Jump to content

NoMolester

Community Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    189

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

 Content Type 

Everything posted by NoMolester

  1. NoMolester
    Yo también soy de México, de Cancún Quintana Roo. Suscríbete a la página de facebook de 0 AD en español es muy buena.
  2. NoMolester
    What i understood about "spatially" accurate is more in the terms of morphology than scale. The shapes that the buildings had. Like roman houses they had an inner yard like a square donut, and such.
  3. NoMolester
    Excellent, i will inviter her. I told her about the building proportions like the units are 2m and the scale of doors is slightly big and that there are certain parameters about scale, textures and modelling she has to fullfill. She has played the game before but didn't know that it was alpha and that you could participate in its development.
  4. NoMolester
    I would go for the wolf for the part 1 romans and the eagle for the part 2 romans (wolf-Eagle means republic-empire).
  5. NoMolester
    To mythos of whoever. I know an architect that is specializad in modelling buildings, this person is interested in the game and also knows a lot about history of architecture (ancient an med). This person asks how she can help. She is specialized too in designin "spaces" so she says that she could help by modelling buildings, or by drawing historically and spatially accurate versions of the buildings. This person can make textures but only with certain programs. Is asking me what programs are you using for the models and textures, she knows many programs but is unsure what programs, format and all that technical stuff are you using, if by chance it happens to be the same she masters already, she would like to help. If you could be kind enough to give me that info or at least point me to the correct direction i would apreciate it.
  6. NoMolester
    The cartaginians were more into that than the romans, and the game version of it is already implemented in the embassies. They had iberians, gauls, lybians, mauretanians, numidians, phoenicians and balearics into their armies. It would take a lot of work because the computer would have to "sense" the other factions at the beggining of the game and "choose" the respective units. You would have to re-create the parameters of the algorithm (not the algorithm itself) for every civilization ingame, including mauryans. The romans would be extremely overpowered, having a huge array of units to choose in a 2x2 battle.
  7. NoMolester
    Names for the romans should be thought carefully too, having a point of view that spans also into part 2. "Romans" is too generic if there are planned at leas 2 more roman civs for part 2. I would go for "Roman Republic" for the part 1 romans. I would propose a classical "S.P.Q.R" for the High Empire and "Imperium Romanum" for the Late Empire. I wouldn't make any distinction from the east or west late roman empires in (in terms of having two separate factions) because they were mainly the same, except perhaps for the clibanarius and some minor differences in the unit skins, to solve this problem i would go for a AoM aproach (like my mod): When you are using late romans, and when you pass to the third phase, you can choose if you want to be a "governor" from Constantinoupolis or from Roma. If you choose Constantinoupolis you would gain access to the Clibanarius and the Syrian archers, and your legionaries (limitanei, comitatenses, etc) will be skinned in the eartern fashion (and perhaps a couple of techs); if you choose Roma you would gain acces to the Foederatus and the Vandal corsair ships and your legionaries will be skinned in the western fashion (and again, a couple of techs). I think that way is better than having two late-roman empires with just minor differences in the units
  8. NoMolester
    I supossed it was a joke but i wanted my proposal to be clear, i felt exactly the same about TW:R2 when i played it, don't play it any more i want to pretend it never happened. That is something i like about 0 AD because every faction is different (except for greeks a little but because they were one unified culture actually). I am curious of how the sassanids and parthians would do in the part 2, they are very similar architecturally and in troops, another reason to make the names more explicit.
  9. NoMolester
    Indeed, the alpha phase never gebun it is on-hold right now.
  10. NoMolester
    No, no ,no. Its not like that, its like in AoM instead of gods they are Civs that corresponded to that culture. For example, you choose the bereberes (in AoM terms lets say Greeks) and when you change to phase 3 (AoM: heroic age) you can choose between Almoravids or Almohades (AoM: Athena or Hermes) and when you change to phase 4 (AoM: Titanic era) you can choose between Marinnidor Wattasid (AoM: Chronos or Oranos). It is really 1 civ, the "Bereberes" and the other are more like "technologies to change era" like in AoM. Do you understand? Please if you want to continue the conversation answer me here.
  11. NoMolester
    This is like my "For Honour and Glory" mmultiple sub-civs proposal. Check it out, there are like 112 subcivs encapsulated in 15 factions from 476 to 1492.
  12. NoMolester
    You see? even now people are mixing up the parthians with the sassanids. No offence Lion sorry to take you as an example
  13. NoMolester
