Let 0 A.D one RTS game that takes those of African descent seriously.

[Pureon]

As has been stated already, the base game is unlikely to have additional factions added to it now, I personally think we have too many already However that doesn't mean I wouldn't love to see more geographical faction variety added through modding.

Kushite-Nubians are a great choice for an African civ, the architectural style is quite distinct and there's a good amount of information available about them online. A number of years ago (before we started on the Mauryan civ) I also looked into the Bantu and Nok civilizations that existed during 0 A.D.'s time period. Unfortunately I couldn't find very much information about them, but the walls of Great Zimbabwe were of particular architectural interest

Moving over to the Americas, I was also very interested in the Mayan and Olmec civilizations which would have existed in the time period. One day I hope to see them all in 0 A.D.

[Stan`]

As has been stated already, the base game is unlikely to have additional factions added to it now, I personally think we have too many already However that doesn't mean I wouldn't love to see more geographical faction variety added through modding.

Kushite-Nubians are a great choice for an African civ, the architectural style is quite distinct and there's a good amount of information available about them online. A number of years ago (before we started on the Mauryan civ) I also looked into the Bantu and Nok civilizations that existed during 0 A.D.'s time period. Unfortunately I couldn't find very much information about them, but the walls of Great Zimbabwe were of particular architectural interest

Moving over to the Americas, I was also very interested in the Mayan and Olmec civilizations which would have existed in the time period. One day I hope to see them all in 0 A.D.

We will work on that !

[Cece]

I agree about the thing that should be implemented about the different skin color of the population of the Mediterranean factions!

It's important for providing variety in the game imo, so yeah!

[Zophim]

Very well.

The Kushite-Nubians, according to zophim's list, is one of the proposed civs for the Aristeia mod. Lion has provided information and references above about them, and there's also an older thread concerning them. Zophim even put together a rough design specification that can be found in PDF format in this post or M$ Word format in this one.

It makes sense to use work that's already been done as a starting point; so unless you have a different african civ you particularly wish to see implemented first, I advise you download one or both of zophim's current design specs (as I don't know if they are entirely identical) the M$ Word version as it's more complete, read though it, and make suggestions.

Further african civilisations can be considered once the Kushite-Nubians are nearing completion.

Edit: After looking at zophim's design specification documents, it appears the M$ Word version is more complete.

@ s0600204

If it is true, as I suspect, that you are very interested in the Aristeia mod, then this entire post of mine should interest you greatly. Be advised, however, that the information contained in my design docs thus far is provisional, and not the final word, as the information further down should make more clear.

@ rolandixor

Believe you me, I and others would be thrilled to include a Kushite African civ. As a matter of fact, you probably won't find many people more in love with the idea of depicting a Nubian civilization than I am. As has been stated above, I have indeed put out a preliminary Kushite Nubian design document, as part of Aristeia's Bronze Age mod; my design doc focuses on the black Pharaohs who ruled in Egypt during the time of the Assyrians and the divided kingdoms of Israel and Judah. If you're looking for civ compatibility with the 0 A.D. main game's Empires Ascendant timeframe (500 BC to 1 BC), then I would say that researching the Nubians of Meroë would likely be your best starting point.

That being said...

Most of the following I have stated elsewhere, but I will repeat it here in the interests of convenience and transparency.

The Aristeia mod needs both an overhaul and a refocused vision (and that will involve my redoing major elements of my already-completed design docs as well as altering the Aristeia civilization lists). 2000-500 BC is a long timespan, and, rather than having a 1500-year-spanning civilization free-for-all, it might be better to group Bronze civs by era/period (every 2-300 years or so, and this could be reflected in specific scenario maps), so as not to completely lose the sense of time and chronology. If I'm not making much sense, that's okay, I'm still in the brainstorming process myself, but hopefully a clearer picture will emerge as time goes on.

One of my medium-to-long-term goals is to create a comprehensive world political history timeline in order to, among other things, better ascertain the relationships, zeniths, and timespans of various cultures and civilizations.

I am beginning to have a fairly definite vision for how I think the Aristeia project should look and feel (as far as timeframes, civs, art, themes, focus, etc.). That being said, much (and I cannot stress this enough), much, much research on the part of Theodotus and me (and others who are research-inclined) remains to be done before I would feel comfortable with the mod moving forward. The chronologies and dynasties of the historical eras before c. 500 BC are much less set-in-stone and agreed-upon than later periods are, and so many, many sources must be evaluated, cross-checked, examined, weighed, etc. before even semi-definite conclusions can be drawn. Not only is it still somewhat unclear in my mind which civs to give emphasis to, but even with what would appear to be obvious choices (Egypt and Assyria, for instance), the question then arises which dynasties/rulers/eras to feature. Again, Aristeia's timeframe spans at least 1500 years! Our work is cut out for us...

