Sundiata
-
Posts
2.332 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
60
Posts posted by Sundiata
-
-
@wowgetoffyourcellphone The units look nice (Ummayads?), but the helmets make them look very medieval (especially that nasal guard). Nabataeans were also pretty Hellenized.
I'm sure historical accuracy wasn't at the top of the list for these reenactors at Petra, but the helmet "looks" more authentic:
Jewish headgear (probably very similar to their neighbours:
The only depictions I've ever seen of actual Nabatean camels dating to our time-frame, 1c BC -1c AD:
Bedouins in Antiquity could even have some locks or pleated hair.. King Tiglath-Pileser III, King of Babylon, and of Assyria, executing a Bedouin Bob Marley (apparently he didn't take the killing of his sheriff lightly):
The struggle is ancient y'all... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXosJKsKetw&frags=pl%2Cwn
And a little bonus, Petra, the Heart of the Desert:
-
3
-
-
11 minutes ago, Genava55 said:
- Or we can follow simple guideline for the unit upgrade with experience. For example the infantryman get a Montefortino helmet (4th / 3rd century) in his advanced version but when he reaches the elite version he get a later helmet like the Alesia or the Port helmet. The same logic for the shield bosses. Thus each upgrade from experience follows a temporal evolution logic. Which is fairly simple, it is only Early and Middle La Tène versus Late La Tène.
- Or a logic based on the moment the unit got available. Village = Early La Tène ; Town = Middle La Tène; City = Late La Tène. The champion units will only have Late La Tène equipment.
- Finally, a mixture of 2 and 3.
That's my personal preference (for most other civs as well actually)
-
3 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
I think you both are being too hard on the original designers. One of the premises of the game was that each faction would be represented by a slice of time, preferably at a moment of their greatest strength or at some interesting point in their history. Since almost every other game about the Romans depicts them during the principate or triumvirate, it probably made sense to choose the Punic War era for their depiction.
"But the Seleucids!" - the Seleucid reform feature was just supposed to be that: a feature, something special for them to make them stand apart from the other civs, almost like a bonus. It was never meant to be applied to all the other civs. Not to say it couldn't be though.
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to insult anyone. I was just frustrated to find out that the Romans specifically depict the Polybian Era Republic, which makes all the symbols wrong, including my own, as well as the original Roman symbol that has been in the game since god knows when, without anybody pointing it out. Now there's no symbols, just plain sails...
The in-game description and wiki pages really need to be changed, because they don't say anything about Polybian armies and allude to Empire. What about the multistoried Civic Center? That doesn't look right for the time. Even the temple. Shouldn't it look a lot more like the earlier Etruscan temples? The towers? There's probably a lot more issues I'm ignorant about...
I appreciate the idea behind depicting an earlier, not often depicted era of Roman history. It just makes things very difficult. Furthermore, I believe we are not taking full advantage of the phases. They don't need to be the same for each faction! Romans evolving from early, to mid-, to late republic is perfectly logical and doable. Restricting Romans specifically to the mid-republican era is just less than ideal. I wasn't even excited about limiting the Romans to the Republic, let alone to a sliver in time of that republic...
-
2
-
-
7 minutes ago, Genava55 said:
Personally, I would have preferred a Roman faction going from the Latin Wars to the Anthony's civil war. It is more interesting to have a faction that can evolute, from the Camillian army to the Cesarean army. Moreover, there aren't any strict boundaries for the Roman evolution. Nor for the culture, nor for the society, nor for the army. Things like the "Marian reforms" never existed, these are the kinds of popular beliefs spreading over the Internet.
Thank you!
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Genava55 said:
Well, the Roman faction is only about Polybian era isn't it?
Apparently it is...
