All Activity

I have a lot of suggestions, i think i will start with Cimbrii (i'm tired and will continue later) I think spears could probably still be available, it was largely the most important weapon for all germans (and the Cimbri are described fighting in formation) Bows are not mentioned in any sources about Cimbri, but seem to appear in some Scandinavian finds (maybe could be auxiliaries instead). There is no evidence of greaves for Germans Shields could have a wooden spina, possibly wicker shields for skirmishers in first tier (but the later is a bit of speculation) I'm not sure they would have had that many Scandinavian auxiliaries (the Cimbri were already from Denmark so i assume you mean Norway or Sweden) Volcae and Helveti allies are more attested. Maybe they can have these in an allied camp instead or all German civs can recruit allied units from the Great Hall or similar building (with regular champions on the fortress). Also no evidence for German tattos in this period. Suiones and Rugii appear in later sources and dont seem to have joined the Cimbri The Scandinavian archers could maybe be included as allied units (if you want the civ to portray the larger region) but probably not champion. The main champions could be the Cimbrian cavalry. And the Cimbrian front rank infantry (who fought chained to each other). Most plausible helmets would be Montefortino or Coolus Manheimn types For the cavalry the helmets seem to have been decorated with animals (probably figurines like the ravens and boars on some celtic helmets) Breatsplate are almost certainly chainmail (Celtic influence, maybe captured Roman armor as well), and the long swords are probably Celtic style. Maybe some sort of champion axe raider as well like the current Germans(perhaps Ambrones, since at least their women used both axes or swords). Description of priestess Tacitus' Germania: https://topostext.org/work/676 Plutarch's biography of Mariushttps://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Lives/Marius*.html Strabo's description of Cimbri https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Strabo/7B*.html

I have thought about some of these things for Classical Warfare AEA. Was easy with Sparta, we classified them as helots and changed their stats a bit. The question for Athens (and I would think Thebes too?) If we were to lower their cost, how do we "penalize/balance"? Say a Javelineer for greeks was only 30 wood (20% cheaper overal) The Javelin would probably still do the same "dmg" right? It wasn't like they used weaker, less effective javelins? And we have "Athenian Peltasts" and "Boiotian Pelatasts" along with the Theracian merc.

This is a very valid point. After all, in the game, it's mainly tech trees and how they look like what differentiates the various civs. This is material culture, not so much geographical origin or ethnolinguistic classification. Of course, since that is quite important and one wants to be accurate, the situation should be noted somewhere, and if eventually a progression through different civs is made, that tree should be determined by their apparent origins, and both things would come into play.

-El problema ya está resuelto , gracias por su preocupación @Genava55. jajaja Disculpe las molestias ocasionadas jajaja

-En el equipo de desarrollo hemos estado tiempo hablando de crear minifacciones para el mod. eso podría resolver muchos de estos rompecabezas... -La primera idea en el mod, cuando nos encontramos con toda esta diversidad de tribus es : Crear una facción , con la tribu más poderosa ,influyente , populosa etc... Si se puede: Mezclar elementos de las tribus menores en las unidades , edificios y bonus con la principal. Si no se pueden mezclar:Incluir las tribus menores como auxiliares o mercenarias y algún edificio propio. Ejemplo: Aquí pueden ver como incluí las tribus menores: (Las unidades aún no están creadas) -¿Qué opinan? -¿Qué tribus germánicas del 500 a.c-100 d.c creen que serían necesarias de incluir , sustituir o eliminar? Disculpen las molestias*

@Lopess I think you both need to talk and come to an agreement.

Buenos días o tardes: -Ha habido un error. La cronología del mod Endovélico es del 500 a.C-1 a.C haciendo varias excepciones hasta el 100 d.C porque en el juego oficcial aparecía Boadicea.Pueden comprobarlo en el segundo link justo al principio de este foro en el comentario de lopess. Disculpen las molestias*

I thought splitting civilizations by material culture might make it easier to differentiate them, although i do agree it might be not be the most accurate option.

It is only archaeological, based on the pottery. Are the pots the best way to describe a people? The Goths seem to came from Scandinavia but their material culture is not really from Scandinavia. Furthermore, as I said, the Rhine-Weser Germanic culture is appearing at the end of 1st century BC. So, where are they coming from? Is it a local evolution or the spread of the Germanic peoples?

The map i found seemed to be putting them in the Rhine, hence the doubt (i think the map uses archaeological cultures). https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/2027476111148343343.html Perhaps originally Elbe Germans absorbing elements of Rhine cultures or the opposite (i even recall them being placed on the North Sea group in an earlier thread).

Elbe Germanics or Herminones https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbe_Germanic The relationship between the Vandals and the Lugii is a mystery but modern scholars generally assume they are the same people. Maybe Vandalic was the name of the branch and the Lugii were a specific people. The manuscript from Pliny seems corrupted on this part. The Istvaeones are not listed. It seems Pliny considered the Cherusci were Elbe Germanics. The Cherusci are not listed as a contribution to the Franks by Gregory of Tours. There is only Venantius Fortunatus (c. 530–600 AD) suggesting that but he is considered dubious because he mentions the Saxons as well.

Like i said previously it is a very big grey area that may well cause issues with the license in the future (or even now, i'm not an expert). I was not advocating for it.

