Rodmar

A few ideas: Being Sea People, the trader ship could be used as light transport (and light military ship).Only one model of naval galley : a medium fast, though far slower than the classical triere.Shardanes'Sardinia and Canaanan cities had big (cyclopean) walls, like the Mycenaean. Maybe a late game technology would allow Sea People to build costly but sturdy walls.Why no archers? It could be a rare because costly unit and culturally despised, barely noticed in the Egyptian records and no match for the numerous Egyptian archer regiments, but every raiding vessel would have one or two (with flaming arrows?).

As regard to the fifth suggestion, I'd like a stance option available to archer formations (some civs only!, and pure archer formation?): "Pin them down" or "Area Interdiction" where a whole area is aimed with raining arrows. The archer would be as vulnerable as if ordered "Stand your ground" (I figure it takes time to abort this stance and start moving again as a formation).This stance would be available only to advanced?, elite and champion archer units. I figure that non eligible units in the formation wouldn't participate to the computing.The selection of this stance (or formation type?) would change the cursor into a target and the player would move this target in a roughly sectoral area defined by a min and max distance, and an angle counted from the direction the formation faces.The max distance would be lesser than the normal max distance. The area is not customizable, only placeable, although it would be a bit larger the larger the formation is. (The benefit from a large archer formation would be the "rain" density however.)Then, each archer would shoot N arrows consecutively (animations) and the total arrow number (known in advance by the engine) would be evenly affected a coordinate set in the sectoral zone. Or better, it would define an impact density, the same for the whole targeted area.After a mean delay (arrow flying to the target), each enemy (and allied) unit is checked against the impact density, possibly scoring more than one hit. Larger units have more chances to be hit (cavalry, siege). Special formations protect well against these volleys (and even tight formations should provide a slight protective bonus). The computing being a special case one, it would be possible to alter the piercing armor of all the units in the area (that would be normally used against aimed arrows) and then compensate it with a formation bonus. Other said, one can figure that a shielded unit not able to effectively use its shield against raining arrows (because engaged in mêlée, not trained, not in formation, etc.) would have a lower piercing armor for that computing only.After N individual shots or N volleys, the formation is dismissed or changes to "Stand your ground", and cannot use "Pin them down" again before a cool-down timer has expired. I don't know how to prevent a player from immediately re-ordering this attack. Maybe a temporary flag on each archer unit could prevent it to be grouped again or if grouped, to be counted in the impact density computing?

Did you look in the AoM direction, to (re)play some of its RPG mods? Also, for the RPG part, such RTS as Three Kingdoms and Spellforce did have major solo/reduced crew parts, powers/spells, etc.

Sorry, I was seeing the Saxons as a mini-faction of the main game, part 2 (naval raiders, and invaders of Britain). Of course, in 1000 A.D., they would be a full-fledged faction (Northern Germany)!

Indeed, I'd see many possible buildings, from Village to Town, or even City/Realm phases: houses, or would "villages" be build-able nearer from each other?farms, or maybe a complex farm+closed field for vegetables, as in New Guinea, Pascual Island, etc.corrals for pigs and poultry where/when available.a smith, for hard stone and mother of pearl technologies.a market place, maybe scarce (large distance between each other), the real but late place of power, the size of a village (in fact a very peculiar village). Resources exchanged there would be food and metal, metal being trinklets made out of native nuggets, useful hard stone (obsidian) and mother of pearl/ivory/bone. a religious center, to produce priests and (witch-)doctors, or as a wonder.Stone and metal mines would not be exploited but there would be a small income in bones from greater animals and whales, as well as small mother of pearl deposits on the beach. Not joking, this mini-mod could be an experimental testing box for all neolithic civ. that could interact with other Bronze, Iron or Middle Age ones (some Amerindians (the most advanced was Copper Age), Africans, Polynesians). I mean, at one time, they were not simple hunter-gatherers anymore.

Maybe those huscarls could be used for/derived from the Saxon mini-faction (only the model would differ?). I mean, once this unit is created and tested in one of the mod, the other could use and adapt it.

