61 replies to this topic

[Seru]

oshron, on 11 January 2012 - 04:59 PM, said:

personally, i think it would be good for scenario design if some (for want of a better word) less-distinct peoples could be simulated with a few editor-only unique units and buildings and perhaps a reskinning technology which visually changes units (so, for example, hellenes/romans could be "reskinned" to SIMULATE the etruscans)

Egypt Pre Hellenic, or Babylon,or Hittite Empire are more interesting than Etruscans.

[Cassador_Chris]

Seru, on 11 January 2012 - 05:19 PM, said:

Egypt Pre Hellenic, or Babylon,or Hittite Empire are more interesting than Etruscans.

They're kind of out of the timeline set for 0 AD (500 BCE-1 BCE). And Part 2 should be set for 1 CE-500 CE.

EDIT: Not that I think they'll ever be part of 0 AD. Its very mod-able, so I wouldn't be surprised if someone adds them eventually.

Edited by Cassador_Chris, 11 January 2012 - 07:38 PM.

[BCM]

And how about russian folk, at time of czar?

[Kimball]

BCM, on 11 January 2012 - 07:59 PM, said:

And how about russian folk, at time of czar?

Sarmatians.

[Geek377]

Kimball, on 18 December 2011 - 08:05 PM, said:

It tends to be easier to stay active and motivated when we have fewer responsibilities. The great majority of the team are students, so naturally we have a lot more time to spare during the summer and on breaks. Simply put, there are four ways in which we could be spending our time:

Studying
Socializing
Sleeping
Developing

You get to pick 3. Naturally, game development often falls by the wayside (because nobody really wants to be a hermit). The good news is, it's Christmas break, so there's a possibility you may see something from us in the next month. Stay tuned.

On spot

[ribez]

Argantonius, on 11 January 2012 - 01:43 PM, said:

Aren't they just Greeks with a funny language?

ehm... no!

[hhyloc]

Kimball, on 11 January 2012 - 09:02 PM, said:

Sarmatians.

Yes, personally I think Sarmatians should be a faction in Part 2 instead of one of the two Roman factions. Their history ranges from 6-5 BC to 4 AD so it'll fit in the scope of both Part 1 and Part 2 too.

Don't kill me for this.

Edit: My bad, I meant 6-5th BC to 4th AD

Edited by hhyloc, 17 May 2012 - 01:36 AM.

[Mythos_Ruler]

hhyloc, on 12 January 2012 - 04:56 AM, said:

Yes, personally I think Sarmatians should be a faction in Part 2 instead of one of the two Roman factions. Their history ranges from 6-5 BC to 4 AD so it'll fit in the scope of both Part 1 and Part 2 too.

Don't kill me for this.

My vague idea would be to add Sarmations in a big 2.5 content patch.

[oshron]

well if the sarmatians had a peak of only about a decade, wouldnt it be better to have some larger group from the region with the sarmatians represented to some extent or as a divergent path? maybe the scythians?

[Mythos_Ruler]

oshron, on 12 January 2012 - 08:36 AM, said:

well if the sarmatians had a peak of only about a decade, wouldnt it be better to have some larger group from the region with the sarmatians represented to some extent or as a divergent path? maybe the scythians?

he meant AD 400.

[Arthur_D]

Kimball, on 10 January 2012 - 09:41 PM, said:

Wow, that totally backfired. Apparently I need to be less subtle about my sarcasm.

We're not adding factions to part one.

/discussion

I knew that. My comment was directed at all the people saying "we need faction X" when it's totally clear what factions will be included for part 1, and while part 2 might not be set in stone yet there's no reason to plan THAT far ahead in time, IMO.

It's OK to dream I guess, but just saying that faction X should be added doesn't actually make it happen.
</endofoldgeezerrant> (though I'm not old)

[Argantonius]

ribez, on 12 January 2012 - 01:46 AM, said:

ehm... no!

Okay. Let me rephrase that.

Wouldn't an hypothethical Etruscan faction...

Spoiler

...just look like the Greek one?

[ribez]

Argantonius, on 13 January 2012 - 08:15 AM, said:

Okay. Let me rephrase that.

Wouldn't an hypothethical Etruscan faction...

