oshron

here's some slightly organized ideas Apollo: god of prophecy (would benefit the healing abilities of priests; alternatively, he could be replaced by Asclepius, a deity more dedicated to healing) Ares: god of war (would benefit the abilities of soldiers) Artemis: goddess of the hunt (would benefit hunting abilities, and perhaps archers as well) Asclepius: god of healing (would benefit the healing abilities of priests) Athena: goddess of wisdom (would benefit the build and repair rates of structures) Cernunnos: horned god (would benefit druids in some way) Demeter: goddess of agriculture (would benefit farms) Dionysus: god of wine (no ideas as to exactly how he would benefit the player) Poseidon: god of the sea (would benefit either ships or horse cavalry) and here's some very much UNorganized ideas, mostly pertaining to the various Celts and to the Ptolemaics: Osiris Ra Set Bastet Ma’at Sobek Hathor Khepri Khnum Anubis Isis Ptah Horus Sekhmet Thoth Toutatis Brigantia Beira Macha Sulis Gobannus Mogons Nantosuelta Belenus Epona Lugh Manannan Maponos Nodens

i'd actually been thinking recently that a toggle button on temples could let the player worship a particular god, perhaps similar to the idea that Wonders have toggle abilities that will affect the territorial influence of the player, their allies, or their enemies. for example, the various Hellenes could choose to worship Athena for a while, which improves the rate at which buildings are constructed and repaired (though best known as the goddess of wisdom, she was also the goddess of architecture), and then after a while they switch over to worship Ares to give their soldiers a boost in combat. in the case of factions with a shared religion (like the Hellenes), it would probably be best to pick two or three gods which are given to all of them and then another which is more unique to their culture or embodies what they did historically. for example, only the Athenians would be able to worship Athena. i would also recommend this only in the sense of how that god can accurately apply to a game without any other mythological influences. for example, while Zeus immediately jumps to mind as a Greek god, i would actually suggest that he not be one of the Olympians that can be worshipped, because he embodies much more nature-oriented aspects than some of the others, as opposed to aspects of humanity like Athena does, for instance. in contrast, Poseidon would work well because, as both the god of the sea and the lord of horses, he has a wider applicable range to us mortals: he could improve the rate at which cavalry are trained and make it so that ships move faster, giving them safer passage across the sea i'll try to write up something about which gods could be applicable to all this; one of the benefits of working on a mythology RTS project as well is that i already have alot of ideas

so a tug-of-war/capture-the-flag/hot-potato game mode? sounds fun frustrating, but fun

i was just using AOM as an example because it's a well-known commercial game that alot of us here have probably played. note that all of my actual examples for what could be in 0ad applied only to real soldiersand like i said, it would be better for special attacks and abilities to be reserved for champion units and heroes, and maybe one or two others depending (like the dragon that's planned for use in a random map script could potentially have a special attack where it swoops down to crush a bunch of units underfoot and then take off again)

imo, the only other broad type of game that can mix well with RTS games is RPGs, and even then it would be more like an RTS adaptation of an RPG

would this be a free-standing building or part of the Parthenon Wonder? while it's inaccurate, i would personally recommend that the buildable Parthenon not have the statue to put less strain on the about of faces it has, while for scenario design one could theorectically place the statue inside the Parthenon for authenticity

