Exilian

Game Design and Project Resources: The Workshops Quarter => Rome - Total Realism => Mods, Maps & Game Add-Ons - The Bazaar => RTR 0.5 Imperial Campaign => Topic started by: ahowl11 on March 02, 2014, 05:37:40 PM

Title: 0.6-1.0
Post by: ahowl11 on March 02, 2014, 05:37:40 PM
Alright team, it's time to get down to some serious business. We have had a lot of discussion and ideas lately and now it's time to organize it all into a set plan for our next public release. Here I will lay out the order in which I'd like to continue the mod for a 1.0 version.

0.6
Delete All ahistorical units
Completely Remove Senate from game
Remove Scipii, and Brutii from campaign
Convert Thrace to Illyria
Convert Britons to Celtic Tribes
Change Egypt to Ptolemaic Empire *Should the culture stay Egyptian or should we make them Greek?
Change Spain to Iberia
Change Scythia to Sarmatia
Rename romans_julii, romans_brutii, romans_scipii, and romans_senate to rome, hellenic_kingdoms, greek_states, and independent_peoples
Edit descr_strat accordingly

0.7
Add in New Faction units (Depending on the availability of Algaman and TBTWB we could end up adding premade units.. I am hoping that while we work on 0.6 that they can be making the new units for 0.7)
Edit Mercenary Pools
Start editing Economy
Add new culture: Nomad, for Sarmatia

0.8
Add in New Mercenary Units
Create AOR system
Start adding in new traits/ancillaries
Continue editing Economy
Add Loyalty

0.9
Add in New AOR units
Start adding government system
Continue adding traits/ancillaries
Continue editing economy
Add Hording

1.0
Finish Government system
Finish Traits/ancillaries
Finish Economy

Also, in between all of these versions we can continue to look for mini mods and other things, like EB's Egyptian/Seleucid Portrait pack, Milners African Portraits, V.T. Marvins Spoils of War etc

Let me know your thoughts. Agree? Disagree?

Title: Re: 0.6-1.0
Post by: Bercor on March 02, 2014, 05:57:37 PM
Seems like a good plan.

Ptolemaic Empire culture should be greek. Giving them the egyptian culture would be both unhistorical and stupid, because we would be wasting a culture slot.
Title: Re: 0.6-1.0
Post by: ahowl11 on March 02, 2014, 06:04:28 PM
Okay that means we will have an unused culture which we could make Nomad. However this means that we would need to change all the buildings etc for the Nomad culture. It would be advanced work.
I also have had the idea of making Iberia part of the Carthaginian culture.
Title: Re: 0.6-1.0
Post by: Bercor on March 02, 2014, 08:22:05 PM
You might want to talk with an Iberian history specialist for that.
Title: Re: 0.6-1.0
Post by: Solon de Atenas on March 03, 2014, 10:16:06 AM
We are in the same point, I mean, now we should change internal names for some faction and create new cultures in RTRA III.

hmmm about iberian. I think that I can help...

Iberian property was people who lived in mediterranean costline from Gades to Emproion. Almost the entire andalusian region was iberian people homeland and currently provinces of Valencia and Cataluña. These peoples were the most ancient people of iberian peninsula and they was the most involved too. Iberian peoples had a huge influence of phoenicians and greek because they had trading by hundred years between them.

The problem is, what tribe do you want to create to RTR? Because, the entire peninsula hadn´t a common culture like gaul peoples. In spain there are three kind of ethnic groups. Iberian property, Celtiberian and Celtic peoples.

Celtiberian and Celtic peoples in Iberian peninsula are difficult to explain because they aren´t celtc property for a few and very importants reasons. The first is that they belong to ancient migrations before hallsthatt, so, they are indoeuropean peoples and slightly similar to gaulish but they aren´t...

So, Celtic peoples of iberian peninsula like Lusitanians or Galacians, asturian, etc are indoeuropean peoples that they arrived before hallsthat cultures and other european celtic cultures. The group know like celtiberian have the same problem but this, in addition its influenced by iberian culture.

And iberian culture is a original culture from iberian peninsula but its the most influenciated by phoenicians and greeks.

Obviously, gaul peoples were influences by greeks in ancient times (greek pottery in gaul, etc), but iberian peoples were totally modified by them...

Exampkles of iberian, celtiberian and celtic peoples in spain:

Iberian: turdetani, bastetani, edetani, south-carpetani, etc
celtiberian: celtiberi, carpetani-north, vaccei, arevaci, etc
Celtic: lusitani, galacians, asturians, etc

Vasci??? The origing of vascii tribe ist unknow and strongly disscuss...
in my opinion was people proto-iberian. the reason is that there are iberian culture places in aquitania region, but these places were isolated from phoenician and greek influence (costline). For this, Vascii peoples and other ancient iberian tribes from atlantic costline were isolated and ceturies later, seem different from iberian peoples from mediterranean costline.

So, celtic and celtiberian can use barbarian culture but iberian its a problem because carthaginian culture is wrong, greek culture is wrong and barbarian is wrong. Iberian should be:

Postraits: Mix beetween barbarian and greek portraits.
Houses: Like carthaginian tipology but white colour and with greek/barbarian cityplan
Temples and art: totally new but with greek influence

for now, its all.

 ::)
Title: Re: 0.6-1.0
Post by: The Sloth on March 03, 2014, 11:03:55 AM
So basically, unless we create an entirely new culture for Iberia, with customized buildings and so on, we'd better keep them barbarian.

1) I'm against including religion. Different beliefs don't seem to have been that big of a deal back then, and it causes some wierd gameplay issues.

2) If we're including nomadic culture, we might consider making Numidia nomadic as well. What do our historians say?

3) Regarding Egypt, it would be nice to have a distinct Greek-Egyptian feel for the faction, but I admit I have no idea how that could be done. With RTW's mechanics, they will automatically look like either Athenians or like mummies, neither of which is realistic. If we do keep them Egyptian, we should at least give them Greek character portraits and names. After all, they were a hellenic elite ruling a native Egyptian people.
Title: Re: 0.6-1.0
Post by: Bercor on March 03, 2014, 04:25:12 PM
So basically, unless we create an entirely new culture for Iberia, with customized buildings and so on, we'd better keep them barbarian.

1) I'm against including religion. Different beliefs don't seem to have been that big of a deal back then, and it causes some wierd gameplay issues.

2) If we're including nomadic culture, we might consider making Numidia nomadic as well. What do our historians say?

3) Regarding Egypt, it would be nice to have a distinct Greek-Egyptian feel for the faction, but I admit I have no idea how that could be done. With RTW's mechanics, they will automatically look like either Athenians or like mummies, neither of which is realistic. If we do keep them Egyptian, we should at least give them Greek character portraits and names. After all, they were a hellenic elite ruling a native Egyptian people.

I agree, we might aswell leave the iberians with the barbarian culture.

1) I'm with you, let's leave religion out of this mod.

2) It's a possibility. I think they fit in the punic culture nicely, though.

3) Yeah, it's a shame that the portraits are linked to culture and not to faction. I reckon one way to give the multicultural feel to the faction is through the native troops. However, between the ancient egyptian portraits and the hellenic ones, I would go with the latter.
Title: Re: 0.6-1.0
Post by: ahowl11 on March 03, 2014, 05:00:52 PM
How many cultures are we allowed to have in RTW? To be honest I hate just having a Barbarian Culture. I wish we could have Celtic, Germanic, and the others as their own.
Also the religion feature is not for actual religion. We can change it to represent culture like a lot of other mods do. The common solution is to have Western Civilized, Eastern Civilized, and Barbarian.
Title: Re: 0.6-1.0
Post by: Bercor on March 03, 2014, 05:02:38 PM
I believe the max number it's 6 cultures.
Title: Re: 0.6-1.0
Post by: Mausolos of Caria on March 03, 2014, 05:15:53 PM
Well Roman is Barbarian, isn't it? That's what Pyrrhos said  ;D
Title: Re: 0.6-1.0
Post by: Bercor on March 03, 2014, 05:28:41 PM
Well, then we might aswell have only two cultures: greeks and barbarians.
Title: Re: 0.6-1.0
Post by: ahowl11 on March 03, 2014, 05:51:52 PM
It's possible to have 7 cultures.
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?34622-How-to-Add-a-New-Culture

