Jump to content

Aldandil

Community Members
  • Posts

    410
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Aldandil

  1. Looks like the player's job is to provide better management!
  2. You're welcome. It feels good to be discussing something I actually know something about. I don't know if there is a hard-and-fast rule for how old a split must be to count as separate sub-species. Homo sapiens and Neanderthals share a common ancestor in Homo heidelbergensis, which seems to have originated in Africa. They spread in both Africa and Europe, where their populations were largely isolated by geography and then adapted to rather different climates. Those in Europe evolved into Neanderthals, while those in Africa evolved into us. The genetic divergence was roughly estimated at 825,000 years ago and the physically distinct bone features of Neanderthals and Homo sapiens emerged gradually over the years from roughly 400,000 to 125,000 years ago. The classification of those transitional fossils is to some extent a matter of taste, where subspecies of Homo heidelbergensis end and separate species (or subspecies of Homo sapiens) begin. In my opinion A seems to be the simplest explanation, but A would not rule out either C or D. However, C and D aren't the only possible explanations for why the gene-flow was seemingly one-way. Hopefully more Neanderthal individuals will be sequenced in the future, and compared with a larger number of modern humans, to widen the comparison. The genes aren't that hugely different. There's only a six allele difference between the darkest skin tone and the lightest, for example. I know less about the genes for respiration efficiency, body fat thickness, nose shape, stature, and so on, but the general picture seems to be that, in minor traits, humans have and continue to evolve pretty fast. Lactose tolerance and alcohol tolerance apparently evolved after the start of agriculture and cities respectively. All species with large ranges exhibit variation -- just look at the tiger, which like humans used to range from the tropics to the cold subarctic, from lowlands to mountains. They varied in size, color, stripe patterns, and no doubt internal traits that adapted them for different environments. It also appears that the wide differences in human appearances (which are the majority of the differences between "races") are due to sexual selection. Each culture seems to have their own beauty standards, which select for a somewhat different appearance from their immediate neighbors, forming clines.I can't find a catalog of which genes were closer to Neanderthals, but it's possible that they include genes for lighter skin and hair, and adaptations to cold climates. The reason it's possible for the matings to have been few is that the number of Homo sapiens who initially entered Neanderthal territory could have been few, and later increased population size after the hybridization had already taken place. About the Beaker Folk, I do not know much more than their name. It's another name for the Bell-Beaker tool culture, which is a material culture that may or may not have corresponded to any ethnicity(ies). They're one of the material culture sets that existed in Great Britain and western Europe at various times in prehistory. I was premature to suggest that they definitely preceded the first Celtic language in the Isles. It seems there's not agreement on when Celtic languages came to Great Britain, and in any case a language cannot be correlated with a material culture group or even a group of people. What I do know is that there were Homo sapiens that occupied Europe after Neanderthals died out 30000-25000 years ago, which is at least 15,000 years before Proto-Indo-European could have come into existence. I don't know if the post-Neanderthal Gravettian tool culture is known from Great Britain, but after the Gravettian time-period Great Britain was apparently abandoned due to weather, to be re-colonized later by a tool culture called Creswellian. After the Ice Age the British Isles were inhabited by Homo sapiens with Mesolithic tool cultures, who apparently adopted farming around 4000 B.C. instead of being invaded by Neolithic farmers from the mainland. The Bell-Beaker tool culture belongs to later years, contemporary with Stonehenge and the early Bronze Age in the British Isles. So whoever the first Celt-language-speakers or Proto-Indo-European-speakers in the Isles encountered were Homo sapiens. When the first Celtic-family language came to Britain, and whether it was accompanied by new tools, migrating humans, new crops and livestock, new cultural or religious practices, or none of the above, is controversial and unknown.
  3. Unfortunately you have some of the facts incorrect. I am sorry that I am shooting down most of what you said. I just don't think they could possibly work as a mod faction, and I do feel the need to correct some misconceptions that you've accidentally picked up (possibly provided by the ever-helpful popular media). I think Neanderthals are a very interesting subject and the new genetic study is fascinating (hopefully only the first of many to come), but not one suited for 0 A.D. Making Neanderthals into a mod faction would cause a lot of problems simply because their technology would never stack up against the technology of the factions in 0 A.D. I'm not certain that there is even evidence they had projectiles. I can look it up. Oshron is planning a mythological AoM-style mod in which the "Cro Magnons" would have very powerful myth units to make up for their weak mortal units, but in a regular mod of 0 A.D. that isn't an option. His "Cro Magnon" faction are also actually neolithic, so their technology is much more "advanced" than what Neanderthals used. None of the peer-reviewed journal I have read (including the new study, your link #2) suggest that Neanderthals are the same subspecies as us. The debate about Neanderthal classification still concerns only two options: a separate species and a Homo sapiens subspecies. They're clearly at least a separate subspecies -- subspecies of the same species can and do interbreed in living mammals today. The new nuclear genetic evidence leans towards them being a subspecies instead of a separate species, but bear in mind that the species definition allows for behavioral prezygotic barriers (behaviors that strongly discourage interbreeding and make it extremely rare) and the new study states that it is entirely possible that A. very, very few matings took place between our ancestors and Neanderthals, magnified by later population growth from a tiny immigrant population; or B. the separate genes were present in Africa before the migrations and had nothing to do with crossbreeding. Other possibilities are that C. the hybrids could only back-cross with Homo sapiens [sapiens] but could never back-cross with Neanderthals; and/or D. only the female hybrids were fertile (like ligers). Bear in mind also that if there was cross-breeding (the simplest explanation at this point) it happened with early Neanderthals, not the later "classic" Neanderthals of later Ice Age Eurasia. While anthropologists have been responsible for a lot of racist pseudoscience that separated members of the living human subspecies into separate "races" or even subspecies and helped legitimize the whole "race" concept that has no actual biological validity whatsoever, separating fossil humans into separate subspecies and species has nothing to do with this: it is a matter of significant physical differences and, as the new studies show, significant genetic differences as well. All of the phylogenetic tests of the genes found Neanderthals to cluster well outside all known Homo sapiens [sapiens]lines and the depth of the branching and systematic genome-wide differences confirm the physical bone evidence that they are at least a separate subspecies. This is in marked contrast to living humans, who (despite small differences like skin color and a few Neanderthal genes) are almost genetically identical to each other, have no valid genetic clades at all, and simply cannot be divided into biological "races," much less subspecies. Classification should also be separated from discussions of moral worth or superiority -- the motivation for separating "people of color" from white people was racism and perceived superiority, but the genetic differences between Neanderthals and us don't automatically mean they should be considered morally inferior to us. I hope that no scientists have suggested that. As for the "mystical/spiritual" side of Neanderthals, there's no evidence of what their religions were like or if they even had anything we could call religion. Fictional stories that speculate about it are just that -- speculation, which while plausible and interesting are not based on archaeological evidence. There's not even any certainty yet that they could speak, though deciphering their nuclear genome may change that -- at present, we can only say that their FOXP2 gene shared the same mutations ours does, so speech cannot be ruled out yet. Yes, even if they had no spoken language they could still have had sign language as depicted by Jean Aule, but again that is speculation, not based on evidence and IMO, our genetic knowledge is not yet good enough to find evidence for that sort of thing. Regarding genocide, historical genocides have often been incomplete, with a few people surviving after being raped and/or taken captive and/or escaping to hide, plus we're probably talking about a few thousand years of contact, so genocide and interbreeding are not mutually exclusive. Mass rape is actually a frequent tool used in genocide and while I don't think that fits the evidence that I saw, taking people captive and keeping them as trophy wives probably does. Still, the actual reason Neanderthals disappeared is not known and deliberate genocide is only one possibility. The Celts entered the British Isles when earlier members of our subspecies, the Beaker Folk IIRC, were living there. Neanderthals in Europe were way way earlier, so there's no overlap there. By the time Proto-Indo-European was spoken somewhere in Asia, Neanderthals had been globally extinct for tens of thousands of years.
  4. Is there any agreement about Theta, Phi, and Khi, whether they were fricatives or not? Sorry if this is off-topic.
  5. From what my Classics professor told me, even academic linguists disagree how precisely ancient Greek was pronounced, so getting it entirely right may be rather difficult! I don't think it should sound exactly like modern Greek, though, that wouldn't make sense.