I'd wish to complement Wraitii's, Isdh's and Don's suggestions above. I understand that 0 A.D. is a RTS between AoE and SC. Given the well known premises of the genre, it doesn't pretend to simulate a whole civilization rise from Stone Age to Iron age, nor a tactical mission that takes a mere few hours or weeks to complete. Its scope is in the between. Alright there are technologies to buy, but it's the premise of the genre, as I said. Also, most of the ideas below don't add much "hated" micro-management, because many could be automated and even "invisible" to the player. And I don't mix micro-management (micro-action) for game-awareness (or meta-play?). So, Trees shouldn't regenerate. Not enough time in one game time-frame. Note that Spellforce, a kind of RTS had Elves grow trees to harvest wood and provide cover, but you could say that magic was used.As I suggested elsewhere, you could also quickly destroy trees (for a zero or small income) with citizen soldiers or even mercenaries/champions, to deny the enemy player from using it in the future and force him to buy wood in the market. I called it "scorched land" or "spoiled land" strategy, that was actual warfare.Berry bushes and fruit trees should regenerate. I wouldn't call taking care of that an superfluous micro-management, only a realistic implementation that would grant diversity to the food system. The rest is only a matter of game balance. Lower initial stock and constant slow regenerating rate (one unit at a time)? Periodic blooming (original stock appearing in a few seconds) simulating a harvesting time every several minutes? Needed technology (arboriculture) to simulate the evolution from the early neolithic gatherers?A counter-measure could be the destroying of such bushes/trees. While not productive (when food supply is null), those plants could be harvested to make wood, like normal trees. A security system would prevent the workers AI to harvest them while not micro-managed and ordered to. A second order could even be needed when the worker is on the spot, and the order would be forgotten when the current bush/tree is cut down and harvested.It would be possible to deprive the enemy player from a near future berry harvesting, and to harvest wood without a market when the last normal tree was chopped down and you still need a last batch of wood (what a desperate situation!). It would free space to build as currently.Mines shouldn't regenerate, but maybe, technology could emulate new veins finding or better mining techniques. This would partly refill the mine(s). You could imagine a "once for all" technology buy, or a "building-bound" upgrade buy (like in American Conquest), or both (the technology unlocking the individual upgrades). You could have such refilling technology periodically available (with cool-down) or only used once (or more if historical staggered technologies). Basically, technology and upgrades would cost much wood and some metal, food and time (virtual workers upgrading the mine).You could condition such civ. special like the Laurion Silver (Athenians) to the possession of at least one functional ore mine when the "technology" is bought (or a political decision is voted). Also, the mine object could stay even when depleted, just to add diversity to the landscape. It would be impassable terrain but you could build over it (deleting it).Why not, you could also have a very slow regenerating rate that would be enough for one worker (in upgraded rich mines) in the end game, abit in the same way depleted mines in American Conquest would still provide a small income. Even if good players wouldn't care this micromanagement, it would add some life in the towns...Why not, mines, even non depleted ones, could be permanently razed to deny the enemy player its income, or to build an important building when you lack space. Only workers units (citizen) (and siege units?) could hack it and that would take a lots of time, more than destroying a building anyways (you wouldn't destroy the mine buildings only, you would sap, fill, flood all the galleries (even if some could be open-sky).Corralled animals, while costing food (maybe only diminishing the food amount they provide on slaughter?) or land, should have an advantage over hunting. Granted current living horses decrease current cost of cavalry (or does the total number of corralled horses permanently decrease that cost?), and corralled animals are "stored" food resource you denied the enemy player from using it, you can capture and use at will (as in AoM). Should it have some effects, corralled animal could be used to lower the vegetable/meat ratio when hunting has depleted the area.Both corralled horses and sheep could have a chance to reproduce in the game time-frame. (elephants too?). This is obviously the historical reason why neolithic populations did corral animals.Corralled animals could grow larger/healthier and provide more food than hunting (like in AoM if I recall). This contradicts with the former proposal of a food upkeep but it could be seen as one of protein resources, should it be of value, again.Corralled animals or more precisely corral buildings with animal inside, would produce automatically a small food income (animal proteins as far as the ratio is concerned), simulating dairy products and young cattle meat (with no micro-management). This income could be a fix growing rate (the more animals captured, the larger the rate) or a slowly decreasing rate, regenerated each time a new animal is corralled.Fish: I like the non-linear regeneration, but over-fishing should be a danger. Maybe there is a way to add some diversity here too (granted, fishing is already a particular food resource management per self):Micro-managing could be mandatory, even with a non linear regeneration rate: after some time of over-fishing in a depleted spot (slowly regenerating, then), the spot could suddenly and permanently disappear.This kind of resources could eventually but still seldom appear during a game at random position but usually far from the lands (the coastal areas being first exploited). This could be a boon for a lucky player, and add some (welcomed?) randomness in well known maps.Should the food income from fish diminish the longer the fishing boat has to sail to the port, or do we consider salt as a well known and used food preservative (used on board)? Maybe a technology could (partly) alleviate the preservation problem?Farm fields, as it was said, should be larger proportionally to the other buildings and no overlapping with each other. Also, the number of workers should be limited (to be honest, I don't know whether it is already the case).Maybe a technology could allow to add one or more workers per field.I liked it very much the way time would be spent to "build" a field and wait for the first harvest (as in American Conquest).Most importantly, I'd like to see seasonal harvest, or simply field depletion and regeneration if you prefer, as in American Conquest. I don't see it as an unwanted micro-management, but as a core strategy for some civs. If you consider a game time-frame may exceed one year, then you need workers in the fields until harvest is completed. That's not the case in AoE, and even if AoE is the main source of inspiration for 0 A.D., that don't prevent from making the system better (as in more interesting or subtle). If you don't care about planned harvesting, then go for mercenaries and champions (who live out of the pile of food and the market). That would even make a real difference between them and elite citizen (I play with Alpha 13). Also when you destroy an enemy field, it may be only a minor drawback for a rich opponent, whereas it should cost a year of production in real life. The mere fighting in/on a field should damage it a little (think about those cavalry depredation during the spring and early summer).

About feudal system: Feudal system is a bit more complex than a chief and its serves, struggling face to chaos and neighbor chiefs. It's a whole pyramidal political system with the commoner at its base. I don't think the serf is a needed component of it as well as the other liberty privation, as long as the warrior class is fed, only a deviance of it, though a historical part of it. I mean that at its origin, it is not like what we figure to advent in a post-apocalyptic (nuclear, etc.) situation. About lead intoxication: I didn't recall the protective oxidation that occurs in immersed metals and that's true that the plumbing's noxious effect decreases with time. Also, when I say "theory" it is not to be taken as the sole cause's hypothesis, it is a theory about one of many causes. One such that could help and understand why in some critical cases an astounding decision was made. A bit like Napoleon the Third's stone. Lead intoxication is a bane that is fought even today, as they replace all the plumbing between the distribution network and the houses. Before mental disorder is clearly diagnosed, mental confusion, tiredness, general weakness occurs, and maybe well before your death in those early times. Sorry for my English and when I wrote "dishes", I wanted to say "plates", that is the recipients which you eat every day with. Not every citizen could afford metallic dishes plates, or an abusive use of the defrutum you mentions (thank you to have directed my curiosity to this direction), nor lived in modern ("leaded") cities, but we are talking about the elite and the senior, those who decided or didn't decide for the Empire's fate. http://corrosion-doctors.org/Elements-Toxic/Lead-history.htm Here an excellent link on the thematic of defrutum: how the Roman were aware from acute lead toxicity but failed to figure that it could have a low exposure effect too: http://www2.epa.gov/aboutepa/lead-poisoning-historical-perspective http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/wine/leadpoisoning.html And finally, the main source (a meta-search) for the "cons" : http://www.ajol.info/index.php/actat/article/viewFile/52570/41176 The "daily" lead consumption for some people and particularly the elite is ascertained but the argument against lead intoxication in the elite comes from two facts: although described as early as the 2nd century B.C., the chronic lead poisoning was first diagnosed in the 7th century A.D. (constipation, etc.);skeleton analysis has shown that one garrison city (Augsburg) had similar lead level as Rome, and that overall mean level of lead was 40% that of modern population (because of leaded gas).Although not a specialist, I allow myself and dismiss the first argument because one thing is to correctly link a syndrome to its cause, and another thing is to correctly link several symptoms into a syndrome. Also, they are considering lead clinical chronic poisoning, not a vague tiredness and apathy, and mental confusion, learning/concentration difficulties. The lead concentration in bones may be relatively "small", it is relevant, because I wouldn't explain Rome decadency by acute lead poisoning such as when a child ingests lead-based painted material, and bones don't keep the history of the poisoning, acute, chronic, low level, only of the total dose when you die. As regard to the second argument, well it is most disturbing, but as they themselves say, the sample was maybe too small. Also, how does it comes that wile lead use is fairly well documented and reported, the dose in the bones is so small, compared to modern automobile drivers who seem to not be affected? So my conclusion is that if lead is one of the cause of the Roman elite "bad" reactions to the invasions, it should be as a low-intensity chronic poison. Now, if defrutum and lead crockery were of wide use in Byzantium too, only big walls may have made the difference between it and Ravenna. That's your point, isn't it?

Walled monasteries, oppida and large castles did own farm(s) inside their defensive structure when affordable. It could be roughly equivalent to one farm field and one slowly regenerating berry bush/tree.Not enough to feed a full-pop besieged city for a year but enough to help when the corn had been stored in the granary, cattle protected and proper provisions had been made. Indeed, the "lower court" of a castle was akin to a farm (and a village) in many cases. In case you decide against AoE to put a minimal distance between the CC and the fields/farms, you could also let at least one field to be build near the CC and give one regenerating berry bush near it too.

A lot of things you think at in the same time! I'd complement your thoughts in recalling two-three things myself. It is quite ironically that it was in Gaul that some of the last defenders of the empire stood up.against the invader. They were no adventurer and his faithful legion, they were backed up by a "nation" of towns, that quickly understood however that Christian Franks would be the next best alternative the moment when they defeated this last Gaulish Emperor. Speaking about Rome's decadence and dark views, I can't wait more before I share this hypothesis that you can watch on Youtube about how the urban Romans could have been massively but perniciously intoxicated by the lead in their waterworks, dishes, etc. That could explain apathy, fatalism and some case of ascertained madness, and why the barbarian seemed more wealthy and willy. Also what is basically the feudal system? Simply the best system to pacify a vast territory when you have no money to keep a large peace force. When you can't pay legions nor even barbarian mercenaries, when your kingdom grew so large that you can't defend it "against" the willingness of its inhabitants, you loan your land to able local warriors. Maybe it is a tribute to a German state of mind but the same occurred in Japan before the shogunate. Every times a feudal system emerged, it wasn't because of chaos, and selfish petty warlords, it was because the landowner (the king) decided to "decentralize" its kingdom's defense precisely to avoid chaos.

@Romulous: First paragraph: Fine, you've just said what I was basically saying in my last posts: no Vikings in Normandy in the 11th century besides the last immigrants in some immigration spots. Even the Nordic language was left aside in very few generations because of the diverse origin of the Norsemen (not always easily inter-understandable), and because those folk decided to make their life here amongst the other inhabitants. As a result, except in the nautical domain, where almost all the lexicon is from Norse origin, barely 150 words in anglo-normand come from the North (on the same level with words of Gaulish origin). On the other hand, the impact was much larger in the onomastics (in Britany as well). So no Groenland in Normandy; that was to answer to those who were seemingly seeing the Normand as a Viking sub-faction. Also, I wrote "there were Vikings settled..." and not "they [the Normands] were Vikings settled...". Second paragraph: Roman Gaul was one of the granary of the Empire and I wouldn't call this a depopulated area. Maybe Caesar killed a few tenth of thousands warriors and tribesmen, and some vanquished tribes "disappeared" politically (with their main city razed), but at worst, they only had one or two generation of warriors vanished. Even if not able to do otherwise (no more army), the elite and the townsfolk willingly adopted the Roman model, trading independence for three centuries of peace and commercial opportunities at the only cost of paying taxes, and following the Imperial cult. The rest was already on the trails, see the romanized southern Gaul before their eyes, and the Greek influence in southern and central Gaul even before that. You call it a "de-culturation", but it could merely be a "turn of society": they wouldn't be culture-less, indeed they had a new culture made out from old components: Gallo-Roman. Culture-wise, I'm sure that they were still more Celt than those Celtic people nowadays! Especially in the countryside. Back to the Normands : they were not the invader who replace a vanished population, you are right, but it was even much more complex and interactive as they didn't impose more than what a ruling class wish to impose: some laws and customs that are acknowledged and make it easy to rule. You could say that the settlers (Nordic farmers and craftsmen, plus the raiders) were shallowed by the local population too. For instance, the "danish marriage" (the second bed danish tradition)... Guillaume the _Bast_ard_ (the Conqueror) was seemingly the last of his kin to be a heir from a second bed in Normandy (and of course, the Normans knew that old tradition, only the Church and the rivals _the French Kingdom_ would despise this). After him, only heirs from the first (or only) bed are found.

