Genava55

https://www.facebook.com/JFoliveras/posts/pfbid04x9fgGYCbL7ptyaybuNGowtYdZuQT8tDfw5miMrhvsJStcUsDUGKr3GrjnRBzufBl https://x.com/JoanFrancescOl1/status/1775976689169739970 More details and debates there

darn the videos are incredible

To be fair, the Romans too. Maybe the issue is simply the modern interpretation of the hoplitic phalanx, which is also a debated theory.

It is quicker to read a blog article than listening to a long podcast of several hours: https://www.ancientworldmagazine.com/articles/why-abandon-phalanx-problems-rome/ and if someone wants more info: N. Rosenstein - Phalanges in Rome.pdf

Is there an issue with confirmation email?

Absolutely not. You are very wrong. Never heard of VPN, proxy server, Tor browser etc. ?

A replica of the costume of a Sarmatian priestess from the 4th-3rd centuries BC Local historical museum named after B.Mailin. The department of culture of the Akimat Kostanay region.

Nice cinematics made by a youtuber:

It was a quick draft, this is why I only depicted the first two phases, but the idea could continue in P3. Your idea for a government in case you continue as an independent city-state is interesting too. I will think about it. In my draft, I originally planned to let the players choose only between Sparta and Athens in P1. But I think it would be better for the player to choose between the Corinthians, Spartans and Athenians. Corinth was a powerful city early on, so it makes sense to enable this option early on. Thebans (or more generally the Boeotian League) and Syracusans make more sense as options for the second phase. Maybe Massalia but I am not certain of this one. For the third phase, clearly the Achaean League is an interesting candidate. Another possible choice could be the Kingdom of Pergamon. I don't think it would be cheap gameplay. For example, currently Athens and Sparta have several good options. They are not bound to a single strategy. Why it would be the case for minor faction or sub-faction? It is not really different. You can bound several technologies, several units and even buildings to a faction choice. For example the Corinthians. They should have some features giving them advantages in building construction, maybe some bonus for defense, maybe even an early bonus for their CC to reflect the Acrocorinth citadel. But they were also good with their navy. They were the first to introduce the triremes in Greece, they were the providers of a navy to the Spartan alliance against Athens. They weren't as good as Athens but they were decent. So for example in this case, I don't see why they would be limited to a single strategy that would be countered by a single opposite strategy. The same for Sparta and Athens. It's true that this gives the umbrella faction more flexibility. But I see it as an asset. These multiple strategies are linked to choices that the player has to make at a given moment. They can't go back and change their choice. It would therefore reinforce the need for the opposing player to scout and observe. That ties in with my comment above. There has to be a happy medium. A balance between offering too much flexibility for each choice and offering too little. To answer your example, just because Syracuse would have an advantage with mercenary units doesn't mean that Syracuse would be a faction dependent on mercenaries. Preventing the player from having metal would be a blow, but it shouldn't rule out all possibilities. I don't think every faction should be an umbrella faction. And I don't think every umbrella factions should be designed with the same mechanics and structures. It's simply a case of making more things dependent on player choice. This amount can vary from one context to another. It is true it could potentially impact the strategy in P1, it depends on the implementation of the choices. They could be tied to the changing phase but they could also be available directly in CC with very few conditions. In fact, I think that would be the most interesting thing, simply to have different choices that work like technologies or reforms. It would add an extra dimension, because the player would have to think when making the final choice. It could also be a strategy for bluffing. This is not the idea. Think of this choice of sub-factions as a kind of giant reform. It's also like when you change phase, a lot of things become unblocked after the research is complete. If it would be the case, there wouldn't have been so much reticence when we discussed the possible scenarios for the campaign. Currently in the editor, you don't really create a faction, but you create customized units and buildings with dependent technologies and other dependent buildings. This works, but the rendering and consistency are not equivalent to a faction. There are always elements that will seem odd.

This system could also be applied to a possible Germanic faction. If you want to take advantage of the different cultural groups and different periods that characterize the history of Germanic tribes, it's possible to create a system with different sub-factions. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Edit: To develop a bit my comment, I think it has a potential to answer to some issues about such factions with an important diversity and a lot of variation and evolution during their history. First period: Second period: Third period:

