Leaderboard

Hello ! I have seen plenty of feedback and complain about A24. So I will share with you my personal feedback, I hope it will be constructive and maybe help some people to understand the new Alpha. Some point can be redundant with other feedbacks; I just want to be exhaustive (As much as I can), I don’t want to insist on any point. Civilizations strength and weakness : Athenians: A23 : Used to be a strong civilization due to Strong slingers, very good hero Iphicrates (+3 overall resistances) and black cloak for siege sniping and raiding. A24 : Seems a bit weaker due to weaker slingers, hero permanent death and no more black cloaks. Strength: Stronger building +10% metal gather rate per phase Iphicrates Slingers for low wood map Archer champions Weakness: All ranged infantry are based on minerals (stone/metal). Sword infantry trainable only in docks. -> Athenians weaker in A24 than in A23 (It’s OK, they were too strong) Britons : A23: Top 3 civilization, strong economic bonuses (population space on every building/building faster to build/rotary mill), decent hero, strong early slingers rushes. A24: Better balance, small economic bonus with building faster to build, Dog phase 1 strong for rushes (can easily deny all food income of your enemy), decent hero. Strength: Faster building Dogs Rushes (Good micro mandatory) Weakness: Weaker building Only rams as siege weapon -> Britons weaker in A24 than in A23 but still decent, harder to play, not a beginner civilization anymore. Carthaginians: A23 : Decent civilization, strong cavalry, very strong hero, variety of siege weapon make them adaptable to situations. A24 : Strong civilization, very strong hero, Strong archer, variety of siege weapon make them adaptable to situations. Very good team play: Hannibal Barca + international trade bonuses. Strength: Cheaper docks Strong hero International trade bonuses Massive Stone Walls (good option now due to floating stone) Apartment Weakness: Swordsman only as mercenaries -> Carthaginians stronger in A24 than in A23. Well balanced now. Gauls: A23: Top 3 civilizations, strong economic bonuses (population space on every building/building faster to build/rotary mill), strong heros and fanatic strong for raids. A24: Decent civilization, economic bonuses (building faster to build/extra food upgrade).Very strong power spike at phase 2 due to extra damage on sword cavalry en cheaper fanatic. New champions, Heroes easier to reach. (Cheaper stable and barracks.) Strength: Building faster to build Extra food upgrade phase 2, helps for the sword cavalry spam. Strong Heroes Strong melee cavalry (+15% damage) Strong team bonus Weakness: Only rams has siege weapon Weaker buildings -> Gauls weaker in A24 than in A23 but still decent. Harder to play, not a beginner civilization anymore. Iberians: A23: decent civilization mostly played for its team bonus, decent hero. Very defensive civilization. A24: decent civilization weaker team bonus, decent hero, Strong cavalry champions. Strength: Good hero Very strong champion cavalry (fire damage) Extra sword upgrade Revered Monument Massive towers Starting walls Very strong fire ship Weakness: No economic bonuses Only rams as siege weapon (Ok there is champion cavalry) No counter to melee cavalry phase 1 -> Iberians are stronger in A24 than in A23, They are more independent and don’t need to rely only on their allies. Kushites: A23: Worst civilization, even with decent heroes, economic bonuses (pyramids). Team bonus not useful due to weak elephants. Weak unique mercenaries, costly rank 3 healers. A24: Strong civilization, Decent heroes Economic bonuses (pyramid). Strong team bonus, Strong unique mercenaries, free rank 3 upgrade healer. Strong unique Axeman champions. Strength: Small Pyramid (+15% gather speed) Large Pyramid (+10% damge +1 resistance) Rank 3 healers Stronger rams Mercenaries maceman Champion Axeman Decent Heroes Archery tradition (+10 attack range for archers) Weakness: None -> Kushites are way stronger in A24 than in A23, many gameplay possibilities. Macedonians: A23: One of the worst civilizations no swords, no spears, useless heroes, no economic bonuses. A24: A bit better thanks to champion swordsman, New champion crossbowman (a bit weak can’t be spammed due to massive overkill) Strength: Phase 1 spear cavalry Variety of siege weapons Hellenistic Metropolis (Civic center +100% Health points) Stronger buildings Weakness: No economic bonuses No spear infantry (except champions) -> Macedonians Slightly stronger in A24 than in A23 but remain as a bad civilization Mauryas : A23 : Decent civilization (Very strong in nomad games), Heroes a bit weak, economic bonuses (Elephant worker), +10% population limit, only elephant as siege weapon (except expensive champions maceman and tricky rams) A24 : Very strong civilization, Heroes still weak, economic bonuses (Elephant worker), +10% population limit, Strong unique champion maceman, Strong Archer chapions, Strong elephant archer, Indian siege elephant, access to rams.(cheaper barracks/stable) Strength: Elephant Workers +10% population limit Elephant faster to recruit Indian Siege Elephant Extra Sword upgrade Archery tradition Unique Champion Maceman Strong archer champions (poison damage) Strong archer elephants Cheap Walls Weakness: None -> Mauryas are stronger in A24 than in A23 Persians: A23: Good civilization, slow start and very strong late game. Extra population limit, over powered cavalry, no economic bonuses, Average heroes, strong rams. Apadana (resources trickle) A24: Strong civilization, balanced cavalry, extra population limit, double conscription, strong rams, Indian elephants. Apadana (resources trickle), average hero, huge trading bonus. Strength: +10% population limit Archery Tradition Double conscription Indian Elephants Strong Rams Apadana (Resources trickle 1food + 1wood +0.75stone +0.75metal/seconds) +25% trade gain Weakness: No early economic bonus -> Persians have a stronger start and weaker late game in A24 than in A23. Civilization way better balanced than in A23. Ptolemies: A23: Top 3 civilization, economic bonus (free buildings), good team bonus, Strong heroes, strong army compositions, large variety of siege weapons. Very strong navy: Lighthouse, Juggernaut. Camel Archer Phase 1. A24: Very strong civilization, economic bonus (cheaper buildings), good team bonus Strong Heroes, strong army compositions, large variety of siege weapons. Camel Archer Phase 1. Standard navy. Strength: Cheaper buildings (-40% cost for house, corral, storehouse and farmstead) Strong heroes (and in Civic Center) Variety of siege weapons Stronger Bolt Shooter (faster less overkill) Library Hellenistic Metropolis Military Colony Camel archer at phase 1. Weakness: Swordsman only as mercenaries All ranged infantry are based on minerals (stone/metal). Spear unit only as mercenaries -> Ptolemies are slightly weaker in A24 than in A23. A bit better balanced but still very strong. Romans: A23: Strong civilization, good heroes, good team bonus, strong siege, very strong military camps, spear cavalry phase 1. No palisade and no economic bonuses. A24: Decent civilization, good heroes, good team bonus, strong siege, weaker military camps, spear cavalry phase 1. Now they have palisade Phase 1. No economic bonuses. Strength: Castra (Army camp) Strong heroes Strong siege Good team bonus Spear cavalry phase 1 Weakness: No economic bonus -> Romans are weaker in A24 than in A23. (It would have been great to have other kind of unit in castra than only melee) Seleucids: A23: Decent civilization, medium heroes, variety of siege units, good army compositions. No economic bonuses. A24: Decent civilization, medium heroes, variety of siege units, good army compositions. No economic bonuses.(no change overall) Strength: Free champion infantry upgrade Military Colony Hellenistic Metropolis Variety of siege units Good army compositions Weakness: No economic bonus -> Seleucids remain a decent civilization in A24. Better balance overall now. Spartans: A23: Good civilization, good heroes, strong women, skiritai and black cloaks phase 2 (huge power spike phase 2),the Agoge (+25% health to spear units). No economic bonus and population limit penalty (-10%) A24: Medium civilization, good heroes, strong women, no more population limit penalty. No more black cloaks and skiritai 25% more expensive. No economic bonus. Strength: Good Heroes Strong women (stronger than javelineer with loom) Stronger buildings Weakness: No economic bonus Only rams has siege weapon -> Spartans weaker in A24 than in A23. The change on the skiritai is a bit too much in my opinion. Overall balance: Lack of Metal: The current overall metal cost is fine for 1v1 when you have access to several metal mine. Contrariwise for team games 90% of the time you only have access to your starting mine (so 5000 metal). Economic upgrades: 1600 Metal Wood = 600 Metal Food = 600 Metal Stone ~ 200 Metal (1 or 2 upgrade, more is useless cause not enough mines) Metal ~ 200 Metal (1 or 2 upgrade, more is useless cause not enough mines) Forge upgrades : 4000 Metal Melee = 1000 Metal Range = 1000 Metal Hack = 1000 Metal Pierce = 1000 Metal Other upgrades : 5350 Metal Cartography = 100 Metal Cavalry = 350 Metal Will to fight = 1500 Metal Towers = 1000 Metal Siege = 1100 Metal Temple = 750(+600)Metal Trade = 550 Metal Buildings: 700 Metal Civic Center / Military Colony = 500 / 200 Metal Hero Building = 200 Metal Units: Hero = 400/350/300/200/150 Metal Champions = 100/80 Metal Mercenaries = 60/80 Metal Siege = 150/180/250/220 Metal Trader = 80 Metal -> Just for economic and basic forge upgrade you don’t have enough metal on your starting mines. New forge upgrades: They are way better than it used to be. Having same upgrade for infantry and cavalry allow a faster adaptation to your opponent composition. For example, your enemy is going full archer then just go melee cavalry to clean is army. A bit too expensive. Due to the lack of metal. Mercenaries: Very expensive due to the lack of metal. (only 80 resources but all resources don’t have the same cost) Similar strength as standard units but doesn’t gather resources. Costly Rank 2 upgrade. (they should be rank 2 by default and upgrade for rank 3) Faster to train -> Expensive unit for panic situations. Never used technologies and building: Theatron: currently way too expensive a barrack on the border is the same and at least it produces units. Outpost: useless in A24 Naval Shipyard: Units repairing ships are better and less expensive. Edict Pillar of Ashoka: hard to reach, expensive, not very useful because buildable only on own territory. Monumental Architecture: too expensive for a bonus/penalty upgrade. Persian Architecture: way better than Monumental Architecture but still an bonus/penalty upgrade. Spying technologies: 500 food + 500 metal + 600 metal is way too much expensive. A standard cavalry do better it cost only 150 resources and it can fight. Ranged Infantry Balance: Without any micro archers are stronger than javelineers and slingers Bigger range makes units easier to micro Weaker units (less Health Points) makes ranged unit even stronger. -> Archer units are too strong. Maybe give back the A23 statistics to the slingers and give 2 or 3 standard pierce resistance to the javelineers making them stronger against ranged units and still weak against melee.(like this all 3 ranged infantry are unique) Catapults: Catapult are way weaker than they used to be in A23, they are useless against units (which is great) they are easily destroyed by archers, they deal very few damage. However they are a bit too expensive : they are more expensive than rams and elephants. I suggest to reduce their resources price and also the population cost, 3 is too much currently 2 might be better. “Turtling”: The consequence of many change made turtling (staying on your base waiting your opponent to suicide on your defence) too strong. Building are way more deadlier than they used to be. Demography: Hard to keep a high population: Units have less Health points. (impact the overall balance) Units are longer to train. -> HP bonus per phase was nice. Miscellaneous: Slingers now use their ranged weapon to attack wolves! Ambriorix now is worth it ! No more penalty it’s great ! Hero permanent death, it will be fixed on A25 apparently. (Am I right?) Units turning : It avoid dancing abuse, which is good, but maybe the better ranged accuracy was enough. Slow down the game. Retreat is now similar to suicide. Trading ships : They are clumsy, they can’t be spamed. The trader garrison bonus is not enough. A trader + a merchantman should carry the same amout of resources between two docks as a merchantman with a trader garrisoned. Wonders: Doing the population limit bonus as a percentage is really great. Celtic population bonus in every building was too strong but it was a great to have. Instead of removing it completely reducing it would have been nice. Bugs : DDOS: Finishing a game is really rare. (balance issue is nothing compared to this) Lags: currently the game lags way too much making it not very enjoyable to play. (I wonder if a smart person can make a “cubic” mod to replace all 3D design/texture/animation by cubic shaped volumes without animation with mono coloured texture. To reduce lags) Graphical issues example: destroying animation of mauryan barracks is broken, half of the walls disappear. Pathfinding issues : Units are clumsy Units disobey Units have their own will Units auto focus : Units are automatically focusing palisade, field and walls. This is game breaker your entire army can be killed because they hate fields. Example : Units don’t protect siege units when opponent ungarrison building because they are attacking field or palisade or walls. Also for ship, a shore fight between 2 ships, can be unbalanced by the presence of palisade on the shore. -> Unit should attack (capture aswell) buildings only if they are tasked to. Philip V doesn’t have full description on the learn to play panel. Rank 2 units in castra are not specified in the description. Rank 3 Healer in PR’IMN are not specified in the description. Wrong hero description for Caratacos in French. Personal feeling about the future: I have seen some proposition on the forum about gameplay “innovation” and I feel like it tend to copy similar RTS games such as Age of Empire 2. For exemple the food decay, the scout phase 1, cavalry not able to hunt anymore, stable, siege workshop... I am a bit sad about that, this game is wonderful and unique. It can be improved with real gameplay innovation such as regenerative fishes, trees and berries. There is no need to copy other archaic games. In the other hand lately Age of Empire tend to do the same and copy 0AD innovations: Soldier able to build Dock used as resources deposit Units can be garrisoned in houses -> I hope it is just a feeling. To conclude, in my opinion it is great that many issues has been discovered on this Alpha, it can’t be perfect the 1st time but it can always be improved. It is mostly the negative part pointed out but the work done is really great! Overall it is nice to play on this Alpha! Thank you everyone who contributed to this project! Post Scriptum : I have seen lots of complain about this Alpha but note that everybody has access to the next Alpha on SVN, you can test it and give your feedback before its release.

