SMST
-
Posts
536 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by SMST
-
-
You mean a RISK like map? That would be really great, but it would best fit in a game like Empire Earth or Civilisation (yeah not an RTS), where you have actually the whole world.
For 0 A.D., a huge map of the ancient world (Mediterranean, Britain&Gaul, Persia) with each civilisation in the proper starting positions would be fitting.
-
Persia belongs to a later era, but I would include troyans(anatolians) instead.
troians = anatolians = hittite. I think we can assume that for the purpose of the mod.
-
I like the idea of "minor", non playable factions. That would be great to include in a mod.
*takes note*
-
You are aware that RMS scripts for 0 AD are already based on real locations?
-
Actually I dont like the mythic theme, when I play AOM I hardly use myth units. I like more and find more fun if it have a realistic aproach, because it makes it more diverse, and based in strategy, and not so much in "magical factors".
Unfortunatly the only game that have those civs until now is AOE, but that doesnt count because those are just generalistic civs using the names of the civs, but they dont have their real characteristics, I guess I will wait until 0AD gets to a playable state, and then just start working on new units, I actually have some models yet, but I need to export them in the pyrogenesis format.
Hiram, as I said previous in this thread, I had a similar idea to yours. The ancient civilisations before the rise of Greece. Having six factions, replacing the old ones in 0 AD.
Egypt
Persia
Mesopotamia (Babylonia/Assyria)
Hittite
Mycenean Greeks (there could be also a "Aegean" faction, with Minoans/Myceneans as subfactions)
Phoenicia OR Judaea
Since the idea is not too different from yours, it would be apropriate if we could work together.
I have actually nearly no graphical or modelling skills, but if you do, then it would be great if you considered forming a modteam.I did actually some research about Egyptians and Hittites, but not much. I will start to investigate more time in this when the 0AD alpha comes out.
-
Go and find a banner representing the whole Greek or Celtic culture.
-
Alandil, you first scenario is way too long, I think. Remember that you need to keep the motivation going, especialy in a tutorial, and that you as a newbie player need to get a reward in form of completing a scenario.
And I skipped Cumae in my draft because there is too much messing up with Etruscians.
For other topics, we could search other Greek colonies or have a "Rise of Rome" campaign with the founding, the struggle against the Etruscians, and the Samnite war.
-
I just found this video:
Good to see your system in action. Also, the new font looks a bit nicer than the old one.
-
I could see 5 and 6 done as one. Just listed them seperately to get a round lot.
-
Any comments on this one? It would be interesting if the developers had something like this in their mind.
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?
-
I agree, a auto-explore function is close to a must-have.
-
Oshron, that wasn't me, it was someone else.
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.
(they should be able to form alliances with Corinth instead of Athens, right?)Don't care. Thought about Athens just story-wise - Persian wars and all. The Athenians called, after all, for help from Syracuse.
But since others pointed out that it would require custom-building Sicel and/or Elymian land units and Etruscan naval unitsThe 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"?
-
The tutorial campaign is just that - a tutorial. The main issue will be learning the mechanics of the game. The first scenario will start from pushing buttons on the UI and moving around units, and move on to collecting resources and building a small town. "Interesting" military strategies, in-depth historical details etc. are less important. It should be accessible to someone who has never played any RTS game in their life.
So for tutorial campaigns, consider "rise of civilization" themes, not the sack of Rome or whatever. Rome wasn't built in a day.
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
-
Answer these questions...
1. When did the Phoenicians first appear?
(there is no evidence but they are speculated to have existed around 1300BC)
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.
2. When are the earliest artifacts depicting a writing system in Greece found?Crete 2000-1500BC, Linear A,B, Phaistos disk etc.
Yes.
Therefore? How could a writing system be introduced by Phoenicians when the Greeks had already been using various localised dialectual forms?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.
3. Are there any relations between the theoretical Phoenician alphabet (of which no real substantiated record exists) the basis of the Greek language or Alphabet?No real substantiated record?
