Nescio

The article @Genava55 linked earlier suggests there was a tropaion standing against the outer wall. Cult statues belong inside the cella/naos/shrine (except when carried around in a procession). Speaking of which, do we know to which god(s) this sanctuary was dedicated?

Slingers have a similar problem to macemen: crush attack makes them effective vs structures instead of soldiers, which does not really make sense. War elephants too, to a lesser extent. True, but since soldiers can also gather resources, changing e.g. their cost or walk speed affects their economic performance. That was committed about six years ago, so I wouldn't call it “recent”. Related, that 0 A.D. has hoplite templates, slightly differently from other spearmen, is something I don't condone: ὁπλίτης simply means “heavy-armed” (i.e. melee infantry). Speaking of which, I also think 0 A.D.'s interpretation of the kardakes is wrong (but that belongs to another thread).

Not in our timeframe, at least not that I know of. (@Genava55?) However, in the Migration Period and Early Middle Ages, usage of the francisca was quite widespread by various Germanic peoples (Franks, Saxons, etc.). Maybe something for Millennium AD? (@Stan`?) Source, please? That sounds quite heavy. Just one is enough, thrown just before charging or engaging the enemy with swords. The principle is fundamentally the same as the Roman pilum: a short-range weapon that renders the enemy's shield useless (and is intimidating as well).

The thing outside (magenta) still looks like a cult statue, whereas something inside (cyan) resembles a tropaion. Also, what's the brightly coloured stuff cooking inside the pot (yellow)?

The fundamental problem of 0 A.D. is that it's a mismatch of different approaches. One approach would be that melee units inflict melee damage and ranged units inflict ranged damage. I believe that's the approach taken by Age of Kings, and also Delenda Est. To differentiate unit types one then needs bonus attacks. (In principle you don't even need any different damage types at all.) Another apporach would be to have several damage types (e.g. blunt, hack, thrust, projectile), which allows differentiating units by giving them different armour levels (e.g. if you want to make swordsmen strong vs spearmen but weak vs macemen, raise their thrust armour and lower their crush armour), removing the need for bonus attacks. This is the approach taken by Empire Earth, and also in my 0abc mod. And no, you don't need to introduce a damage type for every weapon (e.g. “axe damage”); units can combine different damage types (e.g. axemen inflict hack and crush damage). 0 A.D. takes aspects of both approaches (e.g. spearmen inflict both hack and pierce damage, but also have a bonus attack vs cavalry; humans have very high crush armour levels, thus necessating artillery to inflict pierce damage in addition to crush damage) and is inferior to either. But that's how it is, changing it would be a fundamental overhaul, unlikely to be committed (the consensus is to favour the status quo). Yes, as anti-structure units, they're inefficient compared to rams and war elephants, and as anti-soldier units, they're ineffective because humans have high crush armour. Maces were not as uncommon as 0 A.D. might suggest, not just in India and the Near-East, but also in the Americas and other parts of the world. Having a separate parent template makes sense, I for one would be in favour of introducing a citizen maceman template too, as well as separate templates for axemen. (But I'm biased, of course.) 0 A.D. also differentiates between spearmen and pikemen. Historically, different weapons had different purposes: thrusting weapons (e.g. spears, daggers) were to inflict deep wounds, severly damaging vital organs; cutting weapons (e.g. machetes) to make broad, painful wounds; blunt weapons (e.g. maces) to break bones. That said, regardless of the weapon or wound, wounded are unable to fight properly, and wounds could get infected, so they might die afterwards. Moreover, soldiers tended to have multiple weapons (e.g. spear, javelin, and sword for Greek hoplites, or bow-and-arrows, axe, and dagger for Scythians), but that's something not possible to reflect in game. PS The Kushite “Nuba clubman” is really a maceman: all variations of its weapon consist of a stick with a clearly visible macehead.

That would basically be saying twice the same; just φαλαγγίτης “phalangitēs” is fine. Same for the Ptolemies. (Those Egyptians were an emergency levy.) We know they were settlers, i.e. had land in a κληρουχία “klērouchia”. But in 0 A.D. military colonies are basically glorified mercenary camps.

That's not what I'm saying. The Seleucids certainly did call up and field large numbers of citizen pikemen, but those were not called bronze shields.

Also Livy on the battle of Magnesia between Antiochus III and Scipio (Livy 37.40): [7] ab eadem parte, paulum producto cornu, regia cohors erat; [8] argyraspides a genere armorum appellabantur; i.e. the royal cohort were called silver-shields because of their outfit. [EDIT]: Livy 37.40 in full: Their position actually suggests Livy's silver shields here could be cavalry.

No. We know the silver shields were the elite of the Seleucid infantry, e.g. from Polybius' description (book V) of the Battle of Raphia between Antiochus III and Ptolemy IV (the latter won, because the former's 10000 silvershields + 20000 phalangites was outnumbered by the latter's 25000 Macedonians + 20000 Egyptians). What the parade of Antiochus IV (Plb 30.25.5) indicates is that the bronze shields were also “champions”, whereas in 0 A.D. they're simply village phase citizen soldiers.

Please reread my post: the 10000 golden shields are not in the Greek text.