Spoiler

...just look like the Greek one?

ah, ok...

well, maybe yes, aesthetically they were very similar. From the game point of view, they could have a bonus for mining

[oshron]

been thinking about it lately, and i thought i'd repost some ideas ive had for what civs in later expansions could be

0 A.D. Part II ("Roman world" from 1-500 AD)

• a Germanic civilization: either generic Germanics, Vandals, Saxons, Goths, or Franks, or perhaps some encompassing Germanic people which diverges into two or more different types of Germanic peoples (for example, the Saxons and Franks)
  
• an Iranian civilization: either the Sarmatians, Parthians, or Sassanids, or perhaps some encompassing Persian/Iranian people which diverges into the Parthians and Sassanids
  
• a Western Roman civilization, either Late Rome or Imperial Rome; personally, and based on previous comments, i suggest making it the Imperial Romans of Trajan's era
  
• an Eastern Roman civilization, namely the Eastern Romans of the Early Byzantine period (from 395 to 500 AD)
  
• Huns
  
• some other civilization, possible the Dacians or Himyar (pre-Islamic) Arabs

next is what i think would be a good expansion after the "official" second release: civs which didn't have much contact with the roman world (or just complementary civs), if any, divided into two packs like the first two ones

• an Indian civilization, presumably the Maurya, Nanda, or Sunga (possibly diverging); the Indians would be a good choice since many ancient cultures knew of/interacted with them even if there was little large-scale contact--Alexander's attempted conquest comes to mind
  
• an Egyptian civilization, perhaps best if dated from the 28th to 30th dynasties (between the two periods of Achaemind rule) or alternatively the Ptolemaic kingdom
  
• a Mediterranean civilization, such as the Etruscans
  
• a Near Eastern civilization, such as the Neo-Babylonian Empire
  
• unknown
  
• unknown

and then from 1-500 AD

• a Chinese civilization, presumably the Qin and/or Han dynasties and possibly diverging into the Three Kingdoms
  
• Yamato Japanese (from the Jomon to Yayoi periods; notably, this would have to exclude samurai in normal gameplay since that noble class didnt exist at the time)
  
• a Korean civilization, namely the Kaguryo
  
• Classical Mayans
  
• an African civilization, presumably the Axumites but possibly the Meroe/Kushites
  
• unknown

for an even 30 civs, there could possibly be some "filler" civilizations from the entire period (both BC and AD), especially if theyre "tribal" peoples

• Israelites
  
• unknown
  
• unknown
  
• unknown
  
• unknown
  
• unknown

finally, just as a note, some civs that would be interesting are actually out of the (original) scope of 0 AD in terms of chronology:

• Mongols: the Mongols only reached their height hundreds of years after the cut-off date, and the Mongols that DID exist during 0 AD's period were a non-entity
  
• Islamic civilizations: since Muhammad was born around 570 AD and Islam founded in the 7th century, any Islamic civs are past the cut-off date

as another note, there's a few changes that i think should be made to teh original civs in terms of aesthetics

• the Romans in Part 1 should be called Republican Romans (if they aren't already) to differentiate them from later Roman civs
  
• the Poleis could perhaps be renamed "Peloponnesians" to go along with the naming conventions of other civs
  
• the Persians of Part 1 should be called Achaemenid Perians or just Achaemenids, unless no other Persian civs that use the name "Persia(n)" are included later

[nocompile]

tribalbeat, on 30 November 2011 - 02:31 AM, said:

Already is a mod for China in the works, but it looks dead in the water which is a shame.

Can you convince them to upload their files somewhere, they have good things and say it's the same license as 0ad. But they don't release any download . Please ask them.

[nocompile]

"

• Islamic civilizations: since Muhammad was born around 570 AD and Islam founded in the 7th century, any Islamic civs are past the cut-off date

as another note, there's a few changes that i think should be made to teh original civs in terms of aesthetics"

Is chopping off hands and feet + nice domes totally inconsistant with persia? Maybe islamic civilization is an extention of the greater persian empire (including babylon, upper arabia) to the present day. Maybe it's more central arabian (bahgdad) than totally iranic-persian though. Islam, as far as anyone really knows, first came out of bahgdad... though it's origins are credited with southern arabia... but think about it, at the time rome decided to use a master religion to keep it's empire together, as did what was left of the persian empire (they use zororastrianism, their ancient religion)... and suddenly there emerges another religion to push them both away. Yea bahgdad, old babylon, had nothing to do with that.... the people there definitaly wouldn't do what they needed to do to gain back past glory and autonomy...

[nocompile]

"Dacians or Himyar (pre-Islamic) Arabs" One of their special abilities should be removing the limbs of captives alive.

Chinese should make euniches.

The severed parts should last awhile on the battlefield, the chop-chop-square, and the silk-worm house.

What has happened to the foe's forces should be explained to him: they are not dead..

Pureon, on 30 November 2011 - 10:28 AM, said:

We need to focus on more important things first, like finishing 0 A.D.


More info on Rise of the East

An opensource game is never truely finished, which is what is best about them, they keep growing through time.
Look at xonotic now (used to be called nexuiz) 5 or more years of constant improvements. OSS is nice

Silk worm house and euniches for chinese. This is the time of the "punishment for slaves" law in china I think, so it goes.

At that time, the chinese were considered all to be slaves of the emporer. The men were physically emasculated for any offense.
(Women were just imprisoned or beaten). Chinese were considered universally "less than men" because of this, that they would not revolt against this law, they would just accept living without bits.