Currently we have:

1. Roman
2. Greek
3. Barbarian
4. Eastern
5. Egyptian
6. Carthaginian
7. Nomad *Added

Now this is how I see it. Why have a Carthaginian culture? It's exactly the same as the eastern culture. So scrap Carthaginian and we have another slot.

Then there is Egyptian. If we change Egypt to be Greek, we then have yet another slot available. So the list would look like:

1. Roman
2. Greek
3. Barbarian
4. Eastern
5. Nomad *Added
6. ?
7. ?

Here is a list of potential options:

Celtic and Germanic and leave Barbarian to represent Iberians, Illyrians, Dacians and Thracians
Indian for when we make the Mauryan faction campaign
Iberian so they are not resembled as Barbarians

Thoughts?
Title: Re: 0.6-1.0
Post by: The Sloth on March 03, 2014, 06:52:02 PM
I haven't played RS1 for years, but I believe they had Egyptian culture with Greek character portraits.

The idea of culture is not what their settlements or UI look like, but their historical roots and ties to other factions that share the same culture. And Carthage hasn't really all that much in common with Parthia, or has it? Besides, you'd end up with "eastern" culture in the most western part of the map.

And I'm still against religion. If we change it into culture, we end up with something even more vague than the seven culture groups, since there can only be three religions. The feature was poorly implemented in the first place: if you try to convert a settlement to your religion/whatever, you'll end up with situations like a village with 400 inhabitant revolting against your full stack of Chosen Agema Praetorians of Sparta, and there is nothing you can do about it. It's good for pissing off the player, and nothing more.

Title: Re: 0.6-1.0
Post by: ahowl11 on March 03, 2014, 06:57:26 PM
Okay well it saves time and effort by not adding the religion feature.

As for cultures should we keep the Ptolemies Egyptian but add Greek looks or should we completely make them Greek?
Title: Re: 0.6-1.0
Post by: b257 on March 03, 2014, 07:56:51 PM
I found something interesting that might allow us to Utilize the Egyptian culture:
http://www.eternalegypt.org/EternalEgyptWebsiteWeb/HomeServlet?ee_website_action_key=action.display.module&language_id=1&story_id=51&module_id=301&ee_messages=0001.flashrequired.text

Not much but it could give the Egyptians a more distinct culture.
Title: Re: 0.6-1.0
Post by: Solon de Atenas on March 03, 2014, 08:09:34 PM
So basically, unless we create an entirely new culture for Iberia, with customized buildings and so on, we'd better keep them barbarian.

Yes, it would be better, but put them like carthaginian or greeks could be fine. The edetani capital Arse (or latin saguntum) was greek colony mixing with iberian king goverment. Something freak... hahahaahah But iberian people are so much specific to be represented with RTW resources and engine. Wherever, there are other interesting iberian faction of non iberian ethnic like celtiberian arevaci or celtici lusitani or celtiberi themself...

Quote
Indian for when we make the Mauryan faction campaign

Yes, in RTRA 2.0 we have included indian culture based on eastern but with different temples (stuppas), different portraits and other resources. Its easy.

