Persian race :)

[Belisarivs]

May be you are right, may be not. Yes the Alexander get all Iran, destroy one of the most beautiful city in the world (I see the Persepolis many times but its so great even in this time) , but we still exist.

Did Alexander really destroy it? I didn't know.

Arabs are take control over iran in about 700 A.D But we control them and some how defuse them ..., this is not the point, WE STILL ALIVE! since there is one like me ) we are alive.

Point lies elsewhere. If Persian armies were so excellent, it would be Macedonia which would be conquered. Not vice versa.

You can't conquer such a large nation permanently anyway.

Crap? I never call people Crap. This is my fact.

He was speaking about soldiers. You can't deny that not all of soldiers of Persian armies were excellent. Giving shield and spear to farmer doesn't make him elite trooper.

300? OK. You ever hear about just a few people (most archers) before Persepolis ?they hold Alexander for a month and then he kill them just with some "Unfair" (I cant find the good word, some type of using back door , spy or .. ) tactic?

And unfair tactics. He chose easiest way. He could let people of Persepolis starve to death. Would it be better?

yes you never heard since its American-Europe Hollywood not Iranian Hollywood.

Hollywood movies are good argument at neither side.

may be Iran is not important at all, but its important to me. I never talk about my home country like this, Even I born/burn in hell itself.

And that is exact source of problem. You are too focused and therefore not objective.

He said that his nation is of no importance to show that he can be objective and was expecting same from you.

It is not about insulting anyone. Point is, that you must deny your nation and any bias when making decision.

You can't choose your nation and make it overpowered, because everybody would play only with it.

Also, there are historically recorded battles with Persians hugely outnumbering Alexanders armies, yet these were defeated. What about this? If these were elite, they would crush Alexander terribly.

After all, any word that may hurt you or any one is my mistake, just sorry , I want to be here like a good member and don't want to make any one angry. but some time I must answer some things.

I don't think you hurt anyone. Also, I hope, that I didn't hurt you.

Edited August 16, 2009 by Belisarivs

[plumo]

It was not my goal to provoke your or to get you angry!

But the way you react does not surprise me. We are talking about events that happened more than 2000 years ago, and you feel offended by my comments that the Persian armies contained crap?

I can imagine that you are proud of your iranian history and genealogy, but that proudness should not take over the rest = your objectiveness. And from my point of view, it did.

Read the comments by Belisarius, he understands what I meant to get across.

And about small greek cities I wasnt talking about 300, I even didn't see the movie! I was talking about Salamis and Marathon. Yes, i do know something about history.

[Silver]

In 0 A.D. they will have the farthest shooting archers and best cavalry in the game. Infantry (two-legged) units will generally have lower HPs and consequently will train faster than other infantry. They will get a +10% (-ish) pop cap bonus, so they can train a lot more soldiers than other factions. They will have an excellent economy as well. Overall they will be a very strong faction that has the capability to overwhelm enemies if used skillfully.

So how does anyone else compete?

[Mythos_Ruler]

By best cavalry we're talking about more cavalry technologies available and things like that. With better cavalry will also come extra cost, don't forget. Things are balanced in many ways. Archers that shoot farther also have fewer hitpoints (Persian Infantry have fewer HPs). So things balance. Persians will have a good econ because of trade, which is a vulnerable way to get resources.

[Hiram]

However, on average they had less armor and focused mainly on long-range tactics (their bowmen were rightly feared)

OK, lets clear a point, the average of the Persian army, was ligther than the average of the Greek armie. This doesnt mean that the Persians didn't have heavy units. Besides, not all greeks were heavy hoplites armored with curias and bronze shields, people gets confused when they heard that all citizens of the polis had the duty of buy their panoplia, but not all the greeks were citizens. They had a complex social sistem in wich a big part of the population was not given political powers, and that group of lesser individuals, figth has ligth troops, and Im not talking about peltast, who could at least afford a shield, and some kind or armor, but slingers, bowmen, and many other who also travel with Alexander, and at least at the begining were as poorly equiped as the persian troops.

On the other hand, the ligthness of the persian army was not a military error; just remember how vast the empire was, mobility was greatly apreciated on the soldiers. The greeks on the other hand, were used to figth with their "next hill neighbour".

Point lies elsewhere. If Persian armies were so excellent, it would be Macedonia which would be conquered. Not vice versa.

The Macedonians under Philip, defeat the rest of the greek armies, thus the Macedonian were excellent, and the rest of the greeks were crap. The Romans defeat the greeks, thus the romans were excellent, and the overall greeks were crap. The Huns and German tribes, defeat the romans, thus the huns and germans were excellent, and the romans were crap... do you want me to continue?

[Mythos_Ruler]

The majority of the Greek and Macedonian armies were highly armed and focused on melee combat. The majority of the Persian army were lightly armed and focused on ranged combat. Read my posts again - I already acknowledged the Persians had some heavy units.

BTW: How's that Persian Chariot coming along?