i think special attacks and abilities could (sort of) be merged into one general function and vary between units and buildings. i'll use AOM in this example: in Age of Mythology, almost every myth unit and most of the campaign heroes had special attacks or other abilities that they had to recharge after using. for example, Arkantos had a battlecry ability which boosted the morale of allied units around him for a short time, while Ajax had a shield-bash attack that deals extra damage to the unit he's attacking as well as sending them flying. attacks got more fantastical than this in the context of AOM, like the Argus unit in the expansion pack literally spraying acid on a single unit and melting them, or the Frost Giant breathing ice on an enemy to freeze them in place in the context of 0ad, most potential abilities are probably already covered under various auras, but ones like battlecrys could be added as well. depending on the history behind a particular hero or champion unit, they could have various different abilities applied to them in broad strokes, and it would be foolish to give abilities like that to just one unit and not have it be a shared ability with other units. here's some examples: soldiers which are known to have revelled in battle or had a very strong militant culture could have either a "drain" ability, where they take back a small percentage of the damage they deal as health to regenerate their wounds in action, or they could have a "fervor" ability where, when they reach a certain percentage of health (say, 25%) they start dealing greater amounts of damage related to the above, some units could have a "berserk" ability where they occasionally fly into a rage to deal extra damage and start hitting multiple enemies at once (their targets receive the bulk of the damage, but every adjacent unit receives 50% of the damage of a normal attack as well), though the trade-off is that they themselves become more vulnerable to attack (taking 25% more damage or something) units with exceptionally large shields could conceivably have "shield-bash" attacks where they lash out with their shield rather than their sword or spear to stun an opponent and leave them immobile and open to attack for a few seconds, though it probably wouldn't work on mounted units or animals ranged units could have an "accurate shot" attack where they take a few seconds to aim an arrow, javelin, etc., and thus hit a target with 100% accuracy and for greater damage elephant units, specifically, can have a variety of special attacks: they could gore with their tusks, pick up an infantryman with their trunks and throw them, or they could knock over units and stomp on them for an instant kill some units with shields and spears could have a one-time use "javelin-attack" where they throw their spears at range and then switch to a sword

i don't think you'd need to establish a specific function to make a group of mixed soldiers march in formation; you'd just select the appropriate units and give them a simultaneous commandhowever, having "banners" for groups of units like in Age of Mythology would also be useful. in that game, i personally liked to set up a particular type of unit with a hero if i could (for example, when playing as Poseidon, i'd match Theseus with my hoplites, Hippolyta to the archers, Atalanta with cavalry to exploit their speed, and Polyphemus with myth units and siege). this way, the player could easily match up squads of complementary units for an ideal purpose (like hoplites with a complement of archers and javelinists) or add a hero to whatever group of soldiers he would most benefit (mounted heroes would go best with other horsemen, etc.)

personally, i think it would be best to base the campaigns on historical figures (read: the hero units) of each civilization, going about half-and-half for well-known and obscure ones. so, for instance, Part 1's campaigns could focus on Julius Caesar (for the Republican Romans), Alexander (for the Macedonians), Cyrus the Great (for the Persians), and Vercingetorix (for the Gauls), while other campaigns are added later as DLC or just in later releases (and depending on when certain civs are released; before the Mauryans were added, i had personally thought that an Alexander campaign could be held off until they were added in a later release)

no problem it's what i do when i'm bored out of my skull so far, the Parthenon, Stonehenge, and the Temple of Edfu have been specfiically added to the design doc (and i've edited my earlier post to reflect that) an idea for a Wonder just occurred to me: one based on the Atlantis myth, though using Iberian-style architecture rather than Greek (iirc, there's a theory that the real Atlantis may have been located in southwestern Spain, just past Gibralter)

i think the intention is more like Age of Empires: every civ gets one and only one Wonder (though more will be in the editor for scenario design, like having various different iconic temples which were all part of the same city). the difference is that each Wonder is uniquely addressed and specifically named something rather than just generically being called "Wonder" while looking different depending on which civ controls it (like how in AOM you had the Temple of Zeus, Pyramid of Osiris, Thor's Oak, the Tower of Odin, the Temple at Karnak, and the Mausoleum of Halicarnassus being the exact same building, just looking different depending on which god you chose)