Sorry for my english mistakes guys...  ::)


Title: Re: 0.6-1.0
Post by: Bercor on March 03, 2014, 08:40:51 PM
I strongly agree with the Sloth. Carthage should have its own punic culture, maybe shared with Numidia. They had almost nothing in common with Parthia, and even the UI would look out of place. The seven cultures should be, in my opinion: Roman, Greek, Punic, Barbarian, Eastern, Nomad and Indian (if we want to make the Maurians playable).
Title: Re: 0.6-1.0
Post by: ahowl11 on March 03, 2014, 08:49:43 PM
Okay sounds good to me. We will rename Carthaginian to Punic, scrap Egyptian for now and then add Nomad
Title: Re: 0.6-1.0
Post by: Mausolos of Caria on March 03, 2014, 09:40:22 PM
I have a problem with the name ''Punic'' since it reflects the Roman name and Numidia has nothing to do with Phoenicia. Quite hard to find something better, though, African doesn't sound like the best solution either.

And if the Nomads are only those in the Northern steppes we might as well name it Scythian?
Title: Re: 0.6-1.0
Post by: Bercor on March 03, 2014, 10:15:56 PM
Yeah, taking all into account, I think that "Punic" it's better than "Carthaginian" or "North African".

In regards to the "Nomad" Culture, I suspect xeofox wouldn't like that we name it "Scythian", because it's too specific.
Title: Re: 0.6-1.0
Post by: Mausolos of Caria on March 03, 2014, 10:34:26 PM
Wasn't Scythians how the Greeks named all those tribes taken together? And why is Punic better than Carthaginian?
Title: Re: 0.6-1.0
Post by: Bercor on March 03, 2014, 10:50:52 PM
It was? I always thought that was the name of a specific tribe... In that case I wouldn't oppose call it "Scythian" culture.

I prefer "Punic" to "Carthaginian" for two reasons. Firstly, punic it's a latin word, while carthaginian it's an english word. In historical mods, I think ancient language should always be used when it's known to the player. Secondly, when experts refer to the carthaginian culture and language,mthey usually use the word punic.
Title: Re: 0.6-1.0
Post by: xeofox on March 03, 2014, 11:14:28 PM
In the European sources the whole territory of the nomads from the Aral Sea to the Black Sea known as Scythia. Scythians lived near the Black Sea(north). What is known of Sakas that they were (same) Scythians, knew the Scythian language, BUT SPEAK their language. Once again I say, SCYTHIA is from European sources. Others you need to investigate. Many Russians also call the whole area of Scythia. If we want to give individual titles(indian for example), will have to work on it.  :(

(http://www.i-tverd.narod.ru/Odessa/IMAGES/MapU_5.jpg)
mid 1 Millennium BC (great sciphia) lot of sciphian archaeological monuments

(http://www.trinitas.ru/rus/doc/0211/008a/pic/1078/image018n.gif)
2 bc-2ad (*lot of sarmatians)
Title: Re: 0.6-1.0
Post by: xeofox on March 03, 2014, 11:20:19 PM
the Scythians kins sakas but settled near Black Sea
Title: Re: 0.6-1.0
Post by: Mausolos of Caria on March 03, 2014, 11:30:54 PM
Mmh which name would you prefer for the whole culture then, Scythian or Nomadic or Steppe or something else?

@Bercor Is it? At least over here ,,Punisch'' isn't used anymore since many historians think it implies a deragotary Roman attitude towards Carthage. How is Punic more Latin than Carthaginian anyway?  :P Carthago is also a Latin word, after all. On the other hand, if we include Numidia in the same culture Punic might not be the worst option since ,,Carthaginian'' obviously implies that it is Carthage.
Title: Re: 0.6-1.0
Post by: xeofox on March 03, 2014, 11:37:31 PM
____
Title: Re: 0.6-1.0
Post by: xeofox on March 03, 2014, 11:38:38 PM
if we talk about matters nomads: Dahae will go south. Sakas will go to the southeast (the solution). Sarmatians will go to the west and south (dissolving the Scythians). The name there scyphians or nomad (does not matter)!
About ,, Punisch 'I can not say... now.
Title: Re: 0.6-1.0
Post by: Bercor on March 03, 2014, 11:42:00 PM
Yeah, I don't really want to make this a big thing. Carthaginian and Punic are, more or less, synonims, so , strictly speaking, it really doesn't matter the word we use. I only think that the latter sounds better, because, as we'll put Numidia within the same culture, it seems more abragent for the people that don't know that well.
But now I'm curious, why do the german historians consider that "Punic" is a negative name given by the romans to the carthaginians?
Title: Re: 0.6-1.0
Post by: Mausolos of Caria on March 04, 2014, 12:06:26 AM
@Xeofox Okay cheers, it's up to Master ahowl then if we are going to use Nomad or Scythian  :P

