Cassador_Chris

lol...beer??? How am I supposed to compete with that??? lol

Well, one could say the Renaissance begins in 1341 with Petrarch, but the whole nature of the Renaissance was that it was a gradual phenomenon that slowly developed and spread across Europe. Hints of the coming Renaissance can be seen in earlier (pre-1300s) art. The Renaissance gained momentum in Italy during the 1300s and 1400s, eventually spreading to other parts of Europe, thanks (in part) to the printing press, during the 1500s (generally the late 1500s) and 1600s, for many northern European 'nations'. Of course, like many things, it was a gradual process, so I would not be surprised if evidence could be presented of a 'renaissance presence' in upper Europe before the 1500s. It was my impression that the Renaissance represented a transition from the medieval era* to the modern era, and thus had great overlap. Even so, if you consider the birth of the Renaissance as an end to the medieval way of life, you still must acknowledge that for some time, the Renaissance was more or less confined to Italy, and that the rest of Europe was still very medieval in culture. Just because Italy experienced it, doesn't mean the rest of Europe 'advanced' into the Renaissance era. If you follow that logic, then Africa, the Americas, Asia, and Australia also entered into the 'Renaissance era'.** That depends on what partition you are speaking of, I suppose. The first partition of Poland occurred in 1772, with the last being in 1795. That said, the partition was between Prussia (Germany), Austria, and Russia. I'm not sure that's what you're talking about though. I naturally assume you weren't speaking of the Nazi/Soviet takeover of Poland in 1939. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Okay, Guns and Knights. Use of gunpowder fairly early, first record shows 1247. Gained wider adoption (again, rather slowly) throughout Europe during the 1400s and 1500s. Longbows (arguably the most effective ranged weapon at the time), didn't finally kick the dust until the early 1600s. One source says 1644 at the Battle of Marston Moor (English Civil War). Perhaps more importantly, Crossbows were all the rage in the 1400s, but were largely discarded by 1600. A few think points: The Battle of Agincourt was in 1415, absolutely murdered the French Knights with the longbow. Early 1500s saw many English laws attempting to ban crossbows. The Battle of Flodden in 1513 saw the last battle won 'because' of longbow support. The year 1521 saw Cortez conquer the Aztecs with an army of mostly crossbows and a few firearms. (the few he had weren't used for long, as powder often got wet and was hard to come by.) Don Quixote, a satire of knighthood***, was published in 1604 Now, judging from above, guns weren't used on a large scale until the late 1500s****, and knighthood was long considered moot by 1604, and that both crossbows and longbows didn't kick the dust until the late 1500s and early 1600s (not to mention still trying to be banned in the early 1500s), then what does that say to the historian? hmmm. Okay, now that we've done some detective work, I think we can see the clearer picture: 1. Crossbows and Longbows brought the end to knighthood. Why now then, you ask? Because crossbow technology wasn't stagnant! It improved over time, just as gun technology had. Here, we still have England trying to ban crossbows in 1503!!!! Does that sound like an obsolete weapon? I shouldn't think so. 2. Besides, advancement in military technology wasn't the only thing that destroyed the knighthood. There was other social and economical reasons why knighthood and feudalism went down the tube in many parts of Europe.***** The Black Death, the rise of the city and artisan guilds, and other related phenomena really gave knighthood the boot. Feudalism and knighthood needed many land-tied peasants. Now there was a huge labor shortage, and peasants found themselves in the position of power. Cities also dragged people from their fields and from castles, looking for greater economic fortune. 3. Other military means finished knighthood. You say pikemen didn't finish them. Au contraire, they didn't finish off the knights alone, but certainly contributed to their downfall directly. Cavalry just wasn't as effective anymore against disciplined footmen. Also, the typical picture of the knight changed. Knights had to resort to wheel-lock pistols or small crossbows to combat the phalanx of pike and bow they were challenged with (rather than lances and swords). Also, the armor they typically wore proved to be not worth the effort against bolts (which pierced) and pikes (which brought down the horse, rendering an armored knight about as harmful as cabbage). 4. Finally, when the gun was finally adopted in mass (late 1500s-early 1600s), we must ponder why: i) Because it was more effective? That's arguable. Several technology innovations in the field vastly improved gun performance, making it a more reliable weapon. But since knights were pretty much obsolete at that period, why would such effectiveness matter? It wouldn't. Guns weren't as effective as crossbows, but by the time they were widely adopted, it didn't matter anyway. Why have a crossbow with incredible range, piercing power, and accuracy when your target wasn't an armored knight, but lightly armored and dense infantry formations? Accuracy and piercing power weren't needed. Here, we can see why guns appeared to be more effective than crossbows.****** ii) Because the nobility saw guns as the new thing? Definitely contributed. Surely, weapons like the crossbow weren't needed as much anymore, but crossbows were still better weapons. So why adopt the gun? Remember the Renaissance? (Yeah! Its at the top of this post!) What was happening in most of Europe during the 1500s? The spread of the Renaissance. Who in Europe used gunpowder on the larger scale the earliest? Does Ottoman empire ring a bell? How about the Italian states and Spain who fought them? And the Renaissance was the in thing in northern Europe? I hope you've followed me. CONCLUSION: From everything I said in this DREADFULLY******* long post, we can arrive at this conclusion: Guns weren't adopted because they were better than crossbows and longbows. They were adopted because they were more efficient at doing the job they needed to do. Also, and perhaps just as importantly, the cultural phenomena that was the Renaissance was the rage of Europe! And what did the Renaissance bring with it to northern Europe? The widespread use of firearms!!! It's only natural that European rulers wanted to 'copy' Italy and Spain and the culture that was the Renaissance. So, there you have it! Just flexing my future-historian muscles. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *Or "Post-Classical Era." Historians don't like 'middle ages' anymore, because the accepted belief is that the medieval age had its own distinct culture that was not necessarily inferior to Rome's or the Renaissance's. **That's what always bugged me about the 'ages' in rts games. Everyone didn't gain access to iron at one time! And some never did! So what's "Iron Age" mean? Not a universal era on a timeline...but the stage of development reached by a particular civilization/society and/or a unique culture that appeared with the technological revolution that was iron. ***Don Quixote was written as a satire aimed at the nobility, who still clung to knightly titles and such. Obviously, by the time of its publishing, knighthood was seen as obsolete by a majority of Europe. ****Interestingly, this coincides with several progressions in the area of gun-technology, including the hair trigger and rifled arms (1540), the spanish lock (1560), the snaphaunce lock (1580), and the soon-to-be standard flintlock (1630). All of this would make guns into really effective weapons that would ?outclass? the crossbow and longbow. *****Not so in Eastern Europe. The Black Death's effects were minimal there. ******perhaps a better term is 'efficient'. Guns still weren't more 'effective', as they lacked the range, piercing power, and accuracy of crossbows. *******Oh the horror!

King of Troy at Shrine of Apollo: "Oh Apollo! With thy keen eye and strong bow, smite our jealous enemies! The Greeks seek to harm our men, loyal to you and proud of it! Oh Mighty Zeus's Son! Hear me, King of the Trojans. I am at your alter, on my own knees. Your power is so great, kings weep in the presence of it! Nor could any king even stand to behold your power. You are an Immortal of Olympus! Our shining beacon! Our great poet! I prostrate myself before you! Here are 40 lambs and 30 cattle, to feed your ravenous hunger! Here also are 100 vases of olive oil and wine! Take these offerings, my lord, and use them to smite our enemies! Our scouts need your protection if they are to succeed, and only You can protect them now... And give them strength! I fear they are up against more ships and more Greeks then they imagine! Only You, Apollo, Son of Zeus, can deliver my men from a watery grave! Now I bid you accept this humble tribute from a humbler king."

I think Mythos is right here. Early gunpowder was hardly reliable or effective, even up to the period of the English civil war. Different sources talk about how it was easier to become skillful with a firearm than a bow/crossbow, and firearms pierced armor better, etc. These, while they probably have a tiny bit of truth to them, are largely older misconceptions that have carried on from past generations of historians. The most widely accepted reason nowadays with historians has nothing to do with any of this better than bows or easier to use stuff. It was much more likely that they were adopted in mass simply because guns were in style. Well, if YOU were a monarch in Europe at the time, and your rival decides to shed his crossbows for a bunch of guns that scare the hell outta your men and make loud noises while their bearers marching around in new stylish uniforms holding their shiny-iron gonnes at their shoulder, wouldn't YOU want a piece of that for your army of guys holding old-fashioned and boring crossbows? Of course you would! People don't always choose the best possible option. In fact, humankind has a record of choosing the worst of possible options available. Doesn't it feel great to know that guns came into use via the same fashion as Pokemon cards and hula-hoops? Oh yeah baby.

I like the idea. I used some of my historical resources to try and organize the groups into playable civilizations, with possible subfactions. Confusingly, the ‘subfactions’ below range from dynasties to terms used to describe certain ethnicities/cultures. Obviously, we’ll have to sort this out, but for now we have all options on the table. And, obviously, some of the civs won’t have near the number of subfactions as I list. 2-3 is all you need for good diversity. Here’s an example: Indians could be divided into the Aryans, Dravidians, and Munda subfactions (if you go the ethnicity route). Another possibility is the Guptas, Pandya, Chola, Chera/Kerala. Or you could go yet another route, by groups somewhat defined by regions; Guptas (northern indian empire/dynasty), Andhra/Satavahana/Satakani (dynasty that ruled the Deccan in central India), and Dravidians (southern, fracturous, ethnically distinct indians). You could even go by lauguage groups, and so on and so forth. For 500-0 BCE Timeframe Indians (Maurya, Sunga Dynasties) Chinese (Qin, Qi, Chu, Yan, Jin, (and 3 subsets of Jin -Han, Zhao, & Wei) Koreans (Choson, Puyo, Koguryo, Chin) Japanese (Jomon, Yayoi culture/Yamato state) Central Asians (Parthians, Bactria, Xiongnu) Africans (Meroe) For 0-500 CE Timeframe Central Asians (Parthians, Kushan, Sassanids, Xiongnu/Huns) Indians (Gupta, Andhra, Pandya, Chola, Chera/Kerala, Traikutaka Dynasty/Abhira tribe, Pallava, Chalukyas of Vatapi, Rashtrakutas of Malkhed, Chalukyas of Vengi, Vakatakas, Chutu branch of Satakani/Andhrabhrityas, Kadamba, Ganga, Iksvaku, Vishnukundins) [note: A confusing jumble above about possible Indian subfactions. Many are dynasties, but the Pandya, Chola, Chera, and Gupta (ruled by Gupta dynasty), seem to have been sovereign nations/regions ruled by different dynasties at different times. At any rate, its quite confusing, so I’m gonna see if I can get a better picture of this part of Indian history.] Chinese (Han, Wei, Shu-Han, Wu, Jin, Zhao, Lui-Song, Qi) Koreans (Koguryo, Paekche, Silla, Kaya, Chin/Samhan Confed. (Mahan, Chinhan, Pyonhan)) Japanese (Yayoi culture/Yamato state/Kofun era) Africans (Meroe, Axum) EDIT: The Japanese and Korean might not be good choices at all, as there seems to be very little on them during this time frame. The developers would have to dive into the world of mythology if they wanted to make the Koreans and Japanese militarily distinct from the Chinese, as in real life their armed forces were more or less the same. Anyway, that leaves you with four groups that are distinct enough from each other to allow the player to not feel cheated. Anyway, just thought I'd lay them out: Central Asia (cavalry/mobility focus), India (elephant/infantry focus), Africa (archer/? focus), and China (well-rounded?) EDIT 2: Just another thought for those of you who can't stand the thought of leaving out Japan and Korea.... How about a "Orient" faction with Chinese, Koreans, and Japanese as sub factions? This would of course guarantee that the sub factions have some diversity. After all, three sub factions of China would be pretty much the same, unless certain units available to all historically were made available to only specific sub factions. But then again, we don't have much military insight into this period anyway. EDIT 3: oops. Forgot to include the Sarmatians and Scythians. At any rate, they'd be Central Asians.

Indeed. I will see to it that I myself make an splendid sacrifice to His Greatness Apollo . I go to his temple now. May the Gods guide you on your expedition.

Good idea. The Pre-Marian Romans didn't really use the testudo.

Okay men. Prepare the defense of Troy. You Trojans there, prepare the city's defenses. Set up large water barrels along the city walls and keep them constantly under surveillance. Others, place stakes and other barriers surrounding the city walls to slow down any Greek assault on the city. Trenches might come in handy as well. Trojan citizens, I am starting a ration, for obvious reasons. We don't know how long this war might last. Dardanians, under Aeneas and Archelochus. I admire your seamanship. Please lead your troops north towards the land of the Mysians. Their leaders and soldiers shall accompany you. Your goal will be to create a fleet and launch with necessary supplies within a few months. I will send more orders when you have completed your task, or when you are needed elsewhere. Administrators, send any diplomats on hand to Egypt, Italy, and northern Greece. See if we can conjure up any sympathy. We could especially use grain from Egypt if we are going to survive this siege. Finally, sent out some Trojan scouts. It'll be good to know the enemy before this battle begins.

(Resident Trojan diplomat to King of Hittites) "Your majesty! Troy supports you fully against this treacherous rebellion! We can not supply troops or supplies, as my home city is under siege, but we can provide you with information: I received word from my home capital that the Greeks fear your all-powerful intervention! After all, what is a coalition of squabbling city-states against a powerful empire? It is not unlike the Greeks to use such underhanded methods (ahem, fermenting rebellion) against far more noble and powerful foes, such as yourself."

Interesting. I'm not exactly sure when the Turks became a distinct people, but the Turks you referred to here must be of a different tribe than the ones I mentioned. Very interesting. Perhaps 'Turk' at one point just represented people from a certain region or certain lifestyle, and later developed into a broader term that specified cultural/linguistic similarities. I do know that the 'medieval' Turkic tribes often included several ethnicities, from Mongoloid to Semetic to European. It would be an interesting subject to look into, though. I apologize though. I should have probably said 'Seljuk Turks'.

Patience, friend. The screenshot will be out in due time. If not the very first hour of the month, then perhaps sometime on the 2nd or 3rd.

(Amazon spokesperson) "We are the Amazons. Traditional enemies of the Man-Greeks, who in the past have plundered our reclusive uni-sex villages on the Black Sea to the North. We recently allied ourselves with the Trojans, in hopes for revenge, but the one of the Trojan princes has dishonored our head priestess by sleeping with her daughters. So, we wish to put aside our past differences and join the much more manly Greeks (some of the Amazons wink) in their fight against the Trojans, now a common enemy."

Okay, umm.... Amazons, move forward in peaceful formation!

Uh... The Turks didn't arrive in the Middle East or Europe until the 11th century, and their arrival was one of the reasons for the initiation of the Crusades. The Sassanid persian dynasty replaced the feudal-like Parthian lords in the 200s AD, and continued on at varying degrees of power until the 600s, when they were kicked out of power by the Arabs. So, wouldn't they be perfect?

Well, I suppose I am the Trojans , so I've got a good plan to kick some butt. 1. Send the allied Amazons over to the Greek lines and allow them to be captured. Once the Greeks are seduced , the Amazons will set fire to the Greek ships and cause havoc in the Greek camp. 2. Put an army together of allied and trojan troops, send them out the rear to an allied city, where provisions will be prepared and the army will be sent to invade the Greek mainland. 3. Meanwhile, engage in stalling tactics with the Greek forces. Skirmish a bit, feign peace talks, drag out talks, reopen hostilities, skirmish a bit, feign peace talks, etc. Within time, the Greeks will obviously be trapped without a fleet, and low on supplies, so they will be really gullible to any offers of peace. "Here's Paris and Hellen guys! You can have them if you leave! Oh wait, nevermind! We hate Greeks! No wait! We changed our minds! Take them, Paris is a coward anyway." etc. etc. Whether or not the burning of the ships works, the Greeks will have to retreat to their homeland to defend it. Without their ships, they would have to take a long trek across land, making it a perfect time to strike their forces. If the invasion of the greek homeland fails, then the Greeks will eventually have to surrender as they become low on supplies (the ships being burnt, that is). If both one AND two fail, then we could always call in the Hittite empire, who would be glad to rid us of the barbaric Greeks if it meant taking our wealthy city under their wing. Though that's last resort. As for the troops under my command, stay behind the walls for now, except for those sent on skirmishing missions. Oh, and avoid that guy named Achilles. Don't make him mad, or he might actually help the Greeks! We should keep him divided from the Greeks. Perhaps saving his ship from being burnt might be a nice farewell gift. EDIT P.S. [[[THIS IS TOP SECRET AND HIGHLY CLASSIFIED INFORMATION]]] P.S.S. [[[A.K.A. DON'T READ IT, FILTHY GREEK SPIES]]]

I agree, especially with everything that seems set in place. Rushes will probably be substantially weaker in 0 AD, which in many ways enhances and prolongs game play. Rushes sometimes were real downers for people looking to play a fun game. I do see some sort of newer strategies emerging here though, with the Iberians being a important cog in the wheel. Militia armies bring something completely new to the RTS genre, at least to the AOE-like game play area. The Iberians really give me a hope for a fairly mobile, very resilient, and very guerrilla-prone nation. Turtling never really appealed to me, but we could have some possibilites with the Iberians that we haven't seen before, like the concept of an 'open turtle' where the player uses a guerilla strategy to inflict the hurt upon the enemy while taking minimum losses as they spread across the map absorbing resources. The enemy will of course run around with a big army, but taking out the Iberians, who attack your villagers with small groups as soon as you attack their sturdy buildings, could be grossly ineffective. Anyway, just my thoughts. I really don't know much about the Iberians, but I wrote on basically what I've heard (or thought I heard) about what playing with the Iberians might be like.

May be true for 0AD, but man, can I rush with the Ottomans in AOEIII! Un-freakin-stoppable! lol. Okay, they weren't that good, especially after some of the changes they made to the Ottos for being 'overpowered'. Heh. The ottomans weren't overpowered. Everyone else was underpowered.

I had something similar to this too. In my game the technologies you chose to research and the order in which you chose to research them determined your civilization. I then took this idea further and kept altering it, and eventually ended up with this free 'individual cultural development' strategy, where as the game progressed, you could choose to open, close, or regulate your borders. This way, a person with open borders often had the highest income from trade, but experienced a cultural enrichment. Although unique aspects/bonuses of your culture would weaken, you would gain the practices/bonues of other nearby cultures. In the opposite way, a nation with closed borders will solidify its uniqueness and thereby strengthen its unique traits, but would be unable to obtain the traits/bonuses of other nearby nations. Anyway, the system would mean if you're the Egyptians, and you're in between a Greek player and a Persian player, you could open your borders and absorb the bonuses and weaknesses of other nations while watering down your own. Or, you could even promote trade with Greece and shun trade with Persia, making your culture a sort of infusion of Greece and Egyptian influences. Hence, your buildings would slowly begin to display both Egyptian and Greek influence. So, in the end, you could develop your very own unique culture by playing the game. The only problem with this strategy though was that it would be something that would fit better in Spore, where you can design your own things, than in a historical RTS. It just wouldn't work because players wouldn't be able to reach the uniqueness required to substantiate cultural exchanges that actually mattered. The game would need a way for you to design your own culture, rather than use prescribed ones from history, in order for this to work. So eventually I went back to something much like your version of tech trees restricting use, which is a good model. As Always, NOTE: I'm wondering what people think about allowing the route someone takes on a tech tree to determine their civilization, and whether it would enhance game play? I just thought about it now, but a game could offer this sort of 'civilization selection' to bring a sort of intrigue into the game. You know, players would try different ways of advancing along the tech tree to figure out what order/combination of technologies will unlock which civilization. Okay, now I beg the gods for mercy for breaking the short post rule.

I just had an idea that on some maps, at least, trenches could already exist and the players would have to seize what they deem the most important trenches and then fortify them from the enemy. Such a rush at the beginning of the game will ensure highly mobile warfare for the first half-hour or so, until everyone gets settled into more or less of a stalemate. Then, of course, the race for tanks would take place, and then we have a fully mobile battlefield all over again!

You're welcome!

Well, the only two developed titles that featured wwi I could find were the Entente, which bombed because it was basically just a 'spam' game where whoever produced the most won, and of course Empire Earth, which featured WWI as just one period in many. Empires:DotMW is also a notable game. But no quality games for WWI that execute that time period for both fun gameplay and realism? Now, thats a war crime if I ever saw one. It seems some people think it would be boring, but I beg to differ. Sure, it would be substantially different than other rts games, but it would be a very fun game to play with countless options to choose from. To start with, I'm just putting down some ideas. 1. Time frame: Well, I figured a good time frame might be 1850-1925, since the warfare and technology in this time period was relatively operating at the same level. The game could also just focus on WWI, which has its own benefits and handicaps. 2. Civilizations: Quicklist: United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia, Italy, Austria-Hungary, Ottoman Empire, United States. Other possibilities include Mexico, China, Japan, Arabs, Greeks, Moroccans, Zulu, etc. 3. Gameplay: For gameplay in a more modern age, you would have to leave the 'age' concept and focus more on technological breakthroughs. The tank is just one example. Also, instead of a complete annihilation of your opponent, perhaps it might be better to concede victory to the first to hold x% of the map for a certain time, or perhaps the defense of certain objectives. In reality, I see this game as more of a WWI version of Company of Heroes, but we can create our own spin to it, eh? 4. Warfare: Endless options. Obviously, it would be a little more mobile than the actual WWI front, but I see no reason to lessen the carnage. a. trenches. Build these guys to hold your front, and use them to move men safely around your front lines. Hold key areas with rings of trenches, barbed wire, fences, and other fortifications. Good place to keep machine guns too. Trenches will be your most important functionary of the game, holding lines and providing launch pads for your advances. b. machine guns. Okay, these are low-mobility killing machines. don't expect to get past these things without artillery, flanking maneuvers, and loads of infantry (or tanks, once you have them) c. artillery. Not the short ranged stuff from AOE III. These will be long-ranged, capable of hitting anywhere within a fourth the map from where they're positioned. They don't just carry cannonballs anymore either. Expect explosive shells and gas attacks. (here is where weather conditions, like wind, can really effect gameplay) d. tanks. Yes, these bad boys are available late in the game, break down a lot, demolish trenches, and take machine gun fire like its going out of business. More importantly, perhaps, the provide cover for your men to advance and start digging new trenches. e. armored cars. Looking for some urban warfare? Armored cars and motorcycles with machine guns might be the ticket. Fast, maneuverable, and not prone to breaking down, they don't have much off-road capability but are pretty nice to have if you have to hold urban areas. f. cavalry. Fast, excellent off-road capability and god-awesome range, cavalry is none-the-less unarmored and growing quickly archaic. After all, as firearms become much more accurate, what good is a saber and pistol? Regardless, they are good scouts and great for catching infantry off guard while they're digging trenches. Good use of them early in the game will hamper your opponent's trench network, and they will be useful for large maps that are impossible to fully trench. g. battleships. Need I say more? blast your enemies to platforms on the water! h. u-boats. The terror of the Atlantic, they will be great for weakening your opponents on a water-based map. i. aircraft. Good scouts, can occasionally bomb targets with limited effectiveness, but awesome for dogfights. j. lighter-than-air aircraft. Better bombers, but watch out for those biplanes. 5. Fully destructible and utilizable environment. Can't have a 20th century game without one! ...and so much more! heh, well I'm tired and going to bed. Hope this starts some good discussion. As Always,

Hmm. I was actually planning a story, set in a semi-prehistoric, semi-fantasy setting. Had stuff like a Cro-Magnon empire based in a city very similar to Atlantis, other races like the Neanderthal and 'hobbit people' from Indonesia. But all low-tech, with some unique magic, etc. I never got that into planning it, but it's been sitting in my idea folder for some time. Anyway, throughout middle school and early high school, I spent time developing an idea for an RTS. In it, I had players start with a few members of a tribe. Caves would be positioned around the map and act as the most basic town center/house/storage pit. The player would use the caves until they had enough supplies (taken entirely from animals killed) to build shelters, storage pits, and houses. From there it was just a matter of increasing your food surplus to increase your population, eventually allow for specialization of jobs and utilization of other resources through new technologies, which eventually allowed for empire. I find it satisfying to start so low, because it gives you a chance to really get attached to your people. Of course, my game was designed in a way where the player would have to save and return later, cause it took time to become powerful. I still like the idea though, and I would support a 0 AD game set with the Ancient Egyptians, Assyrians, Hittites, Minoans, Myceneans, Hallstatt Celts, and others of pre-classical times. As Always,

Hey everyone! Just have a little thing I found over the internet that I wanted to share with the game developers. When you guys get into designing sounds for the Celts, if you haven't already, visit this little url: http://www.carnyxscotland.co.uk/audio/voice.htm That's a reproduction of the carnyx, one of my favorite ancient instruments. Oh, and I know you guys have a lot of it developed, but I do believe a carnyx unit would be awesome. I'm not sure exactly how combat will play out and what factors into combat, but carnyx units could cause fear in the enemy ranks (force formations to break) or strengthen allies nearby. Numerous possibilities. At the very least, you could have it as a bonus unit available through the editor! As Always, EDIT: oh, I keep finding more! okay, hope you enjoy!

Well, now that I'm all interested, someone needs to open a topic on a World War I rts.

I agree Scipii. Esemble will probably pull of something of that nature. Though the RTS realm of games-in fact, any realm of gaming-needs more WWI. WWII is so overdone it isn't even funny. I can probably count all the WWI games on my right hand. WWI would be fun, especially with the extensive strategic options one could have. Trenches, machine guns, tanks, tank barriers, barbed wire, gas attacks, cavalry, armored cars, etc.