Rodmar

Have you seen this recent Canadian TV movie? Although the first list is said to be original version, I'm not sure whether it is really in English. Sometimes you'll get French subtitles (VOSTFR) or plain French version (VF). There seems to be broken links as well (I did,'t check all of them). May it inspire you!

The level 1 javelineer is not a javelineer; he's got a spear!

Defensive works A new wall tech to account for traps and ditches ahead of the palisade/wall. If possible, the mêlée units would be slowed a few meters from the wall (structure cross-section x2-3?) to allow the defenders (both real and virtual) to score more hits. Or, "simply" add another small range piercing attack to every and each wall/palisade section, with possible multipliers against cavalry.

I didn't play AoE3. The "colonist" would be like a trader caravan: only one unit to handle until you decide to build a structure (CC, marketplace?). It would be different from the Europa Universalis 2 colonist in that the structure wouldn't build itself, but the normal way because the colonist has changed into a group of citizen workers. Currently, you have to group those citizen and have them move together by land or by ship. Now, my point is only that in the case a nomadic civ. is given a mobile nomad CC which has to move to a new location in order to redeploy (ox cart?), why not give some other civ. quite the equivalent to depict their historical trend to colonize. The difference could be that a nomad CC only needs resources to re-deploy (or to put down and pack), whereas a "colonist (CC) unit" would cost the colonists price too (and those citizens would add to the total pop as soon as the colonist is bought, long before they even pop out at the building site.). Of course, this unit's purpose would be to make it easier to expand, thus being more handy, less costly, or faster, ... as compared to other sedentary civs (not to nomadic civs). By marketplace I was thinking about the same building as currently available, where you can buy resources and earn benefit from trading caravans, except that for these civs, they could be built in neutral or even enemy territory, to reflect the capacity to deal with locals even without controlling the area. But it was answered in another thread that multiplying the stopping places (caravan seraglio, trading post) or forcing artificially long trading routes (around the map) was not efficient, economically.

If foundations have no vision range, nor path blocking and are invisible, they are fine. Now, what's about half-built buildings? What's about the "optimal" case? I mean, isn't there really any exploit situation when it is still efficient to "half" build a structure or let a structure half built, instead of building (or half building) walls or palisades, either to wall a village up, to buy fortress/tower complex enough time to damage the attacker, or those extra seconds needed to recruit the next defenders squad, or simply to provoke the AI into a premature attack? It's one thing to cleverly devise one's base, with chock points, etc, it's another one to exploit the building system into buying a few second at no great cost while acting oddly (history/military-wise). Of course it depends on the dumbness of the AI, but you see, I was "traumatized" by the "bunker+supply depot+repairer" cheap and efficient tactic in SC1. There is always an optimal case; it stops being a meaningful exploit when it is worthless or too risky. So, if starting a large construction (no wall) a few seconds before the scouted enemy infantry comes can't protect a tower/ archer squad for long, its fine too.

Imo, maximal distance between CC for all civ. save nomads would be quite a-historical. It's true that some civ. aren't known for their expansionism but other could found colonies overseas! Also, most the "nomadic" civ. in this game will be either semi-nomadic (i.e. sedentary relocating after resources are depleted), migrating and looking for returning to their prior way of life whenever given the opportunity (i.e. an empty (rich) land) or war parties (as if the Roman would only build camps and tents). No grazer herders I mean, nor seasonal nomads (except some Samartians and the Huns??). Also in a rich land, (semi-)nomads could well travel only a day or two from their former camp. But your idea maybe could be developed into fixing minimal and maximal distances between CC, according to each civ. background.The most urbanized civ. would have greater minimal distances, colonial maritime powers would have the greatest maximal distances if most of the travel is by sea, nomadic people would have the greatest maximal distance if most of the travel is by land. If possible, the distances would depend on the terrain: a mountain range would reduce the minimal and maximal distances, ... and this would alleviate your issue concern. Another idea is that some colonial civs would have a similar feature: their CC could buy a "colonist" unit that would transform on the spot into workers.Say that it would transform into 15 full health citizen units: 5 women, 5 citizen-soldiers type 1, 5 citizen-soldiers type 2 (on the building list). Pro: easier to protect, easier to manage, temporary bonus to build the CC or this CC slightly cheaper??, quicker to produce ? Con: easier to destroy if not escorted, slower (?), slightly more expansive than the sum of the individual citizen costs. Maybe it could be a trade-off between building time and initial cost : you pay more, you wait more, but the CC is build faster. As a possible option, this "colonist" would only build near open water (maybe, it must settle and start building within a certain range of the landing point (sea colonies). Also, you say It makes me think nomads could have the option to construct a market place instead of a CC and for a lesser price. It would also act as deposit building. Could the use of it help and build an economy in a poor land when the enemy is absent or not so aggressive? A network of marketplaces with patrolled trade routes by the military would be more realistic than a network of CC to represent a mid-game nomadic civ. (less territorial expansion needed). This feature could then be extended to some colonial/trading powers : I mean the trading posts of Europa Universalis 2.