  6. I think this is a great idea for a mod. To what extent can stirrups make up for that? Until stirrups caught on with other peoples, they should have given the Chinese an advantage, right?
  7. Very nice screenshots! Though as usual, they break the forum frame. One thing I noticed about the models is that most of the Greek units have no beards. Is this usual in the game as written, or is it the result of your mod? Also, I think Alexander's unarmored mode looks bald. I don't know if you made your own textures, but if you can I suggest eventually adding some more hair to him. Otherwise, I think it's simply awesome that the game can already be modded, even to a limited extent.
  8. Oshron, that's a good idea. It sounds like a seige scenario, where the individual fortresses and barracks hold out even though most of the countryside is taken. I don't know if it is too complicated for 0 A.D., but no doubt there are some types of military buildings that can withstand a seige and others that require frequent resupply and civilian/economic support to put up a fight. Those would probably need to be differentiated if possible. There's also the question of the concept of guerrilla resistance, even after a territory is captured. I think 0 A.D. has no morale meter, but the continued resistance of surviving military units in a more guerilla-style manner might also be an option, even if most military buildings are taken, provided there's suitable cover in the landscape. There could also be economic units who run off to join them as support, though I don't know how that could be handled. In fact, the game engine need not distinguish, at least for non-AI factions, between "fighting to capture territory held by the enemy" and "fighting to recapture territory captured by the enemy." In both cases, the territory is held by one faction while the other has units in the territory trying to take it. Then again, this entire guerrilla concept might be totally inappropriate for the time periods covered, at least outside the Iberian faction.
  9. If there's no ramming, doesn't that reduce the value of triremes?
  10. And by "persuade" you actually mean bribe, blackmail, embargo, and force with the point of a sword, right?
  11. OK, that makes much more sense than what I thought you meant. I was thinking of these guys throwing their only weapon and then rolling up their fists and getting killed forthwith.
  12. On a battlefield with multiple opponents, sensible folks would not throw their javelin unless they have at least one backup weapon, preferrably a whole quiver of javelins or a solid melee weapon. It's one thing to throw it when you're hunting with a group and have separated a single animal off from the herd, but in a battle it seems a poor tactic. I was thinking that the chieftains would have several javelins (or infinite javelins, like Ykkrosh pointed out) and a spear-thrower. BTW, if the dancing isn't an editor-only eye candy unit in 0A.D., you should definitely add one to your mod.
  13. For the love of everything holy, don't include anything based off of or inspired by or even remotely similar to 10,000 BC. The movie crew horrendously mangled history, reality, and common sense to produce that thing. It is as historically realistic and accurate as the humans and dinosaurs living together with televisions and cars made out of stone, except that it was not produced as a children's cartoon. (No, I didn't actually watch it. I saw the trailer, in which woolly mammoths build the pyramids of Egypt in the burning hot desert and so forth (after mammoths died out and before the pyramids were built), and I ran away and deliberately forgot most of the other awful, awful things that I had seen. You should run away, too. Very, very far away.) Actually, a well-written, merciless, and well-informed satiric review might be funny to read. But that isn't the point. There are real, historical stone age weapons (like real javelins and spearthrowers) to use for Cro-Magnons. I mean, you are going to mix different time periods, including mammoths and Dynastic Egypt, but the mod should at least be inspired by something serious and decently made. And hopefully you won't be claiming that your game takes place in any specific real year. But wait, aren't you planning this as a mod for 0A.D.?
