Cassador_Chris

I think a Second Temple model would be pretty cool. Though the Ancient Jews stylistically would be too close to the Carthaginians to justify having their own civilization in 0AD. Likewise, though, they'd be an easy civilization to add as a mod, as the modder would just have to grab Carthaginian and some Greek/Roman buildings and perhaps retexture some of those to bring a more coherent and unique design to the civilization and...bravo! An Ancient Israel/Judah build set.

This guy is my kind of guy. The only games on that list I haven't played are Rome Universalis and Ancient Wars. Have you ever tried the mod Europa Barbaroum for Rome Total War? If you're a fan, you shouldn't pass it up!

Is there any particular feature/theme we should consider?

I reported some flaws with the in-game message to the makers function, but I just wanted to confirm you guys knew: The Boudicca and Kunobelinos descriptions are too long; you can't read them in full because the text continues off screen. Also, the description for "Roman Conscription" is wrong, as it describes the Celtic "Druides" technology instead. Those are my notes. Everything is looking fantastic, and I also have a few suggestions/questions for the next update. What is planned for the next update? The only thing I really missed from this update still was that the priestess' didn't seem to heal and the trade system wasn't working yet.

Not the place to really get into discussing it, but this is a interesting idea Mythos.

BY AZURA BY AZURA ITS BEEN ANNOUNCED! The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim has been announced by Bethesda on December 11th and will be released in exactly 11 months on 11/11/11. You can check out the teaser at www.elderscrolls.com The Elder Scrolls is a single-player role playing game that started with The Elder Scrolls: Arena (which was originally was supposed to be a fighting game) and just one among numerous D&D rip offs at the time. Since the original game, however, the Elder Scrolls has developed into an unique setting known for its expansive (and intensely debatable) lore. The games have also become something of a industry setter in their field, paving the way in graphics, AI, and mechanics. The Elder Scrolls Series is as follows: The Elder Scrolls: Arena The Elder Scrolls II: Daggerfall An Elder Scrolls Legend: Battlespire The Elder Scrolls Adventures: Redguard The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion and now... The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim! WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

I guessed I was confused by the "basic formations", thinking that more than one have been implemented. As for the grayed out... I thought they were grayed out because I hadn't selected them yet! Just some small stuff I miss: The idle villager button. Not sure how this would work with 0 AD though, as the villagers are also very often soldiers. But something like it. A "choose your civ" in the single player mode. ...there were a few other things but I can't remember them atm...

True. Beta 3 Clio then?

A question concerning the new Alpha 2: It mentions on 0 AD's website that the new alpha has basic formations available, and I see the new controls for setting formations, but my soldiers only take up the default formation. I've tried all the other formations, but none of them work. Are some of them supposed to?

Clio! History rocks!

I vote for Clio as the next Alpha name to represent all of the history research that has gone into this game and to give a nod to the history buffs who helped out. If not for alpha 3 then for Beta 3. Clio needs to work her way in somehow.

Hey now. You guys are missing the all-important Chalcolithic, or Copper Stone Age. Shame on you.

Tour Egypt also has a wonderful cache of articles about Egypt. I have been especially enlightened by the ones dealing with the Egyptian military. Here is an article on the distinct Egyptian war chariot: http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/chariots.htm Here is the 1st part of a article on the Evolution of Warfare in Egyptian history: http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/war.htm And here is an article dealing with Egyptian weapons. http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/weapons.htm There are also many, many other related articles that you can usually find links to at the bottom of the page. Topics include Enemies of Egypt, Egyptian military architecture, close combat edged weapons of the Egyptians, Egyptian ranged weapons... the list goes on and on. Have fun!

^ I think the Dorian invasion theory has been, or is in the process of being, discredited by modern archaeologists. Though I'm not entirely sure about this. They might be leaning towards a "Dorian" migration, or towards that Mycenean society collapsed because of famine and natural disasters. Anyway, I'd have to spend time looking stuff up, but I'm going to bed right now. Anyway, its a moot point, I think. I tend to agree with Mythos here, though I'd like to add the Estruscans (it is suspected they had connections to Anatolia) to the list of people whom I suspect fled from the Aegean during this period of turmoil.