A terribly poor choice in my opinion. The game is set from 500 BC to 1 BC, which is already aggravatingly random and constrictive. Then people started telling me that the Romans actually only depict the Republic era Romans. Why? What's the point of this? Now I'm learning that they don't even represent the republic, but the Polybian era (290 BC - 130 BC) specifically... Whaaaaaat??? Who decided this?? How does this make any sense? What's the added value? We have Vercingetorix, Cleopatra, Amanirenas, Caratacus, Boudica, Cunobeline etc, all contemporaries of Gaius Julius Caesar, or even post-dating him, but we refuse Caesar himself in game, because he post-dates the mid-republic. Pffff... This doesn't make any sense people... All it does is make referencing impossible... It honestly just sounds like someone that was trying to sound smart and people went with it.
It doesn't make any sense to restrict any faction to an only 160 year sliver of it's 1000 year existence. Especially not one as iconic as the Romans... Does the actual Roman faction in game actually conform to these dates? Plus it exacerbates the historical cringe when the Romans in game meet anybody other than Carthage and Iberia (and neither of those factions are all that historical either).
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Genava55 said:
Moreover, "SPQR" started to be used only through the 1st century BC.
It's not known when exactly it came into use, but it's use by the late republic is generally believed. So is the late republic not even republican enough?
If we remove the SPQR, including the old, original one in game that I was just following, then we just went from 4 Roman symbols to 0...
Or should they all just be replaced with ROMA?
1 hour ago, Genava55 said:I honestly didn't know that.
I'm not going to make any more symbols for the Romans unless someone who actually knows something about the Roman Republic creates a dedicated post detailing which symbols to use, and why, with clear period, primary references, and an explanation of what, and what not to do (none of that armchair stuff). I also don't want to make anything that can be misconstrued as Rome II TW rip-off.
How can there be no Rome-experts on this forum? I thought they were a dime a dozen?
-
1 hour ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
I made this sky set from the new Kushites menu background and I couldn't help to think it would have been easier and/or more powerful to have had the mountains as a separate set of images that I could use over any of the skies in the game.
Are there any relevant tickets or patches for something like described? Any pitfalls?
That looks awesome!!! Would be a great addition to the game. I've wanted this for a long time...
Kind of reminds me of the horizons in Rise and Fall: Civilizations at War.
-
1
-
1
-
-
53 minutes ago, destro said:
and i wonder who drawing this beautiful background art!! it's so beautiful!!
one of 0.a.d art team drawing this??
@pedro_blanco, you have another fan
-
1
-
-
57 minutes ago, stanislas69 said:
Not a great fan of the wolf maybe if it was inside out
@Alexandermb, nice. I think like Stanislas is saying, the wolf would look better with a player color filling. It doesn't matter if it looses some of the details from the lines. Check:
I still need to get a better Pegasus done...
-
1
-
-
-
Siege warfare itself is way to complicated to depict realistically in a classic RTS game to begin with. But I do think 0AD can do better.
I'm no expert, but to my knowledge what the video is saying seems correct.
Siege warfare in reality evolved around actually besieging your enemy, preventing them from leaving their position and preventing them from being resupplied, with the intention of starving them into submission, or preventing them from accessing clean water. This process could easily take months, or even years. Actual attacks on the walls included sapping the walls (tunneling) and using ladders and movable towers to reach the top of the walls. The construction of elevated ramps higher than the walls, to be able to shoot down on the defenders is also a recurring thing. Gates are usually the "vulnerable" spots, which means they were usually extra fortified. Attempts would be made to ram down the gates, or burn them down. But none of this is easy... It's a recurring thing in history that gates were breached only after defending guards were bribed.
Most battering rams, siege towers, other catapults and elephants were pretty useless against well designed walls as well. It's just an RTS abstraction, to keep things playable.
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, MythyCool said:
I could also add the Ethiopian Empire.
Aaaaaaaand, you have my attention!
What time period exactly is your mod? It seems to cover 2000 years at least... Ethiopia has about 3000 years of continuous history, so that shouldn't be an issue.
Just to wet the appetite a little:
Spoiler
.thumb.jpg.fec8180618c952666b65c0e868b0a8f6.jpg)
-
3
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
I thought the temple was pretty good too.
