Mega Mania
-
Posts
320 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Posts posted by Mega Mania
-
-
It's still at Alpha stage, friend.
-
The first post represent the Sassanids objective to create a standing army where the cavalry served as the core of the elite fighting force, while infantry served as auxiliaries for the cavalry.
Second post shows that due to massive national mobilization, proper battle gear, mercenaries and war elephants begin to appear.
-
Units from IB: Somnium Apostatea Iuliani:
1. Sassanid Clibanarii
2. Sassanid Infantry with heavy armor
3. Sassanid dismounted cavalry
4. Saka cavalry
5. Gilani Infantry
6. Royal Household Archer
Plus with some elite units owned by the King:
1. Sassanid Household Cavalry
2. The King's Life Guards
Plus war elephants:
-
Perhaps you could have both Parthians and Sassanids in the game for part II without much extra work and making sense (like the Greek and Celtic factions):
- Simular buildings and many common units, since they mostly had the same territory.
- They briefly fought against each other during the part II timeframe
- Sassinids should have a some heavy infantry power plus more elephant and mostly catafract focus
- Parthians should have only weak infantry, good catafracts, (maybe) no elephants and more of a horse archer focus.
Parthian timeframe is almost equally split between the two game parts so they could also fit for part I. They could also be considered for having some of the nomad faction mechanics since they started as nomads before occupying a revolted seleucid satrapy.
Not quite similar, Parthians may look like Sassanid Persia but they are different especially national mobilization: Parthian mobilize their own clansmen and their clients or sometimes tribal levies while Sassanids prefer to mobilized every subject from the four corners of Eransahr. Be it a warrior (cavalry), vassals (foreign nations subdued by the Sassanids), "commoners" (infantry) and mercenaries (foreign fighters like Gilan and Daylam).
Sassanid have mastered siege craft and they have the ability to build siege equipment and they have a better logistics that allows them to mount long term military campaign.
That's why i make a thread with the name of Parthia and Sassanid.
Sassanid overthrow the Parthians but in the initial years the Sassanids or more precisely the Kingdom of Parsis was a vassal serving the Parthian Overlords.
Some Sassanid heavy infantry like the Daylami warrior didn't exist until the reign of Kosrow I and the Daylami Guards emerged during the reign of Kosrow II after Bahram Chobin's rebellion and Bestam's uprising.
Early Sassanid do not use war elephants in battle because Zoroastrians believed elephants are evil and repugnant. Until Shapur II mounts a huge campaign to reclaim lands lost to the Romans.
Parthian infantry are weak, which is why you have less options and their HP and other attributes will never be as strong as the Romans or any other factions.
Yes, Parthians are nomads and they do need a nomadic mechanics.
-
excuse if i am trolling, but, what happens if the "hycarian hillmen" tries to attack other buildings?, houses, barracks, stone walls, civ centres, fortresses, special buildings, and wonders?, we mantain the bonus??????, and i have a n idea for repair the "health & armoun trouble", reduce the cost for put this units very cheap and replaceable!
Historically Hyrcania was among the first occupied by the Parthians, IMO since Parthian army are clan dominated and posses no knowledge in siege craft for infantry like the Hyrcanians their task was simple to raid and devastate enemy territory so it would a little bit difficult for them to destroy wonders, civic center and fortress who have more armor and HP. To give player an advantage, Hyrcanians are extremely cheap and with a lower training time (since they are numerous) which any player could raise an army of these warlike mountaineers in a short time with less resources.
-
Did Sassanids use war elephants?
Yes, during the reign of Shapur II when they invade Roman Mesopotamia and the defense of Asoristan (Iraq).
For more information please visit: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28587/28587-h/28587-h.htm or http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/elephant-ii-sasanian-army.
-
I agree, stuman92.
It would be better for armed conflict remained as armed conflict while slave raid as slave raid.
-
Sassanid unit from Invasio Barbarorum: Restitutor Orbis
These units formed the bulk and the elite of the early Sassanid unit, hopefully these picture could help.
-
Anfialro was right, information from wikipedia wasn't always accurate and prone to modification or fabrication.
-
Instead of capturing enemy soldiers and turn them into slaves, why don't implement it on other ways?
My concept of slavery and its consequences:
1. All houses, civic center, temple, barracks, marketplace and fortress have a certain amount of slave value, if a player destroy an enemy's house, civic center, marketplace, temple, barracks and fortress the player's marketplace will have an increase of slave and if the enemy have done the same thing on the player's territory and the enemy's market will have an increase of slave.
2. Slave value for houses, civic center and fortress are fixed, while a marketplace have the ability to generate slave value but with a very slow rate which means player have to conduct slave raid to increase its slave value.
3. There are different slaves for all building who have slave value, for example: houses have only female slaves, civic center have a certain amount of male and female slaves. While the fortress, temple and barracks have male slaves only or a large portion of male slaves.
