Jump to content


Community Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


av93 last won the day on June 11 2016

av93 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

396 Excellent

1 Follower

About av93

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

1,618 profile views
  1. No se puede. No esta implementado, y quizás habrá cambios al respecto.
  2. My highlights of the text: - Little evidence of bows and slings: found arrows are for aristocratic hunting. But probably used by low class infantry. - Scuta used only in north-east of Hispania ·Warfare model - The first were one made of individual heroic aristocratic soldiers, followed by companions and low classes. (Spears and some armour). - Later was displaced by a standardization of the equipment suggesting a close line formations, but not in a Roman or Greek degree. - The warfare changes when Hispania became a Roman-Carthaginian war field and the use of the natives by both armies: introduction of bronze helmets (Monterfortino), Oval shields by Punic influence (not by gaul), lighter spears, more javelins and the development of the Iberian cavalry (before he riders dismounted to fight at land). Iberians never used spear cavalry and boecian helmets (although they were depicted like this on coins). They used military standards (flags). The author also say that Iberians used mostly a warfare of heavy infantry, light infantry as support and cavalry, saying that it was more similar to the Roman that the traditional stereotype of hit and run and guerrilla warfare: for example Carthaginians allowed native troops to fight in their native way with their original equipment, and there are accounts of Iberians holding the line as heavy infantry., against heavy Roman infantry. The author says that the Iberian revolts against Romans failed because the leadership and organization, not because lack or inferior equipment or tactics. - Finally, the Iberians were absorbed by Romans, and the native equipment disappears, including the falcata. Caetrati (javelins and round shield) would made by a Roman demand, because their army already have heavy infantry. ·Warfare aim - Never was the destruction or the enslavement of the population, but sacking and later the subjugation of other cities. Honour was individual, and not for the state. There was the devotio, soldier bounding to other noble, to the death. · Defensive structures: Were more deterrents than for defending from formal sieges, and outpost existed. About culture and language There are some cultural essentialism here. And in to some extension, there's some need it, because this is a game and there's a need of a generalization, for depicting the civilization but also for gameplay. But: But trying to establish a vague continuum between the differences in Hispania in the past and the present in a so long time (in part argued because climate) isn't very solid. I said that as a grandson of Andalusian and Galician people, with Catalonian fathers. Team have stated before that Euskera isn't correct. You may be right, as far as I know, that the current Euskera is a standardization with a lot of invention (what language isn't?): but using a Latin idiom like Catalan is worse: maybe it could be tried to replace the modern Euskera words for old ones, or use Celtic in absence of Iberian words or language. An option has to be chosen, and it's clear that both are wrong, but trying a non-latin language seems the best option. BTW, I'm a defender of the option of showing only the names of the structures and units in the user language, not in the native one, there's a patch somewhere. But there will be the problem of when the units get audio for orders. About gameplay As other said, the problem with the "barbarian" civs are that we have their depictions by their enemies, and weren't centralised states with a more homogeneous culture, social structure and warfare. But I support your idea that a better depiction could be made, relegating this Iberians for the east Mediterranean coast, and adding some more Hispanic civilization. The problem is that the team made an agreement of not add more civilizations (although broke by Kushites), and there're a some interesting civilizations that could be added before, because gameplay (Scythians), cultural diversity or geographical diversity (African and Asian civilizations). If we made a little concession to cultural essentialism, and knowing that every single tribe can't be added, we could make a division of: Iberians, celtiberians and lusitianians. If there are good enough materials and references, my suggestion would be make Lusitanians, for the "iberian" (better Hispanic) skirmisher civilization. Celtiberians could be campaign only.
  3. av93

    Lack of Eastern

    Would be cool that if more factions are added, to look into the more different ones. No more greek factions please... Thracians, Schytians, Germans and some north african faction (numidians or garamantes) would be mi pick
  4. IRC, this was a scrapped CC model
  5. av93

    Wow's and Wow Jr.'s Awesome Gameplay Wishes

    What do you mean by udapting? Erasing scrapped ideas and describing the current gameplay or writing a redesign?
  6. av93

    Wow's and Wow Jr.'s Awesome Gameplay Wishes

    That's already done, shouldn't be difficult to add it to the main engine, without using it in 0 a.d? What happens if you add requirements to an autotech? Wouldn't work? My random wish would be the feature to hide the "cultural" name. There was a ticket somewhere.
  7. av93

    Celts or Gauls?

    Then @Genava55 what units could be added to the gauls ans britons rosters? Swordman infantry and spear cavalry? The first wasn.t added because it was argued that the sword was only for the noblemen (so they only have sword the infantry champs and cavalry units). And what about changing the two handed sword champion for the britons? Any idea?
  8. av93

    Gameplay features A24

    I think that there was only the actor of the foundations, but there was not a socket building system, at least in the first alphas. (Maybe i.m wrong)
  9. av93

    Delenda Est alpha 23 - feedback

    I think that is not that, just they can implement every random idea (including mine) and satisfy everyone.
  10. av93

    Delenda Est alpha 23 - feedback

    I noticed that you didn't added the new cavalry meat gathering animation.
  11. av93

    Delenda Est alpha 23 - feedback

    So, the team is not reluctant to add features to the engine that 0 a.d doesn't use?
  12. av93

    Delenda Est alpha 23 - feedback

    Why shouldn't be added although it wasn't used in vanilla? Because it's more code to maintain?
  13. av93

    Delenda Est alpha 23 - feedback

    Cavalry and chariots shows as garrisoned in fortress (probably in other fortifications too), and the upgrading tooltip of some units to experience levels, shows a citizien-soldier reference (saying that they gets worse working when leveling up)
  14. av93

    ===[TASK]=== Celtic Unit Textures

    That is the topic of theory colour that I mentioned some time ago. I wasn't referring to you, @Lion.Kanzen as you said in another post. A little bit off-topic (because it refers mostly to land textures), and also the mood of the discussion was too much tense, but is interesting enough.
  15. av93

    Kushites are too weak

    A radical idea would be merging slinger and archer class, and the difference between them be purely cosmetical, for a easier balance. I know that a stone have a very different kind of damage that a arrow....