Genava55

I proposed something similar with coalitions: Personnally I would prefer something enabling the possibility to have unique units, techs and buildings through the tribes chosen. Coalitions are how historically the "barbarians" and the small nations were able to defeat massive empires.

I know, I saw it. And it is really a great idea you had. The idea is good. You are pointing out the issue about the Persians, but we could have the same issue with other civs no? Romans and Germans notably.

The only issue with Neapolis is that it is a very Hellenized town. There are some similar situations with the Saka (Eastern Scythians), notably Chirik-Rabat, a fortified town with Chorasmian architecture.

I don't think this is a problem to have various designs, and I believe the proposal of @wowgetoffyourcellphone is justified. We need to have a flexible concept, sometimes we'll want to represent a people or a civilization from a specific period, sometimes a nation, sometimes an empire, and sometimes a dynasty. We just need to be clear about it and explain it well in the civ's design. Edit: And it’s really good to finally start thinking about what comes next. I felt like this 'Empires Besieged' expansion was constantly being put off until tomorrow, and that people were refusing to give it any thought. It’s clear that not thinking about it creates problems for the expansion’s design, and that we really need to lay the groundwork now, despite the lack of leadership.

This is indeed a better example and a good question/remark. Just adding food for thought, the Gallic Wonder based on the Sanctuary of Corent is not clean and fresh: So maybe it is a general issue in how 0 A.D. portrays the ancient civilizations.

This is an absurd comparison and you know it. On one hand, the Colossus of Rhodes fell due to an earthquake, and the Rhodians refused to rebuild it because of an oracle. On the other hand, the overgrowth of a kurgan with grass is a natural process that occurs in all cases if the monument is not maintained several times a year. In your example, the Colossus of Rhodes is completely destroyed. In the case of the kurgan modeled with grass covering it, it is still functional. We are comparing a natural disaster with an ordinary process. Furthermore a process that was difficult to stop. A kurgan is not something similar to a Greek monument. First of all, this stone covering is not found on all kurgans. Multiple kurgans are simply covered with clumps of earth. One should not assume that it was standard practice to cover a kurgan with a stone shell. In fact, this is most common in certain regions. But even when vegetation had overgrown the gravel surface, this was a common occurrence in the Scythian landscape. Most of the kurgan mounds still standing were in this condition. In any case, I’m not opposed to using a gravel surface. I also think it will look better. Once again, I’m criticizing a specific line of reasoning.

I didn't. If you look closely the other mounds are green. That's my point, after a few generations it look like this. I am not against a pebbles/stones covering. I am just saying your reasoning, claiming that the people of one's 'civilization' were necessarily maintaining such structures in the long term, is wrong. Only one of the design is historically inspired.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0_A.D._(video_game) "The historical accuracy of game elements has been the highest development priority. Unit and building names are shown in the original language of the civilization they belong to, and they are also translated into the language in which the user is playing the game. There is also a strong focus on attempting to provide high visual accuracy of unit armor, weapons, and buildings."

A kurgan is a tomb. I understand your reasoning, but it's not supported by evidence. It was very common for tombs and burial sites to be looted or damaged a few generations after their construction. These kinds of monuments weren't venerated by the whole of society; it was a form of ancestor worship. It is, in a way, an expression of power. If the ruling clan changed, the monuments associated with the previous clan weren't maintained. I understand the criticisms regarding the aesthetic aspects; they are valid. However, any historical or sociological interpretation must be supported by facts and observations. If we want to add objects and decorations, there has to be a meaning to it.

The first one doesn't seem to be based on real-world examples from the Scythian period. But in your mod, you can do whatever you want. Do you have any suggestions for improving the second one?

Several civilisations had fortresses, notably the diadochi. The Greeks seem to practice the epiteichismos, which was about fortifying key settlements and outposts. In some cases, we can truly speak of fortresses, so much have the sites been modified by the process. However the Romans do not seem to have proper forteresses, with permanent structures, during the Punic Wars. Regarding the Celts, the boundary between fortresses and fortified settlements is rather blurred. Hillforts and oppida sometimes have relatively few civilian structures and seem to have specialized in a military function. The alternative I can imagine would be to have specialised CC. Some CC could be converted in a more military or defensive structure. The issue with the current system of walls and gates is that the IA is not using it really and it is quite a challenging project to improve the IA in this aspect. A single massive defensive building is far easier to handle. The Germanic faction currently lacks historical depth. It's actually an initiative that started as a mod and then spilled over into the game. Many buildings were designed without necessarily having an archaeological or historical basis to rely on.

