SMST

Any comments on this one? It would be interesting if the developers had something like this in their mind.

I agree, a auto-explore function is close to a must-have.

Me. I would not have two Greek Campaigns. Either just Alexander (persona-based) or the full Persian wars with both in it. (conflict-based) Persian campaigns are difficult since there are no proper enemies. I would drop that ... With the Roman Republic and the Carthagenians, there is still the option to have two smaller campaigns, one with Hannibal until Cannae, one with Scipio until Zama. Now made in two seperate campaigns because changing factions within a campaign does not really work, I have to admit now. Iberians and Celts are fine. I just don't think that there is enough material on the Sack of Rome to make a entire campaign. (rather than a tutorial) Of course, we could make many "sacking" scenarios and make them in a campaign. Don't care. Thought about Athens just story-wise - Persian wars and all. The Athenians called, after all, for help from Syracuse. The battle of Cumae is left out in my version. Instead, a made-up battle against Carthagenians. For the native Sicilians, I think basic Greek units may work.

If you want to disable the citizen soldier concept and have villager units, it is no problem at all. This is even possible at the current state of development, I tried it.

... work on something furiously for a month and then forget about it for a while and then start again ... I know that - I have sometimes phases of high motivation, and then periodically a lack of that. But I never stopped working on my projects (for example, my RTS modding concept was a attempt for a Empire Earth redux some 4 or 5 years ago) and I expect to get something finished this and the next year. It is matter of when, not if. Thanks for your permisson!

oshron, would you mind, if I "borrow" some Atzec units for my own modding concept? (which is something rather EE-like) They seem to be pretty nice in both name and function, and I can personally not find much about the Aztec army. Your name would be credited. Now that you are working this out so precisely, are you actually going to do that mod rather then just planning it "for fun"?

Well, that would be my concept of Alandil's idea of the rise of Syracuse: Tutorial - Rise of Syracuse A new colony Starting with a few colonists on the shores of Eastern sicily, you are going to found that what will become Syracuse later. (Basic movement/Citizen soldier concept/building/Civic centres/Ressource gathering/hunting/lumbering/mining) From village to town You have to gather more ressources and research new techs to finally advance Syracuse from a small village to a town. (Female citizens/advanced Ressource gathering/agriculture/herding/technologies/phase advancement) Defense and attack Syracuse needs to expand, but in order to do that, it must deal with the aggressive native Sicilan tribes. (Basic combat/basic counter system/experience/leveling up/conquering territorries) Allies and Adversaries In order to expand its economy, Syracuse has to forge alliances with the Carthagenians in the western part of Sicily and with Athens back in Greece. But are those allies to be trusted? (Advanced buildings/fortifications/trade - land and sea/diplomacy/support units) The Battle of Himera The Carthagenians attack the Sicilan Greeks at Himera. They need to be driven back under the command of Gelon, tyrant of Syracuse. (Advanced combat/stances/formations/super units/unique techs/heroes - Gelon) The fleet of Carthage On land, the Carthagenians are defeated, but Gelon needs to destroy their fleet in order to secure his rule. His ultimate goal is, however, to destroy the enemy's fortress at Panormos. (Naval warfare/ramming/boarding/transporting units/siege weapons/siege) Is that "rise-of-civ" like enough? Did I forget any major game feature? ---- @oshron: Nope, the Thermopylae battle was earlier in the year 480 BC (I think somewhere in July, whereas Salamis was in October) and it was deliberately fought to bind Xerxes' forces so that the Athenians had enough time to prepare. And one must be careful not to step over the thin line which seperates challenge from frustration. @Alandil: Yeah, it is weird to change sides. (It worked in the AoK El Cid campaign, though) We could make two minor campaigns (six scenarios each) - Hannibal from Spain until Cannae, then Romans (Scipio) from Fabius Maximus to Zama, which leaves us with followed (persona-based) campaigns: Greek: Alexander - 12 scens Carthagenian: Hannibal - 6 scens Roman: Scipio - 6 scens Iberian: one of the game heros, perhaps the one who wasn't defeated - I think it was Indibil - 12 scens

