Nescio

0 A.D. started using phabricator ( https://code.wildfiregames.com/ ) in December 2016, I believe. Out of curiosity, let's have a look at how many patches/diffs were created in the past three years: 1158 in 2017 (D30 to D1187) 535 in 2018 (D1188 to D1723) 801 in 2019 (D1724 to D2524) And how many commits there were: 1651 in 2017 (rP19092 to rP20742) 1254 in 2018 (rP20743 to rP21996) 1318 in 2019 (rP21997 to rP23314)

Thanks; updated the patch. Actually I meant the languages used by those in 0 A.D. (Basque, Hebrew, Sanskrit?) I'm not expecting an expert on the ancient Iberian language, of which only a small number of short inscriptions exist, not even enough to determine to which family the language belonged.

Either: default: no snapping; with Ctrl: snapping with option toggled: snapping; with Ctrl: no snapping Or: default: always no snapping press hotkey combination (e.g. Ctrl+Alt+S or whatever) to toggle snapping option when activated, always snapping, so no need to keep Ctrl pressed

Although not everything on your 2019 art wishlist has been finished and committed, a lot of art has been improved or added last year, including many things not on your list. Because it's now January, it's now time for a 2020 art wishlist. Here's mine: animals: animate all animals that still lack animations create young animals: foal, calf, kid, lamb, piglet create more domestic birds: ducks, geese, swans; pheasant, quail, quinea fowl, turkey create mule (infertile offspring of a male donkey and female horse; superior pack animal to both; used extensively throughout the Mediterranean) create Bactrian (Camelus bactrianus), wild Bactrian (Camelus ferus), and hybrid camels (infertile offspring of dromedary and Bactrian camel; superior pack animal to both; bred in and around Afghanistan and Turkmenistan; used extensively by traders from Serbia to India) create llama (Lama glama), guanaco (Lama guanicoe), alpaca (Vicugna pacos), vicuña (Vicugna vicugna) create reindeer (Rangifer tarandus), red deer (Cervus elaphus), roe deer (Capreolus capreolus), fallow deer (Dama dama); the species of the current deer is not exactly clear; preferably have three actors (male, female, infant) for each species, as is done for cattle and lions create hare (Lepus europaeus) create Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx) and striped hyena (Hyaena hyaena) create cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus), leopard (Panthera pardus), snow leopard (Panthera uncia), jaguar (Panthera onca), cougar (Puma concolor) create Indian rhinoceros (Rhinoceros unicornis) and black rhinoceros (Diceros bicornis) create hippopotamus (Hippopotamus amphibius) (other species are certainly most welcome; the more the merrier; merely listing the most important missing ones) birds: the current hawk is actually a common buzzard (Buteo buteo); rename accordingly to avoid confusion add golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) add peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) add common kestrel (Falco tinnunculus) add griffon vulture (Gyps fulvus) (other species are certainly most welcome; the more the merrier; merely listing the most important Eurasian raptors) units: female and male workers for all civilizations (every worker you train has a 50% chance of being female and 50% to be male, as is the case in Age of Mythology; statistically they're identical, but visually they look differently) separate Celtic support actors, creating different female, healer, trader for Britons and Gauls separate ship actors for Britons, Gauls, Iberians; maybe different sails? have unique ram actors for each civilization redesign helepolis siege tower create Gaul infantry archer Persians: create Armenian slinger; maybe also an infantry axeman reuse Dahae b/a/e horse archer (Seleucid actor) redesign Babylonian scythed chariot and make it a champion the Seleucid champion cavalry is a compound of three distinct units: the Agema (Medes and Persians), the Hetairoi (Macedonian companions), and cataphracts (Galatians, Cappadocians, Armenians, and others); it would be great to have three different actors create more exotic units: Arab camel swordsman Kushite biga (light two-horsed chariot) archer Libyan biga archer Libyan biga javelinist Punic quadriga (heavy four-horsed chariot); used by Carthage in numerous battles on Sicily (against Greeks, Sicels, Sicanians) until Pyrrhus of Epirus came with war elephants in the 3rd C BC melee attack animations for chariots structures: 1:10 rectangular fields for all civilizations new docks for Athenians and Macedonians; keep the old actor (boathouse) for a military shipyard new temples for Britons and Gauls; keep the old actor for a mercenary camp new Roman civic centre new wonders for Britons, Gauls, Macedonians, Persians the current Carthaginian wonder is a candidate for best-looking structure in 0 A.D.; however, the design is fundamentally Greek; Carthage has been razed to the ground, so we don't know whether that is inappropiate; however, I'm quite fond of the (unused) tophet's shape, which is typically Phoenician and therefore great for Carthage; perhaps magnify the tophet actor by a factor 3, embellish it, and see how it looks as a wonder? add rotary mills for Carthage and Rome; maybe for all other civs as well add royal palaces for Macedonians, Ptolemies, Seleucids add theatres for Ptolemies and Seleucids redesign Athenian theatre; in classical Athens the theatre was a temporary wooden structure which was build once a year for the five-day Greater Dionysia and demolished again after the festival was finished; over time it gradually became semi-permanent (e.g. marble benches for front-row officials) but remained mostly made of wood, burning down more than once; permanent stone theatres are something of Hellenistic and Roman times. low walls for all civilizations (only Carthage has them right now) rename: blacksmith (a person) → forge (a workshop) (Iberian) monument → pillar or statue (Athenian) gymnasion → gymnasium rP23340 theatron → theater rP23347 scout/stone/defense tower → large tower wooden/sentry tower → small tower workshop (generic) → arsenal (a place for storing, repairing, and producing artillery)

