Hiram

I have to say I really enjoy this movie, and Im not easily satisfied even my wife as treathen with stop comming with me to the teather because "I dont like anything" But for those of you who havent see it let me say is really good picture, lots of stars(Steven Seagal, Robert DeNiro, Michelle Rodriguez, Jesica Alba), lots of fights and is basically a non pretensious fun movie, if there was a moral lesson there, I didnt see it I also have to add, it have a lot of deads, blod and beheaded people, but what else would you expect from a movie call MACHETE? The only other movie I could compare this, is 300, but there is also something that came to my atention: Remember all those critics to 300 because of the way they portrait the persians, that even some people talk about boycott the movie, and I believe it was even prohibit in Iran and some other countries. Well I was thinking, why did nobody say anything about Machete? , and I don't talk about the latinos on the movie, but about the gringos! Every non-latino character in the movie was racist, corrupt, violent and the only two women where nynphomaniacs and drug adicts. The latinos on the other side, where honest hard working people who where only trying to make a living in USA. The only honest cop in the movie was Jesica Alba, and the bad guy, who was supose to be a mexican drug dealer called "Torres" was portrayed by Steven Seagal! So why did nobody said this movie was racist towards the people from USA?, is it because is a movie made in Hollywood?, what if it were made in Mexico instead, would there be any diference?, is it that the gringos dont care about what the movies say about them?, or it was that the persians are just too sensitives when it comes to movies? PLEASE COMMENT!!!

well I could do that but unfortunatly my understanding of 3dmax is autodidactive and so I have a hard time to understand the bone system pyrogenesis uses basically I havent heard about "bone system" before getting here i have alway work my own structures and do not know how to make the game work with them PS why is my avatar not being showed!

I know you guys started a off topic conversation, but I'll ignore that cause there's too much to read From all the countries of the world, I would live in Germany. The reason being that they have High standard of living, and are very stable economically, have good educational system, and people seems to be more civilized, although thats just my perception, I may be wrong. Actually, I have a personal plan to move there in a few years, I'm just getting enough funds. Besides that one, I could also go to Japan, but thats more of a otaku dream If I where single, and have no family to worry for me, I would go to Palestine, basically because I believe that place need all the help they can get. For the same reason I would go to Iran, with the incentive that I love Persian culture.

My vote is for Chimera, and if approved, I'll gladly model a chimera unit to be added to the game

I'm tired of people spamming war elephants in every asian/african civ they propose, elephants aren't that easy to train you know...

Hello, this may be a silly question but what actions are already programed(like attack, walk, run, hunt?, and what other's are planed? I know I could get this from the game, but I tough it would be easier just to ask

It seems they took all the things people didn't like about the previous games and make a game with them. Too cartoony, too few units, unrealistic gameplay, and it seems to me they try to emulate the look of the civilization games. Only one good thing, persistent world, if 0AD could have that, it would be the best.

I know it is not acurated but lets go back to the 300 scene, notice how they stab the persians, they can't do it over the shield, but they push them, put the sheilds aside and then strike. Ok it is a movie, but my point is, when the phalanx was fighting, there wasn't any moment when a wall of metal wasn't infront of you, remember "from the knee to the shoulder"?, if any hoplite remove his shield, he would be taken down, opening a hole in the formation, thus making the strategy fail. I know the upper grip is unconfortable, but when trying to hit above your shoulder is the best option, is not only logical but supported by art and history, I don't see any point to argue about that. Of course this doesn't apply to open fight outside the formation, in wich case a soldier will quickly change to under arm grip, or to the sword.

It just came to me like a revelation, players should be able to take hostages from the enemy female villagers! It's something included in clasic literatura, and history, if you wanted to destroy a civilization, after conquering the city, you kill the men, sell the childrens as slave, and take the women for you, that's what Agammemnon did, and it work fine for him... until he got kill, but he sure had fun in the mean time! So maybe after destroying the enemy town center(or what ever is going to be call ), the players soldiers should be able to capture one female villager, and take them to their own city

Many experts over the years have pointed that the greek welfare tactics were strange, the simple fact of advancing until being to the reach of your enemy, is against the human instinct, most warriors would prefer to "cowardly" trow projectiles at the enemy at a 50 yards distance, but the fact is that the greeks did it that way. I frankly have never see any pottery showing the "underarm" grip you say, neither that text that was quoted, say it specifically, and on the other hand, all depictions of hoplites in formation shows them holding their spears over the shoulder. You are basing your arguments, in logic, physics, and anatomy, but you cannot do that to research history, at least not when it goes against the historical evidence. Besides, I don't believe you really understand how the phalanx works, because it is impossible to stab your enemy when your shield(and his) are on the way. Think of it like being behind a fence that covers from your knee to your shoulder, now in that position try to stab, and what you get is that you have to crouch, or force your arm, in a very uncomfortable arch. On the other hand, the "over the shoulder" position not only let you point at the enemies head and upper torso, but you can also point it down, to stab the enemies on the floor, once you push them with the shield. I agree that is not the best choice when you are in open battle, but in a close phalanx formation, it was the only choice. EDIT: Perhaps we should add both, if only a logical argument could be added, for when the units are not in formation, but as it has been pointed many times, 0 AD is historically acurated, but is also meant to be a fun and frankly, I wouldn't change the view of the spartans running at the enemy with their spears up Phalanx Formation Open Combat

Persia belongs to a later era, but I would include troyans(anatolians) instead. I do want to do this, but when I try to help with 0AD previously I found that it was too early in the programming area to keep my interest on it. Now I dont even have 3DS max installed on my pc, perhaps after 0AD gets released, and all the AI, and scripting functions get ready, I will start working again.

Actually I dont like the mythic theme, when I play AOM I hardly use myth units. I like more and find more fun if it have a realistic aproach, because it makes it more diverse, and based in strategy, and not so much in "magical factors". Unfortunatly the only game that have those civs until now is AOE, but that doesnt count because those are just generalistic civs using the names of the civs, but they dont have their real characteristics, I guess I will wait until 0AD gets to a playable state, and then just start working on new units, I actually have some models yet, but I need to export them in the pyrogenesis format.

What I would like to see is a mod depicting the era previous 0AD, I want a game with minoans, hitites, egyptians, and the feared "sea people" As for the jews, they were not much diferent politically from other nations of their time, but they are in the occidental mind because of all the jew-christian morale. I would like to make some hebrews, but as a small semifaction, maybe just a few units working as mercenaries for others.

That AOM scenario doesnt really work like that, is just that the first "dreamy part" was a cinematic scenario, wich once it would run, it just loads the next one without showing the you win/loose, remember you could edit the victory conditions, leaving even none. So it wasn't one scenario with two maps, but a cinematic scenario and a playable scenario.

I do believe RTS genre has been pretty much in coma the last years. It hasn´t reach the top points it had on the times of AOE2 o TA, and the developers have been trying with new formulas, wich altough good, havent been a real hit outside of the "strategy games players" I dont mean I dont like new games, I enjoy Dawn of War, and Total War, but they have not been as revolutionary as the first RTS. And Unfortunatly, there hasnt been a decent "clasic style RTS" game lately; I dont want to start a debate, but for me, AOE3 was a total turn down. And the Rise of Nations, and Empire Earth sagas are pretty much dead. Blizzard on the other side, leave the genre rest for almost a decade, Warcraft III with its hero sistem was a diferent enough of regular RTS, in wich fight is based on armies, not heroes. However I believe that starcraft wich for what they have show is a classic RTS, would be good enough to bring the general audience back to RTS games, wich may ultimately lead to a new wave of old style strategy games. On the other side, we have 0AD , a whorty heir to the historic strategy games, with all the old fashion features we love, and some new ones

If you want a great spanish speaking general, then you should include Jose Maria Morelos, or Vicente Guerrero who were the greatest military heroes of the indepence war. Or you can also use Pancho Villa or Emiliano Zapata; the first famous for invading USA territory, and the second for being a reformist who's ideas are venerate even today. Santa Ana was a war hero in his youth, but is kinda hated in Mexico, because of his late deeds, besides at the time, it was a internal mexican war, since Texas wasn't part of the USA yet. BTW, Mexico has been a republic most of the time, it took the name of Mexican Empire only during two small periods, first immediatly after the indepence from Spain (1821-1823), second during the french invasion (1863-1867). None of this periods correspond with the time of the siege to the Alamo.

HAHAHAHA, Why is Santa Ana a hero? And by the way, there weren't metallurgy in mesoamerica, so having the aztec mine faster is a little ironic from you

hahaha, thats simply awesome sion, just make them taller, and not so "chubby", thay are supose to inspire terror on those "filthy barbarians"

well, thats really disappointing...

I would say, if you REALLY want to do this, try to do it as diferent as you can from AOM. Drop the major an minor gods, and ES created myth units, do something original, otherwise, it would be nothing more than a copy, with Pyrogenesis you can let your imagination go

I actually enjoy the city building part of rts games; creating a beautiful city, while keeping its militar functionality is a for of art

Marian reforms are not going to be in the game until the second part of the game, with the imperial romans.

WHAT?, are you saying that modding will not make me rich and famous?

LOL, you feel atracted to Link... anyway, here are the two of them PS. I just notice there is no "pretty girls pics" thread at wildfire, someone should open one

OK, lets clear a point, the average of the Persian army, was ligther than the average of the Greek armie. This doesnt mean that the Persians didn't have heavy units. Besides, not all greeks were heavy hoplites armored with curias and bronze shields, people gets confused when they heard that all citizens of the polis had the duty of buy their panoplia, but not all the greeks were citizens. They had a complex social sistem in wich a big part of the population was not given political powers, and that group of lesser individuals, figth has ligth troops, and Im not talking about peltast, who could at least afford a shield, and some kind or armor, but slingers, bowmen, and many other who also travel with Alexander, and at least at the begining were as poorly equiped as the persian troops. On the other hand, the ligthness of the persian army was not a military error; just remember how vast the empire was, mobility was greatly apreciated on the soldiers. The greeks on the other hand, were used to figth with their "next hill neighbour". The Macedonians under Philip, defeat the rest of the greek armies, thus the Macedonian were excellent, and the rest of the greeks were crap. The Romans defeat the greeks, thus the romans were excellent, and the overall greeks were crap. The Huns and German tribes, defeat the romans, thus the huns and germans were excellent, and the romans were crap... do you want me to continue?