Mini Factions idea

[Lion.Kanzen]

that was mentioned by Michael aka mythos Ruler

http://www.wildfireg...pic=15987&st=20

whats a Minifactions are faction from an existing factions or mixed factions

like

Pontus: greeks and persian mix

Galatians: Celts and Greek

Partians

Rebelds, Slaves and Pirates

Jews

Numidians

Edited May 19, 2012 by Lion.Kanzen

[hhyloc]

Mini factions would be fit for campaigns, but I think it's not a priority now. We should get the major factions others gameplay features done first

[Sef]

Im with hhyloc on this. I would rather see the base game polished, optimized and full of features before they add any more factions.

[oshron]

i wholly support the idea of mini-factions and editor-only units and buildings and have speculated on that myself quite a bit. i think it would be fun to include some fantastical/mythology content, like maybe an Atlantis mini-faction

[feneur]

Im with hhyloc on this. I would rather see the base game polished, optimized and full of features before they add any more factions.

Indeed, you will have to remember that it's different people who write code and create models/textures (At least generally speaking) So it's not just the one or the other New factions generally need only the latter, so at least won't interfere with more new features, polish in terms of reworking the GUI/existing models/textures it might interfere slightly with though, so I'm not saying it is completely unrelated, just that you shouldn't feel too worried .

[being of darkness]

it would be nice imo if the mini factions were like the indians from aoe 3 they would be independent, they would grow to some extent and you could become allies with them or enemies, depending on the civilization you will have and they could lend you a hand with an invasion, defence, trade etc but you won't make units like in the aoe3 but tell them somehow if you want any help to attack or defend

[oshron]

i think the AOE3 natives would be the better example; the EE2 natives arent as unique, they just look like the ancient equivalents of a given culture, whereas the natives/religious sects in AOE3 are alot more characteristic. ive never actually played the game, so i dont know for myself, but i assume that the natives in AOE3 used a similar set of buildings depending on the region. so, for example, teh mesoamerican tribes would use the same set of buildings and basic units while theyre more closely differentiated by different unique units, such as the aztecs in this example having jaguar warriors while the mayans and zapotecs would have something different

so, anyway, i think in terms of minor factions we should take a look at what other peoples are already included and, in terms of one-off scenarios and campaign modes, what other minor peoples could be included. for example, the etruscans could be included because of their general "importance" to the ancient world and their apparent popularity here on this message board.

as an extra note, one scenario-editor function that should be included should be the capability to have it so that any unit that is trained by a given player is automatically replaced with another one. i'll give an example from another RTS game but use 0AD's mechanics to get it across:

suppose that the final version of 0AD has an Alexander campaign which includes an opening scenario similar to the alexander portions of the greek campaign in empire earth. in addition to the Macedonians (the player), there's also the Thebans, the Athenians, the Mytileans, the Spartans, and generic hill tribes in this scenario. the Macedonians, Athenians, and Spartans are already regular playable civilizations in 0AD, byt the Thebans, Mytilieans, and hill tribes arent. the Mytileans play no military role in the game, so they should just be represented by an appropriate pre-existing civ, like maybe the Athenians. the hill tribes could perhaps be simulated by the Celts, or alternatively there could be a few generic "barbarian" units that could be thrown in for general use in other scenarios and random map scripts (generic random bandits, basically). in the case of the Thebans, i dont think there would necessarily be much reason to make an entire Theban mini-faction, but just simulate them in-game with the Athenians and replace their champion units with some editor-only Theban units. i believe mythosruler already wrote up some stuff for potential Thebans, so that could be used as examples: the Sacred Band Hoplite and the Fire Raiser. these units would also, in general, be useful for scenario design

anyway, doing something like this would limit the number of mini-factions that could/would/should be included to simulate "unimportant" civilizations of the time, while more unique/exotic peoples like the arabs, hebrews, kurds, nubians, and so on would need full-scale mini-factions for them

Edited May 20, 2012 by oshron

[oshron]

ethiopians would probably work best as a full, playable faction than a minor one (or perhaps the aksumites)

[The Crooked Philosopher]

Speaking about the mini factions, i think Parthians should receive more attention than any other mini factions because some faction like Pontus, Galatia, Numidians, Jews and the rebels have little potential to become a major factions in 0 AD. Personally i would like to see the Parthians appear in 0 AD's expansion.

[Mythos_Ruler]

Parthians will be a full faction in 0 A.D. Part 2.

[The Crooked Philosopher]

I have some suggestions for the Parthians, by giving the Parthians a sandbox scenario like Romans have in the "We are Legion" scenario against certain civilization for player to understand the Parthian tactics and strategies. Meanwhile players could develop their own countermeasures against the Parthians.

[Spahbod]

Parthians will be a full faction in 0 A.D. Part 2.

Sassanids will be better for part 2 because of both timeline (Rome was split after the establishment of sassanid empire) and general faction differences (we are going to have a hunnic horse-faction as far as i remember). Parthians can be a minor faction for campaigns and scenarios.

[The Crooked Philosopher]

Well, why don't just make them both (Parthians and Sassanids) as major faction because there's long journey before Sassanids and the Early Eastern Roman Empire would appear in the Part 2. Since this game principal was what if these civilization confronted each other in a battlefield, it would be fun for these civilization face each other in the custom battle.

Anyway, we should not stray too far from our original topic.

Edited May 21, 2012 by The Crooked Philosopher

[Spahbod]

Well, part of it is because Parthian army was completely cavalry based. We want huns to be our horse lords in part 2. Sassanid strategy was based on heavy horses, archers and elephants. Parthian strategy was just based on cavalry (especially mounted archers). Having Parthians as a major faction in part 2 and not having Sassanids would be like having Numidians in part 1 and not having Carthage.

[The Crooked Philosopher]

There's evidence that Pathian recruit Median infantry and Cadusii infantry against Marcus Antonius invasion. So why don't just create special urbanization phase for them to unlock these units. By giving the Parthians a special urbanization phase, we could turn a horse archer based civilization into a balanced civilization which incorporate both Medians, Persians and other ethnics in Persia.

I am fan like who have always anticipated the day when the Sassanid become a playable civilization in both campaign and custom battle. i mean no ill will against your hope to make Sassanid as a playable faction but i hope both of us could see our long anticipated faction could become playable. As a new member of the forum, i hope i could see the game become a success that no other game could match, but after all, i am not the one who made the decision.

Anyway i wish you good luck.

Edited May 21, 2012 by The Crooked Philosopher

[The Crooked Philosopher]

Another question, if there's no Parthia then where did we get the Sassanid Persia?

[The Crooked Philosopher]

Parthian Empire includes many sub kingdoms which includes Suren of the Indo-Parthian, Kingdom of Persis (Later known as Sassanid Dynasty) and Armenia. While other minor kingdoms which are less known includes Elymais, Characene, Atropatene, Adiabene and Kingdom of Media which gain their independence from the Seleucids but only to be annexed by the Parthians after several decades later.

The map Parthia and its sub-kingdoms:

Edited May 22, 2012 by The Crooked Philosopher

[nu111]

Maybe it's OT but it would put more spice in the game to have little groups of barbarians arising randomnly in the map and attacking the players... maybe there was something similar in Civilization ?

[The Crooked Philosopher]

Creating and spawning hostile savagers from nowhere and attacking players seems to be plausible for me, but i think it should have a different element when implementing such idea, for example they could have settlement which they could respawn from the settlement while player could eliminate the threat by conquering the settlement. As player conquer the settlement, units that belongs to these neutral civilization may become available for player to recruit and civilians from the neutral civilization become available for player to command. But the question is, is it fit for custom battle or in campaign mode?

In my opinion, it would be good to grant these NPC (Non-Playable-Civilization) the ability to build up its own forces and economy instead of spawning from nowhere like Civilization III where savagers spawn from a barbarian encampment. But for me such ability should reserved for campaign mode, other ideas like neutral facilities guarded by these so-called mini factions could be a good idea for custom battles but is it possible to adjust the savager spawning rate like Dune 2000 where player could adjust the sand worm spawning rate?

Edited May 22, 2012 by The Crooked Philosopher

[The Crooked Philosopher]

Perhaps we could implement aggressive adjustment rate like Civilization III where they could be friendly or hostile based on these adjustment. While we could add some Warcraft III elements into custom both battle map and campaign map, but will this have side effects the hero concept in the game because there's no level up concept in 0 AD and some heroes are not warrior.

[Alpha of the Eagles]

The Parthians (Persians) had infantry, but not elite like the Romans, and thus coulnd't compete toe to toe. The Sassanids spent time traning elite infantry later on.

Also, much of this "Parthians-only-had-cavalry" comes from the battle of Carrhae. But using this one battle as weight for an argument is like saying that on account of the battle of Thermopylae, we can assume the Greeks only used hoplites.

[The Crooked Philosopher]

Parthians are not Persians, they are pretenders and that's why the Sassanid Persians was able to overthrow their rule and forcing them to submit to Sassanid rule.

[The Crooked Philosopher]

Speaking of inventory, i think this a good idea too.

But is there a limit for a hero to have a certain amount of items like Warcraft III? Is it possible for soldiers and civilians to have a spare inventory like Frozen Throne?

[Alpha of the Eagles]

Parthians are not Persians

My bad, I made an inaccurate statement. I'm well aware the ruling class was not Persian indeed, they were a nomadic people from the Mongolian steppes. But the people were the same which the Achamenids had ruled, and the Seleucid ones after them. Persian. The Sassanid was the first true Persian line of kings since the Achamenids (which were half-Mede if I recall correctly).

[The Crooked Philosopher]

Inventory should remain rare because this may encourage player to venture into the unknown instead of burrowing in a fixed location and i do not agree with inventory shop like Frozen Throne where player can buy inventory.

About the mini factions, i wonder if they could have diplomatic stance where they may decide to be player's ally, enemy or remain neutral?