Rodmar

First part: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnpEk5Ua20E Second part: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-7VLTVR5VI In the first few minutes, they credit the hypothesis the Teutoni were an Helvetian sub-tribe rather than a Germanic people from the Baltic shore (as shown on a map). They also recall some major civ. difference between the Celts and the Germans, or between the Gauls and the Transrhenanic Germans, if you like : nor roads, no towns (greatest housings are 25 houses villages), no organized aristocracy.

I translated from French a summary of this book, found at: http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/racf_0220-6617_1998_num_37_1_2803_t1_0239_0000_4 I hope my English is understandable. Oh joy! The same author led me to this collective work: http://books.google.fr/books/about/Studien_zur_Lebenswelt_der_Eisenzeit.html?id=TwPQkNPm2qQC A page every other or three pages is missing and it is in German. There are some pictures, including jewels of women (on the googlebook page). One of the contributions is titled "Early Germanic Warrior Order (or warrior "exhibits" in graveyards?) and forms of societies in the Celtic Military" (p149). I translated its summary (p185): Scientific German is too difficult for me, so I gave up. Could a German speaker be kind enough to translate page 184? It is about the origin of the term "German" (again!) and the relation between the Elb Germans and the alledged Nordwestblock (aka the Belgians and Cisrhenanic Germans). I became bored because the sentences are very long, are written in a scientific style, and the output is barely meaningful:

Western Germania Magna circa 1 A.D. (according to recent studies) In purple the Elba Germans, who will be collectively known as the Suevi (Svebans). Higher resolution here.

Period 1 Mini-faction: the Germans FACTION: Name: The Germans Historical names: The Cimbri, the Teutoni, the Suevan, the Harudi, the Marcomanni History: The Germanic invasions of the 1st century B.C. are said to have two or three causes. Note: I would see the Germans as technologically less advanced than the Gauls: no mail, only breast cuirass, half cuirass or pectorals, few swords, small and rarer horses, no siege weapon (except crude batter ram), less gathering technologies. INFANTRY Spearman - Raider - Forester CAVALRY Spearman SUPPORT Woman - Priestess NAVY Fisher - Transport CHAMPION (mercenary) Gallic spearman INFANTRY Generic Name: Spearman Specific Name: Gar... Har... (see such ethnonyms such as Harudi, Hermanduri, Cherrusci) Classes: Infantry Spearman Hacker Armament: Light Spear Appearance: Garb:Basic: Trousers,tunic/shirt Advanced: Trouser, tunic/shirt, metallic protections Elite: Trouser, tunic/shirt, iron half breastplate or mail? Helmet:Basic: No helmet Advanced: Bronze helmet / No helmet Elite: Iron helmet / Bronze helmet Shield: OvalFigure(s): as Celts, without limed hair? History: Garrison: 1 Function: The mainstream Germanic military. The sword and mail would come later, maybe due to more contacts/subjugation with the Celts. If implemented, they could throw a spear before melee and still have one for melee attack. Maybe, like the Celtic Spearman, they could have a small (dagger) hack damage, too.Counters: melee cavalry Generic Name: Light Infantry Specific Name: (Raider) Class: Skirmisher Ranged Armament: Light spear (Javelin) Hacker Armament: Hand axe Appearance: Garb:Basic: Trousers,tunic/shirt or half naked Advanced: Trouser, tunic/shirt Elite: Trouser, tunic/shirt + leather armor Helmet: NoneShield: NoneFigure(s): as Celt skirmishers, fair haired with a simple (young) suevan knot. History: Garrison: 1 Function: a bit like the Velites with less damage and more range, but more able in melee. They could also be the first tier of the German only infantry unit (Spearman). Somewhat able to fight horsemen on 1vs1 (shooting, dodging and jumping at them). Very brave. Counters: Support, Melee & Skirmisher Cavalry and Elephants, Buildings. Countered by: Infantry, Cavalry archers, Chariots. Generic Name: Archer Specific Name: (Forester) Class: Archer Ranged Armament: Short (hunting) bow Hacker Armament: Hand axe or Short Thick Spear? Appearance:Garb:Basic: Trousers,tunic/shirt Advanced: Trouser, tunic/shirt Elite: Trouser, tunic/shirt Helmet: NoneShield: NoneFigure(s): as Celts, without limed hair. History: Garrison: 1 Function: Generic Name: Gallic Spearman Specific Name: Classes: Infantry Spearman See the Gauls faction History: Garrison: 1 Function: The difference between those Gauls and the German Spearman could be their availability (late game, special scenarios) and cost (no food). Also, they would have the superior armor of the Gauls.CAVALRY Generic Name: Germanic Cavalry Specific Name: (People of the Horse) Class: Cavalry Spearman Hacker Armament: Light Spear or Thick spear, hand axe? Appearance: Garb:Basic: Trousers,tunic/shirt Advanced: Trouser, tunic/shirt, metallic protections Elite: Trouser, tunic/shirt, iron half breastplate or mail? Helmet:Basic: No helmet Advanced: Bronze helmet / No helmet Elite: Iron helmet / Bronze helmet Shield: Round and smaller than round infantry shieldFigure(s): as Celts, without limed hair. History: Garrison: 2 Function: They are scouts in open areas, and anti skirmishers/archers. They could have a mixed hack attack to account for a hand axe. Could be faster than roman cavalry, but deficient in cavalry fights (no saddle nor blanket), but a match for any footman closed by (except spearman).Counters: Support, Skirmishers, Archers, Buildings, Cavalry. Countered by: Spearmen, Melee Cavalry. SUPPORT Generic Name: Germanic Woman Specific Name: Class: Female Citizen Hacker Armament: Light Spear or (to mix) Hand axe Appearance: Garb:Helmet: NoneShield: NoneFigure(s): as Celts? History: Garrison: 1 Function: Food gatherer, Civil builder, Attack bonus for nearby men. Special: Even harder to capture than Celtic women. Would fight back if attacked by a melee unit.Generic Name: Priestess Specific Name: (Moon, Sky, Fire) Class: Healer Hacker Armament: (ritual short swords/daggers) Appearance: Garb: White tunic, flaxen cloak, bronze girdle, bare foot (or soft shoes?)Helmet: NoneShield: NoneFigure(s): Grey hair (elder matrones) History: Garrison: 1 Function: Medic, Aura bonus (Better attack, better attack speed)NAVY Not unlike the Celts: a fisherman, a trader (to account for Baltic exchanges), a transport for raiding parties. However their design could be more oriented toward viking-style (that is: more slender, lower on the water) without being too much anachronistic (no dragon head, no shields). ECONOMY No mining or no mining technologies. No quarrying. No farming technologies. Bonus for foraging and hunting. Alternatively, those technology are a lot costlier. The market place would be able to buy metal. The Germans would automatically receive a periodic small tribute in food and metal, to account for their tributaries and seasonal raiding parties (at the market place).

Should I post here my ideas about the Period 1 German mini-faction, or in the ad hoc thread ?

Yes, all in all, I think that the building style could graduate in complexity from: Germans > Britons > (Belgians) > Gauls. It looks like the Belgians were a few decades (a century) late compared to the other Gauls, including in warfare (and thus more fierce), but the 1st century Belgians were still able to conquer part of Britain. It's out of topic, but I'd give the Germans First Age building style (semi underground houses, etc.) Also, as a final note about the sanctuaries, I'd like to notice that very [few] swords were found in the Ribemont sanctuary, as if the vast majority of Armoricans were armed with spears.

An idea for the Gallic Wonder: the Sanctuary. IV-) Gallic sanctuaries: Gauls (Belgian) Since the 1970s, the modern vision of the Gallic religion has radically changed. Formerly only known from the Roman point of view (Caesar, Pliny, Lucanus), it was a matter of secret rituals performed in some deep primal forest, wild animals and human sacrifices. No places of worship near the towns. Paradoxally, Caesar, Diodorus and Strabo tell about "sacred enclosures", "temples", "propylea". IV-1) Sanctuary of Gournay-sur-Arondes (Bellovaci): http://www.gournaysuraronde.com/histoire.html Dated from the 3rd century B.C., probably the 280s, build over a smaller Second Iron Age fortified sacred enclosure. The Bellovaci, upon their arrival in the area and subsequent settlement, will re-use an old worshiping place from the Second Iron Age. A hypothesis is that when the Bellovaci decided to settle, they were already charged with the remains of those they had fought against to come here. They now would honor their chtonian God of War (and Hell) with a large founding sanctuary. The Gournay-sur-Aronde's finding revolutionized the way archaeologists thought Gallic (and Celtic) "temples". It gave the basic elements of a Gallic sanctuary, that now are found "everywhere" in the forest-free, few inhabited, open plains of Northern France and Belgium, thanks to aerial photography. The enclosureThe solid fence, made out of wood and cob, is to duly separate the sacred ground, the property of a given divinity, from the mundane world. The Greek called this the temenos A ditch reinforces the symbolic and physical separation. The porchThe entrance faces outwards east the rising sun at Summer Day. An ornate porch and a bridge would act as a ritual vestibule. Given it has 8 plots, an upper "floor" and a roof, it could really be the Strabo's propylea, instead of the later Gallo-Roman gallery fanum. On it, several hundreds of arms, as well as human and cattle skulls were found. The altarAt first, the inner area is free of any building, except the altar pit (that is, the altar is the pit). During the 2nd century B.C., a building is build over it, a simple roof and nine plots (maybe walls between the plots?). The inner area was used for ceremonies and banquets. The groveNear the altar, an artificial (grown) grove of trees and shrubs represents the divinity. Pre-Roman Celts don't represent their gods with anthropomorphic figures. Neither statues nor icons are found. The "nemeton" (fucus) or sacred grove is both the temporary residence and the visiting room of the divinity, and something material the faithful could easily conceive and approach. The findings: IV-2) Sanctuary of Ribemont-sur-Ancre (Ambiani): http://www.culture.gouv.fr/culture/arcnat/aerien/fr/decou3-pg9.html Maybe one of the largest in Gaul: a complex plan (terraces, houses, therms, theater... sanctuary), 800m long, this site is known from the 1960s, and considered at first as a large Gallo-Roman villa (farm estate). http://www.culture.gouv.fr/culture/arcnat/aerien/imgs/4067-a.jpg The sanctuary proper is as complex as a villa. But in the last 20 years, delves have revealed... many, many prepared corpses. As the site is not wholly studied yet, some numbers are extrapolations (as when you delves 12m of a 40m ditch). Like in Central Asia, fallen enemies were buried to feed the gods, while the heroes were left to the carrion feeder (birds) and rotting in the open so that their soul could quickly go to the sky... (to correct Ansuz's assertion, above) Here is the site map (see also Ansuz'z picture). You see the inner square sanctuary to the vanquished, then the large trapezoidal esplanade at the center of which lies a smaller circular sanctuary, probably to the victor themselves. This is currently the largest Celtic trophy-sanctuary known in Europe. Description: Related translations: Context: what happened? About prepared corpses: The Gauls, the prisoners and human sacrifice IV-3) Sanctuary in Mormont (Helvetii) Discovered by chance in Switzerland in 2008 on a terrace 30m below the top of a natural, unsearched "oppidum". http://www.artehis-cnrs.fr/IMG/pdf/mormont_plaquette.pdf (in French, but there are pictures) Dated 100 B.C. by metal items and dendro-chronology, occupied during 2-3 decades at most. This could rather be a place of cult instead of a "sanctuary". It coincides with the Cimbri invasion and maybe a tsunami on the Neuchatel lake (as suggested by sedimentary studies). Offerings:

III-) Gallic noble estates: Gauls (Belgians) http://www.culture.gouv.fr/culture/arcnat/aerien/imgs/12017.jpg When Caesar uses the word "aedificia" for such isolated, country noble estates, whereas he could had used "tugurium" (hut) or "casa" (single house), it seems that they are sophisticated housings. They laid "amidst the wood to protect against summer heat", but that more probably means behind tree hedges. It happens that such housings or derivatives were still in use in some place by the 20th century in northern France. In short, the land just outside the buildings was divided and arranged into lots, whith a "courtil" or farmyard, and a "plant", maybe for vegetables, fruits and medium herd. The division were materialized by tree hedges which supplied further resources. Such estates would support horse(s) and henchmen. Here are 3 pictures from a model. I din't find pictures about the: 3rd/2nd century B.C. aristocratic estate (lat. Aedificia) at Monmartin (now Picardy). A rich domain that could be characteristic of what Caesar calls the "Equites" warrior class. Several buildings, a private fanum with enclosure, a public square (in which corpses were prepared). From a research report (extract):

