Slitherine

I love PC and have played it out. I will love PC 2. But at 70 years old my time is running out. When will PC 2 be available? Has it been canceled?

No its not been cancelled. It is currently going through beta testing.

Pat
Art Director / Artist

msntiger25 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 15, 2019 6:14 pm I love PC and have played it out. I will love PC 2. But at 70 years old my time is running out. When will PC 2 be available? Has it been canceled?

I aksed them on facebook and they respond with "soon, very soon".

msntiger25 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 15, 2019 6:14 pm I love PC and have played it out. I will love PC 2. But at 70 years old my time is running out. When will PC 2 be available? Has it been canceled?

I'm 65 Years of Age, but look like I'm only 50 years of Age and still feel great! (No grey hair, wrinkles or anything). Don't fret',...many people are now living into their early 90's...so you still have a way's to go yet~...where as in ancient Roman Times, the average Roman at some point in their history...only lived long enough till their early to mid 20's...they had a harsh and brutal environment.

PanzerCro wrote: ↑Fri Nov 15, 2019 7:06 pm

msntiger25 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 15, 2019 6:14 pm I love PC and have played it out. I will love PC 2. But at 70 years old my time is running out. When will PC 2 be available? Has it been canceled?

I aksed them on facebook and they respond with "soon, very soon".

That's also the timeline for the next dev diary.

Testing might have just taken priority over dev diaries...

I also can't wait for the game, but considering how many hours we will put into it + all DLC's that, I am sure, will come up, I am willing and ready to wait more for game to come out if that's mean we will have great and bugless product.

+1

I have not followed this game, so what do I know about it? Nothing yet.

However, you may have competition with Unity of Command 2. It needs to be better in all areas, and not mostly a graphics update, of course.

It might be good to keep it in Beta until it's ready. Don't release prematurely as with CC-TBF. This is a hallmark title, and a buggy, rushed release will serve everyone poorly.

Meanwhile, good luck to the team.

PanzerCro wrote: ↑Tue Nov 19, 2019 4:09 pm I also can't wait for the game, but considering how many hours we will put into it + all DLC's that, I am sure, will come up, I am willing and ready to wait more for game to come out if that's mean we will have great and bugless product.

I am willing and ready to wait more for game to come out if that's mean we will have great and bugless product.

I am with you on that consideration!.
That has always been my stance.

Taking your time, ...not rushing 'the project', ...getting all of your 'Ducks' ...'in a row'...will not only deliver a "Superior-Product" , but will also serve the developers in enhancing their capabilities in other future development ventures...where they can then apply the lessons learned here.