The foundations act as obstacles aren't they? The rich shouldn't be able to purposely divert/delay the AI with walls of "no to be completed" building foundations for free.

Actually, the next article complements the first one: http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__86a.html If a choice is being directed by lobbies rather than by legal threats (the court being able to "adapt" the law to the context), then you could have a look at other lobbies such as the Hindus (a campaign to make Europeans understand that they can reject in block their symbolism).

Maybe, exploiting resources in a neutral territory (fishing, hunting, mining), and even "controlling" it with frequent patrols and moving troops, could allow your contiguous territory to slowly spread there. But at the same time, this new gained terrain would be more vulnerable to normal enemy territorial expansion. After all, you actually possess a terrain when you exploit it, not when you inhabit in it. This added expansion mechanism would be kept marginal however, but it could provide the small hand to build another building where you couldn't if you weren't so "aggressive" in the area. It would take a "hidden" second territory computing (with another criteria, based of the amount of resources collected, transported there) maybe made for whole chunk of land (and not for each "hex"), and a check. As a side effect, a grain field crossing the boundary wouldn't suffer from attrition (i'm not sure if this the case, but in my alpha version (14?), normal building suffer from attrition when they are build across a boundary, whereas they were marked as build-able).

About dismounting and mounting. I understand elephants as mobile garrisoned towers, so it is not a problem they aren't handle the same as chariot and horses. But I believe some historical tactics could be possibly implemented without adding any micro-management. However, it would be at the cost of (tons of) extra animation. - Some Briton noble warriors, not unlike the Achaean heroes in the Iliad before them, would use the chariot to display, retreat, pursue or and simply move from one point to another on the battle field, and as a casting platform for javelins. However, they would join the scuffle by foot, while the servant/driver would stay ready in the rear. - Caesar reports the Ariovistus's cavalry to have two peculiar behaviour. Firstly, some would jump at an enemy rider to dismount him and go on fighting as an infantry, while his small horse was trained to stay still nearby. Secondly, some other would choose reliable (light!) infantrymen to run beside them, clutching the horse's mane. When the mêlée is joined, the horseman would dismount and fight like an infantryman, while the chosen one stay in the rear with the horse. - Some Gauls are reported to aim at the horses'chest to dismount its rider. It was maybe a common tactic when disabling the enemy cavalry was critical (as compared to the potential captured horses' value). As I see things, a dismounted rider ordered to move or to move and attack, would try and disengage melee and reach his horse/chariot in order to move to the new location. Doing so would automatically reload his javelin stockpile and and maybe slightly heal the unit (above the new attribute switch). It would be the main difference between such a cavalry and true "chargers": they would be more clumsy . when going to mêlée, they would possibly have one "charge" attack and then would separate into two units: warrior and (guarded) mount, or one unit and one "dumb" sprite. If those situations were made playable: - the battlefield could be possibly more cluttered; - the extra animations could hamper the game flow; - this "hobelar" feature would allow to differentiate between true "chargers", lancers/companions, and other cavalry types. - a question should be addressed: is only the rider selectable, or the guarded/still mount too? - the mechanism could be extended to various existing situations, such as horses panicking and dismounting their rider in front of elephant, even camels and wall of spears (not the same chances however), and even simple cavalry melee fight (especially spearmen); - those dismounted warriors (either through will, or the battle's odds) could have two sets of attributes (armor, hp, speed, attack, weapon type, ...), and even, have lost some of their new hp pool because of the dismounting attack, when applicable. - this could allow to introduce a hidden horse riding skill/technology to differentiate different cultures' cavalries better (not only hp, armor and attack): horse training and morale, horse armor, saddle/no saddle, "tall" horse/"poney", stirrups? This skill would only modify the small chance to dismount/be dismounted. Now, however the hobilars' usefulness is obvious on rugged terrain and real size campaign (thrice the speed of the footmen), is this feature really worth on small tactical maps?

No far at all from my own try in the Minifactions topic! Just add priestess, woman, and naval transport.

Sapping was not Hebrews'privilege. Also, the speculation in the video is both simple and elegant (diversion and infiltration).

I still feel like we (they) should cross as many archaeological and textual sources as possible before taking for certain they fought in tunic and shield. Granted, even with greaves missing, the shield wall would be still there, but after first contact, even supermen would have been left so vulnerable to spear thrusts aimed at the high and low wall defects (hoplons not overlapping on their full height). Furthermore, in the late classical period, Hellenes had developed light ranged infantry and swordsmen, as it seems. Or maybe, maybe, one old-fashion-minded elite/parade battalion showing along with a majority of armored Lacedemonians.

Are you sure should take catapults onboard ? They were quite frail, and not the dreadnoughts at Acteum. In my opinion, only the heaviest class of warship, and only Roman/Carthaginian/Phoenician (Persian)/Ptolemaic (Hellenistic?) navy could.

As a contributor here, I feel a bit guilty. I wouldn't mind if a moderator start a topic "About formations" and move the following posts there : #2306 - #2309 #2312 #2330 - #2331 (or delete them) #2332 - #2334 #2336 - #2343 #2345 - #2364 (possibly delete some in the end) What do you think ?

You mean this Haltern ? I agree there are more than just wooden houses, but I was talking about the German !

Where is this picture of a c 346 B.C. hoplite with a pilos helmet and a bell cuirass? All right ! I wasn't clear. The "nude" hoplite was that 346 B.C. one in red dress, not the funny "nude and brass" one in 546 B.C.

I'd say that it wasn't the same placement : Both were outnumbered (as far as infantry is concerned) Hannibal weakened its center for a purpose : to minimize his unavoidable losses when the two armies would meet. Miltiades weakened its center because he had no choice. It was just unthinkable for a phalanx to have a tighter front than the enemy.Hannibal widened its front line to best the Roman compact order of battle, so that if they wouldn't change their tactics and keep on marching they would be outflanked by him. It's really like paper and rock.Miltiades only "widened" its front line in order to match the same length Persian front. Should he had more troops, we are not sure at all he would have left his center so vulnerable.Hannibal managed to provoke the Roman, to contact them on just about their front line's length (quite tight because they were in deep formations), and to keep fighting while having the fight naturally withdrawing. Maybe he took dispositions to ensure that the Gauls wouldn't rout (a second "MP" line ?). When the rest of the "center", quite static and still in good shape would engage the Roman flanks, it would be too late for the Roman to avoid the trap. You see that it is not simply "surround and charge" ; it is "let them fight with only the first row of the first manipules all the time we trap them". This had a cost : 75% of Hannibal losses were the Gauls at the center.Miltiades managed to not be outflanked by the Persians and to minimize his loss to the arrows. After the initial clash, his (deep) flanks routed the enemy, while its center was not so successful. Something more "classical" for the Greek phalanx used in trying and outflank the enemy phalanx by its right. The difference here was they were not opposed by another phalanx, but by light troops, maybe not well coordinated (many levied contingents) and quite astonished by the Greeks' insolence. As for the eventual Immortals, they were no match against an unbroken shield and spear wall.

Two remarks : The nude Spartan (citizen): I don't know how a warrior (even such a brave and trained one as the homoios) could realistically form the phalanx and go to a fearful spear melee with only shield and helmet. Also, the Spartan hoplites on Sphacteria are reported as heavy infantry not being able to outrun the enemy peltast on rough ground despite their training : was it only due to their shield ? The thorax could have not been such an inefficient protection, but rather quite a technological innovation specially designed as a trade-off between mobility and protection against arrows and slash, and raw protection against powerful spear thrust, granted to a multilayered and lamellar structure not unlike the medieval platemail, that is : multilayered and padded vegetal fibers, reinforced with one or two layers of small metallic (or beewax hardened leather) plates sandwiched inside the fabric. The armor was lighter, more supple and more versatile, yet maybe not able to deflect powerful thrusting blows. Also, the problem with such sophisticated armor as platemails, chainmails, etc., is that repeated blows end in separating or "un-mailing" the small protective parts (plates, rings, scales), and the warrior ends up with virtually little more, in such battered spots, than a weared padded cloth armor.

Nice list, but you forgot the campaign before Teutoburg! They even built towns! No great battles, because the Germans were less populous, less organized and not unified at all ; no siege because there probably wasn't any town to besiege. No glory to win for the Emperor, except pacification. So, just call it a "Campaign to Germania Magna" or "Campaign for the Weser and the Elbe" or : Early Occupation of Germania 12 B.C. - 2 B.C.* (Drusus, Tiberus, Ahenobarbus) * defeat of the Hermunduri, or 3 A.D., before Tiberus' return to Germania. This really makes me think we should have at least a Germanic sub-faction for period 1 (one century of intermittent wars). For period 2, imo, the major problem is that there are no town to build: only 100-pop villages, or smaller, and war/migrant parties. We ought to be very imaginative to devise the building and the economy! When barbarian kingdoms are established and for lette peoples, i.e. quite late in the period 2, we have... (Gallo-)Roman towns for them to use or reuse, and traditional Germanic farms. I really think it is even more a nightmare than as if you would try and implement Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) sedentary peoples : hut, house, farmstead, noble house, forge, shaman's hut, dock?

Naval combat : ramming would be great (a "charge" attack). Ramming would deal massive damage, and immobilize both ships (with a possible small drift due to momentum) but the attacker would get stuck to its target and start sustain (and deal) continuous melee damage until the player actively orders the ship to move somewhere else (or attack something else). At that time, with a nice "row backward" animation, the target would sustain even greater damage, likely transforming the target into a wreck (depending of its hp pool). The target would be granted some seconds to retaliate or range attack other ships. As ramming could occur only from given angles of attack, a directional vector should be associated to each ship (maybe it is already the case)."go for oars" would be another "charge" attack coming from a different angle (parallel (0°) to 20°?). That means too that ships would have a vector attached to them. This attack would not damage the ship, but cost most of its movement points and prevent it to spin around in one way!the basic melee (boarding) and range (arrows, fire arrows, siege weapons) attack. Going to melee without prior ramming would lead to a side by side approach and allow to capture the enemy ship when a given level (X%) of its hp is left.whenever enough fire damage (fire arrows, fire catapults, flame throwers) is sustained, a ship is tagged as non- size-able (and you could add some flame effects to show this). The same for any rammed ship, and something should be decided for ships left without oars.