Quoting Wikipedia? That's not exactly what Polybius says. The relevant section is Plb 30.25: I've highlighted the relevant sentences in bold. There are some notable differences between text and translation, one of them that the ten thousand golden shields aren't mentioned in the Greek, which is interesting. When in doubt, consult a modern critical edition, which I did: here is the relevant page from the 1985 Teubner edition: What is clear is that there were 5000 youths in chainmail (“Roman fashion”), which were not part of the 20000 pikemen (“Macedonians”), of which 5000 had brass/bronze/copper shields (apparently the more prestigious) and 15000 silver shields. It does not necessarily mean their shields were made out of solid silver (which would be rather impractical); they had shields with some silver mark, to indicate they're the king's.

As pointed out before, that a buildable wonder is replaced with something more appropiate, doesn't mean the old actor is deleted. 0 A.D. contains a lot of unbuildable assets that are available for maps and mods. The newly created Mausoleum looks great and has been added to the public repository. Stonehenge was built in the third millennium, the Celts arrived in the British Islands during the first millennium. The Uffington White Horse has been roughly dated, but whether it was Celtic or Pre-Celtic depends on whom you ask. Anyway, @Stan` has recently been working on new wonders for both the Britons (see this thread ) and Gauls (see this thread ), which do look promising. The Hanging Gardens may not look bad, but it is historically problematic. Assuming it really did exist (which is doubtful), it would have been Neo-Babylonian, i.e. predating the Persian Empire. (We don't use the Great Pyramid of Cheops as the Ptolemaic Wonder either.) As the new Persian wonder, I'd strongly recommend the Apadana of Darius in Persepolis, an enormous structure which formed the core of the palace terrace, was the location where the Persian king of kings obtained annual tribute from all satrapies, and looked very impressive on both the inside and the outside; by contrast, the Gate of All Nations was little more than a relatively small room with large doors on three sides; have a look at this map (A is #1, GoAN is #4). @Stan`, shoudn't this thread be renamed to “=== Committed === Mausoleum at Halicarnassus”?

The gorgon head is not specific to Leonidas or the Spartans, use of it was widespread in the Greek world, and beyond. Here's a famous 6th C BC shield decorations found and kept in Olympia: Why should there be studs on the rim?

A “loophole” is an arrow slit in a wall. I don't see why that would increase vision or attack range.

Though if those animations exist, why would you not enable them, just in case? You never know what people intend to do in mods, and inserting a few lines in a xml file is cheap.

Keep in mind those two statues at Thermopylae and Sparta are products of 20 C Greek nationalist propaganda.

The contents of the opening post of this thread were posted by @Stan` on 9 April 2020, as can be seen in the first reply of this thread, not by @AgamemnonPhlemnon on 27 February 2018. A tropaion makes sense; they're also present in other Mediterranean cultures. I agree.

The current portraits are placeholders. Ideally each hero ought to have an unique portrait. If you think you're up to it, don't hesitate to go ahead. Feel free to use this 5th C BC bust from Sparta for inspiration:

If that's what you want, you should consider adding the Attalids instead, who ruled Pergamon and surroundings for the better part of two centuries (282–133 BC).

You mean https://trac.wildfiregames.com/browser/ps/trunk/binaries/data/mods/public/simulation/data/technologies/tower_range.json ? I don't know why that name was chosen. The patch that introduced that technology ( https://trac.wildfiregames.com/changeset/15713/ ) doesn't offer any explanation either. I doubt “arrow slits” are meant, though: that would be more appropiate for the “Murder Holes” technology; this technology increases vision and attack range.

The Antigonids were Macedonians. Yes, Antigonos Monophthalmos controlled a significant portion of the Levant, but only for a few years (306–301 BC). His son Demetrios Poliokētēs later usurped the throne of Macedon (294–287 BC), but was expelled. Only with Antigonos Gonatas was the dynasty firmly established, ruling Macedonia for about a century (276–168 BC). Before anyone starts spending time and effort creating an Antigonid civilization, ask yourself critically, how would they be different from the Macedonians already present in 0 A.D.?

Again, I'm just commenting on what catches my eye, I have no major objections to the current version. @Genava55, @LordGood, or others might have some recommendations. Anyway, it's certainly a lot more appropiate than Stonehenge!

@feneur Some template corrections: Also, `template_structure_special_statue.xml` does not exist. As for the actor: Roofs of the houses, see previous post. Why the grey and green ground below the roofs, but not elsewhere? It looks a bit ugly, on some terrains more than others. Why is the cult statue outside the outer wall? Shouldn't it be within the enclosure? When zooming in on the damaged spots on the wall, I see horizontal lines that look like wicker. On the image of the maquette from the website of the archaeological site, the outer wall consists of a vertical wooden poles (i.e. a palisade) covered with plaster.

You mean the images in the opening post? I don't think it looks bad. Also, why does it say @AgamemnonPhlemnon posted it on 27 February 2008? You posted it on 9 April 2020, as evidenced in the second post. Thanks for the mod, I'll have a look at it later.

In English, yes, but in 0 A.D. “wild animal” means “no food”. Those (25) parent fauna templates are confusing and could use some simplification (also because many do nothing or aren't used).