Leaderboard

Honestly the current scout ship is not too dissimilar to the nydam boat, except for the sail. Maybe we could turn it into the merchant ship by removing the shields and adding a side rudder and more cargo?

Ok, I got in touch with Dr. Bengtsson, who authored some of the works we discussed here and she gave some helpful feedback. The Hjortspring boat was paddled, not rowed, but rowed vessels likely existed as well. I think its ok to keep the oars since we would have floating paddles otherwise. radially split logs became used in the same time frame as the hjortspring boat is dated, and were used to build the nydam boats. so I think we could make use of a nydam style boat for some visual variety. Sails were used, likely square shaped and made out of varying materials. if sails are used on a boat, either a side rudder or double-steering oars should be used as well. Single masts are supported by rock art and stone ship monuments, but bipod masts are also possible. Perhaps if we do more of a nydam style boat (merchant ship and maybe arrow ship), it could use a single square sail with a side rudder I personally think something like the Himmestadlund-1a could be a beautiful inspiration. Rock art and monuments suggest platforms at the stern like what @Lopess has on the hjortspring model. outriggers are not used outside of the pacific, so no boat should have an outrigger.

Which of the two would you all prefer? If there's no clear tendency then I suggest to provide both options and leave it too up to campaign makers how and when to use them.

I'm no specialist, but it seems to me that it's extremely difficult to do both at the same time. Sail is not viewed as a supplemental propulsion, it is something used for long distance. My personal opinion is that Bronze Age and Iron Age warriors favored the mobility and portability of boats. It should not be forgotten that there are no indications that they had ports of any significant size. Maybe we can make an exception for the merchant ship, since it is a case really inappropriate for rowers. Maybe decorations or stempost size? Here a few ideas (the outrigger is maybe a bit excessive but why not):

Why not? The data is available you just need to display it.

This is an arbitrary distinction. A unit that is 99 XP vs a unit that is 100 XP is functionally the same thing a second after entering battle. Knowing that I have 10 units that are basically promoted but not quite is much more informative than knowing I have 10 units of various XP at base rank. Yeah, you might want to know rank and XP for every unit. But that view doesn’t exist right now and this is frankly a low priority item that no one will want to spend time making. There can be bad game design. And eliminating a very basic distinction between good and bad play is without a doubt bad game design. ——- Anyways, you seem to be a SP reaching the end of basic play with AI. I invite you to join the MP lobby where you’ll learn and enjoy much more complex gameplay.

Well the main way units gain experience is by having a successful fight, using healers, or moving wounded units to the back of the group. I think it is a desirable outcome that units generally take a long time to rank up by garrisoning, but it would be nice to show the mean rank of the units on the corresponding icon of the unit garrison stack within the barracks.

@TheCJ you get to the core of the problem. If others are confused be sure to read up on the booming=turtling discussion to see what causes the main issues with the CS system. For cavalry the citizen soldier eco/fighting balance seems to be pretty good when we look at the early game when hunt is available. The same can be done with infantry, its just more difficult. I believe we can absolutely still maintain a citizen soldier system with CS infantry being useful for eco, fighting, and building while introducing a male economic unit. The balance of the male eco unit versus citizen soldiers would be tailored to make the choice of whether to eco or fight with CS a less obvious one. Yes it will make the eco situation of the game more complicated as there will be more ways to boom, but the potential depth of strategy would be very worth it.

Well done. If we want more color, we can also add a few shields on the sides. Maybe on both ends.

really nice @Lopess! i love them! is there any chance you could add some of the distinguishing features for the larger vessel? curved upper beam at the bow (like @Genava55's reference image above) Straight, shorter lower beam at the bow. like this pic: One prop point on each side of the hull near the bow (for shields, which i have ready) side note @Genava55 very recent publication on trade and simulated sailing trips. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0320791&utm_source=pr&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=plos006 https://phys.org/news/2025-04-reveals-bronze-age-scandinavians-sea.html i'm not sure how they came up with that 2 part mast design.

It seems to be a simple model, even more so using this reference model and the texture of the northern boat.

Yes, it looks good, that's similar to the miniature replica in the museum:

https://www.turbosquid.com/3d-models/germanic-ancient-boat-max-free/589931 I found this example of germanic boat, in the page is a lot of photos

ok i think ideally, the scout ship can be modeled directly off of the hjorspring boat, this will be a nice touch. then for the larger version, the arrow ship, we can take inspiration from the many petroglyphs showing some ships, like a larger hjorsping style ship. @nifa @wowgetoffyourcellphone i beg u this would be so cool There are a lot of diverse petroglyphs, with some showing some beautifully curved beams both at the front and back. im not sure what that round thing could be, maybe a shield? We could maybe justify putting 1 or 2 shields for cladding at the front, not the full rows like the current ships have. Its a logical place to carry them, after all. @Genava55 this paper does some interesting analysis and interpretation of petroglyphs. They argue that the larger notches on some glyphs might be masts instead of crewmen. They argue that sails could have been used, but its not really conclusive evidence. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00293652.2024.2357135

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/baitaz https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/skipą

First, of which civ are we talking about? The Cimbri ? The Suebi ? The Germans ? The oldest evidence we have for boats is obviously the Hjortspring boat (around 350 BC). But this is a more nimble boat, carrying approx. 20 men and without any sail. The other major find is from the Roman (imperial) period, circa 320 AD, the Nydam ship. This is larger, for 30 men, but without sail as well. The first evidence for a sort of longship with a sail could be Kvalsund II, but it is not certain, it is disputed. Anyway it is dated around 780 AD so clearly too late. The first undisputed ship with sail and looking like a Viking ship is the Oseberg ship, circa 830 AD. I looked what the literature says on the topic, it seems to be in agreement with the few I know: Source: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/european-journal-of-archaeology/article/earliest-wave-of-viking-activity-the-norwegian-evidence-revisited/C2A3AB5F0C962CFB700EEAF24970BE49 Not compatible with 0AD. The EB team requires the explicit permission for each asset and for each use. It is not open source.

Gold Bracteates from the migration period:

Wasnt that from the Unabomber's manifesto?