I can not get any certain dates about the founding of the Phoenician cities on the internet. My historical Atlas says, though, Byblos is founded in the 4th century BC, Tyros and Sidon some time later. Yes. By checking the right date. Another theory is based on the early Greeks HAD Phoenician influence and among the third of the four immigration waves to Greek WERE Phoenicians who influenced the Minoean and Mycenean culture. One source for that is your beloved Herodotus, read the "Historia" and there, on the very first page, he tells us about a Phoenician woman, taken away by the Greeks. If you read a little bit between the lines here, this would be the mythological version of a immigration from Phoenicia to Greece. Another being the myth of Europa and Cadmus. No real substantiated record? Those were made up by propaganda, then, I guess. Pfth, I could defy that easily enough if I knew the proper English grammar terms ... But the evolution of language is no subject to argue about, right? Even the Greeks, having the Alpha, had so-called "spiritus" (plural) which are indicators if a vowel should be pronounciated with a "h" (asper) or not. (lenis) This is most likely a evolvement out of the "Alef". And you were there and heard what Jesus said? The New Testament is originally written in Greek, so it is very likely, that there is Alpha and Omega. The language of Jesus was most likely Aramaic, which is a semitic (!) language related to the Phoenician language. This is still a historical discussion. Please do not bring in God. Propaganda, anyone? I do not know what Diodorus wrote ... but being Sicilian Greek himself, he would most likely have his enemies (who were proud of their Phoenician lineage) being defied as descendants of Greeks ... The Phoenician colonisation of Sicily begins in the 9th centuy BC. The Greeks arrive there 735 BC with the foundation of Naxos. You may visit the Pergamon Museum in Berlin one day. There you'll find phoenician and old arabic inscripitons in the original. Yes. And why is the existance of Greek scripts on Cyprus (which was colonized by Greeks very early on) a contra for Phoenician existence? Where does it mention Phoenicians and proves your point? It only says that there is Minoean/Mycenean influence on the Cypric scripts and language. Fine. I'll the last one to deny that. But that is not subject of the topic, actually. Ouch. As I wrote above, the so-called Great colonisation is dated around 750 BC and ends around 500 BC. This is where the colonies in Sicily, France etc. were founded. There IS an earlier colonisation by the Myceneans around 1800 BC, but it was limited to Cyprus and the coast of Asia Minor. 3000 BC is a ridicolous date. Egyptian records use the Egyptian names. Assyrian records use the Assyrian names. (where Byblos is "Gubla", for example) Just because Greek is the most common language of records in ancient times, it does not mean there is no other language ... That is the point where you should mention sources for your statements. Carthage became pretty much independent at the time Tyre and Sidon were conquered by the Persians. At the time of the Diadochi, it was completely independent and had formed a empire of its own. The Hellenistic culture influenced Carthage, that's for sure. But to derive drom that fact that all cities in the mediterranean were hellenistic is simply ridicolous.

I like it! But nevertheless I would split the affair in two scenarios: One that is pretty much like your suggestion at Thermophylae and a second one, having Salamis. And I would go for an easy start - sending some Spadabara in, letting the player think "HA!! Those are easy! This is ridicolous!" and at the second day sending the Immortals in, letting the Player think "OH NO!! Those pesky Immortals! This isn't easy at all!" Adds a bit of "drama" here. And now, there it would be great to have inter-scenario connections in a campaign. For example: The longer you could hold your ground at Thermopylae, the more ships you can build for the battle of Salamis (because there was more time) Nevertheless, there is a maximum in ships (because at some point, the Persians find the secret passway) If this is not possible, then let's have it in one scenario (Thermopylae, then Salamis), though I don't like that "multi-front-engagement" because it will be way too difficult and it is not historically accurate, and I see no point to "stretch" history here, where it would just mean frustration for the player when he has to focus on a difficult land-battle AND a difficult sea-battle. (which both require micromanagement, especially 0 A.D.'s sea battles) If we make them too easy, it would not fit the historical importance of either of them. Yes, 30 seems to be the right number for Spartans, but we should add some Thespians - 20 advanced hoplites. Just to scatter the myth of the "300" a bit ... Okay. These would be Thespians, then... Perhaps having some kind of Persian Army Camp with

We could take Alpha's suggestion for a Roman tutorial campaign. The Sack of Rome and Defeating Brennus stuff. And if we could have my split-factions campaign idea, then we'd have the Romans in the second part of the Punic Wars. So, new concept? Romans: Tutorial (Sack of Rome) Greeks: Alexander the Great Carthagenians/Romans: Second Punic War (Hannibal/Scipio, turning point after Cannae) Iberians: The ultimate, most challenging defensive campaign! Sounds good to me. Yeah, I think, a "inevitable defeat but hold them back as long as you can" would be great for Thermophylae. For example, you would have the Athenians in back of you gather as many resources as you can. (for building the navy in the next scen)

Source!

I call Rome the core of 0 A.D. because it is in both parts and because the game is deliberatly designed to feature civilisations that interacted with Rome. A Greek, a Carthagenian and a Iberian campaign? Well, then we must have at least a Roman tutorial.

Well, that would be great too, I have to admit. Though I feel, 0 A.D. needs a Roman campaign. Somewhere. The Romans are, after all, the core civilisation of the 0 A.D, concept. Hm... I like the "battle of the conquerors" idea as a third campaign added to the two others. And Leonidas has become the embodiement of a heroic defeat. Of course, one could do a little mock-up and have the myth of Thermophylae revealed as totally made-up by propaganda, with Leonidas fleeing and being caught by the Persians ... Hm, I like that. Not as a official campaign, but just to mock the stupid myths around Thermophylae. Yeah, that was my plan as well. Though I want to have some feedback on my weird "faction-changing" idea.