    I agree with you sanred, it would be better to say "sassanid persians", "achemenid persians", "republican romans" when possible and "achemenids", "sassanids" and "Romans" when there is no space for two words, it would be more accurate and explicit. Precisely. However, many people think for the parthians as a "persian empire" even if they were not persians, and sometimes even the seleucid incorrectly fall under the "persian" label. This is some sort of "popular culture misconception" that we have to have in mind while naming these civs. Even Baktria sometimes falls under the label of "persian empire" and many others like Seljuk sultanate, il khanate, and an inmense et cetera. This is what i was thinking when i wrote the post. People who can't understand the difference between sassanid persian empire, achaemenid persian empire and the "pseudo persian empires" of parthia, baktria and seleucia.
  14. NoMolester
    Is not dead, it's in pause mode. There is not download yet. We are waiting for the game to be more complete. In the meanwhile you can help with ideas, art and research.
  15. NoMolester
    lol, the only thing more shame less would be to call the game 0A. XDD Edit: WAIT a minute... the game already is called 0A: 0 AD jajaja jajaja XDDD well, the only thing more shame less would be to call the game 0AA then. XD
  16. NoMolester
    Median Federation ==> Achemenid Empire ==> Alexandrian Empire ==> Seleucid Empire ==> Parthian Empire ==> Sassanid Empire ==> The Khaliphate The ones in B are the persian empires planned in 0 AD EA or 0 AD EB. I know there is no "definitive" list of civs for part 2 yet but parthian and sassanid are a "must have" so is highly unlikely for them to don't appear in part 2
  17. NoMolester
    The term persian empire even if originally referred to the achemenid persian empire is often used as a generic term for all the empires, sultanates and dinasties that have ruled the region through history and corresponds more to a region or culture than to a state. We should consider also, the different meanings of persia: -The geographical region. -The people and culture. -The numerous "persian" states through history. Since more "persian" empires are planned for the game (Parthians, Sassanids and Seleucids) i propose that the name of the civ "Persian Empire" change to "Achemenid Empire". Besides i think is more accurate since the empire was more than just the geographical region of persia. Just that a simple name change. It would be less confusing for people who are not very informed in the subject of persia and its different dinasties and states that ruled the region in the ancient times. What do you think?
  18. NoMolester
    what happened did you finished it?
  19. NoMolester
    De hecho hay bastantes hispanohablantes, pero aún así seguimos siendo una minoría. Si quieres que tus ideas tengan eco (sobretodo con los directores del juego que son anglosajones) deberías intentar en inglés. De todas formas, no está prohibido hablar en español, puedes hablar en el idioma que quieras, el único problema es que estarás limitado a los que hablen esa lengua. Creo que aún falta mucho para que se incluyan campañas en el juego, pero nunca está de más empezar a sugerir contextos históricos en los cuales basar las campañas. I think there is still too much to do before creating campaigns; however, is not a bad idea to start suggesting historic contexts for the campaigns. I would suggest the next: -Peloponnesian war. Being Sparta. -Persian invasion of Greece (to pleace the "spartan" fans of 300). Being Greece. -Of course the second punic war. Being Hannibal. -The third punic war. Being Rome. -The alexandrian campaign. -The Ptolemaic-Seleucid Wars. -The Seleucid -Mauryan wars. with an average of 7 scenarios per campaign, there would be more or less 50 scenarios Yhe only civs missing from the campaigns would be the gauls and britons, any idea?
  20. NoMolester
    Ok, i'll start researching for the civs that you don't know to post you a resume and possible units/buildings/techs, might be you could include some of those or perhaps even all of them, who knows.
  21. NoMolester
    Leónidas: Mesopotamia es una región que albergó muchas civilizaciones a través de la historia. Los asirios y babilonios eran civilizaciones mesopotámicas que existieron antes del periodo de tiempo de 0 AD (500 AC - 500 DC); sin embargo, existe un mod que abarca desde la Edad del Bronce hasta la Edad de Hierro (las épocas en las que existieron los asirios y babilonios), el mod se llama "Bronze Age Mod", ellos ya tienen planeado incluir a los babilonios y asirios , puedes apoyar con ideas, ve a la sección de Mods en el foro y ahí lo encontrarás, también hay una sección en español. Mod:http://www.wildfiregames.com/forum/index.php?showforum=420 Sección en español: http://www.wildfiregames.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=16815
  22. NoMolester
    Leonidas: Mesopotamia is a region that housed many civilizations through time. The assyrians and the babylonians were mesopotamic civilizations that existed previous to the timeframe of the game (500 BC - 500 AD). However, there is a mod that spans drom the bronze age to the iron age (the epochs in which the assyrians and babyloans existed), is callled "Bronze Age Mod", they are planning to include these civilizations, you could give it a try or help with ideas, is in the mod section of the forum.
  23. NoMolester
    Yes, a lot of documentation but not a lot of work, there wouldn't be 112 civs, there would be really 15 civs and the 112 "sub-factions" would be like technologies in which you can only investigate one per period. For example, as byzantines, if you choose the Frigian dinasty in the second period, you would gain access to the varangian guard and other bonuses. Like in AoM.
  24. NoMolester
    beautiful imaes.
  25. NoMolester
    You should add a note somewhere saying that the informational text is not fully revised yet due to alpha stage.
×
×
  • Create New...