Thorfinn the Shallow Minded

Obviously Themistocles is a naval focussed hero. I don't have any particular issue with this, but it means that he is never used for land maps for any good reason. I think that it would be nice to give him a buff for wall construction either in speed or cheapness. He was instrumental in Athens completing the long wall and their city walls after Persia had sacked the city. What are your thoughts?

I think that the issue is that there need to be clear guidelines for what is and is not appropriate for lobby chatting. While I would say having respectful religious discourse is quite innocuous (Not that pesem in any way reflected that behaviour), the boundaries should be readily available to everyone, making moderators feel no issue when action needs to be taken since they are just following protocol. user1 felt insecure because of the lack of these, leading to inaction. Of course this would not eliminate the need of moderators to interpret the rules, yet I think that it would be a sep in the right direction.

If I could mention one thing about lowering the accuracy of ranged units while incorporating indirect fire, while it does lower their dps to specific targets, if the archer is firing at a dense formation, the probability of missing decreases exponentially. Yes, the dps would be lowered, but other variables can be altered to still make them viable such as their cost, range, speed, etc,... I'm just offering a practical solution for an exploit; the important question is if the repercussions of this change are worth accounting for. I'd personally say yes, but that's just my opinion.

I think that the major point is to dissect why this exploit is possible. First, the projectiles are too easily predictable. If there was more randomisation to the accuracy, this could nullify the need of 'dancing.' Next, stray missiles should deal damage to whatever unit runs into its path, I would say both friendly and unfriendly, but that's subject to debate. With these changes in place, this 'feature' would no longer have as significant of a role in gameplay.

I see a lot of people pointing to the educational aspects of the current system, which I acknowledge is fair, but the primary purpose is not that but clarity. I would say that a system where the player can choose the options they want would be good. For instance, the default could be the English (or whatever language the player speaks) name followed by the transliteration of the original language, or even better to me, it in a rough equivalent of their alphabet. The clarity is good, and the people who want to know the original language are happy; if they prefer the way it is now, that could be an option as well. If people want less clutter, they could opt for only one of the two ever being displayed. The point is that options should be provided.

To start off, as an amateur classicist, I want to point out that I appreciate 0 A.D.'s attempts to present the units and structures in a way so that players can see what they would be called in their original languages. I just don't think it works. When it come to GUI, one of the main points is to present information as clearly as possible, which is more difficult due to this. After all, which is easier, house or oikos? Furthermore, many of the ancient languages such as Punic, Celtic, and whatever the Iberians spoke is hard to accurately model. For Carthage, many buildings are missing their Punic names due to shortages of known words. Although these could be supplemented with a similar Semitic language, the result could be misleading to people who, trusting the attention to accuracy 0 A.D. takes, might themselves be misinformed as a result. The case is even worse of course for the Iberian language, but I think I have made my point on this matter. Another issue I find is the lack of consensus even amongst people more well acquainted with Greek in attempting to transliterate the language. Even when one of them is pleased, it leaves a different opinion unanswered. Thus, for the people who don't know the language, the transliteration is probably confusing; for those who do, it would likely feel like an unsatisfactory choice when the original alphabet of the language could just be used (Unless we are talking about Latin).

Here's a quick thought. Introduce rams to the town phase in some way. Since walls are present, it could, if the map has a large amount of choke-points, create a deadlock that cannot be broken until the City Phase. Maybe this is okay, but I think that even having a weak ram unit would do a lot to make the town phase more interesting. On another note, is there any plan to make walls more affordable?

If I might give a recommendation for the Spartans, they were known to braid their hair during battle, as is attested by Plutarch and Herodotus. I think that incorporating that aspect into the game would be a worthwhile addition. As for skiritai, there isn't a lot of information I am aware of from ancient sources. Thucydides mentions their role in the battle of Mantinea and Xenophon briefly mentions their purpose in his work Cyropaedia and also eludes to their fighting in the Hellenica. Nothing from them as far as I remember relate to what they wore. Since they were known for doing operations that would be difficult for soldiers that were heavily encumbered, 0 A.D. interprets their equipment to be lighter than most, but it would be hard to substantiate that conclusion with any evidence from primary sources.

Basically what I said. I haven't kept too up to date on the game and wasn't aware of that feature. Thanks for answering. Exactly. Finally someone understands my pain. Definitely there are similarities. I'd even argue that some of the more famous ancient sources are responsible for some of the broad stereotypes, especially in the case of Sparta.

Understand that for a game that strives for historical accuracy, that the prevalence of incendiary arrows was far less so than popular culture suggests. There are rare instances, but even in these cases, they required specialised equipment and typically specialists for that specific purpose. As for why poison arrows would not be implemented for every civilisation, realise that the game is focussed on accuracy, and unless you can provide plausible evidence for their use amongst the desired factions, they will probably not be incorporated.

A lot of your additions tree-wise are great; one thing that could enhance the mod is to have models of trees tended to with medieval methods such as pollarding and coppicing respectively:

Do you plan to have any way to toggle the aura indicators on and off? It could make a group of units look fairly cluttered without that option. Also, do you mind sharing the reasons that you removed Athens and Sparta in favour of a single faction while keeping the Celts the same (Not to sound is if I consider the approach you have taken to be inferior to what the official game has to offer.)?

All of these are done very well. One criticism I have is for the Falcata. The proportion of the blade length to the hilt makes it seem more like a hunting knife than a sword. The reproduction I have seen are generally much longer than what you have. That said, I am no expert on the subject and if you have any good reference for why you made it so short I would appreciate it. Even that issue is quite minor; again excellent work.

As a note, since the Minotaur was from Crete, it might be a fun touch to have weapon variants of their axes based on ceremonial axes from Minoan times.