  14. Ah, I see. I don't know anything about ancient Norse military topics. I'm pretty sure the only Avatars in Hindu religion are the ten Avatars of Vishnu. Most of them are clearly gods. Krishna resembles a human but is worshipped as the Supreme Being (just like Vishnu), and Rama lived a mortal life, but is now also worshipped as a god. The other gods apparently don't get any Avatars, just Vishnu. So I'd stick with mythical human heroes, such as Arjuna. Well actually, maybe Rama could be one too, I think he was a prince.OK, I think I have a clearer idea of how the three types of faction work now. Thanks for explaining it more. The distinction between rulers and Greek- and Indian-type heroes isn't as great as it appears; those heroes all seem to have been princes, or kings, or legitimate heirs of some kingdom, or exiled lords, etc. Even the ones who were heroic because of their semi-divine ancestry were still princes, because what sort of Olympian would sleep with a Bronze-Age peasant or a slave? (And notice that when the Greeks eliminated their kings and instituted oligarchies and democracies, they stopped getting new demigods...! ) So here is how I would do it: Cro-Magnon: Chivalric: Chief and Shaman (making them Chivalric lets you avoid any need to name their heroes). I would give shapeshifting and healing to the Shaman, and let the Chief be more of a beefy melee or javelin-thrower guy. Mesopotamians: Chivalric makes sense the way you described it Egyptians: Sovereign: named Pharaohs in awesome chariots with some magic or other special abilities in addition to a khopesh or spear, and a lesser official (such as Vizier) with a less awesome chariot, no magic, and no magic abilities, but good melee abilities and a bow as well. Greeks: Assuming hoplites are a super unit, Heroic is the way to go. Roman: Famous commanders would make good heroes, so Heroic seems a good choice, unless you want some elite soldiers such as Centurions to be a support mass-hero unit. Chinese: They seem to have famous historical generals as well as mythical heroes, so depending on the time periods you use you could use both and make them Heroic. Otherwise, Sovereign might be a good choice. I wouldn't make them Chivalric, though -- that just seems like a waste of the mythical heroes. I mean, you have that guy who shot down the nine extra suns, Yu or something, who should be great against myth units. Persians: Sovereign is the best choice IMO. Give them named emperors, and Satraps or Immortals as mass support heroes. Indians: Heroic. The Mahabharata and Ramayana should provide lots of heroes, but I think there are other epics as well with yet more heroes in them. Celtic: Sovereign: named Kings (name them after real kings, or mythical heroes) and nameless Druids Norse: Chivalric makes sense Medieval Christians: Chivalric Polynesians: I do not know anything about Maori or Hawaiian military tactics, but I know that the Maori at least have named heroes in their oral history who were presumably historical people, and the Hawaiians probably do as well. Heroic or Sovereign may be the way to go here. Aztec: Chivalric, but with Eagle Warriors as well. The Jaguar Warriors shouldn't eat their opponents until after they defeat one (AFAIK Aztec warriors did eat the hearts of at least some captives, but it tended to kill the victim! ) Shamans who can shapeshift into jaguars would be awesome too, but only as a myth unit. Japanese, Slavic, Hittites, Semites, and Soninke: I literally have no clue!
  15. I think in 0 A.D. the Celtic faction is supposed to have no ranged units because they considered them cowardly. You might look at how they are balanced to see how it's done, and whether it would work for your Norse (assuming the Norse really had no ranged weapons historically).So the Sacred Band you mention isn't really the Theban one, you were just mentioning them in comparison. Do you know what name the Carthigians had for their "Sacred Band" unit? I see what you mean, and I agree the stingray spear makes the most sense as a myth unit. But are spears given different stats from swords?BTW the Aztec sword is called the macauitl. The Hindus had their own heroic myths, such as the Mahabharata, that seem to paint a picture of a society similar to the one depicted by Homer. (Homer's Iliad and Odyssey actually describe early Iron Age Greek society more than the Bronze Age society, despite their intended setting). I don't know enough about the time periods when the Mahabharata is supposed to take place, and I think your Greek time frame spans the Bronze and Iron ages, so I'll mention two time periods for Greeks and Indians. This is what I would change from your list: Archaic and Classical Greeks: Chivalric (for hoplite warfare) (unless Spartiates and Hoplites are super units, distinct from hero units, in which case Heroic should work fine) Bronze Age and Dark Age Greeks: Heroic Mahabharata-style Hindus: Heroic later Indians: no idea, sorry Persians: Sovereign Romans: no idea, but the historians at 0 A.D. would be able to advise you on the closest model out of your three Cro-Magnons: Heroic (since you are dealing with stone age cultures, and stopping before the Bronze Age when cities and central governments really took off) Norse: Chivalric or Heroic, possibly (depending on time period? I'm not an expert on these cultures) Mesopotamians: Sovereign or Chivalric (I know the Epic of Gilgamesh gives a rather Heroic impression, but their cities were quite hierarchical) Celts: Chivalric may work better than Sovereign for them, again I'd see what advice the 0 A.D. historians can give you The Egyptians, interestingly enough, might not work as a Sovereign faction. I don't know what precisely a "mass-produced hero" is or how it differs from 0 A.D.'s super units, but I think the Egyptians had unarmored, lightly armed foot-soldiers (cannon fodder, basically) and some leaders in chariots. I don't know whether or not they had anything comparable to the Persian Immortals or Macedonian cavalry. If they had nothing comparable, then Heroic or Chivalric might actually work better for them. OK, actually you know what? Maybe I'm basing my list more on what those names sound like to me, instead of on any real understanding of the mechanics you're talking about.
  16. You do sound harsh, whether or not it's your intent. I don't really know what "another game" means, unless you mean Last Alliance. I'm not angry, it isn't like you guys lied about the system requirements, I'm just frustrated and I should have checked the details sooner. I actually got this computer around 2005, I think. This is the apartment I rented for college -- as soon as I can, I'm moving back under my mother's roof until I can find a job, which is not looking likely any time soon, and pay off my loans. Surely in the next 4 years, I can save $40 in birthday gifts (if that's really all it takes). I might even be able to find a job by then. Thinking about it that way does make me feel less frustrated, though. P.S. Sorry that I hijacked the thread.
  17. Even for a project that started in 2001, this is true? My computer is not any older than 2003. There goes any and all enthusiasm and interest I had for 0 A.D. and Last Alliance. At least I find out now, not later.
  18. Neither is my machine. I have 2 GB of RAM and 2.93 GHz CPU, but my graphics card is a 64 MB integrated Intel 82845G Graphics Controller, and my page file is probably still set to "728MB used, 499MB available." I don't know how that compares to a GeForce 3 graphics card.
  19. I think he means that if a citizen-soldier performed one type of task more often than the others, they'd level up into a different kind of unit, such as a more-efficient farmer who isn't any better at battle or building. I don't know whether such a unit would really be useful, but I think it's what he means.
  20. I wouldn't trust Wikipedia's word for anything. If you see something interesting or potentially useful on Wikipedia, it's better to go to its sources listed at the bottom of the page. Or just ask the 0 A.D. research people about war elephants; one of them surely knows all about them, who had them, and when. Likewise, if the throwing-axeman is Celtic, why do you say that he is "more fitting" for the Norse? If the Norse didn't historically have such soldiers, or at least have myths of such soldiers, then I don't think their faction should have them. I'm also confused why the Theban Sacred Band is given to the Semites instead of the Greeks. It works with people who were allies of the Hittites or Trojans, or who supposedly lived in Asia Minor (although I think Thracian peltasts also fought for the Greeks, as well) but when did the Thebans serve the Phoenicians or Syrians? Basically, you have a lot of good ideas, most of which I'm not knowledgeable enough to comment on. But in my opinion if something departs from accuracy, I prefer a systematic reason (ie, necessary for game balance) that still makes sense in the context. If this mod were made accurately, it would kick much butt and I would want to try it. But if it was inaccurate, I would find it much less appealing. I think that making it as accurate as possible, in addition to (eventually) adding more factions, is what could really set this apart from AoM. Edit: Leiomano and stingray-spear: isn't the sharktooth club more of a sword-type weapon? How long were they, what was their reach? Did the stingray spears retain their venom after the animal died? The two weapons might just work differently (but I don't know). EDIT 2: So far, according to the journals I'm finding in JSTOR, the word vimāna has several uses (the first I list is the relevant one for the myth units): 1. A flying chariot or "aerial vehicle" used by a god or a gandharva (Classical Sanskrit)(the myth unit) 2. a shrine or tower in a temple (Classical Sanskrit)(seems to be the most common meaning) 3. the palace of a human emperor (Classical Sanskrit) 4. the palace of a god living in the celestial/heavenly realm (Pali, Jaina Prakrit) So far I haven't gotten any descriptions of the flying vehicles, so I can only say that some of them are chariots, presumably wheeled and pulled by (flying) animals. Supposedly, one is mentioned in the Skanda Purana. There's also something in a play about a yogeshvara "magician" using a "contemplation" vimana (conjured by meditation??) to magically summon a girl from another city by some sort of teleportation. I don't have a clue what that's supposed to mean. Evidently the 11th-century Sanscrit text Samarāńgana Sūtradhāra is the one that describes flying vehicles (called vyomacāri-vihańga yantra, ākāśagāmīdārumaya vimāna yantram and vāyu yantra) and other machines in ch. 31 -- which has inspired pseudoscientific nonsense about "mercury vortex engines" and "charged sheath vortex tornado fusion drives" (they sound like something from a bad anime!) and prehistoric airplanes. I'm going to try to find a good translation of this work. EDIT 3: The only Samarāńgana Sūtradhāra translation book I've found in a quick search of pretty much all nearby public libraries (we have an awesome local interlibrary loan system) is from 1966. That's probably more recent than anything professional that would have been posted online, but not as recent as I'd prefer. The advantage of this book is that it also discusses architecture and ships, which could be useful for buildings and historical units. Its usefulness in those regards will depend on the time period you want for the Indian faction.
  21. Well there's lots of Makara art, not just descriptions. If you really want an ambulocetid, instead of mixing the Makara with Maiacetus, how about giving it to the "Cro-Magnon" faction, since you're already giving them even older fossils such as marine reptiles? You said the Cro-Magnons need more naval myths, and then you can give Makaras and Jalebhas to the Indians. I searched for Makara images (be warned if you search, there's some internet porn under that name too ) and here are some good references: http://www.chiangmai1.com/chiang_mai/sub/n...nd_makara.shtml (horned Naga emerging from mouth of Makara) http://library.thinkquest.org/08aug/01219/Chnsmyth.html (several pictures, including a leopard-footed, crocodile-like full-body image) http://www.harekrsna.com/sun/features/10-07/features811.htm (2 or 3 Makaras (one might just be a fish) near bottom of page) http://www.sacred-destinations.com/sri-lanka/polonnaruwa.htm (Makara carvings, with "water" coming from their mouths) http://sites.google.com/site/kalyan97/_/rs...phs/makara8.jpg (full-body) http://www.call-of-the-sea.com/myths/images/makara_01.jpg (full-body fish-Makara) http://www.call-of-the-sea.com/myths/images/makara_02.gif (full-body Jalebha) http://www.ancientindia.co.uk/buddha/explore/pilo2_b5b.html (full-body) http://www.himalayan-imports.com/faq/carving.htm (full-body at bottom of page) http://www.rijksmuseum.nl/aria/aria_assets/AK-MAK-247? (head only) http://www.artknowledgenews.com/Rossi_Ross..._Himalayas.html (head only) http://www.nhb.gov.sg/www/top15.html (head only, Southeast Asian) http://nga.gov.au/CrescentMoon/details/makara.cfm (head only, Southeast Asian) http://www.ackland.org/art/collection/asian/87.50.html (head only, Thai) http://i821.photobucket.com/albums/zz140/s...llau/makara.jpg (head only, Javan) Also, random discovery, winged lions/leogryphs are called Singha Bersayap in some south or southeast Asian language -- I don't know which one. With elephants, I see what you mean -- if every other faction has them, they aren't so special anymore. It shouldn't be too hard to avoid overusing them if you stick with only giving them to cultures that historically used them (maybe plus the Cro-Magnons). I'm not an expert on military elephants (but somebody on the 0 A.D. team may be). I think only the Carthaginians, Persians, Indians, and some peoples of Southeast Asia (such as Thai and Cambodians) used elephants in war. Mechanically, the biggest differences between them could be size (Persians had the largest elephants, Indians had the smallest specimens), how they were used by their respective factions, and what sort of soldiers were put on top (spears or ranged weapons?). As far as I know the Egyptians and Semitic peoples (other than Carthaginians) did not use them. I don't know of any Semitic elephant god, but I'm no expert on their pantheon(s). I'll try to find information about Vimanas. I hadn't thought about balance, but since they're completely imaginary, hopefully there'd be some leeway for you to adjust their abilities. They would definitely have to belong to the last game phase, though.