Concerning Cannae, you are right, but as a side note, I read on several docs that Hannibal might use to be liberal with the life of his auxiliaries, especially the Celts, and amongst them the Italian Celts. He would rather spare the African, the specialized troops and even the Iberian footmen. The death toll of the Celts was awesome. Granted, their indiscipline (proneness to engage the enemy), the way they fought (poor protections at that time ?), ..., didn't count for nought in the result, but Hannibal knew it too, and used it. I'm not sure modern strategists would acknowledge having dispensable units as a normal way to make war. As for Marathon, some historians temperate the speculation (we only have speculations for such battle details) of others, only modern strategists would have thought. Allow me to paraphrase them, but I'm certainly not trying to teach you (and the wiki link is in French anyways.) Yes, I know those battles are studied in the military schools, etc. They help to understand the concepts, but calling them "pincer movement" seems a bit anachronistic. Although not being a military expert, I'd think "movement" as being more the characteristic of light and mounted troops, and of manipular formations (the Roman legions). I still think that it was more a forecast and brilliant anticipation and placement, than actual dynamic reaction to a battle situation, however his troops might have been more mobile than Miltiades' phalanxes. In short, in a RTS, that wouldn't translate into a special unit formation, rather into formations placement, and then some clicking, providing the formations don't break and you can select them quickly. As you can see on the picture above, they are still blues boxes, not curved formations. I fear that this kind of battle could only be replayed ever when 0 A.D. can handle "meta-formations". I barely remember an AoE map for Marathon, but I wasn't impressed by the simulation (no formations with AoE, btw). It's the same for the "echelon" meta-formation : how could you organize a 30-men squad into an echelon ? You have to select several square or phalanxes formations to do that. Would it be possible to have "formations of formations" ? I guess this would only be meaningful when we can have that many soldiers on the battle field.

Yes but... these were not concave formations, but concave evolutions of an initial flat formation. Actually, Hannibal formation was even slightly convex to better lure and "suck up" the Romans center into his trap. And according to a documentary, Miltiades' phalanxes did rather evolve into a double echelon (a "\_/") when the center retreated before the wings could turn 90°, rather than two lateral and mobile pincers only a more supple unit formation may achieve (like cavalry). Maybe these tactical deployments (strong wings) may be used in a RTS, but the dynamic of the battle would only be achieved with "select and click" and micro-managing. I mean, a concave formation right at the beginning would immediately be recognized as a trap. Also, in a RTS, we have bird view, so that most of those ancient tricks can't happen (screened troops, dust clouds, dazzling sun). That said, without minimal micro-management, I wonder whether a "OoO" confronting a "oOo" could evolve into such a trap, given the AI.

Good question. A sub-faction is worth as long as it bears enough cultural (even if only cosmetic such as the garbs) and military differences with the mother/mainstream faction. The Galatians are a raiding party originated from Gaul (either Cis- or Trans-Alpine, or both) and the difference between them and Caesar's Gauls is their century of existence. As such they should be less advanced (fighting nake or with solid cuirass). But 0 A.D. decided to have the same civ. for several centuries (like the other games). The Galatians in the 3nd century B.C. are just like the Celts in 3nd century Gaul. Likewise, the Cimbri in Italy are like the Cimbri in Jutland 20 years before. Maybe, in the 1st century B.C. (two centuries later) the isolated Galatians, though they had kept their language) could have begun to become more greek and to "orientalize", who knows? We have nothing to start with! It will prove difficult to really differentiate Belgians and Celtiberians from those "continental" Celts (maybe, architecture and economy?). Britons are meant to be another flavor, should they be more differentiated as they are (the dev. seem to try and differentiate them). Not only do they stand for the opponent to the Romans in the 1st century A.D., but they could be seen as opposed earlier to the Belgians (late 2nd/early 1st century B.C.), and depicting fights between Romans or Gauls against Hibernes and Caledonians. The question is: with only two sub-factions, what would be more accurate: Britons and Gauls, or Gauls and Belgians. Forget the term "Briton" and see them more like "rural"/"old-time" Celts compared to "urbanized"/"greco-romanized" Celts. And don't forget all the SE Britain was colonized by Gauls (Belgians), included some of the Brittish heroes in game, and more easily romanized. For instance, we could use Britons to depict the Bohemian Boii? Yes, I agree. You could see them as who could have became the Celts with only loose contacts with the Mediterranean world, in the continuity with the Bronze Age (although there was trade, they could be be less thriving economically, have smaller horses, etc.). A bit like the people the Belgians have drove out/assimilated in northern Gaul.

They are not a faction, they are Gauls. Put Gauls on an Anatolian map and you have Galatians.