Paal_101

And another thing is that we are designing the civs around specific times in history, so for instance there would be no 3rd century BC units mixed with 3rd century AD units.

That may be very possible ingame, we will have to see how the code works out ingame. We don't have that specifically coded in as far as I know, but for sure it could be experimented with if it doesn't already occur from the programming that already exists. As for Roman legionnaires, for sure. Definately better soldier for soldier than any other in the ancient world. My point was that a lone Roman solider versus a lighter and faster opponent would have some serious problems in terms of manueverability. He is wearing 30 pounds of chainmail and carrying a 20 pound shield. The people I've talked to on Roman Army Talk, many of them reenactors, all say that the scutum is not the ideal fencing shield and (in Roman form) is made for formation fighting. Likewise for the hoplon.

Definately, the Romans will be the master of one-shot-kill. Needed only 2 inches of gladius in you to kill you. Must be mentined that hoplites were not built for one-on-one combat either, particularly their shield. The arm brace and hand grip setup made it a bad choice as a fencing shield, designed form the getgo to be used in a phalanx. The ultimate one-on-one fighters in the ancient world had to be Iberian caetrati, Celtic swordsman, and well-equipped Germans.

I found it via the links at RedRampant.com, best click I've ever made

Another date of Roman significance - On this day (March 18) in 37 AD, the Roman Senate annulled the will of Tiberius Caesar and announced that Gaius Julius Germancus, better known as Caligula, Emperor of Rome. Alot seems to have happened in Roman politics during the months of January through to June Must have kept quiet in the winter.

Technically it is the hoplites who are the strongest in terms of armor, ranking over the various legionnaires. Its a small concession for the sack of balance. But that said, legionnaires, hoplites, and phalangites are all incredibly strong troop types, regardless of side

The glorious death by murder rather than a death from disease, very plausible. He was certainly smart enough.

It must also be said that a Roman legion travelled with no less than one ballista per century and one onager per cohort. This means that any legion in the Roman army had at its disposal 10 onagers and 59 ballista. That is a massive amount of firepower to bring to bear against any city. Multiply that by 28 legions and that brings the total paper strength of stone throwers in the field available for immediate use by local commanders across the Empire to 280 onagers and 1652 ballista at any one time. .......Not to mention backups taken along on campaign to supplement those in the legions. Or those kept in storage at armories or fortresses for use when needed. These boys were no strangers on how to beef up their projectile's damage, increase the weapon's range, or looking for ways to make the crew more efficient. For supplemental discussion, take a look at this topic on Roman Army Talk: http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=7160 The discussion revolves around one of the very few uses of large stone throwing siege engines in combat against infantry. Notice that only one siege engine in particular makes any sort of serious impact on the charge and that they were being used from a heavily fortified position. Ironically, it was a Roman on Roman fight, the Second Battle of Cremona.

....on the Ides of March, Gaius Julius Caesar was stabbed 23 times by members of the Roman Senate lead by Decimus Junius Brutus Albinus (who was stabbed in the hand by an errant dagger during the frenzy) and Gaius Cassius Longinus. After this day the events were set in motion that would lead to the creation of the Second Triumvirate, out of which would come the first Emperor of Rome, Augustus.

Those are good suggestions There are a couple of things you should know though: We are going to deploy siege engines in the game as they were used in historical battles, against buildings in fixed engagements. Large stone throwers such as ballista, onagers, lithobolos, and the like were used exclusively against static targets. They were time consuming to construct and disassemble. Admittedly they did come in premade parts but their weight also made them difficult to reaim during a fast paced infantry confrontation. And it was not particularly good for your cause if previously ill-equipped barbarians suddenly came into possession of a half-dozen full assembled siege engines which could suddenly be turned on your own towns because there was no time to pack them up. Even so the rate of fire on the stone throwers was far too slow to be of much use in disrupting an infantry charge. Bolt throwers like the scorpio and chieroballistra were used in some limited fashion by the Romans in field engagements, but the ones used in particular were usually on the smaller end of the size scale, sort of like a ancient version of a modern squad heavy machine gun like a Browning M-2 or an DShK. Yet the evidence still seems to point towards the fact that bolt throwers (large and small) were more restricted to being anti-personnel weapons used in sieges and as defensive weapons in camps and fortresses. Above all historical accuracy is what we are going for. It is very possible that siege engines can be used as an anti-personnel weapon in 0 AD during field battles, particularly the bolt throwers, but expect them to be used 90% of the time smashing buildings to dust.

It matters on how well you draw. A good understanding of military equipment, history, and mentality for at least one culture is required for smooth design (which is what we want ). If you are interested in a position, talk to Jason (Wijitmaker) He'll let you know what is available.

As I said on MSN, good luck and have fun! Don't be a stranger, try and post on the boards while you're there if you can Looking forward to those pictures Scout out some good restaurants near the Coliseum for me when I go

Onagers? The Romans have them, although none of the catapults will be equipped with flaming projectiles, since that is pure Hollywood. 120 pound rocks, yes

Agreed, however he died he is gone, and none too soon. My father was born in Croatia, so for me the saga of Milosevic has always been somewhat personal. But I believe true judgement comes in the next life, and I feel no pity.

I saw a piece on TV about a Chinese restaurant that served rats.

Yes Another one stands with the winning side

Indeed, congratulations guys

Long Term Plan - Graduate college, get a job with an accounting firm as an articling student, take the CA exam in 3 years and settle down. Short Term - Get through the last few weeks of this semester, find a job for the summer, then come back in the fall for year 2.

Happy Birthday Joshua!

As you said, Persian armies were also large for intimidation purposes. Mesopotamian and Near Eastern practice for a millenia had been to scare one's opponents into submission by bringing a massive force to his doorstep. The Bible, for example, has several incidents where massive armies are brought to bear by the Cannanites, Assyrians, and Babylonians in attempts to frighten the opponent. Persian armies followed the same practice. Western armies like the Greeks and Romans always went out with the intention of fighting each time, so every man there was necessary. On the other hand Persian armies could be made up of thousands of unnecessary, untrained men to simply provide bulk and a fear factor. Darius III at Gaugamela planned to fight, but dead to rights he was trying to scare Alexander by having 100,000 men arrayed against him, knowing that his previous attempts had failed. That being said the Persians did have some very highly trained troops, usually Medes and Persians. In addition the Assyrian and Sakae troops in their armies could not be discounted, nor the Cissians and Bactrians. Particularly the cavalry from these nations were hardly negligiable. If anything the Persians lacked in trained infantry, and indeed once they began to fight as karadakes they proved to be tough opponents.

I'm potentially interested in reenacting Do you?

At this point there are vague concepts for Germanics, Goths, and Saxons in Part II of 0 AD, but nothing for sure. As for barbaric, Germanics of the 1st and 2nd centuries AD were about as barbaric as they came

Agree with Michael. Alexander, militarily was almost bang on with any history book you would ever open. The only thing that was blatantly different was that the phalangites were wearing white tunics rather than the historically described red. And the condensing of particular events at Gaugamela and certain actions there are explained in the director's commentary by Oliver Stone, where he says this isn't right, but for the sake of the story is done that way. As for chariot crashes, I do not know, although I imagine that it will be so.

....and the guy hits the sarissa on the way down Ouch. Good cinematic battle that one.

Here is a video of a horse race gone bad: http://www.spikedhumor.com/articles/1434/Horse_Launch.html It gives one an idea of the kind of crashes one could expect from a chariot in combat. In this case the yoke pole disconnects and digs into the ground. Kinda painful.