Jump to content


Community Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Sophokles

  1. I think the problem is that for naming to be consistent, the map has to be "romanocentric" or "hellenocentric". By that I mean the names have to be Latin or Greek. If we want Macedon to be Makedonia, for example, it only makes sense that Carthage is not Carthago but Karkhēdōn. Roman names are more easily recognised, of course, and extend into Western Europe.

    Also, Romans were known for using native names for cities but feminine Latin names for regions. The list is endless: Graecia, Iberia, Italia, Persia, Brittania, Germania, Gallia, Africa, Asia, Laconia, etc.

    I find it interesting that the map shows cities rather than the Roman provinces that we're all used to.

  2. Only a matter of time before this debate would reach the forum. Here's what I know: holding the spear over the shoulder allows you to swing the spear in an arc, exploiting gravity AND the force of the upper body. However, this doesn't work so well in tight formation. The end of the spear would be swinging around at head level behind you. Holding the spear under your shoulder is obviously more stable, and allows for a phalanx.

    So, it would it safe to say that the overhand stance was only used by hoplites in open fighting, like after a formation breaks, and not in a square/phalanx. The information we have available also indicates that this applies to shorter spears and javelins, because the longer sarissa would be too unwieldy to hold in any way except under the armpit. Therefore, the underhand stance was most likely used more in Hellenistic armies than before that.

  3. Macedon- Vergina Star

    City states- Wreath of laurels

    Britons- Geometric pattern using metal-embossed circles

    Gauls- Double bladed axe, maybe

    Persians- Faravahar

    Carthage- Tanit symbol, crescent, or any other lunar thing

    Iberians- Falcata sword?

    Simplicity and accuracy. Success. [Raises arms in Christ-like manner]


  4. 0AD with Globulation sounds cool, but it would require a radically different engine (unlike the other modes you mentioned), so it has no chance of being in the core game. Also, you would have to reduce the variety of units to make it feasible, like in Globulation. The computer might send archers and javileneers into the front lines simply because they were spawned before the melee units.

  5. 1. There is a Rise and Fall post somewhere

    2. Solar deck? Epic.

    3. In addition to substructures, as you mentioned, I also meant more complex docks. Longer docks can logically moor more (no rhyme intended) ships at the same time. Don't forget drydocks/launching platforms. Shipwrights, at that time or at any time, didn't launch ships by the sides of commercial docks.

  6. Are ports going to be the standard square buildings as seen in every other RTS? Not that there is anything wrong with that, but there is plenty of potential. The port of Carthage, for example, was very efficient and very expensive. I think that should be reflected in the game.

    My idea, therefore, is to allow the player to individually place elements of the harbor once he designates a land/water interface as a port. Normal piers could allow loading/unloading, shipwright's piers would be for building and repairing, maritime warehouses in the port could facilitate trade routes, etc. You could make the port idea even more needlessly complicated by having complex interactions between the port structures and land markets, with the forum/agora/bazaar being populated by importers cashing in on the nearby shipping hub.

    Yes, I am aware that what I just mentioned is too complex for any game to actually benefit from. Still, it's an interesting thought (variably sized docks, protected harbors, things like that).

  7. That's true. Adrenaline is a powerful hormone that can make psioli and toxotes run faster than a stallion on fire. Then again, running is going to be implemented soon, right? How is that going to work?

  8. I've always loved that element of RTS games. Your peasants will brave towers, traps, and Congrave's rockets for their country, and your honorable navy never, EVER considers surrender.

    But I understand that a morale system would be unnecessary.

  9. For all you Hellenophiles out there, I present a BBBC doc about religion in Ancient Greece. It may sound boring, but the quality of the filming is superb. You will not believe some of the stuff they found out about the strange and such cults of the civilization. The title is Power of the Pantheon: Hellenic Mysticism.

    Here is a part that fully encompasses the power of this work:


    If link does not work, copy and paste.

  10. Real time strategy never satisfied me. It seems like the only reason for building a base was to fight. What about formations in an RTS? And being a fanatic about air combat, dogfighting and bombing disappoint. Naval combat has the same problem in these games.

    The only RTS I think truly deserves the title "epic" is Rise of Nations. That game was amazing in all aspects. It should be the standard of comparison, not AoE.

    As for what NOT to do, look at Empire Earth III, and you will see what I mean.

  11. Since you brought up the realism vs. balance thing, look at the other extreme. I am a fan of Europa Universalis, and anybody who played a game from Paradox Interactive knows that they completely disregard balance. If you play as Naxos in 1399, you are simply screwed by the Ottoman Empire. Starting nations are so lopsided that many are "playable", but impossible to win even if you cheat. Paradox Interactive, of course, is the studio that strives for hard core realism, and that has its advantages (unless you like to pay as a small German dutchy at war with Russia :) ).

    So, yeah, this isn't the game for that. If the civs were given realistic starting situations, Rome would clearly destroy the Iberians and Carthagians, and who wants that? But it's a different story if the advantage is gained by the player. If your opponent wins because he uses quick thinking and herds all the mastodons to his corner of the map, can you really blame the game itself?

  12. That would be beautiful, but I think a problem that would emerge in early testing would be that strategic animals would be placed in odd positions, like too far or close to the players, or on inaccessible islands. It would just suck to start a random map game and find out that your opponent has all the camels and horses while you just have anteaters near your base.

    Of course, I'm sure there is an easy way around that.

  13. Here's an idea: a very broad development build tree, like in many open source games.

    What I mean is this: on a somewhat regular basis, 0AD is made available as an installer, along with notes detailing the major differences from the previous release. Those who have gone to the Battle for Wesnoth website would know what I mean.

    This way, people who want to play the game (even though it's in heavy development, but whatever...) can have .DEB or .EXE installers, while devs can have their constantly updated source code.

    For those who don't understand trees, an illustration:

    1.0 is released==> 1.1 has bug fixes and minor new features, as does 1.2, etc. until...

    these versions are significantly better than v1.0==> some candidates are released, showing major new features.==> Then the candidates are merged into...

    2.0, which has many new additions==> 2.1, 2.2, and so on... The cycle repeats.

    Basically, integer versions are major releases that are a neat representation of the latest dev. Decimal versions are minor releases with bug fixes and such. Candidates have radical but untested new ideas. Of course, it gets complicated with development and maintenance releases.

    My idea for 0AD is a new release every few months... What do you think?

  14. Just a little note for those of you interested in Roman culture:

    Like Caeasr IV, Grand Ages divides Roman society into 3 classes: plebs, equites, and patrices. Plebs and patricians, of course, are the traditional powers in the Roman class struggle, but the inclusion of Equites intrigues me. In the game, Equites are kind of like an upper-middle class military elite. They do not live in insulae or villae, but in small ornate houses. They are well- educated, pay taxes, and provide recruits for the army. They can do certain Plebian jobs with better efficiency, and there are some jobs just for Equites.

    It is implied that this is the Equestrian order of Rome, slightly below the Senatorial order. Equite also means horseman, but in Grand Ages, this is rendered as Equestri and not Equites. So basically, we have two games that portray these super-wealthy knights as the middle class of Rome.Can somebody please clarify?

    The bottom line is this: was there an official middle class in Rome, or is this just fictional?


  • Create New...