Now, on the Belgians, always looking for pictures, models, texture ideas... II-) A Gallic village (Remi): Gauls (Belgians) http://www.gaulois.ardennes.culture.fr/en#/en/annexe/intro/t=Introduction This 20 hectares village was integraly dwelves, which is quite rare. Click on the upper right image to start the virtual visit in English. This website is awesome and contains plans (post holes), drafts and rendering. For the hurry, here's the 3D plan: The non-flash version, more convenient in my opinion, is in French only, sadly. Translation of the village's foundation: In the same website, a large sacred site, dated from the 2nd century: To keep with Gallic sanctuaries, it was used to see the fanum as a Gallo-Roman temple, but this was because stone fana were first found. Firstly, their plan doesn't fit with Greco-Roman temples (no pronaos, square form); Secondly, nowadays, several older wooden temples are found beneath Gallo-Roman temples.

I'd like to support and complement Ansuz's post. The current artwork is really really pretty good as compared as what we find on the Internet. But you should really check the official website about the Corrent oppidum. I-) The Corrent Oppidum (Arverni): Gauls (Cèltes) http://com.cg63.fr/com/Corent/ (official website from the Puy-de-Dôme department (code 63)) I translated the text of the 3D recreation into English (forgive some barbarisms and when I wrong the tenses!). See also the research website in English: http://www.luern.fr/index.php?mod=homepage&act=welcome Circa 70 hectares (0.7 square kilometer) Ideas for housing, temple, painted coatings Comments: As you can see the Celtic temple in-game is really well designed and very similar to the Corrent sanctuary. The Arverni tribe and federation is in contact with Mediterranean world since maybe as early as the 3th century B.C. and it could probably represent what the Central and Southern Gauls could be: on their way towards urbanization. -168 Rise of the Arverni hegemony (read cultural, political and military supremacy, not empire!) in southern and central Gaul. They would control trade with the Greek and the Iberian. -121 End of the Arverni hegemony, with their failure to oppose the Roman invasion of what would become the Provincia. Recognized as a "brother people" by the Senate, the Roman-allied Aeduan begin to grow as the next hegemonic federation. The sanctuary is the first building build in the later quarter of the 2nd century B.C., maybe due to the abandon of a former capital in front of the Cimbri invasion. Until 80 B.C. and its "hellenization" (portico, stone foundations,etc.), it was surrounded by a typically ditch+fence/wall on the bottom. The city seems to have been organized around it. It is now deemed as being the Arverni capital city until the Gallic War, and thus, Strabo's Nemossos (Luernos' capital), and Werkingetorix birthplace. Just before the Gallic War, or at its beginning, the political power seems to shift to Gergovia. After the Gallic War, a new capital is founded in Augustonemetum in 30 B.C., Gergovia is abandoned, and only the sanctuary in Corrent remains in activity for 3 more centuries. Given that the Arverni had 3 oppida grouped into a tiny 7 km x 7 km area, inhabited at roughly the same periode (late La Tène, Gallic War), some authors think that it could be a huge urbanized complex with a religious center (Corrent), an economic center (Gondole), a military center (Gergovia) an in between, monumental (paved) linking roads and loose housings/farms. Caesar would have thus camped inside Nemossos, facing the city's citadel, known as Gergovia!

Greycat, I hope I bring you good news! S.Rieckhoff "Süddeutschland im Spannungsfeld von Kelten, Germanen und Römern, Studien zur Chronologie der Spätlatènezeit im südlichen Mitteleuropa." 1995 I don't have the book, but I will try and translate some bit found on the Internet. At first glance, she tried and differentiate Germanic people in the Danubian area according to the pottery.

There is actually a theory about a Stone-Age small group migrating by chance to Northern America during the last Ice Age (through "coastal" navigation from Ireland, like modern Inuits could do). This theory was build on the account some stone tools found in America are very similar to those of the Solutrean culture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solutrean You could have a look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solutrean_hypothesis but I fear the redactors there are excessive. Imho, the theory isn't really meant to dismiss the Beringian hypothesis, just to explain a cultural influence. But all of that is far beyond the scope of this game.