It's kind of like...getting or having 'Special Forces Training',...at 'Campo Mussolini'...for example...training their 'Alpini and Bersegelari' personnel. This is where they can 'Lead' in this 'Genre'...instead of 'Follow'.

~~~"Lead'...Follow'...or...Get out of the way!".~~~

Without commitment there is no pressure - without pressure this can drag for years. I myself am slowly losing my will to follow this thread and PC in general. I will check Unit of Command 2.

funat wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2019 4:28 pm Without commitment there is no pressure - without pressure this can drag for years. I myself am slowly losing my will to follow this thread and PC in general. I will check Unit of Command 2.

I have Order of Battle and Erik's Free DLCs - and I think this is a very competent and satisfying game

I recently bought Unity of Command 2 - very sexy graphics and gameplay, very deep and even on Easy level I am having a steep learning curve

But..no play as Axis, no Commanders, no Stukas and Tigers etc etc

"I'm 65 Years of Age, but look like I'm only 50 years of Age and still feel great! (No grey hair, wrinkles or anything). Don't fret',...many people are now living into their early 90's...so you still have a way's to go yet~...where as in ancient Roman Times, the average Roman at some point in their history...only lived long enough till their early to mid 20's...they had a harsh and brutal environment."

Well, if you were a soldier maybe. Otherwise Romans could live just as long as we did +- 5 years.
Besides wars, what harsh environment ? Italy was warm, sunny and probably one of the best place to be on earth (back then). People enjoyed long life span.

https://revealedrome.com/2012/06/ancien ... women-age/

JagdpanzerIV wrote: ↑Fri Dec 13, 2019 6:05 pm "I'm 65 Years of Age, but look like I'm only 50 years of Age and still feel great! (No grey hair, wrinkles or anything). Don't fret',...many people are now living into their early 90's...so you still have a way's to go yet~...where as in ancient Roman Times, the average Roman at some point in their history...only lived long enough till their early to mid 20's...they had a harsh and brutal environment."

Well, if you were a soldier maybe. Otherwise Romans could live just as long as we did +- 5 years.
Besides wars, what harsh environment ? Italy was warm, sunny and probably one of the best place to be on earth (back then). People enjoyed long life span.

https://revealedrome.com/2012/06/ancien ... women-age/

Do some real research before you make a comment!. In-Fact what I said was exactly true. The 'Average'...'Life-Expectancy' at a certain time period for them, in their history...for the population in general, "not just soldiers"...was just past their early 20's to mid 20's.

You said, "where as in ancient Roman Times, the average Roman at some point in their history...only lived long enough till their early to mid 20's...they had a harsh and brutal environment."

Which is completely false and silly. Do your research. Men and women if not killed in battles or died at birth or giving birth, lived long, almost just like us.

Life expectancy is irrelevant to how old we can live, it hasn't changed much, life expectancy has increased a lot cos most babies survive birth and their childhood nowadays, that's mostly the only huge difference between us and ancient Rome concerning how old we can live.

Anyways it's besides the main topic and i won't reply to life expectancy in old roman times again.

"Surprisingly fairly long for an ancient people. There are many instances of men and women living into their eighties. Tiro, Cicero's slave secretary, is reported to have lived to be close to 100 years old. Caesar was 56, but his life was cut short. Marc Antony was about the same age, but his life too, was cut short. Augustus lived to almost 75. And he was sickly for most of his life. These lifespans were probably due to the Romans' insistence on fresh water and sanitary conditions in their homes and cities. Infant and childhood mortality, however was quite high. If a child lived to be ten years of age, he/she could expect a life of perhaps fifty or more years. Of course these guestimates do not take into consideration, things such as wars, plagues, natural disasters or occupational hazards."

wiki: " If a Roman survived infancy to their mid-teens, they could, on average, expect near six decades of life, although of course many lived much longer or shorter lives for varied reasons"

This might help you understand:

"“There is a basic distinction between life expectancy and life span,” says Stanford University historian Walter Scheidel, a leading scholar of ancient Roman demography. “The life span of humans – opposed to life expectancy, which is a statistical construct – hasn’t really changed much at all, as far as I can tell.”

Life expectancy is an average. If you have two children, and one dies before their first birthday but the other lives to the age of 70, their average life expectancy is 35."

JagdpanzerIV wrote: ↑Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:12 pm You said, "where as in ancient Roman Times, the average Roman at some point in their history...only lived long enough till their early to mid 20's...they had a harsh and brutal environment."

Which is completely false and silly. Do your research. Men and women if not killed in battles or died at birth or giving birth, lived long, almost just like us.

What was the average life expectancy during the Roman Empire?

These examples of 'Life Expectancy' are not for the 'Average Lifespan' of Romans throughout the time/history of the Roman Empire, just during their worst time period...in this regard..

Historic Life Expectancy
https://www.thoughtco.com/life-expectan ... ew-1435464
During the Roman Empire, Romans had an approximate life expectancy of 22 to 25 years.

Demography of the Roman Empire
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demograph ... man_Empire
Demographically, the Roman Empire was an ordinary premodern state. It had high infant mortality, a low marriage age, and high fertility within marriage. Perhaps half of Roman subjects died by the age of 5. Of those still alive at age 10, half would die by the age of 50

Mortality
When the high infant mortality rate is factored in (life expectancy at birth) inhabitants of the Roman Empire had a life expectancy at birth of about 25 years.
About 300 census returns filed in Egypt in the first three centuries CE survive. R. Bagnall and B. Frier have used them to build female and male age distributions, which show life expectancies at birth of between 22 and 25 years

What was the average life expectancy during the Roman Empire?
https://www.google.com/search?q=Period+ ... 6291039209
When the high infant mortality rate is factored in (life expectancy at birth) inhabitants of the Roman Empire had a life expectancy at birth of about 25 years.

JagdpanzerIV is completely right. You cannot take the average life expectancy and take that as how old people used to get, as the statistic also includes all those who died at a very young age. Once you made it past the dangerous early stage, you lived a pretty normal life. Circumstances and weaker technology obviously meant that the average adult didn't reach quite the level of age as one does today, but that only takes away maybe 10-15 years in a civilized and highly technical society. Look at remote places or places with not a high level of technology and you probably won't see much of a different average age among adults at all.

To go over the top with it: If half the people die in their first year, and half reach the age of 70, then the "average life expectancy" is ~35 years. Which is obviously meaningless, because in this scenario absolutely no one dies at that age, you either die as an infant or become really old.

That's why all the sources you list go out of their way to mention infant mortality. This it what drives the life expectancy so low. 20-25 year olds weren't old at all, they were still young ones, just like today. If you were lucky enough to make it past childhood, you had good chances to reach 40 or 50, and still pretty solid ones to reach 60 or 70.

George_Parr wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2019 10:50 am20-25 year olds weren't old at all, they were still young ones, just like today. If you were lucky enough to make it past childhood, you had good chances to reach 40 or 50, and still pretty solid ones to reach 60 or 70.

You make some good points, but this isn't one of them. The perception of a 25 year old would have been very, very different from a developed country in 2020. Roman society would have consisted of vast numbers of children, far more than we could ever imagine. A 25 year old would be well and clearly into adulthood. They would have been finished their education and working or raising a family for a decade. Would they be considered elders? No, but certainly well on their way. Jesus was perceived as such in his early 30s, for example. As was Alexander the Great.

As for the other end, people 50-100 wouldn't have been uncommon, but neither would they have been anywhere near the powerhouse demographic they are in western countries today.

Finally, if you look at life expectancy factoring out this or that you quickly get away from the actual population life expectancy into the territory of individual life expectance. One factor you shouldn't be factoring out is violence, seeing as it was terrifically high back then, especially for men, and affected people of all walks of live. A modern city might have a murder rate of 1:50,000 or less, leading to a lifetime risk of violent death of essentially zero. In Roman times, between people sent off to war, executions, and day to day violence, the rate of violent death would have been at least 100 times higher. The average person has no idea just how low crime rates are in western democracies today.

Al this talk about Roman life expectancy is very interesting, but... let's get back to the topic at hand...

Is there any new information about a release date?

Q1? Q2 ? Q3? Later?

Shards wrote: ↑Tue Jan 14, 2020 10:33 am https://twitter.com/SlitherineGames/sta ... 8142873601

Wow. Today is tomorrow of yesterday... :O