  22. Ants going up cliffs... if it's possible to program, why not? I think Anancus are different enough from elephants that using them is still about as reasonable as a fictional "myth" unit gets. Unless you just don't want to have that many proboscidian cavalry units, period. I have heard of Vimana, but what I found about them on the internet is from pseudoscientific conspiracy types who claim that Vimana are evidence of UFOs, or of prehistoric airplanes armed with atomic bombs, or claim the ancient Egyptians had helicopters (and use photoshopped hieroglyphs to "prove" it). I don't trust the translations and interpretations of the original texts produced by such folks. I haven't seen anything trustworthy about them from a scholarly source interested in a faithful translation, so I don't know whether they're actually separate from the flying chariots employed by Hindu, Greek, Norse, Slavic, Baltic, etc. gods to get to and from Earth. I just haven't done the research. I can try to see if there's anything about them on JSTOR, and tell you if I find anything. But I'd stay away from teh internets about this topic... *shudder* EDIT: Since it seems you are set on it, may I ask why you want to avoid using the mythological Makara as a myth unit, and would rather use Ambulocetus instead?
  23. Making the gold-digging ant a combined economic/military unit is a good and interesting idea. I'm trying to find an Indian myth or artwork about it. I raised the orangutan issue just to point out that the Jungle Book movie can't be trusted. I know you didn't mention adding orangs. Vyali or Yala is an animal depicted in sculptures in India. The similar-looking Tukka-Tor and Kochasri are depicted in some Thai art. According to this website: http://www.khandro.net/mysterious_vyali_mukha.htm they can have the head of some other animal such as a horse or human. I don't have a clue how accurate this website is, though. I just found it while searching for Yala. The multi-headed Naga could still be used as a myth unit, and in fact, since Vritra was always an enemy of the gods, having him granted by the gods as an ally makes less sense then having them grant Nagas. The Naga can differ mechanically from the Hydra by not being so poisonous, and by being fully amphibious. I don't really think a serpent is less unique than a dragon, since I'm sure you're using other dragon myths. Nagas are also depicted with human torsos, and according to that website Varuna is their king (it also says that the word Naga is used for dragons as well, which surprises me): http://www.khandro.net/mysterious_naga.htm The crocodile and early whales do look similar, due to convergent evolution. The early whales evolved to fill a similar niche to the crocodile: living in shallow water, lying mostly submerged and ambushing prey that came to drink. Authentic/genuine Makara imagery combines the crocodile with other animals, for example they can have a fishtail, or a short trunk/proboscis on their nose, or horns, or a snake-like body with or without legs. That website also has Makara info, with some elephant-headed makara images: http://www.khandro.net/mysterious_makaras1.htm I suppose that if they have the rear end of a snake or crocodile, they can go on land (unlike the Jalebha). I don't think it's possible to use the Indus Valley civilization as a basis for anything remotely accurate, since their writing is undeciphered and the only things we know about their myths are a few hard-to-interpret pieces of art. They're like the Minoans: fertile ground for fiction and speculation, but very little definite information. The classical Hindus provide you with far more material to work with, and the gods you are using are already Hindu, as are most of your myth units. EDIT: Ants. I searched for info about the ants, and fortunately there was an Indian source for the Greek myth! Herodotus says that they are larger than foxes but smaller than dogs, and they are fast and dangerous. His story was apparently inspired by a phrase in the Mahabharata. The word pipilika ("ant-gold") is a metaphor for gold dust. In a 19th century translation of Book 2 I found a mention of gold that had been excavated by ants. There was no mention of the size of the ants, nor of their killing people or camels: http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m02/m02051.htm I think it's reasonable for them to be combat units in swarms, but I think their economic abilities should be much greater than their military prowess.
