Inclusion of American civs in 0AD (pre-Columbian)

[Genava55]

I am opening this thread following the debate we had recently about following releases (A28+) and the inclusion of new civilizations.

In the past, the community already discussed it, but it didn't get the same level of attention:

I think it should be discussed in a specific thread, with a proper title and a proper structure, with a poll to know the opinion of the community.

Two civs have been worked on for a mod, the Maya of the Protoclassic / Late-Preclassic period and the Zapotecs :

 

We must remember that 0 A.D. is dedicated to a period of time ranging from 500 BC to 1 AD.

[Genava55]

For your information, I voted yes to the two questions in the poll.

My concerns however are:

1. Contrary to the other civilizations already included or to the candidates generally considered, the American civs are purely prehistorical civs. Other civilizations are known from historical records and classical literature. Even people without a proper literature have been described by neighboring civilizations and have participated to the events related to civilizations with a literature we know and understand. For example, Iberians, Gauls and Britons were known and described by the Romans and the Greeks. From those civilizations, we know the names of multiple tribes, the names of several towns, the names of multiple leaders and kings. We know multiple battles and wars they participated in. We know the names of multiple gods they believed in. For the Protoclassic Maya and Zapotecs, we don't have the same level of information. This is an issue for the heroes for example. I don't think there is enough info to find three figures from their period.
2. Currently, the designs of the Maya and Zapotecs have elements going out of our timeframe. Especially the Zapotecs. They have been designed for mods which don't have the same restriction related to the time-line. Although this is not really a big issue.
3. There are some concerns about the balance. The American civs didn't rely as much on metal than our current civs. They didn't have any sort of cavalry. Their weapons are mostly based on Neolithic technologies. Animal husbandry wasn't very developed too. 

 

Edited February 12, 2023 by Genava55

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

25 minutes ago, Genava55 said:

Contrary to the other civilizations already included or to the candidates generally considered, the American civs are purely prehistorical civs. Other civilizations are known from historical records and classical literature. Even people without a proper literature have been described by neighboring civilizations and have participated to the events related to civilizations with a literature we know and understand. For example, Iberians, Gauls and Britons were known and described by the Romans and the Greeks. From those civilizations, we know the names of multiple tribes, the names of several towns, the names of multiple leaders and kings. We know multiple battles and wars they participated in. We know the names of multiple gods they believed in. For the Protoclassic Maya and Zapotecs, we don't have the same level of information. This is an issue for the heroes for example. I don't think there is enough info to find three figures from their period.

We need a subject matter expert to come along and create a thread similar to @Sundiata's famous Kushites thread. Perhaps we can recruit for this purpose. 

 

27 minutes ago, Genava55 said:

Currently, the designs of the Maya and Zapotecs have elements going out of our timeframe. Especially the Zapotecs. They have been designed for mods which don't have the same restriction related to the time-line. Although this is not really a big issue.

So do the Britons, Persians, and Han, so no big deal.

 

28 minutes ago, Genava55 said:

There are some concerns about the balance. The American civs didn't rely as much on metal than our current civs. They didn't have any sort of cavalry. Their weapons are mostly based on Neolithic technologies. Animal husbandry wasn't very developed too. 

We are getting into realms where a more customized tech tree will be required. Same goes for the nomads, to a lesser extent. 

[Genava55]

15 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

We need a subject matter expert to come along and create a thread similar to @Sundiata's famous Kushites thread. Perhaps we can recruit for this purpose. 

Indeed. This area is outside my expertise and I have already too much to read for other mods I am participating with.

It would be nice to have someone with an academic background, or at least comfortable with academic literature, and the motivation to tackle this topic.

19 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

We are getting into realms where a more customized tech tree will be required. Same goes for the nomads, to a lesser extent. 

Customized tech tree would be revolutionary but it should be implement first then.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

Thanks for making a fresh topic.

with regard to your concerns:

1. I agree, the evidence will be a little more obscure, however I think this leads to a justifiable degree of flexibility. There is information, but definitely less when compared to the current civs. There is often a grey area between rulers/heroes and deities.

