Sundiata
-
Posts
2.332 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
60
Posts posted by Sundiata
-
-
@coworotel, fair remarks. Expecting an amazing strategic depth from a classical RTS like 0AD may or may not be a bit much, but we can expect it not to devolve into a clicking competition. It should at least have good strategic depth with a sensible pacing, I mean, it is called a Real Time Strategy game after all, not Tekken.
There are many ways of managing, balancing and facilitating a greater sense of strategy through costs, train- and build-times, new and/or revamped mechanisms and far more expanded, unique and comprehensive tech trees (so expansive and incrementally expensive that you couldn't realistically research everything, forcing you to make choices).
1 minute ago, coworotel said:That said, I'm surprised nobody so far made a fork/mod of 0AD focused on city building. An open-source ancient historical sim city. There are a lot of people in the community that enjoy more this aspect than the military part.
And most historical city builders lack a good military aspect. 0AD offers both elements of historical city builders as well as historical battle simulators like Total War. 0AD can't and shouldn't become either of those, but since they're already overlapping in certain areas, I argue to "do a better job" at integrating a very simple arcade type mechanic of city builders and apply it to the base-building aspects of 0AD, and integrating a very simple arcade type mechanic of battle simulators for military aspect of 0AD. We can go more in-depth without becoming too complicated either. Basically fusing the best of both worlds in an RTS format.
-
1
-
-
36 minutes ago, macemen said:
For me an RTS is about a very simple economy (a few resource types), quick, fully strategical base building (e.g. build houses in a circle around fields), scouting and fast reactions to the enemy's moves.
That's part of what killed the classic RTS genre in the first place. Overly simplistic, repetitive, boring after x-amount of games. Building houses in a circle around fields is not strategical base building, it's taking advantage of flawed mechanics. Why in the world would a circle of houses protect anything? Walls are for protection, but they don't really offer any good protection as it is. Pro-players don't use them, and neither does the AI... That's a bug/missing or incomplete feature. Not a quality. Building houses in circle around fields (often around the CC) is also super ugly, totally unrealistic (nobody farms in the city center) and just plain silly/immersion braking... It's a good example of what's wrong with 0AD as it is.
46 minutes ago, macemen said:Strategic depth is in how I build my economy (rush/boom) when and where I expand and what troops to train (if the enemy has paper I try to train scissors, not rocks).
Chopping wood, "mining" and farming/hunting/fishing isn't an economy, it's just resource-gathering. There's no logistics, no production chain, no consumption... Its deadening simplicity is braking immersion. Sending traders back and forth with no products whatsoever isn't trade either, it's just taking a magical walk that produces stone/metal/food/wood out of thin air. Likewise, rock-paper-scissors is useful in unit balancing, but way too simple as the main parameters of a successful military strategy. I know there's more to it than that, but then we're back at neurotic microing of braindead units which only a handful of people really enjoy, and teching up as fast as possible... Many of the maps themselves also lack a certain strategical depth (partly a casualty of balance concerns), making the choice of when and where to expand less relevant than it could be (although newer maps are becoming more interesting, it's still something that could improve).
1 hour ago, macemen said:What you describe above would lead to many hour long matches with everybody sitting in their bases and building monuments because nothing would motivate them to go out and attack the enemy with all they have.
Definitely not case unless the players themselves want it to last for hours... These suggestions don't mean that balancing is thrown out the window. There would be trade-offs for everything. You could go for a well rounded approach, developing a bit of everything, but not specializing in anything, or choose to focus on a militaristic, mercantile, or fanatic religiosity or nationalist approach, which all come with their respective advantages and disadvantages. These things should remain relatively abstract choices, with a lot of potential overlap. Having more in-depth strategic choices can either prolong the game if both players are equally brilliant, or cut it short when someone makes a less than optimal decision. The point is the outcomes are far more variable and unpredictable which makes thing interesting and spicy.
1 hour ago, macemen said:In my opinion a good RTS should not encourage turtling. It should reward those who take the risk and act and react fast, not the cautious ones who play safe. Otherwise the matches will never end.
