Cassador_Chris

This was unacceptably inflamatory, plumo. Please consider that facts for you may not be facts for everyone. I won't address your statements above because I feel they have already been addressed. I'm no moderator, but I would recommend that you cease and desist this kind of language in the future. And Forud, son of Siavash in Shahname: We haven't met before because I haven't been on the site for a while, but please accept my welcome to our little online community. And I understand your concern for your nation's history. Western-dominated history has mislead for way too long. I made a sort of resolution to change the way people think of history---so I decided to become a historian of African history. (People look at me weird when I talk about my career choice, mostly and probably because I'm a white middle class American college student. They say, "But you're not Black!" Then I say "LOL, I know right?") Peace EDIT: I evidently can't spell weird correctly.

Yes, welcome welcome! Tis great to receive new forum members!

You have to purchase it? LAME. lol. Looks cool. Not going to be spending money on games anytime soon though....

Amen brother.

That's fine. Most of the area outside Samarkand is just like that, albeit more hilly. I was just assuming a more realistic battleground. But a completely flat plain is actually a better idea, I think. It will keep the Han and Romans on even footing where ever they choose to move.

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east...8322829-g_6.jpg Go there for the map, and your mouse cursor should turn into a magnifying glass. Blow up the image really large, and Samarkand is near the top of the map.

Didn't I say this a couple of posts up? Anyway, I agree with darthturtle that we should assume general equality between commanders for assessing Han and Roman strength. Furthermore, let us assume that both commanders are rather poor in skill level--simply meaning that they wouldn't innovate and would use 'standard procedure' for approaching any situation. To spell it out then, lets look at average army size, composition, weapons, and tactics on the battlefield (meaning that siege weaponry or anything that takes a significant amount of time for assembly should be left out). Oh, and here's a possible battlefield, outside of present day Samarkand, where our two armies could possibly meet. Maybe yes, maybe no?

Can't you just mute the game music and just play your music on media player or somethink? That's what I do. Metal especially is awesome for getting pumped up and playing like there's no tomorrow.

A good commander would make sure he provided his troops with the best equipment and would ensure that they were in the fighting spirit. Being a good commander means all of these things. Same goes with good officers. Officers fall under the general word of 'commander', but if we take it as meaning 'supreme commander', we can further say that a good commander awards his good officers and demotes his poor ones. So a good commander ensures good officers, though this may not be necessarily true 100% of the time. I have that book too, though its at home at the moment. In any case though, I think it would be useful to determine to what extent Han generals followed Sun Tzu's advice. In addition, Sun Tzu lived some time before the Han empire, so we need to know if tactics have changed since his time with technology, or if his writings were unappreciated in the time of the Han. In addition, from what I remember about his book, it was somewhat abstract and not as concrete as to military strategy. For example: "A victorious general wins first and then goes to war." So? What did Han generals do to achieve this? What were their concrete actions? Obviously, there's a lot of work ahead of us.

IS_NormanDuck, I believe "catapult projectiles" would fall under the "game actor" category.

True that is, heavy. There were truly incredible Roman commanders who used innovative--and indeed, sometimes truly inspirational--tactics and strategy. On the same token, though, there were also many poor commanders who made serious blunders or paraded around very stupidly. Anyway, the point I was making was this. How can you say the Romans had superior tactics, when we know so little of Chinese tactics? The same reasoning can be applied to: how do you know you're grandmother's chocolate chip cookies are the best cookies ever if you've never eaten any other chocolate chip cookies? You can't. You must try other cookies to determine which ones are the best. Anyway, I think we should--for the sake of this argument--leave out the individual skill of the commander of either force and assume they have the same skill level. Obviously, a more skillful commander will beat the less skillful one no matter what empire they are fighting for. Instead, lets try to focus on the types of tactics used by each empire to determine how they might react to different situations on the battlefield. And that requires that we learn something of normal Han tactics.

How can you say that? What do you know of Chinese military tactics? Do you have examples of Chinese tactics that were inferior to Roman ones, or vise-verse? You're going to have to do better than that. Well, I can't find any completely reliable sources on the internet, but two the sites I came across backed your post, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. In any case, most sites pointed out that the so called "inventor" of the repeater probably did not invent it. Still, repeating crossbows did not have much penetration power or range. One site mentions Chinese soldiers using poison to increase a bow's effectiveness. So, how much of an advantage is the repeater against Roman armor and Roman pilum? Where in the battle would the repeater be most effective? I suggest that the Han commander mount these crossbowmen on horses, send them off behind the main cavalry force. If the Han cavalry beats the Roman cavalry on either flank, the mounted repeaters could circle behind the enemy force, dismount, and fire their repeaters at backs of the Romans at close range. That's just a suggestion, though. It may be too complex of a move for soldiers to carry out effectively, or may be negated by strategic reserves in the Roman force, or even by the Roman cavalry or archers.

Again, Repeating crossbows came after the fall of the Han dynasty. Also, I don't see mounted crossbowmen as an improvement over the horse archers of the steppe. Besides, crossbows were usually given to heavy mounted soldiers as a minimal response to true cavalry archers and weren't meant to replace cavalry archers. In fact, they were vastly inferior to cavalry archers. And lastly: Okay, well, sure, the Roman Empire had more natural barriers, the Han empire had less. But I don't see that as a recruitment problem. Once you were conquered by the Roman empire, you were 'Romanized' and probably quite often would serve in the Roman forces that conquered you. Differences in culture prior to conquest would have mattered little after conquest. In addition, don't be so fast to count the Chinese as all 'natives'. China is a huge place, and there are differences in culture throughout ancient China. Sure, not as drastic as what existed in Europe, but I'm quite sure that the southern Chinese didn't really find common kinship with those Chinese from the north. In addition, I don't doubt that Koreans, Mongolians, Manchurians, Tibetans, Turks, and the Vietnamese didn't like their conquerors much either. So, Romans ftw?