@ Bercor I think it is due to the fact that Roman sources often portray the Carthaginians (called Punics) in a very bad light. Earlier works in Germany (19th century) also used ''Punic'' and linguists still do when speaking about West- Phoenician languages, but you wouldn't find a book called ''Punische Geschichte'' these days. Rather, the newest book on the topic (which I got myself) was called ''Karthago. Aufstieg und Fall einer Großmacht'' (Carthage. Rise and fall of a great power'').

Anyway, what exactly does the culture determine anyway? Since I'm still pondering about the Numidians as Punic/Carthaginians/Libyo- Phoenicians or whatever, since they didn't have big cities, but neither were they nomads. (To be fair their former capital looks quite impressive nowadays)

Open to see Karta (Roman: Cirta, Algerian: Constantine)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

By the way I'm just watching a documentary about Star Wars and mythology and Dido (who founded Carthage) is related to Padmé Amidala  ;D Both make pleas to their husbands not to change and to stay good and with them- unsuccessfully, of course.
Title: Re: 0.6-1.0
Post by: xeofox on March 04, 2014, 12:12:42 AM
and again ...
to avoid conflicts with different historians call them "Scythian tribes"  ;D
Title: Re: 0.6-1.0
Post by: Bercor on March 04, 2014, 12:17:17 AM
Culture mainly determines the user interface appearence, character portraits, and style of the buildings.

Yeah, I can definitely see some similarities, Aeneas didn't changed to the dark side though... Or did he? :balrog:
Title: Re: 0.6-1.0
Post by: Mausolos of Caria on March 04, 2014, 12:23:49 AM
Mmh yes true ... okay, maybe it's not too bad. Do they have the same culture in Vanilla?

Hehe that leads us back to the former point... he goes to Rome, and isn't that evil seen from an exaggerated mythological Carthaginian point of view?  ;D But Anakin is more like Achilles, I learn. Achilles is always angry, too, and has to pay with his death.

The Illiad starts with a sentence about the wrath of Achilles, which brought pain on the Achaeans. Quite similar.
Title: Re: 0.6-1.0
Post by: Bercor on March 04, 2014, 12:34:41 AM
I believe they share they same culture in vanilla, yes.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: 0.6-1.0
Post by: Mausolos of Caria on March 04, 2014, 12:44:37 AM
Okay it might work then.  Glad to have this settled anyway ;)

I'll put the Star Wars stuff in spoilers because of off-topic  ;D

Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: 0.6-1.0
Post by: Bercor on March 04, 2014, 12:59:37 AM
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: 0.6-1.0
Post by: ahowl11 on March 04, 2014, 02:43:23 AM
I like Nomad and I like African. African makes sense for both Carthage and Numidia as they were both in Africa :)
Title: Re: 0.6-1.0
Post by: Prince Eugene on March 04, 2014, 04:56:29 AM
Concerning the feature of loyalty in 0.8, I have heard that in XGM it may increase the chance of CTD. Maybe this can be made as an optional feature?
Title: Re: 0.6-1.0
Post by: ahowl11 on March 04, 2014, 05:57:42 AM
Were there any specifics to this claim? If so, I'd like to know because I'd hate to have a buggy mod.
Title: Re: 0.6-1.0
Post by: Prince Eugene on March 04, 2014, 07:26:40 AM
Were there any specifics to this claim? If so, I'd like to know because I'd hate to have a buggy mod.
I read that from this post: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?608479-Alexander-and-loyalty
And in XGM Readme it said 'activating loyalty can cause problems', but it seems that there is still no concrete evidence...
Title: Re: 0.6-1.0
Post by: Bercor on March 04, 2014, 12:09:12 PM
I like Nomad and I like African. African makes sense for both Carthage and Numidia as they were both in Africa :)

Then go with North African, it's more specific for that region.
Title: Re: 0.6-1.0
Post by: Mausolos of Caria on March 04, 2014, 12:58:42 PM
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Yes, go with North African, that's fine with me.
Title: Re: 0.6-1.0
Post by: Bercor on March 04, 2014, 01:24:59 PM
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: 0.6-1.0
Post by: ahowl11 on March 05, 2014, 04:54:58 AM
Hmm well now it doesn't sound so good lol. Ugh I'll sleep on it, another 14 hour shift :(

And Prince Eugene, we are using BI not Alexander, so it shouldn't be an issue :)
Title: Re: 0.6-1.0
Post by: Alavaria on March 05, 2014, 07:21:53 AM
The feature was poorly implemented in the first place: if you try to convert a settlement to your religion/whatever, you'll end up with situations like a village with 400 inhabitant revolting against your full stack of Chosen Agema Praetorians of Sparta, and there is nothing you can do about it. It's good for pissing off the player, and nothing more.
Well it happens anyway ... the religion mechanic was, however, just really really annoying.

Besides that, there is the ingame culture (which causes the "Culture Penalty" public order penalty if buildings are not of your culture), and one can of course make use of special (unbuildable, probably) buildings that give bonuses and penalties (or even restrict unit training).
Title: Re: 0.6-1.0
Post by: ahowl11 on March 05, 2014, 04:25:43 PM
Well here is a quick idea. Is it possible to make Temples indestructible when built? That way it will always retain the native culture?
Title: Re: 0.6-1.0
Post by: The Sloth on March 05, 2014, 04:55:26 PM
And that will achieve... what exactly?
Title: Re: 0.6-1.0
Post by: ahowl11 on March 05, 2014, 05:01:04 PM
Well I was thinking it would retain the native culture so it would be harder to make the populace happy. Before you could just destroy the temples, build your own, and everything would be fine. Now that you can't destroy the temples the culture penalty will always be there. The bigger the temple, the bigger the penalty.
Title: Re: 0.6-1.0
Post by: The Sloth on March 05, 2014, 05:18:56 PM
Since when do temples give a penalty? Or are you talking about religion? Because if you do, I'll just repeat what was said earlier: it forces us to artificially divide all factions into three categories, and would be unhistoric, as back in the day, everyone happily worshipped everyone else's gods.

What might work is something like what Aradan previewed for FATW: Dominion of Men, where you can't upgrade core buildings (Proconsul's Palace etc.). That means if you capture a city of a different culture, you'll always be stuck with the 20% happiness penalty that comes with a core building built by a different culture. But that also means that you can't "romanize" settlements anymore, as the Romans did.
Title: Re: 0.6-1.0
Post by: ahowl11 on March 05, 2014, 05:29:39 PM
In vanilla when you capture a settlement of different culture, don't the buildings of the previous culture give a culture penalty?
Title: Re: 0.6-1.0
Post by: The Sloth on March 05, 2014, 05:37:12 PM
That's what I'm saying, but that penalty only lasts until you upgrade that specific building. And it's not just the temples, but any building that shows up on the battlemap (I think). Farms, roads and such don't give a penalty in my experience.
Title: Re: 0.6-1.0
Post by: ahowl11 on March 05, 2014, 05:39:57 PM
So can't we make it so multiple temples can be built in one settlement? So when you conquer Mediolanium a Gallic Temple is present, but you also decide to build a Roman temple?
Title: Re: 0.6-1.0
Post by: The Sloth on March 05, 2014, 05:52:40 PM
You can have as many temples as you want, although only one of them can be shown on the battlemap. Just like in RTRPE. Just beware of bonus spam through multiple temples. But what does that have to do with cultural unrest?
Title: Re: 0.6-1.0
Post by: ahowl11 on March 05, 2014, 06:04:52 PM
You're Rome, you conquer a Gallic settlement, the shrine to epona generates a culture penalty that can't be erased. That's all I am saying
Title: Re: 0.6-1.0
Post by: XxMSWShadowxX on March 05, 2014, 08:16:26 PM
In these planned future updates i don't really see anything i can help with :\ lots of coding stuff which i know if i tried would wipe the mod back to the stone age -_-
Title: Re: 0.6-1.0
Post by: Bercor on March 05, 2014, 08:21:48 PM
Nonsense. We need all the help we can get. Since you have experience as a graphic designer, maybe you can work in the mod's main screen and loading screens... We desperately need new ones, the current are quite dull.
Title: Re: 0.6-1.0
Post by: The Sloth on March 05, 2014, 08:26:06 PM
You're Rome, you conquer a Gallic settlement, the shrine to epona generates a culture penalty that can't be erased. That's all I am saying

Ah, I see. Yeah, that could be done, but it seems overly complicated if all it does is add some unrest.
Title: Re: 0.6-1.0
Post by: ahowl11 on March 05, 2014, 08:26:32 PM
We need cool looking screenshots as well that don't show the UI
Title: Re: 0.6-1.0
Post by: ahowl11 on March 05, 2014, 08:27:20 PM
@Sloth, I planned on having multiple temples per settlement anyway.
Title: Re: 0.6-1.0
Post by: Alavaria on March 08, 2014, 04:24:07 AM
You're Rome, you conquer a Gallic settlement, the shrine to epona generates a culture penalty that can't be erased. That's all I am saying
If the "Shrine to Epona" is in a building tree accessible to Romans, it will be upgradeable to a Temple of (Roman god name).

In vanilla, you may recall it was wierder. Barbarians had three tiers of temple, but Romans could upgrade them to tier 5. IE: upgrade barbarian shrines into pantheons.

If it's separate temple lines (possible) the issue is of building tree use. You will need many different building trees used up just for this. Also, I sorta remember the Romans trying to absorb foreign gods all the time so that would be odd. I'm sure they have some Roman version of Epona, for example...


A potential method is to allow the first tiers to have little bonuses and be easy to build, but the higher ones (Awesome Temple, etc) have potentially larger bonuses, but take a long time to build (possible a steeper tax penalty as well, for the large upgrade)
Title: Re: 0.6-1.0
Post by: ahowl11 on March 09, 2014, 09:54:17 PM
In case you didn't know I got rid of many units in the current 0.6 version. Here is the list for reference:

Chosen Archer Warband
Forester Warband
Head Hurlers
Axemen (Only Germania)
Naked Fanatics (Everyone but Gauls and Slaves)
Druids
Screeching Women
Warhounds
Gothic Cavalry
British Light Chariots
Head Hunting Maidens
Scythian Noblewomen
Onagers (Except Rome)
Barbarian Warlord (Scythia, Britons)
Barbarian Chosen Warlord (Gaul, Germania, Dacia)
Bull Warriors
General's Armoured Bodyguard (Carthage, Spain, Numidia)
Numidian Camel Riders
Armoured Elephants
Heavy Onagers
Pontic Heavy Cavalry
Cataphract Camels
Chariot Archers
Eastern General
Pharaoh's Bowmen
Nile Spearmen
Desert Axemen
Pharaoh's Guard
Desert Cavalry
Nubian Cavalry
Nile Cavalry
Camel Archers
Egyptian Chariots
Egyptian Chariot Archers
Egyptian Chariot General
Egyptian General
Thracian General
Thracian General
Incendiary Pigs
Falxmen (Thrace Only)
Bastarnae (Only Slaves have access)
Desert Infantry (Only Slaves have access)
Roman Archers
Light Auxilia
Legionary Cohort
Legionary First Cohort
Praetorian Cohort
Urban Cohort
Arcani
Wardogs
Cavalry Auxilia
Legionary Cavalry
Praetorian Cavalry
Roman Armoured General
Scorpions
Repeating Ballistas
Amazon Chariots
Bedouin Warriors
Bedouin Archers
Yubstep Elephants

