Additional Civs you'd like to see?

[Kennylz]

Hmm. Seems like Roman Vs Roman conflict won't be covered too much if it skips ahead from a single unified Rome to a Byzantine Empire setup. I say this because you could probably have the pagan Rome in its prime Vs the Byzantine Empire, but that wouldn't be very realistic. The Western Empire was not all that similar to the unified and iconic Rome I think will be aimed for, and the Byzantine Empire was alien compared to the grandeur of the Eastern Empire at its height. Still, with a pagan Rome and a Byzantine Empire someone could probably mod quite accurate EastvWest factions without adding any new material. Just editing the rosters and switching colors.

Edited December 26, 2007 by Kennylz

[Mythos_Ruler]

Well, a Rome vs. Rome civil war can easily be depicted with two players both playing the Imperial Rome faction.

Edited December 26, 2007 by Mythos_Ruler

[Kennylz]

The two empires both had really different units and tactics. The east used Cataphracts and a lot of horse arches recruited from the eastern provinces. They were learning the future of cavalry warfare much faster than the West. The West were fielding a lot of 'barbarian' troops that didn't fight like Imperial Romans.

There were a bunch of other differences, but those alone would make two Imperial Roman factions fighting each other not an accurate depiction. You'd have to mod in some Persian units into the East faction, along with some spear units to represent the rise of the spearman in response to the cavalry heavy Sassanians and some Celt/German units into the West along with some other stuff.

Like I said, it would be easy enough to mod in with resources already there. The EastvWest empires also fielded troops that were armoured A LOT differently than the Imperial Romans, so if someone was to make it -really- accurate they would have to create new legions.

FYI. The Imperial Romans are much cooler IMO, I was just wondering if the seperated Empires were going to be covered, because that period of Roman history is very interesting. I'm not that big into the Byzantines.

Edited December 27, 2007 by Kennylz

[Scutatus]

Let's see, what peoples would I like to see from the period 500 BC to 1 BC that aren't already covered?

Hmm well Seleucids are essentially covered in the Hellenes.

Ancient Egypt didn't really exist by this period. But for a few brief windows of freedom it was mostly a vassal state for the Persian Empire. And then the Macedonians (which is kinda covered in the Hellenes). And then Rome (again it's been done).

Sooo....

Parthians. With the real proper cataphracts and horse archer units they were so famous for. A real thorn in Rome's side for centuries and the cause of one of Rome's most infamous defeats. (Crassus anyone?)

Or Scythians

Sauromatians/Sarmatians. More famous for events AD it is true, but they were active in Asia and Europe in the last centuries BC - first Sarmatian incursion against the Romans was over the lower Danube in 16 BC.

India?

China?

For Ad 1 to 500, well gee where to start...

Germans: Ideally I'd like seperate federations i.e Goths/Franks/Vandals/Saxons etc but probably they would have to be one generic "German" entry, just as the Hellenes have been done.

Sarmatians; (of course) gave us the precursor of the knight in the form of the armoured Contararii and were a horse archer people. They influenced Roman military policy and equipment considerably and were a real threat for centuries, especially when allied with other peoples such as Dacians and Marcomanni/Quadi. Oh, and Hollywood aside they really are a possible origin for the Arthur myth. Also, as a point of interest the Alans, a sarmatian people, settled in Brittainy and consequently handed down their name to us.

Dacians; A formidable Thracian people with a culture in an advanced state of "civilization." The Romans struggled against them, receiving several bloody noses from Dacian blows. The Dacian Falx ( a scythe type weapon) particularly worried the Romans. So much so that they actually adapted their armour in the field to cope with it, giving selected troops reinforced helmets, the greaves of the Centurions and the laminated limb armour of the cataphracts. (some say from the gladiators but cataphracts are more likely for field modifications). In the end they only managed to conquer the Dacians by massing utterly overwhelming numbers. But even after the famous Dacian wars the Dacians that remained free continued to be a thorn in Rome's side.