I'm creating a thread to discuss a suggestion I made in another thread. The problem arose following the proposal of different scenarios for a tutorial campaign. Several scenarios were rejected simply because the factions didn't exist in the game as playable. In this case, they were mainly Greek city-states. The case of the various Greek city-states is a perfect illustration of the problem, as these are generally proposals for which many of the buildings would be similar to those existing for the current factions. So I think it's important that we come up with a solution, and to do that I propose having umbrella factions. An 'umbrella faction' in this context is simply a primary faction that encompasses multiple related minor factions, allowing players to start with a broad cultural group and later specialize in distinct sub-factions. For example, in the case of the Greek city-states, the player can start out as a generic Greek faction and can choose to become affiliated to a minor faction during the course of the game, thereby unlocking bonuses, units, buildings and so on. Affiliation can consist of joining the Spartans, the Athenians, the Corinthians etc. There are many reasons for umbrella factions: Creative and Practical Limitations: Designing unique factions for each minor group is challenging, expensive, and risks creating repetitive or uninspired content. The current approach could also exclude interesting cultures due to resource constraints. Umbrella factions could be a more flexible and modular concept. It would even be possible to create minor factions for campaigns. Visual and Artistic Quality: It would help to maintain visual cohesion by avoiding the need for excessive new assets, preserving the game's overall artistic quality. User Interface Concerns: Adding many minor factions from similar cultural backgrounds (e.g., Greek city-states) clutters the user interface, making it more complex and less user-friendly. Gameplay Strategy and Diversity: An umbrella faction approach enables strategic diversity without overwhelming players. For example, a player might begin as a generic Greek faction and later choose to specialize in a specific city-state (e.g., Athens or Sparta) based on desired bonuses or units. Improved Game Balance: Umbrella factions allow for better balance, avoiding factions that are overpowered due to an excess of unit choices or too weak due to a lack of variety. Linking specific units to choices within umbrella factions can enhance strategic depth and create interesting counter-strategies. Encouragement of Adaptive Gameplay: Umbrella factions could introduce adaptive gameplay, where players must make decisions based on their opponents' choices within the faction. This means that as other players specialize within the same umbrella faction, players must adjust their strategy, creating dynamic interactions and keeping gameplay fresh. Reduced Cognitive Load for New Players: For beginners, a simplified umbrella faction model lowers the learning curve. Rather than overwhelming new players with numerous faction options, they can begin with a broad faction and gradually discover the nuances of various sub-factions as they progress. Flexibility for Future Releases: Umbrella factions allow for easy integration of new units, buildings, and technologies without the challenge of designing an entire faction from scratch. For instance, if future expansions explore more diverse regions, new minor factions can be added within established umbrellas, enriching gameplay without overcomplicating the framework. Enhanced historical authenticity: By grouping culturally similar city-states or peoples into unifying factions, players experience historical alliances and rivalries in a more realistic way. This structure makes it possible to add numerous historical references and offer players a glimpse of the diversity of the ancient world. It also reflects how ancient societies often shared cultural traits while having unique distinctions, offering players a more nuanced and immersive historical experience. In the case of a faction such as the Greek cities, the idea is to choose to affiliate with one of the city-states or leagues that were very important: Corinth, famous for its fortress, its architecture and its craftsmen. It was a very powerful city even before the wars with the Persians. Corinth was inscribed with Athens and Sparta on the second coil of the serpent column at Delphi for its part in the defence of Greece against Xerxes. According to Thucydides, the trireme was introduced to Greece by the Corinthians. Sparta, a city that focused on military power and control of a large territory with many agricultural estates. There are many military features that are unique to Sparta. Athens, a powerful thalassocracy with major cultural and economic influence. A very rich and detailed history which enable us to implement a lot of diverse features. Thebes, an important city that made the poor choice of allying itself with the Persians and played a minor role in the Peloponnesian War. However, Thebes came back into the limelight during the following wars and became a major military power. Thebes is famous for its sacred battalion. Syracuse, a Greek city in Sicily, took part in numerous conflicts such as the Peloponnesian War and the Punic Wars. Syracuse was known for its mercenary recruitment, its powerful fleet and its brilliant inventions (see Archimedes). It is generally believed that the first ballistas were invented in Syracuse. The Achaean League, a powerful confederation that held out against the Macedonians and controlled a large part of Greece. They had a powerful army and were the only ones mentioned to use Thorakites apart from the Seleucids. They reformed their army at some point to use the Macedonian pike. And if we implement this system, it would be much easier to create a faction for a campaign. For example, if we decide to create a faction to represent Massalia for a campaign, we reuse the vast majority of existing elements. This would mainly be parameterization rather than design.

But I don't think we should sacrifice that aspect. I just think that if we're going to have a Germanic faction, we might as well think about how it can include as many things as possible and be complete. I don't think we should leave out the people involved in the Gallic War. I also think we should include the wars with the Roman Empire and I even think we should include the late elements that correspond to the time when Germanic culture was at its most mature and richest. I don't think the Romans and Hellenes should be the only ones to have reforms in the game. I think that, with a bit of imagination, you could easily represent the two or three periods of Germanic history within the same faction. I can still understand separating the Goths, because they weren't called Germans by the ancients. But for the rest, it's a shame to miss out on all their history. The Britons has never been called Gauls. It is even not certain the ancients viewed them as Celtic. And their material culture is indeed different from the Gauls. There is no evidence for any weapon in the Suebian sphere before the very late phase of the Republic and early Roman Empire. No evidence. They practiced a form of cremated burials and they didn't put any weapons in their grave. The Jastorf culture is particularly sober in this regard. In Jutland, there are both evidence of local weapons (one-edged blades) and imported weapons from the Celtic sphere. In a similar situation, the Przeworsk culture practiced a form of cremated burials but in their case, they did add weapons in the burials. In their case, there is also a mixture of local weapons (one-edged blades) and Celtic weapons. The Przeworsk culture is probably the most Celtized culture. The Poienesti-Lukashevka culture who established itself in Moldova and seems to be related to the Bastarnae, included Celtic weapons in their burials too. And when the Suebian sphere started to add weapons in their graves, with the Großromstedt horizon/culture, it included Celtic weapons too. The Celtic sword was basically the Kalashnikov of the ancient time, you find it everywhere. But it doesn't mean the Cimbri were more Celtized than the Suebi. Celtic items were found in the Suebian sphere, simply it was not weapons. It is mostly fibula, arm-rings, collars and belt pieces. Here La Tène B (380-260 BC) finds outside of the La Tène sphere: A significant part of Germany was maybe populated with Celts we didn't know much about but the area of the middle Elbe was not Celtic obviously.