A refugee who has fled from the evil empire! Tell me, sir, for national news, what was your experience like? How did you survive? What hellish things did you see on the other side??? Welcome back to this dimension! Time to partay!

So the whole "woad raider" thing was a lie. Just goes to show that History still has many secrets...and historians many flaws.

Sound for the Epigonion!! Check it out! http://www.astraproject.org/examples/dufay.mp3

Maybe. Now I'm no expert, but I thought Chinese foot armies were mostly crossbowmen. That means the Romans, with an army of mostly footmen with ranged pilum, are going to have to advance against powerful, ranged crossbowmen. If you take this further, that means the Chinese will normally get to choose the battlefield, which means a nice steep hill. Frankly, I think it would be like a bunch of swordsmen advancing on a bunch of musketeers--utter massacre. Also, I don't think all chinese footmen were conscripts. I think I remember reading about the Han armies having large numbers of professional soldiers. So, like people have been saying, cavalry will be important. I wouldn't cut out the Romans so soon. The Romans have employed some good cavalry units--including Numidians, Gauls, Germans, and Sarmatians. They also have a few 'copycat' units, like the famed heavy cavalry Cataphractoi.

Anthropology is so interesting. I wanted to be an archaeologist, until my parents convinced me that finding and keeping a job would be tough. Doesn't mean I still can't minor in it though.

The Romans will also come in numbers. I think I should point out that the huge population that we identify with the Chinese these days is actually a much more recent phenomenon. China, especially in its ancient days, had a much smaller population. A census taken in AD 2 reported 57.7 million individuals, while a census from 140 reveals only 48 million. In contrast, conservative population estimates of the Roman empire at its height in the 2nd century place it at around 65 million people. Also, gunpowder was first invented by the Chinese in AD 850, long after our little scuffle between civilizations. The Romans also had crossbows and cavalry. Sure, hand crossbows weren't widespread until much later, but they still existed (not including, of coarse, the larger Roman siege/anti-personnel crossbows, which were widespread and used to great effect). So my argument for the Romans wins, right?

Well, the ASTRA project has done it! They've successfully reconstructed the epigonion, an ancient Greek instrument. Take a look at this: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/...90305080734.htm I don't have any sound as of yet, though. They're demonstrating it this week though, so I doubt it'll be long before an example is up on the internets. Dunno, might make an excellent sound for 0AD.

You know, I actually had an idea for an RPG/RTS that was set in a sort of set in a quasi-real fantasy world. The races inhabiting this world would be people like this: and a few fanciful sentient creatures like this: http://www.stanford.edu/dept/HPS/BodyWorks...dinosauroid.jpg or perhaps a more intelligent descendant from a creature like this: http://clubnintendomx.com/imgblog/futuranimaux/squibbon.jpg As well as things like Aurochs, dodos, and fanciful "Dixon" speculative evolutionary creatures. And places like Atlantis, Stonehenge, etc. Just to diverge from the traditional "JRRTolkein" fantasy. okay, well, thats sorta like your idea, right?

I don't think it would be so hard. Let me do a little exploring and I'll get back to you guys. EDIT: Oh, I can't WAIT until Empire: Total War comes out! I was practically dancing in my chair when I saw it was coming out so soon.

I think someone said this somewhere at some point in time. I could see Germans break into Goths and Vandals. Goths being more land-bound and Vandals being more sea-bound. The Imperial Romans could actually break into Eastern and Western Empires perhaps.

Greeks, Egyptians, Norse, Mayans, and Hindus. That's what I'd envision. Although I'd prolly combine the Mayans and Aztecs into an all-encompassing "Meso-American" faction. Frankly awesome. And this just came to me: If you're interested in mythology, you should definately check out this comic: http://www.zudacomics.com/high_moon. It's just begining its third season, and there is a ton of mytho-symbolism along with the appearences of some important mythological beasts and entities. Worth a look for any Age of Mythology fan. If it counts for anything, you have my guarantee that it is full of awesomeness and good storytelling.

I see. I obviously don't know the extent of the system being put in place in 0AD, but let me humor myself here. I did this on my rough knowledge of the different cultures and adapted. Parthians: 1. Cluster-like Tech Tree. (ex. 5 base techs, each tech making 5 or so new ones available, which dead-end) 2. Typical 'branch' style Building Tree. (ex. this building leads to this building leads to these 2 buildings.) 3. Economy: Focused around manor-like buildings. Each 'region' is self-sufficient (this denotes a special gathering style that ensures no matter what the resource placement, the Parthians can gather the resources they need: lets say there is no stone in a province. A special building/unit can gather-albeit more slowly then usual-that resource) 4. Military: Nearly entirely cavalry: light horse-archers, heavy cataphracts, camels, some mercenaries tossed in. Huns: 1. Leech-like tech tree. (ex. destroy enemy building, get a tech from it you haven't researched). A few techs unique to the Huns are available from the start with no tree, but at varying expensiveness. 2. One-size-fits-all buildings. A few base structures do everything thats needed of them. 3. Economy: Combines benefits from raiding (attacking enemy structures), as well as possessing a mobile economy. Buildings can be packed and moved, and the Huns don't lay claim to territories, inabling them to set up base inside enemy territories to suck them dry of vital natural resources. 4. Military: Initially consisting of light horsemen, they also have heavy infantry and cavalry (Germans), and excellent siege equipment. These could be mercenaries, super units, or the Huns could have the unique ability to destroy enemy structures to possibly recieve the ability to train an enemy super unit from their own structures. Something like this then?