Proposal for the persians

[NoMolester]

The term persian empire even if originally referred to the achemenid persian empire is often used as a generic term for all the empires, sultanates and dinasties that have ruled the region through history and corresponds more to a region or culture than to a state.

We should consider also, the different meanings of persia:

-The geographical region.

-The people and culture.

-The numerous "persian" states through history.

Since more "persian" empires are planned for the game (Parthians, Sassanids and Seleucids) i propose that the name of the civ "Persian Empire" change to "Achemenid Empire". Besides i think is more accurate since the empire was more than just the geographical region of persia.

Just that a simple name change.

It would be less confusing for people who are not very informed in the subject of persia and its different dinasties and states that ruled the region in the ancient times.

What do you think?

[NoMolester]

Median Federation ==> Achemenid Empire ==> Alexandrian Empire ==> Seleucid Empire ==> Parthian Empire ==> Sassanid Empire ==> The Khaliphate

The ones in B are the persian empires planned in 0 AD EA or 0 AD EB.

I know there is no "definitive" list of civs for part 2 yet but parthian and sassanid are a "must have" so is highly unlikely for them to don't appear in part 2

[Mythos_Ruler]

Using "The Achaemenids" for Part 1's Persians is okay with me. We already use "The Mauryans" for Part 1's Indians. Let's get some more input.

[Spahbod]

I personally think it would be a good idea. After all, we already have Mauryans, Ptolemies, and would probably also have the Seleucids.

[sanderd17]

I think "Achmenids", "Ptolemaics" "Mauryans" ... are good for small spaces, but when more space is available (like in the history section), I'd prefer "Ptolemaic Egyptians", "Mauryan Indians", "Achmenid Persians" ...

[Lion.Kanzen]

I agree with that, when Parthians is coming can be Arsacid Dynasty?

[Mythos_Ruler]

I agree with that, when Parthians is coming can be Arsacid Dynasty?

Not sure about that one. The Parthians only ever became a world power under one dynasty, so there's no real reason to differentiate them from their culture.

[Lion.Kanzen]

Not sure about that one. The Parthians only ever became a world power under one dynasty, so there's no real reason to differentiate them from their culture.

and Sassanids,my hey are same Empire with different dynasties?

[Mythos_Ruler]

and Sassanids,my hey are same Empire with different dynasties?

The Sassanids were a Persian dynasty, not Parthian. This is what sparked the proposal to rename the "Persians" in Part 1 to Achaemenids and the possible "Persians" in Part 2 to "Sassanids." There is no such need for the Parthians.

[Lion.Kanzen]

Ok is fine. One is from South and other from North. So we have both, that sounds nice.

Edited November 19, 2013 by Lion.Kanzen

[Prodigal Son]

I think "Achmenids", "Ptolemaics" "Mauryans" ... are good for small spaces, but when more space is available (like in the history section), I'd prefer "Ptolemaic Egyptians", "Mauryan Indians", "Achmenid Persians" ...

I think this is the best solution, somewhat like the soldier/structure double names. It will make the game more accessible to people without "deep" historical knowledge.

Edited November 19, 2013 by Prodigal Son

[NoMolester]

I think "Achmenids", "Ptolemaics" "Mauryans" ... are good for small spaces, but when more space is available (like in the history section), I'd prefer "Ptolemaic Egyptians", "Mauryan Indians", "Achmenid Persians" ...

I agree with you sanred, it would be better to say "sassanid persians", "achemenid persians", "republican romans" when possible and "achemenids", "sassanids" and "Romans" when there is no space for two words, it would be more accurate and explicit.

The Sassanids were a Persian dynasty, not Parthian. This is what sparked the proposal to rename the "Persians" in Part 1 to Achaemenids and the possible "Persians" in Part 2 to "Sassanids." There is no such need for the Parthians.

Precisely. However, many people think for the parthians as a "persian empire" even if they were not persians, and sometimes even the seleucid incorrectly fall under the "persian" label. This is some sort of "popular culture misconception" that we have to have in mind while naming these civs. Even Baktria sometimes falls under the label of "persian empire" and many others like Seljuk sultanate, il khanate, and an inmense et cetera.

I think this is the best solution, somewhat like the soldier/structure double names. It will make the game more accessible to people without "deep" historical knowledge.

This is what i was thinking when i wrote the post. People who can't understand the difference between sassanid persian empire, achaemenid persian empire and the "pseudo persian empires" of parthia, baktria and seleucia.

[NoMolester]

and Sassanids,my hey are same Empire with different dynasties?

You see? even now people are mixing up the parthians with the sassanids.

No offence Lion sorry to take you as an example

[Lion.Kanzen]

You see? even now people are mixing up the parthians with the sassanids.

No offence Lion sorry to take you as an example

Don't worry XD. Only I was try to talk about Dynasties gameplay or Choosing faction that have dynasties, like in AoM.

Is my AoM/AOE 3 favorite feature. You can choose wisely between one of them XD. I want see in Campaign only. Is like to choose an unknow surprise. You can elect the guy of left or the right. One offers good Calvary Units the Other infantry. I love this gameplay to choose bonus units, tech etc.

Edited November 20, 2013 by Lion.Kanzen

[NoMolester]

This is like my "For Honour and Glory" mmultiple sub-civs proposal. Check it out, there are like 112 subcivs encapsulated in 15 factions from 476 to 1492.