Hey now, if we're getting Indians because there are Indian environments and Indian textures, after seeing the screen shot of the giraffe on the savanna biome, I'm going to vouch for the Kushites here. And I'm going to do some research on them to gather enough material for a viable civ. And/or the Axumites for hypothetical part 2 of 0 AD's saga.

Yeah, heh, but as great as the internet is, we may not be able to find them online. We might need to email an expert or contact a few museums to get a picture or description of what such ships would look like. So are we Phoenicians Go? I've been looking over things and I'd say there is enough information out there to build a playable civilization out of them. Only kink is in the time frame. Phoenicians would only work for the very late bronze-early iron age. Anything before that and they are probably best described as Canaanites.

No need to go to Egyptian texts. Archaeologists quite a while ago unearthed an actual ship. This is from the old kingdom, though. http://www.kingtutshop.com/free-pictures/egypti10.jpg Anyway, Egyptian ships! http://www.modelshipmaster.com/products/an...20merchantS.jpg http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_yL1gRCqUvQI/SSL0...cient+Egypt.JPG http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_yL1gRCqUvQI/SSLs...litary+ship.JPG http://www.arabian-archaeology.com/images/es-077.jpg http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_yL1gRCqUvQI/SSLv...cient+Egypt.JPG http://www.artsales.com/ARTistory/Ancient_...n_galleons.html http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/timeli...oingvessels.htm Phoenician Ships! http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2723/402524...7fa29ed6c_z.jpg http://www.ahrtp.com/EarlyShipsOnLine/page...tamianShip1.htm http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:Z-f63Rn...an-ship.jpg&t=1 http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g316/pat...enicianShip.jpg http://smontagu.org/images/asterix-2a.png EDIT: OH! And this amazing resource for Mycenaen ships. http://www.salimbeti.com/micenei/ships.htm

Wasn't this secret already unlocked by a French guy who proposed the pyramids were built using an internal ramp? Journalists and their sensationalizing of everything....

The Egyptians were known to have a powerful navy. Or, at least they trashed the Sea Peoples (refugees of Mycenae civilization?) in a sea battle off the coast of Egypt. Mind, the Egyptians kind of cheated; they caught the Sea Peoples snoozing in their boats and managed to use their fleet to trap the Sea Peoples against the shoreline so that the Egyptian firepower would be augmented by archers on the beach. Furthermore, it has been suggested that this tribe of Sea Peoples (the Peleset), devastated by their defeat, settled down nearby and became the people known as the Philistines to Hebrew writers. Also relevant to this discussion, I suppose, is that archaeological evidence strongly points to the Hebrews as being descendant of the Canaanites (along with the Phoenicians?). As far as Phoenicians go, do we have anything about their navy? What did their ships look like? I think this discussion will ultimately come down to which civilizations we know the most about. If we don't have enough on the Phoenicians, we had best start looking elsewhere. Hint: Somebody better start posting artist renderings of Phoenician buildings, ships, and soldiers if this civ is gonna have a chance.

On second thought, research in pursuit of the Jastorf Culture might be more productive. I spend a while trying to find out something about the Ananjino Culture, but there is apparently very little about it. JSTOR had a whole one article mentioning the Ananjino, and it was in German I think. I'd have to try my university library, but I'm nowhere near that now. There seems to be more on the Jastorf Culture, which appears to be influenced by the proto-Celtic Hallstatt Culture. Though they appear to be more centered on northern Germany and southern Denmark than Scandinavia. Either way, it'll be tough to build a civilization on it. The proposed second release (0-500 AD) will undoubtedly have a Germanic tribe or two anyway. There will be more information on them from that period anyway, rather than just archaeology.

^ mod it. But, I wouldn't have the Vikings. Unless your mod goes medieval on us. Mind, although the 'flesh and blood' ancestors of the Vikings were probably present in the region, the people there were not Vikings as we know them. They were separated from that culture by a thousand years. That means, if you want anything historically representative, that would mean no longboats, no chain mail... I would suspect a material culture similar to that available to the Celts at the time, if distinct in design. Now I'm no expert about ancient Scandinavia (far from it). So instead I found this little tidbit on Wikipedia: So, yeah, I'd probably go instead with the Ananjino culture and focus your research for the civilization on them.

