Caesar
-
Posts
683 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Caesar
-
-
Still on edge...
-
I do agree that the soldiery of Western Europe did not have too many significant changes until about the mid-1300s and the greater use of gunpowder on the battlefield, but what about the world outside of Western Europe?
In particular I cannot see this mod being able to represent such an unwieldy timespan with only six factions (through two branch into three sub-factions each), especially when this era saw the rise and fall of many states and peoples.
-
That is why I am curious as to whether you intend the factions to be based on political entities or specific peoples.
Using actual states will prove difficult considering that, generally speaking, many were not clearly defined or only somewhat independent, and could encompass various cultural groups or split others apart. So I would suggest that you use specific peoples instead.
Another issue I was considering was the timeframe. Among the many difficulties with historically based games is that the developers often try to condense immense periods of time into the game, thus sacrificing a lot of the historical accuracy. I would find this especially hard to do with the period 500AD to 1500AD, even if you broke it up into two periods, such as 500-1000 for the initial game and 1000-1500 for the expansion. My suggestion here would be to pick a more specific era in medieval history for the first installment of 0ad, and then develop it further for the expansion. For example, you could work with the Early Middle Ages from the fall of Rome to the dissolution of the Carolingian Empire, or the High Middle Ages and the Crusades, or the Late Middle Ages and the Renaissance.
-
The maps I have been seeing are truly amazing, yet I cannot help but wonder if the detail and effects of the enviroment draws emphasis from the units and gameplay. My first thought upon seeing this particular screenshot was that the lavish map draws attention from the units, which seem to blend in with their surroundings and the shadows.
-
How about using the more precise names of the factions and units in their own languages? The reasoning behind this is to avoid the appearance of an AOK knock-off and place greater emphasis on historical accuracy (which I can already see is very important to this mod). For example, using Romei/Romioi (Romans) or Vasileia Romaion (Roman Empire) for the Byzantines (a term used by Europeans from 1557, after the fall of Konstantinoúpolis to the Osmanli Imparatorlugu); European factions could be represented either in their vernacular languages or in Latin, so the Holy Roman Empire becomes either the Heiliges Römisches Reich or the Sacrum Romanum Imperium (though I do not know whether you wish to base your factions on specific peoples or political entities- either way the Holy Roman Empire will be hard to pin down).
If possible, I would like to offer my services to this mod in regards to historical research. I have a great interest in medieval history, especially in regards to the Crusades, and I have a working knowledge of both Greek and Latin (though I will admit my Latin is generally ecclesiastical). I have a great number of ideas for such a game as this.
-
I'm on edge here now.
Come on guys, get your stuff in!
-
Have our names been submitted for the subscription yet?
-
Problem being is: What role do gun powder units fill that archers cannot? That's why I think the Renaissance is generally skipped.
It is true that in the Renaissance period gunmen functioned mostly as skirmishers, but, as Belisarivs pointed out, they brought about great changes in the style of European warfare. While an archer or a crossbowman would have had greater range, accuracy and less reload time, they were practically useless against heavily armoured cavalry. Firearms made this armour a weakness, and togather with a dense formation of pikemen ended the age of decisive cavalry charges. Warfare now centered around infantry tactics, heavy cavalry went into steep decline in favor of lighter lancers and hussars.
I am frankly surprised that the Renaissance is often forgotten. This was an era of great change, and great change brings about great conflict- The French Wars of Religion, the Thirty Years War, the Sack of Rome, the Ottoman-Hapsburg Wars, the War of the Roses, the Turkish-Venetian Wars, the War of Dutch Independance, the early European conquests in North and South America, and the list could go on.
-
But, AFAIK there is already mod which would try to cover this period.
Yes, but the Honor and Glory mod is still primarily medieval, so even if we did get a glimpse of the Renaissance at the end of the tech trees the gameplay and the map and even the building sets will reflect an earlier time period.
-
How about a Renaissance modification for 0ad?
I have found that there are many games, with varying levels of historical accuracy, that cover warfare and civilization from classical times (aprox. 1000 BC to 500 AD) to the medieval (1000 AD to 1300 AD). There are also some games based on the Napoleonic and colonial eras (aprox. 1700 to 1820). However there seems to be a lack of games that focus on the Late Middle Ages and Renaissance (aprox. 1350 to 1600), even though this is the period that witnessed immense change throughout all aspects of Western civilization.
