A question and a suggestion

[Nescio]

This evening I've installed 0 A.D. and played a short game to try it out. I really like what I've seen so far. It seems to me quite similar to Age of Mythology, with some elements of Rise of Nations; however, I believe there's more to discover. Many thanks for all your work!

----------------------------------------------------------------

My question is, can horse archers, chariot archers, elephant archers, and ranged units on top of siege towers and ships shoot while moving (albeit at a lower accuracy)? I really hope this feature is or will be implemented. In my opinion the lack of this is one of the major realistic flaws of Age of Empires and Age of Mythology.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Then my suggestion. Currently Greeks are divided in Athenians and Spartans, if I understand correctly. This seems to me a bit arbitrary.

In ancient and classical times the Greeks considered themselves subdivided in four ancient "tribes"; (almost) every Greek knew which Greek polis/people belonged to which "tribe". The four options were:
- Achaeans (Northern Peloponnesos, i.e. area South of the Gulf of Corinth - not as large or important as the others)
- Aeolians (Thessaly, Boeotia (Thebes), @#$%s, Anatolian coastline approximately between Troy and Smyrna)
- Dorians (most of the Peloponnesos: Megara, Corinth, Sicyon, Argos and the Argolis, Lacedaemon/Laconia (Sparta) and Messenia; as well as Crete, Rhodes and its surroundings; and their colonies: Byzantium, Syracusae, Cyrene)
- Ionians (Attica (Athens), Euboea, most of the Cyclades and other Aegian islands, Ionia (includes Milete, Efeze, Samos, Chios); as well as their colonies, e.g. Chalcidice, Chersonesos, Ischia, Massilia)
All other Greek-speaking peoples, such as the Macedonians, were considered to be not proper Greeks; those usually lacked one of the most important characteristics of classical Greece: the specific Greek polis. The poleis within a tribe often had historical, political, religious, and diplomatic ties, which were used to distinguish themselves from others; some other characteristics were shared as well. The famous Spartan laws and political organization, for instance, was nearly identical to the system on Crete (both were Greeks).

In modern scholarship, the Greek language is usually subdivided into:
- Mycenean, which developed into Arcadocyprian
- Northern group:
  + Northwestern Greek (spoken, amongst others, in Epirus (Dodona), Locris (Delphi), and Elis (Olympia))
  + Achaean
  + Doric
  + ?Macedonian? (uncertain)
- Central group:
  + Aeolic
- Eastern group:
  + Ionian (in which almost all Greek texts are written, either in "pure" Ionian, or in one of its two most important (sub)dialects):
    * Homeric (epic Greek)
    * Attic (classical Greek), which developed into Koine (Hellenistic), then Byzantine (Medieval), and finally Modern Greek

Taking into account both how the classical Greeks subdivided themselves, and how modern scholars subdivide them, I think it would be much better if the Greek factions in this game actually are: Ionians, Dorians, and Aeolians (the Achaeans were rather minor, and could be omitted), instead of Athenians and Spartans.
- The Ionians could have naval, commercial, and cultural bonuses (Samos and Miletos were important naval powers, commercial hubs, and centres of philosophy before Athens started to become active)
- The Dorians could have light infantry bonuses (Cretan archers and Rhodian slingers were superior to their counterparts elsewhere in the Greek world, and Sparta enlisted huge numbers of helots as javelinmen)
- The Aeolians could have better cavalry (Thessaly, Boeotia, @#$%s, and the Troas were all famed for their horses and feared for their cavalry, which was used in relatively large numbers by the Aeolians, but almost non-existent elsewhere in classical Greece)

Another reason is that between 500 BC and 500 AD, the period of this game, the Athenians and the Spartans were only dominant for a relatively short time. The most important states in classical Greece were Sparta (Doric), Athens (Ionian), Thebes (Aeolic), Argos (Doric), and Corinth (Doric); roughly speaking, Athens dominated before the Peloponnesian War, Sparta afterwards, and Thebes in the middle of the fourth century BC, until defeated by Philippus of Macedon and razed by Alexander. In the Hellenistic era (322 BC onwards), Athens, Sparta, and Thebes were quite unimportant, little more than provincial centres; Corinth and Rhodes were now the two dominant poleis, which remained important centres well into the Roman period.

Featuring Athenians and Spartans seems arbitrary and inappropiate; replacing them with Ionians, Dorians, and Aeolians would definitely be much better.

[AtlasMapper]

I'm not sure to be the best person for this, but welcome on board

10 hours ago, Nescio said:

ranged units on top of siege towers and ships shoot while moving

I think I saw a topic on this forum about the animation of ranged units beeing able to shot from the top of walls. But I can't confirm if it is planned or not. About the ships, I agree. Depending of the ships when you place siege weapons, the firepower is increased. But I would also love to see hundred of arrows shot from a ship that contains archers, that would make the naval battles even more dynamic and strategic too. But I believe we are just at the beginning of the naval features in this game.

10 hours ago, Nescio said:

I think it would be much better if the Greek factions in this game actually are: Ionians, Dorians, and Aeolians

It means developers should remove two existing factions and create three new ones. I believe your historical comments are very accurate, but you should consider the question in a practical point of view: the game is in current development since years, and still in alpha pre-release. It is in development by a team of (amazing) guys working for free, with teams relaying since 15 years now. And we still have important missing factions. So even if your suggested historical modifications are accurate, I don't think it would be an efficient choice to change the existing faction. I don't know how and why Athen ans Sparta have been chosen, maybe you'll have the opportunity to talk about it with main developers. But for know I think it is better to stick with them. You still have an option: if you're familiar with 3D modeling, texturing and animation, you can also create your own "mod" that would include these factions. The game is very open to modifications. You'll find some help on the forum to create them. But in my opinion, if you have such art skills, that would be nice if you would help with the official task.

10 hours ago, Nescio said:

between 500 BC and 500 AD, the period of this game

Actually for now the game development seems to focus on the 500BC-1AD time frame first.

Moreover, you seems to be greek, am I right ? Between different projects, I'm working on Crete and Kefalonia island maps. You might find funny to play some games there

[sanderd17]

10 hours ago, Nescio said:

My question is, can horse archers, chariot archers, elephant archers, and ranged units on top of siege towers and ships shoot while moving (albeit at a lower accuracy)? I really hope this feature is or will be implemented. In my opinion the lack of this is one of the major realistic flaws of Age of Empires and Age of Mythology.

Archers currently give a bonus to ships: extra arrows. So you won't see them on the deck to shoot, but they do make the ship more powerful. It's similar to how buildings become more powerful. And ships can use these arrows when moving.

10 hours ago, Nescio said:

Then my suggestion. Currently Greeks are divided in Athenians and Spartans, if I understand correctly. This seems to me a bit arbitrary.

In ancient and classical times the Greeks considered themselves subdivided in four ancient "tribes"; (almost) every Greek knew which Greek polis/people belonged to which "tribe". The four options were:
- Achaeans (Northern Peloponnesos, i.e. area South of the Gulf of Corinth - not as large or important as the others)
- Aeolians (Thessaly, Boeotia (Thebes), @#$%s, Anatolian coastline approximately between Troy and Smyrna)
- Dorians (most of the Peloponnesos: Megara, Corinth, Sicyon, Argos and the Argolis, Lacedaemon/Laconia (Sparta) and Messenia; as well as Crete, Rhodes and its surroundings; and their colonies: Byzantium, Syracusae, Cyrene)
- Ionians (Attica (Athens), Euboea, most of the Cyclades and other Aegian islands, Ionia (includes Milete, Efeze, Samos, Chios); as well as their colonies, e.g. Chalcidice, Chersonesos, Ischia, Massilia)
All other Greek-speaking peoples, such as the Macedonians, were considered to be not proper Greeks; those usually lacked one of the most important characteristics of classical Greece: the specific Greek polis. The poleis within a tribe often had historical, political, religious, and diplomatic ties, which were used to distinguish themselves from others; some other characteristics were shared as well. The famous Spartan laws and political organization, for instance, was nearly identical to the system on Crete (both were Greeks).

The game dates between 500 B.C. and 1 B.C., and only includes civilisations which were at their heydays in that time (so Samos, Miletos and Crete have a much older culture, and lost important by that time). So the Greece civilisations we try to include are the ones from Classical Greece (and not complete Ancient Greece): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_Greece Where Athens and Sparta were the main civilisations (the Thebans were originally also planned, but later on excluded in favour of more diversity in the game).

At that time, the terms Ionian, Dorian, ... were mainly cultural terms. When comparing it to the current day f.e., you could say that the USA, Great Britain, Australia, Cannada, ... all belong to the Anglo-Saxon culture now. But although they are culturally bound, it wouldn't make a lot of sense to put them into one faction for a game.

 

[Nescio]

Let me rephrase my first question: can horse archers, chariot archers, and elephant archers shoot while moving?

 

--------------------------------

AtlasMapper and Sanderd17, thank you for your quick replies.

11 hours ago, AtlasMapper said:

It means developers should remove two existing factions and create three new ones.

No, it simply means "Athenians" and "Spartans" should be renamed to "Ionians" and "Dorians" respectively - renaming ought not to be too difficult - and a third one, "Aeolians" could be considered to be created - at a later stage.

11 hours ago, AtlasMapper said:

Moreover, you seems to be greek, am I right ?

No, I'm not Greek, just a classicist.

 

10 hours ago, sanderd17 said:

The game dates between 500 B.C. and 1 B.C., and only includes civilisations

Indeed, civilisations. Athens are Sparta were not two civilisations, they were just two city-states within the larger civilization we now call Classical Greece (they themselves called their shared civilization Hellas. All others were barbaroi.) We might call Switzerland a civilization, but not Bern, Geneva, or Zürich.

Take, for instance, the Peloponnesian War. It was not a war between Athens and Sparta. It was a series of wars throughout the Greek world in which dozens of states participated, which could be grouped into a (mostly Ionian, as pointed out by Thucydides) Delian League, led by Athens, versus a (mostly Dorian) Peloponnesian League, led by Sparta, allied with the (Aeolian) Boeotian League, led by Thebes, and several others. (Of course, this is just a convenient generalization: individual poleis often disagreed and switched sides during the wars). Keep in mind the Athenians, Spartans, and Thebans were vastly outnumbered by their allies. (Not to mention the fact that Athenian citizens formed less than 10% of the Athenian population and that Spartiates were probably even a smaller minority within Lacedaemon).

500 BC - 1 BC: the Classical and Late Classical times were just 1/3 of this period; Athens lost prominence in the late 5th C BC, Sparta in the early 4th C BC, and Thebes in the late 4th C BC. In the Hellenistic (335/323 BC onwards) and Roman periods, Corinth, Syracusae, and (especially) Rhodes (all Dorians) were significantly more important.

10 hours ago, sanderd17 said:

At that time, the terms Ionian, Dorian, ... were mainly cultural terms.

This is not true.

10 hours ago, sanderd17 said:

When comparing it to the current day

Such comparisons are usually flawed, but if you insist on it, it would be better to compare Ionians, Dorians, Aeolians, etc., which were all Hellenes, with English, Irish, Scottish, etc. which are all British. Your "Anglo-Saxon" could be better equated with the Hellenistic (i.e. post-Classical) "Greekness", when the Greek world extended as far as Bactria (~Afghanistan).

--------------------------------

To summarize my point: given the fact that it has been decided that the (classical) Greek civilization in this game is subdivided into factions, it would be more appropiate to subdivide it in existing tribes, such as Dorians and Ionians, than choosing individual cities as subdivisions. Renaming Athenians and Spartans would be much better, and shouldn't be too complicated to implement.

[Loki1950]

But most non historians will say where are Athens and Sparta as they assume they are the prime movers of the era

Enjoy the Choice

[Lion.Kanzen]

If you do this, so Romans becomes into Latins... Persian into Aryanians... Carthaginians may be Semitics...

and mostly of player get very confused.

the empires as the empires, the Greek cities as Grek cities, the tribes as tribes.

[wackyserious]

I agree, faction names should stay politically inclined and not based on culture.

[AtlasMapper]

10 hours ago, Nescio said:

No, it simply means "Athenians" and "Spartans" should be renamed to "Ionians" and "Dorians" respectively

In your original message, you not only suggest a renaming, but also some faction bonuses. If you change the name, you need also to change some things, like the description of the units, factions logo, and probably many other visual modifications. So it implies not just rename the factions, but instead deeply modify them -if not rebuild them-. So I believe it would take more work than you think. But your post and that discussion is still very interesting.

10 hours ago, Nescio said:

I'm not Greek, just a classicist.

Haha ok sorry, I just presumed you were because of the greek text in your signature.

[Zeta1127]

The Thebans are definitely wanted, especially for campaigns in Part 2, Empires Besieged, in order to round out the major players in the Hellenic world. There were plans for the Thebans when the Hellenes were split into the Athenians, Spartans, and Macedonians, with a preliminary History piece that was recently removed, but nothing more has happened since no civilization profile was ever made and the addition of the Mauryans, Ptolemies, and Seleucids has taken all of the attention of the art team.

[av93]

I think that its better add broader civs than specific city-states, altough probably things won't change now about the greek civs. BTW I think that instead of adding more greco-roman civs, germans (a broader term like iberian) and schytians would be nice. But is better to do it  rather than ask...

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

33 minutes ago, Zeta1127 said:

The Thebans are definitely wanted, especially for campaigns in Part 2, Empires Besieged, in order to round out the major players in the Hellenic world. There were plans for the Thebans when the Hellenes were split into the Athenians, Spartans, and Macedonians, with a preliminary History piece that was recently removed, but nothing more has happened since no civilization profile was ever made and the addition of the Mauryans, Ptolemies, and Seleucids has taken all of the attention of the art team.

I have a gift for you Zeta. These are the powerful Thebans, who break Sparta and spar with Athens. Patriots who stand against Philip of Macedon and Alexander the Great.

[Lion.Kanzen]

2 hours ago, av93 said:

I think that its better add broader civs than specific city-states, altough probably things won't change now about the greek civs. BTW I think that instead of adding more greco-roman civs, germans (a broader term like iberian) and schytians would be nice. But is better to do it  rather than ask...

Scythians are favs right now. New whole gameplay, is half Greek / Persian and  half nomad .

And interesting units...

and buildings.

[wackyserious]

Yes, please re-implement the Generic-Hellenes civ/faction

[AtlasMapper]

14 hours ago, av93 said:

instead of adding more greco-roman civs, germans (a broader term like iberian) and schytians would be nice.

I agree. It seems that germans won't be implemented before the development of part II of the game, Empires Besieges, unfortunately.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

10 hours ago, wackyserious said:

Yes, please re-implement the Generic-Hellenes civ/faction

Noooope. But it could be good to have generic factions available in Atlas for scenario and campaugn.

 

10 hours ago, AtlasMapper said:

I agree. It seems that germans won't be implemented before the development of part II of the game, Empires Besieges, unfortunately.

I think Germans fit better in Part 2 anyway. They had effect in Part 1 era, but their greatest hits were release in the Part 2 era. The Vandals World Tour was siiiiick.

Edited March 26, 2016 by wowgetoffyourcellphone

[wackyserious]

1 hour ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

,,,The Vandals World Tour was siiiiick.

[AtlasMapper]

@Nescio: Also, aside from this, I would like to have your point of view about some possible battle scenarios on Crete during the 500BC-(1BC)-500AD time frame. I have gathered some information, but it would be very instructive for me to talk about it with you. I know it is a bit off-topic, so if you're interested and have some time to exchange on this point, maybe you could answer here. Thanks!