Time frame for 0 A.D.

[feneur]

6 hours ago, Sundiata said:

By the way, i know the Colosseum was only completed in 80AD, but 0AD's timeframe is chosen so utterly randomly, without any regard to what was actually happening around the world in that time, it is something that shouldn't be dogmatically adhered to, in my opinion. Romans without the Colosseum, or Imperial overtones in late-game,  is a bitter cookie for Rome-lovers coming to 0AD... I'd argue to expand 0AD's base-timeframe beginning  from around The Bronze Age Collapse (1200-600BCE) and advent of the Iron Age, all the way through to the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, and the onset of the dark ages. There'd be so much more possibilities for a single game! (Neo-)Assyrians, (Neo-)Babylonians, Germanics and Dacians for example....

The time frame chosen for the game was/is 500 before, 500 after, "0 A.D.", so most of what you suggest is still possible. It was only to try and lower the work-load a bit that it was decided to split the game up into two different parts, not that e.g. Imperial Rome was deemed uninteresting  As for the exact time when something was created I believe there has been some liberty taken with that already, but I would guess that leaving the Colosseum for the next part is a better choice

[Lion.Kanzen]

6 hours ago, Sundiata said:

 

  Hide contents

 

I think it would be nice for subsequent building-models to focus on the historically iconic structures/monuments/historic special buildings of each civ. I don't see why unique buildings should be limited to 1 or 2. They're the perfect way to diversify the civs, and create unique abilities/playing styles for each. I also don't see a problem in one civ having only 2 special buildings, and another 4 for example. There's plenty of ways to balance these things. So a civ like the Romans can have all it's iconic structures including the Colosseum, and make them feel more bombastic, like real Romans. Gauls, Britons and Iberians for example would have only 2 special buildings because they're weren't really the greatest monument builders. This would add some nice contrast between the Mediterranean civs and the "barbarian" civs. 

By the way, i know the Colosseum was only completed in 80AD, but 0AD's timeframe is chosen so utterly randomly, without any regard to what was actually happening around the world in that time, it is something that shouldn't be dogmatically adhered to, in my opinion. Romans without the Colosseum, or Imperial overtones in late-game,  is a bitter cookie for Rome-lovers coming to 0AD... I'd argue to expand 0AD's base-timeframe beginning  from around The Bronze Age Collapse (1200-600BCE) and advent of the Iron Age, all the way through to the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, and the onset of the dark ages. There'd be so much more possibilities for a single game! (Neo-)Assyrians, (Neo-)Babylonians, Germanics and Dacians for example....

 

 

republican romans isn't the last roman faction in the official game.

There will be at last 3 Romans factions. Imperial, Eastern Romans and may be Late Western Romans.

 

[Sundiata]

@feneur Thanks for explaining. I'm aware of a second part being discussed, but my concern over the past years has been that maybe deferring stuff to a part two (that may take another decade) to lower the workload, is actually making research more difficult, because what can be referenced becomes quite arbitrarily defined by the 500BCE-1AD period, while a lot of really interesting and interconnected stuff was happening the 2 centuries or so before and after these cut-off points. I understand that there is indeed some wiggle-room for which I'm grateful, I just think the wiggle-room should be formally extended to Classical Antiquity, and let part two begin from the start of the Middle Ages, the 5th century, after the collapse of the Western Roman Empire. Those timeframes are at least recognisable to historians and amateurs alike. I don't think 500BCE means a whole lot to anyone in particular.

@Lion.Kanzen Also having different Roman factions seems a little weird to me, but maybe that's just me? Republican Romans evolving in to Imperial Romans over the course of the different phases seems so cool to me. Byzantines would be the Eastern Romans in part 2. Logical? 

Guys, by the way, I know I'm spewing out a bunch of wild ideas out here, and I don't want you to think that I expect you to do anything with it. I just see the forums as the perfect place for brainstorming. I won't get offended if these ideas get mercilessly shot down, I'm just testing the limits of the game , and I thank you for your patience with me and actually reading these suggestions. Just wanted to clarify that.

[Lion.Kanzen]

2 minutes ago, Sundiata said:

@feneur Thanks for explaining. I'm aware of a second part being discussed, but my concern over the past years has been that maybe deferring stuff to a part two (that may take another decade) to lower the workload, is actually making research more difficult, because what can be referenced becomes quite arbitrarily defined by the 500BCE-1AD period, while a lot of really interesting and interconnected stuff was happening the 2 centuries or so before and after these cut-off points. I understand that there is indeed some wiggle-room for which I'm grateful, I just think the wiggle-room should be formally extended to Classical Antiquity, and let part two begin from the start of the Middle Ages, the 5th century, after the collapse of the Western Roman Empire. Those timeframes are at least recognisable to historians and amateurs alike. I don't think 500BCE means a whole lot to anyone in particular.

@Lion.Kanzen Also having different Roman factions seems a little weird to me, but maybe that's just me? Republican Romans evolving in to Imperial Romans over the course of the different phases seems so cool to me. Byzantines would be the Eastern Romans in part 2. Logical? 

Guys, by the way, I know I'm spewing out a bunch of wild ideas out here, and I don't want you to think that I expect you to do anything with it. I just see the forums as the perfect place for brainstorming. I won't get offended if these ideas get mercilessly shot down, I'm just testing the limits of the game , and I thank you for your patience with me and actually reading these suggestions. Just wanted to clarify that.

I have an idea   something similar to AoE 3 where revolutions become into other countries, like Englishs into a US Americans.

The faction can have this proof of concept can be Seleucids into another Sub faction. Like Pontus, or Pergamon.

[Nescio]

Off topic.

Sundiata: regardless which year you choose, any cut-off point is always arbitrary. Time is a continuum and (in your own words) “a lot of really interesting and interconnected stuff was happening the 2 centuries or so before and after” can't be avoided. Therefore humanity typically reverts to traditional years, which although inherently wrong are actually quite convenient starting dates:

• Antiquity:
  • Archaic period: 753 (legendary foundation Rome)
  • Classical period: 480 (Athens burned to the ground, Greeks defeated the Persians)
  • Hellenistic period: 323 (death Alexander)
  • Principate (Early Roman Empire): 27 B.C. (Octavian defeats Antony and becomes Augustus)
  • Dominate (Late Roman Empire): 284 A.D. (Diocletian becomes emperor)
• Middle Ages: 476 (fall of Rome)
• Renaissance: 1406 (Florence conquers Pisa)
• Early Modern Era:
  • [Eastern Hemisphere]: 1453 (fall of Constantinople, end of Roman Empire)
  • [Western Hemisphere]: 1492 (discovery of America)
• Modern Era
  • [USA]: 1776 (declaration of independence)
  • [France]: 1789 (French revolution)
  • [Latin America]: 1808 (Napoleon invades Spain, de facto start independence colonies)
  • [most of Western Europe]: 1815 (Waterloo, Congress of Vienna)
  • [Germany, Italy]: 1871 (German and Italian unifications completed)
  • [Russia]: 1917 (Russian revolution)

I always assumed 0 A.D.'s work-in-progress-part-one excludes the Archaic period and covers the Classical and Hellenistic periods (regardless of the arbitrary cut-off years) and 0 A.D.'s intended-but-probably-more-realistic-to-be-scrapped-part-two covers the principate and dominate Roman empire and excludes the Byzantine Roman empire.

[Sundiata]

The end of the Bronze Age (Late Bronze Age Collapse), and the beginning of the Iron Age and associated Classical Antiquity, although having variable dates in different locations, aren't arbitrary at all. They reflect the end of one major age, and the beginning of a new one. For most civs in 0AD, that date would be somewhere between 1000 - 600BCE, when things really start changing. That's when we see the collapse of the ancient palace economies of the Eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East, and the upcoming market economies of the great trade-empires. Ancient theocratic societies start making way for ambitious imperial powerhouses bent on conquest and higher volume, long distance trade. 

Bronze Age forms a continuum. Classical Iron Age forms a continuum. Middle Ages form a continuum. Off course there is some continuity in the transition between the major ages, but those periods are mostly marked by extreme volatility, widespread conflict, disaster and especially obscurity. 

I want to emphasise that I'm speaking in very broad terms here. I just think a less precisely defined timeframe like Classical Antiquity, is better for 0AD than a 500BC-1AD timeframe, for a number of reasons, like marketability, broadening the spectrum of eligible references, allowing a single civ to play out it's history instead of being chopped in to different parts (in-game continuity), the potential to include more of people's favourite civs in the future.

 

0AD is a Historical RTS set in Classical Antiquity

vs

0AD is a Historical RTS focusing on the years between 500 B.C. and 1 B.C.

[Lion.Kanzen]

2 minutes ago, Sundiata said:

The end of the Bronze Age (Late Bronze Age Collapse), and the beginning of the Iron Age and associated Classical Antiquity, although having variable dates in different locations, aren't arbitrary at all. They reflect the end of one major age, and the beginning of a new one. For most civs in 0AD, that date would be somewhere between 1000 - 600BCE, when things really start changing. That's when we see the collapse of the ancient palace economies of the Eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East, and the upcoming market economies of the great trade-empires. Ancient theocratic societies start making way for ambitious imperial powerhouses bent on conquest and higher volume, long distance trade. 

Bronze Age forms a continuum. Classical Iron Age forms a continuum. Middle Ages form a continuum. Off course there is some continuity in the transition between the major ages, but those periods are mostly marked by extreme volatility, widespread conflict, disaster and especially obscurity. 

I want to emphasise that I'm speaking in very broad terms here. I just think a less precisely defined timeframe like Classical Antiquity, is better for 0AD than a 500BC-1AD timeframe, for a number of reasons, like marketability, broadening the spectrum of eligible references, allowing a single civ to play out it's history instead of being chopped in to different parts (in-game continuity), the potential to include more of people's favourite civs in the future.

 

0AD is a Historical RTS set in Classical Antiquity

vs

0AD is a Historical RTS focusing on the years between 500 B.C. and 1 B.C.

The first part.

[Nescio]

First of all, I don't disagree with you, Sundiata. Nevertheless I can't resist the temptation to problematize things, therefore let's continue this interesting off-topic discussion

6 hours ago, Sundiata said:

Classical Antiquity

I'm assuming you simply mean Antiquity (the era of Classical civilizations, c. 1000 B.C. to 500 A.D.), not Classical Antiquity (the period of Athens and other Greek city states, clearly defined as 480 to 323 B.C.).

[EDIT: although historians (those who study everything up to now) often use “Classical” and “Antiquity” as more or less equivalents, classicists (those who study Antiquity) reserve “Classical period” typically for the 480-323 BC timeframe (not necessarily restricted to Greece) and “Antiquity” for c. 800 BC-500 AD, which I do as well.]

6 hours ago, Sundiata said:

Ancient theocratic societies start making way for ambitious imperial powerhouses bent on conquest and higher volume, long distance trade. 

This simplistic view is blatantly wrong in all respects.

6 hours ago, Sundiata said:

Bronze Age forms a continuum. Classical Iron Age forms a continuum. Middle Ages form a continuum.

Yes, yes, and yes. However:

6 hours ago, Sundiata said:

Off course there is some continuity in the transition between the major ages, but those periods are mostly marked by extreme volatility, widespread conflict, disaster and especially obscurity.

The same can be argued for many other periods inside those “major ages”, e.g. we know very little of the 3rd C AD (transition from Principate to Dominate) or the 7th C AD (transition from Migration period to Carolingian period), but far more from the 4th, 5th, and 6th C AD. And the only reason why the Middle Ages are typically dated 476-1453 is because the transitions are impossible to pinpoint. Late Antiquity is in many respects (literature, legislation, Christianity) markedly different than Classical, Hellenistic, and Principate Antiquity. It could be argued that the Middle Ages start as early as Caracalla (who made everyone living in the Roman empire a Roman citizen) or Constantine (who established and organized Christian Catholic Church), or as late as Hereclius (who finally replaced Latin with Greek as the official language of the Roman Empire). The Roman Empire in the Western Mediterranean continued well after its “fall” in 476 until it was effectively destroyed by Justinian's Italian Wars a century later, and the Roman Empire in the Eastern Mediterranean “fell” in 1453 but was actually continued by the Ottomans.

Even apparently unproblematic concepts as Bronze Age or Iron Age are not as clear as they might seem. Iron objects (from meteoric iron) were produced and traded for centuries during the Bronze Age, and bronze continued to be the material of prefence for centuries during the Iron Age; the only difference between them is the technique to produce iron from iron ore (which has a significant higher melting point than other metals). And as you've pointed out yourself, Bronze Age and Iron Age start at different periods in different regions, sometimes separated by thousands of years.

And where the Bronze Age ends and the Iron Age starts in the Near East is also non-obvious and a matter of scholarly debate. Part of the problem is that there is a gap in historical records (the so-called Dark Ages), the extent of which is unknown (people ceased writing) and can only be guessed, estimates of which range from a few decades to several centuries. Yes, societies collapsed everywhere, however, not all of them; destruction appears random, e.g. for neighbouring cities: destroyed, destroyed, survived undamaged, destroyed, continued significantly reduced, etc. And opinions on dates are shifting; a century ago the Homeric epics (the traditional start of Antiquity) was dated closer to 900, nowadays the consensus is closer to 700.

Anyway, I fully agree with you that it would make more sense to let 0 A.D. begin around the 8th C B.C., because then there are many things reappearing and fundamentally changing everywhere about simultaneously:

• Assyrians reconquer Syria and Mesopotamia and establish the Neo-Assyrian empire
  • Chaldeans shake off Assyrian control and later establish the Neo-Babylonian empire
• Urartu (proto-Armenia, directly north of Assyria) asserts itself
• Greek city states appear (Argos, Corinth, Megara, Athens, Thebes)
  • literature reappears (Homeric epics)
  • Olympic games and other pan-Hellenic activities start
• Greeks and Phoenicians create colonies everywhere in the Mediterranean
• Carthage, Rome, and Syracusae are founded
• Etruscans emerge in Italy
• Lydian kingdom emerges in Asia
  • invention of coinage (a world's first)
• Kushites emerge Kushite kingdom with capital at Napata emerges in Nubia and expands into Egypt (instead of the other way around)

[EDIT: To clarify, with “emerge” I do not mean they appear out of nowhere; those peoples lived in their regions for centuries before they “emerge” as dominant powers; I simply use “emerge” here as a shorthand for: “they suddenly are organized in strong states and start influencing everything around them, instead of being dominated by their neighbours.”]

Edited October 22, 2017 by Nescio
corrections per Sundiata's next post

[Sundiata]

2 hours ago, Nescio said:

I'm assuming you simply mean Antiquity (the era of Classical civilizations, c. 1000 B.C. to 500 A.D.), not Classical Antiquity (the period of Athens and other Greek city states, clearly defined as 480 to 323 B.C.).

That depends on what source you're consulting. Few of these periods are clearly defined. You're referring to Classical Greece, by the way, not Classical Antiquity. To clarify, I'm only referring to my ideal idea of the approximate time-period for the start of 0AD:

Spoiler

Archaic period (c. 8th to c. 6th centuries BC)

Further information: Iron Age Europe

The earliest period of classical antiquity takes place before the background of gradual re-appearance of historical sources following the Bronze Age collapse. The 8th and 7th centuries BC are still largely proto-historical, with the earliest Greek alphabetic inscriptions appearing in the first half of the 8th century. Homer is usually assumed to have lived in the 8th or 7th century BC, and his lifetime is often taken as marking the beginning of classical antiquity. In the same period falls the traditional date for the establishment of the Ancient Olympic Games, in 776 BC.

-wikipedia- 

Spoiler

 

2 hours ago, Nescio said:

6 hours ago, Sundiata said:

Ancient theocratic societies start making way for ambitious imperial powerhouses bent on conquest and higher volume, long distance trade. 

This simplistic view is blatantly wrong in all respects.

Not really no. It's simplistic, yes, that's why I said: "I want to emphasise that I'm speaking in very broad terms here". I don't want to write an entire treatise on the fundamentals of power-structures in the Bronze Age vs Iron Age, but things changed fundamentally, and increased Imperialism, secularisation of (political) power and the re-establishment of trade networks on a much larger scale than before were aspects of that (in general terms, of-course).

 

2 hours ago, Nescio said:

The same can be argued for many other periods inside those “major ages”, e.g. we know very little of the 3rd C AD (transition from Principate to Dominate) or the 7th C AD (transition from Migration period to Carolingian period), but far more from the 4th, 5th, and 6th C AD. And the only reason why the Middle Ages are typically dated 476-1453 is because the transitions are impossible to pinpoint. Late Antiquity is in many respects (literature, legislation, Christianity) markedly different than Classical, Hellenistic, and Principate Antiquity. It could be argued that the Middle Ages start as early as Caracalla (who made everyone living in the Roman empire a Roman citizen) or Constantine (who established and organized Christian Catholic Church), or as late as Hereclius (who finally replaced Latin with Greek as the official language of the Roman Empire). The Roman Empire in the Western Mediterranean continued well after its “fall” in 476 until it was effectively destroyed by Justinian's Italian Wars a century later, and the Roman Empire in the Eastern Mediterranean “fell” in 1453 but was actually continued by the Ottomans.

Even apparently unproblematic concepts as Bronze Age or Iron Age are not as clear as they might seem. Iron objects (from meteoric iron) were produced and traded for centuries during the Bronze Age, and bronze continued to be the material of prefence for centuries during the Iron Age; the only difference between them is the technique to produce iron from iron ore (which has a significant higher melting point than other metals). And as you've pointed out yourself, Bronze Age and Iron Age start at different periods in different regions, sometimes separated by thousands of years.

And where the Bronze Age ends and the Iron Age starts in the Near East is also non-obvious and a matter of scholarly debate. Part of the problem is that there is a gap in historical records (the so-called Dark Ages), the extent of which is unknown (people ceased writing) and can only be guessed, estimates of which range from a few decades to several centuries. Yes, societies collapsed everywhere, however, not all of them; destruction appears random, e.g. for neighbouring cities: destroyed, destroyed, survived undamaged, destroyed, continued significantly reduced, etc. And opinions on dates are shifting; a century ago the Homeric epics (the traditional start of Antiquity) was dated closer to 900, nowadays the consensus is closer to 700.

This is just strengthening my point... We know quite a great deal about Classical Antiquity, relatively speaking, but we know very little about the periods immediately preceding and succeeding this period. That's why: 

2 hours ago, Nescio said:

it would make more sense to let 0 A.D. begin around the 8th C B.C., because then there are many things reappearing and fundamentally changing everywhere about simultaneously:

Because they're part of the same general age or era. From the 8th c. BCE onwards, we have a great deal of references we can use, up to the 4th century AD, and things remain pretty clear, strongly interconnected and coherent. The ideal time-period for this type of game, I think.

 

2 hours ago, Nescio said:

Kushites emerge in Nubia and expand into Egypt (instead of the other way around)

Kushites didn't emerge in Nubia, they had been there for thousands of years, setting up the first Kingdom of Kush, Kerma, by 2500BCE (Bronze Age). Together with their northern allies, the Hyksos, they destroyed the Old Kingdom and ransacked southern Egypt. They warred with Egypt during the Middle Kingdom and Kush was conquered and incorporated as what seems to be a semi-autonomous state in the New Kingdom, ruled by it's own vizier known as the King's son of Kush. Only then, after the New Kingdom, Kush conquers Egypt (again) as the 25th dynasty. This is not the first "Nubian" Dynasty by the way, the 12th and 18th dynasties are often considered indigenous Nubian dynasties, originating from Egypt's far south (Aswan, in modern Nubia for example). Many pharaoh's had "Nubian" mothers, who would have been Kushite royals themselves and the Theban Priests of Amun in the New Kingdom were often Kushite as well, so they had been "expanding" in to Egypt for a while.  

 

By the way, I think we should be having this discussion somewhere else  

Edited October 22, 2017 by Sundiata

[Nescio]

Yes, ideally 0.A.D. ought to include the Archaic period (however, improving the game as it is right now is far more important than adding any civilizations). Again, I fully agree with you in general on this. You and I are just nitpicking on minor details.

“Classicists are a nasty breed of people. They are always convinced they are right, they tend to raise problems on minor phrases although no-one else understands why, and they continue arguing for their points long after everyone else is tired of discussing and willing to accept anything.”

I forgot from whom this paraphrased quote is, but I certainly agree it's applicable to me

1 hour ago, Sundiata said:

By the way, I think we should be having this discussion somewhere else

Perhaps someone could spin this off-topic discussion (starting with your post which feneur quoted earlier) off into a separate “0 A.D. timeframe” thread?

Edited October 22, 2017 by Nescio
ce

[Sundiata]

2 hours ago, Nescio said:

You and I are just nitpicking on minor details.

Yeah  

 

2 hours ago, Nescio said:

“Classicists are a nasty breed of people. They are always convinced they are right, they tend to raise problems on minor phrases although no-one else understands why, and they continue arguing for their points long after everyone else is tired of discussing and willing to accept anything.”

Very recognisable  It's all about the details!  

 

2 hours ago, Nescio said:

Perhaps someone could spin this off-topic discussion (starting with your post which feneur quoted earlier) off into a separate “0 A.D. timeframe” thread?

@feneur, Perhaps you could assist us, so we can stop cluttering up this otherwise lovely thread on Spartan structures with our incessant nitpicking   

[feneur]

Split it from my reply It contains the off-topic part of your reply, so no need to do some cutting and pasting or something to split up your post

[Nescio]

Many thanks, feneur!

 

Now, where were we, Sundiata? We agreed that we agreed, however, we disagree on how to formulate things acceptably, right?

4 hours ago, Sundiata said:

We know quite a great deal about [Classical] Antiquity, relatively speaking, but we know very little about the periods immediately preceding and succeeding this period.

Immediately preceding, yes; we already established including the start of the Archaic period, without pinpointing it to any year, would be appropiate for “0 A.D. Empires Ascendant”. However, I can't accept “immediately succeeding”; we actually know relatively more (although still tantalizingly little) about the 5th C A.D., when Antiquity is supposed to end and the Middle Ages are supposed to start, than we do about both the 3rd C (pre-Dominate, clearly within Antiquity) and the 8th C (pre-Carolingian, clearly within Middle Ages). Personally I'm happy with keeping 27 B.C. as the cut-off point, because life under the pax romana (with civil wars only once a generation ) is markedly different from anything preceding.

[Sundiata]

@Nescio Let the nitpicking continue!  

I really think Antiquity refers to the historic period preceding the Middle Ages, going as far back as Ancient Egypt and the Akkadian Empire, which is a little too far for this version of 0AD. Classical Antiquity refers to the rise of the great interlocking civilisations of the Mediterranean, beginning around the 8th c. BCE up to around the fall of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century AD (perfect for 0AD). Classical Greece refers to, well, classical Greece, (510BCE - 323BCE). 

I don't really see why Imperial Rome is such a taboo in this version of 0AD. It's awesome that the early Roman units are depicted with such fidelity to history, but seeing late-game Roman champion units with a Lorica Segmenta would be majestic, and reason enough to go up to the 3d century in my opinion. It would also open up a lot of possible references for a Germanic faction, which is a must have if you're developing a game with Romans, I think. 

[Nescio]

Well, I'm not objecting to the use of Antiquity for everything between neolithic prehistory and European Middle Ages. And I concede many historians use “Classical Antiquity” as a term covering the 8th C BC to somewhere around the 3rd C AD, which is then followed by “Late Antiquity”. However, classicists typically prefer to use the term “Classical Period” specifically for the 480--323 period, as do I.

Imperial Rome is not a taboo, just a lot of more work. Besides, Imperial Rome postdates all of the existing factions (except the Britons). If any new factions were to be added (which I do not recommend right now), I think it would be better to:

• first cover c.200-1 by adding the Arsacid Empire (Parthians peaked in the 2nd C BC), Greater Armenia, Numidia, and Pontus;
• next complete c. 300--150 by adding Attalids/Pergamon, Epirus, and Bactria
• then include the Archaic period by adding Assyrians, Babylonians, Etruscans, Kushites, Lydians, and Urartu;
• moving on to some important but often underappreciated peoples of the Classical period by adding e.g. Illyrians, Scythians, and Thracians
• and possibly more Greek factions such as Boeotia/Thebes, Rhodes, and Syracusae (the archenemy of Carthage for centuries; Rome appeared only very late);

only after all those it might be time for the later and markedly different ages of Imperial Rome.

Furthermore, any cut-off point is always inherently arbitrary, regardless which date is chosen. And the end of the Roman Empire (whenever that might be) is certainly not anything better than the start (which is clearly defined).

By the way, I also don't like the use of BCE/CE instead of BC/AD, primarily because it's one more letter to type, and secondarily because the supposedly more politically correct BCE/CE (which assumes everyone accepts this relative dating) is actually more offensive than the traditional BC/AD (which at least concedes it's a Christian dating).

Edited October 23, 2017 by Nescio
ce

[Sundiata]

Ok, we're starting to find more common-ground 

Isn't a lot of Imperial Rome already in Delenda Est? What work would need to be done?

one correction though:  

The reason I'm researching the Kushites is because they fit all of the ages. Not just Archaic. They span the entire length of 0AD's timeframe and beyond. Of all the factions in the game, Kushites actually had the longest lasting civilisation. They would also be the only faction in game that pushed back the Romans decisively, a history that still needs to be appreciated by the larger historical community who seem to be entirely ignorant of Kushite history: the Roman war is often seen as a failed Kushite invasion of Roman Egypt, very conveniently negating the Roman military expansion in to and taxation of territory that was at least nominally controlled by Kushites. Kush was simply asserting it's borders and flexing it's muscles at their new neighbours by sacking Roman possessions in Southern Egypt. The Romans ended up biting off a lot more than they could chew when they counter-invaded. So did the Ptolemies, the Persians, the Neo-Assyrians and Late-Egyptians... In those days Kush was very known, and visited by many. Kushites also travelled extensively across the ancient world and this convincingly explains the presence of black people in the Mediterranean throughout antiquity. Kushites should have actually been added before a number of other civs already in the game, but I'll forgive the community this "mistake", on account of the history being so obscured for such a long time. Now, in 2017, we have all the information we need to make Kushites one of the most thoroughly researched factions in 0AD, and reappraise this buried history.

 

41 minutes ago, Nescio said:

By the way, I also don't like the use of BCE/CE instead of BC/AD, primarily because it's one more letter to type, and secondarily because the supposedly more politically correct BCE/CE (which assumes everyone accepts this relative dating) is actually more offensive than the traditional BC/AD (which at least concedes it's a Christian dating).

Well, I didn't look at it like that before. You're right, BC it is  

[Nescio]

17 minutes ago, Sundiata said:

Ok, we're starting to find more common-ground 

17 minutes ago, Sundiata said:

Well, I didn't look at it like that before. You're right, BC it is  

It seems we're indeed coming closer

17 minutes ago, Sundiata said:

The reason I'm researching the Kushites is because they fit all of the ages. Not just Archaic. They span the entire length of 0AD's timeframe and beyond.

Completely true. However, they peaked around c.700 BC, when they controlled Egypt, therefore I listed them under Archaic period.

17 minutes ago, Sundiata said:

Isn't a lot of Imperial Rome already in Delenda Est? What work would need to be done?

Actually I don't know, I've never looked carefully at DE. However, adding new civilizations is relatively cheap. Keeping them simultaneously balanced and distinct from all other factions, not just now but in all future versions of the game, is a very demanding and time-consuming job. Things would be a lot easier if there were only three factions (e.g. Carthage, Rome, Syracusae), instead of the dozen we currently have, or the many more wished for and occassionally added in mods. (This also explains why AoM is a much better game than AoK.)

Edited October 23, 2017 by Nescio
ce

[Sundiata]

55 minutes ago, Nescio said:

Completely true. However, they peaked around c.700 BC, when they controlled Egypt, therefore I listed them under Archaic period.

Well they also peaked in the (second phase) Napatan period and the Meroitic Period, which is actually the time-frame I'm researching, when they were expanding more towards the South and simultaneously often maintaining a presence in South Egypt. Unless there were direct parallels to later Napatan and Meroitic periods, no 25th dynasty sources have been used for any of the models. My research focuses entirely on Sudanese sources, and I've been purposefully filtering out anything that might be Egyptian unless I specifically specified that it was Egyptian. The conclusion is abundantly clear: The Kingdom of Kush was a major power to be reckoned with, for a thousand years after their "loss" of Egypt. Even after their ejection from Egypt, they continued to shape and reshape the South-Egyptian political and religious scene. They actually continued ruling as Pharaohs of the two lands, although their effective control wouldn't have passed the Thebaid again after the 25th dynasty. 

 

55 minutes ago, Nescio said:

Things would be a lot easier if there were only three factions

I very seriously wouldn't play 0AD if it only had 3 factions. I straight up wouldn't even give it a chance... It's not 1995 anymore. 12 factions really aren't a lot according to today's conventions. Less civs really isn't better. Just a lot more boring... Balance wise, there is no reason two civs can't be very similar to each other, and it's especially not a problem when you have many civs. So you could have 20 civs, but balance wise, it feels more like 5 civs, with smaller historical differences between them. Best of both worlds...

 

Edited October 23, 2017 by Sundiata

[Nescio]

Allow me to emphasize I do know next to nothing about Kush. And if the faction is complete and qualitively at least as good as the existing factions, I wouldn't object to including it into “0 A.D.” as well. However, that decision is not mine to make.

26 minutes ago, Sundiata said:

Less civs really isn't better.

To clarify, I was not really suggesting reducing the number of factions from twelve to three. “Acceptably”, “Ideally”, “Realistically”, “Theoretically”, etc. are all quite different terms; “a lot easier” does not mean “better” nor “should be”. Of course the choice of the current dozen could be debated. (Why Athenians and Spartans, but not Boeotians or Syracusans? Or a generic Greek civilization? Don't the Britons belong in part two? And why merge completely different peoples into an amalgam called Iberians? It's like grouping Carthaginians, Greeks, and Romans into a single faction, just because they happen to have lived in the same area.) Nevertheless, we now have them, therefore let's focus on improving them (and more importantly: on improving the underlying code, the performance of the engine, flexibility of the AI, etc.)

That doesn't mean we should cease discussing unimportant but interesting and potentially nice to have ideas; but let's always be critical on whatever is suggested, of course