Jump to content

Sundiata

0 A.D. Art Team
  • Posts

    2.325
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    60

Everything posted by Sundiata

  1. Yes, a lot of the early Egyptologists were explicitly racist and I addressed this head on, even in my very first post in this thread. The whitewashing done by previous generations of academics does not give us carte blanche to blackwash all of them in the current generation. Two wrongs don't make a right. That statue on the left isn't Hemiunu. That's Akhmeretnesut, "superintendent of the Royal gardens". He's from a different dynasty and the statue was found in different tomb. https://collections.mfa.org/objects/140412 So should we be suspicious of your posts? You obscured the original head prior to restoration with text. Let people judge for themselves if the statue was accurately restored or not: None of those other reserve heads depict Hemiunu and were not found in his tomb, so they have no relevance to the Hemiunu statue or its head, which isn't even a reserve head but the original head, found broken off besides the statue. In this case, G4000 refers to a cemetery, not a single tomb. "G4000" is also used interchangeably with Hemiunu's mastaba, which can understandably cause confusion, but none of reserve heads come from Hemiunu's mastaba, but from other tombs in this fairly large cemetary. The location of all the reserve heads found are depicted in this plan, indicated with small circles. The large mastaba (4000) on top, belongs to Hemiunu, and as you can see, none of the reserve heads come from that mastaba. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333095517_The_'Reserve_Heads'_some_remarks_on_their_function_and_meaning That's because that fragment was actually found in Hemiunu's mastaba... The 8th picture in this link: http://giza.fas.harvard.edu/sites/999/full/
  2. @Mentuhotep, you're barely adding anything of value to this thread, and are in fact derailing it. This thread is about the Kingdom of Kush, not about "black Egypt" or whatever. In fact, your posts are irrelevant to almost anything pertaining to this game. This isn't a political forum, and this isn't a forum to have racial arguments. The internet is already full of those, and we try to keep things as civil as possible here. The one argument on which I'll admit you sort of have a point is about the color depicted on Kushite temples. Color is very poorly preserved on Kushite monuments, especially the more southern ones, but from the few surviving examples, varying tones of red (especially darker red) were indeed most commonly used, following Egyptian standards. If you'd just stuck to that argument, no problem, it's a *potentially* valid criticism. But on the other hand, none of the major temples depicted in-game have surviving color on their exterior facades and it's worth noting the famous Kushite granite statues were often deliberately blackened. Yellows are often used for Egyptian gods and goddesses. Kushite women are never depicted yellow. That said, please refrain from further spamming this, or any other thread with your unnecessarily racialized posts. Race is not the focus of our development team. Thank you. @Genava55, not to lend too much credence to our new fellow, but I see this study referenced rather carelessly all over the place. From the very same study you linked: "However, we note that all our genetic data were obtained from a single site in Middle Egypt and may not be representative for all of ancient Egypt. It is possible that populations in the south of Egypt were more closely related to those of Nubia and had a higher sub-Saharan genetic component, in which case the argument for an influx of sub-Saharan ancestries after the Roman Period might only be partially valid and have to be nuanced." The study involved genetic material from only 3 mummies from the New Kingdom, out of 90 mummies. The other 87 were from later periods, post-New Kingdom. None of those 3 older mummies had full genome sequences because the DNA was too degraded. And all the mumies came from a single location 100 km south of the Delta, and was compared to modern DNA from the Delta. This tells us very little about Ancient Egypt as a whole, especially not Upper Egypt or Egypt prior to the New Kingdom collapse. To make it worse, the "Sub-Saharan" samples used for comparison came primarily from the West African Yoruba and Mandinka and Central African Pygmies, instead of Sudanese, or other North East African black populations, which is ridiculous of course... The scientists of that study even acknowledge it themselves when they wrote: "Clearly, more genetic studies on ancient human remains from southern Egypt and Sudan are needed before apodictic statements can be made." Also, "Absolute estimates of African ancestry using these two methods in the three ancient individuals range from 6 to 15%", which isn't even that negligible for people so far up north into Egypt, more than 600 km north of the border of Lower Nubia and almost 850 km north of the border with Upper Nubia, from a bird's eye view. That would be c. 730km and and over 1000km respectively, when following the Nile. I honestly wouldn't have suspected any common ancestry using the proxies they used... Also worth noting that there were deportation events of Kushites (and I presume those perceived to be Kushites), from Egypt, most famously under the Assyrians who bragged about not leaving even one Kushite in the land (definitely hyperbole, but still relevant). Perhaps this illustration will emphasize the pointlessness of a "black vs white Egypt"-debate, which isn't only completely anachronistic, as those modern categories meant next to nothing to ancient Nile populations, but also because Ancient Egyptian identity wasn't a racial identity in the first place but a cultural, religious, linguistic and political one. Egypt has always been a crossroads between North Africa and the broader Mediterranean, the Levant and the Middle East in general, and Nubia and Subsaharan Africa. These guys are both Ancient Egyptians, it's that simple:
  3. "A New Glance at the Portrait of the «Elephant-Bearer» in Meroe", by Alexey K. Vinogradov: https://www.sag-online.de/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Vinogradov2013_PortraitOfElephantBearerMeroe_MittSAG24.pdf
  4. By the way, here is another rather unique variation of those Azande shields. This one is from DRC Congo, but they stretch into southern South Sudan as well: Nice Azande shield wall: The Azande are an 18th century fusion of the Vungara, with a ruling class of conquers known as the Bandia Dynasty or the Ngabandi people. From Britannica: "The Ngbandi came from what is now South Sudan, converging upon and assimilating a number of small groups in their present lands. Ngbandi of the Bandia clan conquered Zande areas in the 18th century, creating a series of states; they assimilated Zande culture and language and are now indistinguishable from that group."
  5. Go for it! By the way, those type of shields were used as far south as Uganda. There was a Kingdom called Buganda, referred to as Waganda in the older literature (not making this up), who used similar shields (slightly larger): Nubian merc 2000 years earlier with a similarly shaped shield: Those look really great man! The shields remind me a little of another Ptolemaic figurine of a southern mercenary (or police or something), clearly mounted. Almost exactly the same as another such figure I've shared here before:
  6. Idea for an Illyrian swordsman, by Joan Francesc Oliveras Pallerols: He writes: "Illyrian auxiliary warrior at the service of Alexander the Great. The Illyrians were an ancient people that inhabited the north-west of the Balkan Peninsula, along the Adriatic Sea. They were regarded as bloodthirsty and warlike people, influenced by foreign peoples like the Greeks or the Celts. Illyria was also seen as a land of pirates. A contingent of Illyrians accompanied Alexander the Great in his conquest of Persia, after he defeated an Illyrian revolt when he succeeded his father." https://www.artstation.com/artwork/nQ0P2o
  7. Sure, but it goes a lot further than just stats. For me it's just about accommodating peoples personal tastes as much as possible. More optionality helps with mass appeal, without compromising the actual game. We're still playing the same game, different people just have different ways of reading it.
  8. On a personal level, I prefer a light, non-intrusive, intuitive UI, perhaps even modular, easily adjustable, or with tabs, to save space, with lots of tooltips, but especially visual in-game info through animations and damage decals and things like that. Definitely not that mastodon of an AoE III UI. (Nescio probably has different preferences, so opinions differ even among casuals). But I understand competitive desires for as much useful information as possible, with little regard for visuals or sense of immersion. I agree that catering to a variety of preferences where possible is ideal. People like choice/options on how to do things. I think the popularity of @ffffffff's fgod-mod with competitive players speaks for itself. Also hotkey functionality should probably expanded to include all possible use cases, as I saw some complaints about that.
  9. How many people actually still play Alpha 23? Serious question. Controversial opinion, but I'm inclined to think that these strong reactions from certain types of players mean that we're actually moving in the right direction. There's definitely still a lot of room for improvement, but that has always been the case for 0AD. Either way, there are always going to be these kind of reactionary responses... I've seen them with almost every Alpha. Alpha 23 was just around for so long that some people got overly comfortable with a broken meta. Even dependent on it. Also, about the archers, the fact that they need to be paired with melee units (meat-shields) to become truly effective is a good thing, right?? Once a sufficient number of melee units reach them, they cut through them like butter. I even saw someone complain about OP archers while he was just massively outnumbered by them... And complaining that everyone has rams is like complaining that everyone has spearmen... Some unit types are more generic by nature.
  10. @m7600, indeed, the model is looking fantastic already! Here's a detailed proposed reconstruction of the facade, that I think looks really great and should be useful to interpret Nescio's suggestion:
  11. @Alexandermb if you're internet connection and schedule allows it, I think this is a job for you (we miss you )
  12. As I said, shepherds can function as scouts as well. And if there are clear references to farm hands being used as scouts in certain civs, I don't have a problem with that either. I'm just brainstorming here, not trying to oversimplify things. I'm just looking at how we could to integrate current gameplay (1st cav unit is usually used for hunting and/or scouting) with this new proposed scout unit, and how to flesh it out and make the units recognizable.