Hey, As a work in progress update, there you have screenshots of the blockout phase. Many thanks to all your references and for the work @Obskiuras. Nothing better than good concept art to be efficient in modeling. It's going to be faster and faster as I'm doing a modular approach, so each building becomes easier. Once all will be done, I'll do the texture atlas to have a good feeling of the whole. Even if it's a wip you are welcome and encouraged to add your grain of salt. Like, I thing pointy palisade are better as per @Lion.Kanzen (I think?) recommendation for the great hall. And after 'finishing' the Civ Center, I'll try to make a version larger in Y (green axis) and shorter. It may be better. Of course, here the blend. in case the volcano goes off. sueban_buildings_blockout.blend

There should be an option to upgrade Iberian slingers and make them better slingers than Gaul/Athenian/Ptole - I have seen from a few forums that there are proposals to make Iberian slingers stand out for being better then other civ slingers from historical perspecitve so I put this proposal like this: a Make a tech at phase 2 or 3 that would add +2 crush damage and change the price from 30 stone to 30 metal for slingers and name the tech "Metal missiles" This would be like an archery tradition but for slingers - it should also take into account Iberian mercenary slingers for Carthage

Zapotecs version 0.1 Based heavily upon the great work being done by the Terra Magna mod team The Zapotec lived in the Valley of Oaxaca, the largest expanse of relatively flat land in southern Mexico. Around 500 B.C.E. they built Monte Albán on the flattened top of a mountain in the center of the valley, the first urban center in Mesoamerica. Monte Albán covered an area of 2.5 square miles and its population grew from 5,000 to 25,000. It boasted the first centralized political system and population divided into social classes. Lasting for about a 1,000 years it became the dominant power in southern Mexico, ruled by nobles and strong military. Lacking in a strong agricultural base, their economy was based on the collection of tribute from surrounding groups. By the 7th century C.E. its power began to wane through competition and unsustainable population growth. Other characteristic features of Zapotec civilization can be found in the periods following Monte Albán's founding, including a characteristic two-chambered temple architecture, a market system, a rubber-ball game, and the human-like funerary vessels called Zapotec urns. Between 200 - 900 C.E. Monte Albán acquired a Classic style representative of Mesoamerican groups, most likely through conquest. Population growth, writing, architecture and art flourished, centering around the noble class and the hierarchy of Zapotec gods. Units Civic Center Zapotec Citizen Male and Female variations. Some textures and meshes by @Lopess Jaguar King (Hero) Nearby Soldiers are stronger and move faster. Nearby Citizens and Slaves gather much faster. Battle Priest (Hero) Reduces the effectiveness of nearby enemy units, due to his terrifying visage (Battle Priests wear the skin of their enemies) Has a healing aura for nearby Zapotec units as well as a strong self-healing ability. Barracks Zapotec Runner Lightly armed Scout unit Can Hunt Can build Outposts Zapotec Spearman Macuahuitl Infantry Archery Range Zapotec Slinger Zapotec Skirmisher Zapotec Archer Archery Tradition tech gives them greater accuracy and -50% xp required for promotion Fortress Zapotec Noble Warrior Champion Macuahuitl Warrior Mercenaries Mixtec Jaguar Warrior Mercenary Champion Spearman Very much like the Gaesetae Naked Fanatic for the Gauls Otomi Maceman Mercenary Maceman A small Crush attack Teotihuacan Warrior Mercenary Multi-purpose Warrior An extra fast ranged unit, similar to a Cavalry Archer or Cavalry Skirmisher in ability Can swap between atlatl-thrown javelins and a (melee) heavy spear Others War Captive Slave class unit, trained from Storehouses and Farmsteads Zapotec Priest Battering Ram War Canoe Fires arrows and can fish for food. Trade Canoe Zapotec Structures Zapotecs have average-strength structures with an average number of structure technologies and upgrades. They have no access to cavalry, so do not have a Cavalry Stable. Their "Cult Statue" glory trickle building is the Ball Court. Only 1 is buildable, but it gives a trickle of glory 4x greater than a regular Cult Statue from a different civ. The Wonder gives a trickle of glory as well and can be praised by units for more glory. They have a greater reliance on stone for technologies, and a less reliance on metal compared to other civs. Lastly, they start each skirmish match with a free extra stone mine nearby. Atlatl can be a special technology. Adds range and accuracy for Javelin infantry. Eventual the Maya will get this special tech too. More References

Work in progress.

This is in my plans.

"Lead Sling Bullets" works for a Forge tech (Slingers +10% pierce and crush ranged attack). And then a "Slinging Tradition" tech (Slingers -50% experience needed for promotion) for both Balearic Slingers and Rhodian Slingers at their respective Barracks.

