Cassador_Chris

I'm liking this. I only have a few questions before I give a recommendation. I know this is really jumping the gun guys, so just tell me your "fun thoughts". Nothing is written in stone. So, how will all these civilizations be "drastically" different? 1. How will the two Romes differ in play-style? Both "good all round" civilizations? 2. How will the Huns and Parthians differ in play-style? Both good "cavalry archer" civilizations? 3. How will the Dacians and Germans differ in play-stle? Both strong "infantry" civilizations?

Horses, bronze, and steel weapons were introduced in the 200s CE/AD. So its quite possible I suppose. Of course, that puts any reasonable Japanese military, at the very earliest, contemporary with the 0 AD expansion-era, or 1-500 CE/AD as I understand it. Ooo. I like that idea. I never got into playing AoM because of the circumstances that I was in at the time it came out, so I'd be happy to play a mod from 0AD. Question though, Mythos. You considering using the same civilizations/gods?

Oh, that's just suggestion/propaganda. I went to a public hypnotist event, and I was one of the people who got to go on stage and be hypnotized. It was a lot of fun, actually. Most companies take advantage of suggestion in their advertising.

And if ANYBODY mentions "What about the Samurai?" I'm going to conk them on the head with a history classroom ruler and then go on a rant about Ancient Japan. any takers???

Lets hope its a good sign!

that sounds scary. broadcasting messages into people's minds? just think of how governments could control people that way... where did you learn of this..er..new technology?

Prussia/Germany should be really strong industrial-wise, with fast moving armies and an emphasis on submarine warfare. Their weakness of course is a long-drawn out battle, as opposed to a strength in sustained rushing. Britain should have some sort of "power of empire" to bring in needed reinforcements at important junctures. They should have a small army and large, almost uncontested navy. Tanks are also important here. France should be super-defensive, and have access to tanks, with relatively poor infantry, mediocre navy, slow mobilization, and weak industry to counterbalance this. Their land forces should be bigger than Britain's and on par with Germany's. French could also have some sort of "power of empire".

Some ideas for Russia: 1. Good lumberjacks. 2. Houses/farms/mills/livestock pens incredibly cheap, quick to build, perhaps get some resources back upon destruction. 3. Some territorial bonus (perhaps like RoN, with damage done to enemies) or maybe some bonus for obtaining multiple territories, or for holding on to territories even when buildings on it are destroyed? Point for these three things is to emphasize Russia's method of defense, that is, burn and retreat. Defending by attrition. Any good ideas here?

Anthropology isn't just working with remote tribes and populations. That is more specifically an Ethnographer, a sub branch of Ethnology, which in turn is a sub branch of Cultural Anthropology. Cultural Anthropology itself is a sub branch of the entire discipline of Anthropology. To easier explain, here's an outline. Anthropology 1. Cultural Anthropology a. Anthropological Linguistics i. Historical Linguistics ii. Descriptive or Structural Linguistics *. Sociolinguistics b. Archaeology i. Historical Archaeology c. Ethnology (also called cultural anthropology) i. Ethnography ii. Ethnohistory iii. Cross-Cutural Research 2. Biological Anthropology a. Human Paleontology (also called Paleoanthropology) i. Primatology b. Human Variation Then, of course, there is Applied Anthropology, where you use the research done in the above areas and from other disciplines to solve current problems. This could mean you're working for a business as a economic or psychological anthropologist, a government as a political or educational anthropologist, or something else. Simply said, there is a lot of anthropology that does not mean you're living with exotic cultures. In fact, a lot of it is working with businesses or governments or other organizations by applying anthropological knowledge to solve problems like "why can't this multi-national business team get along?" or "why is this one manufacturing plant in Ohio out producing the one in Michigan?" or even "why are kids on this side of town succeeding in their local school, and the kids on the other side of town aren't?" Etc, etc.

Done!

Okay Mythos, got an account and voted again!

uh, no?

Woohoo! Voted again!

I got to this thread kinda late. Happy belated birthday Mythos!

Aye, my parents advised me against archaeology because they believed that keeping a good stable job would be a problem. Personally I didn't really like the advice, but my rational self told me it was sound. Archaeology isn't exactly a job in high demand. So that's why I settled on education: Not only is there always demand for my skills somewhere-but I could still do archaeology work during the summer if I wanted.

Excellent Hiram

I've got some good ideas for Russia now.

Uhh. Yeah.

Hey, me too! Well, I'm actually doing history + secondary education (specializing in integrated social sciences) double major, but I've been considering on becoming an archaeology major as well. But the thing is though, it would throw me off, so I think I've decided to wait until I get my two above majors before I do anything rash. Anyway, question: Why are you considering archaeology? I'm considering mainly because 1) Many of the areas I am thinking of specializing in have very little recorded historical record. 2) Archaeology seems to becoming a greater part of history, meaning you can't do an accurate history without archaeology. 3) Many history books in the library done by historians, rather than archaeologists, seem to be reevaluations of historical events with just the author's opinions, rather than a reevaluation based on new evidence. 4) Archaeology just seems so much more appealing! Looking at historic documents is cool, but as an archaeologist, you can actually go to these places and discover new things--which include new documents--while historians just use what's available. There just seems to be a sense of being on some sort of 'frontier'. So, why are you considering archaeology?

From what I can tell, they're much more ahead in art and behind in programming. The game is a lot less complete than we all imagine by looking at the wonderful screens Mythos has provided us.

Terms accepted! King raises sword. Now, come down and pluck this arrow from my chest! And I shall'nt give it up easily to you!

Came across this article via a link from archaeology.org. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/...81215074650.htm I thought about posting this in the Hall of Intellectuals, but since it was more concerned with 0AD, I posted it here. Actually, I guess I only posted it because there seems to be very few new discoveries in the Carthaginian and Iberian realms. If I did this for Roman and Greek discoveries, you would practically get a new one every week.

Shore does bring back teh memories, aye?

Well, names shouldn't be too hard, as long as people can get their names on some Osprey books and some ancient language texts. I'll definately enjoy planning and arguing over different ideas. In fact, I worked on a project back in HeavenGames Age of Empires III forums where a bunch of people laid out an idea for a game called "Age of Antiquity". It eventually lost interest, but there is a ton of information there. Here's the link: http://aoe3.heavengames.com/cgi-bin/forums...t&f=9,30443,,10

From what I've heard, there's no limit to the number of factions you can create. The only point in limiting factions would be to retain real uniqueness between them.