Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Genava55

===[TASK]=== Current issues with Celtic units and guideline for the next

Recommended Posts

19 hours ago, Genava55 said:

I have a few questions about how you would like quick visual identification of the units.

What do you think about the shield shape evolving according to the experience (basic, advanced, elite)? Initially I made suggestion with the shape changing accordingly but I think now it is not necessarily a good idea.

I am thinking to propose something more restrictive on the shield shape for each unit. For example a Gallic Spearman using only oval and tall shields, Gallic Skirmisher using only square and medium shields and Gallic Swordsman using hexagonal and tall shields.

Maybe we could simply use shield bosses, capes, helmets and adornments to distinguish the experienced units. For the Britons, shield decoration and tattooes can be an additional way to distinguish the experienced units.

Easily identifying units with a single glance is a complex problem with no straightforward solution. Moreover, things that work when zoomed in (e.g. the “Rank icon above status bars” option) are not that effective when zoomed out.

I think for most players it's more important to know the unit class (e.g. spearman or swordsman) than it is to know the rank (e.g. advanced or elite). Reserving certain shield shapes for certain units could help. Changing the shield shapes when units promote is not a good idea. I agree higher ranks could get fancier clothes, body paintings, helmets, and shield patterns, as is also done for units of other factions.

For capes there is no clear consistency; e.g. the athen cavalry javelinists (b/a/e) all have capes, but the athen cavalry swordsmen (b/a/e) don't; the mace cavalry javelinists and spearmen don't have capes, but their spart equivalents do.

For the Celts specifically, how common was body armour? Currently the basic and advanced cavalry javelinists have a naked torso, but the elite is clad in chainmail.

Also, the basic brit and gaul infantry slinger and cavalry javelinist lack player colour (@wackyserious).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/21/2020 at 11:06 AM, Nescio said:

For the Celts specifically, how common was body armour?

Among Gauls, there are evidences for linothorax or leather armors during the 5th, 4th and 3rd century BC. It seems to be quite common among elite because of the widespread representation of this kind of protection on different material from different regions. Possibly, it could have been an affordable protection for the cavalrymen because a scabbard with infantrymen and cavalrymen represented on it shows all the latter wearing those armors. They were higher class warriors so it could be plausible. Chain mail is becoming visible in burials around the 3rd century BC but it was quite rare and probably reserved to the elites. During the 1st century BC, production of chain mail seems to increase, probably because of a proto-industrialization with the factories starting to be specialized on different steps of the conception of weapons and adornments in general. But still, it would have been affordable to the higher members of the warrior class, maybe the cavalrymen in the 1st century BC were commonly using it. Helmets should have been a bit more common than the body protection, especially with simpler designs like the Coolus.

Among Britons, a few chain mails have been found. Five at my knowledge, at Kirkburn, Lexden, Folly Lane, Baldock and Hayling Island. Like on the continent, it seems affordable for the elites. But there is no evidence for leather armor or linothorax. For the helmets, only a few have been found and some are related to Roman auxiliaries. However, highly decorated adornments, decorated shields and decorated scabbards were more common on the British Isles proportionally (although it could be due to a bias in the burial practice and a bias in the way archeology is performed in Britain in comparison with France and Germany).

Edit: recent chapter

Spoiler

image.png.d1f6fc31f127656cdb94c6994f2dae13.png

image.png.b998c5aea995f78cc537efd84e0c55e4.png

image.thumb.png.328f0c7cebf59b6a028d2b03576da960.png

image.png.88d6b0cc77298d6d4f9d0e9dd698c435.png

image.png.b8ec9c3872b1b7c59094752e78044e04.png

image.png.70db5563c5185296c08e8890ec37f774.png

image.png.bd2b0d8279b8879cfdab1e3ebbff01a1.png

image.png.009c465fec36cd60af0d5dd9c50ce7af.png

image.png.4f0b126bdc4ba3afc278afe961bcadf5.png

image.png.1c5bd6c4910c3e0c8c342d38176fe795.png

image.png.fa7f3a4cb9986ad4600cc7843c700c44.png

image.png.e17ffacf9de1a758dba1a811cd410576.png

image.png.564d9843eefbbba397e386eb4ebb59d4.png

image.png.d7442440533ff5fe7b67cf2fdf3b155f.png

image.png.fd9a95354d331b4ada0468dae515d02e.png

image.png.0b37fa726f22d6dae1c1083c195beb0a.png

image.png.ec6d2527523f247c92ac892ca8d795e7.png

image.png.23437ddbebe5d4c6c7ab2af969edd29f.png

Interesting reading

 

On 2/21/2020 at 11:06 AM, Nescio said:

Currently the basic and advanced cavalry javelinists have a naked torso, but the elite is clad in chainmail.

