Jump to content

oshron

Community Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    980

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

 Content Type 

Everything posted by oshron

  1. oshron
    some generalized special abilities would probably be good, too. for example, in the first Empire Earth, all of the "Strategist" Heroes (specific examples included William the Conqueror and Alexander the Great) had a battlecry power that let them lower the morale of enemies in an area. it was a pretty useful feature. those same types of heroes also had the ability to heal allied units (and much faster than a hospital or medic could in-game), but that kind of power would probably be better relegated to heroes which are/were specifically known to have such talents in actual history, or otherwise ones which aren't as military-focused. iirc, Themistocles is planned as an Athenian hero, and he's not really the most famous military commander (he DID defend Athens with his sea wall, but whatever) so a healing power might work well for him another feature that heroes had in Empire Earth was that all the heroes had a healing factor. in the context of 0ad, it could be justified with a rare divergence from actual history in that many legendary heroes were regarded as...well, legendary heroes who therefore had extraordinary abilities
  2. oshron
    i'd hope that strategic campaigns would still be based on historical events you don't necessarily NEED to have voice-acting, especially for what would at this point be prototype campaigns. placeholder voices could also be used, taken from the design team.
  3. oshron
    i don't have any mod in the works. the best i could possibly do is written designs.
  4. oshron
    i had been thinking of ones along the lines of King Arthur, though he falls outside the current scope of 0ad (but would work well for Part 2 even though he technically falls outside that one, too, though it's alot closer)
  5. oshron
    in other words, an acceptable break from reality
  6. oshron
    some folkloric and outright mythological heroes would probably work well, just for scenario design purposes and non-historical settings. obviously, this would work best if it fit into 0ad's timeframe, but i can't recall any legendary heroes off the top of my head who date to 500-1bc some other possibilities would be more recent material from the public domain
  7. oshron
    same difference. boiling water.
  8. oshron
    the best form of a Japanese faction to include would be the Yamato dynasty, which would most definitely fall into Part2's timespan as opposed to Part1. for a bit of context, the Yamato are the Japanese who were represented in the original Age of Empires
  9. oshron
    the Tang fall out of the general timespan of 0ad, though. in my opinion, the Han would be a better choice, or alternatively--if they could be made distinct enough--three separate Chinese factions to represent the countries of the Warring States period (Wu, Shu, and Wei). though content related to the Tang dynasty would be great additions to the editor, perhaps even including Hua Mulan as an editor-only hero unit. in the same vein, a hypothetical Japanese faction would actually have to lack the famous samurai, as that institution did not exist in Japan at the time 0ad takes place, though it would be a shame for them to not exist in the game at all if we go to all the effort of having a playable Japanese faction.
  10. oshron
    one suggestion i made quite some time ago concerning "minifactions" (based on civs technically already present in the game but don't have their own factions, such as the Thracians) who could/would be present on certain maps and available either for destruction or alliance and allow the player that allies with them to have access to their units. this would extend to naval units as well, so, for example, on largely naval maps the Iberians would use their own transports but be able to ally with a non-player group (such as the Phoenicians) to gain access to some warships, the alternative being that, on a given map, they would ally with a player that DOES have warships and split the difference: for example, the Iberians ally with the Athenians against the Romans and Persians on a naval map, with the Athenians covering for their naval needs while the Iberians help defend the Athenians on land, particularly with their walls and towers since (iirc) the Iberians are the most defensive playable civ
  11. oshron
    of course, those ones designed by Archimedes would work best if a Syracusan faction was included
  12. oshron
    i imagine part of the idea is that those five are really more the ones that can fit in the topmost part of the tower and be capable of firing down. it's also probably for balance reasons.
  13. oshron
    personally, i'm now in agreement with Mythos_Ruler concerning the use of the Funeral Pyre as a Wonder. though i think it SHOULD be included in the game as an editor-only building
  14. oshron
    i doubt the Macedonians under Alexander did; i'm not well-versed on Macedonian history, but i wouldn't put it too far out there for the post-Alexander Macedonians such as the Seleucids to have used elephants. whether they used them enough to warrant their inclusion is another thing entirely. if nothing else, could be some single-player games where the Macedonians have access to some irreplaceable elephants for just that scenario
  15. oshron
    realistically, it would be better for buildings to simply become unusable if flooded, just like in real-life
  16. oshron
    i seem to remember this kind of thing coming up at irregular intervals in the past. one of my own suggestions to this effect was that some maps could have different kinds of "neutral" buildings that you could either destroy or capture and use for your own, depending on what the map was like. for instance, a map set in a deep jungle could have some ancient, generic ruins that you could capture and, depending on what the ruins are styled like, use them to fill the roles of various other buildings (temples of course come to mind, but it could include barracks, fortresses, etc.). another was an inn, which could/would be used similarly to a Civic Center. ideally, each building would only roughly fill the role of an "actual" one, such as the aforementioned inn only being able to train citizens and basic soldiers, while an actual Civic Center would be needed to research technologies and advance to the next Phase
  17. oshron
    i guess maybe i misunderstood the original suggestion of the funeral pyre; i thought it was gonna be some super-magnificent Olympic torch-like thing
  18. oshron
    isn't "this never happened" kinda the point of 0ad? i mean, we've got now twelve different factions, hardly any of which encountered each other except for the Romans, and it already takes place in the fictional Year 0, so why not have a planned wonder based on what arguably the most famous (broadly defined) Greek in history wanted to make. besides, the other two main choices, the Library and Lighthouse of Alexandria, are already being adapted as standard buildings for the Macedonians, iirc. and the Funeral Pyre is just plain unique, like White Horse of Uffington unique. there are already so many Wonders (or, truthfully, proposals for them) that are just really big temples.
  19. oshron
    like i said before, i think this is a brillaint idea for the Macedonians, and is a great compromise between all the iconic buildings that they had historically, especially since this one was so important to Alexander himself. 'cuz lets be honest, he's pretty much the only real pan-Macedonian ruler that there ever was and everything went to pot after he died
  20. oshron
    so i guess single-player campaigns will be held off until Part2, huh?
  21. oshron
    i see. that certainly WOULD help the Germanics and some other factions stand out more. perhaps there could be an Anglo-Saxon one which "diverges" into a more Saxon or Angle path? or, if you will, become Saxo-Angles as opposed to Anglo-Saxons
  22. oshron
    thing is, the idea of divergent factions was abandoned a while ago; there used to be just one Hellenic faction that would have diverged into the Poleis and the Macedonians, then the design team decided to redo that for the more historically accurate, separate, and unique Athenians, Spartans, and Macedonians. chances are, there would be one Germanic civilization with several shared elements such as their cultural aesthetics, but similarities between factions would end there. so, for example, there would probably be two separate Gothic factions, the Ostrogoths and the Visigoths (that's assuming that the two Gothic cultures had diverged enough from each other during the period of 1-500 AD to warrant being included as separate factions; i don't know enough about them to say for sure off the top of my head) though in my opinion, the Vandals, Franks, Saxons, and at least one Gothic faction would be a must; not only were they very influential on history, but they also have name recognition; tbph, most people don't think "Burgundians" when one mentioned Germanics
  23. oshron
    going back to civ correlation that i mentioned earlier, the Germans could very well be the Greeks of Besieged, in that there are numerous factions dedicated to them, potentially numbering as many as there are both Hellenic poleis and Macedonian successors (presently, that's six factions) who are all distinct in their own way but share some key factors such as architecture and a few basic units between them all
  24. oshron
    now that i think about it, i have to say i agree with you. as for my proposals of civ correlation, that's probably the Asperger's talking i like nice, round numbers when it comes to this kind of thing, so i favor a setup where both Ascendant and Besieged have an even 12 civs (or possibly expanded to 15 each, because 13 and 14 are weird ). it used to be that i was for ten civs in each part, with an additional third part featuring "non-Roman" civs like the Chinese because, at that point, all the civs present had been ones that the Romans explicitly encountered (before the Mauryans were introduced as a playable civ). and even with "civ correlation" alot of them are still very much inexact. one of my proposals was to make the Huns the AD equivalent to the BC Spartans because of their militant cultures even though they're different in every other sense. the other sense is that the Besieged civs could/would be spiritual successors to the Ascendant ones
  25. oshron
    personally, i think having three different Romans would be superfluous, and that it should be limited to teh Western and Eastern Romans, with "Imperial Romans" capable of being simulated with a combination of the two and some editor-only units one thing i've suggested numerous times in the past (possibly to the point that it annoys people, and if that's the case i apologize) is that there should be an equal number of civs between each part with Besieged having vague analogies to the Ascendant ones. for example: Anglo-Saxons (to the Britons) Franks (to the Gauls) Eastern Romans (to the Athenians) Huns (to the Spartans) Sassanids (to the Persians) Western Romans (to the Romans) Arabs (to the Ptolemies) (as a note, these would be pre-Islamic Arabs probably from what is now Yemen) Parthians (to the Seleucids)three other personal suggestions on my part would be the Chinese dating to the Han dynasty (or maybe even three separate Chinese factions based on the Warring States), the Japanese dating to the Yamato period, and the Maya dating to the Classical Period (roughly 200-1000 AD) to add an exotic flavor to a very Indo-European game
×
×
  • Create New...