Leaderboard

Considering how we currently use fonts, it does seem odd that the source files are bundled with the game. I guess they're only there because they're in the "binaries" folder, and that folder is bundled almost in its entirety. As a loose idea as to how many distributions have the fonts available in their package repositories (stats courtesy of Repology): LinuxLibertine : 66 packages (across 20 "families") DejaVu : 145 packages (across 33 "families") FreeFont : 122 packages (across 26 "families") TeX Gyre : 37 packages (across two package names across 5 "families") And for the eastern Asian languages: Hanazono : 48 packages (across 10 "families") Japanese Kanji Source-Han-Sans : 92 packages (across 13 "families") Pan-CJK characters (Repology groups distributions by "family", e.g. Ubuntu, Debian, SteamOS, LinuxMint are one "family". If you're running LinuxMint, then as LinuxMint is derived from Ubuntu, then the repositories for the appropriate version of Ubuntu are mostly compatible with your LinuxMint system. It's not a perfect categorisation, but as a rough guide it works.) Alternatively, here's something I threw together to more easily compare some of the commonly used distributions. CentOS, Fedora, OpenSUSE, OpenMandriva, and Slackware are the ones that are noticeably problematic. Yes, Windows and OSX would most likely still need the fonts bundled with the game. The way I see it, we have three possibilities: We change nothing, but tell the packagers to exclude the "binaries/tools/fontbuilder" when packaging the "0ad-data" package for their repositories. We remove the font files entirely, make the files' respective packages a build-time-only dependency, and write instructions on where to download the files for systems that don't have a package repository or do but lack the specific packages. (The caveat is that we don't use them at build-time either...) We relocate the font files somewhere else within our repository, such as into a subdirectory under "libraries/source/". I think I personally favour a combination of the second and third: move the files and then, when we get in-game rendering working we add package dependencies and use the new location as a fallback (whether that be as the source of a 0ad-fonts package, auto-bundling of the fonts by build-osx-bundle.sh, and/or some other solution). I think the fonts we use are reasonably stable (LinuxLibertine and FreeFont haven't had any releases since 2012, and DejaVu since 2016. TeX Gyre is the most recently updated at 2018, but the release before that appears to have been 2016). I would imagine that if the typeface anatomy of fonts change too much between versions, then the font's creators would possibly get complaints from their user-base. Also, some of the fonts we use claim to be a like-for-like replacement (Gyre Pagella for Palatino), or to have the same appearance as - but a wider character range than - another font family (DejaVu for Vera), and so in theory shouldn't deviate too much from their "inspiration". I get what you mean though: having two users with what should be the same font but - due to changes between versions - are visually different could disrupt our established visual style (such as it is), or make for an inconsistent experience between users. It is true that many games get bundled with their own fonts, even on Linux systems (eg. SuperTux, SuperTuxKart).That might be down to simplicity: they have to bundle the fonts for Windows and OSX systems, so it's easiest to just do the same for Linux as well. Huh, this turned into a longer post than I anticipated. Apologies, and congratulations if you got this far without glazing over.

Foret helmet:

Continue of helmets: Boe helmet: And renamed the wrong names: @stanislas69 how do we remove or move to old public the old helmets?

Let's get back on topic and stop this side discussion. :-) @Pander, thank you for your report and welcome to the forums. Does the workaround of copy/pasting twice work for you? Hopefully someone can fix this issue in the future. @cloud9, I would like to leave you with these wise words: That's basically all it boils down to. If you do not want to share your patch, that is fine by me, but in that case I would ask you to refrain from taking part in the discussion. This is an open project; we expect openness from everyone participating in the project, otherwise your contributions are not useful.

