historical accuracy on O A.D

[illyrian]

I really enjoy the concept of the game but i have somethings i want to discuss as to what i saw in the screenshots.

First, sarissas were too short, for the macedonian phalangites. THe sarissa was 15-18 feet long, about two and a half to three times longer than the soldier that carried it. the average man during that time would not surpass 5'6". The first 5 rows had their pikes leveled creating a screen of pikes. Pikemen should have a boost if fighting in level ground. And a syntagma was comprised of 256 pikemen, or 16x16. THe macedonian phalanx were never beaten in any conflict with the romans, in a ground level battle. Generals' miscalculations have been the reasons for macedonian losses against mobile forces like romans. The picture shows the phalangites formation too open. it has to be more closed, when deployed in battle there was about .9m space between the men. Make the units a little more compact.

Another is phalanx formation for the greeks. I didn't see overhand spear hold. Phalanx depth should be used as an advantage, giving the deeper phalanx a certain attack boost, or formation breaking ability. References, theban 50 deep phalanx against spartans at mantinea and leuctra.

Barbarians-triangle formations for infantry and cavalry, and give some infantry speed boost, as many infantry in barbarian armies comprised cavalry contigents. Tacitus in his thesis on Germania, is the perfect source.

Romans should have testudo, and pilum. pilum should be thrown before hand to hand. If there is any stamina with units, pilum would need the full stamina of the unit to be used.

I don't know what the team has in store in connection with walls, and siege towers, and in my opinion they should be incorporated.

Please anyone if they noticed anything from the screenies please post it. Hopefully it will help the developing team

Edited April 21, 2006 by illyrian

[Paal_101]

Hey Illyrian! Thanks for your posts. I'll answer some of your questions

Sarissa - easily exlained. For gameplay purposes at this point we are playing around with sarrissas of this length. They may be lengthened in the future, but for ease of use at the moment they are remaining at the current length. In addition the sarissae of Philip's and Alexander's time were a bit shorter at roughly 13 feet. The 15 to 19 foot sarissa become more common during the times of the Diadochi.

Phalanx - the screenshots do not show actual complete formations, they are premade, preposed formations. At the moment there are no formations ingame yet, but there will be.

Testudos and pila are in Impossible to have Romans without them.

Germanic wedge formations are absolutely in my sights looking ahead to Part II.

Siege towers (Helepolis anyone? ) are in, as are walls.

Hope those answer your questions fully.

Edited April 21, 2006 by Paal_101

[illyrian]

Thanks Paal for the answer.

Another question. Why did you guys choose to make macedonia, and greeks together since they were not both of the same stock of people. The macedones were considered pan hellenic. Lets not forget that illyrians were kicking macedon butt long before philip, and their way of fighting was very distinct from the hellenes.i was just reading a book on history of the balkans. Being myself from the region, i would say that it is the biggest question in my mind. If the two nations would have been left separate, i believe the game would be a little more interesting.

I personally would love to see theban sacred band, the Argives, Spartans, Phocians, Athenians, Corinthians, etc united against the macedonians. That would really be better in my opinion. Making little cities around the mediterranean regions autonomous, fighting for freedom. Epirus, Illyrians, thracians, Dacians, thessalians, all with their respective units, examples peltasts, illyrian cavalry, axemen, thracian horsemen, peltasts, etc, thessalians had the great cavalry... Diplomacy would then play a crucial role in making allies and enemies. I haven't seen a game in which the AI would ask help from an enemy to fight another enemy with the newly found ally. I think that would make for a better gameplay, and also it would be historically correct, as Thebes and athens although enemies became allies in the battle of chaeronea, or the persian wars. I see that as a must. It would be really cool and very attractive to any gamer who really loves rts games like aoe, or TW series. They all miss that ingredient. WHat do you think Folks???

It's too much i think for the dev team, but a gamer can dream

[Paal_101]

I too am of Balkan stock, my dad was born in Croatia

As for the Macedonians, they are included with the Hellenes as that is the closest group we could fit them into for Part I. The goal was to have 6 playable civs that branch. Macedonians can obviously be considered Hellenic in a general sense so they were shoved in there. Ideally I would love to make them their own side with branches into the Alexandrian and Diadochi armies as options. But that may happen through expansion packs, who knows? Thebes would also be an impressive addition to the Hellenes,

as they are my favorite Greek city state. Cultural elements like Athens, yet highly militarized like Sparta. Unique combination

I would love to do the Illyrians, Scythians, and Thracians as addon races. It would add some depth and unique viewpoints to the game. However we have to get the six we have in there already

Edited April 21, 2006 by Paal_101

[illyrian]

Hey paal, how about that diplomacy issue i was trying to address. Two enemies acting as allies against a stronger but common enemy. Civ 3-4 has that incorporated beautifully. It would look great to see two armies act in unison, against an aggressor. This would reinforce the theory of buffer states, giving it depth

My theory is that the hero with the most abilities (higher level) would take over command for both armies, althought 2 heros can fight and contribute separately to the army with their own strength. He higher level hero would use his culture's formations and also using the strength of his ally's army.

Example:hannibal used carthaginian army in the greek fashion, head on in phalanx formation. But he used the Iberians and numidians as ambushing force, because that was their way of fighting in their homeland.

I hope you can catch my flow here.

It would be GREAT to have more people and developers discuss this idea as i don't think that it needs new civs as much as it needs scripting, and I DON'T know much about scripting or developing.

Roman army should have the ability i think of constructing forts, and i don't mean the villagers, but the soldiers themselves.

THese are just ideas that come to mind, and i would like some feedback from anyone who believes that it is worth it.

[illyrian]

i haven't seen any answers except paal, and i thank him for that, but seeing the lattest "screenshot" has made me weep from joy. THey have gotten the syntagma right. No game has given them the right animation. My only remark would be the longer sarissa.

the other thing i noticed is that the hellenes will be missing the sarissophoroi, the macedonians answer to light cavalry. the two handed sarissa yielding light cavalry.

The work is just amazing, so keep up the good work, gents.

[Paal_101]

Indeed, if we were going to do the Macedonians as their own civ we would make sure to include the sarissophoroi, but unfortunately we were only able to choose 2 super units (Foot Companions and Companion Cavalry) and three heroes (Philip, Alexander, and Demetrios). We went for the most famous Macedonian units, although in an expansion pack the sarissaphoroi and hypapsists would be in

[illyrian]

In a more subtle way you mean that there is going to be an expansion including all the mediterranean civs in their glory????? If it is so, i will raise my glass and wish 0 A.D a quick development. lol.

[Mythos_Ruler]

Part II is in the cards if 0 A.D. Part I is successful. What Part II will do is bring the timeline forward even more to 500 A.D. to encompass the rest of the ancient civilizations to have an impact on the Western world of the time. What this will do is introduce 6 *additional* civilisations, bringing the total up to 12 unique civilisations! What Paal is hinting at is when we include these new civs we will most likely overhaul the existing civs to include new features we have come up with for Part II. This may include more (unique) Super Units per civilisation, in the case of Macedonia possibly Hypaspists and Sarissophoroi (or maybe Thessalian Prodromoi). There have also been talks on somehow including the Syracusans, but this is all very early to be talking about such things when Part I isn't even finished and shipped. Just keep on giving us your support and we promise to get this puppy finished for you.

[esaptonor]

In ancient times the battleline was the primary way of warfare, I have read that this game aims to be historically acurate, and as such, will this game showcase battleline warfare? And if so, will tactics and formations play a big part in these battleline combat situations?

[Mythos_Ruler]

Oh definately. Formations and battlefield tactics utilizing formations will be extremely important in the game. Different formations will give different bonuses as best as we can approximate with historical accuracy (and good gameplay). There will be rectangle, box, column, wedge, testudo, skirmish, and phalanx formations, all with unique bonuses (and weaknesses) in speed, flanks, armor, and attack. To be honest, a good player can use the multilayered rock<paper<scissors in the game with no formations and still possibly win, but the player that uses formations well will certainly have the upper hand!

[Titus Ultor]

When Michael used "rock-paper-scissors", remember that our system will be much more realistic than forced, as opposed to the traditional RTS. Units will have advantages because of what they are, not simply "attackx2 vs. infantry". Formations will work the same. They will grant basic bonuses, but will also simply be effective formations as they effective in the real ancient world.