^ I agree with Aldandil. Though I think we could make a better judgment on what civilizations there should be if the time line was narrowed a little bit. Perhaps 1500-500 BCE? Or 1000-500 BCE?

I would toss out the term Nubians (since it references a much, much earlier period) and instead opt for the Kushite Empire centered around their capital of Meroe. They emerged as a nation by throwing off Egyptian rule around 1000 BCE and were responsible for the conquest of Egypt in c. 750 BCE. They ruled Egypt for over one hundred years until being driven out by the Assyrians in 664 BCE. In c. 590 BCE they moved their capital from Napata to Meroe. And this is all before the 0 AD time frame. Kush, however, would remain a powerful kingdom all the way into the common era, dissolving in about 100 CE as a result of a variety of factors. Significantly, they were known to challenge Rome's rule of Egypt during this period, which does make them a good candidate to be included in 0 AD. AuroN2, you seem to be joking here, but just because you asked, the peoples of the upper Nile were only under Egyptian rule for about 500 years. Immediately prior to Egyptian conquest, the region was ruled by the Kingdom of Kerma (1700-1520). Time for some perspective! Comparative Timeline: Bold denotes independent rule. Italics denotes rule under a foreign empire or dynasty. Note: This is very rough. Egyptians (Old, Middle, and New Kingdoms) 3100 3000 2900 2800 2700 2600 2500 2400 2300 2200 2100 2000 1900 1800 1700 1600 1500 1400 1300 1200 1100 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 "Nubians" (Kerma culture and Kerma and Kush Kingdoms) ?3100 3000 2900 2800 2700 2600? 2500 2400 2300 2200 2100 2000 1900 1800 1700 1600 1500 1400 1300 1200 1100 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 Common sense would say that the Kingdoms of the Nubians was most powerful during their periods of independence from Egyptian rule. Empires, although they provide some benefits, generally exist for the benefit of the conqueror, not the other way around. ALSO: If you're considering Kush as a modded-on civilization in 0 AD, I would also consider the Sa'baean Kingdom of the Arabian peninsula, which flourished alongside Kush as a neighboring kingdom during most of its rule and governed one of the most important trade roots out of the Roman Empire; that with India via the Red Sea.

