Re-launch of for Honour and Glory and presentation

[Lion.Kanzen]

[Lion.Kanzen]

Merry Christmas 1000 A.D Team

I gitf my first great render to you.

[niektb]

Merry Christmas to you as Well, Lion.Kanzen!

Nice render, but do you perhaps have a more top-down render? That would better fit as main menu background.

[Lion.Kanzen]

Merry Christmas to you as Well, Lion.Kanzen!

Nice render, but do you perhaps have a more top-down render? That would better fit as main menu background.

as you want. now is yours.

[Mega Mania]

==For Land and Money==?

It should be "For Land and Wealth"!

[niektb]

Current list reads this:

Northern germanics:

-Vikings

-Saxons

-Allamani

Southern germanics:

-Franks

-Goths

-Lombards

-Burgundians

Romans:

-Eastern Romans

Muslims:

-Arabs

-Berebers

Steppe Nomad:

-Slavs

-Avars

But I want to make some changes to it:

Germanic tribes:

- Vikings

- Saxons

- Franks

Romans:

- Eastern Romans / Rhomaion

Middle East:

- Arabs

- Sassanids

Steppe Nomads:

- The Avar Khaganate (or Avars)

Mesoamericans:

- Mayans

Far Eastern:

- Japanese

- Tang Dynasty

Does anyone mis factions that are really necessary to implement and that are different enough?

Edited May 19, 2014 by niektb

[Lion.Kanzen]

So Aristeia need Shang and "the golden ages"(my really mod) add a Japanese faction.

[Radagast.]

I think it's pretty fine, the mongols will come into the game at 1100, so that's the second part where we add another bunch of civs (I don't really know if there are enough left other than the Indians / Americans, .. the Rus probably will come into action in the second part too as the British will with their fight against the vikings/Normans/French).

The Polish and the Teutonic Knights and The Hungarian could be an option for Part too as they are highly affected by the mongol/tartar/thurk invasion (just like the Rus, the Chinese and the Japanese are, also the remnants of the crusaders).

Essentially we can't leave out any faction of Part 1 in Part 2. We have plenty of action in the second part and for that part we will have the time tagging inplace to make civilisations evolve over time (e.g. the Eastern Romans could then be kept as one tribe instead of two).

Generally I would even try to abolish the hard-coded civilisation<->art-asset relationship. We should instead use civilisation tagging, i.e. each asset not only has a time-period tag but also a civilisation tag (which can be combined just like the classes now already are, e.g. one asset,e.g. kind of sword can be shared between civilisations, for example if they were in that close contact that it's just obvious they used the same kind of 'thing').

[Lion.Kanzen]

Mesoamerican instead Indians.

Lombards

Vandals

Visigoths Kingdom(Spain)

Moorish

Edited May 19, 2014 by Lion.Kanzen

[niektb]

Mesoamerican instead Indians.

Lombards

Vandals

Visigoths Kingdom(Spain)

Moorish

Renamed to Mesoamerican.

You are right about the fact that these civs were certainly important but I want to keep the amount of civs really low (to make sure that part 2 will be started early enough)

[Flavius Aetius]

I see the list as this:

500 AD - 1000AD

Northern Germanics:

Saxons

Vikings

Southern Germanics:

Franks

Lombards

Middle East:

Umayyad Arabs

Abbasid Persians (Sassanids are kind of early for the 500-1000, only covering the first 150 years)

Steppe Nomads:

Avars

Eastern Europe:

Bulgars

Slavs

Rus

Roman:

Rhomaion (Thematic Byzantine 700-1000 AD)

Mesoamerica:

Mayans

Far East:

Tang Dynasty China

Asuka Japan

Chalukya Dynasty India

Edited May 21, 2014 by Flavius Aetius

[Radagast.]

I hope you're not angry if we took over your post in our Roadmap topic? Have linked back to this post of course. Please tell me If I shall remove it again.

Edited May 21, 2014 by Hephaestion

[niektb]

But I still have some remarks:

The Lombards, Burgundians and Franks have extremely much in common. So much I wanted to remove the slightly lesser known: Lombards & Burgundians.

Yamamoto falls beyond the timespan:

The Chalukya Dynasty seems reasonable to me, I'll add it.

What is the difference between Cumans and Avars? (=> in what way would they be distinguishable in the game?) Same goes for Bulgars and Slavs.

The seljuq dynasty is founded in 1016. Also the crusades come in part 2, so the seljuqs should be in part 2 I think.