@ThePoshBarbarian to be ekdromos (one that runs out) is a role, like is to be prodromos (one that runs ahead). Light infantry (the skiritai being a common example) could work as ekdromoi, to be ordered to break formation during certain points in a battle to perform some more auxiliary task, like skirmishing. Light cavalry would usually work as prodromoi, that is, scouts, and could include skirmishing (something normal for those who are running about!). For example, take this small fragment from Xenophon's Hellenica 4.5.16 (https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0032.tlg001.perseus-grc1:4.5.16): "οὐ γὰρ ἕως ἀπέκτεινάν τινας αὐτῶν ἐδίωξαν, ἀλλὰ σὺν τοῖς ἐκδρόμοις ἰσομέτωποι καὶ ἐδίωκον καὶ ἐπέστρεφον", which in the English version is "for they did not chase the enemy until they had killed some of them, but both in the pursuit and in the turning backward kept an even front with the hoplites", somewhat missing the literal meaning, which Google Translate keeps a bit better: "for they did not pursue them merely until they had killed some of their number; rather, maintaining a front level with the sallying troops, they both pursued and wheeled about". Thus, they should not be considered an actual unit. There's a "Prodromos" unit which is wrongly translated, I'll mention that in my Part II.

Huh, neat reads. Thanks for the info. Speaking of historically attested military words that may or may not have been used to describe actual formations/army structure, I've seen the words "light hoplites" (Ekdromoi, ékdromos [nominative], ekdrómōi [dative] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ἔκδρομος), referring to loose formation of hoplites wearing lighter gear/not wearing much armour (mostly reduced to their shield and a helmet) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekdromoi, though from what I've managed to find so far in terms of references isn't too detailed.

For that, it may be fine, because it is very unlikely that it would use copyrighted stuff, but still, I think we should be careful But I don't think it can be under creative commons if we use ai

Alemanni and Marcomanni were Suebi, although i suppose you could theoretically split them (no idea how much material there is). Are Vandals viable in this timeframe, or can they just be included in Lugii? Cherusci i assume are earlier Rhine Germans (or North Sea, or even their own thing with how not all sources seem to agree on what they were) and Franks are slightly later Rhine Germans.

@ThePoshBarbarian, thanks for taking part in the discussion. I'm going to try to answer your main observations, with relevant quotes and their sources hidden: "Psīlós" is a term too general to use for any unit in particular, and applies to all city-states. They were indeed light troops, but basically means skirmisher (and more), those throwing rocks with their hands would even be included. They have then to be ignored, because are usually already considered (javelineers, etc). Euzonoi seems to be a similar generic term, I can't find anything in army oriented sources, besides the term itself in that lexicon. I'd remove Athenian slingers (while maybe having Rhodian ones as mercenaries), from the sources archers and javelineers seem to have been more associated with Athens. Maybe it'd require more reading and decision making, but I'd give non-mercenary slingers to the more northern pastoral Macedonians and Thebans (when they are added). Sometimes it's difficult to identify if peltasts are mercenaries or not, usually they are. Sparta and Athens hired them, and even if one reads "Athenian peltast", other information reveals that they are probably mercenaries (like those under Iphicrates). Still, many state that Athens did organise native peltasts. Macedonians also seem to have non-mercenary peltasts, with Agrianian javelinmen considered allies. This is portrayed in the game, although not sure if their elite status is (not being champions).

Cherusci, Franks, Alemanni, Goths, Marcomanni. They all appeared before 300 AD.

Nice work you should work othe smooth shading though

Hey everyone, I’m here to share some more news about my mod, World Rising! Unfortunately, I had a problem with my graphics card, which ended up burning out, so I was unable to work on the project for a while. But now I’m back! Even with this setback, I still managed to make good progress on development. I created new buildings and also worked on several new technologies for them, with the goal of making the progression between cultures more interesting and noticeable throughout the game. By the end of this week, I plan to add new units, finish more technologies, and create a few more buildings. Little by little, the transition from the Jomon culture to the Yayoi culture is really starting to take shape, and I’m very happy with how this evolution is looking visually in the game. For now, here are some images showing a little of the Jomon → Yayoi transition. As always, let me know what you think! Criticism, suggestions, and ideas are always welcome and really help with the development of World Rising. Thank you to everyone who continues to follow and support the project!

Been working on porting the Illyrians, Thracians, and Garamantians, all thanks to @Stan` pyrogenesis migration scripts. Currently working on just getting the Illyrians (my fork) up to date + adding a few details like civ bonuses, team bonuses and hero bonuses (plus naming the heros). Wanted to ask here, anything in particular I should keep in mind while working on these? EDIT: currently just working on using ancient greek language (I believe it's koine?) names for units, I mostly just referenced from athenian, spartan, and macedonian unit names, and checking through wiktionary https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Main_Page. Checked to see what the status on the Illyrian language is, very few useable references, probably won't be able to use it for SpecificNames.

The commands.txt is from a 0.28.0. I can't reproduce the error (with that version).

Agreed on the removal/restriction of techs for sparta. In general I'd love to see this applied to other factions as well, when it fits them historically. There could also be some restriction where some techs that would normally be available to some civs earlier, would be available later for other civs that have similar background/culture (bit misleading wording, but I'm thinking more like differences between gaul and britons, with gauls having better cavalry than the brits, and the tech requirements/restrictions reflecting that)

Actually for naked fanatics, I can't find the exact source, but I do remember some discussion a while back I had on an different forum, where it was discussed that while most "naked fanatics" were definitely naked, a few still kept their pants on. I'll try and find the discussion again, but it does sound kinda neat little visual easter egg?

For the extended timeline of the mod (500 BC-300 AD), are there any others that might be appropriate?