However, they did not adopt the oriental religion. They kept with what could be called a pre-Hellene indo-european pantheon. Like other people in the area, their alphabet was derived from the Greek and not directly from the Phoenician. Of note is also the fact that both the Roman and the Greek were scandalized by the the way upper class women could lay on the same dining bed than their mate, and worst, attend to the "Gymnasium" and other sport places. "Etrusca" was synonymous to @#$% in the Republic. [Edit] I like it very much when the filter translates _who***!

It seems that the current theory has widened the scheme. 1°) It's true that Greek and Etruscan saw each other as "cousin" (the Greek didn't call them "barbaroi"). This was because they were thought as originating from Lydia (and the Anatolian were not barbarian to the Greeks (cf. Troian, etc)). But this theory is now obsolete and only the aristocratic caste is thought to be of oriental ascend. 2°) One of the People of the Sea has landed in now Toscany (the Tyrrhenoi/Tursennoi/Tršw); 3°) They somehow merged with the local Villanova culture, as archaeological evidences show; 4°) In fact, Villanova is the correct name for Bronze Age Etruscans. 5°) Culturally wise, the Etruscan have been influenced by both the Phoenician and Greek cultures, the oriental period coinciding with the arrival of the Tyrrhenoi. http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terramare http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_de_Villanova 6°) If you go for Etruscans in Aristeia, so should you for early Romans and Dorian Greeks too (no more Mycenians). For those who want a translation (all the sources of this wiki page are Italian books): The Villanovian culture is defined at first by the space where Etruria is already shaped at the beginning of the 1st millenium B.C. (a larger Toscany). This culture, neolithic at first, will eventually correspond to an unique ethnicity that will acquire metallurgy knowledge, iron metallurgy included. Characteristics:Their main archaeological characteristic is the incineration of the death, stored in biconic urns: the similarity with the ritual of the "Urns fields" culture (Danubian plain) lead some historians to link the Villanovian with these peoples. The Villanovians knew iron metallurgy: the ore came from the nearby Elba island. The Greek too knew these deposites and called the island Αἰθαλία / Aithalia. The Villanovians lived in oval, sometimes rectangular, hut villages. They used iron weapons and bronze helmets, cuirasses and quality domestic items. The motives in art were geometrical and the manly face/shape was extremely stylized. Pottery was turned by hand, then by a turn, and was quite original, though influenced by the Greek forms. They appear as sedentary, farmers, herders and warriors (spears, swords, shields, daggers from the rich graves). Women seem to not have been excluded from high social rank or great riches. In spite of a several centuries discontinuity, the Terramare culture may have contributed to the Villanovian culture. Indeed, the remarkable drainage, dikes, canals, and sewerage technologies used by the Villanovian then Etruscan strongly suggest an origin from those Padavian riverside villages. Origins:Villanovians' ancestors may have emigrated from the Black Sea area during the last three centuries of the second millenium B.C. in several waves. As such they are part of the Proto-Celts ("before the Celts"), not unlike other Mediterranean peoples such as Ligurian, Iberian, and Italian. But they were not the first to settle in the area. For instance, we know that Sardinia is inhabited since the 7th millenium B.C. by non Indo-Europeans, a long time before the Shardans (a Sea People) came. Another exemple is the Terramarecoli or People of the Terramare in northern and central Italia. Italian Bronze Age:During Bronze Age, the Italian peninsula was culturally remarkably homogeneous (same pottery, same funerary rituals). However, tumuli are found in southern Italia, likely showing much influence with the Mycenian and Sardinians worlds. The general cypro-mycenian area extended at that time westward to Sardinia and southern Italia. In the north, the Terramare culture may have diffused southward to influence/form the Villanova culture. Early Iron Age:At the beginning of Iron Age, the Villanovian culture expands in all the peninsula. However, evidences are particularly dense on a territory a bit larger that modern Toscany. In this region, the density and remnance of human population are remarkable. Archeological sites are not far away to each other for more than 5 