I entirely agree. Capturing buildings should be difficult but rewarding. And the buildings should be tied to the territory. I find it absurd when someone loses his CC and he destroy every buildings before the capture. A fortress should be also able to create a new territory but smaller than the CC, to have a territorial anchor. True. We don't want a bland AoE clone. The difficulty behind virtual combat is how to make it good with only calculation because the player would not control which unit are getting the hits. People can get frustrated if the damage are distributed evenly and they would get frustrated as well if we give the damages preferentially to specific types of unit. There is also the issue of calculating the damaged of ranged and mounted units. People will complain.

It doesn't seem correct. The earliest account is in the Épinal-Erfurt glossary. Which is generally dated to the end of the seventh century. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Épinal-Erfurt_glossary "From the foregoing, it should be clear that Épinal-Erfurt Glossary was compiled in the last quarter of the seventh century, likely at St. Peter and Paul’s Abbey (later St. Augustine’s Abbey) in Canterbury, where the school of Theodore and Hadrian was established." - Herren & Sauer In Épinal-Erfurt glossary the mention I am referring to is the following: ‘conpetum, tuun uel ðrop’ So in this glossary: Compitum = Tūn = Throp. The three terms are equivalents. The Latin compitum was generally used to designate a cross-road during the Roman period, but Isidore of Seville explained that in his day, it referred to a place where people from the countryside gathered. And tūn/tuun at this time still meant enclosure, farmland or yard: the Laws of Æthelberht (L. Ethb. 17) show that "running into a man's tún" (breaking into his yard) was a punishable offense. At the best, it was used for estate. In this case tūn would have the same meaning that the Gothic thaurp. The meaning of throp in the Épinal-Erfurt is obviously not of village. So in the end, the earliest account for throp in Old English doesn't seem to designate a village but a gathering place.

Well if it was an innovation from the Gothic language, why the meaning as a farm or an estate is observed in other Germanic languages? It is the case in Old High German with the word Dorf, which referred to both a farm and a village, furthermore it appears that early glossaries translated it primarily as 'farm' or 'estate' rather than 'village'. It is also seen in Norse languages as well. It is not like þorp meant only 'village' or 'hamlet', it was applied to a farm and to an estate as well. And in Old Swedish, it seems to have retained only its meaning as a farm and not its meaning as a village, see again: So again, not an innovation peculiar to Gothic. There is a body of evidence suggesting that the word came to be used to refer to a village over time. As you can see, I have no problem using another Germanic language. As I said, there are also elements in the Nordic languages that support my criticism of your viewpoint. It is clear that the old Swedish þorp has retained its original character as a single farm. I have shown you the evidence. But I’d like to quote an expert in the field to show that my point of view isn’t some oddity that only I share. Stefan Brink, a renowned philologist on Norse studies, said the following in the book The Viking World (2011): "The medieval element torp, however, must be seen in a context of the huge colonisation in northern Europe during the high Middle Ages, within a new ‘feudal’ agrarian system with a ‘manor’ and dependent tenant farms within an estate. In Germany these tenant farms often had the name dorf (< þorp), and the word for such a dependent farm was spread with the new colonising strategy to Scandinavia. Early on, the element torp must have developed into a meaning of secondary farm, a farm detached from a hamlet etc., hence not always denoting a tenant farm within an estate." Once again, I feel like I’m the only one taking into account the evolution of Germanic society, which underwent profound changes as a result of the great migrations. The Germanic peoples inherited urbanized territories and institutions that were foreign to their customs; century after century, they had to adapt to their new reality. Stefan Brink emphasizes once again that significant shifts took place that altered the meanings of various words. The Deutsches Ortsnamenbuch and the other works dedicated to the study of place-names demonstrated the same. These semantic shifts were related to important changes in laws and in institutions. The naming of the settlements followed different periods of naming, with clear preference from a period to the other. These different naming dynamics are a reflection of the changes in the meaning of words. The entry from Cleasby & Vigfusson Old Norse dictionary (1874) you are referring to says exactly what I said, in Old Norse the meaning as 'farmland' or 'estate' remained. Once again, it is not an innovation from Gothic. And if þurpą is mentioned only once in the entire Gothic bible, this shows that it wasn't a term that was used very often by ancient Germans. It appears only in an agricultural context, referring to the ownership of a farmland. It would be good to be consistent throughout your argument. You went on at length over several paragraphs to explain that the Germanic peoples lived in scattered dwellings surrounded by fields that separated them, only to now argue that the term þurpą refers to settlements where houses are clustered together and built side by side without their own enclosure. You initially assumed that þurpą referred to the scattered dwellings of the Germanic peoples; are you still able to defend that view by arguing that þurpą refers to a cluster of closely spaced buildings? I am referring to this message you posted: