Genava55

Why not using heroes or even officers (like Delenda Est) to give the ability to set up a "tunnel" against a building? It could be something with a loading bar before to start or/and something you need to "build" with your men. As officer it could be a Primus Pilus centurion or a Tribunus Militum for the Romans, a Syntagmatarch for the Hellenes, a Corionos for the Celts etc.

Yes I agree. It is just to highlight the two ends of the spectra. The truth lies between an unproportional mix between both.

First of all, I'm not a competitive guy. My favorite RTS was AoM which I have mostly played in single player mode. I don't know why you take this badly the comparison with Starcraft and AoE. It was only a fundamental comparison. AoE is a clone factory balanced by numerical bonuses/penalties with only an aesthetic polish. Starcraft is a game where the factions are very different. It is only a fundamental question about the gameplay I'm rising: Do we want to add new factions to increase the depth of the gameplay and to propose a new way to play? Or do we want to add new factions to give more aesthetic diversity ? I think that currently we could already exploit more what is already created. Edit: For example if we stay on a basis with CC, barracks, fortress, market, houses etc. I don't see the interest to add a nomad faction. Even historically less-urban and less power centralized factions have the same basis than the urban and imperial ones in the current state.

You know, it is not mandatory to sacrifice the historical part for the gameplay. A healthy game will get anyway a lot of modders because they are looking for a new mean of expression, a medium to make what they want. Rome Total War 1 was awful but easy to mod, it got one of the biggest community. Mount and Blade is a fantasy game, it got even historical mods too. The engine of 0 A.D. is well suited for modders then you have no reason to worry. Having a competitive community in the other hand... Especially in the era of live streaming and gaming channels.

I'm not sure but I think he talk about something else. Maybe the split between graphics and simulation in the engine.

I have seen many mods dying for this reason in huge varieties of game but maybe my experience is wrong. I think having a basic game that works well and is well-honed is what attracts people with useful skills. I won't argue anymore since I'm not opposed to new civilizations in the game, I am simply a follower of caution and temperance. If adding new factions does not affect the development of the game then why not. But if you add more tactical depth and more depth to each faction, there is already a lot of work. And stay modest, bro'. 0 A.D. is still a fantasy game. Just like the Total War series. It is only an artistic interpretation of history for amusement.

Why not. Battle formations, tactical depth, moral management etc. could bring a lot of things to the game but this is a very huge work and a complex design to think about. It joins my remark in the other thread: It would be really innovative but we should ask to the technical heroes of the game how much it is difficult this kind of things.

For the moment the game is coherent with this huge European/North-African/Middle-Eastern network but adding the Han dynasty for example will mess it up a little bit because the Han are very far and the only pretext should be obscure stretching and justification through steppe civilization (a black-box where you can throw every cultures in to justify anything). Don't forget too that at this time China is not an homogeneous world. There is a lot of other factions that could be justifiably introduced through the Han, like the Baiyue/Minyue, the Qiangs/Chiangs, the Dians and the Nanyue. Even if I'm not against new civilizations, I agree and I think adding new factions should not be a priority. Even the Scythians, the Thracians or the Hans are excessive and we should let the mods experimenting and gathering information. I think there are two extremely opposed examples of successful RTS: AoE with numerous clone factions, Starcraft with only three factions but with huge difference and depth. 0 A.D is clearly between both, but we must ask ourselves the question of which side it is heading.

Others useful sources for Geto-Dacians: https://fsu.valahia.ro/images/avutgs/1/2005/2005050201.pdf https://www.academia.edu/3195737/Warriors_and_weapons_in_Dacia_in_the_2nd_BC_1st_AD_Centuries_-_Ph_-_thesis_abstract_ Argidava by Radu Oltean http://www.romaniadevis.ro/dacia/zona-geto-daca/reconstituiri-3d/item/cetatea-banita-reconstituire-3d

My suggestion for the faction symbols Scythian, Kuban region North-East of the Black Sea, 6th century BC For the Huns, from left to right:Germano-Hunnic 5th century AD in Romania, Germano-Hunnic 5th century AD in Italy, Scythians 5th Century BC in Altai (Russia), Scythians 5th Century BC in Tuetkin (Russia): For the Xiongnu:

It is already hard to make something vaguely correct in the Total War series, then in 0 A.D. it is a very difficult mission. Historically archers were used primarily to disorganize and demoralize enemy troops.

Yes exactly. The game let the player to create is own event. It is not the re-enactment of a historical battle.

https://www.docdroid.net/qpO72Yg/thracian-combined.pdf An extract: Something in French in case someone is interested: https://issuu.com/baranes/docs/l_e__pope__e_des_rois_thraces_2__ex

A useful document for symbol faction and art (even if the author didn't take any precaution in distinguishing Scythian and Hunnic cultures): https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259717838_Hun_Xiongnu_Scythian_Art An Unesco's magazine special issue on the Scythians: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0007/000748/074829eo.pdf Gold artistic goods in Tuva (Russia-Mongolian border) https://journals.openedition.org/archeosciences/pdf/2193 Nomadic Art from the Eastern Eurasian Steppes

At this little game we can argue there is Asian bronze items in North America through the Dorsets, Inuits and Chukchi trading. There are also numerous hints in plant and parasites paleoecology suggesting that the Americas wasn't that much closed. We have historically overlooked artistic goods to define contact zone and neglected the others things, which is biased in favor of Eurasian cultures. The problem with the rhetoric as used by Sundiata is its need to stretch the definitions and the boundaries of what is the limits of a culture, what is a contact between two cultures, confusing individuals interactions with societies interactions etc. The best examples are the use of La Tène Continental Celtic mercenaries to justify a possible interactions between British Iron Age populations and Eastern civilization, the use of the Parthian Empire to justify Achaemenid interactions with the Roman world, the use of Romanized Ethiopians in the Romanized territory of Britannia. It is like saying the Gauls could have interacted with the Huns because 5 centuries later, Attila raided the Gallo-Roman territory. At this little game, there is no boundaries and you can stretch anything very far (destroying the timeline of the game). It is like the debate to know who first discovered America. A lot of people argues with either strict evidences like viking settlement and Arctic cultures trading or with more fuzzy logical evidences like Chinese possible maritime exploration or lost Polynesian canoe. But there is only one true discovery: Columbus. Because it is the only one to have cultural consequences. To have changed the life of the individuals in both interacting societies. The rest is only anecdotal. The fact that tin from British population were bought by Egyptian populations is not an evidence of interaction between these two cultures because if another culture has bought or produced the tin instead of one or the other, it would have had the same effect. Edit: My conclusion is we have already broke the principle and it is not a problem.

Just a point about this. What could have been the interaction between Iron Age Britons and the Mauryan Empire? Or with the Koushites? Or between the Achaemenid dynasty and the Roman Republic? Or between the Iberians and a possible Chinese faction? Personally I am more about an accurate representation of each faction for a matter of respect for each culture and for the work of historians, but not about hardcore historical limitations. It is still a video game. Edit: my point is that talking about contact is not a good reason to exclude meso-american factions

I gave only historical references where we can cherry-pick to justify gameplay adjustment. Personally I would prefer something with the Marian reform and maybe giving an option for the Romans to unlock regional units when they capture their CC. Celtic cavalry and Celtic spearmen when they capture a Gallic or Britonic CC. Numidian light-cavalry and War Elephants when they capture Carthaginian CC. etc.

It is very vague indeed but with a historical background you can imagine what happens. They are either mercenaries or lend-troops from allies/vassals/defeated cities, they have simply the weapons of their nations.

For alpha 25 the Y will definitely causes trouble, except if you use a phoenician name. There is also Welsh mythology with Ysbaddaden.

Actually the ram can "outpace" spearmen, taking only one hit each 4-5 second. It means that you need to let the ram hitting your building to start capturing it.