Cavalry javelinists should be higher than average warriors. The concept of cavalry javelinists is often flawed by the unconscious comparison with the light infantry (ie generally poorer people) but actually light cavalry wasn't of the same status than the light infantry, even among classical civilizations. It is simply the use of body armor that is less useful for light cavalry (anyway the exposed part to missiles is the horse itself). I think it is not impossible that an elite Celtic cavalryman fighting with javelins could afford a body armor, furthermore because no evidences suggest clear defined tactical roles for Celtic cavalry. The possibility that Celtic cavarlymen were able to fulfill both light and heavy roles on the battlefield shouldn't be discarded. However, 0AD is a game with its own mechanics so it is ok to differentiate the two roles with two units.

Edited by Genava55
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/21/2020 at 11:06 AM, Nescio said:

I think for most players it's more important to know the unit class (e.g. spearman or swordsman) than it is to know the rank (e.g. advanced or elite). Reserving certain shield shapes for certain units could help. Changing the shield shapes when units promote is not a good idea. I agree higher ranks could get fancier clothes, body paintings, helmets, and shield patterns, as is also done for units of other factions.

Ok. Thx for your opinion and I agree.

About the Britons, I really think there is a card to play with body painting and decorated shields to distinguish the ranks. I also think that their lack of armor (in comparison with the Gauls) could be compensated by an unique tech like the woad body painting exaggerating the medicinal properties of the pigment, giving them a slow health regeneration.

 

Edited by Genava55

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/20/2020 at 3:09 PM, Genava55 said:

The role of the chariot could be more suited to the second phase and I really hope it could be used as battle-taxi for another unit.

  As in Homeric warfare. :)

Having visible slots on units would be a great feature to have, also for war elephants. I believe some work was started on it, but no patches have been committed yet.

On 2/21/2020 at 3:03 PM, Genava55 said:

Cavalry javelinists should be higher than average warriors. The concept of cavalry javelinists is often flawed by the unconscious comparison with the light infantry (ie generally poorer people) but actually light cavalry wasn't of the same status than the light infantry, even among classical civilizations.

Yes, you're right, and this applies to the other civilizations as well. Horses need a lot of food and space and are only useful for travelling and warfare; only the richest people (e.g. equites in Rome, hippeis in Sparta) could afford them. In Ptolemaic Egypt, “Macedonian” phalangites held 30 or 25 arourai of land, horsemen 80 or 100.

On 2/21/2020 at 3:03 PM, Genava55 said:

It is simply the use of body armor that is less useful for light cavalry (anyway the exposed part to missiles is the horse itself). I think it is not impossible that an elite Celtic cavalryman fighting with javelins could afford a body armor

In 0 A.D. “elite” means simply a promoted “basic” soldier, whereas “champions” are the real elite.

On 2/21/2020 at 3:03 PM, Genava55 said:

furthermore because no evidences suggest clear defined tactical roles for Celtic cavalry. The possibility that Celtic cavarlymen were able to fulfill both light and heavy roles on the battlefield shouldn't be discarded. However, 0AD is a game with its own mechanics so it is ok to differentiate the two roles with two units.

Again true for other civilizations as well: cavalry typically had javelins, spears, and swords; the same is true for most infantry. Differentiating units by weapon types is not really realistic, but certainly makes sense for 0 A.D. and similar games.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Genava55, how common were donkeys in Gaul? And mules? And in the British Islands?

Somehow I associate Gauls with cattle, so I'm wondering whether an ox cart wouldn't be more appropiate for their trader. However, Celts are not my forte and I don't really know, hence my question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Nescio said:

@Genava55

 

, how common were donkeys in Gaul? And mules? And in the British Islands?

 

Somehow I associate Gauls with cattle, so I'm wondering whether an ox cart wouldn't be more appropiate for their trader. However, Celts are not my forte and I don't really know, hence my question.