One thing I love about this community is how international it is. Looking at the download stats a sourceforge (only a cross section) shows that the game is being downloaded in almost every country of the world . Downloaded in literally 96% of the world's countries!!! If there could ever be a way to compile download statistics on all downloads, I wouldn't be surprised if that percentage would jump to 100%... It's even popular in North Korea! Interesting... Reminds me of the recent discoveries of an "ancient Amazon civilization". https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/03/amazon-jungle-ancient-population-satellite-computer-model/ Yeah, the first Kingdom of Kush, often referred to as the Kingdom of Kerma (after the modern village where the remains of the ancient capital were found), is incredibly ancient. Kerma originally evolved out of Pre-Kerma (3500 BC), fusing with C-Group culture around 2500 BC. C-Group culture is in turn related to the earlier A-Group culture (3800 BC), the original sedentary inhabitants of Lower Nubia (North Sudan/South Egypt). A-Group culture pre-dates Dynastic Egypt, and was contemporaneous with the Pre-Dynastic Naqada Culture. A-Group Culture influenced developments in Pre-Dynastic Egypt even establishing some of the shared Egyptian-Nubian royal iconography before Egypt was even a thing. A-Group was destroyed by the First Dynasty, probably forcing much of the population into the Western Deserts (still pastoral lands in those times). With the ever faster drying deserts centuries later, a new group from these Western Deserts invaded Lower Nubia, expelling the Old Kingdom presence, and mixed with the population of Upper Nubia. These new people are known as C-Group culture, and because of their similarity are often believed to be a re-emergence of A-Group. (B-Group Culture turned out to be simply a marginalized and impoverished remnant of A-Group in Lower Nubia). The fusion of C-Group and Pre-Kerma illustrates a strong mixing of Nilo-Saharan speaking people and Afro-Asiatic speaking people from the earliest periods in Kushite history (it explains the confusion around classifying the Meroitic language, which turned out to have evolved from Proto-Nilo-Saharan with ancient Afro-Asiatic loanwords and which also explains the two distinct skin-tones in Egyptian frescoes representing them, jet-black and reddish brown). The first Kingdom of Kush flourished as a highly centralized state from about 2500 BC. They were far more advanced than they are often given credit for. Kerma grew into the first city of Sub-Saharan Africa, and consolidated and expanded their rule. So much so that the Egyptians militarily occupied Lower Nubia and built a string of some of the largest fortifications ever built in their time, in an effort to counter the growing threat from the South. It didn't help much, because the Middle Kingdom was eventually destroyed by Kerma period Kushites raiding as far as Thebes, in what seems to be a coordinated attack with the Hyksos who occupied Lower Egypt. The re-emergant New Kingdom struck back with a vengeance, first under Ahmose I and Amenhotep I who reconquered Lower Nubia, and then under Tuthmosis I who conquered and completely destroyed the city of Kerma in Upper Nubia in c. 1505 BC. That's when Kush starts being incorporated into Egypt, first as rebellious colonial province, then as an integrated part of the Egyptian Empire. The actual name of the "Kerma Kingdom" was recorded as "Kush", by the Egyptians as early as the Middle Kingdom, and the name Kush continued to be used throughout the Egyptian occupation, during the Nubian Dark Ages, and during the Napatan and Meroitic periods. Only after the collapse of Meroitic Kush does the term "Nubia" appear, which is why I never use it in a political/cultural/ethnic sense (only geographical). Although the terms "Nubia", and the "Nubians" are widely used terms for all periods of Sudanese history, the term confuses modern with ancient, and divorces the Kushites from their politcal and historical context. One of the reasons why the history is so obscured. The terminologies are all over the place. So yes, long story short, they would be great for Aristeia

Glad I could help. It shouldn't but depending on what you touch it might have an influence. For instance, both will share the same user.cfg unless you run the dev version with -writableRoot (Notice it only has one '-') this flag makes the game portable. https://trac.wildfiregames.com/browser/ps/trunk/binaries/system/readme.txt line 68 Sure just go in wherever you cloned it and run ./pyrogenesis -writableRoot

I am Brazilian, so, Portuguese. That is pretty cool. I hope in the future I can help to do the same with some other peoples, maybe the Tupis. What is also cool is that they seem to have some pretty ancient stuff. If I remember the Kerma period was something before 500 b.C.? So it could be a faction in Aristeia maybe?

Xiongnu, Scythians, Huns. I've created preliminary versions of each in my Delenda Est Git repository here: https://github.com/JustusAvramenko/delenda_est Obviously the nomadic civs should have some similar attributes. No territory bonus or restrictions Consequently, their buildings have -50% health and loyalty Raiding and Looting bonuses A focus on cavalry Cavalry units can build Livestock bonus, called "Pastoralism." Packable buildings Some kind of raiding/loot bonus Mobile "cart" dropsite that can upgrade into a storehouse or yurt Starts each match with a free Yurt (house) No stone walls, they get Palisades in City Phase instead. Uncovered battering ram = 4 armored dudes carrying a log around Some female military units, either as actor variations or standalone templates But each should have its own civ specific traits. Xiongnu Team Bonus: ? Xiongnu battering ram can upgrade to a covered battering ram More armor techs? Falcon Scout special starting unit Falcon Huntress special hunting/scouting unit Anything? Scythians Team Bonus: Goldsmith Mastery: Allied gatherers +10% metal gathering rate, allied technologies -10% metal cost A "settlement" option Removes packing ability Adds a territory effect and health bonus to 75% of standard? Unlocks Fortress and Stone Walls Bosporan "Greek" mercenaries Headhunter female champion cavalry Royal Scythian heavy champion cavalry Anything? Huns Team Bonus: Winds of the Steppe: Allied Cavalry +10% speed and +1 pierce armor No "elite" rank? Starting structures are all in the "Packed" state, meaning they always start in a quasi-nomad mode A wide variety of "mercenaries" based on their subject peoples: Goths, Alemanni, Alans, et al. Traction catapult? Anything?

Here's a list of Civilizations I would make without altering the unit costs or heath.1.) Imperial Rome2.) Byzantine Empire 3.) Holy Roman Empire 4.) Medieval Briton 5.) Medieval France6.) Mongol Empire 7.) Norse 8.) Aztec Empire9.) Ancient Chinese10.) Ancient Japanese11.) Samurai Era Japanese12.) Templar13.) Caliphate of Cordoba14.) Egyptian Empire 15.) Spanish Empire16.) Zulu Empire But I do not know how to mod that well but I will try my hardest so I would need help with files and programs I would need. I could go on for day's about content i would add like this. I'm home 24/7 so I could mod the game all day and night if I had to.

I also did this topic, if it helps. Because now we will have hard counters, filling the tech tree could help balance, while I think that every civ shouldn't have every unit avaliable. Like AoE 2, civ unique bonus and unique techs, and avaliability certain research, could make differenced between the ssme kind of units, making emphasis on some of them, while allowing a variety of strategies It's very far from the quality of @Genava55 or @Sundiata research, but here it's

Auroch is okay to use bull texture ? or zanga cattle textures? Other cattles are the same size.

I really am a rush defender, I think it's part of every rts game. What I think should not happen is the rush always with the same unit in all games. This happens in the current vanilla version, where most 1v1 has rush cavalry, and this is a problem that does not happen in the mod. You can still rush with cavalry and win the game, but it's not an easy like vanilla, and you may need more units to support.

Ok then, i would need your help @Genava55 here if possible with the current celt - iberians unit using the celtic helmets because they will now be using the new ones or the new iberians. i'f possible divide between Gaul or Brit the helmets by Infantry type. Removed all helmet_ prefix from meshes and textures for avoid redundance >props/helmet/celt_helmet? now they are with their respective name, actors remain with their helmet prefix for easy search in atlas. Will be uploading now the helmet fix before i remain whitout electricity 30 hours again.

using either svn, or the git mirror on htpps://github.com/0ad/0ad, Not that you have to compile the game yourself.

Hi @DrunkenRyno I hope you found your way around in the documentation of Atlas (and maybe the map format? Not sure how deep you dug until now). I guess the Scenario Design/Map making subforum is also a good place for looking for what other people have done (e.g. @Skhorn ), what can be done, what to look out for or avoid. If you have some maps to show off with a topic there where you can show screenshots and upload the maps would also be appreciated. If you encounter any problems with Atlas you can always ask here or in the development chat. As @stanislas69 mentioned, if you're really into campaign generation you should ask @wraitii about that. Have a nice stay

To continue the celtic faction Redesing - Visual Update done this helmet: 1024 texture vs 256 texture for game usage (Blender tip: Always bake the best resolution possible you can handle, because if you bake directly a 256 texture or 512 they will bake with 80% imperfections, if you can bake 2k textures and then rescale to 512 or 256 better).

The time span of my mod with cover all history up until the invention of gun's.

Aaaaaaaand, you have my attention! What time period exactly is your mod? It seems to cover 2000 years at least... Ethiopia has about 3000 years of continuous history, so that shouldn't be an issue. Just to wet the appetite a little:

do you have some repository where you developing your mod? github, gitlab for instance.

if you want to have the counter system look at

Ho boy, So as an actual Hun Historian let's clear up a few things: 1. The Xiongnu and the Huns were the same people. The word has a Yeniseian and Old Turkic mixed origin as it relates to both the ruling dynasty of the Xiongnu (a Yeniseian people) and the Old Turkic name for the Ongi River in Mongolia. We don't know what it means other than that it was a dynastic name. Xiongnu is pronounced "Hongna" and was transmitted over the Himalayas or via sea trade to India and transliterated into Sanskrit, before coming up from India into Sogdian, and then spreading into Bactrian Greek as Ounna, where it became Ounnoi in Roman Greek (Romeika), and then Hunni in Latin. 2. The Huns themselves are directly related. Huns can be identified by the Haplogroup Q-M242. Some of you here might know that's weird because Q-M242 is Native American DNA. It's also Yeniseian DNA, with the Kettic people having the highest concentration at 99%, and high concentrations east into Beringia, where the Yeniseians and the Dene people separated about 18,000 years ago. However, the majority of the Huns that entered Europe were not Yeniseian although most had some percentage of Yeniseian DNA and ancestry. They also no longer spoke Yeniseian (Xiongnu), but now spoke Oghuric Turkic, with many Yeniseian loanwords, and this was the language the Romans identified as Hunnic and the people the Romans called Hunnic. They were the same identity as Xiongnu, but with many changes since the days of Modun Chanyu in the 3rd century BC. 3. If you're considering Steppe Nomad factions, then they should be: Scythians (who are related to the Karluk people) Sarmatians/Alans (Also Indo-Iranian nomads like the Scythians) Xiongnu/Huns (The same people, effectively. The last of the Yeniseian nomads and the first of the Turkic-speaking nomads). 4. If you have questions I can probably answer any of them about the Huns and I know a lot about the Alans too (Scythian is a bit beyond my usual area but I know more than most). I haven't bothered to read all of this thread but feel free to ask.

.

.

Someone sent me an article I found interesting to complement my previous summary: "Like a Certain Tornado of Peoples": Warfare of the European Huns in the Light of Graeco-Latin Literary Tradition https://www.academia.edu/1264349/_Like_a_Certain_Tornado_of_Peoples_Warfare_of_the_European_Huns_in_the_Light_of_Graeco-Latin_Literary_Tradition

At the moment I don't have a Github repository, but will likely start one in the future when finishing the Teutonic Order Faction and the game play design.

Do you use a Github repository? I would want to test your mod and keep track of your latest developments. Keep it up, you are doing awesome work.

Update: polished up some buildings

Development Update. Structures: Polish Fortress Map: Pine Forest (2) Reference for polish fortress: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Będzin_Castle ,

This weeks progress update Structures: Market, Fortress, Temple, Sentry Tower and Barracks. Map: Malbork Line (2)

I personnally think it is better to have a dependancy with a horseman. It is easier. You kill simply the horseman to get ride of the falcon.

May be scess to field later than 1 phase.

How funny, I just came across this interesting place called Por Bajin, or Por-Bazhyn, an 8th century Uighur palace/monastery in southern Siberia: https://archive.archaeology.org/1011/etc/letter.html?fbclid=IwAR2h-oaOCPGDk_vtnwE67TDOlHyFFAENcG_RqJtMpAGZ-ip0CX2uMZ7VKVo Images:

I sympathize with the "manpower" aspect, but civs like the Han, Zaps, and Xions are already largely complete.

My suggestion for the faction symbols Scythian, Kuban region North-East of the Black Sea, 6th century BC For the Huns, from left to right:Germano-Hunnic 5th century AD in Romania, Germano-Hunnic 5th century AD in Italy, Scythians 5th Century BC in Altai (Russia), Scythians 5th Century BC in Tuetkin (Russia): For the Xiongnu:

A useful document for symbol faction and art (even if the author didn't take any precaution in distinguishing Scythian and Hunnic cultures): https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259717838_Hun_Xiongnu_Scythian_Art An Unesco's magazine special issue on the Scythians: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0007/000748/074829eo.pdf Gold artistic goods in Tuva (Russia-Mongolian border) https://journals.openedition.org/archeosciences/pdf/2193 Nomadic Art from the Eastern Eurasian Steppes

https://www.docdroid.net/UAhXdak/xiongnu-combined.pdf It seems that the Xiongnu did have some agricultural fields in the south-east border of their Empire where foreigners could settle. It wasn't really their own population but they were a kind of vassals the Xiongnu used to have enough food the winter, to have metals, textiles and others craftsmanship. There is small walls even in pastoral fields and fortified small settlements probably to stock and protect food and goods. The Xiongnu seems to have the same superior bow than the Huns. Edit: to summary a bit what I see for the moment. - The Scythians have a varied roster possible. From the Greek authors, there is mention of mounted javelinists and horse archers with the famous hit-and-retreat and ambush tactics. From archaeology, there is swords and pickaxes, spears, various squale armours and shields. The pickaxe is probably an answer against armours and must be an advantageous. The Sarmatians and the Eastern Scythians developed further heavy lancer cavalry and cataphracts. Normally each Scythians warriors, even armoured ones, have both bows and lances. Something to think about if the switching weapons is implemented one day. Crimean Scythians seem to be often separated from their northern Neighbors, having sometime a different king than the others Scythians. I suggest then for balance and historical reason to put the Crimean in a reform to be chosen with the further Sarmatian's development as an alternative. Since the Sarmatians destroyed the Crimean Scythians, it is logical that the player must chose between two different pathways. - The Xiongnu is more obscur but several patterns seem to emerge and we can make reasonable assumptions. The Xiongnu built their empire on a multiethnic basis with sedentarian populations in their border. They must have the possibility to built defensive fortifications and farms. Since the mod make the difference between civilian and militarian buildings, it should be possible to let sedentarian based units to build such civilian buildings. It would explain why sometimes the Xiongnu have a lot of infantry during the defense of their borders against the Han (although with a very mediocre efficiency). Contrary to others nomads cultures, the Xiongnu have inhabited on their territory for a very long time. The Xiongnu have superior "hunnic-like" bows, long double edged swords, spears and leather and iron squale armour. For their horses, it doesn't seem there is any cataphract, only padded linen and silk protection probably against the arrows can be guessed from archaeology. - The Huns are clearly the more mobiles and have clearly the best horse-archers. Not only because of their superior bows but also thanks to battle tactics. In the archaeology, the Huns seem similar to the Xiongnu but with indications they start using mail armour in Europe. They must be the best raiders. The possibility to hire Germanics units should give them better shock units both in cavalry and in infantry. There is not mention of any cataphract or any armoured horseman. The Avars (closely relatives to them) did have good lance cavalry. Attila was very good in siege warfare during his campaign against both eastern and western Romans. Hierarchical classification, I suggest (to discuss): Horse-archers - Huns > Xiongnu > Scythians Close-combat cavalry - Scythians > Huns > Xiongnu Armoured cavalry - Scythians with nomad reform > Xiongnu > Scythians with Crimean reform > Huns Lancers cavalry - Scythians with nomad reform > Huns > Xiongnu > Scythians with Crimean reform Combat infantry - Huns > Scythians with Crimean reform > Xiongnu > Scythians with nomad reform Archers infantry - Huns > Xiongnu > Scythians Economy (self-production) - Xiongnu > Scythians > Huns Economy (Raiding) - Huns > Xiongnu > Scythians Siege abilities - Huns > Xiongnu > Scythians Defensive structures - Xiongnu > Scythians with Crimean reform >> Scythians with nomad reform = Huns This is clearly a matter of interpretation.

Mongol Eagle Warriors: special ability: Gouging out the enemies' eyes, reducing the attacked units' visibility by 90%, lol Would be a cool fantasy unit for some game someday... Assassin's Creed: Wrath of the Khans

I see very well eagles as a ranged attack when #252 will be done. The unit would have a sword in melee and the falcon would just fly above her head, and if switched to ranged the falcon would attack. Should be restricted to slaughter attack I don't think they would waste an eagle in a battle.

@wowgetoffyourcellphone, two words: Eagle Hunting I think it took out a fox in the video, but I've seen video's of these babies taking out wolves as well!!! Would make for a very unique specialized hunting unit. Wouldn't be simple to implement I assume, but sooo epic. Perhaps even as a scout unit, although I'm not sure whether they outfitted their eagles with go-pro's in the BC era. Might have to check up on that. Also, why is throat singing so freakin' epic?!?! Some Turkic folk music (that flute, so simple, so perfect...): Top random youtube comment: "These people usually hunt wolves and foxes, but occasionally they conquer the world"

It depicts Goth refugees fleeing the Huns and settled by the Eastern Romans in Thracia.

gameplay. wagon defenses except Huns they must be Faster Rush kind. instead outposts; camps.pack / unpack unit, unpack increases LoS. stun and enslave abilities to Lasso units. capture the unit and make them their bodyguard. high loot bonus. team bonus for Huns you can access to their Auxiliars cavalry (Alans) and Lasso units. Scythian females can access to be upgraded to Hunter cavalry but they need kill at last a male soldier. Scythian female Hero can have bonus vs Male Heroes.

I could see Germanic civs having such an option in City Phase. Call it "Migration".

Some good references to look for: Nomads of the Eurasian Steppes in the Early Iron Age (1995) by Jeannine Davis-Kimball, Vladimir A. Bashilov and Leonid T. Yablonsky. Kurgans, Ritual Sites, and Settlements: Eurasian Bronze and Iron Age (2000) by Jeannine Davis-Kimball, Eileen M. Murphy, Ludmila Koryakova, Leonid T. Yablonsky History of Civilizations of Central Asia - Vol. 2: The Development of Sedentary and Nomadic Civilizations : 700 B.C. to A.D. 250 (1994) by Janos Harmatta Ancient China and its enemies: the rise of nomadic power in East Asian history (2002) by Nicola Di Cosmo The Empire of the Steppes: a History of Central Asia (1970) by René Grousset

Huns don't try have their own Empire Kingdom near of Roman Empire(Eastern) at last with Attila. And give great loot advantage to sack cities (CC) what about steal % of enemy stockpile (?) sounds funny and frustrating. Later you need some kind of semi nomads style gameplay. with Germanic refugees like the Vandals.

They are, but not certain at what point, but surely we will use them. Check this if you are not aware of it https://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/Triggers, besides there are a few maps using them. But to be fair, we haven't got to that point, so any task/possible trigger use said right now might change in the future. The goal of the project it's to have a playable campaign, not limited to destroying/wiping the enemy. We will use triggers, but not implement more, we are not programmers nor is in our scope, we might ask help from the devs team in any given situatio|n relating to triggers/core game.