Forum discussions are nice and all, and there is certainly no shortage of good ideas, however, what matters is how things work out in game. Because using the development version and applying patches is challenging for many, I've decided to bundle several related patches proposed for A25 as a mod for A24. Their purpose is to address the frequent complaint that defensive structures are too effective in A24 and therefore attacking is too difficult. The eight patches included here are: https://code.wildfiregames.com/D2845 https://code.wildfiregames.com/D2854 https://code.wildfiregames.com/D3601 https://code.wildfiregames.com/D3602 https://code.wildfiregames.com/D3668 https://code.wildfiregames.com/D3672 https://code.wildfiregames.com/D3684 https://code.wildfiregames.com/D3686 I sincerely believe each of them is an improvement on its own and also that they work nicely in combination with each other. Nevertheless, I'm biased by my own ideas and different people may have different opinions, of course. Hence this mod, to broaden the audience and have more people play and test. Feedback is appreciated, especially from people who've played at least several games with it. Anyway, here it is: balancing_defensive_structures.zip I've also uploaded it to mod.io to make it available via the in-game mod downloader, but I'm not sure it's working (@Itms?): https://0ad.mod.io/balancing-defensive-structures

Weapons of attack at a distance: Among the weapons of attack at a distance that the Mixtecs used were the typical bows and arrows, whose tips must have been of obsidian, flint or flint. Also present was the use of the atlatl, a common weapon in all Mesoamerica. Melee weapons: Among the melee weapons, the Mixtecs fought with a variety of clubs and spears, some similar to the Mexica tepoztopilli, but smaller. A weapon that appears frequently in the codices is striking, it is a wooden stick bent at a 90° angle, with stone blades (whether flint, flint or obsidian) on top; this weapon seems to have been representative of the Mixtec and Zapotec area. Source: Mixtec Culture http://www.mexicomipais.com/cultura-mixteca ------ It should be noted that in this classic period of Mesoamerica where the Zapotecs are, they still get along well with the Mixtecs, so a force of mercenaries could be the Mixtec archers. The only unknown here is: what military contribution to the war would the Teotihucanos have. The other question is to see what contribution the Mayans of this time had towards the Zapotecs, what do we know that in reverse the tribes of the Valley of Mexico for so quite militarily to the Mayan conflicts. So I would include archers, maceman, spear and some other weapon.

https://historia.nationalgeographic.com.es/a/temibles-guerreros-ciudades-mayas_7109 generally these data can be provided by the Mayans. _____ By the way... It says something here about battle priests, at least in Mayan society. NOBLES AND MERCENARIES Today we know that each city had its men ready to fight. They were mostly nobles, the best trained and who could have the most complete equipment. The highest-ranking military officer was the Nacom, who was chosen from among the best for a period of three years. In addition to leading the troops, he also acted as a military priest. In the Mayan armies there was no lack of mercenaries, generally of Mexican origin, who rented their services to the highest bidder. When the Nacom died in battle or was captured, the war was over and the victors returned to the city with their prisoners alive and the heads of the dead hanging from their belts. Well, neither you nor I thought that the greatest mercenaries were always from the Valley of Mexico.

Thank you for your detailed analysis, it's appreciated! A few of the things you listed were actually not changed in A24, though. For instance, the Carthaginian and Persian trader bonuses were implemented nine years ago (11349) and the international bonuses five years ago (18108). What has changed in A24 is that a lot of work has been done on correcting and improving the information displayed in game. As with everything, this job is not finished, 0 A.D. is a result of nearly two decades of work by dozens if not hundreds of people and there will also be things that could and should be improved. This is indeed problematic. Part of the problem is expensive technologies (which can be easily changed), part of it is generally poor map design. I fully agree. Age of Empires II is a very popular game, yet that doesn't mean it should be followed blindly. One can look at other games for inspiration, of course, but in the end what's done in 0 A.D. should be what makes sense for 0 A.D., regardless what other games do.

Sunday fun

I want to hear your opinion about the following mechanic: Disable the ability to use the CC as storage, but make farms and storehouses therefore either gratis or let them have a very reduced cost. Why? It is inconsistent that you can use the CC as storage and not the fortress. Historically you would need to store resources in a fortress as well, otherwise it would be very susceptible to siege. It is generally a bit inconsistent that you would store resources in either the CC or the fortress themselves. Wouldn't the resources be better stored in a storehouse or farmstead by the CC/fortress? As mentioned somewhere else, it makes not so much sense to have your field directly in your city in front of the CC. -> See DE or the city building mod. Pros: more realistic city layout it gets easier to rush, as the fields are not in front of the CC. (At least not all of them). more interesting gameplay. You need to think about how you want to protect your fields. Cons: little bit slower game start, but as it is the same for all players it shouldn't change anything balance wise. gratis buildings are not realistic, but you could argue for a really reduced cost. In comparison to a house, a storehouse can be build much simpler/cheaper. Looking forward to hear your thoughts on that, or maybe just tell me if that has already been discussed somewhere

Carthage takes over Zapotecs (4K)

Just a few points I have that strongly vary from Edwarf:

Flood

Two things set off the Early from the Late Classic: first, the strong Izapan element still discernible in Early Classic Maya culture, and secondly, the appearance in the middle part of the Early Classic of powerful waves of influence, and almost certainly invaders themselves, from the site of Teotihuacan in central Mexico. This city was founded in the first century BC in a small but fertile valley opening onto the northeast side of the Valley of Mexico. On the eve of its destruction at the hands of unknown peoples, at the end of the sixth or beginning of the seventh century AD, it covered an area of over 5 sq. miles (13 sq. km) and may have had, according to George Cowgill, a preeminent expert on the site, a population of some 85,000 people living in over 2,300 apartment compounds. To fill it, Teotihuacan’s ruthless early rulers virtually depopulated smaller towns and villages in the Valley of Mexico. It was, in short, the greatest city ever seen in the Pre-Columbian New World. Teotihuacan is noted for the regularity of its two crisscrossing great avenues, for its Pyramids of the Sun and Moon, and for the delicacy and sophistication of the paintings which graced the walls of its luxurious palaces. In these murals and elsewhere, the art of the great city is permeated with war symbolism, and there can be little doubt that war and conquest were major concerns to its rulers. Teotihuacan fighting men were armed with atlatl-propelled darts and rectangular shields, and bore round, decorated, pyrite mosaic mirrors on their backs; with their eyes sometimes partly hidden by white shell “goggles,” and their feather headdresses, they must have been terrifying figures to their opponents. At the very heart of the city, facing the main north–south avenue, is the massive Ciudadela (“citadel”), in all likelihood the compound housing the royal palace. Within the Ciudadela itself is the stepped, stone-faced temple-pyramid known as the Temple of the Feathered Serpent (TFS), one of the single most important buildings of ancient Mesoamerica, and apparently well known to the distant Maya right through the end of the Classic. When the TFS was dedicated c. AD 200, at least 200 individuals were sacrificed in its honor. Study of their bone chemistry reveals that not a few are certain to have been foreigners. All were attired as Teotihuacan warriors, with obsidian-tipped darts and back mirrors, and some had collars strung with imitation human jawbones. On the facade and balustrades of the TFS are multiple figures of the Feathered Serpent, an early form of the later Aztec god Quetzalcoatl (patron god of the priesthood) and a figure that may, according to Karl Taube, have originated among the Maya. Alternating with these figures is the head of another supernatural ophidian, with retroussé snout covered with rectangular platelets representing jade, and cut shell goggles placed in front of a stylized headdress in the shape of the Mexican sign for “year.” Taube has conclusively demonstrated this to be a War Serpent, a potent symbol wherever Teotihuacan influence was felt in Mesoamerica – and, in fact, long after the fall of Teotihuacan. Such martial symbolism extended even to the Teotihuacan prototype of the rain deity Tlaloc who, fitted with his characteristic “goggles” and year-sign, also functioned as a war god. That the Teotihuacan empire prefigured that of the Aztecs is vividly attested at the site of Los Horcones, Chiapas, Mexico, studied by Claudia García-Des Lauriers of California State Polytechnic, Pomona. Situated near a spectacular hill, the city lies on the very edge of the great chocolate-producing area known to the Aztecs as the Xoconochco. The southern part of Los Horcones is a dead ringer for the complex composed of the Pyramid of the Moon and the Avenue of the Dead at Teotihuacan, and artifacts and monuments point to a direct Teotihuacan presence in the region. It is hard to believe that the Aztecs were not the imitators here, and that Teotihuacan was the first to interest itself in the cacao plantations and trade routes of the region. The contact did not stop there, but extended to what may be a Teotihuacan colony at Montana, Guatemala. This settlement, surrounded by others like it within a 3 mile (5 km) radius, is endowed with magnificent incense burners, portrait figurines, and an enigmatic square object known to specialists as candeleros or “candle holders,” though their function is not known. And Montana was not alone. In 1969 tractors plowing the fields in the Tiquisate region of the Pacific coastal plain of Guatemala, an area located southwest of Lake Atitlan that is covered with ancient (and untested) mounds, unearthed rich tombs and caches containing a total of over 1,000 ceramic objects. These have been examined by Nicholas Hellmuth of the Foundation for Latin American Archaeological Research; the collection consists of elaborate two-piece censers (according to Karl Taube symbolizing the souls of dead warriors), slab-legged tripod cylinders, hollow mold-made figures, and other objects, all in Teotihuacan style. Numerous finds of fired clay molds suggest that these were mass-produced from Teotihuacan prototypes by military-merchant groups intruding from central Mexico during the last half of the Early Classic. Contacts must have been intense and conducted at the highest levels. Taube has detected Maya-style ceramics at Teotihuacan, some made locally, perhaps in an ethnic enclave at the city. Legible Maya glyphs from murals in the Tetitla apartment compound at Teotihuacan attest to royal names and rituals of god-impersonation. Very likely, these refer not to mere craftsmen brought from the Maya region, but to dynastic elites. Yet the movement of these people must have been complex. Under the immense Pyramid of the Moon, Saburo Sugiyama and colleagues discovered a burial with three bodies, dating to AD 350–400, accompanied by carved jades and a seated, Maya-like figure of greenstone. The positioning of this figure and the bodies nearby, all buried upright with crossed legs, resembles patterns in tombs at Kaminaljuyu in Highland Guatemala; the date, too, is close to a period of marked contact between Tikal and Teotihuacan-related people. Bone chemistry suggests that at least one of the occupants of the tomb came from the Maya region, but spent much of his life at this important Mexican city.

