oshron

well technicaly, there are two Celtic factions: the Gauls represent the Celts of France, and the Britons represent those of the British Isles. it's no surprise that "Celt" and "Celtic" would crop up for both of them, but there's no civ that's just called "Celts". there used to be, but now they're divided into the Brythonic and Gaulish varieties

siege ladders would require entirely new functions; they aren't really similar to any of the siege weapons already in the game. they'd probably work best as unique siege engines for a civ which definitely used them in actual history.

actually, the Carthaginians are Berbers the best African civilization to include (fitting into the Part 2 timeframe) are the Aksumites, who lived in what is now Eritrea, Djibouti, and northern Ethiopia. another interesting one from outside the current geographic range are the Himyars, pre-Islamic Arabs who lived in what is now Yemen iirc. such a faction could also conceivably draw influence from Iram of the Pillars, the "Atlantis of the Sands" which supposedly existed during 0ad's timeframe iirc. if nothing else, Iram-styled walls and towers and perhaps a grand temple as a Wonder would word well for a pre-Islamic Arabic faction

for any hypothetical German factions (and this has already been said) it would likely be that they have the same or similar architecture and citizen-soldiers with differences of champion units and some other aspects based on what those other cultures were very well known for in the same way as the Hellenic factions in Part 1

they had something like that in AOM. an alternative could be to include a Spies tech for every civilization, available only in the very last phase and after numerous prerequisites, which reveals all enemy units at the cost of metal, but a very high amount and proportioned per unit and building. this means it would be more useful after you've more or less defeated the enemy but haven't won yet because you still need to mop up the last of them, since it would cost far less as a result alternatively, there could be an Explore option where units wil scour the map on their own instead of having to be constantly directed. this cuts down on micromanaging in general and will allow you to focus more on your economy in order to train more soldiers to send out on these seek-and-destroy missions near the end of a match. ideally, Explore would make a unit move more or less randomly and regardless of how much blackmap remains, since an enemy survivor will undoutbedly be hiding somewhere in the fog of war

well i think that would depend. are we using authentic indigenous names for the other already playable factions? did the Macedonians actually call themselves "Macedonians" or did they use "Makedonians" or some other form of it? did the Romans call themselves Romans or did they use "Roma", for instance? (not to be confused with the Romanies, or Gypsies, who also use "Roma" to refer to themselves)

i'd say that that would be an acceptable break from reality as far as gameplay is concerned

the civs are basically plucked from their respective times to one place anyway again, what's REALLY historical about this is that the civs themselves are accurate. besides, wouldn't it get REALLY boring REALLY fast if, for example, you were FORCED to only play against the Romans if you were the Britons? or ONLY against the Macedonians if you were the Mauryans, which is already inaccurate as the Mauryans postdated Alexander iirc? alternate history in the classical period is definitely something i'd take a vested interest in as far as this game is concerned, like if Hannibal successfully conquered Rome for instance. but only as custom scenarios i'd say the Anglo-Saxons would be able to coast by on sheer popularity and recognition i'm also of teh opinion that Part 2 civs should more or less "match" ones from Part 1, and the Anglo-Saxons really ARE the best 1-500ad match for the Britons

it could also simply be that some civs have units along the lines of a given unit type but, as far as appearances go, they are something else entirely. for example, a civ could have a sapper unit which is comprised of a bunch of infantrymen under a mobile shelter and armed with shovels, pickaxes, etc., which is functionally identical to a ram. a difference from conventional rams could be that it has a faster attack rate and does smaller damage for each attack, but it would still do the same amount of damage as a regular ram in the same amount of time. similarly, civilizations that didn't have horsemen (such as a hypothetical Amerindian faction) could have runner-type infantry which are as fast (or nearly as fast) as cavalry and fill the same role

i think, for the purposes of gameplay, it would be easier to have minifactions stay in one place. for nomadic civs, it could just be reasoned that they decided to camp here for the time at which the match is taking place, or (if we look at it in the context of a game actually taking place over a long period of time, just abbreviated for the player's sake) that's a place where they stop annually to take a break from traveling all over the place

the way i've seen it, random maps with player-versus-player or player-versus-computer aren't supposed to be historical, especially if you consider that some civs which never encountered one another are already in the game together (for example, the Britons never met the Mauryans). just because civs don't make sense when it comes to geography and chronology wouldn't make those civs less historical as a self-contained culture in the game. besides, the game already takes place in the fictional Year 0

like i said, the basis could be civs that are technically represented already as mercenaries used by a given civilization (like the Thracians)

i'd recommend a fourth German faction to be included: the Anglo-Saxons also, i'm a tad confused: is the 1-500ad game going to be a completely separate sequel, or will it be a sequel expansion to teh first one? if nothing else, it would make for interesting scenario design, with the 500-1bc Athenians being used specifically for a map set in Athens during the Byzantine period

hence "and maybe one or two others"