Edited August 17, 2009 by Mythos_Ruler

[darthturtle]

This is a very interesting discussion - especially on how the Persians will be balanced in the game. It is hard to make unique sides in a historically accurate RTS since everyboby wants their country to be the best. I play as the Chinese in AoE 2 because that's the closest to my nationality. Although in a realistic situation, just because the Persian has more troops doesn't mean they'll be worse than an average Greek soldier, but in a game, like a few people have said, they have to be weaker for game balance. Remember, this is an RTS, and no matter how accurate it will be, there will be parts that will differ from realistic situations. RTS games are essentially "God Games", where the player have absolute control over their unit. Thus, no traditional RTS (as in, an RTS that uses the "collect resources, build an army and fight" model for gameplay) can be 100% accurate. I think the developers have to do a really good job at balancing the game so it is both fun and as accurate as possible

I believe the 0 A.D. team and all the contributors to this project can do this, and that in the end, we'll have an excellent historical RTS.

[Silver]

By best cavalry we're talking about more cavalry technologies available and things like that. With better cavalry will also come extra cost, don't forget. Things are balanced in many ways. Archers that shoot farther also have fewer hitpoints (Persian Infantry have fewer HPs). So things balance. Persians will have a good econ because of trade, which is a vulnerable way to get resources.

I know. I just think that eventually we'll find out that 1 civilization is much more powerful than the rest.

I guess it's the archers + extra population that really bother me. I'm a very big fan of ranged units and a ranged bonus to me means EVERYTHING, regardless of HP.

I can't tell you how many games and skirmishes I have won just because I upgraded my Chariot Archers in AoE 1 online play. Range bonus is HUGE.

Is the Persian economy a boom economy? Or is it fast early on, slowing down in late game?

[Mythos_Ruler]

Archers will be highly inaccurate at extreme range, so take that into account.

[MrEmjeR]

I come from Belgium, a country of no importance, not now, not in the past ...

You have to learn to see the truth, and we are talking about events more than thousand years ago

hmm maybe we dutch guy made too much jokes about belguim...

belgians are THE dumb guy's in 50% of all jokes in the netherlands

but actually there is nothing wrong with belguim. besides there bad infrastructure comared to the rest on the west european countries

Brussel is the base of the European Union!

they had some very important actions to defend our little Republic of the Seven United Netherlands we owe you our nation!

[plumo]

What I meant with my statement about Belgium is this:

I don't put the focus on my own country, I try to be objective when looking at history.

What Fzerorubigd was doing was mostly focusing on the great things the Persian Empire achieved, more than 2000 years ago.The way he wrote, was for me an indication that he was very proud. Nothing wrong with that but the proudness got in the way of historical criticism and historical correctness. I'm not saying my opininons concerning this are correct or true for everyone, but I'm convinced that most democratic capitalistic countries in the west have gone through stages where they had to face the truth, even tough it was ugly and not glorious. That's why I don't feel pride when 700 years ago we defeated a french army or 2000 years ago we almost beat Julius Caesar.

Edited August 18, 2009 by plumo

[Jeru]

After two world wars, Europeans have had enough of jingoism or just plain old patriotism or national pride. One can understand that. It's a cultural thing.

[blablahead]

- I see some times people thinks Persian have elephant in their army but the true is they never have. In some old war, Persian use camel (with fire in their back, to make them scream ) ) to scare Indian elephant and at that point , Most Persian army "never" see elephant before in that war! I think this is because we are very close to India.

The Persians absolutely used elephants, including at the Battle of Gaugamela. The Sassanids had a title "Commander of the Indians" because the elephant units were from India. That is a bit after the time period of this mod though.

And although the average Greek soldier was not neccessarily better armoured than his Persian counterpart, sometimes gameplay takes precedent over total historical accuracy.

[Belisarivs]

The Macedonians under Philip, defeat the rest of the greek armies, thus the Macedonian were excellent, and the rest of the greeks were crap. The Romans defeat the greeks, thus the romans were excellent, and the overall greeks were crap. The Huns and German tribes, defeat the romans, thus the huns and germans were excellent, and the romans were crap... do you want me to continue?

Sure you can. But it would only more reveal that you missed my point.

Point is, that it is recorded and well known that Persian armies often vastly outnumbered army of Alexander yet were decisively beaten.

With such a great numbers you can't be so decisively defeated even when you are poor commander if your soldiers are all so great.

None of your examples would fit to comparison between Alexanders and Persian armies.

[fzerorubigd]

I'm back

I read the whole posts and I think answer to this posts are not a good idea. Our point of view is not same so I just thank all of you about this game and I have respect (Is this word wrong or not!! ) ) for all of your idea even if I'm not agree with.

And we miss the point the point is : any help I can do for this game. I love to do.

About Persian stuffs or any thing else . This is my point for posting this thread

[plumo]

Sure you can. But it would only more reveal that you missed my point.

