Sundiata

Sweet Jesus... I think from a gameplay point of view, unit recruitment gets assigned to specific and much more logical structures that become pre-requisites for training those units. This forces the player to make more thought-through decisions about how they're going to spend resources, and build-times, and for which units at what time. It also allows enemies to target specific unit production infrastructure, crippling specific area's of the enemies military ability. They also help delay unnatural rushing in the opening 5min of a game. New strategies and tactics open up, leading the way to more logical and diverse ways of playing the game. + there's so much eye-candy in the form of new buildings I can barely contain my excitement

If you're depending on defence towers as a primary means of defence, you're bound to end up disappointed, as you should be. These towers were historically relatively rare, and primarily used to scan the horizons, in my understanding. They're more of an RTS-convention, and don't need to be overpowered imo. Sentry Tower → Defence Tower → Fortress is a beautiful progression of available defensive structures, and the Fortress should be the cream of the crop: very strong with heavy territory influence. This can be balanced by a very high build cost so they can't be spammed. Yes, I like that a lot! The fortress is a late game structures so the CC will remain important in the early game and can remain the cheaper default means of expansion in late game. The fortresses can become more expensive but more formidable.

Yeah Very recognisable It's all about the details! @feneur, Perhaps you could assist us, so we can stop cluttering up this otherwise lovely thread on Spartan structures with our incessant nitpicking

That depends on what source you're consulting. Few of these periods are clearly defined. You're referring to Classical Greece, by the way, not Classical Antiquity. To clarify, I'm only referring to my ideal idea of the approximate time-period for the start of 0AD: By the way, I think we should be having this discussion somewhere else

The end of the Bronze Age (Late Bronze Age Collapse), and the beginning of the Iron Age and associated Classical Antiquity, although having variable dates in different locations, aren't arbitrary at all. They reflect the end of one major age, and the beginning of a new one. For most civs in 0AD, that date would be somewhere between 1000 - 600BCE, when things really start changing. That's when we see the collapse of the ancient palace economies of the Eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East, and the upcoming market economies of the great trade-empires. Ancient theocratic societies start making way for ambitious imperial powerhouses bent on conquest and higher volume, long distance trade. Bronze Age forms a continuum. Classical Iron Age forms a continuum. Middle Ages form a continuum. Off course there is some continuity in the transition between the major ages, but those periods are mostly marked by extreme volatility, widespread conflict, disaster and especially obscurity. I want to emphasise that I'm speaking in very broad terms here. I just think a less precisely defined timeframe like Classical Antiquity, is better for 0AD than a 500BC-1AD timeframe, for a number of reasons, like marketability, broadening the spectrum of eligible references, allowing a single civ to play out it's history instead of being chopped in to different parts (in-game continuity), the potential to include more of people's favourite civs in the future. 0AD is a Historical RTS set in Classical Antiquity vs 0AD is a Historical RTS focusing on the years between 500 B.C. and 1 B.C.

A wonder isn't built overnight

The model looks very promising! I like it very much. Perhaps the back side should have an opening, so we can imagine the flow of people passing from one side to the other (a smaller staircase to the back).

@stanislas69 Thanks! I found it. Never saw this topic before... Anyway, in that case, don't mind my previous comment

@feneur Thanks for explaining. I'm aware of a second part being discussed, but my concern over the past years has been that maybe deferring stuff to a part two (that may take another decade) to lower the workload, is actually making research more difficult, because what can be referenced becomes quite arbitrarily defined by the 500BCE-1AD period, while a lot of really interesting and interconnected stuff was happening the 2 centuries or so before and after these cut-off points. I understand that there is indeed some wiggle-room for which I'm grateful, I just think the wiggle-room should be formally extended to Classical Antiquity, and let part two begin from the start of the Middle Ages, the 5th century, after the collapse of the Western Roman Empire. Those timeframes are at least recognisable to historians and amateurs alike. I don't think 500BCE means a whole lot to anyone in particular. @Lion.Kanzen Also having different Roman factions seems a little weird to me, but maybe that's just me? Republican Romans evolving in to Imperial Romans over the course of the different phases seems so cool to me. Byzantines would be the Eastern Romans in part 2. Logical? Guys, by the way, I know I'm spewing out a bunch of wild ideas out here, and I don't want you to think that I expect you to do anything with it. I just see the forums as the perfect place for brainstorming. I won't get offended if these ideas get mercilessly shot down, I'm just testing the limits of the game , and I thank you for your patience with me and actually reading these suggestions. Just wanted to clarify that.