For this the ram should be slower. But yeah, the capture can be a compromise solution.

https://www.docdroid.net/UAhXdak/xiongnu-combined.pdf It seems that the Xiongnu did have some agricultural fields in the south-east border of their Empire where foreigners could settle. It wasn't really their own population but they were a kind of vassals the Xiongnu used to have enough food the winter, to have metals, textiles and others craftsmanship. There is small walls even in pastoral fields and fortified small settlements probably to stock and protect food and goods. The Xiongnu seems to have the same superior bow than the Huns. Edit: to summary a bit what I see for the moment. - The Scythians have a varied roster possible. From the Greek authors, there is mention of mounted javelinists and horse archers with the famous hit-and-retreat and ambush tactics. From archaeology, there is swords and pickaxes, spears, various squale armours and shields. The pickaxe is probably an answer against armours and must be an advantageous. The Sarmatians and the Eastern Scythians developed further heavy lancer cavalry and cataphracts. Normally each Scythians warriors, even armoured ones, have both bows and lances. Something to think about if the switching weapons is implemented one day. Crimean Scythians seem to be often separated from their northern Neighbors, having sometime a different king than the others Scythians. I suggest then for balance and historical reason to put the Crimean in a reform to be chosen with the further Sarmatian's development as an alternative. Since the Sarmatians destroyed the Crimean Scythians, it is logical that the player must chose between two different pathways. - The Xiongnu is more obscur but several patterns seem to emerge and we can make reasonable assumptions. The Xiongnu built their empire on a multiethnic basis with sedentarian populations in their border. They must have the possibility to built defensive fortifications and farms. Since the mod make the difference between civilian and militarian buildings, it should be possible to let sedentarian based units to build such civilian buildings. It would explain why sometimes the Xiongnu have a lot of infantry during the defense of their borders against the Han (although with a very mediocre efficiency). Contrary to others nomads cultures, the Xiongnu have inhabited on their territory for a very long time. The Xiongnu have superior "hunnic-like" bows, long double edged swords, spears and leather and iron squale armour. For their horses, it doesn't seem there is any cataphract, only padded linen and silk protection probably against the arrows can be guessed from archaeology. - The Huns are clearly the more mobiles and have clearly the best horse-archers. Not only because of their superior bows but also thanks to battle tactics. In the archaeology, the Huns seem similar to the Xiongnu but with indications they start using mail armour in Europe. They must be the best raiders. The possibility to hire Germanics units should give them better shock units both in cavalry and in infantry. There is not mention of any cataphract or any armoured horseman. The Avars (closely relatives to them) did have good lance cavalry. Attila was very good in siege warfare during his campaign against both eastern and western Romans. Hierarchical classification, I suggest (to discuss): Horse-archers - Huns > Xiongnu > Scythians Close-combat cavalry - Scythians > Huns > Xiongnu Armoured cavalry - Scythians with nomad reform > Xiongnu > Scythians with Crimean reform > Huns Lancers cavalry - Scythians with nomad reform > Huns > Xiongnu > Scythians with Crimean reform Combat infantry - Huns > Scythians with Crimean reform > Xiongnu > Scythians with nomad reform Archers infantry - Huns > Xiongnu > Scythians Economy (self-production) - Xiongnu > Scythians > Huns Economy (Raiding) - Huns > Xiongnu > Scythians Siege abilities - Huns > Xiongnu > Scythians Defensive structures - Xiongnu > Scythians with Crimean reform >> Scythians with nomad reform = Huns This is clearly a matter of interpretation.

The problem is the lack of historical swordsmen among the Greeks. Because of the rock-paper-scissor logic it is a problem.

Yes you are probably right. I checked and it seems they are polyvalent pikemen. Anyway there are the Agrianes and the Triballi as good candidates. I agree.

What could be great should be to implement the Antigonid reform with the elite peltastai. They are not skirmisher, they are a polyvalent shock infantry with a few javelins, bronze pelte and a sword. http://europabarbarorum.wikia.com/wiki/Peltastai_Makedonikoi_(Hellenistic_Elite_Infantry)#EB2 Edit: else there is the Agrianes, attested in the army of Alexander and of his father.