to 15 km. The land shows evidences of a rational and systematic exploitation, as if a vast colonization had been in the process from the 9th century on, and achieved in merely two or three generations. By the end of this process, the landscape is made of many villages of equal size: they house small agrarian communities, and they are the surest hints of a relatively egalitarian society. Beginning of the Etruscan civilization:Then, aristocracy emerged because of a new socio-cultural organization, starting with the new "nuclear family" which replaced the older agrarian community, and with it: the pater familias and the heredium. This is a common evolution in the proto-historic societies, and when you start saying heritage, you can say large heritage and then aristo (plouto)-cracy. This new order would replace the archaic Villanovian society. Roman authors described well this system. From now on, there would be: a king and the people, a base of citizen to recruit infantry, a cast of cavalrymen, elder councils, persons of note and citizen owing them service, nuclear family and larger groups bound by consanguinity and other kinds of relationships. rex / king; populus /people; curiæ / men society, where infantry are recruited from; tribus / tribes, where cavalry are recruited from; patres / elder councils; clientes / citizen owing service to patroni; familiæ / nuclear family; gentes / groups bound by consanguinity and other kinds of relationship. At the same time, in the 9th century B.C., but maybe as early as two or three centuries before (the Sea People are circa 12th century B.C.), small groups of Tyrrhenoi kept coming from the sea in the Villanovian space. These newcomers, small in number (compared to the high density population) merged in the societies they found, without much violence (no evidence of burned villages nor stopping in the on-course colonization Villanovian process). The coming of the Tyrrhenoi marked what the archaeologists call the "oriental period" of the Etruscan civilization. They were indeed not irrelevant to a newborn aristocracy which was at first the only people to use the writing (so far unknown in Etruria). The genetic analysis of remnants in aristocratic graves (7th-2nd centuries B.C.) shows a homogeneous and "Anatolian" origin, that is infirmed by analysis on modern day old Toscanian families, maybe an evidence of a partly exogenous (and not yet mixed) aristocratic caste. Note that the Greek called the Etruscans: Tyrrhenoi and that they traced them either from Lydia (Anatolia) (Herodote) or the island of Lemnos (another island called Aithalia) in the Ægean Sea. Another noticeable foreign influence, at the same time, was the coming of the Phoenician in Western Mediterranean. Those merchants settled in Nora (SW Sardinia) as early as the 9th century and the Etruscan engaged close trading relationship with them. The oriental period: c. 720 B.C. - 580 B.C.The "oriental period" is dated through archaeological material. During this period, the Etruscan were artistically influenced by the Greek (beginning of figurative art). At the same time, the fight against Rome started. The archaic period: c. 600 B.C. - 480 B.C.The Etruscan society became more structured and commercial and cultural exchanges were important. In particular, the painting developed dramatically. Greek pottery were imported. Rome became a republic. In 535 B.C., the Carthagino-Etruscan alliance defeated the Phocean for the control of Western Mediterranean. At the end of the 6th century B.C., the Etruscan expansion was at its greatest, from the Padavian valley north to Campania south. But already, Rome and then the Latin had liberated from the Etrurian subjugation (509 - 506 B.C.), isolating the southern lands from Etruria proper, and soon in the beginning of the 5th century, the Gauls destroyed all the Padavian cities. The classical period: c. 470 B.C. - 350 B.C.In the 5th century B.C., the Etruscan society endured important political and military crisis and the art (archaeological) production decreased. Greek pottery were imported. During this period, the Etruscan allied the Carthaginian against the Greek. Véies was destroyed by Rome which dominated meridional Etruria, and Rome was sacked by the Gaul. The hellenistic period: c. 340 B.C. - 100 B.C.The romanization began progressively. In 295 B.C., they knew their last great defeat in the Social War and in 264 B.C., their religious center, Velzna, was captured. In the 1st century B.C., the acculturated Etruscan had lost political power but their cultural traits had been assimilated by the Roman. They helped the Roman against Hannibal.