Where should I emphasise it? Maybe I don't quite get what you mean.. Like create a ==[TASK]== in Art Development?

Beautiful!

You guys used the wrong reference for that special Persian Gate :-/ The Ishtar Gate was built by Nebuchadnezzar II of the Neo-Babylonian Empire in 575BCE in Babylon. Persepolis, the actual Achaemenid Persian capital should be the primary source for such buildings, like the CC, which is excellent. I've seen other people criticise the Persians for looking too Babylonian before in youtube comments. The Gate of All Nations, built by Xerxes I between 486 and 465BCE at Persepolis would be a much better option in my opinion.

Isn't that a little overkill? Siege workshop, archery range, cavalry stables for all civ's: definitely yes! But chariots and stables seems like a logical marriage. Camels and stables? Close enough for me. How many different camel-units is a single civ going to train anyway? Elephant stables, perhaps yes. Dog kennels: meh, a tech/upgrade called "kennels" at the barracks should do, I think. I like differentiating fishing hut, trading dock, and military shipyard, but then again, I'd also like to see a dedicated economic structure (civ-specific economic speciality) for every civ, as a pre-requisite for trade between markets, or allies. But that's a very tall wish-list, and only very few people actually modelling and coding in the possibilities... My excitement will jump through the roof if/when the stables and archery ranges are implemented for all civs... Perhaps the other stuff can come only after that.

I think it's been pointed out an uncomfortable amount of times that there are some core issues with 0AD... As a one man army, LordGood is going a long way mediating this, including elemental aspects of a fun game of this type: building variety and logical options/choices tied to those buildings like techs and units. Lack of building diversity takes away the fun in a game longer than 20min. Adding as much as 3 new (functional) building types per civ is awesome! coders should try to keep up with this man, because he clearly has vision, and his work leaves a very noticeable impression on the game.. For example, I saw Nescio and Leper working on a way to be able to display more building slots in the GUI over here, which already solves one potential problem. I know the AI is a different beast altogether, but LordGood's and Stanislas69's progress in the modelling department merits the attention from coders. This can be a nice communal project. Has anybody asked @Alexandermb wether he's interested in contributing models for this project? Three people working on it at the same time is sure to speed up the process considerably.

Why not just use a small, simple structure in one corner, very similar to an Iberian house, and place the stalls around that (market consisting of a "storehouse" and stalls, instead of just stalls). Something like lordgood's format for the Kushite market:

LordGood making it shine bright Lacedaemon!

Yes, the targets are very cool! Targets for archery range and dummies for barracks seems like a good distinguishing feature indeed...

Thanks! I lolled... Seen as it was probably painted, you wouldn't be able to tell either way

@LordGood, another thing: Everybody knows the 4 settlements that came together to form ancient Sparta: Limnae, Pitana, Mesoa and Cynosura (actually, I had to google that) But there's a 5th settlement, Amyklaion, or Amykles, site of the sanctuary of Amyklaion and the Throne of Apollo, 5km south of Sparta. You can actually see it on the southern edge of the map I shared in the previous post as Amyclae.

Holy moly that's cool! I love it!

@Nescio's explanation of the term temenos is indeed more accurate than mine @LordGood I'm no Sparta-expert, but realising how difficult it is to find good inspiration with such a scarcity of remains from the period, I thought I'd share these... They're a little too fanciful to my understanding of Sparta, but they are based on ancient descriptions, and are some of the very few tentative reconstructions of the city I've come across. Maybe it will help.

@serveurix, it's called a Temenos, basically a sacred enclosure, from the Greek verb τέμνω (temnō), "to cut", in reference to the action of cutting off a piece of land by walling it. The term is commonly used in regard to Greek as well as Egyptian culture, where sanctuaries and temples where often walled. It serves a symbolic purpose (separating that which belongs to the god from the rest), as well as a secondary defensive purpose, protecting the massive riches inside the temple from potential raiders (lot's of gold). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temenos

I think this is one of the points where 0AD has a potentially major advantage over AoE. The 200 pop-cap thing was one the most aggravating limits in the game, and 0AD can potentially handle thousands of units. A lot of room for epicness right there. But without a battalion and army system, it's going to be a hot mess. Armour upgrade researched at the blacksmith makes perfect sense. I also think tower upgrades at the tower make a lot more sense than at a granary. Alternatively they could be researched at the fortress or a "research institution" like a library.

Scythian references by Evgeny Kray and Alexander Deruchenko: And finally this: Scythian horse fully equipped with reproductions of horse accoutrements found in ancient Scythian chief grave.

Don't know if these have been shared before, a collection of Thracian units: