Phalanx Posted July 9, 2018 Report Share Posted July 9, 2018 Hi! It's been a while since I've shown my face in this forum! With the release of the Kushites, even after the team said that there were gonna be no new factions, that got me thinking about factions in 0ad. I've noticed that we have multiple factions for each "big" culture in this time period. We have multiple Successor/Hellenistic factions, we have multiple Greek factions, Barbarian factions, African factions, and so on. But I've noticed that we only have one "Eastern" faction, the Achaemenids. There are a bunch of important kingdoms in the Middle East at the time, and we have one. I would like to think we should have at least one more. My two ideas were The Kingdoms of Parthia or Pontus. It would give players who want the Eastern style gameplay with light infantry and horses more options than just the Persians. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lion.Kanzen Posted July 9, 2018 Report Share Posted July 9, 2018 2 hours ago, Phalanx said: Hi! It's been a while since I've shown my face in this forum! With the release of the Kushites, even after the team said that there were gonna be no new factions, that got me thinking about factions in 0ad. I've noticed that we have multiple factions for each "big" culture in this time period. We have multiple Successor/Hellenistic factions, we have multiple Greek factions, Barbarian factions, African factions, and so on. But I've noticed that we only have one "Eastern" faction, the Achaemenids. There are a bunch of important kingdoms in the Middle East at the time, and we have one. I would like to think we should have at least one more. My two ideas were The Kingdoms of Parthia or Pontus. It would give players who want the Eastern style gameplay with light infantry and horses more options than just the Persians. No new faction for 500-1 BC to second part Parthia, Palmyra, Sassanid Dynasty, Kushans(may be) and Huns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nescio Posted July 9, 2018 Report Share Posted July 9, 2018 (edited) Parthia and Pontus were actually Hellenistic states as well. Anyway, I fully agree more factions would be nice to have, especially those that fill the gaps in our current roster. My order of preference: Arsacid Empire (Parthians), peaked under Mithridates II of Parthia (r. 121–91 BC) Greater Armenia, peaked under Tigranes II of Armenia (r. 95–55 BC) Pontus, peaked under Mithridates VI of Pontus (r. 120–63 BC) Odrysian Kingdom (Thracians), peaked under Sitalces I (r. 431–424 BC) Scythians Han (Chinese) Xiongnu/Hsiung-nu Greco-Bactrian Kingdom Numidia (Massylii and Masaesyli), peaked under Masinissa (r. 202–148 BC) Epirus, peaked under Pyrrhus of Epirus (r. 297–272 BC) Attalid Kingdom (Pergamon), Bithynia, Cappadocia, Bosporan Kingdom (Crimea), Colchis, Iberia, Albania, Athropatene, etc. are probably too insignificant. Ideally we ought to include the Archaic Period (c. 900–500 BC) as well: Neo-Assyrian Empire Neo-Babylonian Empire (Chaldeans) Etruscans Lydians Urartu 3 hours ago, Lion.Kanzen said: No new faction for 500-1 BC to second part Parthia, Palmyra, Sassanid Dynasty, Kushans(may be) and Huns. Those others are post-1 AD, yes, however, Parthia really belongs in the pre-1 BC timeframe. Edited July 9, 2018 by Nescio more 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coworotel Posted July 9, 2018 Report Share Posted July 9, 2018 Han and Xiongnu are already available in Terra Magna. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nescio Posted July 9, 2018 Report Share Posted July 9, 2018 5 minutes ago, coworotel said: Han and Xiongnu are already available in Terra Magna. Yes, I know, however, I'm still hoping they'll eventually be included into the main distribution, where they belong. Besides, I don't want the Zapotecs :) 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sundiata Posted July 9, 2018 Report Share Posted July 9, 2018 (edited) 0AD's timeframe doesn't make any sense and cuts straight through major historical periods with no regard for anything but the birth of Christ, which is really weird for a historical game. Kingdom of Pontus (281 BC - 62 AD) is totally relevant to the current timeframe Parthian Empire (247 BC - 224 AD) is totally relevant for the current timeframe, but is one of many who's history is cut in half by the whole 500BC-1BC dogma. As Nescio said, they really belong in "Part 1" though. Sabaeans are super interesting (brilliant architecture) and relevant (war with Rome, incense, myrrh and spice-trade) and often overlooked. Nabataeans are also very interesting and relevant (architecture, politics, military) Going earlier, we could have the Iron Age Neo-Assyrian Empire (911BC - 609 BC, and Assyrians continued being militarily relevant until the Seleucids, rebelling against Achaemenid rule several times). Scythians... Let's not forget Scythians... They're super important, no matter what... And link the Eurasian steppe, opens the door to the Chinese and Xiongnu Greco-Bactrian Kingdoms are interesting (actual interplay with China, lots of interplay with India) Going earlier we could also have other relevant civs like Etruscans and late-period Egyptians. Extending the timeframe a little later (until the crisis of the 3d century, or even the sack of Rome), we could have Imperial Romans as a special 4th phase. Germanics. Axumites. Kushans, Tamils. Garamantes, Numidians and Thracians are also nice to have. I'd say forget about the mythical "Part 2" and develop Millennium AD as the new official "part 2", from c. 455 AD to 1492 AD: 0 A.D. Medieval Empires Ascendant Let "Part 1" be complete. Let it depict Iron Age Antiquity from the founding of Rome to the Vandal sack of Rome: 753 BC - 455 AD. "Part 3" could be Bronze Age (Aristeia). Ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hittites, Minoans, Mycenaeans etc... Edited July 9, 2018 by Sundiata 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lion.Kanzen Posted July 9, 2018 Report Share Posted July 9, 2018 (edited) 41 minutes ago, Nescio said: Parthia and Pontus were actually Hellenistic states as well. Anyway, I fully agree more factions would be nice to have, especially those that fill the gaps in our current roster. My order of preference: Arsacid Empire (Parthians), peaked under Mithridates II of Parthia (r. 121–91 BC) Greater Armenia, peaked under Tigranes II of Armenia (r. 95–55 BC) Pontus, peaked under Mithridates VI of Pontus (r. 120–63 BC) Odrysian Kingdom (Thracians), peaked under Sitalces I (r. 431–424 BC) Numidia (Massylii and Masaesyli), peaked under Masinissa (r. 202–148 BC) Epirus, peaked under Pyrrhus of Epirus (r. 297–272 BC) Han (Chinese) Xiongnu/Hsiung-nu Those others are post-1 AD, yes, however, Parthia really belongs in the pre-1 BC timeframe. OMG I haven't any idea.... (sarcasm off). same with Imperial Rome dude. Edited July 9, 2018 by Lion.Kanzen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lion.Kanzen Posted July 9, 2018 Report Share Posted July 9, 2018 27 minutes ago, Sundiata said: Part 3" could be Bronze Age (Aristeia). Ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hittites, Minoans, Mycenaeans etc... Edited 1 minute ago by Sundiata That is 0 part, the prequel. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
av93 Posted July 9, 2018 Report Share Posted July 9, 2018 Would be cool that if more factions are added, to look into the more different ones. No more greek factions please... Thracians, Schytians, Germans and some north african faction (numidians or garamantes) would be mi pick 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sundiata Posted July 9, 2018 Report Share Posted July 9, 2018 18 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said: That is 0 part, the prequel. The Prequel...! Spoiler I'm a big fan of Mmminoans They could prove to be a... well rounded civ... Also 25 minutes ago, av93 said: No more greek factions please... I lolled a little... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wackyserious Posted July 9, 2018 Report Share Posted July 9, 2018 8 minutes ago, Sundiata said: The Prequel...! Hide contents I'm a big fan of Mmminoans They could prove to be a... well rounded civ... Also I lolled a little... Was expecting these stuff in Aristeia too. Too bad the project has been in a very long hiatus. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lion.Kanzen Posted July 9, 2018 Report Share Posted July 9, 2018 10 minutes ago, wackyserious said: Was expecting these stuff in Aristeia too. Too bad the project has been in a very long hiatus. No my fault, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorfinn the Shallow Minded Posted July 9, 2018 Report Share Posted July 9, 2018 Bear in mind that many times there have been new factions added even when the benchmark has been set. At first it was just six. It expanded a lot from there obviously. Rest assured; there is the possibility of having new civilisations like Thebes, Syracuse, Pergamon, and the Achaean League because the more Hellenic civilisations, the better. :) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nescio Posted July 9, 2018 Report Share Posted July 9, 2018 23 minutes ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said: Bear in mind that many times there have been new factions added even when the benchmark has been set. At first it was just six. It expanded a lot from there obviously. Rest assured; there is the possibility of having new civilisations like Thebes, Syracuse, Pergamon, and the Achaean League because the more Hellenic civilisations, the better. :) Actually I'd favour (re-)merging Athenians and Spartans into a single Greek civilization. Yes, I'm aware Greece was not a unified political entity prior to the Romans, however, nor was Gaul or were the Britons. And the differences between those city states were not as great as many might think. Besides, the current situation raises questions: if Athens and Sparta, then why not Thebes? Argos? Corinth? Syracusae? Etc. Having just one civilization for all Greek city states and leagues would easily solve this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lion.Kanzen Posted July 9, 2018 Report Share Posted July 9, 2018 6 minutes ago, Nescio said: Actually I'd favour (re-)merging Athenians and Spartans into a single Greek civilization. Yes, I'm aware Greece was not a unified political entity prior to the Romans, however, nor was Gaul or were the Britons. And the differences between those city states were not as great as many might think. Besides, the current situation raises questions: if Athens and Sparta, then why not Thebes? Argos? Corinth? Syracusae? Etc. Having just one civilization for all Greek city states and leagues would easily solve this. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordGood Posted July 9, 2018 Report Share Posted July 9, 2018 36 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said: is me rn 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phalanx Posted July 10, 2018 Author Report Share Posted July 10, 2018 5 hours ago, Nescio said: Parthia and Pontus were actually Hellenistic states as well. Wait, Parthia was Hellenistic? I'm aware that Pontus had a bunch of Hellenistic influence, but Parthia? I didn't know that one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trinketos Posted July 10, 2018 Report Share Posted July 10, 2018 7 hours ago, Nescio said: I don't want the Zapotecs >:( Spoiler ok no xD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lion.Kanzen Posted July 10, 2018 Report Share Posted July 10, 2018 6 hours ago, LordGood said: is me rn is time to say goodbye to Spartan buildings... Joke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lion.Kanzen Posted July 10, 2018 Report Share Posted July 10, 2018 3 hours ago, Trinketos said: >:( Reveal hidden contents ok no xD Too much Eurocentrism. by history point. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurocentrism 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coworotel Posted July 10, 2018 Report Share Posted July 10, 2018 (edited) 8 hours ago, Nescio said: if Athens and Sparta, then why not Thebes? Argos? Corinth? Syracusae? Etc. Thebes already in Delenda Est, the others might be implemented eventually in some mods... The team has limited work force. @Lion.Kanzen the current Aristeia (in github) is compatible with which version of 0 A.D.? Alpha 22? Edited July 10, 2018 by coworotel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lion.Kanzen Posted July 10, 2018 Report Share Posted July 10, 2018 (edited) 15 minutes ago, coworotel said: Thebes already in Delenda Est, the others might be implemented eventually in some mods... The team has limited work force. @Lion.Kanzen the current Aristeia (in github) is compatible with which version of 0 A.D.? Alpha 22? Uff ...have years without an update. Without a gameplay team or department we are just cloning civs. Edited July 10, 2018 by Lion.Kanzen 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wowgetoffyourcellphone Posted July 10, 2018 Report Share Posted July 10, 2018 (edited) Please don't go into the Bronze Age. Let mods or a prequel do that. I do like the idea of making 0 A.D. traverse the totality of the (Western) Roman state, or the breadth of "Classical" times. So, going ahead and extending it to the "Fall of Rome", 5th century, would be fine by me. Allows for cool civs like Sassanids. And then making "Part 2" being about the Middle Ages is also cool. It mirrors the Age of Empires franchise (homage), but with all the new and different features the 0 A.D. franchise still stands on its own. But if you still want to have Part 1 and Part 2 being (roughly) the 500 years BC and 500 years AD (any date you set is arbitrary, IMHO @Sundiata, so I don't think this is so bad. If 1AD is too arbitrary a date for you, then perhaps choose the murder of Caesar or the ascension of Augustus as your mid-point, still close enough to 1AD to make it not really matter), then I think Parthians for Part 1 are a must. They are really not a Part 2 civ. Their successors, Sassanids definitely are a part 2 civ. Others would be very desirable for Part 1, in order: Han Chinese, Scythians and Xiongnu (these 2 to tie Eurasia together), Odrysian Thracians (because they're cool), Epirotes. And a few others would be "nice to have", such as Pontus, Nabataeans (pretty cool), Armenians. Heck, to promote the mod.io feature, many of these could be offered as "official mods" folks can pick and choose to add to their game's civ roster. Edited July 10, 2018 by wowgetoffyourcellphone 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wowgetoffyourcellphone Posted July 10, 2018 Report Share Posted July 10, 2018 8 hours ago, Nescio said: Besides, the current situation raises questions: if Athens and Sparta, then why not Thebes? Argos? Corinth? Syracusae? Etc. Having just one civilization for all Greek city states and leagues would easily solve this. I think this is an artificial "problem." Athens and Sparta are the Hellenic states most interesting to players, so that's why they are included. Honestly, I wouldn't mind adding the Argives and Corinthians and Syracusans too. But for real though, some can be Atlas-only civs for scenarios and campaigns (Peloponnesian War). It would be easy to add them. While Athens and Sparta remain the selectable Greek civs. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lion.Kanzen Posted July 10, 2018 Report Share Posted July 10, 2018 More greek colonización. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.