Point is, that it is recorded and well known that Persian armies often vastly outnumbered army of Alexander yet were decisively beaten.

With such a great numbers you can't be so decisively defeated even when you are poor commander if your soldiers are all so great.

None of your examples would fit to comparison between Alexanders and Persian armies.

What amazes me the most is that some people get angry when they are confronted with 'facts', that show a less glorious side of """their""" history. It happened thousands of years ago!! If you feel offended when I say that the Persian armies contained some crap, search for medical treatment. This may sound provocative, but these feelings of nationalism and pride are no benefit to history, what really happened in the past.

Still today Turks are denying or minimalizing the Armenian Genocide...

[fzerorubigd]

What amazes me the most is that some people get angry when they are confronted with 'facts', that show a less glorious side of """their""" history. It happened thousands of years ago!!

You are very funny Where an when I get angry? and is there another Persian in this thread? and yes its the past. But Alexander is past too. All are done. I like history, Its from my childhood , I used to read Persian history and almost any other (in any type, anything I mean) book . so I like to discuss (right word?) about History, any one like to talk about his/her favorite fields. I think we just talking about Persian.

The other thing : this game try to save reality , and in this game Alexander is not past,that part of Persian is not past, its now. just in this game.

If you feel offended when I say that the Persian armies contained some crap, search for medical treatment.

I say it again , I like to talk, not fight. But any one say this to me.

This may sound provocative, but these feelings of nationalism and pride are no benefit to history, what really happened in the past.

You must know some other nation with many difference with yours, Like Arabs(no offense just an example ). Then if there is no thing different for you when you think "What if I was Arab -or some thing else-" then you are right. you are right. but If you don't like to be Arab (or any other) then you just fol yourself.

Still today Turks are denying or minimalizing the Armenian Genocide...

Turks and Armenian???!!! Your point is??

And last thing is you reply to others post but you talk to me I fell you talk to another person but you target me just feel and its funny for me.

Edited August 27, 2009 by fzerorubigd

[Mythos_Ruler]

I still think you are confusing what I and others have said. We have said that indeed Persia had national units that were very tough - the Anusiya for instance. The Medians were pretty badass as well. What we talk about when we say overall the Persian armies were weak is because the vast majority of Persian armies were not made up of Persians. They were made up of Egyptian, Babylonian, Paphlagonian, etc. conscripts, not highly trained Persians. The "Persians" in our game is the Persian Empire, which encompasses units not just from Persia itself, but from its subject nations. The only "Persian" unit the Persians will use is the Anusiya, which will be very effective soldiers in the game. Yes, we know Greek armies had light troops as well, but these were not the majority. The majority of Greek armies were highly armed and heavily armored. These are just the facts. The Anusiya, the only true Persian national unit in the game, will be more than a match for just about every Greek unit. The rest of the Persian levied infantry, from other nations, notsomuch.

[fzerorubigd]

No I understand that and this is good enough for me. I just have problem with "forgot the past theory".

I just like the past and I'm happy with my country. just this.

Its like you are a fan of movie or book or any thing else. since they are not real (movie or book I mean) no body can ask you to leave all of that, you love it and even its not real,even if its not now, you enjoy that.

I enjoy Persian history, I love that. somehow like I'm proud of having such history. and I can't understand why someone want to destroy all of this, because they are past , I can't enjoy them? I am a HUMAN like anyone else in this world, Its human habit to find and enjoy some thing(any thing) , its not??

WOW, look like I'm an Idiot or something, yes I am and I enjoy that

[plumo]

OK. There is no need to keep arguing We only want one thing: a historical RTS. Sad that there are so few other historical RTS games in production.

[Mythos_Ruler]

OK. There is no need to keep arguing We only want one thing: a historical RTS. Sad that there are so few other historical RTS games in production.

I agree, although that's a good thing for us at WFG. There is a rumor that Robot Entertainment is working on an historical RTS though (which would be notsogood for WFG).

[plumo]

Lol. That makes 2 historical strategy games in the making

Sometimes I want to hurt people when i check moddb.com and there are hundreds of mods in development with zombies in it... Or WWII shooters, ...

I hope RTS survives with you guys! ( and starcraft 2... but thats no history)

[buggy123]

yeh...but this is free! FREE! plus the degree of complexity is probably far more than what RE can or will pull off. Personally, I'll probably get both lol

[Silver]

yeh...but this is free! FREE! plus the degree of complexity is probably far more than what RE can or will pull off. Personally, I'll probably get both lol

It obviously will be... no doubt about that, but I love ES and if I remember correctly, RE has many of the same people from ES.

Age of Empires was one of the very first games I bought with my money and played and really enjoyed.

If they are remaking it, I'm going to be extremely happy.

Although I'll definitely keep checking back here to see if the game is finished until I die of old age. Just kidding, I hope to see the finished product in a few years and I'll definitely play and talk to my friends about it.

[buggy123]

this might be off topic, but the girls in Silver's avatar are pretty. lol xD