  13. Hunting dogs were important to hunters in most cultures. To illustrate, the reference examples provided so far here were Roman, Greek, Kushite, and mainland Celtic. I'm sure Britons used hunting dogs as well, but why only them? I was also thinking that the units themselves could wear something like bearskins or something hanging from their shoulders, depending on the civ? I have Sure, shepherds, could work as scouts as well. Never denied that. Though, they usually stay around their flocks and tend to avoid overly difficult terrain (animals breaking legs is a costly thing). Hunters just seem less restricted. Yes, I know. I specifically remarked that hunting wasn't a major source of sustenance for the average Joe in most societies. That was my point. Who better to use as scouts than people who are already accustomed to it. Your average farm boy probably won't cut it either. While those that were accustomed to hunting would be far more adept at the task.
  14. I can't imagine a better scout than a hunter... Hunters need to scout all the time. It's their speciality. Scouts need to able to live off the land more effectively as well, as they can spend many days away from any supply line. Perhaps not a job you'd entrust to an urban recruit. Aside from specialized hunters (often on foot), mounted nobility actually did quite a bit of hunting (usually accompanied by footmen, and dogs of course). More than the regular Joe. Hunting was usually a privilege, not a major source of sustenance for the regular people, in most societies at least. The act of hunting was often a status symbol in itself. I guess pairing the unit with hunting dogs for authenticity and recognizability wasn't a popular suggestion? I've always thought that daggers for any kind of mounted unit looked like an awkward choice. Spears, javelins and even bow and arrows in specific cases seem a lot more appropriate. I'd defer to my dog-suggestion for recognizability.
  15. @wackyserious, maybe you're interested in this? I think it would make a lot of sense to have scouts double as hunters. Who else knows the lay of the land as well as hunters (making them excellent scouts!)? A very cool visual indicator, well attested in history, would be to pair the unit with a hunting dog that follows it around everywhere. Not those big military attack dogs, but the smaller hunting dog types. The dog would also justify the higher vision range (dogs notice things sooner, more sensitive hearing/smell, that alerts the owner). Dogs can/should be paired with both the foot scouts and cav scouts for easy recognition. Some inspiration for Roman, Greek and Kushite hunters (I'm sure @Nescio, could provide much better examples. And maybe @Genava55 could add Celtic examples?): Hahaha! I like your way. The only thing I don't like is the limit. Since they'd be all but useless in combat, why would anyone spam them? Just takes up pop, for a unit with limited use.
  16. I like the idea of scouts (but not that they should be limited in number). Think they should be able to fight, but be so trash that nobody would use them as combat units. I think all dedicated combat units should be removed from the CC, which should only be able to train women and scouts. To make it slightly more interesting, we could have a cav-scout and a slightly cheaper (running) foot-scout unit, both of them good at hunting and scouting (with large vision range), but bad at fighting. I'd vote for all military units to go to barracks, stables (and ranges).
  17. I also had this. I just changed the teams back and didn't think much of it, but I don't recall touching team settings either, so maybe it's an error?
  18. Yea, admittedly, if the elephant would just be paired with a mahout, I wouldn't have such a problem with it. My problem is just with autonomous animals. I've proposed giving it a mahout myself, several times if I'm not mistaken, and it seemed like such a simple, straightforward fix, but was never done. Can we all agree to give it a mahout? You know, I've noticed the same thing and it can cost you units. Like retreating from enemy area, a certain number of your units will break off and start fighting enemies on the way. Like they just stop and reassign themselves to the nearest enemy. Especially when you have a large group, some of them maybe get a little stuck behind other units, and it just seems to cancel whatever order you gave them. .
  19. I'm really still not seeing it. But anyway, obviously the decision isn't up to me. Just sharing my viewpoint on the matter. As I said, giving them a stable from the start would be historically justified, and is a significant civ-bonus in its own right, without being so intrusive as walls.
  20. Iberians were particularly associated with quality horses and even had an important dedicated horse sanctuary, so maybe let them start with a stable? That would be a good example of a significant civ-specific bonus rooted in history.
  21. Wait... So they're invisible walls?? Ok, but I still don't understand the rational behind it? To me, personally, they always felt restrictive and totally mess up your town planning. Shouldn't it at least be the players choice, to choose whether they start with starting walls or not? For me, it was always a reason not to play as the Iberians. I know you can just delete them, but that always felt like such an ugly, inelegant solution, and it always felt weird to have to delete perfectly intact walls even though I didn't want them. Outside of scenario maps, where you already have a starting scenario set up (possibly justifying starting walls and other pre-built things), shouldn't all agency for building be left with the player? For me, stone walls were always the cherry on the cake in the late game, and not a cheap gimmick at the start of every single game you play with the Iberians.
×
×
  • Create New...