Great feature! If you mean making it the default (like capturing instead of attacking), no thanks. If you mean adding an option to allow players to toggle it (like diplomacy colours), yes please.

@Sundiata, you know I don't necessarily disagree with you. What I'm fundamentally saying is be careful and critical (as the approach should be towards all sources). If something appears in 2nd C BC Egypt or later then it doesn't automatically mean it's an Egyptian innovation; it could easily be the result of Roman, Celtic, Macedonian, Persian, Kushite, etc. influence. If it's from 3rd C BC or earlier, we could discount Roman influence; if from the 4th C, Celtic; if from the 5th C, Macedonian; if from the 7th C, Persian. As for those smaller rectangular shields, you might be on to something; now find more references, preferably with proper dating. Roman influence does not mean Roman. Using things from the 1st C BC for 0 A.D.'s Ptolemies is fine. The Ptolemaic kingdom was de facto a Roman “ally” for longer than it was an independent great power (c. 170 vs 120 years). I do wonder though why the Seleucids have Romanized champions but not the Ptolemies.

No need to apologize! Besides, A24 won't be released soon. Sardian → Lydian (Sardes is the capital of Lydia). The Anatolian peoples (Mysians, Lydians, Carians, Luwians, Hittites, Cappadocians, etc.) were ethno-linguistically related to each other and culturally quite different from the Iranian peoples (living in Media (Atropatene) and beyond). With hillmen I assume you mean the tribes who gave Xenophon's ten thousand so much trouble, i.e. Armenians (Bronze Age Urartu); though they're not exactly Anatolian, dressing them similarly is fine by me; and I agree hillmen armed with slings, stones, and axes would be a great addition. Feel free to go ahead. Hyrcania was the eastern part of the coastal area between the Caspian Sea and the Alborz mountains (just north of Tehran). To the east lay Parthia proper, with which it often formed a single satrapy. To the north of Parthia lived the Dahae (Seleucid horse archer), a confederacy consisting of three tribes, one of which, the Parni, seized Parthia from the Seleucids and went on to form the Parthian (Arsacid) Empire. To the east of Parthia lay Aria, Bactriana, Sogdiana. All those were Iranian peoples (as were Scythians and Persians) and shouldn't look like Anatolians.

What I know is that both Druidae and Druidēs (plural) appear in Latin texts; singular forms are not attested. Greek authors have Δρυΐδης Druidēs (singular). Moreover, the word possibly has a Proto-Indo-European origin, because Sanskrit has dru- “wood” and Greek has δρῦς (tree, wood), from which Δρῠάς (Dryad; wood nymph), δρῠΐνας (a serpent living in wooden oaks), δρύϊνος (oaken), δρῡμόνιος (haunting the woods; an epithet of Artemis), and δόρυ (spear), amongst other words, are derived. For the druid specific name in 0 A.D., the question is what would be the singular in the languages used by the Gauls and Britons. I don't know. Furthermore, it would be nice if you could have a critical look at the specific names used by the Celtic units, if you've not done so already somewhere, to have no obvious mistakes in the specific names when A24 will be released. Latin and Persian specific names were checked a couple of monts ago and I assume @Sundiata did that for the Kushites (though we still need to find people for the languages used by Carthaginians, Iberians, and Mauryas).

Thanks for the information. D2155's question is whether “Druides” is a proper specific name (I don't know). What language is it? The same as what is used for the Briton and Gaulish structure specific names (given by you here)?

True though probably irrelevant: if such shields didn't appear in Egypt for multiple centuries prior, then those Hellenistic ones are most likely a reinvention rather than a continuation of Bronze Age tradition.

Thanks for the clarification!

That would be great (units that can both fight and heal), but before that could be introduced, probably some additional simulation code is required to prevent druids from attacking and healing at the same time. British in an ethno-linguistic sense (Brittonic), but Scottish in a geographic sense? (The Scots came from what is now Northern Ireland in the early mediaeval times and later replaced the Picts, in “Alba”.) Having the Britons focus on ranged units, especially javelinists, and the Gauls on melee units, especially cavalry, in combination with Britons having cheaper but weaker structures (but stronger fortresses to compensate) and Gauls having structures with population bonuses would already be a starting point to further differentiate them from each other.

Romans associated cats, crocodiles, and scorpions, all exotic animals not living in Italy, with exotic Egypt; see e.g. iconography on Roman coins. Praeneste (Palestrina) was already under Roman influence long before Rome made its first conquest (Veii). The Palaestrina Mosaic is magnificent, but it is a Roman mosaic depicting what some Romans imagined Egypt, an exotic place for most, would look like; it's rather similar to chinoiserie and other forms of orientalism in the Early Modern Period. The mosaic is an artistic Roman fantasy, not a reliable source from Ptolemaic Egypt. While Ptolemaic Egypt was officially conquered only in 30 BC, it was de facto a Roman vassal state since c. 200 BC, with Roman advisors and legions being sent to Egypt to defend it against Seleucid expansionism. That's true. The question is when and where curved, rectangular tower shields originated. Perhaps an occassional variant of the thureos? I'm not claiming it definitely originated by the Romans, but I'm not convinced it's Ptolemaic invention either.

For those who're too lazy to read long forum posts: basically I agree with @Genava55 (at least on Celtic things).

The important question is when those sculptures are dated. If it's closer to 300 BC, then you're on to something; if it's closer to 100 BC, then it's probably Roman influence. Furthermore, the archaeological record from Ptolemaic Egypt tends to be virtually indistinguishable from Roman Egypt, hence the term Greco-Roman Egypt (332 BC to AD 641). They appear to be naked, so maybe Celtic mercenaries?