I forgot.. The temple looks really great! Except it's not really a temple but a kiosk (and was part of a larger whole)... Also, I'm pretty sure it's modeled after Trajan's Kiosk at Philae. Roman... I'm not opposed to the structure though, because it's in-line with the Ptolemaic Egyptian style architecture (like Kom Ombo).
1 hour ago, Nescio said:With Ptolemaic settlement I meant any settlement controlled by the Ptolemies, which means hundreds of cities and thousands of villages. Ideally the Ptolemies could use a new architecture set that blends Greek and Egyptian influences (I'm quite fond of the Seleucid structures), but I realize that's a lot of work. Removing the obelisks from the civic centre and military colony can be done in minutes, which would improve historical accuracy. I'm not opposed to the obelisk per se, but I think it's inappropiate and unrealistic to have it included in these central structures. If map makers want an obelisk, they can use the existing other/obelisk.xml template.
I don't understand this line of reasoning. We already established that (smaller) obelisks were still produced in the Ptolemaic period and that older obelisks were being repurposed. So how could there be anything inappropriate or unrealistic about a pair of obelisks adorning a Ptolemaic civic center?
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Nescio said:
To clarify, I'm not saying obelisks didn't exist in Ptolemaic Egypt. My point is they were rare, certainly not something you would see in every Ptolemaic settlement. The fact that Pliny and others mention them illustrates how uncommon they were.
To clarify myself as well, I'm also not saying that the Ptolemies were spamming obelisks all over the place. They might have been relatively rare, but so were Ptolemaic settlements themselves... The account by Piny is only one account from 2000 years ago. The fact that we still have Ptolemaic era obelisks today also suggests there were more than 3 of them...
The thing is that the Ptolemies in 0AD need to be Hellenized, yes. But they shouldn't look like a generic Hellenic civ either. They should have a (historically accurate) Egyptian veneer, and what screams Egyptian more than a pair of (slightly downscaled) obelisks, sphinxes, and other Ancient Egyptian statues that were in fact used by the Ptolemies in their Greek settlements as decoration (and legitimization)?
-
1
-
-
23 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
I don't think the design of the CC is a problem from that standpoint. It just represents some generic civic building near the center of town. Nothing specific. The only problem really is just the same problem as the whole set.
The set itself is so gorgeous that it would be a shame to remove it completely from the game. Perhaps they can be renamed and used in a Jebel Barkal-esque skirmish or random map set in Egypt.
The set is really not good from a historic perspective. The temple of Edfu is perfect, and the Light House, Library and mercenary camp are heading in the right direction, but the rest is really not good. I would suggest to use the models for an Egyptian faction in the new Mythology mod @Rolf Dew is working on. Because more than anything, those structures are based on Age of Mythology, not history. Inward slanting walls really weren't a thing. Only pyramids, mastabas and temple pylons had those...
-
1
-
-
16 minutes ago, Nescio said:
Those Ptolemaic obelisks are a lot smaller (the one in the Met is under 2 m; the Philae obelisk is under 4 m); functionally they were similar to other Ptolemaic steles such as the Rosetta stone.
25 minutes ago, Sundiata said:In the Ptolemaic Dynasty, obelisks continued to be made, and old ones re-used, both large and small.
You argued to remove the obelisks from Ptolemaic buildings, so I illustrated that obelisks were still being made. So do you agree not to remove them? Just to scale them down? The base you see with the Phillae obelisk is original, by the way, putting it's total size at more than 5 meters, not taking into account any other pedestals or steps that might further increase the height.
Not huge, but not exactly small either...
Also, according to Pliny, Ptolemy II went to great lengths to transport an obelisk of Nectanebo to Alexandria... So there's no reason to believe that they only decorated their cities with "small" newly carved obelisks, but were using old, larger ones as well.
-
52 minutes ago, Nescio said:
Hopefully someone can remove those obelisks from the civic centre and military colony.