I'm unreceptive to the idea that turtling shouldn't be encouraged for defensive players, as I also think that developing formidable siege capacities should be encouraged for aggressive players. Both turtling and raiding should be viable strategies with intrinsic advantages and disadvantages. Being cautious is good common sense, and should absolutely not be penalised in favor of aggressive or impulsive/reckless players going all out the moment they reach their pop-cap. It should be balanced between the two. I can't really stand the idea that certain types of players are "discriminated" against by default. That's really wrong. It's similar to numerical superiority being frowned upon, although it's a totally legitimate strategy. Some players should be able to focus on recruiting all elite units and create a small but highly professional army while other players should be able to focus on recruiting a large mass of peasant levies that can overwhelm the enemy through sheer numbers. Both strategies should be totally viable.
1 hour ago, macemen said:Evil nitpick: how is priests blessing monuments raising morale and reducing corruption historically accurate?
? The priests don't bless the monuments, they bless the troops. They just bless them at the monuments/temples/statues, through prayer and sacrifices. Religion was kind of a big thing in the ancient world. It had a major effect on the way people thought and behaved. Troops with a strong religious fervor can outmatched better trained and better equipped troops by sheer willpower, dedication, persistence, lacking a fear of death/sense of martyrdom. When warriors feel that their fight is ordained by the gods, and victory is their divine destiny, they will outmatch otherwise equal soldiers fighting for a salary. Be it the will of the gods, or simply a religious placebo, the effects are very, very real.
-
The 4 resources thing is mostly an archaic holdover from a time when computers (and games) were a lot simpler. People today are used to playing a lot more complicated strategy games with crazy amounts of options and possibilities. I understand that 0AD isn't a city-builder, a management game or a battle simulator, and shouldn't try to be so either, BUT, that doesn't mean that we should be hesitant to think outside the box, and borrow those elements from comparable genres that might add significant value to 0AD's gameplay without betraying the original game-design, which is actually far more in-depth than the game currently is and explicitly states that 0AD shouldn't become a clicking competition, but have varied ways to attain victory.
The thing is, it's not 1999 anymore, and most of us aren't 11-year olds. Most gamers want options, in-depth strategy, tactical options that are more than who clicks faster. With regard to base(town)building games (like 0AD), many people today want a large variety in buildings, organic looks (natural diversity), the ability to build the town to their own specifications including beautifications. Many people just like to build a beautiful city and enjoy the views while toying with the AI, and playing our own little games in the main-game, like setting personal objectives like, "take that hill and build a city on it for no reason whatsoever"...
0AD is amazing as it is, don't get me wrong! I just look at 0AD and Pyrogenesis as a platform, rather than a finished game and engine. A platform with near endless possibilities. Since the days of Age of Empires, many millions of us around the world have been dreaming and fantasising about our ideal historical RTS game, and 0AD, more than any other project in the world, has the potential to fulfill those dreams. I'd just hate to see it as a 3D, stale rebalance of a 20 year old game, but rather as a trendsetter that rewrote the classic RTS-genre. A game that gives us the sense, the feeling that we're building a capital city, with peripheral towns and villages. The feeling that we're recruiting a real army. The feeling that we're marching out our guys to glorious battle, laying siege to the enemy's walled towns, and burning it all down. There is a lack in immersion right now, and the art department has been and continues to work miracles in the visual department, but the gameplay itself sometimes brakes immersion in unfortunate ways (although I'm confident the way the project has progressed over the years that the "end product" will be amazing no matter what).
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, macemen said:
Won't that cause the strong to be even stronger and the weak to be even weaker? Imagine that one of your outer bases was ambushed and the local workforce and garrison slaughtered. Your enemy will now also have the benefit of high morale, while you, in addition to having to quickly restore your army, also have to deal with poor morale due to lost territory, buildings and units.
In a way, yes... That would be the point... Beautifully historical, how battle-field losses, loss of territory and failure to protect your citizens and maintain your border affects the honor/glory/morale of your civilization and its fighters...
More than that though, it offers different routes to victory. If you've invested heavily in honor and glory by building monuments and tasked priests to worship at them, a few minor losses on your periphery aren't going to be the deciding factor. If your enemy has invested everything in a large/cheap army and attacks you with low honor and glory, he might be surprised by the outcome of battle when he meets your main force of highly motivated fighters.
It would require some considerable balancing efforts, but along with the introduction of "coin" and an actual, albeit simple economy, the point would be to offer much more divergent types of gameplay, with different civs having different accents. You could go for sheer military force/numbers/militaristic state (currently the only real strategy), or you could go for economic boom (becoming so rich, that you can easily train champions and recruit mercenaries, bribe enemy forces with low morale etc, research lots of techs, slaves), or you could go for honor and glory (building glorious monuments to the gods, blessings of the priests inspiring your troops with an unstoppable religious zeal, un-bribable, workers work hard for the glory of the gods and king). In reality you'd be making use of all three, but it's up to you to decide what you choose to emphasize.