The above is a major part of the reason that I have not yet opened an official topic for the Bronze Age mod even on the Council of Modders, nor have I been actively posting updates on the main forum, besides the fact that, what between student teaching and working, I have little, if any, time to devote to 0 A.D. until mid-May at the earliest. So, long story short, I would prefer that the Bronze Age mod remain mostly in limbo for now, until I have a significant increase in available time. That way, we can ensure that, once we get rolling, we have made Aristeia's design as correct as we reasonably could in the first place.

But in the meantime, anyone interested could definitely be gathering resources and info for the cultures and civs in this and any other mods that are either already in existence or yet to be created.

Edited February 17, 2015 by Zophim

[kumaryu]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only imperial civilizations coming out of Africa during our time frame (600BC-1AD) were those of Carthage and Ptolemaic Egypt. Kingdoms like those of Aksum came later. Lack of information on these empires is also a hinderance.

During the Punic Wars, the Numidian Kingdom (350-25 BCE) of North Africa led by Masinissa (202-148 BCE) played a key strategic role as allies of Carthage, and then switching sides to side with the Romans at Zama. Masinissa united the western and eastern Numidian kingdoms to establish a powerful independent regional power. Subsequently, it was the Numidian conflict with Carthage that precipitated the Third Punic War.

Numidia's position as an independent power was later illustrated during the regin of Masinissa's grandson, Jugurtha (117 - 105BCE)when they went to war against Rome, Jugurthine War (112–106 BC). Although the Romans won a number of battles, they were never able to completely defeat the combined forces of Numidia in alliance with Mauretania. Although known primarily for their cavalry, Numidia was fully capable of fielding an army that could stand up against the might of Rome.

Not much is known about why Rome which had defeated Carthage as such a difficulty with Numidia. Sources in antiquity blamed corruption among Roman officials as the primary cause for her failure but it may also be due to the fact that the core of the Numidian forces was made up of a full-time warrior class of men able to to be in the field for years at a time. Rome in contrast had to train and conscript her citizen armies in response to individual crises as they arose. That the famous Marian reforms (107 BCE) that overhauled the organisation of the Roman army and created a permanent professional army came about as a direct result of Rome's inability to defeat Numidia tends to to support this point of view.

Edited March 23, 2015 by kumaryu

[Circassian]

One thing that really annoyed me about Age of Empires series was the euro-centrism...

Its not just Africa the entire world is usually skipped.

This is not an issue of Age of Empires or 0ad, its a far far larger issue that we face today when we try to study "WORLD history";

it quickly becomes obvious you are almost entirely going to find (mostly Western) European History with a few mentions of other great civilizations mostly in relation to European powers.

History is written by victors and Western Europeans started taking over after 1500ad, began to really dominate in 19 century until WW II.

Most historical games reflect this. Only a few exceptions like Rise of Nations broke away from this.

I get this is probably going to only be included in the shape of a mod or expansion to base game (if ever).

Here are my thoughts (& dreams) on Africa. Southeast Asia & Ocenia, North & South America, East Asia. Gonna try to limit these civs to 2-3 for each region.

Africa:

I think Bantu (Africa's Celts), and Axum (or Kush*) also deserve consideration. + Nubia*. Not sure about Numidia.

East Asia:

Han China* is obvious. Goguryeo (Korea). Yomato (Japan).

North America & South Americas:

(early) Maya* & Chimu

South East Asia &Ocenia:

Malay*, Polynesia

Funan not included (lack of info)

The star* civs are my top recommendation.

I choose these civs because they were the most influencial in their region and we know quite a bit about them.

[Andrettin]

One thing that really annoyed me about Age of Empires series was the euro-centrism...

Its not just Africa the entire world is usually skipped.

This is not an issue of Age of Empires or 0ad, its a far far larger issue that we face today when we try to study "WORLD history";

it quickly becomes obvious you are almost entirely going to find (mostly Western) European History with a few mentions of other great civilizations mostly in relation to European powers.

History is written by victors and Western Europeans started taking over after 1500ad, began to really dominate in 19 century until WW II.

Most historical games reflect this. Only a few exceptions like Rise of Nations broke away from this.

I get this is probably going to only be included in the shape of a mod or expansion to base game (if ever).

Here are my thoughts (& dreams) on Africa. Southeast Asia & Ocenia, North & South America, East Asia. Gonna try to limit these civs to 2-3 for each region.

Africa:

I think Bantu (Africa's Celts), and Axum (or Kush*) also deserve consideration. + Nubia*. Not sure about Numidia.

East Asia:

Han China* is obvious. Goguryeo (Korea). Yomato (Japan).

North America & South Americas:

(early) Maya* & Chimu

South East Asia &Ocenia:

Malay*, Polynesia

Funan not included (lack of info)

The star* civs are my top recommendation.