Back from my hiatus. I will keep coming back to this post to add more info, or maybe add more words later. I will also add the comments from the post where this list was before (here). I will be using Matasović (2009), Etymological Dictionary of Proto-Celtic, and to a lesser extent, Xavier Delamarre (2003), Dictionnaire de la langue gauloise: Une approche linguistique du vieux-celtique continental, Dottin (1920), La langue gauloise: grammaire, textes et glossaire, as well as the documents for Gallo-Brittonic by Deiniol Jones, the old University of Wales Celtic Lexicon documents, and a bit of Wiktionary and other sources if needed. Deinol Jones follows Gallo-Brittonic, rather than P/Q- or Insular/Continental Celtic division, which is useful since both factions would belong to the same overall dialect continuum, meaning the same names could be plausibly used for either, unless we want very specific regionalism. Spelling can be altered at will (c=k, i=y=i, u=w=u, v=w, no long vowels, etc.). House Current: Tegia Suggestion: : Tegos [pl. Tegesā] /ˈte.gos/ - house : Butā [pl. Butās] /ʽbu.taː/ - dwelling/hut : Wastu(s) [pl. Wastow(ā/es)] /ʽwas.tu(s)/ - dwelling : or maybe Tigos [pl. Tigesā] /ˈti.gos/ Could use both, Tegos for Gauls, Tigos for Britons. Justification: Matasović, Delamarre, and the UoWales lexicon give the PCelt. (Proto-Celtic) word *tegos- (house) with -s stem, so nom.sg. *tegos, and would give either GallBrit. (Gallo-Brittonic) *tegos- or *tigos-, with e>i, (see OW (Old Welsh) tig, making GallBritt. g>∅, difficult to justify, especially as Delamarre mentions it is only late Gaulish (p. 97)), though with the attested Lat. (Latin) attegia-hut in Juvenal, from where the previously suggested tegia comes from, the e>i might be overzealous. The Jones lexicon gives tegos as well. Matasović gives *ad-teg-yā as derivation, which would ultimately come from the same *tegos-. Matasović is unsure about *tīg-s, so perhaps Tegos is the better choice, or we use the two different ablauts for the two different factions. However, Delamarre shows possible attestations with *tigos-, such as Tigorix and Tiotiginus (thanks to @Genava55 for the suggestion). Another option is Butā (dwelling, hut), present in Matasović and Delamarre (as PCelt. and Gaul. *butā), but not Dottin. One final option is using Matasović's PCelt. *wastu- (dwelling), though it is not present in Delemarre or Dottin. Matasović suggests MW gwas (dwelling) as a descendant, with cognates in Skt. (Sanskrit) vā́stu- (site of a house) and Gr. (Greek) (w)ásty (town). Assuming fem. from the MW, though the Skt. and Gr. (and also the PIE) are neut., so it could be either fem. Wastus (pl. Wastowes), or neut. Wastu (pl. Wastowā). Perhaps the neut. is more likely. Comments: @Genava55 is happy with Tegos, and helped with suggestions. Corral Current: Cagion Suggestion: unchanged (Cagio(n/s) [pl. Cagi(ā/oi)] /ˈka.gjo(n/s)/ - pen or enclosure) : or maybe Crāwos [pl. Crāwoi] /ˈkraː.wos/ - stable or enclosure : or maybe Cagro(n/s) [pl. Cagr(ā/oi)] /ˈka.gro(n/s)/ - enclosure or fort Justification: Matasović gives PCelt. *kagyo- (pen, enclosure), which would give GallBritt. *cagio-, or *caio-. Delamarre gives *cagio- for Brittonic and Goedelic. Attested as caio (wine cellar, quay) as well for Gaulish, from the Vienna/Endlicher's Glossary. The UoW lexicon gives nom.sg. cagion (field, pen, fence) as a neut., but unsure why, as all the derived terms even in OBret. (Old Breton) are masculine. Everything from OBret. to MoBret. (Modern Breton) already drops the g as well (but this process is, again, sourced from Wikipedia only). However, from Matasović, the word is attested as cagiíon (either neut.nom.sg. or masc.acc.sg.) in Gaul. (Gaulish), with no g dropping. Another alternative in Matasović is PCelt. *krāfo- (stable, enclosure), thus GallBritt. *crāwo- (Jones lexicon crāwos, masc.), and with OIr. (Old Irish) already as masculine, I assume nom.sg.masc. crāwos. However, Delamarre does not give this root, and Dottin gives Gaul. craff 'farm' as part of *crappao-. Another possibility, using Matasović *kagro- ('enclosure', 'fort'), though this is only found there and in the UoW, which gives the gender as neut.; though, again, I am not sure why, as it could be both. The meaning of 'fort' might present some need for reconsideration, but the possibility is still there. Comments: I prefer Cagio(n/s). Not sure about the rest. Farm Current: Olca Suggestion: unchanged (Olcā [pl. Olcās] /ˈol.kaː/) Justification: Matasović gives PCelt *folkā- (arable land), found also on the UoWales docs, which gives GallBritt. *olcā- (nom.sg. olcā, as in the Jones lexicon), with initial f/φ dropping. Attested in Gregory of Tours as Latin olca, confirmed by Dottin and Delamarre, Matasović suggesting from Gaul. *olca. Comments: None. Civic Centre Current: Lissos (Gauls), Tigernotreba (Britons) Suggestion: : Wentācridion [pl. Wentācridiā] /ʽwen.taː.kri.djon/ - town's heart : or Towtācridion [pl. Towtācridiā] /ʽtow.taː.kri.djon/ - tribe's heart : or with -sedlo(s/n)/-sedl(os/ā) instead of -cridios (Wentāsedlo(s/n) /ʽwen.taː.sed.lo(s/n)/, Towtāsedlo(s/n) /ʽtow.taː.sed.lo(s/n)/) - seat instead of heart : or Cori(o)- instead of Wentā (Cori(o)cridion /ʽko.r(i/jo).kri.djon/, or Cori(o)sedlo(s/n) /ʽko.r(i/jo).sed.lo(s/n)/) - troop/tribe instead of town Later Gaul. has neut.nom.pl. -ī instead of ā, affecting the plural of e.g. Wentācridion (Wentācridī), Many more options available, since it's a made-up compound. For Britons specifically: : Tigern(i/o)sedlo(s/n) [pl. Tigern(i/o)sedl(oi/ā)] /ʽti.ger.n(i/o).sed.lo(s/n)/ - the lord's/master's seat : or Rīgosedlo(s/n) [pl. Rīgosedl(oi/ā)] /ʽriː.go.sed.lon/ - the king's seat : or Tigern(i/o)tegos /ʽti.ger.n(i/o).te.gos/ - the lord's/master's house : or Rīgotegos /ʽriː.go.te.gos/ - the king's house Maybe also Butā and Wastu(s) instead of Tegos. Tegos>Tigos also possible. Wentā may be particular to Brittonic too, so perhaps those only apply here. We could also use two words in genitive apposition instead (Cridion Wentās, Sedlo(s/n) Towtās, Cridion Corī etc.). Justification: Delamarre gives *lissos (court, palace), with OIr. les (yard), MIr. (Modern Irish) and MSG (Modern Scottish Gaelic) lios, MW llys, MoCor. (Modern Cornish) lys, and MoBret. lez. Modern meanings in Goidelic languages are invariably 'court(-yard)', rather than 'palace', and the possible Greek cognate given by Delamarre means 'flat' or 'broad' (πλατύς), though it seems Brittonic languages do invariably keep the idea of 'court' (e.g. of law; thanks to @Genava55 for pointing this out). I am still suspicious of the PCelt. lemma, since the change from i>e does not seem plausible from my admittedly limited knowledge of Celtic, and instead *lesso- seems more plausible, with PCelt. less- > llys- in MW, and then the rest maintaning the original e, but I could be wrong. The lemma is only attested in Delamarre and Dottin. I like Tīgernotreba, but since not all Gauls had a singular ruler, and both Matasović and Dottin give *treba- as 'settlement' or a variant thereof (though UoWales gives 'home', and Jones gives both settlement and home), I propose a different compound, either 'heart of the town' or 'heart of the people/tribe', or with 'seat' instead of 'heart'. This is very speculative, many alternatives could be thought up, involving all these words or many more. I will justify Wentācridion primarily. Tīgerno- (lord/master), however could still be interesting for the Brittonic tribes. Matasović gives PCelt. *kridyo- (heart), *wentā- (place, town), and *towtā- (people, tribe), as well as *sedlo- (seat). Dottin only confirms *sedlo- and *towtā-, with Delamarre and the UoWales confirming those. Delamarre also confirms *kridyo-, but not directly *wentā-, which is common in Brittonic placenames. UoW confirms *wentā-, but also adds a meaning of 'marketplace', not shared with anyone else, though Delamarre suggests *wenet- to mean 'merchants' or 'allies' (pl??). This gives GallBritt. *cridio-, *towtā-, *wentā-, and either *sedlo- or *sidlo-, though for *sedlo-, caneco-sedlon is attested in Gaul., meaning likely no e>i and implies a neuter noun, though Delamarre also suggests that the attestation is an sg.acc. of *sedlos, so not all that clear! Jones gives cridyon (centre!!?), toutā (tribe), wentā (place, marketplace), and sedlo(n/s) (seat), all nom.sg. Possession is done as apposition in modern Celtic languages, and it seems also in GallBritt.; i.e. son [nom.] (of) John's [gen.], but in this case, I suggest we instead look for compound words, which appear to be usually done instead by merging the two stems as sg.gen+sg.nom, losing the final coda for all but the last word. For 'heart of the town', this would give Wentācridion, from nom.sg. cridion (assuming the OIr. and PIE (Proto-Indo-European) neuter is correct) and gen.sg. wentās. Similar pattern for 'heart of the people', as Towtācridion. Using 'seat' instead of 'heart' would be simply replacing cridion with sedlo(s/n), so Wentāsedlo(s/n). Since Matasović gives PCelt. *koryo- for both troop and tribe (though Delamarre, Dottin, Jones, and UoWales give only 'army'), giving GallBritt. *corio-, which you could argue for using it in place of *wentā-, with corio(s/n) (or pl. cori(oi/a)), another unknown gender word. MW uses canolfan for 'civic centre', canol-centre and man-place; centre-place, whilst Breton and Cornish have kres and krez ('centre'), which Matasović and Delamarre (and presumably also Jones) suggest comes from *kridyo-. All sources attest *tīgerno-, suggesting lord, or master. This would be applicable only to the Britons, since Gauls were not exclusively monarchic. Assumed N.masc. from more modern words. Unsure whether to use Tigerni- as the coda-less sg.masc.gen. o-stem, or Tigerno-, as the nicer looking (but possibly incorrect) prefix. Same case for Cori-/Corio-. Matasović gives *rīg- as the root of the very famous -rix ('king', e.g. Vercingetorix). Velar stem nom.sg. rīgs>rīx. Dottin does not give a root. Delamarre does not give a very clear one, but suggests PIE *rēĝs-, but compounds starting with (presumably gen.sg.) Rigo- are attested, so it seems like a velar stem, rather than an s-stem. The UoWales documents agree with Matasović. Comments: @Genava55 thankfully provided info for *lissos. No preference given from myself. @Genava55 liked the previous version of Towtācridion, not sure if he will like the updated one. Barracks Current: Coriosedlon (Gauls), Coriosessa (Britons) Suggestion: : Corio(n)tegos [pl. Corio(n)tegasā] /ʽko.r(i/jo).te.gos/ -troop('s/s')-house : or unchanged (Corio(n)sedlo(s/n) [pl. Corio(n)sedl(oi/a)] /ʽko.r(i/jo).sed.lo(s/n)/ - troop('s/s')-seat) : or with Cingeto(s/n)- instead of Corio- (Cingeto(s/n)tegos /ʽkɪn.ge.to(s/n).te.gos/, Cingeto(s/n)sedlo(s/n) /ʽkɪn.ge.to(s/n).sed.lo(s/n)/) - warrior(s)'s instead of troop : or with Slowg(i/on)- instead of Corio- (Slowg(i/on)tegos /ʽslow.g(i/on).te.gos/, Slowg(i/on)sedlo(s/n) /ʽslow.g(i/on).sed.lo(s/n)/) - troop(s)/arm(y/ies') instead of troops : or with with Budīnā(s/non)- isntead of Corio- (Budīnā(s/non)tegos /ʽbu.diː.naː(s/.non).te.gos/, Budīnā(s/non)sedlo(s/n) /ʽbu.diː.naː(s/.non).sed.lo(s/n)/) - troop(s)/host(s) instead of troops' We could also use Butā or Wastu(s) instead of Tegos (troops'-hut or troops'-dwelling). We could also use two words in genitive apposition instead (Tegos Corion, Sedlo(s/n) Cingeton, Tegos Budinās, etc.). We could also maybe use a compound in nominative (troop-house instead of troops'-house or house of troops; e.g. Coriotegos or Cingetobutā). Justification: Again, many different compunds imaginable, none secure. I like Coriosedlon, though I'm not sure the way barracks exist in the game is that exact to a praesidium, or 'seat of the warriors'. I propose instead 'warrior-house' or ' warriors' house', so Coriotegos from GallBritt. *tegos- and *corio- (see above), with nom.sg. tegos, and either gen.sg. Cori(o)- or gen.pl. Corio-. Same issue as Tigerno- above, where the sg.gen. is Cori, but keeping the o looks nicer, and is closer to the stem. This applies also to Cingeto- and Slowgo-. And instead of Tegos (house), we could use Butā (hut/dwelling) as well. Matasović gives *kenget- for 'warrior', Dottin gives cinget- (I guess not a root, but a prefix?), whilst Delamarre gives *cingets, and the UoWales docs are unsure about *kenget-. Declension is not very important, since we have Ver-cingeto-rix, though the gen.pl of an s-stem is -eson, so cingeson, not cingeton (for a dental stem), the latter of which might be more plausible? All sources attest *slowgo- or some variation in spelling, meaning 'army' or 'troop', giving either gen.sg slowgi (for army), or gen.pl slowgon (for troops). All sources besides Dottin give *budīnā- for 'troop' or 'host', though Delamarre suggests it could have originally meant 'border-guard-force', and UoWales is unsure about it. For singular, the stem is the same since gen.sg. is -ās, but for gen.pl it becomes a bit difficult, since it could either be -ānon or -ān, and could therefore make the compounding root as Budīnāno-, instead of Budīnā-. MW uses gwersyllty, which means gwersyll-camp tŷ-house; camphouse, as well as barics, from the English. MIr. also uses a calque of English barracks, and MSG uses taigh-feachd, 'army-house(?)'. MoBret. uses a calque of French caserne, and MoCor. uses souderji, souder-soldier ji-house; soldier-house. All suggestions could be made into a nominative compound (soldier-house vs. soldier's house vs. house of soldiers), so many of the -i-/-o- issues for the end of the first part become mostly irrelevant. Same thing with standard two-word genitive appositions. Comments: Plenty of converstaion with @Genava55. He disagrees with 'house of-' compounds, for being a very English (presumably also Germanic) formation, though I slightly disagree on pragmatic grounds from the look of the building in-game, however, the terms I thought could attest for such constructions in Celtic ended up being problematic for a few reasons. @Genava55 would be ok with troop-house, which I agree with. I am personally not all that keen on using 'seat', but there is little to choose from. Stables Current: Eposton Suggestion: Crāwos [pl. Crāwoi] /ˈkraː.wos/ - stable or enclosure : or maybe Catumarc(i/o/on)cagio(n/s) [pl. Catumarcoagi(ā/oi)] /ˈka.tu.mar.ko.ka.gjo(n/s)/ - warhorse('s/s') pen or enclosure) : or maybe Catumarc(i/o/on)cagro(n/s) [pl. Catumarc(i/o/on)cagr(ā/oi)] /ˈka.tu.mar.ko.ka.gro(n/s)/ - warhorse('s/s') enclosure or fort Or Marcos '(war-)horse' instead of Catumarcos Or Epos 'horse' Or Woredos 'horse/courser' Or maybe with Tegos 'house', or Togyā 'roof/covering/shelter', or maybe Tectos ('roof', by comparison to Lat. tectum) Justification: TBA Comments: TBA Storehouse Current: Capanon Suggestion: : Dastis [pl. Dastīs] /ʽdas.tis/ - heap or pile : Crāwos [pl. Crāwoi] /ʽkraː.wos/ - enclosure : or maybe Cantiācridion(?) [pl. Cantiācridiā] /ʽkan.tjaː.kri.djon/ - collection/assembly centre? : or maybe Cantiādastis(?) [pl. Cantiādastīs] /ʽkan.tjaː.das.tis/ - collection/assembly pile? Justification: This one is pretty hard. No known equivalents in ancient Celtic languages. Perhaps the closest could be using Matasović and UoW *dasti- (heap, pile), which would give GallBritt. nom.sg. Dastis. This lemma is not present in Delamarre or Dottin, however. Matasović provides descendants, but I find slightly different spelling, with MW tas (stack), not das, and MIr. dais (heap, stack), not daiss. Matasović also states that Condate could be derived from Gaul. *kom-dati- ('confluence'). Matasović gives PCelt. *krāfo- (stable, enclosure, with MW creu-shed), thus GallBritt. *crāwo- (Jones lexicon crāwos, masc.), and with OIr. already as masculine, I assume nom.sg.masc. crāwos. However, Delamarre does not give this root, and Dottin gives Gaulish craff 'farm' as part of *crappao-. A very remote alternative is using Matasović PCelt. *kanti (a preposition meaning 'together with'), and Matasović and Delamarre Gaul. *canti- (together) to mean 'collection' (Delamarre suggests 'assembly'), and pair it with *corion-centre to make 'collection centre'. Attested as Cantiorix, and OIr. céite-assembly (also 'hill', and 'mount' though, according to the Ceannfhocal Sean-Ghaeilge). Dottin mentions *cantio- in terms of Ir. caint-'language' instead. This could also be paired with Dastis instead of Cridion, to form 'assembly/collection pile' (Cantiādastis). The previously suggested Capanon may come from Dottin's *capanna, which is from Isidore (Orig., 15.15.6), and gives a derivation from Gaul. caban-cabin, though Dottin also admits the word is very unlikely to come from Celtic. Probably not a good option. Not present in either Matasović or Delamarre. Comments: I prefer Dastis for simplicity, and I am concerned with the semantics of Crāwos. Farmstead Current: Buta Suggestion: : Grānobutā [pl. Grānobutās] /ʽgraː.no.bu.taːs/ - grain-hut : Itu(s)butā [pl. Itu(s)butā] /ʽi.tu(s).bu.taːs/ - food-hut : or possibly Mēcobutā [pl. Mēcobutās] /ʽmeː.ko.bu.taː/ - bushel-hut Or with Tegos instead of Butā. We could also use two words in genitive apposition instead (Grānos Butās, Itus Tegesos, etc.). Justification: From Matasović *grāno- (grain), only present there. Has apparent descendants in all modern Celtic languages, though it could have been a loan from Lat. grānum. Another option is Matasović PCelt. *fitu-; Delamarre GallBritt *Itu- (food), though I am not a fan of how 'food hut' sounds. Not present in Dottin. Delamarre also gives the meaning 'cereals' based on OIr. ith-grain, whilst Matasović also provides MBret. ed-grain, but does not add that meaning. One final, quite obscure option is to use Matasović's PCelt. *mēko- (sack or bushel of grain), but this stem is not present in anywhere else. The derivation is from OIr. miach-bushel, and from PIE *meyǵʰ-barley/grain The previously suggested Butā (hut/dwelling; defined above) I thought was too simple to mean 'farmstead', so I coupled it with other words. Comments: None. Blacksmith Current: Gobanion Suggestion: : Gobannos [pl. Gobannoi] /ʽgo.bæn.noi̯/ - (black)smith : Gobanū [pl. Gobanones] /ʽgo.bæ.nuː/ - (black)smith Or maybe combine with Tegos/Butā/Wastu(s) to make 'house of the smith' (e.g. Gobantegos or Gobanni Wastu(s)) Justification: From Matasović PCelt. *goban-, contra Delamarre GallBritt. *goben-, as there is no clear way how *goban->*goben- works, all attestations in Gaul. are Goban-, and Gall.Britt already closes the a before the nasal, which can lead to OIr. gobae (ae = /e/ or /ɘ/). This would be a masc. n-stem, giving GallBritt. Gobanū. However UoW gives Gobannos from a masc. *gobanno- root, which could also be another possibility. For both cases, OIr is already masculine, so I am inclined to agree with the putative masc. declension for the root. Thurneysen (1940) apparently also gives a -nn-stem for the OIr gobae n-stem (gen. gobann) that acorrding to Wiktionary goes unexplained in Matasović. Dottin gives *gobann (n-stem noun?), from MW gofaint-smiths. For the previous suggestion by @Genava55 of Gobanion (this should have probably been Gobiannon) from Gobannium, I would prefer using a non-proper noun, especially not one filtered through Latin, however the name in Latin including a geminate -nn- is more circumstantial evidence for *gobanno-. The current meaning of the suggested words is as 'smith' (person), but I assume that the meaning can be transferred to 'the smith's (place)'. We could also combine them with the dwelling/house words to make 'house of the smith' (e.g. Gobanowus Tegos) or 'smith's hut' (e.g. Gobanūbutā), though I am not very in favour of this. Comments: Different derivations cause issues. I may be more inclined for Gobannos, but I am not sure. Market Current: Magos Suggestion: Unsure : perhaps unchanged (Magos [pl. Magoi] /ʽma.gos/ - 'market') : or Rātos [pl. Rātoi] /ʽraː.tos/ - 'selling' : or maybe Wentā [pl. Wentās] - 'place', or 'marketplace'(?) : or maybe Prītos [pl. Prītoi] - 'buying' : or any word meaning 'assembly' or 'assembly place'. Justification: From Delamarre *magos ('field', and later 'market'), also in Dottin and Matasović, but only as 'field', which is the same for every modern Celtic language. No explanation for the semantc shift, but it might be perhaps imagined to be similar to Gr. agora-market from 'gathering place'. There is no explanation, however. An alternative would be a calque of Lat. mercatus-market as the past participle (or action noun suffix -tus) of mercor-trade/sell. We would follow the Matasović and UoW verb *ri-na- (sell), which according to UoW has a part participle of Rātos. Another similar option is to go for the antonym: PCelt. *kʷri-na-> GallBritt. *prina (buy), which would give Prītos according to the UoW. I thought about doing something like 'buying centre', but that seems convoluted and unrealistic for such a common word. If we try to calque Gr. we could use any word for assembly, though we would then have to assume that the semantic link between 'assembly' or 'gathering' is valid in Celtic languages. All modern Celtic languages use terms derived from Lat. mercatus, but there is a MoBret. term (koc'hu(i)) that apparently means 'market' (though this seems to not be the case), from MiBret. (Middle Breton) cochuy, found in the Lagadeuc Catholicon meaning a 'poludomus' in Lat. and French co(c)hue (rabble, hall, crowd), which could suggest something related to 'assembly', but it is late, and the 'market' meaning could be much after GallBrit., if it even is accurate. ScotGael. uses fèill, which has one meaning of 'market', but comes from Lat. vigilia, and is mostly associated with 'feast'. Finally, UoW suggests *wentā- has a meaning of 'marketplace', along with 'place' or 'town'. Delamarre also suggests GallBritt. *wenet- to mean 'merchants' or 'allies' (pl.??), so perhaps Wentā could also be a possibility. Comments: Undecided. I like the calque of Lat., but it is problematic, though the semantic issues of Magos are also an issue. Fortress Current: Dunon Suggestion: unchanged (Dūnon [pl. Dūnā] /ʽduː.naː/) : another option is using Cagro(n/s) [pl. Cagr(ā/oi)] /ʽka.gr(aː/oi)/ - fort Justification: Simplest solution is use *duno-, found in all sources as 'fortification' (except Dottin, who only gives 'mound', though this meaning is also in Delamarre, and suggested as plausible by Matasović). OIr. derived term is already neut., and with the attested placenames of -dunum, providing solid evidence for neut. The other option is to use Cagro(n/s) ('fort' or 'enclosure'), but it seems Dunon might be more common. Comments: None. Lookout Current: Antosolicon Suggestion: : Saxtos : or Antosaxtos : or Sentusaxtos : or with -(ad)pistos instead of -saxtos : or Oro- instead of Anto- Justification: TBA Comments: TBA Sentry & Stone Tower Current: Uxelon Suggestion: : Turris : or Līwancs Justification: TBA Comments: TBA Palisade Current: N.A Suggestion: : Kletā : or Wregis : or Corets Justification: TBA Comments: TBA Wall Current: Rate Suggestion: : Wregis : or Corets Justification: TBA Comments: TBA Wall Turret Current: Uxelon Suggestion: : Wregēturris : or Coretoturris : or Wregēs Turris : or Coretos Turris : or with Līwancs instead of Turris Justification: TBA Comments: TBA Palisade & Stone Gate Current: Duoricos Suggestion: : Cletādwār & Alesodwār : or Cletādwār & Liccādwār Justification: TBA Comments: TBA Crannog Current: Cranogion Suggestion: : Enistī Dunon Justification: TBA Comments: TBA Temple Current: Nemeton Suggestion: unchanged (Nemeton) Justification: TBA Comments: TBA Siege Workshop Current: Miletucerdon Suggestion: : Cerdātīs Justification: TBA Comments: TBA Wonder Current: Celicnon (Gauls), Emain Macha (Britons) Suggestion: TBA Justification: TBA Comments: TBA Remogantion Current: Remogantion Suggestion: TBA Justification: TBA Comments: TBA Navan Fort Current: N/A Suggestion: TBA Justification: TBA Comments: TBA Port Current: Counos Suggestion: : Cawno : or Ritus Justification: TBA Comments: TBA

the concept comes from RoN where there is no such uncomfortable problem of deleting captured buildings, or losing large portions of territory at the cost of losing the CC. in our case is only to reduce the capture points and the HP to a certain point. my proposal is, apart from capturing, before you can control an important building like the CC, you must be able to assimilate. In ancient wars, strategic points or buildings were captured and then the peace was stabilized to destroy any attacker, such as the siege of Jerusalem in 70 AD. in this case(0AD). it would be all civic buildings with the exception of temples, special buildings and the market. military and defensive ones do not fall into this category and should be considered separately. troop-producing ones should be captured separately as well as the fortress. Why? in order to avoid destroying them as soon as they are captured. also if there are a certain number of houses in the radius of the CC perimeter, they should give a "civic morale" bonus, that is, they should give resistance points to the CC. When Titus sieged Jerusalem he had to take the city piece by piece bit by bit, and he had to capture the temple of Jerusalem separately, which together with the Antonia fortress, were the last strongholds of rebellion in Jerusalem. what would happen in 0 A.D while the buildings are assimilated? in 0 A.D the following would happen: not to access to self-destroy the building, after being recently captured. not being able to train units from this building in the process of being assimilated. the territory starts to blink until the process is finished. therefore it is no man's land, no one can control it. In other words, it is moving to a new administration. no one can build anything on it, except for the outpost. you cannot garrison units. how to reverse assimilation? ordering units to recapture the building (preferably killing the initial). in addition to keeping temples, markets and special buildings under control, this would increase the assimilation time by 2x. this is my idea let's look at it as a draft.