I've noticed that especially multiplayers are wary of anything that might cause a snowball effect, but the same players usually don't want long drawn-out matches either. Very understandable, but also somewhat conflicting. This combination leads to shallow/stale gameplay that focusses on Actions Per Minute and almost neurotic levels of microing. Real strategy is missing, and tactics are reduced to how well you master hotkeys... I would like to see more in-depth strategy and divergent gameplay options, which will lead to much more unpredictable outcomes, which makes the game way more interesting. Delenda Est goes a long way to illustrate how more in-depth mechanics aren't only possible, but really fun, popular/in-demand, desirable...
Balance will always be an important question to address, but I don't believe it should be used to shun more in depth and varied mechanics. There are so many wonderful and unique civs in this game, but their differences are mostly cosmetic. There is so much potential and so much material to work with to create a far more engaging and in-depth game, that is far less linear, with a game progression that is far more divergent, unpredictable, and therefore interesting.
-
2
-
-
I think the new head is waaay better, he just has an insanely thick neck which makes him look a little awkward. Fix the neck and it's awesome. Perhaps because the units are so small in-game, the features could be a little more pronounced: eyes/eyebrows, nose, lips... But not like the original dude-head, which looks a little like someone with down-syndrome.
-
1
-
1
-
-
I think it would be nice for each civ to have a specialized economic building to reflect the most important/iconic produce/export-item for each particular culture, and have this tied to an infinite coin trickle when "garrisoned", much like farming (farming coin). Think of Age of Empires III (e.g. bank, plantation). These economic buildings could be a pre-requisite for trade, or just provide a simple bonus. Coin would be used to pay mercenaries and bribes, research some techs and even build a wonder. The nuance in unit costs would be welcome, offers various strategies to play and win (economic finesse vs military domination), and the importance of the use of coin would depend on the civ (some civs are more mercantile than others). These specialized economic buildings could be things like plantations producing cash crops like cotton, or vineyards producing wine. The number of specialized economic structures you can build should be capped.
Aside from coin, I love the idea behind the "glory" resource in Delenda Est, and would love to see it in vanilla, and have it tied to the morale of units. For vanilla, it could be called "Honour and Glory", and could be derived from building civ-specific statues and monuments, worshipping priests, battle-kills, size of territory, having lots of coin, and could be negatively affected by deaths (including "self-inflicted" cullings), loss of monuments, loss of territory, being broke, betraying allies... It could be a "percentage" (or a bar), and everything above 50% will increase the attack of all your units incrementally till it reaches (the very hard to reach) 100%. Anything under 50% would reduce attack incrementally till it reaches 0%, at which point your in-combat units are prompted to flee battle, and turn to gaia units, doomed to roam the map as stateless exiles...
-
3 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
There's also the view that how "heavy" the armor worn was also based on position within the Macedonian phalanx. Front rankers wearing "heavy" armor and face masks, while the rear rankers wore no body armor and merely a pilos-style helmet. It's not so clear cut as me staking a position ("They wore heavy armor or armor based on the mission") or you staking a position. There was position within the phalanx, as I noted, and then also actual rank. Higher ranking officers would (GENERALLYYYYYY) wear heavier flashier armor, while lower ranks would wear more basic armor.
Although I don't doubt that's true for the bulk of the phalanx, Hypaspists aren't even real phalangites, and I doubt that reasoning would apply to veteran/elite battalions like the Hypaspist that would be fighting in much more irregular/dynamic formations on the flanks. These guys could afford more than just a pilos helmet, and the general nature of their combat roles argues against the idea of anyone choosing to leave their armor behind during battle. I get the idea that these guys were kind of like the navy SEALs of their day, well trained and well equipped. Equipment would depend on the mission, but in frontline combat, no one's leaving behind the flak jacket and ballistic helmet...
4 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:I would love to have battalions in the game so we can depict all of these conditions and variations as accurately as we can. Have a flashy looking officer in the front right, with a standard bearer behind him; most of the front couple of ranks wearing heavy armor variations, then medium in the middle, and no armor in the back (with a lot of variant bleed between the rows, not defined harshly).
That would be delicious though, but also depends on the specific unit, not universal, or as you say "not defined harshly".
37 minutes ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:Light and heavy in this context is directly related to armament and thereby determines how they should be used. While it could be said that training and deployment is a factor, I would not consider it the deciding one.
This is a bit like the nature vs nurture debate. I think it's both. A combination of armaments, training, and their historical deployment (actual combat experience) are all deciding factors here. What would be considered light in one culture could be considered heavy in another and vice versa.
-
I think you're all kind of right on this topic, but I think the question is wether the current look of the Hypaspist is "appropriate" for such a versatile unit. The muscle cuirasses just seem a little "heavy".
These Argyraspides (originally named Hypaspist) seem to be right on the money for Alexander's timeframe (I'm no expert though)
Essentially very similar/the same as the "Seleucid Silver Shield Pikemen", before the actual establishment of the Seleucid Empire. (There should be overlap between the Macedonians and the Seleucids anyway, and the Hypaspist/Argyraspides offers this sublimely historical overlap).
-
4 hours ago, stanislas69 said:
That's really weird the forums keeps marking this thread as unread.
For me, everything prior to and including March is marked as unread, and some new topics are sometimes marked as read without having read them...
-
6 hours ago, LordGood said:
environmental context may or may not cause visual discrepancies.
I think as long as you just use a neutral "dirt" texture like the one shown, it's almost always going to look better by default
4 hours ago, LordGood said:maybe each civ should have its own that blends from its structural pack to the terrain through alpha
Or for each "group" of civs, like Greco-Roman, African/Middle-Eastern, "Barbarian" and Oriental".
-
@LordGood, you know I'm your biggest fan, right?!
Wouldn't it be nice to have a "faded" version of these decals remain after the structure is destroyed (for a considerable time after the rubble has disappeared, unless overbuilt)? Like a faint ruin, leaving an impression on the terrain where buildings once stood. It's one of my big wishes, to be able to see the remains of once thriving towns in the wake of an enemy army passing through. It's also nice to be able to make out where an enemy settlement once stood, even if that enemy was wiped out before you passed through their former land. Call them ghosts of the past..
Spoiler
-
1
-
-
16 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
Wow!
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
Well, I can't imagine that since DE has a Chinese faction.
Haha, yes indeed... DE is pretty awesome in many regards..
1 hour ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:I think it would be super awkward in a Dacian Wars campaign if the Roman civ was training Triarii to combat Decebalus.
That's why some of the campaigns or scenario's could start in different phases, or even have custom versions of the civs specific to that campaign (specific units).
Anyway, I just really like to see visual differentiation between the phases and individually upgrading CC's. "Soft"-linking historical evolutions to the phases seemed like a nice idea, but not necessary. Doesn't seem to be a popular idea anyway... lol... Might still bring it up from time to time though
-
Just now, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
I'm saying scrap the Part 2 thing and just have the option of time periods (or no time period) for game setup.
Oh, sorry, I misinterpreted... Still seems about as much work as my suggestion though, and a little bit awkward maybe. I just like 1 people be 1 people, and not be split up over time, but rather evolve. I guess I just don't like the idea of having more than 1 faction of the same people from the same geographic area in-game, when other factions are totally absent from the game (imagine 2 Roman factions and not even 1 Chinese faction in vanilla). I guess it's just a matter of personal preference though.
-
43 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
I could see a game setup option where the host can choose a time period, which would then cap which civs can be chosen by the players. So, this way the old "Part 1" and "Part 2" idea could still be represented. Host could choose Early (Part 1: Republican Rome, Carthage, Athens, Achaemenids, etc.), Late (Part 2: Imperial Rome, Sassanids, etc.), or Any period (some civs can span both periods). Maybe then later WFG or mods can add other periods, like the Middle Ages and Bronze Age. But for now, we'd have Early, Late, and Any.
I also think this will actually end up being A LOT more work than simply having a more comprehensive part 1... I honestly think deferring stuff to a mythical part 2 undermines the true potential for part 1.
-
12 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
Eh, not really. This isn't Age of Empires where you are advancing a civilization through eons of time. The factions are (more or less) supposed to represent a general point of time. I could see a game setup option where the host can choose a time period, which would then cap which civs can be chosen by the players. So, this way the old "Part 1" and "Part 2" idea could still be represented. Host could choose Early (Part 1: Republican Rome, Carthage, Athens, Achaemenids, etc.), Late (Part 2: Imperial Rome, Sassanids, etc.), or Any period (some civs can span both periods). Maybe then later WFG or mods can add other periods, like the Middle Ages and Bronze Age. But for now, we'd have Early, Late, and Any.
Meh...
Age of Empires literally goes from Stone Age to Iron Age (4000 years at least). I'm proposing to go from Early Iron Age Antiquity to late Iron Age Antiquity, about a 1000 years total, but it would be different for each civ. Rome wasn't built in a day. Conquering an empire usually takes a few centuries. Developing a culture capable of conquering and maintaining an empire even longer. The longer timespan ensures satisfying overlap between civilizations and major events and provides more flexibility in terms of campaigns (which could be limited to a certain phase) as well as references.
21 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:The factions are (more or less) supposed to represent a general point of time.
I'm pretty sure that's not even remotely the case now... And I don't see a problem with that. Representing only a point in time is incredibly limiting, and impossible to get right for most civs. It removes most overlap and makes campaigns historically inaccurate, almost by definition. Most civs didn't meet at their strongest, but when one or the other was weakened (Roman conquest of Greece for example). A general evolution (rise and fall), broadens usable references and reduces the potential for criticism on historical accuracy, by simple virtue of having a broader timeframe.
The game is called "Empires Ascendant" not "Empires Stagnate"
Anyway, I do think that the phases should represent village, town and city phase primarily. The evolution over time is more of a "soft feature", depending from civ to civ and could be nuanced in some and substantial in others, where appropriate. It just adds a lot of immersion and variety and possibilities.
-
12 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
Not to be contrarian
Don't worry, we can't agree on everything
12 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:I really can't see a reform system working very well in the game (not without a ton of work on the conceptual and programming sides)
I'm a dreamer, I know, but that's what I would actually really like to see. Researching the "Imperial Phase" for the Romans would result in a total overhaul of the structures and units (including the already recruited ones). A visual evolution in the basic structures like houses and CC through the phases is what I'd actually like to see for all civ's. The less impressive forms of the CC's would be for the earlier phases, the impressive ones for the latter. It would add some epicness to phasing up (visual reward/emotional attachment).
Only houses and CC's would really need to go through this evolution, because most other structures only become available in later phases anyway, and buildings like farmstead and dropsites are rural buildings that don't need to "evolve". So only houses and CC's evolve: 3 levels of houses, from village to city, 3 levels of CC, from simple gathering place to ornate palatial/government structure), maybe 2 levels of barracks. In some cases, this evolution could be as "simple" as going from thatched roofs to wooden shingles (Gauls) or ceramic roof-tiles (Greco-Romans). CC going from 2 stories to 3 stories (Romans/Kushites). Props like removal/addition of statues could help distinguishing early, mid and late CC's. Simple vs ornate textures, etc... This mechanic would truly come into its own if CC's need to be phased up individually, so you could end up 1 city, a town or two and a few villages, for example. Some phase benefits would be tied to the individual CC (what buildings can be built where), but other phase benefits would be across all CC's like which units can be recruited (except champions, perhaps). These general benefits would also be lost when loosing you're city.
It wouldn't be more awkward than having two different Roman factions. How can you have two factions based on the same capital city? I'm also "wincing" at the idea of republican Romans fighting against Imperial Romans in the same match (both going through the same three phases). Romans are one civilization, divided into several periods (like many others), so using those periods to differentiate the different phases seems like a far more logical option. I mean, they're the "bloody" Romans... They should feel more substantial/Imperial than any other faction.
-
1 hour ago, Genava55 said:
Personally, I would prefer if there is more regional culture included in each factions 0 A.D. currently have. For example, Iberians could permit different choices for the player: more Mediterranean standardized iberian infantry or more traditional tribal warfare with inclusion of Celtiberian and Lusitanian warriors. I am more in favor of deeper strategies and tactics than in a bunch of superficial factions with all the same game mechanics. More qualitative than quantitative.
Indeed, those mechanics would be well suited for the "Barbarian" factions. I'm in favor of a 4th phase, the Imperial Phase, but only for imperial civilizations. Gauls, Britons, Iberians and Thracians could have a regional/tribal specialization instead of the Imperial Phase. I'm also in favor of more substantial differences between civs based on their cultural specifics. There is sooo much to work with. People are just scared of what it would do to the balance of the game, which would be challenging indeed, but well worth it in my opinion.