I choose these civs because they were the most influencial in their region and we know quite a bit about them.

AoE was not really eurocentric. If anything, it was Mediterranean-centric - there were no Celts or Germanics, but we had Phoenicians, Carthaginians, Babylonians, etc.

[Lion.Kanzen]

Early mayan is know as Pre Classic.

The Preclassic period in Maya history stretches from the beginning of permanent village life ca. 1000 B.C. until the advent of the Classic Period ca. 250 AD, and is subdivided into Early (prior to 1000 B.C.), Middle (1000-400 B.C.), and Late (400 B.C.- 250 A.D.). Major archaeological sites of this period include Kaminaljuyu, Nakbe, Uaxactun, Seibal, San Bartolo, Cival, and El Mirador in Guatemala; Blackman Eddie, Cahal Pech, and Cerros in Belize; and Calakmul, Yaxnohcah, Ichkabal, Komchen, and Xocnaceh in Mexico. The Middle and Late Preclassic periods in the Maya lowlands witnessed the development of urbanism, monumental architecture, Maya script, and political institutions including divine kingship.[1][2] Maya society underwent a series of profound transformations between ca. 100 A.D. and 250 A.D., which resulted in the cessation of monumental building at many Preclassic cities and the inferred collapse of their political and economic systems, often characterized as the "Preclassic Collapse."

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preclassic_Maya

[Circassian]

AoE was not really eurocentric. If anything, it was Mediterranean-centric - there were no Celts or Germanics, but we had Phoenicians, Carthaginians, Babylonians, etc.

True, AOE 2 & AOE 3 (expansions changed this a bit) was more eurocentric than aoe 1.

Early mayan is know as Pre Classic.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preclassic_Maya

Thanks for the info!

[auron2401]

aoe2 wasn't even remotely eurocentric. at least half the civs were NOT european.

and 3 was about the colonial age, so it couldn't be anything but.

Edited March 28, 2015 by auron2401

[kumaryu]

Original AoE randomly threw together civilisations from widely disparate time periods and disassociated geographical areas regardless of historical relevance. Their choice of civilisations more accurately reflected interests of the regional sales and marketing departments of a global corporation, and their crass and patronising pandering to the demographic rather than historicity.

Consideration of whether the game is eurocentric is also somewhat moot if we are aiming for some level of historical relevance. So far 0 A.D. appears to have kept a better grip on historicity by concentrating on civilisations and ethnic groups that came into contact with the Hellenistic empire and Republican Rome. I think this is what makes 0 A.D. more compelling than AoE.

I do believe however that even within the focus of Republican Rome and Hellenistic civilisations, there are factions that we could consider adding such as the Numidians (as in my previous post above) that would introduce more "diversity" without sacrificing historicity.

Edited March 27, 2015 by kumaryu

[Sighvatr]

0 A.D. does have a better grip on history than Age of Empires, but 0 A.D. still lacks plenty of relevance between each faction as each faction is borrowed from a different time period. That is another reason why Numidians could be added in easily.

Edited March 27, 2015 by Sighvatr

[Circassian]

aoe2 wasn't even remotely eurocentric. at least half the civs were NOT european.

and was about the colonial age, so it couldn't be anything but.

Lets just agree to disagree on the first and I accept your second point. Anyway I am wasting your time;

after reading kumaryu and Sighvatr's post I have a better understanding on how my "global empires from all over the world" idea is in conflict with the goals of 0AD.

---

Personal stuff... Off topic:

Dont get me wrong: I like the game the way it is, and I love the way its progressing. As a person who played from aoe 1 through all expansions &clones (Cossacks, RoN, EE) I haven't been this excited since aok was announced.

I just would have prefered a more of a World History game direction; where (as absurd as it may be) one player might take control Han Chinese and battle against the Romans. In an arena like map.

While the setting would be absolutely ahistorical, the individual civs would be presented in a historically accurate way. Not much different than aoe games. Geographically still disconnected but same/comparable time period.

Campaigns themselves would be historically sensible with perhaps some "what ifs scenarios" Han conquest of Korea / Rome vs Carthage in punic wars. ex. what ifs: and old Alexander turns west against Carthage & Rome.

---

Back to topic:

Africa

If we are going to focus on civs that were in contact with Helenistic and Roman civs, I can only think of adding Nubia and Numidians (Numidians will be a large part of Carthagian army in anycase).

Axum might be slighly too far away from action but if Mauryan Empire is in why not I guess... right?

Btw: lets take a look at: Eastern Europe. There is a big gap here in the game right now. Do you guys agree?

How about Sarmatia & Scythians, Bosphoran Kingdom, Colchis & Iberia (Caucasus). Can think of alot more.

Edited March 27, 2015 by Circassian

[Stan`]

For Han vs romans just download the rote mod

[Circassian]

For Han vs romans just download the rote mod

Will do. Thanks