Roman republic or Empire?

[Emacz]

In a27, is 0ad trying to represent the Roman Republic, the Empire or both?  Wondering how far along "we" have gotten  
@Stan`

We intend to portray some of the major civilizations over the millennium of 500 B.C. to 500 A.D. (Hence the midpoint, zero.) That is an ambitious prospect, so in the first edition of 0 A.D. we focus on the last five centuries B.C. Perhaps in future expansion packs, more civilizations will be added, along with additional gameplay features.

 

[chrstgtr]

6 minutes ago, Emacz said:

In a27, is 0ad trying to represent the Roman Republic, the Empire or both?  Wondering how far along "we" have gotten  
@Stan`

We intend to portray some of the major civilizations over the millennium of 500 B.C. to 500 A.D. (Hence the midpoint, zero.) That is an ambitious prospect, so in the first edition of 0 A.D. we focus on the last five centuries B.C. Perhaps in future expansion packs, more civilizations will be added, along with additional gameplay features.

 

 

[Emacz]

5 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

 

this doesn't quite answer the question because he would still be in the 500 BC to year "0" category  So "we" havent even gotten to "year zero"?

Gaius Julius Caesar (12 July 100 BC – 15 March 44 BC) 

Edited Thursday at 22:01 by Emacz

[chrstgtr]

It is the Punic Wars period. 

I think it's a silly restriction that leaves out the most popular Roman figures. But here we are. 

[Genava55]

  We had this conversation in the past:

On 01/09/2023 at 4:19 PM, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:

The point is that 0 AD does not represent factions over a broad period of time.  It is supposed to be a snapshot, and the Punic Wars represent a period where the Roman Republic was still fairly functional and the soldiers were still militias.  I would endorse representing a Roman civilisation from a later point to be able to show Caesar conquering  Gaul, but that would involve a functionally different Rome with a clear delineation between its civilian population and its military.  

However, we have to admit that this opinion makes less and less sense. I already didn't approve of it, but you have to admit that the Roman faction hardly represents the republic of the Punic Wars.

[chrstgtr]

1 hour ago, Genava55 said:

  We had this conversation in the past:

However, we have to admit that this opinion makes less and less sense. I already didn't approve of it, but you have to admit that the Roman faction hardly represents the republic of the Punic Wars.

Statements like the one you quoted above are also just not true. 0AD's representation of civs isn't a "snapshot." For example, Ptol is in no way a "snapshot. Ptol's heroes are its founder (305-282 BC), a middle ruler (221-204 BC), and its final ruler (51-30 BC). That is not a snapshot--it's literally its entire existence. Compare this to the Roman heroes who lived after the first ptol hero and way before the last ptol hero. The heroes for Gauls spans an even wider period.

The rules and historical features are applied in an entirely inconsistent manner. 

Edited Friday at 01:42 by chrstgtr

[Emacz]

1 hour ago, Genava55 said:

  We had this conversation in the past:

However, we have to admit that this opinion makes less and less sense. I already didn't approve of it, but you have to admit that the Roman faction hardly represents the republic of the Punic Wars.

 

23 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

Statements like the one you quoted above are also just not true. 0AD's representation of civs isn't a "snapshot." For example, Ptol is in no way a "snapshot. Ptol's heroes are its founder (305-282 BC), a middle ruler (221-204 BC), and its final ruler (51-30 BC). That is not a snapshot. Compare this to the Roman heroes who lived after the first ptol hero and way before the last ptol hero. The heroes for Gauls spans an even wider period.

The rules and historical features are applied in an entirely inconsistent manner. 

I like both of your statements

@chrstgtr see why you should try "historical"?  These are the things we are looking at and trying to adjust to the best of we can.   I have learned lot working with @Genava55 and @TheCJ they have helped the most with some of this historical backing/tweaks and we have had a lot of input from @Friedrich123 @Seleucidson some the balancing, initial changes to try and still make the game enjoyable.  Even @SaidRdz has taken part in a few polls  @Atrik used to contribute and helped a lot with some of the OPP icon changes.

 

[chrstgtr]

37 minutes ago, Emacz said:

A noun, a verb, and "you should play my mod"

Every post ever from you

[Emacz]

6 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

Every post ever from you

 see why you should try "historical"?  I didnt say my mod... its not mine anymore

[Seleucids]

We can let Romans be republic in P1 and P2 then upgrade to Empire in P3

 

Sadly Discord banned atrik...

Discord organisation = nubia

Edited Friday at 07:50 by Seleucids

[Emacz]

6 hours ago, Seleucids said:

We can let Romans be republic in P1 and P2 then upgrade to Empire in P3

 

Sadly Discord banned atrik...

Discord organisation = nubia

that was kind of my thought process republic p1 and p2 empire p3, or maybe they have a p4?  Wouldnt Han fall into that category too though maybe? I haven't done enough research on them yet.

What did @Atrik do now?  Even without discord, if he wanted to contribute to historical he knows how to find us on forum or in game

Edited Friday at 13:37 by Emacz

[Seleucids]

11 minutes ago, Emacz said:

maybe they have a p4?  Wouldnt Han fall into that category too though maybe? I haven't done enough research on them yet.

P4 is a good idea. P4 is empire phase, which would be available to the Imperial civs: Han, Roma, Persia

Edited Friday at 13:46 by Seleucids