So I'd like to create a Morale system mod... My plan is to make it to be some kind of Aura of units that influences other units in range. However I need it to be more dynamic, i.e. the effect strength would change according to unit's own morale strength. I decided to create separate component. Morale.js. There are two mechanisms in this component: (1) Morale level and how it affects unit performance. This is similar to how Health.js works. (2) Unit effect on other units in range based on its own morale level. This is intended to be similar to how Auras.js works. The first one already work, but the second one is not yet. I still don't understand why the effect is not applied yet. This is the repository on GitHub: https://github.com/azayrahmad/morale-system The problematic part is in simulation/components/Morale.js. Here are the snippet of the relevant parts: Init: Morale.prototype.Init = function() { this.affectedPlayers = []; ... this.CleanMoraleInfluence(); ... }; The CleanMoraleInfluence(), intended to be similar to Clean() function from Aura.js. The target here is to apply morale influence to any allied units in 10m range. (GetAllies() also includes player's own units right?) Morale.prototype.CleanMoraleInfluence = function() { var cmpRangeManager = Engine.QueryInterface(SYSTEM_ENTITY, IID_RangeManager); //Remove Morale let targetUnitsClone = []; if (this.targetUnits) { targetUnitsClone = this.targetUnits.slice(); this.RemoveMoraleInfluence(this.targetUnits); } if (this.rangeQuery) cmpRangeManager.DestroyActiveQuery(this.rangeQuery); //Add Morale var cmpPlayer = Engine.QueryInterface(this.entity, IID_Player); if (!cmpPlayer) cmpPlayer = QueryOwnerInterface(this.entity); if (!cmpPlayer || cmpPlayer.GetState() == "defeated") return; this.targetUnits = []; let affectedPlayers = cmpPlayer.GetAllies(); this.rangeQuery = cmpRangeManager.CreateActiveQuery( this.entity, 0, 10, affectedPlayers, IID_Identity, cmpRangeManager.GetEntityFlagMask("normal"), false ); cmpRangeManager.EnableActiveQuery(this.rangeQuery); } Here is the apply and remove morale influence functions. The intention is to apply the effect (add Morale regenrate by 1 per second) and remove it if no longer in range). Morale.prototype.ApplyMoraleInfluence = function(ents) { var cmpModifiersManager = Engine.QueryInterface(SYSTEM_ENTITY, IID_ModifiersManager); cmpModifiersManager.AddModifiers( "MoraleSupport", { "Morale/RegenRate": [{ "affects": ["Unit"], "add": 1 }] }, ents ); } Morale.prototype.RemoveMoraleInfluence = function(ents) { if (!ents.length) return; var cmpModifiersManager = Engine.QueryInterface(SYSTEM_ENTITY, IID_ModifiersManager); cmpModifiersManager.RemoveAllModifiers("MoraleSupport", ents); } And lastly OnRangeUpdate. This should run apply and remove functions when units are moving in/out of other units range right? Morale.prototype.OnRangeUpdate = function(msg) { if(this.rangeQuery) { this.ApplyMoraleInfluence(msg.added); this.RemoveMoraleInfluence(msg.removed); } } I have been looking at the code all day and still don't understand why does the effect not apply. In the repo I added template units that includes Morale which start at 50%. The intention is that every players unit within 10m range should have increased Morale, but they don't. If you want to test this with Aura and see how I intend this to work, you can put these snippet inside template_unit.xml: <Auras datatype="tokens"> morale_friendly </Auras> Any help would be extremely appreciated. Thank you!