Do you think that there might be some further differentiation offered between different types of swords? Clearly the gladius was used primarily for thrusting while most swords Celts used were better at cutting.

Why have a unit like that? It is totally ahistorical. Whacking at the ram with a sword or spear makes more sense given the fact that the best way to disable a ram is to kill the operators.

I wouldn't recommend having rusted blades in the game. Soldiers were expected to properly maintain their weapons, which meant sharpening and polishing. While the presence of blood could be excused on the battlefield, rust less so.

Thoughts: The centaur being able to transition between bow and spear would be a cool and unique option. Cyclops and the Minotaur were known for eating people. Maybe a special attack could kill a weak unit, providing health or maybe just give lifesteal for one of them. For Einherjar, one of their famous things was that they would go through a daily cycle of fighting, getting killed, and then resurrecting to feast. Maybe making them able to resurrect in some way that isn't broken balance-wise would be a unique option. Maybe making the Colossus repairable by villagers would be a fun option. Perseus is known for having the head, but if you'd like to have it be something that doesn't just repeat Medusa's ability, he also had winged shoes that could let him fly and also had a cap of invisibility. Sigurd was also known for being able to go invisible due to a cloak.

A few thoughts on the gods and associated units in no specific order: Odin giving a buff to ranged units seems odd. He was associated with the nobles, making a cavalry buff much more logical (His prominent horse also seems to make this a clear choice). The economic buff makes a bit more sense with Thor since he was a god commonly worshipped by lower classes, but I would extend that helping all economic things, not just mining. Perhaps if you are looking for a more flavourful option I'd say that making his heroes more effective at slaying myth units would be a nice one. Most of Thor's myths are about him killing giants in some way. Heimdall is responsible in Ragnorak for deploying the Einherjar troops, making those units a better option for him. Baldur is only a survivor of the events. I'd advise giving light elves to Baldur since his good looks were famous. Instead of providing more offensive power to units, I think that a defensive bonus would be better given how he was famous for being virtually invincible. For the Greeks: Dionysus was associated with satyrs and centaurs, especially the former. A dryad unit might be a better option for Demeter given her relation to nature. Hercules was known for having two main weapons, a club and a bow having arrows dipped in the blood of the hydra, making them venomous. Poseidon would be a better candidate for the minotaur since it was his bull that fathered the creature. Artemis might be better suited with the Calydonian Boar, which she sent. Ares seems a better fit for the centaurs given both of their warlike natures.

Since Serapis did have elements of Hades, I would recommend a different god for the Ptolemies like Harpocrates. This deity was basically the Greek interpretation of the child-god version of Horus and played a fairly important role in religion there.

One of the main reasons it was removed is because the way that they gave damage bonuses for most units, aside from spearmen countering cavalry, was that it was generally unintuitive. Every unit was a hard counter, making it feel like a convoluted game of rock-paper-scissors than actual warfare. Since 0 A.D. is striving for eventually making warfare that rewards total war style micro and attempting to emulate history, the way that counters exist requires nuance. Given the fact that many features regarding formations have not been released, having a functional counter system based on history implemented is difficult. I see the reasons that one would introduce hard counters, given that they provide an intuitive model, but there are a few issues I have with many. For instance swordsmen countering spearmen is a peculiar one. In comparing spear to sword, there is a massive difference in reach, making the spearman in most situations have a substantial advantage to the swordsman. While I don't advocate for spearmen being able to beat swordsmen in one-on-one fights, the advantage that the swordsmen have could be simply based on swordsmen having faster movement, allowing them to catch or retreat from ranged units easier, which could be valuable in fights. On another note, I would question archers having a bonus against melee infantry. They should already be able to kite them effectively. That said, I would say that borg's counter system is a massive improvement to the initial counter system. As a question, since the civic centre can only produce women, is there any way to make military buildings if all starting military units are killed from early-game harassment?

In concept alone, it seems to be a good idea, but social mobility was extremely rare during the ancient times, as Sundiata has mentioned. Only a minority of residents of a nation actually were citizens, and citizens that were not nobles practically never became so except in egalitarian societies like Sparta (relative to other citizens since rights were the same regardless of social status with the exception of kings.). Next, the consumption of meat by lower classes was extremely rare. The predominant thing they would eat were grain products. Lastly, leadership was not solely based on wealth but more so on social status, and the means of reaching the governmental positions varied based on government type. In Athens, Sparta, Rome, and many other ancient states, mayors were nonexistent, instead having positions like Strategos, Ephor, and Consul respectively, and these functioned in a very different way.

Iarr

There is an online lexicon, including some basic vocabulary here: http://ancientroadpublications.com/Studies/AncientLanguage/Phoenician.pdf I'm fairly sure that it isn't quite the right dialect, but it could be a good starting point. All the words are unvocalised, making the reconstruction a bit hard, but Plautus' play Poenus apparently did have some Punic featured in it that is vocalised.

Are there issues with the current system? Yes, but the line between soldier and gatherer can still be more subtle than what DarcReaver argues. There are a few issues with the current system, some of which have already been mentioned: Citizen-soldiers can instantly react to an attack. They shouldn't. This would properly penalise a player that does not have adequate knowledge of what an opponent is doing while rewarding opportunistic raids. Citizen-soldiers are a broad generalisation for the roles of men in society. Most labour at least in the Greco-Roman world was done by slaves, which should be implemented in some way. It is questionable to have citizen-soldiers be able to mine resources. Furthermore, women are overly generalised. In most Greek and Roman societies, they mainly did housework, not collecting resources. There would be some exceptions such as maybe Spartan and Celtic women. Cavalry probably should not hunt. They represent the nobility, who would not be doing much personally to gather food.