i decided to compile another list of all the Wonders we've thought up so far and organized them by civilization: Achaemenid Persians: Hanging Gardens of Babylon Athenians: Parthenon (confirmed) Brythonic Celts: Stonehenge (confirmed) Carthaginians: Mausoleum of Prince Ateban Gaulish Celts: Carnac stones Iberians: Dolmen of Menga Macedonians: Library of Alexandria Mauryan Indians: Great Stupa at Sanchi Ptolemaic Egyptians: Temple of Edfu (confirmed) Republican Romans: Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus Spartans: Temple of Artemis others Ishtar Gates "assets depicting the city of Ninevah" wall(s) of Troy Roman Aqueduct(s) Colossus of Rhodes (for the generic Hellenes) Pharos Lighthouse/Lighthouse of Alexandria Luxor Colossus Sphinx of Memphis Delphi Sphinx Osirian statue(s) Temple of Venus at Heliopolis Roman Senate Palace/Tomb of Xerxes Colosseum of Rome ziggurat(s) pyramid(s) Great Altar at Pergamon Roman Forum Flavian Ampitheater Hagia Sophia Mausoleum of Theodoric "conquered monument" (intended for the Huns, based on AOK) Tikal Temple (for hypothetical Mayans) Statue/Temple of Zeus (for the generic Hellenes) Theater of Dionysus Mausoleum of Halicarnassos Terracotta Army (for hypothetical Chinese) Sanctuary of Artemis Orthia Acropolis of Sparta Cothon of Carthage Cyrus' Tomb Circus Maximus Temple of Artemis Temple of Apollo (for hypothetical Thebans, in reference to the Oracle of Delphi) Cadmea (for hypothetical Thebans) Mirror of Archemides (for hypothetical Syracusans, though arguably non-historical) port of Carthage temple complex of Persepolis "statue of Poseidon the Magnificent" Tower of Babel Gate of Ptolemey Temple of Luxor Temple of Karnak Great Sphinx Abu Simbel Colossus of Memnon Colossus of Ramses II Grand Palace of Amenhotep III Quirino Palace "estelas de Fuentecilla del Tio Carrulo" "Sepulcro de Pozo Moro" "pilar-estela de Monforte del Cid" "Verraco" Temple of Baal and Astarte at minimum, we DO have Wonder ideas for every civiliaztion now; we just need to pick ones out of them all that we're satisfied with

hey, all. pretty simple idea here: does anyone else think that it would be a good idea to make a 0 A.D. page on the site TV Tropes? it would be a good way to further advertise the game for no cost

it would be better to make independent games with the same engine and basic gameplay styles rather than shove a million different factions--many of them the same cultures, just in different time periods--into a single game. if you wanna play a game like that, just go for Empire Earth. there could be a nomad game mode like in AOM (kinda building on that "Founders" idea i mentioned before)

personally, i think the mountains should be more peaked; they look a bit too rounded here, if you ask me

personally, i think there should be two different types of campaign mode: one which has Total War-style gameplay, and another more like traditional RTS campaigns, along the lines of what was presented in AOK, with a linear storyline and setup to tell the story of a historical character or setting (such as, for instance, an Alexander Campaign focusing on Alexander the Great's rise to power, the Siege of Tyre, the conquest of Persia, and all the way up to the attempts at conquering India and, perhaps at the very end, giving the player a non-linear option to choose one of the Diadochi to play as after the scenario starts and getting different goals as a result (Empire Earth: The Art of Conquest had this in the last level of their Roman Campaign, where you could choose to side with either Cleopatra or Ptolemy and would therefore have to conquer either Alexandria or several fortresses in the desert; in-game, this was done by selecting a Diplomat unit controlled by the respective parties, which prompts a couple of tigers belonging to Caesar to devour him and turn that AI player against you ) arguably, a linear campaign would be easier to design and manage, and has been the mainstay single-player mode of pretty much every well-known RTS in the past

this thought just occurred to me. this would be for the purposes of certain game modes and not contribute to the historicity of civilizations or otherwise affect the game very much basically, two editor-only units, called Founders (one male and one female), are included for the purposes of some game modes. if you've ever played a "nomads" type game mode of other RTSs (like in AOM) then the idea is similar. basically, you get one man and one woman who are the founders of your civilization in an area: they can only build one thing, a free building called a Settlement or something similar, which they can then be garrisoned into in order to immediately upgrade it into a free Civic Center, which removes them from the map in the process. this is basically so that the player can determine where their first Civic Center is located for certain game modes. i'm specifically thinking of this as being used for pre-designed multiplayer maps, but the Founders could also be used in regular skirmish modes and for aesthetics in campaigns (basically they'd look like upper-class citizens)

EDIT: Unarmed posted while i was still typing; this is in response to Mythos_Ruler's previous post that could also work. though with units with a Poison special attack, these likely woudnt be part of regular gameplay any more than the Viking longboat in the editor is. they'd be the kind of thing included for scenario design and would only play a role in a hypothetical Mauryan campaign, and not as part of the multiplayer mode

it occurs to me that some other good basis for minifactions could be civs that were once planned but have since been cut. iirc, it was previously planned that the Hellenes were to be split into Macedonians and Poleis, with the Poleis having three or four factions that they can diverge into. that's since been reformatted into the current system with no splitting of civs to make each one more unique, but i think the posts concerning those are still lying around. i'll see if i can't dig them up. Iphicrateans (Iphicratean Hoplite) Thebans (Sacred Band Hoplite, Fire Raiser) Syracusans (Siege Crossbow, Greek Quinquereme) Thracians (Thracian Heavy Cavalry) (in addition to the Thracian Peltast mentioned before) Thessalians (Thessalian Scout) particularly, having some "maritime" civs like the Syracusans as minifactions could help, specifically, with the Iberians; iirc, they don't have any warships of their own and would otherwise rely on their buildings and ranged units to take out enemy ships or form an alliance with a civ that DOES have warships. on a predominantly water map, they could easily ally with a minifaction like the Phoenicians or Syracusans and thus gain access to mercenary sailors that form the bulk of their navy while their actual standing army is still mostly comprised of Iberian units here's links to those posts by Mythos_Ruler btw: Greeks, Macedonians

if nothing else, the Visha Kanya could be an editor-only unit; for example, they could appear in a few missions of a Mauryan campaign where your goal is to kill an enemy leader as to the use of poison, this could be a genera function for the game. personally, i think that Heroes should have special attacks (with some overlap perhaps depending on what they did in history, depending, or what they are equipped with), but that's a little beside the point. in AOM, some units shared special attacks or other properties. for instance, the Greek Cyclops and the Norse Kraken both had a special attack where they pick up a single enemy unit and throw him at other units, instantly killing them and anything they hit. alot of units also had other "instant kill" attacks even if they came in slightly different flavors (like spraying acid on an enemy and melting them in the Atlantean Argus unit, as opposed to turning them to stone with the Greek Medusa, or throwing men/splitting ships with the Norse Kraken, or even cursing someone and turning them into an undead minion with the Egyptian Mummy. anyway, more to the point, there could be a general Poison special attack with some units where, after they charge up an attack (perhaps using a stamina bar) they use a special animation and the targeted enemy is surrounded by a green visual effect which indicates poisoning, and they're consistently affected by it for about a minute, losing health at a relatively rapid rate.

in general, i had been thinking of fiction that would still blend well with the general setting of 0ad. for my Skull Island example, while King Kong itself is set in the earlier half of the 20th, the setting itself would still fit relatively well into the 500bc-500ad timeframe because the Skull Islanders (in all versions of King Kong) are more or less a Stone Age culture, and most people wouldnt bat an eye at seeing the ruins on the island (as seen in the 2005 version, where the whole setting is much more detailed) in most other places in the world (obviously, people actually familiar with cultures in other parts of the world WOULD see such differences, hence stuff like Mayincatecs in fiction)as for Skull Island itself, i had thought it would be better as a non-random map, where every player starts on a single ship loaded with citizen-soldiers out on the sea and must sail to the island and establish a base, with Skull Islanders inhabiting only a small part of the island, the ancient wall cutting off a large portion of it all, and only the interior of the island having exceptionally large animals (including dinosaurs) which respawn to increase the general challenge. the Skull Island wall would require new objects for the game and would be twice as tall as walls that can be built by playable civs i also agree with you about maps that look patently ridiculous (i don't want to play on a map shaped like a @#$%, either). obviously, with all the free source stuff that the design team is implementing, there will inevitably be some immature @#$%s who will make stuff like that, but it should by no means be part of the serious, unmodified game as those kinds of things don't take themselves seriously, as opposed to a lost world setting with primitive peoples and dinosaurs (while ridiculous, it's objectively more interesting and enjoyable than armies fighting on a map shaped like a @#$%) BUT, in general, we should focus on the historical minifactions first i decided to make a compiled list of civs brought up in the playable factions and the mercs that they would provide (though i put question marks next to ones that are represented by Champion units): Thracians (Thracian Peltast) Cretans/Minoans (Cretan Mercenary Archer) Scythians (Scythian Archer) (?) Gauls (Gallic Swordsman) Libyans (Libyan Spearman, Libyan Mercenary) Iberians (Iberian Skirmisher, Iberian Cavalry) Mauritanians (Mauritanian Archer) Balearics (Balearic Slinger) (possibly goes with Iberian tribes) Italians (Italic Cavalry, Italic Heavy Infantry (?)) Numidians (Numidian Cavalry) Agrianians (Agiranian Peltast) Rhodians (Rhodian Slinger) Thessalians (Thessalian Lancer) Odrysians (Odrysian Cavalry) Sardians (Sardian Auxiliary) Sogdians (Sogdian Archer) Cappadocians (Cappadocian Cavalry) Hyrcanians (Hyrcanian Cavalry) Medes (Median Cavalry) Babylonians (Babylonian Chariot) Arameans (Aramean Merchant) (might be superfluous since everyone has a merchant unit) Ionians (Ionian Ship) Cypriads (Cypriad Warship) Phoenicians (Phoenician Warship) Assyrians (Assyrian Ram) Bactrians (Bactrian Lancer) (?) Galatians (Galatian Settler Swordsman) Judaeans (Judaean Slinger) Nubians (Nubian Mercenary Archer) Macedonians (Macedonian Settler Cavalry) Nabataeans (Nabataean Camel Rider) Tarantines (Tarantine Settler Cavalry) keep in mind that i only wrote down what's mentioned in the design doc personally, i'd recommend not including minifactions which are intimately associated with a playable civ (like the Medes to the Persians or the Italians to the Romans) or ARE a playable civ (like the Macedonians)

