I also like Labrynna, and the soldiers would look cooler walking with a goose step instead of that clumsy walk. Also, I think the trajectories of the muskets and cannons should be improved. They should be a bit faster and more accurate (I know the trajectories won't be straight, but the current settings make them look like stones being thrown). Of course, only a little bit of change in gravity, speed, and spread is acceptable, too much would be like shooting a laser.

Well I thought pressing them in somewhat fast sequence (just like a dobule-click can be distinct form two clicks), but I see that when you press a given number in fast sequence it centers the camera on that group. Maybe it can't be done in a clean way (not disrupting what's already established). One possibility could be that repeated numbers can't be allowed (no 00, 11, 22... groups). Another that two different click speeds could be implemented: faster clicking for double digit numbers, a bit slower for centering on groups, the fast clicking working as the slower one if there are no double digit groups, making things work as they do now when you only have groups form 0 to 9.

https://github.com/0ADMods/pyrogenesis-1861  This mod has a more advanced idea in this case. Creating a mod in this timeframe is entirely possible; I've thought a lot about investing time in it, but the biggest difficulties are having the structures and textures for the civilizations. Many want to help with the profiling of civilizations and units, but few want to or can help with 3D modeling and creating good textures.

I mean, I’d love a gunpowder era mod, (one of my favorite Hyrule civs is Labrynna). From what I can tell, most of those mods die because their proprietors either move on to other projects or get bored with 0 A.D. in general. Modeling the various muskets, cannons, and retexturing lots of models is a lot of work, and many arent up to it.

@Genava55, I was on vacation, and then had things to do. I had a partial answer written down, which I’ll post now considering your new posts. Chronologically: A. Starting with Proto-Indo-European, according to Ringe, haimaz, “settlement”, comes from ḱóymos, “resting place”, while þurpa, “farmstead, village”, comes from treb-, “building” (this is your own source), which fits with the first Proto-Germanic dictionary entries for haimaz, “home”, and þurpa, “village, rural settlement”. Even in PIE my main concern is reflected: haimaz appears mainly as an ambiguous term, not necessarily structural, while þurpa appears mainly as a physical place, and not preferentially reconstructed as a single unit. B. Regarding your “6.3. The Household” screenshot of my source (Lehmann), you fell for a mistake there. It states that in Old Norse þorp means “farm, estate”, and that only in later West Germanic texts it means village. But ON texts are not earlier than OE, and you can check that ON þorp translates as village (this is something I’ve mentioned before, that basically only Gothic and Old High German support your view). The whole point of the discussion is, taking (the cognates of) haimaz, þurpa and wīhsą, how would they be urbanistically ordered? Both PGmc sources I cited (Lehmann and the dictionary) state that þurpą and wīhsą are more similar to each other than to haimaz (as can be read in your screenshot of my source, and from others). The only outlying source I find is Kroonen, who gives haima- as “village, home” and þurpa as “crowd”, which anyway blatantly contradicts your “singular first” interpretation (making all 4 sources mentioned against it), and what is a crowd of either houses or people anyway? Maybe he went for something figurative (I then found that the ON dictionary alings with this, more later on). C. You complain that, centuries later, Gothic þaurp translates as “farmland” (only once, which is not very useful), but disregard that the same can happen for weihs (at least twice). In fact, it also even happens with haimom. Now I see you addressed that “it seems Weihs was equivalent to Haims”, but sometimes looks even worse, in Mark 6:56 one has haimos as “villages” and weihsa as “country”, exactly the other way around of your proposal. Again, luckily Gothic is not the only thing used to reconstruct PGmc, if we rely too much on it no decision could be taken. D. The next reference seems to be the Old English one from 725 AD, which treats þrop closer to a village than a single farm. Basically all languages (except Gothic and OHG, as far as I can remember) follow this position, which is the position of the PGmc sources already cited. E. You dismiss the PGmc entry ordering, but insist on the OHG one, from a millenia after the fact, thinking a semantic shift right there can be traced back unchanged, independent from all context. You choose 2 datapoints there and just draw a linear function going all that way back, ignoring points A, B and D, instead of trying of harmonising all sources, since it could have been that what was a collection in PGmc times (as Ringe, Kroonen, Lehmann and the dictionary state) became singular for Gothic and OHG, and then OHG collected it again (a known behaviour in evolutive systems like linguistics and biology). Niemeyer might have referred to the previous singular stage when he stated “originally”, otherwise he would be contradicting all PGmc sources mentioned. You are only relying on a couple of languages from many centuries later, and that’s not that chronologically close, much less with something so subtle and apparently oscillating as what we are discussing here. That’s why “‑heim names are usually assigned to the oldest naming layer” is not only not old enough, but in a previous post of yours it is even clear the many meanings “heim” had. You even say the “only reason” wīhsą was your “second choice is that it seems to have been used much later, in the early Middle Ages, to refer in some cases to small Roman towns”, and this is nonsense to me, that’s way too late. I find this “critical approach” flawed for this reason, combined with that you give zero credence to what the experts have already reconstructed for reasons and with knowledge well beyond what has and will be discussed in this thread (this attitude doesn’t seem quite “mainstream”), and as if they have not already considered all that you have been saying. As if they don’t know what the Gothic Bible says! To finish this post (I dislike writing so much since Brandolini's law is BS, one can refute the Flat Earth theory with a couple of sentences, no matter how many books are written on it, so, it’s never a matter of quantity), I see you commented on the git commit https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/pulls/8722, and the problem with your points are: 1) We are not discussing the exact word reconstructions forms, but their meanings. For this, many disciplines were indeed used, it’s just wrong to state that it's “based solely on phonological rules and sound laws”. 2) Gothic is chronologically closer, but that doesn’t mean it’s enough, and as I’ve shown, it has sentences that directly contradict your proposal. The PGmc reconstruction takes into account all available knowledge. 3) Basically what I said on 2), and þaurp cannot be given much importance since it’s only used once, it was rare for them. 4) Just confirms that haimaz can be (and has been) many things, which makes it not specific enough. 5) Again, centuries after the fact, and doesn’t add anything to the issue of multiple and ambiguous meanings of haimaz. 6) Yet again, it cannot be said that þurpą “does not seem to have been used immediately to designate villages in place names” by citing a few examples centuries after the fact. 7) It is not true that the “oldest writings in Germanic languages” (as if that goes beyond Gothic) support your point, as B and D prove. As mentioned in E, with OHG you are a millenia off already, any shift happening right there means nothing. Points 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 are just milking the same cow over and over again with Gothic and OHG, while completely ignoring the rest, which as I’ve said an infinite amount of times, has been taken into account for the PGmc reconstructions we have. As I explained in B, I did not contradict myself, you just fell for a clear mistake in that source (about something I wasn't even pointing out). 8) Since those few places you posted would be maxed out “Phase III” settlements (given you didn’t come up with anything bigger), then what would “Phase I” be? Seems you realised that and tried to preemptively explain things away, but the whole thing is unclear. Either you are saying that there was not much differentiation between types of dwellings (kind of my point), or that they had both farms and non-farm hamlets (which doesn’t seem right). In “The Germanic People”, Francis Owen states that there were basically two forms of settlement: the individual farm and the farm village (https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015008272570&seq=176), so, hamlets again fall back to (a collection of) farms, which is how things were kind of everywhere actually. It’s clear that this early all those concepts are not that far removed given the context, translations, and witnesses. That’s why Lehmann says that Tacitus says that they were basically farms, not just because they were a bunch of isolated buildings, but surely because of all the crops and animals around. Caesar also talks about their annual land redistribution for farming, so, again, I don’t understand where you are trying to get with this paragraph. All this explains why the reconstructions are what they are (sometimes overlapping), and why one cannot just focus on particular choices one or two languages took centuries later. Many things I've said can be nicely wrapped up with what the (largest) ON dictionary says regarding þorp (https://cleasby-vigfusson-dictionary.vercel.app/word/thorp): “turba is taken to be the same word, this word, we think, was originally applied to the cottages of the poorer peasantry crowded together in a hamlet, instead of each house standing in its own enclosure”, “the etymological sense being a crowd”, “a hamlet, village, rarely of an isolated farm”. Although this proves Lehmann’s mistake, I’m not making the mistake of claiming one can extrapolate this all the way back to PGmc (even when I could point out the "originally" and "etymological sense" phrases being used), although I think that’s the right conclusion given what the reconstructions using all available knowledge state (and that ON comes from a separate North Germanic branch). Thus, the question is the same: which term is closer to wīhsą: þurpą or haimaz? Just go back to points A and B, which relate directly to PGmc, given that one can’t rely only on Gothic, where haims and weihs appear in interchangeable urbanistic order, and þaurp appears only once. The following instance this word appears in sources is OE þrop, "village".