4. Male slaves was able to build military and civilian structure and with a good gathering rate but a bit expensive, female slave have a cheap value but only able to build civilian structure and they have an average gathering rate on wood, metal and stone.
5. Slaves are property but still it was treated like population, 1 slave requires half of an average population regardless if they are male or female.
6. Slaves are prone to rumor, bribe and sedition which makes them very dangerous to human player and computer, player or computer player could exploit such weakness to win a war.
7. A rebellious slave have the ability to persuade his or her own kind to join the rebellion.
8. The ability to persuade could turn a group of enemy slaves into player's unit instantaneously this able a rebellion to spread like wildfire.
-
1
-
-
Carthage have abandoned chariot when they encountered the Greeks in Sicily but it wasn't obsolete during the founding of Carthage and the time frame was fine for the Carthaginian to deploy chariots, but with a major problem : How do you phased out the chariots in the Carthaginian Army? Are they Editor-Only-Unit or generic military unit? IMHO they should be Editor-Only-Unit.
-
1
-
-
I have an idea about capturing slaves. A new type of soldier can be made and called something like "slave catcher". Such a soldier/unit is trained at the marketplace. Instead of attacking, this unit tries to capture the enemy unit. The slave-catcher must follow the slave for X amount of time before the slave is "trusted" to be a slave that does not require supervision. Code can be added to make the possibility of a slavery rebellion. Some factors can include work load, citizen to slave ratio, etc.
Sounds absurd for classical RTS.
-
As i said before, not all are playable because they could barely become a nation, for example: The Huns, they plunder any cities they encountered and they kill or enslave anyone as they wish but the fact is that they relied heavily on raids, extortion and war to support their fragile regime. Imagine a faction who have little or almost no proper economy at all in 0 AD become a playable faction and the reaction of the players
What i proposed is that 0 AD should have a diverse mini factions where some mini factions was able to act like a normal factions while the majority cannot.
You seems to ignore the fact some major factions in 0 AD are nomads.
And there's one thing, this is just a discussion whether the team accept or not is in team's decision and why so serious since we're not the one that makes decision?
-
But then why making them "minifactions" better adding them as normal full playable factions in a DLC if they take almost the same amount of work to be done.
Not all of them could make it to DLC, some of them could hardly become a nation or they served as vassal of a certain superpower. But some of them have the potential becoming playable faction in a DLC if a certain faction have the following conditions:
1. A regional superpower
2. Have a standing army
3. Have a strong economy to maintain an army and the ability to build a proper defensive structures like walls, tower, outposts and forts.
4. A politically united nation that have the ability to draft its people for military service or manual labor and capable of collecting taxes, maintaining civil justice and public order and keeping government documents.
5. Culturally advanced (for example: have a state religion) and capable of building monuments and spreading influence to other nearby nations or tribes.
-
Convertion? Is planned feature, but is barely discussed how should work.
I think conversion should look like Rise of Nations where a Hero or Spy have ability to bribe enemy instead of converting an enemy with religious zeal.
Anyway, it's too early to discuss the functions and the principles of unit conversion.
-
1
-
-
I have a curious idea:
Catch enemy units and transform into slaves:
* Citizen support into get food and wood
* citizen soldiers into a free without any cost soldiers
I cannot agree with the idea capturing enemy and turning them into slaves, but i agree that you can train slaves in marketplace instead of converting enemy's militiamen into slaves.
-
1
-
-
2.- You would have to program the AI to decide when is convenient to pack or unpack a certain building and where to place it again.
Only on phase 1, a nomadic mini faction or pastoral mini faction can only pack and unpack their settlement during phase 1. When they reached phase 2, they'll automatically relinquish their ability to migrate from one place to another.
-
1.- Then what would be the difference between a civlized minifaction and a normal faction?
There is little difference between a civilized mini faction and a normal faction, since not all faction didn't have all the requirements (military, economy, political and cultural) to be a major faction, then it would be better they become civilized mini factions.
-
Amazing!
-
Unfortunately i have no skills on creating such units but only able give advice on their appearance.
If you wish to help, you should begin with the infantry units.
-
Thank you, Lion.
But it's quite fun when you guys bring out other factions military reform.
-
I feel its an overkill and restricts gameplay.
Agree.
-
Kingdom of Armenia? which Armenia? Is it the reign of Tigran the Great or Arsacid Armenia?
IMHO Armenia should be mini faction.
-
I was thinking 3 main Germanic factions.
- Alemanni/Suebi
- Franks
- Goths
Do we need Alemanni? Are they so important? IMHO Franks and Goths are better than the Alemanni as one of the major German factions.
Champion Units
in General Discussion
Posted
Achaemenid Persian never used war elephants until the Battle of Gaugamela but it didn't win the battle for the Persians thus making it a white elephant although they are useful in 0 AD, and horse archery wasn't that popular in Persia before Parthian Empire.