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?
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.
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.
You might want to talk with an Iberian history specialist for that.
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.
::)
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.
Quote from: 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.
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.
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.
I believe the max number it's 6 cultures.
Well Roman is Barbarian, isn't it? That's what Pyrrhos said ;D
Well, then we might aswell have only two cultures: greeks and barbarians.
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?
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.
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?
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.
Quote from: 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.
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...
QuoteIndian 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... ::)
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).
Okay sounds good to me. We will rename Carthaginian to Punic, scrap Egyptian for now and then add Nomad
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?
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.
Wasn't Scythians how the Greeks named all those tribes taken together? And why is Punic better than Carthaginian?
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.
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)
the Scythians kins sakas but settled near Black Sea
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.
____
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.
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?
@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
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/Constantine_bridge_1899.jpg)
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.
and again ...
to avoid conflicts with different historians call them "Scythian tribes" ;D
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:
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.
I believe they share they same culture in vanilla, yes.
Spoiler
I see. However, I think that Achilles main "sin" (as in what takes him to his end) is pride, while Anakin is more corrupted by power (though pride plays a role too).
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
Good point, but when Anakin tells Padmé he should advance further in his learning or when the Jedi Council denies him the promotion to the master rank he is surely offended because of his pride. Achilles doesn't want power, though, that's true, but Anakin basically kills Padmé by his wish to be able to save her- and that's a very, very Greek tragedy, too :)
You can draw thousands of parallels anyway, Nabu is the Babylonian god of wisdom and Naboo is named after him like the Jedi are named after the Japanese term Jidai (''Sengoku Jidai'' is the time period at which Shogun (II) is set- the Age of the warring states) and Palpatine is Hitler, Caesar or Napoleon. But the one thing I found most interesting on the documentary was to see C-3PO and R2 as a Greek chorus- they are in the background most of the time, commenting the plot like a narrator, which is what the chorus on a Greek tragedy originally did.
Spoiler
Yeah, like every modern fantasy, Star Wars is really influentiated by the various mythologies and real life occurencies. Don't get me wrong, Anakin story is no doubt a tragic one, however I feel that Achilles is, in the end, even with all his weaknesses, a more noble character than Anakin, because, as you said, he was not corrupted, only proudful.
That parallel between C-3PO and R2 and the greek chorus is interesting, I never thought about it. I always saw them more as comic relief. I reckon it's pretty hard to imagine the greek chorus as a comic relief tool. :P
I like Nomad and I like African. African makes sense for both Carthage and Numidia as they were both in Africa :)
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?
Were there any specifics to this claim? If so, I'd like to know because I'd hate to have a buggy mod.
Quote from: 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.
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...
Quote from: 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 :)
Then go with North African, it's more specific for that region.
Spoiler
Sure, Achilles was a Greek semigod, he's more noble than Anakin, that's true. As for the droids, well, Greek comedy also had a chorus, it might be just very similar to Comic Relief, if you think about it
Yes, go with North African, that's fine with me.
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 :)
Quote from: The Sloth on March 03, 2014, 06:52:02 PMThe 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).
Well here is a quick idea. Is it possible to make Temples indestructible when built? That way it will always retain the native culture?
And that will achieve... what exactly?
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.
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.
In vanilla when you capture a settlement of different culture, don't the buildings of the previous culture give a culture penalty?
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.
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?
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?
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
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 -_-
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.
Quote from: 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
Ah, I see. Yeah, that could be done, but it seems overly complicated if all it does is add some unrest.
We need cool looking screenshots as well that don't show the UI
@Sloth, I planned on having multiple temples per settlement anyway.
Quote from: 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
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)
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.
Well done with that :) Are we completely revising artillery later then? Since you seem to have deleted every artillery apart from Roman onagers ;)
We are. And roman onagers, as they're currently depicted ingame, should also go, in my opinion.
What's wrong with them?
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)
To be honest I scarcely remember those from vanilla RTW haha, but they do look more like that in Rome II I think.
This...
(http://www.rome-totalwar.xf.cz/onager_heavy_screen.jpg)
Spoiler
(http://download.ultradownloads.com.br/wallpaper/276230_Papel-de-Parede-Meme-portugal-That-Com-Medo_2048x1536.jpg)
Their unrealistic movement over the battlefield was the best part of it :P
We'd have to make a new one
Or simply get rid of it. :P
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.
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.
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.
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.
And the AI? Is there a way to influence which units it uses?
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
Hehe that's true 8)
0.6 is complete and uploading. Time to start adding units for 0.7!