Well, the main aim of this topic is not to make a discussion of why techs trees could be filled. The aim is making a collective resource for devs or modders, if they want to augment the number of units of units for civs, reducing the uniqueness of the rosters, but making them easier to balance (I'm for a asymmetrical balance, and the difference could be done in other ways, but as I said, focus the thread into filling the rosters). I'm not saying that we should add or not this units. At first I would use fast and superficial sources. Later If I have time or somebody does it, I would post better sources. My proposition is to make the design historical based, but not 100% accurate. For every proposal, a short argument or source. Not unique units, mainly common units and mercenaries (try to stick to historical mercenaries used for the correspondent civ) based on existing roles. The format is: role (based on existing ones): Concrete name Justification: and explanation if needed for supporting sources Source: Athens: (Fast) swordman: Ekdromoi Justification: It was a champion unit for the Greek civ before the splitting (now replaced by the Athen Marine). Could be the same that Spartan commando (c-s) or Gaul Fanatic (champion) Spartan: Slinger Justification: Spartan used slingers in their armies, for sure as mercenaries, and I don't know if they were also native soldiers. I don't know if were the helots who were used as slingers, like in Total War. Archer Justification: The same. Could be also Cretan mercenaries. Source for both them: https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130703083325AACyja2 Pikeman: Periokoi pikeman Justification: by the III century b.c, pikemen were used by spartans. Now there's a scenario-editor only unit, and has been debated to give allow to train them by a reforms tech Sword cavalry: Hippeis cavalry Justification: Convention: most of the cavalry of the game, if I'm not mistaken, used javelins as a main weapon to fight infantry (unless chasing routing units or light infantry) and sword as side weapon, but devs give sword cavalry for most civs. Source for Cretan archers and pikemen: https://books.google.es/books?id=RLr8CwAAQBAJ&pg=PA29&lpg=PA29&dq=tarantine+cavalry+sparta&source=bl&ots=A-XsoU1zQ3&sig=I_smyZXsIO_j_SkVhaPBSDsATUM&hl=es&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjI0NDXlpTXAhXSFsAKHfcSCHUQ6AEIaTAL#v=onepage&q=tarantine cavalry sparta&f=false Gauls: Swordman: Justification: as it says in the original design doc, sword were used by celts, but mainly nobles. It could be used a narrow viewer to make them available as c/s Archer: Hunter Justification: Vercingetorix reunited hunters with bows to fight romans. Could be implemented as mercenaries, like Delenda Est. Britons: Swordmen: Justification: the same as gauls. Mauryans: Infantry skirmisher Justification: mauryan infantry was almost all made by light infantry, and used javelins Source: https://weaponsandwarfare.com/2015/11/10/the-mauryan-empire-military/. This source also says that mauryans used catapults, ballistas and rams! Slingers: Source: https://books.google.es/books?id=jpXijlqeRpIC&pg=PA30&lpg=PA30&dq=mauryans+slingers&source=bl&ots=RAdEwmEWZ6&sig=WyBgQ390GEkRCEiD3cw9auarmR0&hl=es&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiVoOaEm5TXAhWBoRQKHYjJBx0Q6AEIVDAK#v=onepage&q=mauryans slingers&f=false Persians: Slingers: Justification: Polybius said it, (II a.c) Source: https://books.google.es/books?id=C4A7DgAAQBAJ&pg=PT314&lpg=PT314&dq=Achaemenids+slingers&source=bl&ots=L5lL7a0O9U&sig=WdDtshe_OXpO5sfZxotqNcOZy1M&hl=es&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjuk9f_m5TXAhVEOxQKHbCBAS8Q6AEISDAI#v=onepage&q=Achaemenids slingers&f=false Iberians: I think that are pretty complete (in historical terms). But: Sword cavalry: Justification: Convention: most of the cavalry of the game, if I'm not mistaken, used javelins as a main weapon to fight infantry (unless chasing routing units or light infantry) and sword as side weapon, but devs give sword cavalry for most civs. Macedonians: Spearman: Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Macedonian_army wikipedia Republican Romans: Pretty sure that the roster its historically correct. Normal spearman could be used, not only triarius if wanted. But probably there's a lot of room for auxiliary units. Spearman: Rorarii Justification: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rorarii Sword cavalry: Justification: Convention: most of the cavalry of the game, if I'm not mistaken, used javelins as a main weapon to fight infantry (unless chasing routing units or light infantry) and sword as side weapon, but devs give sword cavalry for most civs. Carthaginians: Infantry skirmisher: Libyan skirmisher (citizien-soldier) Cavalry spear: Lybian or Carthaginian spear cavalry Source for both: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Carthage#Formation_and_structure Sword cavalry: Lybian or Carthaginian sword cavalry Justification: Convention: most of the cavalry of the game, if I'm not mistaken, used javelins as a main weapon to fight infantry (unless chasing routing units or light infantry) and sword as side weapon, but devs give sword cavalry for most civs. Lazy to do romans auxiliares and successors. If somebody have more sources and units, I will add them!

Still working, far from finished yet, but all planned out for the Invasion of Africa

P