Kimball Posted January 8, 2012 Report Share Posted January 8, 2012 Yeah, 6 factions is plenty. Any more than that and the game would be overwhelming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mythos_Ruler Posted January 8, 2012 Report Share Posted January 8, 2012 Joke's on you guys, because 6 more will be added at a later date. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cassador_Chris Posted January 8, 2012 Report Share Posted January 8, 2012 The more civs the better, I think. I mean, Age of Empires always had plenty of civs. I never felt even close to being overwhelmed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quantumstate Posted January 8, 2012 Report Share Posted January 8, 2012 The more civs the better, I think. I mean, Age of Empires always had plenty of civs. I never felt even close to being overwhelmed.0 A.D. civs are a bit different to Age of Empires. In AoE you had the same units shared between civs, with each civ only having a subset. In 0 A.D. the civs will be more unique, each having their own sets of units, although there are lots of similarities like spearmen and archers. I still think lots of civs are good, but we need to be careful when comping with other games that the analogy is accurate. e.g. if Starcraft had 12 civs as unique as the current ones (if that would even be possible) that would probably be overwhelming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oshron Posted January 9, 2012 Report Share Posted January 9, 2012 my general point was to give more variety to the game. historicity aside, dont you think it would be fun to play a game where historically accurate mayans, romans, huns, and indians to all wage war against each other at the same time? admittedly, three of these four civs or rough equivalents to them were all in AOK, but lets face it, AOK wasnt as accurate as it could have been (though was still quite fun). in my own case, i had thought it would be fun to recreate scenarios from several other RTS games in 0ad, like maybe the greek campaign from Empire Earth being completely redone in 0ad since it matches perfectly for that timespan, or perhaps the attila campaign from AOK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Escrime Posted January 10, 2012 Report Share Posted January 10, 2012 An Indian civ would make more sense than the Chinese as an addition to Part I. Why? Simply, there was more meaningful contact (direct trade; wars between Acheamenid Persia/Macedon/Selucids and assorted Indian states) than with the Chinese. And, in the likely event that there'll be a campaign based off Alexander's conquests, then there'll likely be Indian units floating round in the editor anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur_D Posted January 10, 2012 Report Share Posted January 10, 2012 Why can't we just stick to our guns with the civs we get? 6 civs is enough for the first part of the game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kimball Posted January 10, 2012 Report Share Posted January 10, 2012 Wow, that totally backfired. Apparently I need to be less subtle about my sarcasm.We're not adding factions to part one./discussion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pedro Falcão Posted January 11, 2012 Report Share Posted January 11, 2012 I'd like more to add more (different) units/buildings to each civ than to add more civs with less content. Yeah, in both AoE, AoK and AoEIII the factions were almost the same (AoE3 had less units and some were shared, so they could have different models, but it felt pretty much the same civs). Starcraft and AoM had only 3 civs, but they were very different between them, so it rarely was a problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mythos_Ruler Posted January 11, 2012 Report Share Posted January 11, 2012 One thing I did not like about AOE3:The Asian Dynasties is that the Chinese, for instance, had something like 20 different units. I like units with defined roles. If units are doubled up (say, 2 different citizen-swordsmen), then there needs to be a good reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kimball Posted January 11, 2012 Report Share Posted January 11, 2012 One thing I did not like about AOE3:The Asian Dynasties is that the Chinese, for instance, had something like 20 different units. I like units with defined roles. If units are doubled up (say, 2 different citizen-swordsmen), then there needs to be a good reason.We certainly don't do anything like that. In fact, we've reduced the number of units we had originally intended to include by combining the crossbowman and the chu ko nu into different rank states of the infantry archer.I'd like more to add more (different) units/buildings to each civ than to add more civs with less content. Yeah, in both AoE, AoK and AoEIII the factions were almost the same (AoE3 had less units and some were shared, so they could have different models, but it felt pretty much the same civs). Starcraft and AoM had only 3 civs, but they were very different between them, so it rarely was a problem.What other types of buildings would you have in mind? Personally, I'm under the impression that our building set is fairly comprehensive in function. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mythos_Ruler Posted January 11, 2012 Report Share Posted January 11, 2012 We certainly don't do anything like that. In fact, we've reduced the number of units we had originally intended to include by combining the crossbowman and the chu ko nu into different rank states of the infantry archer.Indeed. I should have made clear that I was replying to Pedro. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorfinn the Shallow Minded Posted January 11, 2012 Report Share Posted January 11, 2012 What about the Etruscans? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argantonius Posted January 11, 2012 Report Share Posted January 11, 2012 What about the Etruscans?Aren't they just Greeks with a funny language? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oshron Posted January 11, 2012 Report Share Posted January 11, 2012 personally, i think it would be good for scenario design if some (for want of a better word) less-distinct peoples could be simulated with a few editor-only unique units and buildings and perhaps a reskinning technology which visually changes units (so, for example, hellenes/romans could be "reskinned" to SIMULATE the etruscans) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seru Posted January 11, 2012 Report Share Posted January 11, 2012 personally, i think it would be good for scenario design if some (for want of a better word) less-distinct peoples could be simulated with a few editor-only unique units and buildings and perhaps a reskinning technology which visually changes units (so, for example, hellenes/romans could be "reskinned" to SIMULATE the etruscans)Egypt Pre Hellenic, or Babylon,or Hittite Empire are more interesting than Etruscans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cassador_Chris Posted January 11, 2012 Report Share Posted January 11, 2012 (edited) Egypt Pre Hellenic, or Babylon,or Hittite Empire are more interesting than Etruscans.They're kind of out of the timeline set for 0 AD (500 BCE-1 BCE). And Part 2 should be set for 1 CE-500 CE.EDIT: Not that I think they'll ever be part of 0 AD. Its very mod-able, so I wouldn't be surprised if someone adds them eventually. Edited January 11, 2012 by Cassador_Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCM Posted January 11, 2012 Report Share Posted January 11, 2012 And how about russian folk, at time of czar? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kimball Posted January 11, 2012 Report Share Posted January 11, 2012 And how about russian folk, at time of czar?Sarmatians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MishFTW Posted January 12, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 12, 2012 It tends to be easier to stay active and motivated when we have fewer responsibilities. The great majority of the team are students, so naturally we have a lot more time to spare during the summer and on breaks. Simply put, there are four ways in which we could be spending our time:StudyingSocializingSleepingDevelopingYou get to pick 3. Naturally, game development often falls by the wayside (because nobody really wants to be a hermit). The good news is, it's Christmas break, so there's a possibility you may see something from us in the next month. Stay tuned.On spot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ribez Posted January 12, 2012 Report Share Posted January 12, 2012 Aren't they just Greeks with a funny language?ehm... no! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hhyloc Posted January 12, 2012 Report Share Posted January 12, 2012 (edited) Sarmatians.Yes, personally I think Sarmatians should be a faction in Part 2 instead of one of the two Roman factions. Their history ranges from 6-5 BC to 4 AD so it'll fit in the scope of both Part 1 and Part 2 too. Don't kill me for this. Edit: My bad, I meant 6-5th BC to 4th AD Edited May 17, 2012 by hhyloc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mythos_Ruler Posted January 12, 2012 Report Share Posted January 12, 2012 Yes, personally I think Sarmatians should be a faction in Part 2 instead of one of the two Roman factions. Their history ranges from 6-5 BC to 4 AD so it'll fit in the scope of both Part 1 and Part 2 too. Don't kill me for this. My vague idea would be to add Sarmations in a big 2.5 content patch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oshron Posted January 12, 2012 Report Share Posted January 12, 2012 well if the sarmatians had a peak of only about a decade, wouldnt it be better to have some larger group from the region with the sarmatians represented to some extent or as a divergent path? maybe the scythians? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mythos_Ruler Posted January 12, 2012 Report Share Posted January 12, 2012 well if the sarmatians had a peak of only about a decade, wouldnt it be better to have some larger group from the region with the sarmatians represented to some extent or as a divergent path? maybe the scythians?he meant AD 400. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.