@Hephaestion: this list is about part 1, not part II (Like you said in the roadmap)

Edited May 21, 2014 by niektb

[Flavius Aetius]

Cumans are out of this timeframe I realized, so just the Avars.

The Bulgars (Oghurs, Danube Bulgars, etc) and Slavs (Antes, Croats, etc) were different peoples: the Bulgars were the descendants of the Huns, from the Volga-Khwarizmi-Ob Region, while the Slavs that went on to form Serbia, Croatia, etc. were from the region of Belarus and were a very different culture, although both influenced each other.

I agree that Asuka Japan is the proper nation for our timeframe. The Seljuqs should also be removed.

I agree Burgundians can be removed, but Lombards should stay. They were a very important part of the formation of Italy and dominated that Peninusla for centuries, and them being not well-known is irrelevant, as our purpose here is to teach History in an enjoyable experience, is it not?

Also, should we add the Rus? Very important in the first 500 years of the middle ages. They would also be one of the factions that extend over to the second half.

The Alemanni should be removed as they were absorbed by the Franks in the 5th Century AD.

A Better List:

500-1000 AD

Roman:

Basileia Toh Rhomaion (Thematic Byzantine)

Steppe Nomad:

Avars/Khazars

Magyars

East European:

Slavs

Bulgars

West European:

Franks

Lombards

Goths

North European:

Vikings

Saxons

Celtic (Picts, Early Scots, Early Irish)

Islamic:

Umayyad Arabs

Abbasid Persia

Far East:

Tang China

Asuka Japan

Pala India

1000-1500 AD

Roman:

Basileia Toh Rhomaion (Palaiologian Byzantine)

Eastern European:

- Bulgars (Bulgaria)

- Magyars (Hungary)

- Poland

- Rus

Western European:

- France

- Spaniards

- Lombards (Lombard Culture Italy)

- Holy Roman Empire

- Crusader States

Northern European:

- Scandinavia (Denmark, Sweden, Teutonic Order, Norway)

- Norman (Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, Normandy)

- England (England, Wales)

- Gaelic (Scotland, Ireland)

Islamic:

- Turks (Seljuq, Ottoman)

- Ayyubid Egypt

- Moors (Almoravids, Almohads)

Steppe Nomad:

- Cumans

- Mongols

Far East:

- Song China

- Kamakura Japan

- Vijayanagara Empire

Edited May 21, 2014 by Flavius Aetius

[niektb]

An updated list:

Northern Germanic:
- Vikings
- Saxons

Southern Germanic:

- Franks

- Lombards
Romans:
- Eastern Romans / Rhomaion
Eastern Europe:

- Slavs

- Bulgars

Middle East:
- Abbasid Caliphate / Sassanids (Mega Mania, what are your thoughts on this?)
- Umayyad Caliphate
Steppe Nomads:
- The Avar Khaganate (or Avars)
Mesoamericans:
- Mayans
Far Eastern:
- Asuka / Nara / Heian (Japan
- Tang Dynasty (China)

- Chalukya Dynasty (India)

[Flavius Aetius]

Lol I just updated mine for both halves. See the post above yours.

[niektb]

Regarding the Rus':

Most sources believe they where either Varangians (Vikings) or Slav people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rus%27_people

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kievan_Rus%27#Origin

Therefore it looks most logic to me to omit them as a different faction.

Regarding the Abbasid Calpihate / Sassanid:

The Abbasids emerged from a revolution against the Umayyad. The Sassanid are the predecessors of the Umayyad.

Lol I just updated mine for both halves. See the post above yours.

Oh, I didn't notice that

[Flavius Aetius]

The Rus would probably be better as an independent nation for the second half, because they had a lot of cultural differentiation from their Viking and Slavic predecessors.

I'm aware of the distinction between Sassanids and Abbasids, but they were both characteristically Persian.

Chalukya India, I realized, should be Pala Empire India.

Edited May 21, 2014 by Flavius Aetius

[niektb]

For part 2:

How about adding the crusader states? Kingdom of Jerusalem, Teutonic Order(Which shouldn't be under Scandinavian btw)

You double posted the Kingdom of Two Sicilies (Under Western Europe and Northern Europe) But maybe you did it because it had both Northern and Western influences?

[Radagast.]

First thx for those awesome list of both of you.

Cumans are out of this timeframe I realized, so just the Avars.

@Hephaestion: this list is about part 1, not part II (Like you said in the roadmap)

thx will fix it. Isn't the 'Part I' and ' Part II' and 'Part X' more useful to denote the order or priority? It's also useful for grouping the civilisations to know which to include in a release.

Thus to me, it sounds reasonable to think that way (but I'm open to critics):

- pick the major civilisations/regions of world history.

- compile those into a Roadmap as to when in the timeline one of those major players changed that significantly that we need to provide new art.

Then:

- create art according to our roadmap.

- tag it with one or more civlizations/major player variants + time [+ location/region/direction].

- let the engine handle the rest (which ever comes first, e.g. new civilisation pops up by a revolution/ civilization branching via tech research as we already have for celts and so on ).

I agree that Asuka Japan is the proper nation for our timeframe. The Seljuqs should also be removed.

I appreciate niek's & flavius' effort to limit our civilization count.

In this sense I wonder not that much if the Asuka Japan fit our timeframe but instead which of the Japan History should be modeled? Which is significant enough. If Asuka is, then we should go for it. If it's not and there was one much more significant dynasty short before our 'hard-coded' timeframe of 500AD (which I don't like being that hard-coded as it's artificial and not really important for the big picture) then we should choose the prior one and stretch it a bit until we can create art for Asuka Japanese.

I have definitely to read more about the timeframes. I'm happy you discuss it in good detail.

Middle East:

- Abbasid Caliphate / Sassanids (Mega Mania, what are your thoughts on this?)

In this sense I would go even further than Flavius Aetius and write it as follows:

- Persians (new Abbasid Caliphate art because of their significance)

- Persians (new Sassanids art because of their significance)

Tech research will decide which way you follow. If nothing is researched until the first occurrence time tag, then the engine will choose from both as per the region/location tag. Also it could provide a tech to choose one of both Persian 'variants' once the point of time of the first occurrence/revolution/split or whatever is reached.

[Radagast.]

I also wonder if the art/building style et al. really changed that much from one dynasty to another. Wasn't it better to abstract the civilisations a bit and introduce them as a tag for each kind of art. This sounds much more flexible to me.

For part 2:

How about adding the crusader states? Kingdom of Jerusalem, Teutonic Order(Which shouldn't be under Scandinavian btw)

You double posted the Kingdom of Two Sicilies (Under Western Europe and Northern Europe) But maybe you did it because it had both Northern and Western influences?

Shouldn't we let them be part of the franks and other crusaders? They didn't really differ ... I think we never should create redundant art and the franks were the franks no matter if in Jerusalem or in France.

Edited May 21, 2014 by Hephaestion

[Radagast.]

The Rus would probably be better as an independent nation for the second half, because they had a lot of cultural differentiation from their Viking and Slavic predecessors.

That's what I'm looking for. If it's distinct enough and they are important enough (and due to the mongol invasion I think they well might be) then we can add it as a target for new art creation.

What is the difference between Cumans and Avars? (=> in what way would they be distinguishable in the game?) Same goes for Bulgars and Slavs.

That's it. We should try to figure out the significant and distinct cultures or rather their variants. We can still subdivide into more subtly distinguishable sub-variants later on.

But how would Bulgars and Slavs be called under one umbrella? Found the answer here:

The Bulgars (Oghurs, Danube Bulgars, etc) and Slavs (Antes, Croats, etc) were different peoples: the Bulgars were the descendants of the Huns, from the Volga-Khwarizmi-Ob Region, while the Slavs that went on to form Serbia, Croatia, etc. were from the region of Belarus and were a very different culture, although both influenced each other.

Or would we just add both Bulgars and Slavs civilization tags to the common art assets (that's what I prefer as this dissolves the problem immediately as tags are easy to add and remove later ).

Edited May 21, 2014 by Hephaestion

[Radagast.]

I agree Burgundians can be removed, but Lombards should stay. They were a very important part of the formation of Italy and dominated that Peninusla for centuries, and them being not well-known is irrelevant, as our purpose here is to teach History in an enjoyable experience, is it not?

Honourable goal and I would love it to be the way you describe, to teach history combined with wandering through forgotten worlds of history. As history is the reason why our world is like it is currently.

The Lombards stay then. Will now try to update the Roadmap.

[Flavius Aetius]

The Two Sicilies thing is my fault. They should just fall under "Norman"

Yes, we should add a generic "Crusader States" Faction for Balkans, Middle Eastern, and Teutonic Crusaders.

Updating the list I made.

Edited May 21, 2014 by Flavius Aetius

[Radagast.]

I like the list a lot as it develops now. The Generic Crusader States is fine.

Though I have lost track which now were Germanics and Celts. As the individual factions like Franks, Saxons et al. belong to the civilization Germanics/Celts or did I miss something?