phase III, the pike reform allows for a slightly weaker (without the aura bonuses) but "unlimited" heavy infantry, representing the incorporation of perioikoi and even helots in the phalanx.
• A triple tech could distinguish the 3 classes. One traditionalist buffing Spartan units, one "rights/land reform" buffing the perioikoi and one "release of some slaves/apeleutheroi" buffing helot units.

[===[TASK]=== Celtic unit icons]

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

[More General, King and other names for AI.]

nice, but all are Aggresive? and Defending and Counterattacking

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.

[More General, King and other names for AI.]

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.

[More General, King and other names for AI.]

And if we reduced to defensive, Agressive, Turtle, economic boomer , etc... And those are template for some personalities.

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.

[More General, King and other names for AI.]

If it's easy enough to customize the AI that sounds like a really nice idea to give that kind of flexibility. I don't know how easy it is to program, but I would assume that it should be possible to essentially define all the personalities in e.g. JSON files and just use percentages for e.g. naval, walls, defensive, etc. That would probably make it hard to do them really customizable and e.g. send lying chat messages etc. Unless that too was very generic, so you'd e.g. set the AI to be truthful, or bullying, or lying, and then the AI code would make a choice. Say it's lying and has got a template message that goes something like: "If you attack [player 2] I'll attack [player 4]". That would not include the possibility to e.g. have the Hannibal one say something like "I'm going to crush you like I did at Cannae", but a flexible enough system could probably include both.

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.

[More General, King and other names for AI.]

It's different, I'm just saying that that doesn't make it impossible to differentiate the AIs depending on "AI name" as well

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.

I love the idea.

But difficulty should remain an independent setting IMHO.

Wouldn't it be a little unfair if the persian player is more likely to be attacked than the other? (but I don't really mind since that's only the case for single-player and co-op)

What if there is 4 athenian AI players? Would one name appear twice? Or do we use additional names (without particular strategies attached?)

This would be sooo great for historical campaigns!

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?

[More General, King and other names for AI.]

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.

[More General, King and other names for AI.]

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).

[===[TASK]=== Ptolemaic Structures]

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.

[More General, King and other names for AI.]

Athens:

• Conon
• Chremonides

Macedonians:

• Alexander I of Epirus
• Alexander II Of Epirus
• Eumenes
• Cassander
• Perdiccas
• Craterus
• Archelaus I of Macedon (slightly before the period that portrays them but he paved the road for Philip and Alexander).

Persians:

• Dates
• Mardonius
• Artafernes
• Memnon The Rhodian
• Ariobarzanes
• Cyrus the Younger
• Artaxerxes V (Bessus)
• Could also add many satrap names but I guess no

Ptolemies:

• Scopas of Aetolia

Seleucids:

• Achaeus
• Could use some Bactrian and Pergamene names like Epirot ones for Macedon?
• I'd also remove those after Sidetes, since they where essentialy puppet kings

Spartans:

• Cleomenes III (the one who did the pike reform)
• Cleombrotus
• Pausanias
• Nabis
• Areus
• Add 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 added
• Lucius Aemilius Paullus Macedonicus
• Gaius Marius (could be used I guess)
• Quintus Caecilius Metellus Macedonicus
• Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus Cunctator
• Titus Quinctius Flamininus
• Lucius Mummius Achaicus
• Manius Curius Dentatus
• Publius Decius Mus
• Publius Valerius Laevinus
• Lucius Cornelius Scipio Asiaticus
• Publius Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus Africanus Numantinus
• Gaius Claudius Nero
• Gaius Terentius Varro
• Lucius Aemilius Paullus
• Marcus Claudius Marcellus
• Gaius Flaminius Nepos
• Marcus Atilius Regulus

Another 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)".

[0 A.D. on YouTube]

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.

[Your favorite movies]

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.

[Proposal for the persians]

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?

[The Big Eyecandy Progress List]

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?