Why the bold face? But yes, I have some suggestion. Here are some of them: Give the Gauls a b/a/e infantry archer (well attested by Caesar), maybe a cavalry swordsman (Carthage can train it already), and perhaps a chariot (images of Celtic chariots have been found in Northern Italy). Britons could also use some new units (perhaps champion javelineers?), but I know very little about them, so I'll leave them to @Genava55 and others. Also, I believe Celtic unit rosters have already been discussed more than once last year. Disable the problematic kennel and make war dogs trainable at structures players would actually build, e.g. barracks, corral, house. Replace the tavern with something more meaningful. Give Britons or Gauls (or both) a new temple actor. Currently they use fundamentally the same actor, which has a design similar to barracks: (Don't delete the old actor; modders might want to use it for e.g. a non-buildable mercenary camp.) Give Britons and Gauls new wonder actors; both the Stonehenge and the Uffington White Horse are problematic. Differentiate Briton and Gaul druids (e.g. one has more health, the other more armour) Further differentiate Britons and Gauls by their civ bonuses. E.g. currently both their structures are cheaper, weaker, and provide population bonus; maybe give one civ the cheaper and weaker structures and the other the population bonus. Also, Carthage imported tin from Cornwall and the Celts invented the chainmail, didn't they? So maybe introduce some metallurgy civ bonuses or technologies? Although the intention is there, it's unclear if and when that'll happen, so don't wait for it. Discuss what you like to have added ideally; stats can be tweaked later.

Included @ValihrAnt's D2392 (team bonus balancing). Let me know if there are any other balance patches available on phabricator.

All champions or only champion cavalry or all cavalry? (I'm in favour.)

These are the most significant changes: infantry from 300 to 205 resources, cavalry from 450 to 285. Champions used to be rather expensive (towers cost only 200), so I'm not against making them cheaper. However, perhaps reduce their armour a bit to compensate. (Four armour levels is equivalent to +52% health and champions already have twice as much health as citizens, so effectively they're three times as hard to kill. Plus they have double the attack damage, so they're “worth” six times as much?) Maybe it would be a good idea to take the opportunity to differentiate unit types by their cost; e.g.: Of course, it's up to you, it's your mod. Maybe change it to +2 armour for 100 wood (no food) instead? The other changes in your mod are rather minor and probably not very controversial.

Could someone rename this thread to Parthians (or Arsacids) and Sasanians? They are named after Sasan, so Sasanian is preferred, and Sassanid is no longer considered appropiate nowadays.

Added more patches. Happy New Year!

Because both 12 November 2018 and 11 December 2018 are possible interpretations, it's best to use either the ISO standard (2018-12-11) or write out the name of the month.

Keep in mind horses do not automatically imply cavalry. Mounted infantry (i.e. people who rode to battle but fought on foot) and true cavalry coexisted for centuries. Many, perhaps most, depictions of horsemen depicted on (Archaic) Greek and Italic pottery and frescoes are actually hoplites, not cavalry, e.g. Here are some excerpts on cavalry from Philip Sabin, Hans van Wees, Michael Whitby (eds.) The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare (Cambridge 2008): On pre-Hellenistic cavalry: And some more images: On Alexander's cavalry: On Hellenistic cavalry: On “Polybian” cavalry:

Yes, it does; that's what I have on my machine and I doubt I'm the only one; you can also run multiple instances of the game simultaneously. If using mods, you have to remember disabling them before launching the other version, because they tend to be compatible with only one.

Actually I would. Having multiple allies can make winning easier for you, especially if your allies are fighting each other. Assume a four-player random map with no starting teams. Early in game players B and C become neutral. Player A subsequently tries to ally with B, who refuses, then with C, who accepts. A also allies with D. All other combinations remain enemies. To win, A only has to defeat B, its only enemy; B must defeat enemies A and D and neutral C; C enemy D and neutral B; and D enemies B and C; A thus has the advantage. Different scenario: your ally is growing much faster than you, which annoys you, and is becoming quite powerful, which worries you. You'd prefer a weaker ally, but stabbing yours on your own is not a good idea, because he's much stronger and because you would remain at war with everyone else. The wiser strategy is to first ally one or two of your enemies and then declare war on your first ally. Divide et impera.