56 minutes ago, Genava55 said:The only other candidate I see as really credible is the Odrysian kingdom.
Scythians are also pretty high up on my list
They provide a Western counterpart to the Xiongnu and the nomadic element would be a really refreshing feature in a classic RTS-game like 0AD.
57 minutes ago, Genava55 said:Well, it is not that easy either. For example, the current Roman Republic faciton is depicted with Polybian legions and with imperial era building. There isn't a lot of remaining buildings from the Republic era. It is why it is really difficult (and maybe too much difficult to change it).
True, but it's still a lot easier than pretty much any other faction, except for the Athenians, perhaps. With a 4th Imperial phase, we could "legitimize" the imperial era buildings, and open the door for the most iconic Roman monuments like the Colosseum or the later stone-built Circus Maximus. Romans could actually use an update, as @Lion.Kanzen indicated.
-
1
-
-
11 hours ago, Keinmy said:
I understand you. But the differences that exist between tribes (Iberos, Vascones, Celtas ...) are very marked, mainly because of the climates. Believe that today a Galician and an Andalusian are very different, even in the character. Think at that time! It is like saying that Hellenes and Romans were equal for having architecture, clothes and similar gods.
Caution! Catalan is not the Iberian language, just as Euskera is not either. But it makes more sense for Catalan to speak Basque, for the justification I have given that they share exactly the same areas.
In fact, Euskera is a language created in the 19th century as a unitary language for all populations of the Basque culture. That is, the Iberians of the game speak a language of a century ago. That is why the Spanish are so shocked by this decision XD.It's not like saying "Hellenes and Romans were equal", it's more like using Samnite and Etruscan references to fill the gaps in the Roman faction if we didn't have enough primary references to work with. In the case of the Romans, we don't need to do that because there is a ton of high quality information and primary references available on them. There is not nearly as much information available on the Iberians (just a fraction, actually)... Hence the need to the get a bit creative. Of course, the faction can and should continually improve over time, but replacing Euskera with Catalan is not an improvement, at all... Looking for the most archaic forms of Basque words, and mixing in the few Iberian words we can find would be much more of an improvement. The fact that Catalan speakers today occupy ancient Iberian areas is a very poor justification for using the Catalan language to represent the Pre-Roman peoples that lived there 2000+ years ago... There is an actual (even if it's a faint) relationship between the Aquitanian (and by extension Basque) and Iberian languages. There is none with the Catalan language...
5 hours ago, Genava55 said:It is like using old French for gallic populations and Italian for the Romans. There is no reason to think there is a continuity between the Iberian language and the Catalan. Using the Basque language is not perfect but it is still a valid hypothesis contrary to the use of Catalan.
Exactly! Or English for the Britons, or Arabic for the Kushites, Ptolemies, Seleucids and Carthaginians...
10 hours ago, Keinmy said:For the moment I leave these sketches about the Iberian sanctuary " de la Luz" in Murcia.
That's actually a useful reference.
And a different sanctuary:
They look more like temples than wonders though...
By the way, technically I wouldn't have a real problem with "Iberianizing" the Iberians, BUT, that would mean cutting out Celt-Iberian stuff (say goodby to the references from Numantia), Lusitanian stuff like Viriathus, the Tartessian elements like the Cancho Roano, as well as the temple, which would need to be replaced with a Mediterranean type temple (even more Greek looking stuff...) It would end up reducing a beautifully unique faction representative of the entire Iberian peninsula, to a much more limited, even generic looking faction. If we add your unpopular language suggestion we'd basically end up with a Catalan nationalist faction. 21st century politics is not really what 0AD is about.
According to this logic, we'd also have to split the Gauls into their respective tribes as well as the Britons, and for the sake of representation, Celt-Iberians, Lusitanians and Tartessians would also need to be independently developed. It would be more accurate, yes, but not feasible in terms of references and man-power. You'd end up with like 10 half-done factions, because there isn't enough reference material to create complete and historically accurate factions, which would be the (self-defeating) point, wouldn't it?
-
3
-
1
-
-
So... Can we agree on this?
I believe, if not, the ones that don't agree should try to formulate one or two new options for a more "objective" poll, and urge everyone to vote on it. I think the results of the original poll were quite telling though...