2. I think going a little over 1AD is fine, Boudica's revolt was well after 1ad. I think up to 100AD could be allowable.

3. rarities, gemstones, and actual metal can be justifiably lumped in with "metal" as a resource for things like technologies and champions, as in these cases I would say it represents pay or wealth. A civ bonus can replace their forge tech's metal costs with stone, they can have a class (1 melee unit, 1 ranged perhaps) of fast infantry to partially take the role as cavalry as well as the ability to train cavalry from captured stables.

Overall, I think if the art and civ structure are ready, the we can put together some good solutions that are both balanced for multiplayer as well as at least semi-realistic.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

37 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

We are getting into realms where a more customized tech tree will be required. Same goes for the nomads, to a lesser extent. 

yes, unique techs, civ bonuses, and team bonuses will probably be doing some heavy lifting.

[Genava55]

Just now, real_tabasco_sauce said:

2. I think going a little over 1AD is fine, Boudica's revolt was well after 1ad. I think up to 100AD could be allowable.

I agree, although recently people suggested to remove Boadicea due to that. I am not in favor of removing her but indeed she breaks the limit.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

Just now, Genava55 said:

I agree, although recently people suggested to remove Boadicea due to that. I am not in favor of removing her but indeed she breaks the limit.

So does Cyrus the Great. Don't hear anybody complain about him.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

One challenge is that the Maya building models need a lot of optimization and brand new UV maps (textures are badly stretched everywhere; perhaps a new structure texture is also in order). Zapotecs are a lot closer to ready.

[Lopess]

1 hour ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

One challenge is that the Maya building models need a lot of optimization and brand new UV maps (textures are badly stretched everywhere; perhaps a new structure texture is also in order). Zapotecs are a lot closer to ready.

That's true, I'm working with @Duileoga on this, your opinion and experience is welcome.

[Lion.Kanzen]

3 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

One challenge is that the Maya building models need a lot of optimization and brand new UV maps (textures are badly stretched everywhere; perhaps a new structure texture is also in order). Zapotecs are a lot closer to ready.

You need more props and more fabrics to differentiate the player color.

Not counting the classic jaguar skins as rugs.

It requires many props that don't exist in other parts of the world and its own biome.

[Lion.Kanzen]

to reach a halfway point you have to leave them(N Americans) last to add to the game.

They need their own biome, the game has more mechanics (hide troops to ambush, poison damage and fire will be more common, traps for warfare) and other exotic mechanics.

[Lion.Kanzen]

5 hours ago, Genava55 said:

Contrary to the other civilizations already included or to the candidates generally considered, the American civs are purely prehistorical civs.

Andeneans they managed to handle the Bronze.

The others just didn't need to innovate as much.No heavy fauna to create tough skin armor, they were only limited to padded armor.

And to work iron you need large foundries.

The problem with iron is that it rusts in these climates, especially near the humid jungles of the coast.

The only metals they worked with were ornamental.

This is behind the scenes of a series about the Spanish conquest.

 

some scenes there is an expert speaking English. Minute 11:24 and he talks about the maintenance of Spanish weapons in the jungles of Brazil as part of the production(multimedia) and filming.

[Genava55]

1 hour ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

Andeneans they managed to handle the Bronze.

Copper mostly during our timeframe. Bronze appeared later.

1 hour ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

And to work iron you need large foundries.

Foundries? fundiciones?

Absolutely not. I don't understand how you could say that.

[Lion.Kanzen]

4 minutes ago, Genava55 said:

fundiciones

where to cast metal parts.

 

[Lion.Kanzen]

17 minutes ago, Genava55 said:

Copper mostly during our timeframe. Bronze appeared later.

Foundries? fundiciones?

Absolutely not. I don't understand how you could say that.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallurgy_in_pre-Columbian_Mesoamerica

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axe-monies

 

Edited February 12, 2023 by Lion.Kanzen

[Lion.Kanzen]

@Genava55

I can be wrong the information is always updated with these civilizations.

https://news.mit.edu/2020/mesoamerican-copper-smelting-colonial-weaponry-0331

 

------

https://historum.com/t/mesoamerican-and-south-american-metal-working-in-weaponry-reason-for-its-lack.88977/

Here is an interesting discussion about the use of stone weapons over metal.

[Genava55]

7 hours ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

where to cast metal parts.