Can I jump into the role of smart-azz here? http://img.funtasticus.com/2007/jan8/fail1...008/fail001.jpg Definitions of Communism: Webster's New World Dictionary n. [[see COMMON]] 1 any theory or system of common ownership of property 2 [often C-] a) socialism as formulated by Marx, Lenin, etc. b ) any government or political movement supporting this Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary communism noun (also Communism) /ˈkɒm.jʊ.nɪ.zəm/US pronunciation symbol/ˈkɑː.mjə-/ n the belief in a society without different social classes in which the methods of production are owned and controlled by all its members and everyone works as much as they can and receives what they need. Historians Nicolas V. Riasanovsky and Mark D. Steinberg from "A History of Russia". "The doctrine of communism represents a variant of Marxism, based on the works of Marx and Engels as developed by Lenin." "Marxism, especially as it was understood by Soviet ideologists, postulates dialectical materialism as the key to and the essence of reality" ""Materialism" asserts that only matter exists; in Marxism it also led to a stress on the priority of the economic factor in man's life, social organization, and history." "The fundamental division in every society is that between the exploiters and the exploited, between the owners of the means of production and those who have to sell their labor to the owners to earn a living." ""Dialectical" adds a dynamic quality to materialism, defining the process of the evolution of reality. For the Marxists insist that everything changes with time. What is more, that change follows the laws of the dialectic and thus presents a rigorously correct and scientifically established pattern. Following Hegel, Marx and Engels postulated a three-step sequence of change:: the thesis, the antithesis, and the synthesis. A given condition, the thesis, leads to opposition within itself, the antithesis, and the tension between the two is resolved by a leap to a new condition, the synthesis. The synthesis in turn becomes a thesis producing a new antithesis, and the dialectic continues. The historical dialectic expresses itself in class struggle..." To be clear, Marxism bases itself on the belief/theory of dialectical materialism, which asserts that only matter exists and thus material ownership is the fundamental driver of society, and history can be understood as an epic struggle between the haves and have-nots. This struggle presents a cycle of those with little material wealth ousting those with it, obtaining it, holding on to it, and then being ousted by another group that seeks material wealth. Furthermore, Marxists believe this cycle will have humanity "return to prehistory, when, according to Marx and the Marxists, primeval communities knew no social differentiation or antagonism." Capitalism was the penultimate stage in this cycle, and a revolution would eventually come where the working class proletariat would over-through the capitalist power structure once and for all and live together in harmony in a society that promised equality and the communal ownership that necessitated that equality. Lenin makes some changes to this doctrine, most notably including the peasants of Russia as a revolutionary force--Russia was seen as "backwards" and thereby not ripe for the revolution Marx describes. Definitions of Socialism Webster's New World Dictionary socialism n. 1 a theory or system of ownership of the means of production and distribution by society rather than by individuals 2 [often S-] a political movement for establishing such a system Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary socialism noun /ˈsəʊ.ʃəl.ɪ.zəm/US pronunciation symbol/ˈsoʊ-/ n the set of beliefs which states that all people are equal and should share equally in a country's money, or the political systems based on these beliefs .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Dum dum duuuuummmm ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. I didn't see anything about government ownership OR anything about socialism NOT being communism. In fact, we see communism as a form of socialism, which is based upon this idea of dialectical materialism, which states that material is the most important factor in our lives and the source of all conflict, which means history is simply an EPIC battle between the forces of "we gots wealth" and "f-u we gots nothing", which can only be resolved when everybody has the same things--which is impossible under private ownership--and hence means we must all learn to share. HUFF HUFF Socialism, and hence Communism, is simply an attempt to institutionalize sharing, since people don't seem to do it on their own, and bring about a more utopian age. Socialism today, however, is much more utilitarian, using socialist techniques in an attempt to guarantee equality among individuals, or protect national industries, or whatever. Mind, if your definition is true, HistoryGuy, you would be calling every government in the world communist. The U.S. has for a long time nationalized industries (like the railway industry) or subsidized industries (like the farming industry) for their own protection. Countless other nations have done the same. Come on guyz. Economists make a lot of sense with their free-market theories. But no one follows it. Why? Because it would piss a lot of people off! Farmers would have to work harder and make less, anyone working the rails would lose their jobs, people renting apartments would lose them to newcomers who are willing to pay more, etc etc etc. When asked about the West, Mahatma Ghandi replied "I think it would be a very good idea." Same with Laissez-faire. It's a nice idea, but it would take a brutal dictator (think of the U.S. supported Pinochet government) to put such a system in place, and the system would have to be world-wide. Communism required something similar, eh? At last, rumors begot rumors. Who the hell knows? I suppose this depends what you want out of your health care systems. If you want a good perspective on the U.S. health care system, listen to this. IMHO, Employment based health care is a stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, idea. Think of it this way. Imagine if your employer paid for your grocery bill. For a set fee each month, you would be able to buy as many groceries as you could want. There is hence no reason for you to hold back, correct? Insurance companies have to pay regardless. So where is the incentive to keep prices down? There is none. So the stores raise prices on food, and then the companies raise the monthly fee on people. So, prices go up and up and up with nothing to yank them back down again. So, the system is insane. We have two solutions. Go the free market way, and let people purchase their own insurance through competing companies (this will not give everyone insurance, but the competition will drive prices down) OR we can create an alternative government-based program that will give insurance to those who don't have it. One thing is for sure: Health Insurance Industries and Health Care Industries don't want EITHER of these things. Those evil %*^@%&!$@! want their huge profits. So, to oppose health care reform of ANY kind is a travesty of justice in my eyes. Sigh.

The game is open-source now, though, ain't it?