At my knowledge, the cattle are used to do the labor in the field. This a meal for the wealthy, not the farmers. The donkey is attested to the transport only during the Roman era in Gaul, probably because it is something inherited from the Romans:
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/23/01/83/230183070563dcdc473a3febcb68437d.jpg

For the moment I see only a document saying the introduction of the Donkey and of the Mule by the Romans at end of the iron age. I will check that in one of my book with more archeological data.

Edit: Nope. No donkey, neither any mule. I read an entire chapter about animal domestication over the territory of the Senones, these species are not mentioned.

Edited by Genava55
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Genava55 said:

At my knowledge, the cattle are used to do the labor in the field. This a meal for the wealthy, not the farmers. The donkey is attested to the transport only during the Roman era in Gaul, probably because it is something inherited from the Romans:

For the moment I see only a document saying the introduction of the Donkey and of the Mule by the Romans at end of the iron age. I will check that in one of my book with more archeological data.

Edit: Nope. No donkey, neither any mule. I read an entire chapter about animal domestication over the territory of the Senones, these species are not mentioned.

Thanks, good to know! That means both the trader and the rotary mill actors are questionable: 

Spoiler

gaul_donkeys.thumb.png.78089381c4970a48efd580e929a4d319.png

Any recommendations?

Furthermore, do you happen to know anything on the situation on the Iberian peninsula?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Nescio said:

Furthermore, do you happen to know anything on the situation on the Iberian peninsula?

It seems that the donkeys were already in place during the Iron Age for the Iberians on the coast thanks to the Phenicians.

4 hours ago, Nescio said:

That means both the trader and the rotary mill actors are questionable: 

I agree.

For the trader, since it is lightweight, I would say the horse should be used.

For the Celtic rotary mill, either we question the whole concept (because it has major historical flaws like other buildings) but it means that we should also consider an alternative or modify the balance.

Or we keep the concept and we use cattle. Technically most of the rotary mills are hand driven but among the Gauls, cattle is generally used for hard work.

 

Edited by Genava55

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Genava55 said:

For the trader, since it is lightweight, I would say the horse should be used.

Were horses more affordable than cattle?

In 0 A.D. there are four trader actor designs: donkey, dromedary camel, horse-and-cart, ox cart:

Spoiler

traders.thumb.png.07f63e0f792026db2763e7d82e449f5e.png

The former two are evidently inappropiate for the Celts, so I guess the choice is between the other two. Designing a fifth actor is significantly more work.

21 hours ago, Genava55 said:

For the Celtic rotary mill, either we question the whole concept (because it has major historical flaws like other buildings) but it means that we should also consider an alternative or modify the balance.

Personally I'd favour deprecating the rotary mill then and giving the Gauls and Britons a civ bonus or special technology instead, in addition to the 20% building time discount they already have.

21 hours ago, Genava55 said:

It seems that the donkeys were already in place during the Iron Age for the Iberians on the coast thanks to the Phenicians.

And how about the Celtiberians, Lusitani, Vascones, etc.?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Nescio said:

And how about the Celtiberians, Lusitani, Vascones, etc.?

For the Celtiberians, I have found data showing the presence of the donkey, at least in Upper Rio Tajo. During the Iron Age.

I don't have found data about the Lusitani or the Vascones.

2 hours ago, Nescio said:

Were horses more affordable than cattle?

Both are not really affordable. It is thought that the local landowners or small chiefs supply cattle and horses to their clients or vassals. Cattle are used to do the hard work in the fields. They are not eaten by lower class people.

However, I don't think merchants and traders were unable to get those. A trader actor with a horse-driven or cattle-driven chariots are both possible.

 

2 hours ago, Nescio said:

Personally I'd favour deprecating the rotary mill then and giving the Gauls and Britons a civ bonus or special technology instead, in addition to the 20% building time discount they already have.

For the Gauls, we know they used a kind of harvester/reaper during the iron age and that the Romans adopted the thing during the Roman Empire. That could be a special technology for the Gauls to research.

moisson2b.jpg

Edited by Genava55

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/21/2020 at 2:09 PM, Genava55 said:

For the Gauls, we know they used a kind of harvester/reaper during the iron age and that the Romans adopted the thing during the Roman Empire. That could be a special technology for the Gauls to research.

D2668

Edited by Nescio
typo
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...