On 7/9/2018 at 11:53 PM, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:The great Macedonian-Crocodile War of 328 BC where Alexander and his men hunted and killed every crocodile in Egypt.
I actually tried googling that...
-
2
-
-
I think the first thing to note, is that the term "Iberian" also has a wider meaning, referring to all the populations of the Iberian peninsula, since ancient ancient times (because Romans and Greeks first encountered ethnic Iberians in Eastern Spain, they applied that name to the entire peninsula as well). Of course this isn't the most precise terminology, but much of pre-Roman Iberian history is somewhat obscure, and at the time that this faction was designed, not enough information on any one ancient population of the Iberian peninsula was available to create a complete faction, so the "Iberian" faction became a sort of amalgamation of different tribes and cultures of the Iberian Peninsula of that time (not that different from the way the Gauls and Britons were designed). More specific quality information on Iberian material culture, art, architecture and military will always be received with open arms!
but,
11 hours ago, Keinmy said:Catalan is more linked to the Iberian than the Basque, and therefore the Catalan should be the language they must have in the game.
Has me a little worried... Catalan is not generally considered more linked to Ancient Iberian than Basque. How would a medieval romance language be more suitable than an ancient pre-Roman, possibly even pre-Indo-European language? Since ancient Iberian is extinct and nobody speaks or even understands it, the choice for "the vascon or euskera" language seems far more appropriate, because it's the most ancient, and in all probability more closely related to ancient Iberian than any other language known and understood today.
-
20 minutes ago, elexis said:
So it should be impossible to move a single unit?
I think the problem is more that a mass of units automatically target the nearest enemy unit, instead of spreading their attack over a "front", targeting not only the nearest enemy unit, but also every other enemy within a certain radius of it. If that were possible, dancing units won't be a viable tactic anymore.
Automatically reassigning units to the nearest target every couple of seconds could also mitigate the dancing unit tactic, as simply pressing the "halt" button regularly during battle greatly increases the effectiveness of your soldiers as they stop chasing people across the battlefield while taking hits and doing no damage in the process.
-
1
-
-
@elexis, may I invite you to check out the following posts with specifics about Gallic architecture including a bunch of relatively accurate artists' representations of oppida (except the parisii one, which is apparently a bit of a fraudulent imagination)
ditches are a definite yes. Even several circles of ditches was a thing. Perhaps with pikes. Wether they had water in them or not, I can't say. Probably mostly not, seen as they were usually built on an elevation.
Fortified gateways similar to the one you made can be found at Manching and Bibracte, although there's usually only one gate-house, set back, with the walls extending in front of it, but not as far.
Gauls definitely built bridges (Vercingetorix breaking up bridges to slow the advance of Caesar). Not sure what they looked like though... Wood, probably.
Celts apparently used wooden planks for some of their roads. Some of the oppida, like Entrement had paved roads of stone (irregular shaped stones).
There was a lot of variety in oppida and level of sophistication. The more "advanced" ones definitely had an urban/proto-urban character. The oppidum of San Cabran (Celtic Castro Culture, Iberia) had both stone paved roads and a radially symmetric shape and a central walled "acropolis". It also had cute little stone round huts.
Oppida were indeed usually built on top of a hill.. Not exclusively, but the more substantial ones mostly were.
I love the map so far, and I'm curious to see where you take it... Good Luck and Vim!
.
-
1
-
1
-
-
15 hours ago, Nescio said:
Parthia and Pontus were actually Hellenistic states as well
9 hours ago, Phalanx said:Wait, Parthia was Hellenistic?
Saying that Parthia is a Hellenistic state is misleading. They conquered a Hellenistic Empire where Greek language and culture was wide-spread (but not at all universal), yes, but the Parthians were Iranians and were responsible for the Iranian Revival, which is very significant. Sure the early rulers described themselves as philhellenes, but they were Iranian, very similar to Persians, and looked distinctly Middle Eastern in most respects.
8 hours ago, Trinketos said:ok no xD
I'm very excited about Zapotecs, and other pre-Columbian civs
! They're just their own kind of thing, so they don't integrate well with the other vanilla-civs (geography, stone vs iron, no horses or powerful navy), so they should be a stand-alone expansion. I'd love to play it a lot though
It's pretty obvious why Sparta and Athens are stand alone civs. No need to argue about that. I get a bit tired of Hellenocentrism, but I'm not totally opposed to other Greek civs, only if more non-Greek civs are added as well. But the focus should really be on the more important civs across Afro-Eurasia in my opinion.