 

Do you know the difference between iron, steel and cast iron?

https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundición_de_hierro

https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alto_horno

https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horno_bajo

[chrstgtr]

15 hours ago, Genava55 said:

We must remember that 0 A.D. is dedicated to a period of time ranging from 500 BC to 1 AD.

Where does this come from? I’ve seen people say this a few times, but I don’t know what supports this proposition. As others have pointed out, that timeline isn’t strictly followed. The about page on the website also identifies the timeframe as 500BC to 500AD: https://play0ad.com/game-info/project-overview/.

(Personally, date ranges seem arbitrary until you start introducing gunpowder, but I’m more curious where this date framework comes from)

 

[Lion.Kanzen]

1 hour ago, Genava55 said:

Do you know the difference between iron, steel and cast iron?

https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundición_de_hierro

https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alto_horno

https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horno_bajo

I found something...in Spanish.

https://arqueologiamexicana.mx/mexico-antiguo/metales-centroamericanos

 

-----

You must understand that I do not live in a country with a metallurgical tradition.

 

In my Spanish many terms do not exist or are unknown since we did not have a Middle Ages as such, most medieval terms escape our knowledge.

 

Central America was isolated from the Spanish trade routes.

 

Almost all the importance of the colony passed from Mexico City to Lima (Peru).

[Genava55]

27 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

Where does this come from? I’ve seen people say this a few times, but I don’t know what supports this proposition. As others have pointed out, that timeline isn’t strictly followed. The about page on the website also identifies the timeframe as 500BC to 500AD: https://play0ad.com/game-info/project-overview/.

(Personally, date ranges seem arbitrary until you start introducing gunpowder, but I’m more curious where this date framework comes from)

 

It was split in two. With the idea of an expansion or a second game.

 

I was not involved in this decision, this is very old.

[Stan`]

The idea was to have Empires Ascendant and Empires Besieged both covering 500 years of history. Then you get Millenium AD covering the 500 years after that.

It would be nice to start the empires Besieged mod, with Parthia, Germanic Tribes, Tang Dynasty, Imperial Romans etc and make it available through mod.io.

[Lion.Kanzen]

1 minute ago, Stan` said:

The idea was to have Empires Ascendant and Empires Besieged both covering 500 years of history. Then you get Millenium AD covering the 500 years after that.

It would be nice to start the empires Besieged mod, with Parthia, Germanic Tribes, Tang Dynasty, Imperial Romans etc and make it available through mod.io.

Like a DLC.

[chrstgtr]

54 minutes ago, Genava55 said:

It was split in two. With the idea of an expansion or a second game.

46 minutes ago, Stan` said:

The idea was to have Empires Ascendant and Empires Besieged both covering 500 years of history. Then you get Millenium AD covering the 500 years after that.

Interesting--thanks for clarifying. Do you know why it is intended as a separate game? It seems like a logical extension to just expand the date range so you can have a larger number of civs play against each other. Not saying we're there yet, I just don't understand what seems to be a permanent arbitrary cutoff. At some point it seems like EA will stall because new interesting civs become less interesting (see discussion in other thread on why additional greek fractions are unappealing). Yet, EA will never truly be finished. And, starting a new game from scratch will be tough to get initial buy-in (why play with 4 civs when you can play with 16+ in EA, why split the player base, etc.). 

[Genava55]

23 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

Interesting--thanks for clarifying. Do you know why it is intended as a separate game? It seems like a logical extension to just expand the date range so you can have a larger number of civs play against each other. Not saying we're there yet, I just don't understand what seems to be a permanent arbitrary cutoff. At some point it seems like EA will stall because new interesting civs become less interesting (see discussion in other thread on why additional greek fractions are unappealing). Yet, EA will never truly be finished. And, starting a new game from scratch will be tough to get initial buy-in (why play with 4 civs when you can play with 16+ in EA, why split the player base, etc.). 

I think it was motivated mostly by the amount of work, the necessity to reach a good level of quality for each civ and the difficulty to balance the civs. Splitting the workload is not a bad idea, but putting a strict limit was not a smart way to deal with the workload.

Edit: btw there is less people working on 3d models and textures here than in any mods I work with. 

Edited February 13, 2023 by Genava55