Also, only the Julii have access to Roman units and only the Slaves have access to Gladiator units.
Title: Re: 0.6-1.0
Post by: Mausolos of Caria on March 09, 2014, 11:38:53 PM
Well done with that  :) Are we completely revising artillery later then? Since you seem to have deleted every artillery apart from Roman onagers  ;)
Title: Re: 0.6-1.0
Post by: Bercor on March 09, 2014, 11:42:46 PM
We are. And roman onagers, as they're currently depicted ingame, should also go, in my opinion.
Title: Re: 0.6-1.0
Post by: Mausolos of Caria on March 09, 2014, 11:56:50 PM
What's wrong with them?
Title: Re: 0.6-1.0
Post by: Bercor on March 10, 2014, 12:01:21 AM
They're completely ahistorical. The onagers used by the romans were much smaller and similar to this:
(http://www.mywizards.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Onager_sling.gif)
Title: Re: 0.6-1.0
Post by: Mausolos of Caria on March 10, 2014, 12:20:18 AM
To be honest I scarcely remember those from vanilla RTW haha, but they do look more like that in Rome II I think.
Title: Re: 0.6-1.0
Post by: Bercor on March 10, 2014, 12:27:08 AM
This...
(http://www.rome-totalwar.xf.cz/onager_heavy_screen.jpg)

Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: 0.6-1.0
Post by: Mausolos of Caria on March 10, 2014, 01:16:59 AM
Their unrealistic movement over the battlefield was the best part of it  :P
Title: Re: 0.6-1.0
Post by: ahowl11 on March 10, 2014, 03:38:18 AM
We'd have to make a new one
Title: Re: 0.6-1.0
Post by: Bercor on March 10, 2014, 08:16:05 AM
Or simply get rid of it. :P
Title: Re: 0.6-1.0
Post by: Mausolos of Caria on March 10, 2014, 03:32:33 PM
Well, the Romans, Syracuse, the Diadochi and Carthage surely fielded a number of very interesting siege weapons we could try to include in the mod - especially because I can only think of RS II as a mod putting in completely new artillery.
Title: Re: 0.6-1.0
Post by: Bercor on March 10, 2014, 03:42:22 PM
The problem is: siege engines were, historically, only used in sieges, and not in field battles. If artillery its included in the mod, we could end up with largely ahistorical battles.
Title: Re: 0.6-1.0
Post by: Mausolos of Caria on March 10, 2014, 04:06:40 PM
Well in the Battle of Mantineia 207 BC the Spartans used siege weapons (katapeltai) who routed the Achaian Thorakitai with their missile fire and I think the Pergamene army also did once against the Galatians.

But you are of course right that it is annoying to have siege weapons in every second land battle. Any ideas how to fix it? Because doing without them completely and only using rams & ladders at sieges would be boring and ahistorical, too.
Title: Re: 0.6-1.0
Post by: Bercor on March 10, 2014, 04:22:40 PM
That's the exception that proves the rule. :P

Yeah, I guess we will have to leave that in the hands of the player. If he wants to fight every battle with a couple of ballistas there's nothing we can do, without harming the overall gameplay.

Title: Re: 0.6-1.0
Post by: Mausolos of Caria on March 10, 2014, 04:33:41 PM
And the AI? Is there a way to influence which units it uses?
Title: Re: 0.6-1.0
Post by: Bercor on March 10, 2014, 04:46:03 PM
I don't think so. Good news, though, the AI almost doesn't use artillery, it's too stupid for that. However, it's also handicapped in siege battles
Title: Re: 0.6-1.0
Post by: Mausolos of Caria on March 10, 2014, 06:13:31 PM
Hehe that's true  8)
Title: Re: 0.6-1.0
Post by: ahowl11 on March 19, 2014, 10:22:25 PM
0.6 is complete and uploading. Time to start adding units for 0.7!