Leaderboard

We need five more AI names added to Claodicus, Divico and Caesorix. As we already had some intense debate on Specific Phase names for the Germans I thought we might get some input from the community as well (i.e. @Genava55 and @Thalatta). Background @Vantha already reported Issue #8404 back in October: Suggestion Of course we could reuse the Hero names Boiorix, Teutobod und Lugius, but making it more diverse sounds good to me. What do you think?

@wowgetoffyourcellphone and I actually started the mod on Gitea but we haven't committed anything yet.

It's good to return to a more reasonable position. I would remind you that in 2021, there were proposals to replace Boudicca in order to respect this cutoff. Especially if the team members decide to make Empires Besieged an official mod that simply adds content (notably new playable civilizations), it has to be flexible. Historical cultures that fall on both sides of this arbitrary boundary will pose a problem otherwise.

I know, I saw the repo. This is a good idea but again I want to advise you that you should really avoid carving up certain civs just to force them into one side of the fence. For example, with the Germanic peoples, I find it clumsy to restrict oneself to representing either the period before our era or the period after our era. You will have this problem with other civs like the Dacians and the Parthians. It's best to put these kinds of civs in Empires Besieged rather than Empires Ascendant. Since Empires Besieged is a kind of expansion, it is less of a problem to have a civ that includes some of its elements that date back to the period before our era. I understand that you did not want Empires Ascendant to extend into the period of our era. It seems that this is the key point of contention. So it's better to accept some overlap in the other direction. If the mod includes civs with characters and references that span both periods, it's much less of a problem than if it were the base game.

I suppose the - 500 B.C. and 0 A.D cutoff, but I suppose +- 20 years isn't that bad

Hero names were specifically removed from the AI names a while ago (https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/commit/22cbd39bbd46d1bf2e87b8c26ae58f28a6d6fa1e), so that's not an option, unfortunately.

Debate is scientifically very valuable and it seems that you both know a lot about the topic (certainly more than me). But please keep a professional tone and don't get personal. There's nothing wrong with someone simply because they disagree, especially since the language is resconstructed anyway, so there is no right and wrong, just more plausible and less plausible. I think you both made fair points, and with the knowledge I have I honestly am unable to decide which is the better option. Seems right, thanks, I can add it to the PR.

It is indeed quite difficult to find exact equivalents for village, town, and city in Proto-Germanic, but Wufila's Bible is a truly incredible resource for this, as he had to translate many Greek terms into Gothic so that they would be understandable to the Goths. In Wufila's Bible, there is a sort of hierarchy with Haims << Baurgs and Weihs << Baurg. Haim- is used for villages and hamlets. To designate less densely populated rural communities. A few examples: Mark 6:56 : ...jah þisƕaduh þadei iddja in haimos aiþþau baurgs aiþþau in weihsa... / ...And whithersoever he entered, into villages, or cities, or country... Mark 5:14 : ...gataihun in baurg jah in haimom. / ...they announced it in the city and in the countryside. Mark 11:2 : ...gaggats in haim þo wiþrawairþon iggqis... / ...go your way into the village over against you... Luke 9:52 : ...galiþun in haim Samareite... / ...entered into a village of the Samaritans... Luke 19:30 : ...in þo wiþrawairþon haim.../ ...in the village across the way... Luke 5:17 : ...þaiei wesun gaqumanai us allamma haimo Galeilaias... / ...which were come out of every village of Galilee... Luke 17:12 : ...jah inngaggandin imma in suma haimo, gamotidedun imma taihun þrutsfillai mans... / ...And as he entered into a certain village, there met him ten men that were lepers... Matthew 9:35 : jah bitauh Iesus baurgs allos jah haimos laisjands in gaqumþim ize... / And Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues... Luke 8:1 : ...ei jah is wratoda and baurgs jah haimos merjands... / ...that he went throughout every city and village... Luke 9:6 : ...and haimos wailamerjandans... / ...and went through the villages... Luke 9:12 : ...ei galeiþandans in þos bisunjane haimos jah weihsa saljaina... / ...that they may go into the villages and country round about... Mark 8:26 : ...ni in þata weihs gaggais, ni mannhun qiþais in þamma wehsa. / ... Don't even go into the village, nor tell anyone in the village. Luke 8:34 : ...jah gataihun in baurg jah in weihsa. / ...and went and told it in the city and in the country. The issue with Þaurp is that it is mentioned only a single time in a fragment of the Old Testament in Gothic (Codex Ambrosianus D) and it can only mean in this case 'farmland' or 'estate' because it is used for Nehemiah 5:16. It cannot refer to a village or a hamlet in this context, it is a field.