Leonidas, prueba por favor este motor de traducción en línea gratuita. Lo encuentro práctico y bastante preciso. http://www.reverso.net/text_translation.aspx?lang=ES Puedes fácilmente someter a un test una retro-traducción para arreglar el texto original. Y nada te impide utilizar también a un traductor analógico como Bing. Pero nunca trates de retro-traducir con este último.

According to what I read, Celtiberians were iberized Celts, still speaking Celtic, maybe even not a mix of Celts and Iberians, and certainly not celticized Iberians. We'd have to look after archaeological studies to precise whether their armament and/or building could be influenced by the Iberian culture. Etruscans: Pfff... I don't know what the Republican Romans owed to them, but it should be... huge (navy, phalanx, armament, architecture)! Maybe an awesome starting faction, later dominated by powerful end-game Rome. Dalmatians and Illyrians are the same, to oppose Macedonians, Gauls, Epirus, Romans and later invaders. In the 2nd century B.C., an Illyrian king loose its dalmatian lands to the Roman. Or if you want, the Dalmatian were an Illyrian tribe, like the Arverni were a Gallic tribe. Vastly contributing to the imperial auxiliaries, prone to rebel, but also the Western Empire last and formidable defense.

Then, I guess it is the privilege of the age. As I finished the campaigns in AoE2, AoM, Age of Legends, Spellforce, all the same, I won't present myself as a beginner in RTS, however (still no Iron Man mode for me!).

DevynCJohnson, I'm not even a good RTS player, never played multi-player, etc., although I'm interested in tactical and strategy historical/fantastic simulation/recreation video games. I figure that different civilizations would have different sensitivity towards enslaving and capturing/being captured; I lack references but as a first shot: Roman: hard to capture, great enslavers. Carthaginian: great at capturing. Persian: easy to capture/enslave and great capturer/enslavers (diplomats). Greek: hard to enslave but not so hard to capture, medium enslavers. Celt: hard to capture, easy to enslave, poor enslavers. I may be wrong here; it just to show that we could differentiate the civilizations and that some players would have to "escort" their citizen-soldiers and mercenaries by champions and mercenaries (!), while other could send their basic citizen alone to death without much fear to fuel their enemies' economy. These differences would play at the "very small chance to get a slave" level and to compute the actual ratio between surrounding/surrounded units. I feel like those cultural differences (accepting to surrender or to be enslaved) come from the acceptance that a whole group of warriors could stop fight and surrender to greater opposition, or that a free man with no option to flee would better choose to survive instead of to die. On the other side (proneness to capture or to enslave other units/people), some cultures had slaves on a large scale while other wouldn't have thought about enslaving free men (although a decimated enemy tribe, with barely any warrior spared, could well be just used as "free" laborers). Note that late northern German used slaves (or were they only worker class attached to a warrior?).

I was only reading this very map and what it says is : "all the southern yellow areas are still Celtic". Provide another one, preferably more recent, and I'll try to read it as well. I can't help myself.

I would suggest to rename the topic "Mezoamerican factions". Here is a time scale to help choose. The Nahuatl were at the Copper Age (melting silver, gold and copper) when the Spanish came and they had spread this metallurgy to the remnants of the Mayan post-classical civilization, so you should keep to Stone Age, a very sharp Stone Age. In my opinion, this could only lead to a mod where we could have two or three Mayan cities fight against each other (Classical period). This could also easily lead to fantasy confrontations such as between the Bronze or Iron Age Phoenicians and the Proto-Mayan, and between the Stone Age nomadic Innu/Mi'Kmaq and the Iron Age German/Vikingar. I'm figuring that once a Stone Age only civilization is devised, it is more easy to adapt for other ones. By the way, although I have no ideas, why not adding a Sami faction to try and resist the northward Germanic and Slavic pushes in Europe, and even the Inuit against the Icelander in green Groenland (even if beyond the historical scope of the game)? With Reverso.net (the translation from French to Spanish is better, however, see the two last sentences):

A few words about the last map, just in case it might be used to devise the Germanic civilization. I think it is largely outdated, mixing all the Proto-Germanic cultures in the same dark red one (and not accounting for the modern assumption that Germanic culture was less derived from the Danish Bronze Age as we thought). Also displaying tribe names in the same black colour, and the limes at its largest extension doesn't help. Although it accredits my posts, I'd rather dismiss it. However, the second colour being really hard to spot on, I'll recall what we can see. Until 100 B.C. the Germanic cultures is in contact with Volcae, Boii and Trans-rhenan Belgian. During the first half of the 1st century B.C., the German come in the lower Rhine valley (Batavi, Frisii) and that's all. No Chatti yet. Where the hell are the Sicambri and all the Belgian's Germanii? (I mean, unless they are not counted as Germans by this map's maker). But even so, in other maps, Batavi and Frisii are not considered German so soon. By the way, all the southern yellow areas are still Celtic, Pannonian (Illyric) and Scythian/Samartian areas in 300 A.D., while the northern ones are Sami, Uralic, Balto-Slavic and Samartian.

If I recollect (and complement a bit): Destroying an enemy building adds a new bought-able unit at your marketplace based on the type of building was destroyed. Call it "slave". This slave is cheaper than a citizen both to produce and to sustain.Killing an enemy unit has a very small chance to generate a slave at your market place. Killing a chariot or a war elephant or multi-manned siege units doesn't bring more slaves than a normal unit does (does it?). (However, how many low-morale people per catapult?).For slavery purpose, a warship is equivalent to some building as far as your warship takes time to collect men at see (this wasn't quite expected by this time). This could mean that a warship is immobilized as long as the wreck animation and remain is still visible. This requires a special button or a manual switch to stand-ground in the few first seconds the enemy ship is vanquished.The slave is a worker (whose gender is determined by his origin) without any attack who can specialize like citizens in some gathering techniques (does he?). He doesn't benefit from a citizen female nearby but from a male citizen-soldier nearby. Its gather value is less than a citizen's.The slave is also a fifth economic resource that can be exchange at the market place (but not with traders ?). That's mean that you can buy some without having captured any yet. This is a City phase feature.The number of slaves you can afford (as a unit or in whole, marketplace pool included ?) is capped according not only your maximum population cap but to the number of non citizen units as well. It is thought that the militaristic Sparta (say champion Spartan, even if Spartan citizen soldiers were Spartan military too) was partly caused by the need to control the number of hilotes. Champion mercenaries are counted, as well as elite citizen-soldiers (often akin to champions). I'm not sure about the ratio slaves/(champions+elites).Capturing an enemy formation automatically convert some of its units as slaves. The surrender/capture follows some rules as: - must be granted/ordered by a hero unit or a formation commander (if implemented) by: selecting the hero, clicking on the capture button, and clicking on the nearby enemy formation. - the formation must be surrounded and locally outnumbered 4:3 at least (see below in the spoiler). - if a morale system is implemented, it should interface with the surrendering feature. - this can't occur near fortifications or defended building: they keep shooting at the enemy. - this can't occur while the formation is sustaining casualties. - this feature is automatic (should really the enemy player be asked to accept this local surrender?) but maybe, the enemy player could prevent the capture either by ordering a stand your ground stanza, or "sacrifice" his unit by attacking and trying and break the surrounding. This could change should a morale system be implemented (to allow for a "stand your ground and fight to the death" and "surrender" at the same time). A quite simple system: Other ideas related to capture/slavery: Captured citizen units (from captured formations, see above) are degraded:Firstly, they loose one level of experience from shame! Secondly, they could be automatically change to skirmishers (of their own culture), a bit like Spartans would use light/medium infantry from subjugated states at their left wing to purposely absorb the much powerful enemy pressure there. This degradation could be seen as a preventive measure in case of revolt. Captured champions (from captured formations) are not degraded and are more akin to mercenaries, although more prone to be captured back by their former culture soldiers. Whereas this doesn't sound good regarding Spartans, let's consider Xenophon's Anabase.Killing a cavalry unit has a very small chance to act like a horse capture (decreasing cavalry cost as you gain horses).Raiding was normal warfare:- Destroying a field earn you food directly to your pool. Destroying a mill/other resource deposit earn you an amount of resources. - Soldiers (only citizen soldiers?) can ravage/spoil an area. In a enemy controlled area, you may lay waste of animals (bred, wild) and plants (fruit, lumber). It could be an option when only the town center is heavily defended and most of the economical zone is poorly defended. Retreating your workers to safety in buildings wouldn't be enough to save you from economical doom. This "ravage" could be ordered by selection a group of units or a formation and click on a button, to a visual immediate scattering to resources (except mines). - Conversely, you could order your own troops to apply a scorched earth strategy in your own territory, destroying plants and animals all around them (without collecting them). Whereas 0 A.D. is not really a strategical game, this could still impede enemy advancement even before having to oppose his troops. - Currently, like in AoE or American Conquest, you have to send forward gatherers near the enemy town to deny the enemy those resources. I'd barely call it a scorched earth strategy. - Maybe you could still earn some resource while ravaging/spoiling. Ransoming instead of capturing a formation:Should you accept to pay say one third of the surrendered units value (to be discussed), the whole formation would walk back to your first or main civilization center, managed by the AI until it reaches its destination. Although it is seen as neutral (no AI attacks), an enemy human player could still change his mind and manually order an attack on the ransomed formation on its way back to home. The formation would immediately revert to a controlled status but the treacherous human player would never be allowed to ransom anymore (plus huge diplomatic penalties). Remember the way the Spartan granted free return to home to the "Thousand", the Argian elite phalanx still intact and surrounded at Mantinee. Remember some Gaulish or Germanic commanders granting free return to Romans after a brave resistance (that was before the Roman's reputation would be tarnished). Ransacking/Spoiling convoys:When your units perform one of the actions previously described (capturing, enslaving, spoiling, destroying, ransoming), instead the earnings go directly into your economy spool, they generates trader-like units who delay the use of those earnings until they reach a marketplace or a dock of yours. Call them slave traders, "baggage" units, treasury ships, .... Until reaching un-crossable water, they change to merchant ship and revert back to caravan when landing. Either they have to be managed or they are A.I. controlled. They are vulnerable to capture by skirmishing and raiding civilizations. This doesn't apply to captured units, only to slaves of course. As a conclusion, I know well that such ideas are more adapted to a greater scale strategy game, but who knows? One day the map and the unit cap could grow larger!

I happened to understand it wrong. Damage from different damage types are dealt simultaneously and checked again the target's respective armor, according to the game manual. So, giving a Hellenistic peltast a hack damage to account for its sword is possible. Furthermore, the ability to switch from ranged to melee attack can be somewhat emulated with the multipliers against unit types, but only if it is possible to complexify the system (not simply skirmisher/archer/spearman/swordsman). Indeed, a swordsman can be more or less protected/trained and that would make the difference not only with the damage dealt by a skirmisher without missile going to melee, but with his very decision to engage on a death fight as well. I mean a veteran light infantry (that had became the peltast by the Hellenistic times) without missiles anymore would still always avoid a hoplite, but could possibly try and hack a sarissa-less phalangist or an unarmored Gaul?

I can only but agree with you. Topic closed, then?

Hello! 0 A.D. Could someone tell me exactly when this year happened? I know what are 1st century B.C. and 1st century A.D. I know what is the year 1 B.C. (which began circa 365 days before official C. birth.). I'd guess that 1st year A.D. is called 1 A.D. by scientists and calendars. I'm pretty sure the game's name won't change, and that's not a problem for me. But maybe, we could make it clear to the newcomer and the outsider that we perfectly know how years are counted. So, I'd suggest that in in-game descriptions, we change the string "0 A.D." to "1 A.D.", first year of the new era. As an example, lets talk about the "500 B.C. - 1 A.D." period, that ended with C. birth.Let's keep "0 A.D." as the main title and let's take responsibility for it as a fancy that would allegorically represent the change of area, which the game is centered on (before: period 1; after: period 2), rather than a given historical year that isn't even the first imperial century stricto sensu.A bit like a "ground zero" date, maybe the very one second between the day 1 B.C. ended and the day 1 A.D. began, maybe around the 6th stroke of midnight.

What if the German (the Suevan federation, the Frank league, the Anglo-saxons) were not those Germani? Seriously, that was all the point in my post about the Belgian, above: read it again, please. Strabo was a child when Cesar named the Germania, and here is how he saw his world: You wouldn't dare to say that there were no Celts outside of Strabo's Celtica. I'll dare to say there were not only Germans inside Strabo's Germania.

Or by extending its territory. I happened to understand that a Hack/Pierce infantry stands for a sword+spear unit and that it would automatically use the best attack according to its enemy's armor. But is it technically possible to have a skirmisher/archer automatically defend himself in melee with a sword, or to have a formation manually switch from range to melee (and charge).