Looking at the balance and differences between archer, slinger and peltast civs there should be something like a peltast "buff" for civilisations Athens/Sparta/Macedonian - so that they could have something like archery tradition but for skirmishers - this doesn't need to buff the strength of the attack but rather make them run faster (or as fast as they did in a23) and lover the training time for 10% - the cost of this could be something like 400 food - and this would differentiate peltast from celtic javelinier I wouldn't give this bonus to ptolomies or seleucids to differentiate helenic and post-helenic civs a bit, and also because those civs have horse archers and other units to get techs for

https://weaponsandwarfare.com/2015/08/14/mesoamerican-warfare-1200-b-c-e-1521-c-e/

@Lopess podria ser una plataforma de asedio, como una torre de asedio pero sin ruedas. se monta y desmonta como hacian los aztecas...(supocision mia)

With this topic I would like to open a discussion on how to add at least two heroes and a champion unit for the Zapotecs in Terra Magna, in addition to future improvements always looking for the most historically accurate but without forgetting the gameplay, which I currently believe very affected the lack of certain units in the Zapotecs. Even with the current data we do not have from the old Zapotec kings (even with some studies still under development of the Zapotec script in which it is believed to have identified some names from the 4th, 5th century etc.) Even with the lack of translated names, we are aware of the existence of a strong and centralized state in the Oaxaca valley since at least 500 B.C. Zapotec ceramics can help us with representations of both kings and great warriors. I researched for a long time about the zapotecs and I believe that they can be improved and that they have an incredible potential to be a good civ in Terra Magna using the same period as the other factions of the 0 a.d. I am willing within my limitations to create what is necessary to implement the changes. I believe that we can create a mini test mod with changes depending on terra magna before applying any changes. I invite everyone involved in Terra Magna to comment on your ideas as well as all fellow modifiers / researchers. Of course if you want. Sorry for any wrong translation, I'm not an English speaker. http://www.famsi.org/zapotecwriting/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapotec_civilization

https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/warriors-of-the-americas-mega-pack.520780/ check what can be useful here. to add to many cultures that are from pre columbian era and colonial Native era.

In my view, the jaguar is late post classic in the Mixtecs. While Teotihuacán only existed in the classical period or when the Spanish arrived, they no longer existed.(They were basically replaced by Mexicas)

The first warrior with mace and shield is an Otomi and the second with black paint and a jaguar helmet is Mixtec.

Do you think you can incorporate Han Chinese as an official civ into A25? I really like playing as them and their no-packing catapults are awesome.

apparently as the archers came from the North one thing that was most imported, although the Mayans did so in the postclassic period. We're Archers. This means that the Mayans their projectile preference was skings and blowguns. And that the mercenaries who came from the Valley of Mexico what they used the most were weapons from the Valley of Mexico. Maya warriors made weapons from wood, stone, flint blades and obsidian. With these materials they made spears of different lengths and stone and obsidian axes that received the generic name of b'aj. In addition there were the jul or throwing weapons, such as blowguns, javelins and slingshots. Due to the influence of central Mexico, the atlatl, or spear thrower, was incorporated, which in the Mayan language was called jatz'om, in addition to the bow and arrows which, according to some researchers, were also introduced by Mexican mercenaries during the Postclassic period (900-1521 A.D.) or by the Chontal Maya during the Terminal Classic period (800-900 A.D.). ----------By the way I am from the cell phone I do not have to use quotes here---- This means that in the Valley of Mexico there were a number of mercenaries, we have to focus on the type of soldiers in the Valley of Mexico.

Maybe "Skirmish Training" or "Skirmishing Tactics"?

Due to the lack of translation of the old zapotec, it is difficult to obtain definitive evidence of mercenaries hired at that time, but we know uneasily that mercenaries existed in the Mesoamerican world (for example, the Aztecs were mercenaries as soon as they arrived in the valley of Mexico). But there were certainly alliances between kingdoms / peoples in wars. I believe that the best options would be. Mixtec warriors: neighbors who several similar cultural characteristics that in certain moments or were rivals or allies. Otomis: Their warriors were known for their bravery, in addition to being used as mercenaries by the Aztec empire. I believe that a generic unit "mesoamerican ally warrior" with a mace or spear dice would also fit. After the 50d.c./100d.c years an obvious choice would be a Teotihuacan warrior.

It's lookin good! gotta rebake those AO maps!

Missing mercenaries for the Zapotecs in Delenda Est, there are plans to add them?

Probably a video much more useful for the Britons.

Next step, sexual offender Carnyx player: (it is a real thing coming from Ottó Herman Museum)

Hi everyone! I know this is a "hot topic" and is been already thoroughly discussed.. sorry if I'm jumping in as totally casual player of the game, mad respect and admiration to all the devs that made the new update possible! the game keeps being amazing! If I'm allowed only a little observation on rams, yeah, is the only unit that feels a bit "weird" in the game, but I couldn't pinpoint exactly why. But I came to the conclusion that is probably because they make any defence feel completely irrelevant, as it takes only a couple of hits to bring down a tower, no matter how upgraded and how many people are inside. This, coupled with the lack of visual feedbacks, makes the buildings feel like made of butter and the rams like unstoppable tanks, giving a unrealistic feeling to the siege mechanic. Yes, rams are extremely vulnerable to certain attacks, but if left alone they still can destroy two fortress in a row and some towers without a flinch, so I feel there's a bit of unrealistic unbalance here. Maybe to bring back better balance, could be an idea to add an "extra" tech for towers in later phase? I don't know, unlocking "fire arrows" (if they're historically accurate) or something that can justify a stronger defence that better reflects a fully garrisoned and upgraded tower? Towers should be anyway easily destroyed by the ram, but at least the ram would suffer more damage from the arrows and I think this would reflect in a more realistic gameplay, where a strong defence can effectively slow down an advance (and not being useless as currently is) This could also takes away the necessity for a overly strong sword infantry or other rams to beat a ram and would smooth down the striking differences and unbalances. And maybe a weaker ram could force the introduction of a catapult in combination and spice up game variety during sieges (?). I know there are probably already plenty of good reasons why it's the way it is, especially when it comes to competitive matches and I know there have been already plenty of other suggestions, like making rams capturable and so on.. take this only as a general feedback from a general player with a big pinch of salt! I hope this could be a constructive point of view and in any case I already fully enjoy the game as it is! Thanks to all of you guys!

Not sure if great hall should have two floors with windows; maybe something more like this other concept art?

Trust me, we've wanted to remove them from the CC for years now. The "column" effect is definitely visible in-game and not desirable. Better to future-proof your hard work and just add a nice block foundation now.

@borg- @Nescio Would it be an option to let mercenaries have zero training time? Because as i said, from my point of view, if you hire them (that's why they have a high metal cost) they should be ready. No need to "train" mercenaries, because they are already soldiers. Or does the training time implies the time they need to arrive from their original country?

En mi computadora tengo modelos de una civilización Tupi (tengo un deber personal con ellos ya que soy bisnieto de un lol) tengo la intención de agregarlos al mod, cuando lo termine puedo ver el caso de los mayas . Creo que a él también le podría interesar @Duileoga eso. Sus modelos mayas son realmente hermosos y también se parecen a la arquitectura maya clásica.

