Sophokles

I'm afraid I don't get it. Different animations for different weapons? Naturally, one does not hold a gladius like a hasta.

So no 300 action? Leonidas doing crazy spins and impossibly perfect slashes?

Don't ask. Just don't ask.

Imagine what gaming would be like if they did the same thing with the Sims or Total War engine.

This should be interesting. Can an RTT make a good multiplayer game? Like remember in RTW: you could not clearly see parts of the map that you did not occupy, but the computer did. In a multiplayer, now both players have the same restrictions. Can't wait to see how this comes out. Let's hope they don't mishandle this project.

Looks too much like a Total War game.

10. X=PLAYER'S NAME 20. IF X=lolimgonnapwnUall, GAME OVER FOR PLAYER, ELSE GO TO 30 30. SURRENDER END BASIC does have a purpose after all: making quick and efficient artificial intelligence.

How about we scrap all this and use Latinicized names?

I am just worried that someone is going to overload the page with stupid graphics so you can't see where anything is and it takes 20 minutes to load. But we'll see.

Is this a designer or a programmer post? Or both? I would love to help, but I know nothing about HTML.

I'm sorry for bumping this thread. Maybe this is better left dead. So anyway, I got Grand Ages: Rome by Kalypso Media. It's a German studio that's coming out with Tropico 3 this October. The game is a unique city-builder/RTT hybrid. I think it has similarities to Caesar, the Roman city-builder equivalent of Zeus:Master of Olympus . It's forgettable, but worth doing a review. Pros Good, non-intensive graphics in a fully 3D world Interesting storyline. Set in the fall of the Roman Republic, you pick a gens. You start out with one mission in which you help a family member in exile. Then you get requests from more well-known clients. Marcus Crassus helps you build up Genoa. Cicero shows you the Georgics and wants you to build a farming town. In the east, you fight Mithradates with a relative who soon gets bumped. Eventually, your friend Gaius Julius dies and you must choose between the optimates and the populares. Your patrons become the Second Triumvirate and Cleopatra. There's a free build, but the highlight here is the campaign. Slighly non-linear. You do them in order, but you usually have 4 or 5 missions available at a time. Realistic choice of units. No fictional uints like Arcani or Praetorian Cavalry. Cons Awkward city building. It's great, but it feels like the only purpose of building a city is for battle (in combat missions). Still, it's much better than RTS's. Special powers? I like how in R:TW the traits and abilites were more subtle. It has a weird 'only in video games' feel that is hard to describe. Dead. Even though this is a sequel(to Impirivum Romanvm), there is no player base or news to speak of. Go to the website and you'll see what I mean. Bottom line: Would I buy it again? If you are a hard core gamer or ultra-interested in this time period, go ahead. The only reason I am saying that is because i would go for a more popular game first. So before you reply, answer these questions for me if you will 1. Does anyone here remember Zeus: Master of Olympus? 2. Hey, is anyone here old enough to remember when it was in a heyday? Did it even have a heyday? 3. Does anyone here own GA:R and would add something?

Interesting. What dialect are you referring to? I think the developers are using ancient languages for the game, but I'm not sure.

Well, RTW was an enormous project. It would be impossible for an open source team to do in their spare time.

I like Rome: Total War because there is both a campaign and a battle mode, very distinct from each other. I usually avoid RTS's because it feels like the only point of building a city is for making troops. In RTW, the cities are much more realistic (happiness, food, plague, etc.)

I seriously think we need a monthly change log when the game is nearing completion. That'll take out the guesswork.

Are they all truly equal? Think about it. I'm afraid there isn't enough material for the Iberians. I'm surprised they're even being included. Fate favored Rome and Hellas in terms of epicness. For that reason, it would be a gross distortion of history to make all the campaigns the same size. BTW, don't include anything about the Guns of Navarone in the game. Just an obscure joke.

I admit it, I am biased. So what do you all think about the rest?

This thread got me thinking: if the menu of campaigns was that of food, what would it look like? Appetizer: Minoan(Greek) A little village building tutorial. Now something to get you going: Starter: Siege of Carthage(Roman) Short and quick Time for heavier stuff: Entree: Trojan War(Greek) Long, mythic, epic Entree: Golden Age of Athens(Greek) Short but grand Entree: Dream of Xerxes(Persian) Medium in length. Of course, defeat is inevitable. And now we come to our highlight: Main course: Roman Republic(Rome) Epic, long, decision-based, and grand with a capital Γ A clincher: 4th course: Gallic Wars(Celt) Kind of short but action-packed. And finally, a sweet dessert: Dessert: The Guns of Navarone(Greek) What do you think? How about a digestif? Digestif: Defense of Spain(Iberian) Medium in length, light, Roman pwnage(of course)

I have a historical question. Does the prefix before a Roman ship name refer to the number of oar banks or the number of people to an oar?

I don't think it would safe for the hastati if the principes starting firing after the hastati were already engaged. Of course, it all depends on the game mechanics. Do arrows have to actually hit to do damage? And for that matter, can allied units be injured too?

I agree. Hastati used their pila more than the principes. Speaking of pila, will there be friendly fire in the game? Cause in most RTS games, arrows and such cause damage even if they don't actually land on the target. For that reason, I hate it when the lightest, fastest cavalry get hit by catapults EVEN WHEN THEY CLEARLY OUTRUN THEM. Of course, friendly fire or out-running artillery are characteristics of RTT and not RTS games. In real life, however, I am sure that quite a few unlucky velites were killed by impatient hastati. Postscriptum: Are there even velites in the game? Because I can't imagine armored principes as skirmishers.

Pardon my brother. He has not yet read the FAQ, forum, or comments. He's doing all of that now. So anyway, how much strength is given to tactics and to the counter system? For example: A hoplite can take on an equite 1v1, but not when charging up a hill. Or how about fanatics destroying tirarii behind their line but not in front? I can't wait to see the result. It looks like you guys had the insight that RTS+tactics=realistic combat.

Are there going to be principes for the Romans? Or will the Elite Hastati take their role?

On second thought, the rise of civilization is a much better idea: "Welcome to 0 AD, stranger. Before we can tell you how to pan the camera, you should know that the Roman Republic is failing. There are exactly 8 former friends of yours about to backstab you. The Senate has declared you an outlaw, and the optimates are calling you a traitor. The colony you see before you is about to be pillaged by Spartacus. Oh, and you gave Cleopatra Philopater herpes. Once again, welcome to 0 AD."

Not what I had in mind. Still, Leonidas is not going to teach me about citybuilding.