Both has its advantages, I think: That is what I feel, too. Immersion is much stronger with character-based campaigns. In fact, it can be quite good, even if it is not historical at all. See Rise&Fall. Its campaign included next to no historical background, but nontheless it was rather immersive as you wanted to know, what becomes of the characters, what challenges will lie ahead ... That is something which I intended to follow and is also part of the 0AD creed. (It says about telling stories of the heroes of that timeframe) But: Yes, that is one disadvantage of that. Character based stuff works extremely well on Alexander since his life was very eventful. But if it comes to Scipio, it gets complicated, since he was merely a part of the whole war. A Scipio campaign would be limited to the wars in Spain and Africa ... yeah, and that's pretty much it. The character of Scipio is interesting, however. His main motivation being avenging his fathers' death at Trebia. That would make the 2nd punic war campaign more of a personal challenge between Hannibal and Scipio (which climaxes at Zama, of course) The way I had planned it initialy: The Alexander campaign is a totally person-based campaign. (as would be the Boadicea campaign, but you will probably skip this one since it is out of timeframe) It builds mostly on Alexanders characteristcs on being rash and daring in battle and his urge to conquer distant lands. (which brings him into conflict with his generals later) I also figured some of his compainios in (Hephaistion, Philotas, Parmenion and Antipater), who become important in the storyline (Antipater and Parmenion mostly as "advisors", Philotas later as rebel, Hephaistion being very much the "right hand" of Alexander) Then, when it comes to the Punic wars, I covered the first two wars in a more "olympic" perspective. Of course, including Scipio and his character, but alongside with others, such as Tullius Duilius or Fabius Maximus. It is more of a "account of the wars" rather then a story about characters. Suggestion: I personally find it very hard to find enough material on Scipio to make a campaign which has the scope of Alexanders campaign. I would rely heavily on making stuff up, which I don't like. Therefore, I would suggest a other possibility for the second campaign: The Second Punic War starting with Hannibal and his campaigns in Spain, later in Italy. Around the middle of the campaign you turn over to the Roman side and basically counter his attacks ... which has Scipio as a central character, then. Of course, the problem is the faction-changing. This could be made up by some side-changer from the Carthagenian to the Roman side (perhaps with vital information about Hannibal's strategics or something) to provide a storytechical background. In case that you are okay with the faction-change in general.

I did not believe that, either ... I just wanted to know where Ephestion got that strange idea ...

I wonder if you like persona-based campaigns or rather timespan-based campaigns? For example, would you prefer an Alexander and a Scipio campaign, or a Persian Wars and Punic Wars campaign?

Not a particular war, I guess, but there was definitivley a lasting conflict between Greeks and Phoenicians, especially in Sicily. Syracuse was the leading power in this war. Taken from the German wikipedia: But I found neither on Wikipedia nor elsewhere a evidence that Carthage was taken by Greek invaders, as Ephestion states. Perhaps he could show us a source for that. (no, not something biased about the non-existent "thriving democracy" in Greece (!) that "aimed to rid the Greek colonies and population of land lords, kings and tyrants", which you most probably wrote yourself, Ephestion ... )

My Greek dictionary says absolutely nothing about the etymological derival of both Hellas and Helle. Just that "Hellas" in origin was a part of Thessaly (whose name derived from another mythological figure, Hellen) and later was adopted on the whole people. In fact, there are "Hellenes" in Homers' epics, but that term relates to the people of that particular landscape, not to the whole Greeks, who may be described as "Achaioi" or "Danaoi" at this time. I don't know why and when Hellas and Hellenes became the common term, though. And for the etymology of names: That is one of the most difficult matters in etymology, especially in ancient languages, simply because of missing sources. It would be much easier to derive "Alandil" from Sindarin than Helle from pre-classical Ancient Greek.

LOVE to see floating ships in the new system. A little video would have been nice, though.=)

Right you are. As far as I know, the element "Helle" has nothing to do with "Hellas", either, but with the mythological figure of "Helle", a girl, who drowned in that sea. And I have never heard that Mithridates was Persian, so the myth can't be that common ...

Well i'm a gymnasiast (something close to a highschool student) and will have final exams next year. After that, I will either have a Free Social Year or I will go straight to university - studying history and philosophy, maybe to become a teacher. As you can see, I am not at all the practical type of character who would study economics.

Oh really? Then you have skipped the concept of autohealing as described here? (somewhere below) (please say yes)

Okay, then forget about that...

Thanks for answering Yeah, I know that no one can tell definitively what balance problems this or that faction might or might not cause during gameplay without extensive testing. However, it seems as if you are currently working on that faction and I just wanted to point that out. Just a thought that ocurred to me, if they are the ones who pay a lot of ressources, then it's fine.

Möhp.