"Adultery" against one's wife was punished by chopping off the man's genitals.

Totally different from the middle-eastern view of things (one could not commit "adultry" against your own wife: you owned her and you can have other females as you please, aslong as they aren't another man's bride. You could take girls and make them marry you too... today we all are like the ancient chinese, americans/english have the same view of adultry as the ancient chinese)

Edited by nocompile, 19 March 2012 - 03:58 AM.

[Pedro Falcão]

I think that the campaigns of the game are what need to be thought of, instead of the civs. After all, the game is about telling history away, not just making you play as X or Y, so one must think about what needs to be told, because some civs fit better to a strategy game campaign than others. Of course that if some civs fit good both to campaigns and to content, then there's no point in discussing further, just add it to the plans.

nocompile, on 19 March 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:

Acc you're right: we don't NEEED a game at all.
But it's not about needs.

Good point.

[oshron]

Pedro Falcão, on 19 March 2012 - 10:44 AM, said:

I think that the campaigns of the game are what need to be thought of, instead of the civs. After all, the game is about telling history away, not just making you play as X or Y, so one must think about what needs to be told, because some civs fit better to a strategy game campaign than others. Of course that if some civs fit good both to campaigns and to content, then there's no point in discussing further, just add it to the plans.


Good point.

ive also had some thoughts about what campaigns there could be. again using four releases as an example, ive figured that three or four campaigns could be good to each pack. in the first pack, there could be a learning campaign where you play as the hellenes and reenact the rise of syracuse, a roman campaign focusing on caesar, a carthaginian campaign with hannibal, and a persian campaign with cyrus the great. for the second pack, depending on what civs are included, there could be an atilla and belisarius campaign. going on the assumption that there'd be an indian civ in a hypothetical 3rd or 4th pack, that could open the door for an alexander campaign (unless a campaign for him could be included earlier without including his exploits in india). i also think that, in whatever would be the last official major release, there should be a "campaign" like Battle of the Conquerors in the AOK expansion, in which each civ (or whichever ones didn't get their own campaign in previous expansions) gets a single scenario focusing on an exceptionally famous or important battle in history; for example, one could have you playing as the hellenic poleis controlling the forces of both leonidas and themistocles (or just one of them) at thermopylae and/or salamis against the persians. this could also be where civs like china, india, and iberia come into major single-player gameplay. there could probably also be a japanese campaign focusing on their wars against the koreans (kaguryo, iirc)

and this is just something i would personally appreciate: another Battle of the Conquerors-style game, but this one focusing on important historical battles which could have drastically affected history had they ended differently; again, thermopylae comes to mind, but playing as the persians instead, and also boudicca's rebellion against the romans

[Veridagorin]

oshron, on 20 March 2012 - 04:21 AM, said:

ive also had some thoughts about what campaigns there could be. again using four releases as an example, ive figured that three or four campaigns could be good to each pack. in the first pack, there could be a learning campaign where you play as the hellenes and reenact the rise of syracuse, a roman campaign focusing on caesar, a carthaginian campaign with hannibal, and a persian campaign with cyrus the great. for the second pack, depending on what civs are included, there could be an atilla and belisarius campaign. going on the assumption that there'd be an indian civ in a hypothetical 3rd or 4th pack, that could open the door for an alexander campaign (unless a campaign for him could be included earlier without including his exploits in india). i also think that, in whatever would be the last official major release, there should be a "campaign" like Battle of the Conquerors in the AOK expansion, in which each civ (or whichever ones didn't get their own campaign in previous expansions) gets a single scenario focusing on an exceptionally famous or important battle in history; for example, one could have you playing as the hellenic poleis controlling the forces of both leonidas and themistocles (or just one of them) at thermopylae and/or salamis against the persians. this could also be where civs like china, india, and iberia come into major single-player gameplay. there could probably also be a japanese campaign focusing on their wars against the koreans (kaguryo, iirc)

and this is just something i would personally appreciate: another Battle of the Conquerors-style game, but this one focusing on important historical battles which could have drastically affected history had they ended differently; again, thermopylae comes to mind, but playing as the persians instead, and also boudicca's rebellion against the romans

these Campaign ideas awesome

i'm just wondering if the campaign battles would build and destroy like most of age of empires campaigns or if the campaigns would of have a mix of build and destroy, defend the city, siege a city. maybe for a Hunnish campaign battle raiding for resources, and even set battles were you have an army and you need to set up your army to withstand the enemy army

Build and Destroy would be normal gameplay
Defend The City should be you start out with walls buildings and houses your citizen soldiers can't build any buildings and you have no way to collect resources without leaving city walls with things like resources reinforcements arriving from allies

the siege a city should be different cut off any supplies from entering a city start out with a large army little resources but no siege can't build buildings like fortresses and instead citizen soldiers or engineers construct siege equipment.