The obelisks aren't the problem, it's the civic center itself. It looks like a serious misinterpretation of a temple's pylon.
In the Ptolemaic Dynasty, obelisks continued to be made, and old ones re-used, both large and small.
https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/565085
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philae_obelisk
Pliny apparently even describes Ptolemy II erecting an obelisk...
So in short, the obelisks are fine.
-
2
-
-
35 minutes ago, stanislas69 said:
I'm just dropping by to say how much I love this! Excellent work!
Celts are indeed the civ par excellence to showcase wooden barrels as they are widely believed to have invented it, as you say.
At first I would have advocated for draping cloth as the "roof", but I think the thatch turned out really nice, and that wooden frame is definitely strong enough to hold it. Even in wattle and daub buildings, the walls aren't normally load baring. The load is normally carried by wooden posts, so the load bearing capacity of the posts in your design is very similar to any other non-stone structure in their roster.
I think this building really helps to illustrate to more "civilized"/complex/social organizational aspects of the Gauls.
-
2
-
-
@Flavius Aetius Interesting... I'm curious about the Yuezhi and how they relate to the other steppe people. Also about the relation between the Xiongnu and the later Mongols. Have you seen the mod Terra Magna which already features a playable Xiongnu civ.
-
2 hours ago, Alexandermb said:
That's one pretty ship! Looks really great... Thank you! That's one less thing to think about for the Kushites
-
1 minute ago, Diatryma said:
shields, yes , coins, yes.... sails with SPQR (?)
The ships in 0AD all have different symbols in player color decorating the sails of their ships to help make them more recognizable in game. In reality, I'm pretty sure most sails were completely undecorated. I already made the eagle with SPQR, but we need some variation. That's why I've been asking people in the community to provide some accurate Roman symbols for sail decoration, because I'm not an expert. The wolf is coming up. But I'd like at least 3 different symbols.
-
42 minutes ago, Diatryma said:
you are making Imperial Romans or Republicans?
I thought they were making the Romans from the republican age, not from the Augustus era until the Flavian dynasty.
- It would look better for a Siracusan faction.
The Republic indeed... Why do you think they didn't use Pegasus during the Republic?
We don't have a Syracusan faction. Also Syracuse (Sicily, Italy) was part of the Roman Republic from 212 BC onwards.
-
@Alexandermb Terrific! The only I thing I'd say is to move the mast to the middle of ship. Otherwise, no comment
-
45 minutes ago, Diatryma said:
Pegasus isn't exclusive symbol.
Yes, I know... If we strip everything that isn't exclusively Roman, we'd have no Romans...
45 minutes ago, Diatryma said:it would be a shame if you chose to represent pegaso as a symbol of the Roman republic.
Considering the Romans actually used Pegasus as a symbol themselves, including for one of their legions (III Augusta), it really wouldn't be a shame... It's just to add variation to the sails. I'm not totally happy with how it turned out, style-wise, that's why I was looking at Roman depictions of Pegasus. I liked the coin of Roma and the chariot in one of your links, so I might look at that.
Romulus and Remus with the wolf was already planned.
Perhaps other people would also prefer to ignore the Roman Pegasus and make a Greek Pegasos for the Athenian sails instead, let me know. I'm not one to ignore things because they don't fit our preconceptions, but maybe you guys prefer it for distinguishing purposes?
More appropriate Roman symbols are always super welcome though!
.jpg.d4b8efcd81a0593dddfe0e78975e8e48.jpg)
Arabic Units
in Art Development
Posted
I honestly think you're right. Hellenization was profound and far reaching across the Middle East, but I often think it's a bit exaggerated with regard to the indigenous cultures and even states that coexisted with them. I too would like to see some more representation for these types of local units. I think Hellenization was concentrated in important centres (like Petra for example), but nomads be nomads and Bedouins are and always have been fiercely independent. The counterparts of the people of Petra would have probably scuffed at the Greek tunics of their urbanite cousins.