Jump to content

Vingauld

Community Members
  • Posts

    136
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Vingauld

  1. by empire it was an ethnic empire, not an empire by the one we think of when we think rome.

    And why did i say tarraco? I'm sure it was called something else. Bah beer. :drunk:

    My question to you than is, why speak of an empire? what is the value of the word empire in this context? Why do you not just speak of an ethnic or cultural group? Would that not cover the definition of what you are speaking of?

  2. Hello people,

    I'm soon starting a paper for my studies (Ma. Archaeology), to be more precise for the course Archaeological Theory and approach. The paper will deal with the issue of the different interpretations concerning identity of the Celts and Gauls e.g. was one group a subgroup of the other, where they two seperate groups, where the two groups overlapping etc.

    If I remember correctly this is an issue that has been encountered by either the Wildfire Games crew, more specifically the history departement or as a discusion within the general community. Because of this I decided to start my quest for literature on these forums as an extra to the more conventional methods such as google and the University library catalogue. So my question is, does anyone happen to know any interesting and usefull publications or authors that deal with the subject of "Celts vs. Gauls"?

    Also there's no reason to worry if this topic stays empty, as I said before it's an extra to the regular methods. I just had some vague recolection of this issue beeing discussed somewhere around here before which is why I decided to go here. Any help is however much appreciated. If there are any questions I will do my best to check this topic on a regular bases and clear up any confusions.

    Sincerely, "vingauld"

  3. Ok, I have ripped a few images out of a powerpoint from one of my teachers, that deals with the topic of religious constructions from the Iron age, mostly in the Netherlands. However, I've also added a French temple from around the same period that shows certain similarities, but is way more impressive and would be more appropriate for usage in a game. (And it was also in the powerpoint... lol)

    temple1l.th.gif

    temple2b.th.gif

    These reconstructions are both from the 1st century A.D. a bit later but very similar. Still based on Dutch finds.

    cultusplaatsossussen1ee.th.gif

    cultusplaatshoogeloon1e.th.gif

    And now the more impressive French one from Gournay sur Arronde from the 2nd century BC (la Tène B/C)

    gournaysurarronde2eevch.th.gif

    gsrlatenebc2eevchr.th.gif

    The problem with Stonehenge is that it is very specific for one location and only represents a small area of the Celtic territory. And also that, although artefacts from the Iron Age and Roman (Iron) age have been found in and around Stonehenge, it is very uncertain whether it was used as a religious site during this period.

  4. In age of empires one and two an age of mythology, after you play a random map game and you've finished it, then that's it. There's not much of an achievement other then your own satisfaction, which is ok... but it could be better. In Age of Empires 3 they had the homecity system, everytimme after you played a random map game you could upgrade your home city, leading to more sense of achievement and giving you more motivation to keep playing, however there where some clear disadvantages (which most of you allready know I'm sure).

    My idea is to have a singleplayer mode, something like "world" conquest (like in starwars empire at war, forces of corruption expansion there's a galaxy conquest singleplayer mode) in which there's a map of (a part of) the world (considering the setting of the game it probably would make most sense to have a map that only includes the mediterranean and (a part of) europe). This map of the world is divided by different territories and each territory is assigned to one of the players, each player offcourse plays as only one civilisation during this game and the beginning of the game you choose which civilisation you play.

    The attacking of territories would happen in a turnbased style; first player one gets t attack one, then two etc. when a player attackt another players territory it loads a scenario, both playes start out with a towncenter etc. and during this the gameplay ispretty much the same as what we expect from the game. The winner of the game get the territory (or keeps it) so if the player is attacked you get the oppertunity to defend it and by crushing your opponent, you have defended it.

    As an addition to this, it might be an idea to give certain territories certain traits for example they give you acces to local mercenaries; comparable to Emperor battle for dune, the singleplayer campain mode where you have to attackt territories to gain support from Fremen, Tleilaxu etc. However this might make it a lot harder to implement (not a clue tbh) or maybe it is not desirable to havbe this but it is optional.

    I hope it is not to vague and I've been able to describe this idea clearly. If you want to experience something similar you might want to look at the mmentioned games (Emperor: battle for Dune, Star Wars Empire at War in which case you probably need the expansion aswell) also in the campaign mode of Dawn of Ware (the first one) in one of it's many expansion packs the campaign also consists of a similair concept.

  5. yeah i know that thing too.it was in some video or something.

    actually that is not quite true. According to the Mayan calendar the next recreation of the world type of thingie is on the 15th of October 4772. 2012 does have a special status within the Mayan culture but would have been a year they would have celebrated when it would come, rather than running around screaming and panicking.

  6. Slow and boring? I had AoK from its release and play it still. Even after years I still find it beautiful and entertaining.

    I guess you've never tried some AIs available on internet on hardest. I had to kill about 7000 units to win one battle. It was pretty tough.

    I played as Saracen against Franks.

    And also tried to fight Japanese as Briton. Almost constant battle from start to end with some 3000 kills. Champions and pikemen held the line and Longbowmen supported them. Also Cavaliers could do some decent fighting on flanks. Whole battlefield was almost entirely covered by dead bodies and I had to send reinforcements still. Four Barracks had hard time in refilling my infantry ranks Ieven when I had some four monks on my disposal.

    The thing is that Dawn of war is much more battle orientated while Age Of has a bigger focus on the economic system (Dawn of war resources; power, requisition, vehicle cap, pop cap and for the orcs Orc recource and Waargh wich all can be quickly obtained by building structures or capturing strategic points on the map versus the Age Of Recources Like Gold Wood Food and in some cases stone or favor wich have to be obtained from mostly exhausting recource 'pads' wich leads to a smaller focus on the war and a bigger focus on the economics)

×
×
  • Create New...