New Civ for Alpha 28+?

[Thorfinn the Shallow Minded]

This is because all of the civilisations are civilised, even the Celts.  Granted, the extent of this varies, but each of them practised fairly sedentary lifestyles.  The 'barbarians' of the time are simply not represented, with them being cultures such as Germanic tribes, Scythians, etc,...  

 

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

4 minutes ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:

This is because all of the civilisations are civilised, even the Celts.  Granted, the extent of this varies, but each of them practised fairly sedentary lifestyles.  The 'barbarians' of the time are simply not represented, with them being cultures such as Germanic tribes, Scythians, etc,...  

 

The Scythians & Xiongnu would play fairly different from the Romans and everyone else, assuming they act anything like their counterparts in DE. @LetswaveaBook

[Philip the Swaggerless]

On 09/01/2023 at 2:04 PM, LetswaveaBook said:

What concerns me most about the game is that Romans develop almost the same as the barbarians. I can't really say that Romans in the game feel like an urban and more "civilized" faction.

In your opinion, do any of the urban civilized civs of this game feel adequately civilized to you?

 

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

3 hours ago, Philip the Swaggerless said:

In your opinion, do any of the urban civilized civs of this game feel adequately civilized to you?

 

I think the issue here lies in the pace of the game. A player rarely has time to set up a nice city and match it up against the enemy's city, before the action really makes that a moot strategy. The people don't use walls much also drives this home. It feels like you're just building a military base with the optimal layout to maximize military production. There's not a lot of cultural exploration there.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

People use walls and defenses much more in team games than in 1v1s. A very common strategy especially with Iberians is for the edge player to turtle up and take the 2v1 while the player’s pocket helps the other side or goes for cav. While it is largely dependent on circumstances, this level of team play is great.

the pace of the game is good, age of empires games take 30 minutes to an hour even with 1v1s. Being able to quickly play a game is a great feature.

I think the biggest reason players don’t use walls is how long it takes to build them, not really the cost. You can almost never build them in time for the attack they are supposed to delay.

[chrstgtr]

48 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

I think the issue here lies in the pace of the game. A player rarely has time to set up a nice city and match it up against the enemy's city, before the action really makes that a moot strategy. The people don't use walls much also drives this home. It feels like you're just building a military base with the optimal layout to maximize military production. There's not a lot of cultural exploration there.

Is the game supposed to be a sim city civilization builder? The game has victory conditions related to military success--the bolded is a function of that. I don't really think that is a problem. 

If you want a cultural exploration game--great. But I think that is a separate game. Or at least a very different form of what we have with different victory conditions. 

[Philip the Swaggerless]

2 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

A player rarely has time to set up a nice city and match it up against the enemy's city, before the action really makes that a moot strategy.

 

1 hour ago, chrstgtr said:

If you want a cultural exploration game--great. But I think that is a separate game. Or at least a very different form of what we have with different victory conditions. 

I agree.

Awhile back I was working on a Team Bonuses mod that required actions for teammates to receive team bonuses, rather than the innate buffs we have now.  A lot of that involved new civic units and structures.  I came to the conclusion that all that coordination and added micromanagement would likely end up losing to people who, instead of making said units and structures, make extra cavalry javelineers and raid you.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

2 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

Is the game supposed to be a sim city civilization builder?

Of course not.

 

2 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

The game has victory conditions related to military success--the bolded is a function of that. I don't really think that is a problem. 

There are ways to add more culture to the game that don't prevent players from achieving military success. I don't understand your line of reasoning at all.

 

2 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

If you want a cultural exploration game--great. But I think that is a separate game. Or at least a very different form of what we have with different victory conditions. 

Then let's drop the pretense of attempting to depict historical cultures. 

Edited January 11, 2023 by wowgetoffyourcellphone

[chrstgtr]

51 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Then let's drop the pretense of attempting to depict historical cultures. 

I mostly agree. I like it when things take inspiration from culture (see Alexandria Library or any Wonder), so I don't think it should be totally ignored.

Also wouldn't want to foreclose future possibilities. For example, I think if we ever get an imperial Rome then I would want to see Christianity and conversions as part of the game.  Same with early Islamic empires. 

[LetswaveaBook]

On 11/01/2023 at 6:14 PM, Philip the Swaggerless said:

In your opinion, do any of the urban civilized civs of this game feel adequately civilized to you?

 

On 11/01/2023 at 9:33 PM, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

I think the issue here lies in the pace of the game. A player rarely has time to set up a nice city and match it up against the enemy's city, before the action really makes that a moot strategy. The people don't use walls much also drives this home. It feels like you're just building a military base with the optimal layout to maximize military production. There's not a lot of cultural exploration there.

Answering to @Philip the Swaggerless, I would welcome a little more diversity between some factions.

 

For example, I think Rome could get some credit to their flexible military system by giving them a team bonus "manipules" giving infantry swordsmen +10% speed. Also, they probably could use a few more unique buildings.

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

4 hours ago, LetswaveaBook said:

For example, I think Rome could get some credit to their flexible military system by giving them a team bonus "manipules" giving infantry swordsmen +10% speed. Also, they probably could use a few more unique buildings.

Would this replace Rome's current team bonus or would they just get 2 now?

[d34d svn]

Hi, I'm new here.

I'm a new player of 0AD and i have some suggestion regarding the Romans. I suggest the team add Senate into Roman building roster and new policy tech for the Romans. New policy tech such as Marian Reforms (military), Latifundium (agriculture/military) and Julian Calendar (agriculture). New unit upgrades and heroes as a means to improve the Roman civilization.

Marian Reforms in 0AD should be a T3 policy tech that transform all current Roman unit roster into Marian unit roster. Hastatus to Legionarius, Velites to Antesignani (Skirmisher), Triarius to Antesignani (Spearman), Eques Romanus to Eques Auxilum (Cavalry Spearman) and Eques Socius to Eques Auxilium (Cavalry Skirmisher), Extraordinarius to Legionarius Evocatus and Eques Consulares to Eques Praetoriani (Marian era).

Latifundium tech as a means to increase the field harvest rate in the same time unlocks Marian Reform, while Julian Calendar replace fertilizer tech for the Romans.

I hope the team find my suggestion useful, thank you.

[Sapphro]

It would be great to see more diverse cultures, as now the game is primarly based on Indo-European civilizations with the addition of Han. I may suggest Malayan kingdom Gangga Negara, for instance, the territory of Malaysia was known to Romans anyway. Which is more interesting, but harder to implement are Finno-Ugric cultures of the Iron Age due to little information on them. Though, their obvious features are the focusing on shamanism and fishing, and civ bonuses based on it.

https://www.encyclopedia.com/humanities/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/iron-age-finland
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gangga_Negara
https://indo-european.eu/2021/05/proto-uralic-homeland-ix-west-caucasian/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Finland

[Genava55]

49 minutes ago, Sapphro said:

It would be great to see more diverse cultures, as now the game is primarly based on Indo-European civilizations with the addition of Han. I may suggest Malayan kingdom Gangga Negara, for instance, the territory of Malaysia was known to Romans anyway. Which is more interesting, but harder to implement are Finno-Ugric cultures of the Iron Age due to little information on them. Though, their obvious features are the focusing on shamanism and fishing, and civ bonuses based on it.

https://www.encyclopedia.com/humanities/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/iron-age-finland
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gangga_Negara
https://indo-european.eu/2021/05/proto-uralic-homeland-ix-west-caucasian/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Finland

0 A.D., except for the mods, is based on the period between 500 BC and 1 AD. So the civ should have existed at least during this period. There are non-Indo-European civs, the Carthaginians, the Kushites and the Han. Technically, the Iberians too but they are poorly designed in this regard.

Gangga Negara is a legendary kingdom and its start around the 2nd century AD according to the Malay annals. So it cannot be included.

Furthermore, they would have been Hindu (as a religion). So even if their language is not IE, they would have been related to the IE.

The best non-IE candidates I think would be the Garamantians, the Numidians, the Kingdom of Saba, the Nabateans, the Xiongnu, the Yayoi people.

 

[Sapphro]

21 hours ago, Genava55 said:

0 A.D., except for the mods, is based on the period between 500 BC and 1 AD. So the civ should have existed at least during this period. There are non-Indo-European civs, the Carthaginians, the Kushites and the Han. Technically, the Iberians too but they are poorly designed in this regard.

Gangga Negara is a legendary kingdom and its start around the 2nd century AD according to the Malay annals. So it cannot be included.

Furthermore, they would have been Hindu (as a religion). So even if their language is not IE, they would have been related to the IE.

The best non-IE candidates I think would be the Garamantians, the Numidians, the Kingdom of Saba, the Nabateans, the Xiongnu, the Yayoi people.

 

I agree, it is beyond the period of the game, perhaps not the best example. In Chinese chronicles there was also the state of Chi Tu from 1st century BC, which has more or less accepted archiological sites. By Indo-European I mean rather the region; by language group, I have no questions.
But with Gangga Negara it is controversal, the actual kingdom might had existed near Beruas, probably not by that exact name. There were some pottery findings, but since 5st century. Malaysian sources mention Coconagara or Konkonagara as if it was described by Ptolemy, and so, they date it back to 1st (other say, 2st) century. However I could not find the strict evidence other than the name on the map. So, it is considered semi-legendary.

Edited February 11, 2023 by Sapphro

[real_tabasco_sauce]

6 hours ago, Genava55 said:

The best non-IE candidates I think would be the Garamantians, the Numidians, the Kingdom of Saba, the Nabateans, the Xiongnu, the Yayoi people.

I think Lusitanis, and some American civ(s) should fit with this group. It would be nice to have a civ to go with the Iberians, kind of how the Britons and Gauls are a pair. As for the Maya, the current mayan content (of which there appears to be a lot) could be branched into a pair of similar civs not unlike the greek city-states, or remain one representative civ.

[Genava55]

15 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Lusitanis

Lusitanians are Indo-European. (It doesn't mean I am against or they are a bad candidate, I was just replying to someone initially, i was not making an exhaustive list)

15 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

American civ(s)

Possible but I would say they are lower on the list because they are farther and less related to the others. But I hope one day it will be the case.

15 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

It would be nice to have a civ to go with the Iberians, kind of how the Britons and Gauls are a pair.

Currently the Iberians are a mixture of three people: Lusitanians, Iberians and Celtiberians.

Obviously at some point, the issue will be solved.

Edited February 10, 2023 by Genava55

[CovenantKillerJ]

I for one would welcome some American civs   

Zapotecs would be the best first choice since they're the most completed compared to the others (with my desires for the Olmecs slowly fading away...), but a South American civ like the Chavin would be excellent.

Maya are a favourite civ mod of mine and would love to see them in, but not sure what the standard is for integration into EA is.

Edited February 10, 2023 by CovenantKillerJ

[Yekaterina]

2 minutes ago, CovenantKillerJ said:

I for one would welcome some American civs

Agreed, we have nothing from the continent at the moment.

[CovenantKillerJ]

If/when we see the nomads in the game, I hope Petra is updated to play them decently.

Edited February 10, 2023 by CovenantKillerJ

[AIEND]

25 分钟前，CovenantKillerJ 说：

我个人会欢迎一些美国公民  

Zapotecs 将是最好的第一选择，因为与其他文明相比它们是最完整的（我对 Olmecs 的渴望正在慢慢消失......），但像 Chavin 这样的南美文明会很棒。

Maya 是我最喜欢的 civ mod，很想看到它们，但不确定集成到 EA 中的标准是什么。

But in fact, we do not only look at the age, but also the level of civilization. The factions in the game must at least reach the late bronze civilization to compete with other factions. Otherwise, like AoE3, let the civilization of the Stone Age and the civilization of the Gunpowder Age Civilization (fortunately, the current highest level of 0AD is only the Iron Age) confrontation, the sense of violation is very strong.

[chrstgtr]

1 hour ago, Genava55 said:

Possible but I would say they are lower on the list because they are farther and less related to the others

This is specious.

Until American civs are added this will always be the case. If other non-American civs continue to get added then American civs will only become less related

Han were far away and unrelated before yet they were added. Earlier in the thread you said Xiongnu now have to be added because Han are now in the game. 

You’re falling into a self-fulfilling prophecy. The game should go where there is demand

Edited February 10, 2023 by chrstgtr

[Genava55]

2 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

This is specious.

Until American civs are added this will always be the case. If other non-American civs continue to get added then American civs will only become less related

Han were far away and unrelated before yet they were added. Earlier in the thread you said Xiongnu now have to be added because Han are now in the game. 

You’re falling into a self-fulfilling prophecy. The game should go where there is demand

Actually I am in favor of having American civs. Those civilizations are so cool.

I simply mean they are not interacting with any current civs. In fact, even if we had Maya people, Zapotecs and Chavin people, it would be three civs that didn't really have interaction during our period.

While the Xiongnu and the Scythians are an easy solution to connect the Han with the others.

[CovenantKillerJ]

44 minutes ago, AIEND said:

But in fact, we do not only look at the age, but also the level of civilization. The factions in the game must at least reach the late bronze civilization to compete with other factions. Otherwise, like AoE3, let the civilization of the Stone Age and the civilization of the Gunpowder Age Civilization (fortunately, the current highest level of 0AD is only the Iron Age) confrontation, the sense of violation is very strong.

True, but I believe that this shouldn't be a limitation as these civilizations were advanced in other ways, and therefore can be balanced in different ways for example cheaper, weaker units and etc. We see tribal mercenary units such as the Noba for the kushites not using much metal and have more weapon stat damage than some units for other civs using metal. And personally I don't find the discrepancy as that large as we are talking about the iron age compared to aoe3 which is muskets and gunpowder.

There is also the fact that alot of civs don't use much iron armour; the celts use iron weapons and very little armour earlier on and the Kushites still rely on alot of bronze armour and lighter materials. So from this I believe that civs with no metal can compete.

[Yekaterina]

1 hour ago, Genava55 said:

Actually I am in favor of having American civs. Those civilizations are so cool.

Agreed, we can have new units, new strategies and more!
 

2 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

Han were far away and unrelated before yet they were added. Earlier in the thread you said Xiongnu now have to be added because Han are now in the game. 

Han Dynasty had a fight with the Bactrians over 10 horses, then they won and got 100 horses...

Romans and Hans were aware of each other's existence but this was after the year 0ad and they didn't fight. Both sides observed each other but were hopelessly confused by the huge difference in culture and respected each other. The point is, whether they actually had some confrontation didn't matter, as long as they existed between 500BC-500AD, we have an excuse to add them; it's a matter of who comes first!

It's just a game, no need to be perfectly historically accurate.