alternatively, there could be some names which are randomly given to units which reach a certain level and are thus distinguished enough to justify their receiving some kind of characterization among nameless soldiers

i think it would be better for a given minifaction to appear on a particular map script rather than throughout a given biome. for example, instead of all desert maps having Israelite settlements on them, only ones which are specificaly set in the Israel/Palestine area (and possibly Egypt, in reference to the Exodus) would have Israelite settlements, so those would be the only ones that civs other than the Ptolemies can get Israelite merc units on (e.g., Judaean Slingers)depending on how densely populated some regions were from 500bc-500ad, that could also determine what additional tribes can be included, or where they would be the most interesting; for example, this could extend to generic a Subsaharan tribe that's encountered on a map specifically set on the Serengeti or in Cameroon, while the map set at the North Pole wouldnt have any because very few parts of that region were settled at the time, and still are to this day (for the purposes of specific placement, we could say that its Svalbard since that land wasnt discovered until the 12th century) this could perhaps even extend to plausible but wholly fictional civs from fiction which had since passed into the public domain (like cultures which appear stuff by Edgar Rice Burroughs, for instance). iirc, one map set in Subsaharan Africa is based at least in part on King Solomon's Mines, a Victorian Era novel. personally, i'd be interested in a minifaction (and corresponding map) based on Skull Island from King Kong. but maybe it's just 'cuz i'm a paleo-nerd and such a map would probably include dinosaurs

well i think there'd probably be just one kind of Greek Male Citizen, if we consider them being editor-only units. such units would only be for design purposes. i know that all the citizen-soldiers are supposed to represent the entire male populace of your civ, but that really only counts for the random maps, and having completely aesthetic male citizens could be beneficial. for example, if one wants to make a scene of some Greek politicians standing around and debating, a Greek Male Citizen unit could be useful

well in some games (i'm thinking of AOM specifically) it's possible to program map scripts and randomly include units and buildings which belong to the Gaia player and are neutral/aggressive to all players indiscrimniately. for example, the inclusion of Settlements in AOM that you can build new Town Centers over, the random bands of Skraelings on the Vinlandsaga map, and Bandit Migdols (Egyptian Fortresses) on some maps which are specifically spawned near gold mines, adding a little challenge to early expansion.for teh purposes of gameplay, regular player units (like hoplites) could be treated like aggressive animals when controlled by the "gaia" player, meaning that they'll ignore your units for a while but will attack if you hang around for too long. i know the animla comparison could have racist connotations, but i think that's just the easiest way to handle this. basically, a gaia-controlled hoplite represents a native of a given region who sees one of your gatherers and thinks "Hmm...I don't like the looks of that guy" but leaves the guy alone for a while, but eventually gets uncomfortable and thinks "that guy has overstayed his welcome. time to kill 'im!" and attacks. as for actually "converting" a minifaction, i'd say a new interface would be needed, perhaps a second diplomacy window applying only to minifactions that you've built an Outpost next to, allowing you to give and receive tributes with the tribe and, after you tribute them a collective amount of resources (let's say 1000 altogether from all three resources, in any combination) which then allows you to train their mercenary units at your Barracks, Fortress, Embassy, etc.. going on the idea of basing the first minifactions on units already included, those mercenary units could be specifically banned for training by their "home" civs because doing it otherwise would be superfluous.