3 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:Please don't go into the Bronze Age. Let mods or a prequel do that.
Who said we should go into the Bronze Age for part 1? I think everybody agrees to keep it purely Iron Age... The question is should we cut Iron-Age Antiquity in half and throw away the beginning and end of it, as if they are some sort of unwanted appendages? They obviously don't belong in the Bronze Age or the Medieval Age either. Those few Iron Age centuries before and after 0AD's current time-frame are just too silly to represent in their own 2 mods. From c. 8th century BC to 5th century AD is all Iron Age Antiquity (across the Old world) and forms a cultural, technological and to a degree even political continuum (in general terms of course)... Bronze Age is for the prequel, indeed.
3 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:I do like the idea of making 0 A.D. traverse the totality of the (Western) Roman state, or the breadth of "Classical" times. So, going ahead and extending it to the "Fall of Rome", 5th century, would be fine by me. Allows for cool civs like Sassanids. And then making "Part 2" being about the Middle Ages is also cool. It mirrors the Age of Empires franchise (homage), but with all the new and different features the 0 A.D. franchise still stands on its own.
Yes!
3 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:(any date you set is arbitrary, IMHO @Sundiata, so I don't think this is so bad. If 1AD is too arbitrary a date for you, then perhaps choose the murder of Caesar or the ascension of Augustus as your mid-point, still close enough to 1AD to make it not really matter),
If you want a specific date like March 15, 44 BC, then yes, it would always be totally arbitrary. But defining a specific date like that for game with such diversity in civs is nonsensical in my opinion to begin with. That's my whole point! That's why I advocate following actual historical periods, which are important across the Old World, and have varying specific dates depending on the geography you're discussing. Major historical periods are absolutely not arbitrary, and are not defined by the death of a single individual in a single civilization. Bronze Age Antiquity, Iron Age Antiquity and the Medieval Period are the three periods that make sense for a game like this. Don't define specific dates for the cut off points. Only use the general period. Anything else is going to be unnecessarily awkward. Create some leeway for yourself. It will help with the historicity of the game to be able to portray the rise and fall of the majority of civilizations, rather than cut most civs in half, because, reasons...
Also, the arbitrary 500 year increments for the different parts of 0AD not only put considerable and awkward restraints on referencing, they could easily result in 6 different games (1500 BC - 1500 AD), meanwhile the development team is struggling with part 1. The 3 periods: Bronze Age Antiquity, Iron Age Antiquity and the Medieval Period are far more feasible and way easier in terms of referencing.
3 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:I think Parthians for Part 1 are a must. They are really not a Part 2 civ. Their successors, Sassanids definitely are a part 2 civ.
Others would be very desirable for Part 1, in order: Han Chinese, Scythians and Xiongnu (these 2 to tie Eurasia together), Odrysian Thracians (because they're cool), Epirotes. And a few others would be "nice to have", such as Pontus, Nabataeans (pretty cool), Armenians.
Yes, yes, yes...
1 hour ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:The Persian Empire was (for the most part) a single political entity. At no point until the Roman conquest were Athens and Sparta a single entity.
Exactly...
41 minutes ago, Nescio said:The same applies to the Britons, Gauls, and Iberians, each of which consisted of numerous tribes and peoples.
Those are "Barbarian" civs. There's an obvious difference. They never established empires...
44 minutes ago, Nescio said:I think it actually ought to be the other way around: 0 A.D.'s main distribution has a single Greek faction and a mod could replace it with Argives, Athenians, Boeotians, Corinthians, etc. Likewise, another mod could replace the Gauls with Aedui, Allobroges, Averni, Helvetii, etc.
I don't think anybody wants that... Spartans and Athenians are super-duper iconic... And there's lots of research on them, so referencing is a breeze. Further differentiating Gallic factions seems like a referencing nightmare! Also, what's the point of developing 8 new factions, all of which are exceedingly similar to each-other while work on other world-powers like Scythians hasn't even begun yet?
-
2
-
1
-
Suggestions for 0 A.D.
in Gameplay Discussion
Posted
It's not so much about who thinks faster, as in any game, the quick thinker has a big advantage which is totally normal. The question is more about what is being thought about. How many, and what kind of options do you have at your disposal and which ones do you choose for the specific situation at hand?