[Lion.Kanzen]

This is like my "For Honour and Glory" mmultiple sub-civs proposal. Check it out, there are like 112 subcivs encapsulated in 15 factions from 476 to 1492.

The Answer for thst is this

They "do" to much factions" only clones some factions and change their names. XD is a thing that see when see Thracian prose or Celtiberians propose.

[NoMolester]

No, no ,no.

Its not like that, its like in AoM instead of gods they are Civs that corresponded to that culture.

For example, you choose the bereberes (in AoM terms lets say Greeks) and when you change to phase 3 (AoM: heroic age) you can choose between Almoravids or Almohades (AoM: Athena or Hermes) and when you change to phase 4 (AoM: Titanic era) you can choose between Marinnidor Wattasid (AoM: Chronos or Oranos). It is really 1 civ, the "Bereberes" and the other are more like "technologies to change era" like in AoM.

Do you understand?

Please if you want to continue the conversation answer me here.

[Lion.Kanzen]

No, no ,no.

Its not like that, its like in AoM instead of gods they are Civs that corresponded to that culture.

For example, you choose the bereberes (in AoM terms lets say Greeks) and when you change to phase 3 (AoM: heroic age) you can choose between Almoravids or Almohades (AoM: Athena or Hermes) and when you change to phase 4 (AoM: Titanic era) you can choose between Marinnidor Wattasid (AoM: Chronos or Oranos). It is really 1 civ, the "Bereberes" and the other are more like "technologies to change era" like in AoM.

Do you understand?

Please if you want to continue the conversation answer me here.

Yeah was a joke. XD yeah is better way when you have mini faction try to do a major faction.

You know how programming this may be can be included as patch in 0AD. The people don't have a strong position with this feature is not very great or important as town bell, but each time you play can have a different tech tree, and if are 2 changes of phase plus you can use this for choose god worship, or Select a Marvel, in Asian Dynasties you choose a Marvel instead a governor or god.

[NoMolester]

I supossed it was a joke but i wanted my proposal to be clear, i felt exactly the same about TW:R2 when i played it, don't play it any more i want to pretend it never happened.

That is something i like about 0 AD because every faction is different (except for greeks a little but because they were one unified culture actually).

I am curious of how the sassanids and parthians would do in the part 2, they are very similar architecturally and in troops, another reason to make the names more explicit.

[Lion.Kanzen]

we have Different Cultures and have many Cultures with their Factions, i feel the Developers can do it know to regular player.

I have some as favorite factions that uses Cataphracts.

The Question is same for Romans Imperial and, Eastern, Western? and Palmyra(the Rebels of Eastern of Roman Empire).

sometimes im asking myself its possibly in a map Evolves the Republic into Empire and Empire to the Western Empire?

[NoMolester]

Names for the romans should be thought carefully too, having a point of view that spans also into part 2. "Romans" is too generic if there are planned at leas 2 more roman civs for part 2.

I would go for "Roman Republic" for the part 1 romans.

I would propose a classical "S.P.Q.R" for the High Empire and "Imperium Romanum" for the Late Empire.

I wouldn't make any distinction from the east or west late roman empires in (in terms of having two separate factions) because they were mainly the same, except perhaps for the clibanarius and some minor differences in the unit skins, to solve this problem i would go for a AoM aproach (like my mod):

When you are using late romans, and when you pass to the third phase, you can choose if you want to be a "governor" from Constantinoupolis or from Roma. If you choose Constantinoupolis you would gain access to the Clibanarius and the Syrian archers, and your legionaries (limitanei, comitatenses, etc) will be skinned in the eartern fashion (and perhaps a couple of techs); if you choose Roma you would gain acces to the Foederatus and the Vandal corsair ships and your legionaries will be skinned in the western fashion (and again, a couple of techs). I think that way is better than having two late-roman empires with just minor differences in the units

[NoMolester]

So, will you change the "Persians" for the "Achemenids"?

[Mythos_Ruler]

What should the abbreviations be? Some of these factions are listed just for completeness, not to insinuate that they /will/ be included.

achae = Achaemenid Persians

sass = Sassanid Persians

parth = Parthians

rep = Republican Romans

imp = Imperial Romans

byz = Late Romans/Eastern Romans

gupt = Gupta Indians

hun = Huns

sarm = Sarmatians

dac = Dacians

goth = Goths

germ = Generic Germans

thrac = Thracians

perg = Pergamenes

sele = Seleucids

lusit = Lusitanians

nub = Nubians

heb = Hebrews

pont = Pontians

arme = Armenians

Any suggestions for alteration?

[Prodigal Son]

They look good to me. Could make the all a standard length but it might not be the best as description. What's it with the extra civs like Pontians, Pergamenes, Lusitanians, Nubians and Thracians? The rest could be part 2 civs I guess, with some of them fitting for both parts, but those are BC civs. Are they some minifactions that are sure to make it?

[NoMolester]

I was thinkig in the length too,

perhaps a max lenghth of 4 and a min length of 3, that would make the Thracians go from thrac to thra and the achaemenids from achae to acha but it would be less obvious for the achaemenids because of the mute a.

The other civs are in case that they want to make a DLC or for the part 2 but they will not be in the first release. "Just in case."