Sassanids; Essentially the continuation of the Parthian state but now again ruled by a native house, the Sassanid Persians were Rome's greatest foe in the east and easily their match. The two took turns to defeat the other in petty wars that usually accomplished little. Ocasionally a city or single province might change hands. Once in a while the Persian capital might be raided. Always the Sassanids bounced back and gave as good as they got.

Huns: Although the myth about the Huns is far from the reality they were still truly formidable at their best and would still be an interesting faction to play, being the only Turkish (mongoloid?) people in the game. And again, as perhaps the most famous horse archer people they would have very intrigueing troop types. They have the added advantage that if you wanted to be sneaky you could combine Huns and Germans into one faction (representing the empire of Attila).

China?

India?

Arabia? Islam hadn't quite arrived in AD 500, but it wasn't far off. It was near enough to perhaps use early Muslim units erm... but just not muslim. err. ok maybe not.

Early Imperial Rome: The classic of Hollywood. Augustus, Claudius, Vespasian all that. Even Marcus Aurelius (just barely). I don't know why I'm even mentioning Early Imperial, it's such a dead cert. It would be nice if you could break the mould and maybe try the lesser known - but more interesting - Middle Imperial Rome? No? Ok it was worth a try.

Late Rome. Still quite capable - up until the end of the 4th century anyway - it was still a might to reckon with, despite it's increasing dependence on Foederati and despite the fact it was "Roman" only in the political sense. Rome wasn't even the capital any longer. But spangenhelms and pteruges? Cataphracts and shieldwalls? What's not to like?

Eastern Rome (of course ) Constantinople. Byzantium. Sadly the cut off comes just before the likes of Justinian, Belisarius and Narses but AD 500 is close enough for us to still be able to use that army. Lots of dual armed bow/kontus cavalry, horse archers, armoured Contararii, the last legionaries evolving into scutati (albeit badly discplined poor quality scutati). Shieldwalls. Huns and Germans for allies. And archers, lots of archers. Perhaps with some factional ability that revolves around either their diplomatic duplicity (buying enemies off) or perhaps something that relates to all their theological development. All in all East Rome would certainly be my favourite choice. (gee you think?) East Rome would be a natural adversary for the Huns, Sassanids and Goths.

Edited January 12, 2008 by Scutatus

[Scutatus]

For the record the Late western Roman Empire had "cataphracts" too (more acurately termed Contararii). Indeed, Sarmatian Contararii stationed in Britian could well be partly responsible for the origin of the Arthur myth. (yes that dreadful film did actually have a valid point - however badly it was presented) But yes, the east do seem to have been more interested in the whole mounted archer/contararii/true cataphract thing than perhaps the west was. This may have been because of the nature of the foes they faced: cavalry dominated Germans and steppe nomads coming down through the balkans and of course the Persians, renowned for their horse archers and cataphracts. Then there were the wide open vast ambiguous frontiers of Arabia and Northern Africa, where mobility was paramount. So understandably there was more interest in cavalry in the East but the west too recognised the importance of cavalry. Even in the west cavalry held higher prestige than infantry and were considered more important.

Regarding Byzantines, with a cut off of AD 500 you won't see much of what we now call the Byzantines, at least not properly. What you would see is a truly Eastern Roman Empire - not yet entirely dominated by Greeks - who are doing things slightly differently to the west. Unlike the west, the east had the funds to buy peoples off and maintain a fairly effective military. They used Foederati just as much as the west but kept them in smaller units, allowing greater control over them. The East was richer and more stable than the west so could stomach reverses easier. They were also under less pressure so were able to keep a tighter hold on it's army. They don't seem to have allowed control of the army to slip into "barbarian" hands so easily. And when things did become a little uncomfortable, they had the funds to be able to "encourage" peoples to "keep moving". Unfortunately this movement tended to be westward. (ahem).

Sadly the East were not perfect. It was they that were responsible for the mistreatment of the Goths, that encouraged them to ravage the balkans intially and then (after afore mentioned encouragement) travel west into destiny. In fact the East also paid the Huns to run off to the west as well. Oops.

Edited January 12, 2008 by Scutatus

[Mythos_Ruler]

Justinian and Belisarius will probably be included for any "Eastern Rome" civ. "Western Rome" will be the Early Imperial age, as you have duly noted. Heroes for such a civ will most likely be Augustus, Trajan, Hadrian, and Marcus Aurelius.

[rasouar]

Parthians and Sassanid Persians are good choices since they were major rivals of the Romans. Though they are ethnically and culturally related to the Achamanian. Their technology, systhem of government and military is so different that they should be their on factions

[Justinian]

I believe to show a transition in Persian Government in v2, that one of the "periods" (for want of a better word) should be converted into a stage where the tactics a player uses changes.

ie. Parthians use their light ambush cavalry earlier on to irritate their opponents into doing something stupid.

*but* later on the Sassanians could destroy an opponent via way of a heavier/better infantry in addition to cavalry more suited to direct engagement @#$% opposed to small skirmishes.

This would make the Persians harder to play. Both as and against.

However I think the transition phase (governmental change NEVER happens over night) should have the Persians with weaker soldiers, as most soldiers would be fighting in a civil war.

as The Romans you should have the choice to play either as a cavalry or infantry oriented civ through research. The West was Infantry oriented wasn't it. Oh And For the Record:

"No I will not let this die gently".

Edited January 16, 2008 by Scipii_Alemanus

[mAIOR]

I'd like to see the Diadochi (mainly the seleucids) but the Germanic tribes like the Sweboz) would be a nice touch...

Cheers...

[Ramus Crudelis]

Maybe for part 2 the batavian tribes, which were very civilised and wanted to be like the Romans. They came under Roman rule after the Roman expansion to the Rhine river. But when Germanic tribes and the Frisians attacked from north of the Rhine, the Batavians joined them and fought against their Roman leaders.

Edited January 21, 2008 by Ramus Crudelis

[Mythos_Ruler]

We have some tentative plans for the Diadochi. It all depends how successful the 1.0 release of 0 A.D. is.

[Kennylz]

How do you gauge success for something that is freeware?

[Mythos_Ruler]

Number of downloads for starters. But for real success, we'd gauge it by the number and quality of applicants to join the team. Part 1 is essentially a demo for subsequent releases, a recruiting tool, a chance to make a splash, a public relations coup. We'll need huge interest and an expanded team to complete Part 2 as the game we want it to be.

[Usac]

I asked earlier and got no response... any thoughts towards Palmyrans?

Edited February 21, 2008 by Usac

[Mythos_Ruler]

I've actually put some thought into them. We'll see what we can do.

[Apomonomenos]

Egyptians would rather fall under the Hellenic Faction if you ask me. After Egypt lost most of it's power, and Greece was the world power, there was a lot of trade & relations. The city of Thebes in Egypt was named after Thebes in Greece. There were many towns in Egypt called "Alexandria", named after, guess who? Alexander the Great. Today there are only about two. Ptolemy was from Greece and Cleopatra was half Egyptian and half Greek. The Rosetta Stone was written in two languages: Greek and Egyptian Hieroglyphics. And I'm sure you can find other relations with other factions, but these were major topics. An Egyptian equivalent to Zeus was called Ammon, and was thought to be the same god in certain towns in Egypt and often called the god "Zeus-Ammon". And if you're thinking of Great pyramids as the Egyptian civilization, that was a while ago. Around 6,000-4,000 B.C. and wouldn't make this game too accurate if according to history. But otherwise it would be good to make them Mercenaries bought from a Market (or any equivalent building to it). And one more thing, when making the unit's language to respond when clicked on, it's a better idea to make it Nubian because that's the closest scientists have gotten to Egyptian, since many Pharaohs had Nubian ancestry.

Also, if you're going to add this, then you could have cats next to farms as a Prop, because Egyptians did use cats to protect Crops from rats and Birds (Ex. Crows). They might have used cats around this time period, because they were always popular, starting out at around 5,000 B.C. because of a Cat-like goddess that was called Sehkmet.

Edited March 29, 2008 by Alexthegod5