0 A.D.: A Sandbox for Exploring Game Balance at the AI and Gaming Research Summit (23/Feb/21) Relevant 0 A.D. part: 1:00:40 Speaker: Brian Broll (Homepage & wiki/GettingStartedReinforcementLearning article and Youtube account)

Just to chime in with my opinion: I barely play anymore, because a24 just feels dull and boring, as civs are now all (more or less) the same. I really liked the kind of differences between the civs before. Aside from that the most annoying changes for me are the sounds as well and the reduced movement speed of units.

Just played around for 20mins, seems to work as intended. Tested citizen production via CC and house. I only noticed that the production of male vs female is not always equal. Sometimes a batch of 6 is only male/ female, other times it works as intended. It seems random. iberians.mp4 An then there is this: Also can you change the accent color e.g. blue? PS: Just noticed that the selection via 'Skirmish' --> 'New Maps' now only shows 'Atlas Valley', the tag for new maps has been removed with [24939] and [25007]. I guess you used some SVN version between theses changesets to create this mod.

The ability to have the mini map snap back to the hud in the middle would be great for smaller displays.

The release candidate is here! Revision: rP24875 https://releases.wildfiregames.com/rc/0ad-0.0.24rc1-24875-alpha-win32.exe https://releases.wildfiregames.com/rc/0ad-0.0.24rc1-24875-alpha-osx64.dmg PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE POSTING & TESTING The RC will overwrite the current installed version. The RC will use your current config including mods, so make sure to disable EVERYTHING (fgod, autociv, and badosu's mod are not supported) You might get warnings about hotkeys, we redesigned completely the system, so you might have to fix some of them (you may want to backup your config file if your intend to play A23B again It goes without saying but even though we are really close to a release, this is an experimental version. If you want to help more you can also perform those steps Launch a random game Test your language's translations and fix them on Transifex. Launch a normal skirmish. Connect to the lobby Play on the lobby with someone Launch Atlas See if everything works there. Open Unit tests demo (To see if there any breakage in displaying entity's) (It's in scenarios) Try mods through modio only. (A23B MODS WILL NOT WORK) If you need any help ping me Enable feedback and see if it works (Main menu) Connect to and use mod.io Test replaying new games Test Saving and loading a game. Changelog

Where should balance questions be fielded? I'm concerned about two civs. Macedonians and Romans. For Macedonians: They effectively became "little Seleucid." I believe they have everything Seleucids have but Seleucids have way more. No real reason to play Macedonians. They were the only civ able to mass-spam siege really fast. This was due to building multiple siege workshops and the ability to produce hero (siege dmg hero) simultaneously from fort. Now all civs can do that and more-so Gauls (dmg hero in new building) with rams and Seleucids with eles (ele dmg hero from CC). For Romans: They were unique in that they could force where battles are fought. They were also unique in that they could create and turn games by enemy failure to scout. Both of the above points, currently, are difficult to achieve as the encampments do NOT produce siege weapons. Which civs are the winners this patch? I feel as Gauls and Seleucids won the lottery for A24. Gauls because now they can take the place of Macedonians in early mass-spam siege (dmg hero comes from separate building, siege comes from separate buildings, have spear/skrim). Previously, the bottleneck for Gauls was fort producing everything from hero, siege, and siege upgrades.

Thank you for this! I didn't want the kids to be able to hunt the animals--they're young, and especially since we're not physically in school right now, I'm not able to have a nuanced conversation with them about hunting, right or wrong, violence, etc. The "no animals" mod, teams, and unchecked win conditions seems to work pretty well, but sometimes I have trouble loading the mod with the other mods I have downloaded (some from inside the game, some added manually). Is there any way to get these mods, yours and the "no animals" mod added to the in-game download options so that I don't have to have parents manually move the files to specific folders? Thanks again for all of your support!

Very nice that you want to use 0 A.D. in you class! I fully understand your reluctance to use violence in class, therefore I've put together a mod that removes all attacks from the units. This means animals are still in, because who wants to teach kids animals do not exist? NoViolence.zip If there's something wrong or not working, please do not hesitate to contact me.

This mod contains experimental gameplay features which might not be perfect yet. Also I am aware of some bugs (but if you find any, please report them). NEVER MIX (ENABLE) THIS MOD WITH ANOTHER MODS AND PATCHES WHICH ARE NOT VITAL FOR GAME. I WILL NOT SOLVE CONFLICTS FROM THEM. github repository https://github.com/SlavomirSlovenkai/0ad-gameplay-mode For more changes reade here: https://wildfiregames.com/forum/index.php?/topic/24764-battalion-test-mode/&amp;do=findComment&amp;comment=367259 Features: Phasing is cost free and automatic. Phase requirements Town phase 5x House 1x Market 1x Farmstead 25x Citizen City phase 15x House 1x Blacksmith 1x Market 1x Temple 40x Citizen General You need 1 Farmstead for every 4 Fields to build. Fields has to be build at minimum distance 80 from Civ centre. Soldiers can not gather and can build only military/defense buildings. Cavalry can still hunt. New unit Hunter available in village phase from civic centre. It is melee unit with nice slaughter attack and weak melee, so you can hunt animals even you do not have access to cavalry. New support unit Male. Can build special and military/defense buildings, also storehouse and corral. Only Female can build House, Farmstead, Field, Temple, Market. Melee infantry is trained in barracks, ranged infantry in range barracks, cavalry in stables. Stances got rework. Technologies Every soldier is locked by technology (or more) For example: Spears -> Spearman Spears -> Pikes -> Pikeman Spears -> Hoplite (tech - as they have special formation) -> Hoplite (unit) Swords -> Swordman Javelin -> Javelin throwers Archery -> Archers Cavalry + Swords -> Sword riders (tech) -> Cavalry Swordsman Champions + Swords -> Champion swordsman (tech) -> Champion Swordsman ( unit) Cavalry + Champions -> Champion Cavalry + Swords -> Champion Cavalry Swordsman (unit) Every unit starts with no armour and no shields (some civilisations have shields from start). There are 2 available unit upgrades in the row ( every unit class has its own upgrades ). Each one adds some equipment to the unit, but they needs to be unlocked. For example: Swords + Shields -> Swordsman upgrade (tech - giving shields to swordsmen) Champions are trained fully equipped, but that equipment has to researched. Melee weapons, infantry melee units upgrades and melee infantry champions are researched in barracks. Ranged weapons, infantry ranged units upgrades and ranged infantry champions are researched in range barracks. All kinds of cavalry, their upgrades and champions are researched in stables. Cavalry and champion cavalry itself are researched in corrals. Champions are researched in civic centre. Siege weapons are researched and build in siege workshop. Training is done by garrisoning units into barracks/range/stables. While they are inside, they get experiences and rank up. Units with lower or no rank fights worse ( exception are champions and heroes). You can train them by fighting but they will probably die fast (especially when your enemy has better trained troops than you). As this takes some time, to train unit from nothing to basic rank takes 30 seconds, to advanced next 30 seconds (60 seconds), to elite next 30 seconds (1 minute and 30 seconds), to fully trained in total 2 minutes. You should care about your troops more and you will not want to throw them away and let them fall in battle for nothing. Damage types and armour: Fire -> Special units ( add-on damage, small compared to others, but no unit has strong protection against fire ) Pierce -> Spear, Pike Hack -> Sword Crush -> Slinger, Club, Mace Missile -> Archer, Javelin Range units have minimal range when they can use their weapons, if they cannot they use weak melee attack. Range unit according to spread: Slinger, -> Javelin -> Archer Melee units have MissChance, which is the most 0.5. It means that unit has 50% chance to miss target with attack. Spread and MissChance gets lower as unit levels through experiences. Champions and Heroes now have chance to deal critical damage, what means they can find weak spot and kill enemy with one single attack. Shields and armour Protection is divided between armour itself and shield (based on shield type and armour type unit is wearing). Bigger shield means higher protection than smaller one ( also shield from metal/iron means better protection than shield from wood - roman shields are exception ) Also Chain armour gives more protection than some basic kind of armour. Wearing helmets means extra protection. Attacking unit from back (melee or missile) removes protection given by shield. Rams are 100% missile proof, but weak against all kinds of melee attacks, also their attack rate is reduced. Capturing happens by garrisoning units into enemy building ( aka they brake doors and go in ). To deal with them defender has to garrison troops with better capture rate as enemy does. If attacker and defender are equals in capturing strength and defender owns more than 0.5 of the building or defender is stronger and owns whole building, troops of attacker slowly loose health. Exception are walls ( and maybe later another buildings ), where garrisoned units are visible and they fight against each other. Attacker has to use siege towers to ungarrison units on the wall. Rams and Siege towers requires minimum number of units to be garrisoned to be able to move. Rams requires minimum number of units to be garrisoned to be able to attack, When Gate is under 50% of health it is force opened even if was locked before and remains broken ( unable to close ) until its health is above 80%. Friendly fire is enabled. So you really want units upgrades to not miss their targets. Ammunition ranged units have certain count of arrows/stones/javelins to use. They will get it back slowly. Some champion units (e. g. persian immortals) can switch to bows, throw javelins or spears. Every range unit has ability to disable range attack. Running on command draining energy. Energy is required for running and melee attacks. When melee unit has no energy fights worse ( melee units have some chance to miss ). Melee cavalry can Charge with double click on enemy unit. This drains energy as running. Charging is done to the position enemy is staying, so when he moves, target place is fixed. While units are charging they deal mount damage (no armour can save you from this damage) to every enemy unit they pass around and they deal extra damage when they reach target position. When they charge into formation turned towards them, they get anti-charge damage. Hero selection on the start of the game and auto spawn after that. No resurrection later. Formations They have attack and armour bonuses to overcome units fighting in no formation. Control Selecting one unit from formation means selecting whole formation. You can ROTATE one unit or whole formation with Shift + R and right click to position you want them to face towards. -------- ( Still working on changes )