Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for '"age of the aegean"'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Welcome
    • Announcements / News
    • Introductions & Off-Topic Discussion
    • Help & Feedback
  • 0 A.D.
    • General Discussion
    • Gameplay Discussion
    • Game Development & Technical Discussion
    • Art Development
    • Game Modification
    • Project Governance
    • Testing

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Location


Interests


First Name


Last Name


Skype ID

Found 5 results

  1. Interesting points about the history and Age of the Aegean, thanks to both of you . Overall I think we did kinda lose ourselves in this civ business. I remember the "AoM like branching" discussions. I guess it would be an interesting idea for a game representing more of history? I'll agree with your that I'm going game first, history second, but some people do feel more at ease with the reverse.
  2. Yeah, it all kind of started with Michael's dream to convert 0 A.D. into his dream game he was calling "Age of the Aegean". I think the Hellenes were the first generic civ that was broken apart and split into multiple civs. When you look at RTS games 15 years ago (I'm not sure what is out there these days) you usually find that they are either many civs/races that are slightly different from one another (Age of Kings), or few civs/races that are drastically different from one another (StarCraft). Each Civ was supposed to have a general theme and favor a certain playing style... Romans - Generic all purpose, Strength in siege Hellenes - Generic all purpose, Strong fortifications Persians - Cannon Fodder, Cheap infantry, Cavalry strong Celts - Aggressive and Offensive, Cheap/weak structures Carthaginians - Economy is based on metal/gold because of mercenaries, biggest variety of units, strong navy Iberians - Defensive, Small numbers, Tactical New civs were created and I'm not sure how they fit in or how they are distinct but I would encourage there to be a distinction to give players a reason to use them. For me - 0 A.D. was always a game first and wasn't ever intended to be a historical simulator. That was for games like Total War.
  3. I don't think that artwork is a gigantic concern, it is always changing and evolving. It could always be used in the scenario editor, and could be changed on civ selection in game. I think the depth of strategy it would return to the game would be worth the trade off. With fewer factions, this enables greater diversity. The more factions you have, they all start to blend together in similarities - with only subtle differences. Balancing a dozen plus factions is also challenging. Red Alert had 2 factions. Star-craft had 3. The original 6 civs were chosen because they had some distinct historical differences that gave players a unique experience when they played. Mythos changed that after I left. He really liked the Greeks and was influenced by his own desires to recreate his dream game "Age of the Aegean". So, when he took over the game design of 0 A.D. some of the original vision was lost. When I say balance, what I mean is that you don't want the outcome of the game decided by a players faction selection before the game even begins. Every faction should give players an opportunity to win if played with a strategy that compliments the faction. I'm not saying that what 0 A.D. is doing today is necessarily bad. I'm just saying that it is different than what was intended and (in my opinion) removes elements of strategy and makes the game harder to balance. (An extreme version of what I'm suggesting is that you start the game without a civ selection - just a generic civilization. Everyone starts the same. The civ is then selected in play after you have had a chance to observe the behaviors of your opponent and the map.)
  4. I really like the idea of customizing your armies, which is an idea I've had for some years now. However, I think it would add too much work for our game and constitute a rather large amount of feature-creep. My ideal RTS though has customization, as it is in my 'Age of the Aegean' game design.
  5. Actually a bunch of stuff in "Age of the Aegean" were features I proposed for 0 A.D., but were rejected, LOL!
×
×
  • Create New...