The unique style of warfare during this period offers some interesting gameplay. Armies will still be built around late medieval-style heavy infantry, yet players will also have access to primitive gunpowder units. Fortifications will still play an important part, with gunmen defending the walls alongside archers and crossbowmen against an array of powerful siege machinery and cannon. Complimenting the heavy cavalry of the middle ages will be a variety of light cavalry units, early types of lancers and hussars.
Players will be able to choose from a new selection of factions, like the Italian cities, the Holy Roman Empire, England, France, the Papal States, Spain, the Ottoman Empire, ect.
Any interest?
-
-
AoK used the many of the same units throughout all the civs, the monk unit included. I suppose the current monk does well enough for the Western civs, but the monks in your picture would have been better for the Byzantines. Of course many of the civs shouldnt have those monk units either. And for that matter if your the Byzantines the monastery should not resemble a mosque.
Though I do think they could have done better with the Western monk, like the monks here. Notice the black habit of the Benedictines with the scapular over it,
Though if the idea was in fact to get the look of a Cardinal, I would have suggested a unit more like Cardinal Cushing here,
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6322/78...ushing01rsz.jpg
Or perhaps Cardinal Sarto, the Venetian Patriach in this photo and soon to be Pope Pius X,
-
Interesting progress I see. Congrats on the excellent work.
-
What a pleasant surprise I got this morning.
Thanks for holding the raffle and my cool subscription
I've been busy lately, but I try to check in at 0ad at least once a month. I am becoming quite the amateur historian.
-
Jonathan Bennett, 18
-
Just checking in after over a year since I've visited WFG. What progresswith 0ad have I missed?
-
Only if it could run AoEIII...
Seems to be better then old clunker I'm on at least.
-
An ancient Roman computer? Who'd have guessed?!
http://technology.sympatico.msn.cbc.ca/Sci...detect=&abc=abc
-
Hmm, I came back for a little peek at 0ad. Not too bad, not too bad at all...
Umm, yes, ok, goodbye.
-
If the Church (capitalized 'C' meaning Catholicism) is not flexible and understanding of changing conditions, it will attempt to lay a piece of cardboard over the world to fill in a bowl. It will simply not solve the problem. The most it can achieve is to hide the "hedonism" under a veneer of morality.
Relativism and Modernism are both expressly denounced by the Church as threats to society. And they have certainly shown themselves to be. If there is to be a single Truth, which the Church regards as the life and teachings of Christ, it must be rigid and unchanging. For if a faith must bend to meet the wants and cravings of a society stripped of all moral integrity, something is wrong. No, the Church must not succumb to the flaws of society; society must give way to the truth in the Church.
Christians are never seen in the Bible telling people about their sins or attempting to force them through legislation to accept or follow "Christian" beliefs. Being a "light unto the world" isn't about having judges who believe what you believe put in power, or about making sure that Christian symbols are displayed on federal property. Christians are told to be meek, peaceful and moral, and I've rarely seen anyone in politics, especially "Christians", who are any of those three. And, yes, that has even seeped in the papacy in the past, though less in later years (Great Schism/pre-council of Trent). And the only reason I believe that the papacy hasn't been so corrupted is because the political influence of the Pope has dropped enormously, even among the Church's own members.You seem to be referring to two very different things as a single entity. The Church is not solely the Papal Office, nor is it solely the hierarchy of the clergy. You also seem to be equating power with corruption. Power can, but does not always, lead to corruption.
The political influence and power given to His Holiness has dropped due to a secularization in society, caused by the rise of secular governments among protestant countries. The simple explanation is that many people in society feel that they are beyond the need of any kind of moral or spiritual authority. It is pure arrogance on the part of western culture that has driven a wedge between man and his need for a higher authority. It is truly the pinnacle of society’s deluded thought when we say that man must lead man. And now we see the fruit of that thought.
I will not contend the past corruption of previous Popes. Look at Alexander VI or Julius II. They were the product of a bloated European aristocracy that sought to control even the faith. The Church Militant was tainted by the decadent, power-hungry, political system of the late Middle Ages and renaissance. This was not caused by an error of the Church; this was caused by the same thing that plagues our modern society- political secularization and an arrogance caused by “enlightened thought” that sought to dethrone Divine institution in favor of human thought. But, as the cycle repeated itself, the Church Militant was guided to reform and renew itself under the leadership of Pope St. Pius V, who called the Council of Trent to deal with the problems facing the Church of that time.