Those were made up by propaganda, then, I guess.
The letter A in Greek = A and only A. In Semitic script it has different meanings depending where it is tonated it can be an A, E or I (H). The same can be said for several other letters. The Greek has Vowels the Semitic languages don't. The Greek alphabet was the first Alphabet system the others were writing systems but without complete syntax and grammar. Even Christ said I am the Alpha and Omega not the Alef and whatever.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.
3. Where are Mycaenian and Minion colonies thought to have existed? Almost identical to those of some Phoenician sites Egypt, Carthage, Sicily, Malta. (Note Kardus or Cardos's story by DIODORUS SICULUS 1BC. Plato and numerous others agree that the alphabet was given to man by God (there was no inventor of writing systems other than by God).This is still a historical discussion. Please do not bring in God.
Diodorus explains that Carthage was settled by those from Crete.) He adds a different light to the story of Carthage as he was a Sicilian Greek and knew that region of the Mediterranean much better than most other mainland historians. (I think its in Book 5..only fragments remain)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.
4. Are there records of semitic script used in the mediteranean? No.You may visit the Pergamon Museum in Berlin one day. There you'll find phoenician and old arabic inscripitons in the original.
5. Any Greek scripts in the Mediterranean?Yes. There are finds of tablets using a primitive alphabetical script dated 1800BC in Cyprus. Did such scripts have any similarity to the that used by Greeks? Yes.
Yes.
Therefore: So semitic existence in the Mediterranean world is proved by what means? Neo-propaganda?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.
6. When is Hellenistic (Pre-Greek State/Dorians, Ionians, Minoans etc) colonisation thought to have ended? 3000BC by Ionians, Mycaenians, Minoans, Dorians and others living in the Cyclades and the Hellenic peninsula.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.
7. Are all the names Sidon, Biblos, Tyre, Carthage derived from the Hellenic language? Yes. Implying the same names were used by locals not just by Greeks which the ROmans had a tendancy of renaming things.....In this case the Romans kept the same names as the Greeks. Any record of these cities in any language uses the Greek form for their names. Why?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 ...
Because they either were or became Hellenistic cities. Hence when Romans took over they adopted that heritage.Was Carthage under Greek control?
Yes under the Ptolemaic rule. Note this: The Ptolemies controlled both Sidon (The so called center of Phoenicia), Then Tyre the replacement capital of the Phoenicians. The regions interchanged between between Selucid and Ptolemaic rule for hundreds of years. But also keep in mind Carthage was considered a backwater compared to SIdon or Tyre. Ptolemaic rule over the center of Phoencia granted it control over Carthage. There was no need for a direct assault on Carthage. Sicily and Rome on the otherhand had no political control over the city of Carthage and needed to subdue it by force... You only use army when political leaverage fails.
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.
What are the majority of artifacts found in Carthage?
Ancient Greek and Egyptian.....Why? Ptolemy the Greek Egyptian. NOt as some say the Carthagians mimiced everyone.
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.
-
now that i think about it, there were special timed campaign scenarios in AOM; basically, youd reach a defensible area and arkantos or someone else would say, "we'll make our stand here! build up our defenses while we wait for reinforcements!"
perhaps the leonidas/themistocles scenario could be like that; youd have to move leonidas and the greek army up the road to thermopylae and position themistocles and the athenian navy at whatever the right location is (i keep forgetting), and then a timer would come up, something like "DEFEND THE HOT GATES!! Hold positions for XX:XX minutes." and then there would be a timer and, preferrably, a day-night cylce going for howver many days thermopylae lasted with 5 or 10 minutes to each day, during which time you would be attacked by waves of soldiers both on land and at sea. this would probably be the best time for historical stretches, with mixes of soldiers rather than what was actually sent at the spartans with each wave, like the first wave would include immortals even though(i think) the immortals came in on the second day. this way, youd have to defend both places at once and, at the same time, hold your positions, like maybe there could be no less than 20 spartan hoplites and leonidas at thermopylae and 10 triremes and themistocles at salamis or wherever it was, so you cant go out and raid.
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.speaking of the spartans, for the purposes of the scenario, i would suggest dropping it down to 30 spartan hoplites because 300 would just take up too much space on the map, imo, and would probably make the game lag.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 ...
oh! i know! perhaps you could only control themistocles' ships and leonidas and the spartans for the battle, and the other greeks at thermopylae are computer players with pretty strong AI; in this way, you wouldnt be able to attack the persians yourself because youd have to keep the spartans there to defend the pass
Okay. These would be Thespians, then...
Perhaps having some kind of Persian Army Camp with
-
yes, a roman tutorial campaign sounds good to me. and then in the second pack when (presumably) more legit roman cultures are introduced, there could be an extensive roman campaign pretty much covering their entire history by starting with pre-imperial romans and then moving on to the next stages of their civilization up through imperial rome and beyond
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.
for leonidas, what i had intended was him winning and becoming a hero by defeating the "invincible" persians just to make it easier to design the actual scenario. unless, of course, leonidas just had to survive for a certain amount of time, after which you lose control of him and he and the spartans go to fight the persians one last time, after which you have just themistocles and use him to defeat the persian navy
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)
-
Proves nothing. Like i said the Phoenicians were only made reference to by a few historians the most reliable was Heroditus and from him all he says is that the Greek Alphabet was derived from the Φοιινικον. Now what he said and to whom the term Finikon applies is debated but most people believe that the Finikes he talks about were a Hellenic tribe.
Source!
-
I would not call Rome the core of 0 AD. but it is the most 'famous' civ in RTS games/reality.
Because the time period is more or less 500 BC - 1 AD for this part, other civilizations played a bigger part in the beginning of this period than rome... in 500 BC Rome was not even worth mentioning compared to the Hellenes and Persians.
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.
If you want to play as Rome there are so many games and campaigns, thats why im more looking forward to scenarios/ campaigns of carthage and Iberians.
A Greek, a Carthagenian and a Iberian campaign?
Well, then we must have at least a Roman tutorial.
-
A disadvantage of this concept is that you are resticted in time, if you want to keep it historically correct ( which I hope
)I'd also love to see a city / town as main 'character'. For example Athens or Carthage through the ages ( Rome has been portrayed too many times for me in games).
Advantage is that you are not restricted to a certain time period.
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.
maybe there could be campaigns based on the individual heroes for each civilization, depending on how extensive the campaigns and wars they participating in were, for example, i would suggest against a leonidas or themistocles campaign since they really dont have much going for them in terms of length, unless you decided to do a "battle of the conquerors" type game mode a la AOK, in which one scenario would have you controlling the forces of both themistocles AND leonidas in tandem, and moving either from their original areas to reinforce the other would result in losing the scenario. it could also, perhaps, be a stretch against actual history with leonidas surviving. who knows?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.
on the other end of the spectrum, there could be long campaigns based around the heroes that have more battles under their belts, like alexander and hannibal for the greco-persian and punic wars, respectively, because there were alot of battles to those
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:
Agree w/Philip.
Also good to integrate a character arc. Very difficult to do without one protagonist.
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:
Following a single person can be limiting. A Punic Wars campaign, for example, can go from Scipio to the king of Syracuse to Tiberius Sempronius Longus if necessary.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.
-
Carthage was never conquered by the Greeks. They were defeated on the battlefield many times in Sicily, but were never conquered until the 3rd Punic War (by the Romans).
I did not believe that, either ... I just wanted to know where Ephestion got that strange idea ...
I modded the game!
in Game Modification
Posted
Great! I, for myself, was not able to use the Actor Editor and went for the .xml-files.
Did you do new textures for that model? (the shield looks like it)