Leaderboard

Thanks for your concern . We've already resolved this.

@Lopess I think you both need to talk and come to an agreement.

It is only archaeological, based on the pottery. Are the pots the best way to describe a people? The Goths seem to came from Scandinavia but their material culture is not really from Scandinavia. Furthermore, as I said, the Rhine-Weser Germanic culture is appearing at the end of 1st century BC. So, where are they coming from? Is it a local evolution or the spread of the Germanic peoples?

There are three heroes of the Han in the game,namely: Liu Bang, the first Emperor Han Xin,his brilliant general Wei Qing, a later great cavalry general under Emperor Wu. only the Han Xin's design makes sense to me,although I'm interested to know what exactly this Northern and Southern Army bonus is referring historically to. Liu Bang was not a great individual fighter,or a tactical battlefield commander. His success came largely through his own charisma and the ability to recognise talent.His rule is also known for lower taxes and agricultural reforms so, the cavalry bonus makes no sense to me. If anything, his bonus should be a economy focused hero,or atleast something a bit more non-combatant. now here is the problem for which I made the entire post: WEI QING. he was LITERALLY KNOWN for his horsemanship and praised by his emperor for it. WHY DOES HE THEN RIDE A CHARIOT? he was also known for his marksmanship,so it would be fine to make him an archer cavalry hero, probably the first of its kind in the vanilla game. I also suggest adding the cavalry bonus to Wei Qing,as he was the Grand Master of the Horse- Grand General, General of the Chariots and Cavalry. additionally with these big changes,I believe his aura of reducing enemy cav attack should remain. the 30m will be less powerful when you realise he is an archer

First, champions is quite a misnomer. One would be hard pressed to find elite troops being called like that in any serious source. They are usually called, well, "elite". There's of course the issue that ranks are "Basic", "Advanced" and "Elite", the first two again terms that one will basically never find to describe how experienced units are. I think better would be "Recruit", "Seasoned" and "Veteran", all terms I've come across multiple times in sources. Second, what about ships and engines being able to be "champions"? One could make use of elite triremes for Athens for example, instead of making up things that weren't characteristic for them. I guess the main point of champions is to indicate that organic units do not work, but I think there's also a "good unit" implication being made that could be useful for a few inorganic units (they could also have some particular restriction or characteristic, like auto repair? Repair only at Dock/Arsenal? No repair? Whatever is balanced).

Great. Feel free to ping me then in the issue or assign it to me. Or even better, if plan you to do it more often in the future, make a PR yourself; changes like this can be made pretty easily, the unit names are defined in the template files in binaries/data/mods/public/simulation/templates/units/. I could help you figure out the Gitea stuff. Regarding the Ekdromoi, I made this thread a few years ago: Regarding the Prodromoi, they are already present in the game, no? About the term "Psiloi", I don't think it's too general. There's always a balance to strike between making it perfectly accurate, but also interesting gameplay-wise. That's why we often chose the native name describing the people that a unit actually represents rather than what it ended up as in the game. The Athenian slingers for instance are only slingers for gameplay reasons, but they historically represent any skirmishers in general, including the ones that just threw rocks.

I suggest you open a ticket for all these name changes in the gitea @Vantha or @wowgetoffyourcellphone might help bring these changes to life

@Thalatta as the self proclaimed biggest worshipper of Athena im hurt you did not ping me into this topic before

I'm sending a message in a bottle out to sea. Hey everyone, I'm working on a campaign for 0 A.D. called Burning Heart. I want to brainstorm a cover for it. Not an Age of Empires 2 copy, but something with that same vibe, that feeling of power in the image. Anyone down to collab on this? That'd be great.

@Emacz you can always launch a missile more ineffectively. But what is it that you are thinking, exactly? What would be your Spartan and Athenian ranged units roster? The helots you are talking about are already psiloi, while trained Athenian "archers (toxotai) and lightly armed troops, generically called psiloi" (Dahm). Some sources (like Elliott and Rawlings) make a distinction between psiloi and peltasts, probably because of the latter's shield.

This is a very valid point. After all, in the game, it's mainly tech trees and how they look like what differentiates the various civs. This is material culture, not so much geographical origin or ethnolinguistic classification. Of course, since that is quite important and one wants to be accurate, the situation should be noted somewhere, and if eventually a progression through different civs is made, that tree should be determined by their apparent origins, and both things would come into play.

The map i found seemed to be putting them in the Rhine, hence the doubt (i think the map uses archaeological cultures). https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/2027476111148343343.html Perhaps originally Elbe Germans absorbing elements of Rhine cultures or the opposite (i even recall them being placed on the North Sea group in an earlier thread).

Elbe Germanics or Herminones https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbe_Germanic The relationship between the Vandals and the Lugii is a mystery but modern scholars generally assume they are the same people. Maybe Vandalic was the name of the branch and the Lugii were a specific people. The manuscript from Pliny seems corrupted on this part. The Istvaeones are not listed. It seems Pliny considered the Cherusci were Elbe Germanics. The Cherusci are not listed as a contribution to the Franks by Gregory of Tours. There is only Venantius Fortunatus (c. 530–600 AD) suggesting that but he is considered dubious because he mentions the Saxons as well.

Like i said previously it is a very big grey area that may well cause issues with the license in the future (or even now, i'm not an expert). I was not advocating for it.

@ThePoshBarbarian to be ekdromos (one that runs out) is a role, like is to be prodromos (one that runs ahead). Light infantry (the skiritai being a common example) could work as ekdromoi, to be ordered to break formation during certain points in a battle to perform some more auxiliary task, like skirmishing. Light cavalry would usually work as prodromoi, that is, scouts, and could include skirmishing (something normal for those who are running about!). For example, take this small fragment from Xenophon's Hellenica 4.5.16 (https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0032.tlg001.perseus-grc1:4.5.16): "οὐ γὰρ ἕως ἀπέκτεινάν τινας αὐτῶν ἐδίωξαν, ἀλλὰ σὺν τοῖς ἐκδρόμοις ἰσομέτωποι καὶ ἐδίωκον καὶ ἐπέστρεφον", which in the English version is "for they did not chase the enemy until they had killed some of them, but both in the pursuit and in the turning backward kept an even front with the hoplites", somewhat missing the literal meaning, which Google Translate keeps a bit better: "for they did not pursue them merely until they had killed some of their number; rather, maintaining a front level with the sallying troops, they both pursued and wheeled about". Thus, they should not be considered an actual unit. There's a "Prodromos" unit which is wrongly translated, I'll mention that in my Part II.

Alemanni and Marcomanni were Suebi, although i suppose you could theoretically split them (no idea how much material there is). Are Vandals viable in this timeframe, or can they just be included in Lugii? Cherusci i assume are earlier Rhine Germans (or North Sea, or even their own thing with how not all sources seem to agree on what they were) and Franks are slightly later Rhine Germans.

Hey everyone, I’m here to share some more news about my mod, World Rising! Unfortunately, I had a problem with my graphics card, which ended up burning out, so I was unable to work on the project for a while. But now I’m back! Even with this setback, I still managed to make good progress on development. I created new buildings and also worked on several new technologies for them, with the goal of making the progression between cultures more interesting and noticeable throughout the game. By the end of this week, I plan to add new units, finish more technologies, and create a few more buildings. Little by little, the transition from the Jomon culture to the Yayoi culture is really starting to take shape, and I’m very happy with how this evolution is looking visually in the game. For now, here are some images showing a little of the Jomon → Yayoi transition. As always, let me know what you think! Criticism, suggestions, and ideas are always welcome and really help with the development of World Rising. Thank you to everyone who continues to follow and support the project!

Nothing accurate apparently, since "the first appearance of the 'Northern Army' in historical records of the Han Dynasty was after the death of Emperor Hui" (https://www.lsdlyj.com.cn/CN/abstract/abstract46386.shtml), and Emperor Hui died in 188 BC, while Han Xin died around 8 years earlier, in 196 BC. Being generous, maybe because he won many victories for the Emperor, maintaining the "Mandate of Heaven" (many loses could be interpreted as illegitimacy). But I agree that this, and many other things you mentioned, could be improved. I could eventually do for Liu Bang and Wei Qing what I did here for Han Xin:

Archeologically, the term Rhine-Weser Germanic is used after the Roman conquest and the creation of the Roman empire. What you have in mind are the Ubii, the Usipetes and the Tencteri but their identification is uncertain. Materially they are Celtic. The Ubii had the oppidum of Dünsberg.

How viable would the Rhine Germans be in this early timeline? I know they had some participation in the Gallic Wars. For a bit later you also have Batavian Revolt (almost contemporary to some Briton heroes).

If you want to stay focused on the period between 500 BC and 1 AD, I suggest to choose the following: - Cimbri (Jutland) - Suevi (Elbe-Germanics) - Lugii (East-Germanics) - Bastarnae (East-Germanics?) The Cimbri could be based on material from Jutland and the events of the Cimbric war. The Suevi could be based on material from Jastorf and Grossromstedt cultures and the events related to Ariovistus: Iron-Age-in-northern-Germany.pdf The Lugii could be based on material of the Przeworsk and Oksywie cultures. The Bastarnae could be based on material of the Poienesti culture and their invasion of the Balkans between 200 and 100 BC:

I think it's a good thing that siege units are required to break walls. In fact, I support making building capture more difficult. The same applies to towers, which are currently too easy to capture—especially due to formation capture behavior, where an absurd number of units can overlap, allowing buildings to be captured in a very small space at an excessively fast rate. Building capture itself is not a flaw; it just needs refinement. It’s one of the game’s original mechanics, and we should stop trying to homogenize the game with others. Instead, polishing its unique aspects will make 0 A.D. even more distinctive. Yes, turtling is a valid playstyle (albeit a boring and somewhat lame one), and it’s already viable—you just have to execute it properly. I also think that making capture more difficult would make it even more effective. However, making walls cheaper and faster to build would only encourage this dynamic, which, while valid, would significantly harm multiplayer matches. It also depends heavily on the map. On closed maps with chokepoints and natural boundaries, turtling is already quite effective. On Ambush Nomad, for example, when playing with Wonder victory, turtling is very common and effective. So I don’t think it’s impossible—I just wouldn’t encourage it.

For the extended timeline of the mod (500 BC-300 AD), are there any others that might be appropriate?

@Genava55We are working on the period from 500 BCE to 300 CE for all the civilizations in this mod.