I agree with Caeser, although I don't try to say Catholicism is the cure. I don't spout propaganda. If you truly believe that, fine. But don't give the "party line" if you don't believe it, heart and soul. Today's secular society is immoral, and decadent, and corrupt. It is animalistic - it lives for food, sex, and gratification. Is religion, of any type, the cure? Who knows? But there are very few morals left. Honor is gone except for a few handfuls of people who cling to the old ideals.The idea is that the Church, the infallible Body of Christ, is in all ways perfect. However, we know that the Church Militant is made of fallible humans, who are incapable of understanding and following the teachings of the Church to their fullest extent. Therefore, the Church Militant can never be perfect as the Church Triumphant is perfect. However, it is of the utmost importance that we always strive for that unattainable perfection. So it is our duty to strive to fully understand and live the teachings of Christ given to His Church. Please note that I say that we must strive to fully understand.
The question of how involved the Church should be in politics has been present practically since earthly Christianity's conception. There are no real answers. A powerful and present Church is offensive to a lot of people. Caeser's one statement about the role as Priest King and Prophet sounds suspiciously totalitarian.Allow me to quote from the Catechism,
Jesus Christ is the one whom the Father anointed with the Holy Spirit and established as priest, prophet, and king. The whole People of God participates in these three offices of Christ and bears the responsibilities for mission and service that flow from them.
On entering the People of God through faith and Baptism, one receives a share in this people's unique, priestly vocation: "Christ the Lord, high priest taken from among men, has made this new people 'a kingdom of priests to God, his Father.' The baptized, by regeneration and the anointing of the Holy Spirit, are consecrated to be a spiritual house and a holy priesthood."
"The holy People of God shares also in Christ's prophetic office, "above all in the supernatural sense of faith that belongs to the whole People, lay and clergy, when it "unfailingly adheres to this faith . . . once for all delivered to the saints," and when it deepens its understanding and becomes Christ's witness in the midst of this world.
Finally, the People of God shares in the royal office of Christ. He exercises his kingship by drawing all men to himself through his death and Resurrection. Christ, King and Lord of the universe, made himself the servant of all, for he came "not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." For the Christian, "to reign is to serve him," particularly when serving "the poor and the suffering, in whom the Church recognizes the image of her poor and suffering founder." The People of God fulfills its royal dignity by a life in keeping with its vocation to serve with Christ.
(CCC 783-786)
-
What an interesting discussion going on here.
I suppose that you are against the influence of a religious authority? Not surprising for an increasingly secular society.
Just to rule out any confusion later on, I will bluntly state right now that I do in fact advocate the exertion of the temporal authority of the Holy See. The Church is bound to act in it’s threefold aspects- as Priest, King and Prophet to the world. It is entirely permissible for His Holiness to put forth his political influence. To not do so would be turning a blind eye to the rampant and disgusting immorality of the world.
We have been gifted to live in this secular society. Why? Because now we are able to see a world without God. Look around you! This is truly our Godless society! A society that has taken from man his accountability to himself and to God. Our western culture cries that man must lead man, but do we not now see the fallacy of this statement? Man cannot lead man because man cannot control himself! We are surrounded with hedonistic ideals that promote such terrible breaches in morality as abortion, gay marriage, drugs, contraception, and unbridled promiscuity to name a few. The fruits of this ideology are clearly visible- massive spread of HIV/AIDS and other STDs, a falling birthrate (hence a dwindling population), widespread addictions to drugs, a belief in “quick fixes” to our problems, depression, infidelity, and the list goes on. Is it no wonder that these European countries that call themselves “enlightened” because of their secularism have the highest suicide rates in the world? For all our technology and intelligence and pride we cannot even keep our own desires and lusts under control, let alone our society and culture! Yet we decry those who look to God and His Church to lead us! I laugh to think of it.
Despite those transgressions done under the Church authority of the past (human transgressions), a relatively stable society was maintained under religious authority. A person understood their place in the world and quickly discovered this if they tried to take more than was given to them. I will even be so bold as to say that had it not been for the medieval power of the Church, Europe would have dissolved into chaos and then would have been subdued by the followers of Mohammed. The Church has given more to the western world than any other force in the world. Yet it is that very society that has decided that man does not need any other leader but man! Once again I laugh.
-
Catholicism transcends western partisan politics.
Indeed, but those with this kind of thinking are becoming rare.
-
The question is, can a religion be defined by western political terms?
Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism are largely supportive of policies that could be considered "conservative". Liberal Protestantism on the other hand is largely supportive of what can be called "liberal" policies.
So when an Evangelical pastor makes a move that pulls himself out of the politcal spectrum, he isolates himself from his following. This is because westerners are increasingly viewing their religion through political glasses.
And to this I would attribute many of the current problems within the Catholic Church in the west. Liberal Catholics say the Church is too conservative and must change to meet the "new" ideals in society. On the other hand, conservative Catholics say that the Church cannot change it's moral theology and (increasingly) will chide Church leaders who take positions that may seem liberal (even if those are historicaly Catholic positions or if they are ethicaly correct- ie. enviromentalism, the death penalty, social justice, ect.). And so two rival factions emerge, while those who hold that the Church is above any kind of western political categorization are becoming rare. Many Catholics today are forced to fit their beliefs (even religious beliefs) into the political spectrum- allow me to demonstrate using a problem here in Canada:
Canadian politics are dominated by three main parties- the Liberal Party, the Conservative Part and the New Democrat Party. The Liberals (by whom I mean the Liberal Party; members and supporters of which I will always refer to using a capital "L"iberal) are a centerist party, historicaly supported by Catholics, which usually sits on the fence on issues and waits to see where the most votes are before making decisions. The Conservatives (by whom I mean the Conservative Party; members and supporters of which I will always refer to using a capital "C"onservative) are roughly equivalent to the American Republican Party, and historicaly supported by Fundamentalist Protestants. The NDP are historicaly supported by liberal Protestants and various minority groups; they are the Canadian version of the American Democrat Party.
In the 1980s the ruling Liberal Party took a pro-abortion stance, and in 2005 it took a pro-gay marriage stance. This prompted Catholics to move away from the Liberal Party. However, the Conservatives (while being anti-abortion and gay marriage) did not support any kind of Social Justice issues and were very tough on working-class citizens. The NDP was very involved in Social Justice, but actively supported both gay marriage and abortion. So Catholic voters were split into these two groups and forced to accept the party platforms that did not agree with the Church's beliefs- in other words, they had to take the good with the bad. From that mess emerged liberal Catholics and conservative Catholics, both with beliefs that came not from the Church but from politics.
-
I should have phrased that better. "I don't agree that homosexuals should be discriminated against because of a literal interpretation of the Bible." There are others sins people do worse then that, but they just get looked over, but when discrimination against homosexuals happens, people do say that they should be discriminated against because of that one sin
It depends on what Christians you are refering to when you say that homosexual orientation is a sin. In the eyes of the Church, the orientation itself is not sinful, but the act of homosexuality is indeed sinful. However, many fundamentalist protestant sects will say that homosexual orientation is a sin; while many liberal protestant groups will take a relativist and modernist approach and say that neither the orientation nor the act is a sin.
So you're gonna be the Pope, eh? Seriously though, I applaud your decision, or if it's not a decision, then your ability to seriously focus on that option. It's a tough thing to do today.Nah, I wouldnt make a good Pope- I dont look good with a beehive on my head,
But seriously, I havent made any actual decision on this as of yet. I do plan to attend at least one year of university before I make any final decision, although its a thought that seems to be ever present in my mind lately.
Name ideas
in 1,000 A.D.
Posted · Edited by Caesar
As I understand it, 0ad only has six playable factions in the first installment, so you will be limited to that number in the mod.
Ok, I'll address my opinions on Abadu's post,
Faction Names: I like the idea of using Latin for the European factions, though there were some regions that did use Latin either politcally or religiously until later then the 500s, so you might want to consider that for the "first period" of the game. In a religious context, there were also the Slavic peoples in Eastern Europe who used Slavonic. Will Latin also be used for the unit names, or will you employ the local vernacular language wherever possible?
Approach to the Faction: Seems a little complex, though I am interested in the idea. So, if I have this right, you will only be using the dominant factions in certain regions during each "period" with advancement being based on political branches of a faction? Perhaps you could go with certain dynasties, ie.
Francia (Period I)
Merovingians -> Carolingians
Vasileia Romaion (Period I - IV)
Justinians -> Heraclians -> Isaurians -> Phyrgians -> Komnenids -> Angelids -> Palaiologans
Or something like that. I obviously left out some dynasties with the "Byzantines" (their rulers had that nasty little habit of election by murder, or at least by mutilation). And with the Franks/French the Valois were still part of the Capetian dynasty (even the unfortunate Louis XVI was a Capetian). The Holy Roman Empire is a bit difficult since, in theory, the kings were elected and then had to be crowned emperor by the pope, though there are certainly some distinct dynasties well before the Hapsburgs. I generalized the monarchs who ruled between the Carolingians and the Hohenstaufens as "German Nobles". The above list was just a quick example, but I do think a dynastic system would be the way to go.
Changes in Warfare: Another interesting idea, but it does sound good.