I believe you have to decide once and for all whether you want a faction that depict the raiding Vikings only or a faction that depict all the late Antiquity/Middle Age Scandinavian peoples too.

I see. In case the mod goes until 1500 A.D., sure the Normands are in the time frame, but for how many centuries? From the 11th century to the end of the latin kingdoms in Near Orient? How to differentiate them from other "Franks"? I think that in the 9th and the first half of the 10th century, there were Vikings settled or based in some places of western "France". But at the time of Guillaume the @#$%, those Nordmen had became Normands in quite large areas of former Armorica and had nothing to do with the Norwegians the Anglo-saxons were fighting at the same time. Except for the last settlers, they were a christian, feodal, upper and middle class speaking a romane language, focused toward the anglo-saxon crown, not the Danelaws nor the Scandinavian kingdoms.

Hello, I'd like to know whether a worker (a miner/lumberer/hunter/herder/farmer) that has been ordered to build a structure is as efficient as when he is completely unloaded?

I'd think that the Normans have not their place in 1000 A.D. For the last two centuries in the millenium, the future duchy witnessed Viking raids and settlement and then a nordic immigration. But Normandy, as a political and cultural entity revealed itself during the 11st century, when the duchy was "reunited". By this time, in less than 10 generations, it had nothing more in common with a Viking raiding and wintering base. Many Norsemen had came to settle in some parts of now Normandy (Danes, Norwegians and Danelaws), mostly the coastal area and the Cotentin foreland, and made a transition between the nordic Antiquity and the western High Middle Age. Other language, other religion, exogamy with frankish-gallic-romane people : a brand new and original culture.

1°) I guess this war trance state is not far away from that depicted in the Irish Epic (also see the Celtic naked fanatic). From the material already shared here : 2°) Norsemen were not nomads! (Is this mod to play naval raids only or to play warfare around the Baltic Sea too? 3°) A "viking" town was like any other town at this latitude, in a agro-herder culture, but with maybe less stone and more wood. There were also royal forts in Danemark, garrisoned with professional royal soldiers.

or two whirling one-handed axes? It's even more aggressive! (The pole-axe is slower and quite defensive too)

At first I thought you were speaking about Roman cavalry masks.

I think that the problem with this mod's Northerners and mainstream Germans is that they could bear more than one main weapon depending on the situation. From your sources, I see only three possible units: - the huskarl/retinue/professional warrior; - the landowner/farmer/levy; - the bower (same as above, but more specialized and trained). And the cost of the armament: shield < chop axe < war axe < spear < sword. Only rich landowners would have two weapons (sword+sax f.e.), mail shirt and spare shields. Basic shield would not endure many blows. The huskarl would be a champion, heavy infantry unit. spectacle-helm with its hauberk (protection of the neck and shoulders), mail shirt, reinforced shield, spear and sword (or axe). The levy would be the citizen-soldier, a medium/heavy infantry. Basic: fur/leather hat, cloth, simple shield (wooden planks), chop axe. Advanced: iron spangenhelm with nasal, padded cloth, simple shield, spear or war axe. Elite: iron spangenhelm (or bowl helm) with its mail hauberk, reinforced shield (linen, metal strips...), possibly mail shirt (?), sword. The bowman would be the same as the levy (citizen) but with a bow and possibly at elite grade, a sax (and a decent mêlée hack damage). Now, this lets apart the light spear throwers and the two handed spear bringers (without a shield), but it seems they were more "situational" fighters than specialized units.

You are right, it would be only cosmetic. To be precise, this kind of animated model would be a half-mesure between an visually empty fortification and a "terrain" fortification where normal, non-resized, garrisoned units would go and fight with bonus. It would be an alternative to a tower "with a flag on top", however much costlier to program. So, no elephants, no riders, no champions, no civilians. Only pre-determined defenders based on the civ. For the Roman, archers, sentries and pila throwers on the walls and maybe a ballista on upgraded stone towers, for instance. Maybe such fortification parts could be described as objects like "formations". Going near a garrisoned enemy fortification would create an instance of such "formations" depending on the health of the structure (when at detection range). To decrease the computing load, a wall would appear manned only if flanked by a garrisoned tower. When the attack is over, the "formation" would be dismissed.

I read that it is not possible to have units on top of manned defensive buildings. Instead, would it be possible to have a second set of building "sprites" displayed when they are garrisoned so that "virtual" defenders would appear on top of them (actually part of the animated sprites) when they are attacked (or even a sentry or a night-watch in the other case)? Not unlike in Rise of Legends.

Plundering could be a function of the distance to the longboat. No longboat nearby, no or less plundering. This might encourage to launch river raids (where maps offer such opportunities). Furthermore, I know that mobile dropsite are scheduled for nomadic civs, but what about having longboat not really like normal dropsite, but like "max capacity" dropsite, to force the player to put an end to the raid and to row/sail back to his base in order to unload the boat? This max capacity could be important but I mean, the side effect of letting a few citizen exploit the woods on an isolated island for the duration of the game, without founding a colony, is odd, isn't it?

My bad!