  24. I still think Cushna is a better myth unit than dholes. How many firebreathing dogs do you already have, that you're worried about them being unique? They can still be a siege-type unit... they'll burn down the wooden buildings! How much does the dhole really differ in flavor from dire wolves or cwn annwn or Celtic war hounds? Is the Cushna any less unique than the dhole? The ant just isn't authentic, and I wouldn't assume that the Jungle Book material is an authentic representation of the myths either. I mean, orangutans in India? Unless you can find a genuine Indian or Pakistani myth that you're sure the Greeks based their myth on, you just shouldn't use giant ants. I see what you mean about Re', though. If you're using Sakhmet or Bastet or Pakhet as a minor deity, she could have Eye of Re' instead. As for Re', I'm out of ideas at the moment. Meteors... I don't really know. You should research and find a deity that dealt with meteors. The Greeks seem to have considered them the same as lightning bolts, but actual lightning makes more sense for Zeus. The major way that Gandharvas differ from centaurs in appearance is that they only have two legs. You can give them bird legs or horse legs or human legs, but they only have two regardless of what they look like. Also, I'd switch them to Sarasvati and give the Python thingy to Parvati... although considering there are other snake and dragon myth units already, what about giving Parvati the Yala/Vyali? They're quite unique-looking. The Naga differ from dragons in appearance by having no legs and no wings, besides their multiple heads. The main Indian Dragon, Vritra, wasn't a Naga. For one thing, Nagas are benevolent and Vritra wasn't. Nagas are dragon-like, but they aren't the same as dragons. In my opinion, the Jalebha is quite the unique beast. It's a mer-elephant! As long as you don't make the Makara look too elephant-like, nothing is going to resemble it. And the Makara can further differ from it by having four legs and being amphibious. Anansi is Ashanti, not Soninke nor Malinke/Maninke or even Fula. Actually, it may be hard to find imperial Ghana deities, I don't know if they adopted writing before Islam. There may not be any records remaining about the pre-Muslim religion there, I don't know.
  25. Yeah, I know about Allah and YHWH being the same Supreme Being. Having Muhammed as a "god" is really weird, though, and doesn't really make sense, since Islam is very explicit that unlike Jesus, he's not considered divine at all. Rain? For Re'? That makes no sense. First off, it doesn't rain in Egypt... His power should be the Eye of Re, a fire spitting lioness-headed or cobra-headed goddess that destroys one or a few enemy unit(s) and then goes back to heaven. Anyway, you said you were giving rain to Indra, not Re', which makes far more sense. I like the Hindu pantheon so far, but I'd make a few myth unit changes: Agni: I'd use Cushna, a rabid, fire-breathing red dog. I don't know that the giant ants are even genuine Indian myth, I think the Greeks just *thought* they lived in India. Kali: Dholes are a real animal, and kind of boring for a myth unit for that reason. I'd give her the Rakshasas instead. Hanuman: He's just got to have actual Vanaras. Humanoid monkeys with weapons FTW! You can even make them ambidextrous and let them use their tail as a third hand. Parvati: Gandharvas don't really look like centaurs as far as I know, but they're fine as a myth unit. Rama and Varuna: Makara are more like mer-crocodiles, mer-antelope, and elephant-nosed crocodiles. They are a mount of Vishnu so I'd consider giving them to Rama instead of the Garuda. Another huge sea monster Varuna can have instead is the Timingila. Vishnu: I think he should have the Garuda instead of Rama. If you want it in multiples, I'd call it Suparna instead. Another option is to give Rama a Suparna, and make it basically a smaller and weaker version of Garuda (and with no arms, just feet and wings). Or, let Rama keep Garuda and give the Makara to Vishnu. Shiva: Nagas are not so much dragons as multi-headed river snakes. Other myth units you might consider, esp. for Krishna, Vishnu, and Rama: Leogryph (Harappan griffin with the head of a lion and the horns of a wild goat. Later Indian versions had no horns, but I like the horns personally. Persians can have this unit instead.) Horned Tiger (possibly a second myth unit for Durga?) Jalebha (a mer-elephant, probably a variety of Makara, could work for Varuna) One-Horned Bull (the Malaysians call it Sz, I don't think the Harappan name is known) Yali/Vyala/Sardula/Gaja Simha (lion with two or three goat horns, and the trunk or entire head of an elephant) Jala-Turaga (a hippocamp, if you aren't using it for the Greeks)
×
×
  • Create New...