it's my understanding that the current plans for campaigns are that they'll be styled after the Total War series. personally, i think it would be easier to make a linear campaign in the vein of the various AOE games and Empire Earth, which follow a historical figure for whichever civilizations (like an Alexander campaign for the Macedonians, a Caesar campaign for the Republican Romans, etc.). this would also allow the designers to better-maintain historicity, unless the idea is that the campaigns will focus on battles which took place concurrently as part of larger wars with multiple fronts (like Rome's various conquests)

while i was watering the plants earlier, an idea for a Wonder occurred to me: Solomon's Temple. of course, it wouldn't be a buildable Wonder, it would be one that would appear randomly in "kill/capture the Wonder" settings, like the Hanging Gardens or Great Pyramid

personally, i'd recommend keeping it at twelve. it's a nice round number though going further, i'd aslo recommend adding an additional 12 civs in Part 2 for the 1-500ad period (as i've said before) and maybe an additional six (three BC and three AD civs) as DLC for an even 30 when all is said and done, not counting whatever fanmade civs may be developed sanderd already answered this, but the Vikings fall outside 0ad's timeframe no matter what argument you may try to make: the Viking Age started about two centuries after the cutoff date, iirc i agree. the Han Chinese could technically fit into either the current timeframe of 0ad or for Part 2; concievably, i'd say the best option is to find out when the height of Han power was and place them in the appropriate pack, either as a default civ in Part 2 or as DLC for Part 1, depending. the Japanese would fit best in Part 2, as that's when the Yamato dynasty arose. this means that the official Japanese civ would have to exclude Feudal Japanese units like ninja and samurai, but those could always be included as editor-only units (and i would be seriously disappointed if they weren't). i don't know as much about the Korean civilizations of the time.one possibility could be a total of three different Chinese civilizations representing the warring states of Wu, Shu, and Wei, but i'd say that would only work if they were distinct enough from one another those civs were in AOE and AOK and yet no one really complains about Mongol cavalry riding into battle against Spanish conquistadors or Celtic painted warriors. just because they didn't interact in actual history (incidentally, i don't think the Britons fought the Mauryans, nor did the Spartans against the Iberians) wouldn't compromise the historicity of the civs themselves. besides, half the heroes in 0ad didn't coexist, either: Alexander never met Leonidas, Caesar didn't fight Boudicca, Cyrus didn't ally with Hannibal, and so on. i agree: some Far Eastern civilizations (and maybe even a Southeast Asian one, if applicable) should be included, if nothing else than for variety, along with a single New World civilization: the Mayans, which were at the height of their power (or approaching it) during the 1-500ad period. the closest thing to steppe civilizations would probably be the Huns, Parthians, and maybe one or two others. notably, the Mongols fall out of 0ad's timeframe, much like the Vikings, though i'd say they're another case of anachronistic elements which would still work as part of the game, just not as a default part of playable civilizations. maybe there could be an in-game trigger to allow a given player to train anachronistic units (for instance, a hypothetical Japanese civ getting to train samurai even though it would predate them, or even cross-cultural, such as a Greek civ being enabled to train Viking warriors)incidentally, Vikings coud very well be partly included in the official, historically-accurate parts of the game via the Varangians, who iirc were Norsemen in the service of the Byzantine emperor, but i can't recall off the top of my head if they served him during the 1-500ad period

awww

it could be that you the player, representing the government of the faction you're playing as, are more correctly endorsing a particular deity, the act of which then inspires the people of that civilization to do what they do better (religious fervor, really). for example:Player: We the Macedonians live by the sea! We intimately associate ourselves with the ocean! Therefore, we shall venerate Poseidon, god of the seas! Sailor: He's right! Poseidon must be watching over us! Step lively, men! We have nothing to fear out on the sea with Lord Poseidon watching over us!

Templars would probably be a good addition to the editor, but certainly not as a part of regular gameplay

i never played AOE3 and just because you personally don't like the Carthaginian faction doesn't mean we should sacrifice their uniqueness

personally, i think Stonehenge is still the best choice. if not it, then we can say that it's another set of standing stones which were erected by the Brythonic Celts from 500-1bc. besides, there'd be no realistic justification for why you wouldn't be able to walk on top of an Uffington White Horse because, for all intents and purposes, it would be flat

i'd say the best course of action would be to give the player three options for Village to Town advancement where they pick a different "Alliance" to advance through (what i mean is that you have three separate advancement techs available on the Civic Center's menu instead of clicking the "Advance" button and being given three different options). for example, instead of the tech being just "Advance to Town Phase", you have "Ally with Iberians", etc. and that gives you their respective embassy for that phase. when you advance to the City Phase, all three embassies are enabled by default, including whichever one you chose to begin with (though that wouldnt really matter because it's already been enabled)

part of the justification i came up with for the Hanging Gardens when i proposed them was that they were actually built for Nebuchadnezzer's wife, who was a Persian

but weren't the Achaemenid Persians Zoroastrians? (read: monotheists)