Jump to content

Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, Sundiata said:

According to this logic, we'd also have to split the Gauls into their respective tribes as well as the Britons, and for the sake of representation, Celt-Iberians, Lusitanians and Tartessians would also need to be independently developed. It would be more accurate, yes, but not feasible in terms of references and man-power. You'd end up with like 10 half-done factions, because there isn't enough reference material to create complete and historically accurate factions, which would be the (self-defeating) point, wouldn't it?     

I agree at 100%. The Kushites were a good exception because they could take the role of an Egyptian inheritors factions and letting the Ptolemaic to be more hellenized. The only other candidate I see as really credible is the Odrysian kingdom.

30 minutes ago, Sundiata said:

In the case of the Romans, we don't need to do that because there is a ton of high quality information and primary references available on them.

Well, it is not that easy either. For example, the current Roman Republic faciton is depicted with Polybian legions and with imperial era building. There isn't a lot of remaining buildings from the Republic era. It is why it is really difficult (and maybe too much difficult to change it).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

My highlights of the text: - Little evidence of bows and slings: found arrows are for aristocratic hunting. But probably used by low class infantry. - Scuta used only in north-east of Hispania

It's not like saying "Hellenes and Romans were equal", it's more like using Samnite and Etruscan references to fill the gaps in the Roman faction if we didn't have enough primary references to work wi

Actually, it doesn't make any sense either. Catalan is mostly from latin origins (Occitan languages). Iberian language is for the moment unclassified and there is still debate to know if it is a indo-

Posted Images

1 hour ago, Genava55 said:

Personally, I would prefer if there is more regional culture included in each factions 0 A.D. currently have. For example, Iberians could permit different choices for the player: more Mediterranean standardized iberian infantry  or more traditional tribal warfare with inclusion of Celtiberian and Lusitanian warriors. I am more in favor of deeper strategies and tactics than in a bunch of superficial factions with all the same game mechanics. More qualitative than quantitative.

Indeed, those mechanics would be well suited for the "Barbarian" factions. I'm in favor of a 4th phase, the Imperial Phase, but only for imperial civilizations. Gauls, Britons, Iberians and Thracians could have a regional/tribal specialization instead of the Imperial Phase. I'm also in favor of more substantial differences between civs based on their cultural specifics. There is sooo much to work with. People are just scared of what it would do to the balance of the game, which would be challenging indeed, but well worth it in my opinion.  

 

56 minutes ago, Genava55 said:

The only other candidate I see as really credible is the Odrysian kingdom.

Scythians are also pretty high up on my list ;) They provide a Western counterpart to the Xiongnu and the nomadic element would be a really refreshing feature in a classic RTS-game like 0AD. 

 

57 minutes ago, Genava55 said:

Well, it is not that easy either. For example, the current Roman Republic faciton is depicted with Polybian legions and with imperial era building. There isn't a lot of remaining buildings from the Republic era. It is why it is really difficult (and maybe too much difficult to change it).

True, but it's still a lot easier than pretty much any other faction, except for the Athenians, perhaps. With a 4th Imperial phase, we could "legitimize" the imperial era buildings, and open the door for the most iconic Roman monuments like the Colosseum or the later stone-built Circus Maximus. Romans could actually use an update, as @Lion.Kanzen indicated.  

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Sundiata said:

True, but it's still a lot easier than pretty much any other faction, except for the Athenians, perhaps. With a 4th Imperial phase, we could "legitimize" the imperial era buildings, and open the door for the most iconic Roman monuments like the Colosseum or the later stone-built Circus Maximus. Romans could actually use an update, as @Lion.Kanzen indicated.  

 

Not to be contrarian, I think it would more interesting for the Republican Romans to get a building overhaul to more accurately depict them in their middle Republican form. A less impressive civic center would go a long way there. Keep the more impressive stuff like the current CC and Colosseum and Triumphal Arches and Circuses for the Imperial Romans, a separate faction. I really can't see a reform system working very well in the game (not without a ton of work on the conceptual and programming sides). I am envisioning Trajanic legions fighting alongside triarii and I'm wincing. lol

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Not to be contrarian

Don't worry, we can't agree on everything :P 

 

12 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

I really can't see a reform system working very well in the game (not without a ton of work on the conceptual and programming sides)

I'm a dreamer, I know, but that's what I would actually really like to see. Researching the "Imperial Phase" for the Romans would result in a total overhaul of the structures and units (including the already recruited ones). A visual evolution in the basic structures like houses and CC through the phases is what I'd actually like to see for all civ's. The less impressive forms of the CC's would be for the earlier phases, the impressive ones for the latter. It would add some epicness to phasing up (visual reward/emotional attachment).  

Only houses and CC's would really need to go through this evolution, because most other structures only become available in later phases anyway, and buildings like farmstead and dropsites are rural buildings that don't need to "evolve". So only houses and CC's evolve: 3 levels of houses, from village to city, 3 levels of CC, from simple gathering place to ornate palatial/government structure), maybe 2 levels of barracks. In some cases, this evolution could be as "simple" as going from thatched roofs to wooden shingles (Gauls) or ceramic roof-tiles (Greco-Romans). CC going from 2 stories to 3 stories (Romans/Kushites). Props like removal/addition of statues could help distinguishing early, mid and late CC's. Simple vs ornate textures, etc... This mechanic would truly come into its own if CC's need to be phased up individually, so you could end up 1 city, a town or two and a few villages, for example. Some phase benefits would be tied to the individual CC (what buildings can be built where), but other phase benefits would be across all CC's like which units can be recruited (except champions, perhaps). These general benefits would also be lost when loosing you're city.

It wouldn't be more awkward than having two different Roman factions. How can you have two factions based on the same capital city? I'm also "wincing" at the idea of republican Romans fighting against Imperial Romans in the same match (both going through the same three phases). Romans are one civilization, divided into several periods (like many others), so using those periods to differentiate the different phases seems like a far more logical option. I mean, they're the "bloody" Romans... They should feel more substantial/Imperial than any other faction. 

Edited by Sundiata
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Sundiata said:

It wouldn't be more awkward than having two different Roman factions. How can you have two factions based on the same capital city? I'm also "wincing" at the idea of republican Romans fighting against Imperial Romans in the same match (both going through the same three phases). Romans are one civilization, divided into several periods (like many others), so using those periods to differentiate the different phases seems like a far more logical option. I mean, they're the "bloody" Romans... They should feel more substantial/Imperial than any other faction. 

Eh, not really. This isn't Age of Empires where you are advancing a civilization through eons of time. The factions are (more or less) supposed to represent a general point of time. I could see a game setup option where the host can choose a time period, which would then cap which civs can be chosen by the players. So, this way the old "Part 1" and "Part 2" idea could still be represented. Host could choose Early (Part 1: Republican Rome, Carthage, Athens, Achaemenids, etc.), Late (Part 2: Imperial Rome, Sassanids, etc.), or Any period (some civs can span both periods). Maybe then later WFG or mods can add other periods, like the Middle Ages and Bronze Age. But for now, we'd have Early, Late, and Any.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering that we can now play with Kushites in Polar Sea and Brittons in Fields of Meroe, I don't see a problem in having Rome Republic vs Empire. It's impossible to have total realism. Also a fourth phase puts the game even closer to AoE2. If Imperial Rome was just the fourth phase we wouldn't see them a lot in the game since most games (at least 1v1) would finish in P3. (Discussion has gone off topic.)

Edited by coworotel
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Eh, not really. This isn't Age of Empires where you are advancing a civilization through eons of time. The factions are (more or less) supposed to represent a general point of time. I could see a game setup option where the host can choose a time period, which would then cap which civs can be chosen by the players. So, this way the old "Part 1" and "Part 2" idea could still be represented. Host could choose Early (Part 1: Republican Rome, Carthage, Athens, Achaemenids, etc.), Late (Part 2: Imperial Rome, Sassanids, etc.), or Any period (some civs can span both periods). Maybe then later WFG or mods can add other periods, like the Middle Ages and Bronze Age. But for now, we'd have Early, Late, and Any.

Meh... :P Age of Empires literally goes from Stone Age to Iron Age (4000 years at least). I'm proposing to go from Early Iron Age Antiquity to late Iron Age Antiquity, about a 1000 years total, but it would be different for each civ. Rome wasn't built in a day. Conquering an empire usually takes a few centuries. Developing a culture capable of conquering and maintaining an empire even longer. The longer timespan ensures satisfying overlap between civilizations and major events and provides more flexibility in terms of campaigns (which could be limited to a certain phase) as well as references. 

 

21 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

The factions are (more or less) supposed to represent a general point of time.

I'm pretty sure that's not even remotely the case now... And I don't see a problem with that. Representing only a point in time is incredibly limiting, and impossible to get right for most civs. It removes most overlap and makes campaigns historically inaccurate, almost by definition. Most civs didn't meet at their strongest, but when one or the other was weakened (Roman conquest of Greece for example). A general evolution (rise and fall), broadens usable references and reduces the potential for criticism on historical accuracy, by simple virtue of having a broader timeframe. 

The game is called "Empires Ascendant" not "Empires Stagnate" :P 

Anyway, I do think that the phases should represent village, town and city phase primarily. The evolution over time is more of a "soft feature", depending from civ to civ and could be nuanced in some and substantial in others, where appropriate. It just adds a lot of immersion and variety and possibilities.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

I could see a game setup option where the host can choose a time period, which would then cap which civs can be chosen by the players. So, this way the old "Part 1" and "Part 2" idea could still be represented. Host could choose Early (Part 1: Republican Rome, Carthage, Athens, Achaemenids, etc.), Late (Part 2: Imperial Rome, Sassanids, etc.), or Any period (some civs can span both periods). Maybe then later WFG or mods can add other periods, like the Middle Ages and Bronze Age. But for now, we'd have Early, Late, and Any.

I also think this will actually end up being A LOT more work than simply having a more comprehensive part 1... I honestly think deferring stuff to a mythical part 2 undermines the true potential for part 1. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sundiata said:

I also think this will actually end up being A LOT more work than simply having a more comprehensive part 1... I honestly think deferring stuff to a mythical part 2 undermines the true potential for part 1. 

?

I'm saying scrap the Part 2 thing and just have the option of time periods (or no time period) for game setup. The only "work" this makes is adding one line to the civ.json files and a selection option in the game setup code. With this, the game host can prevent a Republican Rome vs. Imperial Rome or Sassanids vs. Achaemenids situation if they want to (or they can just allow players to choose regardless of time period too). 

Edited by wowgetoffyourcellphone
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

I'm saying scrap the Part 2 thing and just have the option of time periods (or no time period) for game setup.

Oh, sorry, I misinterpreted... Still seems about as much work as my suggestion though, and a little bit awkward maybe. I just like 1 people be 1 people, and not be split up over time, but rather evolve. I guess I just don't like the idea of having more than 1 faction of the same people from the same geographic area in-game, when other factions are totally absent from the game (imagine 2 Roman factions and not even 1 Chinese faction in vanilla). I guess it's just a matter of personal preference though. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sundiata said:

imagine 2 Roman factions and not even 1 Chinese faction in vanilla

Well, I can't imagine that since DE has a Chinese faction. ;) What I propose isn't really awkward. I think it solves your problem, while allowing for civs that are way out of the original "Part 1" scope, like Sassanids, et al. I think it would be super awkward in a Dacian Wars campaign if the Roman civ was training Triarii to combat Decebalus. ;) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Well, I can't imagine that since DE has a Chinese faction.

Haha, yes indeed... DE is pretty awesome in many regards.. 

 

1 hour ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

I think it would be super awkward in a Dacian Wars campaign if the Roman civ was training Triarii to combat Decebalus. ;) 

That's why some of the campaigns or scenario's could start in different phases, or even have custom versions of the civs specific to that campaign (specific units).  

Anyway, I just really like to see visual differentiation between the phases and individually upgrading CC's. "Soft"-linking historical evolutions to the phases seemed like a nice idea, but not necessary. Doesn't seem to be a popular idea anyway... lol... Might still bring it up from time to time though :P 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 months later...
20 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

specially Balearic.

Keep in mind Balearic Islanders are not Iberians. Their people seems to have been much closer to the Neolithic cultures of Sardinia and Malta; also, the Phoenicians and Carthaginians established colonies there already in the Archaic Period, long before 0 A.D.'s timeframe. The Balearic Islands only became part of Spain as a consequence of the Roman conquests.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

@soloooy0 is from Ibiza and disagree with that... but I'm not the expert here.

https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yacimiento_fenicio_de_Sa_Caleta

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sa_Caleta_Phoenician_Settlement

Quote

"Lo más antiguo que me acuerdo es SA caleta fenicia
Arquitectura ibera por toda la isla"

--

The oldest thing I remember is SA caleta fenicia.
Iberian architecture all through the Island

I still wait for him. other can give information is our last Art Lead @Enrique

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...

Buenas , creo que podrían cambiar la estructura de la "Maravilla", ya que la actual "Cancho Roano" es de la cultura de "Tartessos" no de la íbera.

-“https://youtu.be/3nWz8ohfapQ -Arqueología ibérica (1ª parte): visita yacimiento de Puente Tablas”-

-"https://youtu.be/1b1FC8mc4Ug-El viaje al tiempo de los Iberos"-

En los enlaces aparece  un palacio íbero de la provincia española de Jaén que podría ser una candidata para sustituir .

Algunas de las tribus íberas ; Contestanos ,ilercavones , Ausescos , Sordones , Lacetanos , Castelanos , Bástulos , Indigesquios , Eisdetes/Edetanos , Layeskos , Oretanos , iltirgeskios ,Jacetanos , Túrdulos , Ceretanos , Cosetanos y Sedeskios .

(Abajo algunas estéticas para soldados íberos e ideas para escudos)

915227457_Soldadosberos.png.d46c3e23f4afb3a618da11e3d4f1359e.png1020354771_Caballeradelite.png.d397788137c4f1ce4f8fcf4fc56e5499.png1421371524_tropasberas.png.f66e2335c026f8fd682cc71eda5da467.png464045972_guerrerosibricos.png.8336694395012b3d8c92a24cf64fb00c.png1814652458_escudosberos.thumb.png.7487ae493698e4be45a42b5c003b7eb5.png1791419558_estticadeescudosberos.thumb.png.665ba100b89824b384313f91177acaad.png

(Posdata; Viriato es lusitano ,no ibero)Y disculpen las molestias.

guerreros ibéricos.png

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me add this to my work list. :)

I still haven't familiarized myself well with the new Celtic shields by Alexandermb. I could make new textures for it once I got accustomed to it.

Also planning to add new textures for their units, specially armor variations and linothorax.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...
Spoiler
On 14/07/2018 at 11:07 AM, av93 said:

My highlights of the text:

- Little evidence of bows and slings: found arrows are for aristocratic hunting. But probably used by low class infantry.
- Scuta used only in north-east of Hispania

·Warfare model

- The first were one made of individual heroic aristocratic soldiers, followed by companions and low classes. (Spears and some armour).

- Later was displaced by a standardization of the equipment suggesting a close line formations, but not in a Roman or Greek degree.

- The warfare changes when Hispania became a Roman-Carthaginian war field and the use of the natives by both armies: introduction of bronze helmets (Monterfortino), Oval shields by Punic influence (not by gaul), lighter spears, more javelins and  the development of the Iberian cavalry (before he riders dismounted to fight at land). Iberians never used spear cavalry and boecian helmets (although they were depicted like this on coins). They used military standards (flags). The author also say that Iberians used mostly a warfare of heavy infantry, light infantry as support and cavalry, saying that it was more similar to the Roman that the traditional stereotype of hit and run and guerrilla warfare: for example Carthaginians allowed native troops to fight in their native way with their original equipment, and there are accounts of Iberians holding the line as heavy infantry., against heavy Roman infantry. The author says that the Iberian revolts against Romans failed because the leadership and organization, not because lack or inferior equipment or tactics.

- Finally, the Iberians were absorbed by Romans, and the native equipment disappears, including the falcata. Caetrati  (javelins and round shield) would made by a Roman demand, because their army already have heavy infantry.

·Warfare aim

- Never was the destruction or the enslavement of the population, but sacking and later the subjugation of other cities. Honour was individual, and not for the state. There was the devotio, soldier bounding to other noble, to the death. 

· Defensive structures:

Were more deterrents than for defending from formal sieges, and outpost existed. 

 

About culture and language

There are some cultural essentialism here. And in to some extension, there's some need it, because this is a game and there's a need of a generalization, for depicting the civilization but also for gameplay. But:

 

 

 

But trying to establish a vague continuum between the differences in Hispania in the past and the present in a so long time (in part argued because climate) isn't very solid. I said that as a grandson of Andalusian and Galician people, with Catalonian fathers. Team have stated before that Euskera isn't correct. You may be right, as far as I know, that the current Euskera is a standardization with a lot of invention (what language isn't?): but using a Latin idiom like Catalan is worse: maybe it could be tried to replace the modern Euskera words for old ones, or use Celtic in absence of Iberian words or language. An option has to be chosen, and it's clear that both are wrong, but trying a non-latin language seems the best option.

BTW, I'm a defender of the option of showing only the names of the structures and units in the user language, not in the native one, there's a patch somewhere. But there will be the problem of when the units get audio for orders.

 

About gameplay

As other said, the problem with the "barbarian" civs are that we have their depictions by their enemies, and weren't centralised states with a more homogeneous culture, social structure and warfare. But I support your idea that a better depiction could be made, relegating this Iberians for the east Mediterranean coast, and adding some more Hispanic civilization.

The problem is that the team made an agreement of not add more civilizations (although broke by Kushites), and there're a some interesting civilizations that could be added before, because gameplay (Scythians), cultural diversity or geographical diversity (African and Asian civilizations). If we made a little concession to cultural essentialism, and knowing that every single tribe can't be added, we could make a division of:  Iberians, celtiberians and lusitianians.

If there are good enough materials and references, my suggestion would be make Lusitanians,  for the "iberian" (better Hispanic) skirmisher civilization. Celtiberians could be campaign only.

 

 

 

 

 

The original source changed, the text was called "La guerra en la cultura Ibera" by Fernando Quesada Sanz

Link to post
Share on other sites

Spanish video by Dr César Vidal.

Tartessos s first part.

The Carthaginians named iberia for the large numbers of rabbits.

Tartessos wasn't only a city it was also the first Hispanic empire.

 

The influence of Tartessos it stretched from  Egypt to Britain, with which the tin was exchanged, A tin of which the Greeks and Hebrews came to speak a lot in their writings.

 

Tartessian culture was interpreted by many scholars for a long time as an almost mythological mother culture.

Tartessian jewelry was one of the most important in terms of the entire extension of the Mediterranean.

 

The first written references to Tartessos come from Greek and Hebrew sources, In the story of Jonah in the bible, what the story of Jonah tells is that he gets on a boat and goes to Tarsis (Tartessos), This means that there was such intense trade that what is known today as the Middle East, that navigation and commerce were so fluid that it was easy to find a ship and go to the other end of the Mediterranean, which is not strange and to take away those I traded with gold with silver with tin.

Another important fact found in the Bible about Tartessos is that the ships that left Phoenician, then according to the story of Solomon from Tartessos many commercial goods such as the tin , gold, Even the monkeys that are found in Gibraltar today were brought from Tartessos.

There were still monkeys in the south of the Iberian Peninsula but they were exported.

 

The great intermediaries between the Tartessian empire and the Middle East were the Phoenicians.

 

Most of the tin that was brought from Tartessos was used to create most of the arms and shield of this time.

Apparently the Tartessos had a fleet that allowed them to bring the tin from the British Isles.

 

It should be noted that bronze or in this case one of the materials of bronze, which is tin, was scarce in the Middle East and was very precious.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Lion.Kanzen
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...