The problem is that it's not a campaign. It's a playable faction. In themselves, the Cimbri are an interesting part of the story. But I think it's reductive to represent the Germans solely with them. And I think players are going to ask questions. Especially casual players. Maybe I'm wrong. But I think we're spoiling a faction that could have been a nice surprise for players. Call them Germans, publish them and let's see what happens. In any case, our players are used to this kind of things.

Basically yes. This is a good analogy. Choosing between a city-state, a tribe or something else, with the idea that it's part of a strategy. In some cases it can be very specialized and in other cases a bit more general.

Many players only know Arminius for the early period. It was a national hero. Netflix recently made a series about him. Arminius is closer to the timeframe than Boudicca. So yeah, players don't know the look of the Germans. But they know a few things about the Germans.

If you bring in a faction called ‘the Germans’, people expect to see ‘the Germans’. People are either going to be disappointed, or they're not going to care.

In this thread, I've seen one constant. People beating their brains out over difficulties they've created for themselves. You want to separate the Germans into several factions when it's particularly difficult to produce a distinctive and unique architecture for them. You can't manage to integrate into a single concept the fact that weaponry and equipment have evolved over the course of their history. At first, you decide to focus on one people but you soon realise that the most interesting historical figures are not part of that people (like Arminius). You soon realise that archaeology isn't going to be able to help you much, because at the outset the Germanic civilisation was a very sober one with little artistic production. All of a sudden, you decide to go for the original game's idea of separating the factions into two periods (before and after the Christ). All this to choose an unknown people with incomplete information about them. But all of a sudden, you have to use this people to generalize about all the Germanic peoples. All because you've included different peoples as heroes of the faction (obviously reluctantly, because of the lack of information). Using the diversity of peoples as an asset is a very good idea, but fascinatingly you've managed to turn it into a bad idea. You should have thought of that beforehand. The original mistake was the Suevi.

I understand, but it is more complicated than that. They had a language, a religion and particular customs. This is the important features to determine a cultural affiliation. If they are coming from Jutland, they are more probably Germanic or they were related to a sister-language who disappeared without letting any traces but with a common ancestor related to the Proto-Germanic language. The issue is that the Cimbri wandering in Europe aggregated different peoples and we know some of them were Celtic (the Tigurini). For the Ambrones, it is uncertain, they gathered little interest and we don't know much about them. Strabo, Plutarch and Pliny generally said the Teutones were Germanic and came from the same area than the Cimbri. It is not the issue. It's just a fascinating effort you make to add to your difficulties and make things more complicated than they are. The Cimbri are not the most prominent of the Germanic people. You're building a house of cards. With the Germans in general.

Oh, that's nice, a messy new thread with so many useless posts it looks like spam. I can't understand how you can refer to the notion of index while at the same time misunderstanding the notion of index.

That's true but the Gauls in our game is not only the Gauls of the sack of Rome, or the Gauls of the Punic Wars, or the Gauls of the Gallic Wars. They depict a civilisation over a time span of four centuries. Why it is so difficult to grasp a civilisation that knew some diversity and evolution in its history?

I'm rather concerned to hear these comments. How do you imagine we'll ever be able to include the Greco-Persian Wars, the Peloponnesian Wars or even the Punic Wars as playable campaigns, if we get stuck at the first non-playable faction? Wasn't it simply a lack of vision at the start of the game's development? I'm thinking in particular of the split of the generic Greek faction into two factions with Athens and Sparta. I think we should have umbrella factions which should allow us to incorporate minor factions into the game and even take advantage of them to include them in innovative game strategies. It's extremely difficult to bring variety to building design. Creating factions that are entirely dedicated to one people has a significant cost from a conceptual point of view. The risk is of producing uninspiring, sloppy content by having to vary the designs for the same cultural sphere, or of giving up on including certain peoples altogether because of this challenge. And multiplying the selectable factions by including lots of peoples from the same cultural sphere is simply going to make the UI less interesting and less user-friendly. If we have to add Thebes, Corinth, Syracuse and Massalia as playable factions, we're walking on our heads. However, these city-states are interesting and can bring in lots of units, technology and interesting bonuses. I think that umbrella factions can integrate these minor factions in interesting and diverse ways. In the case of the Greeks, we can imagine starting with a generic affiliation to the Greek faction and quickly having a first choice offered in the civic centre building to move towards Athens or Sparta. Each brings different bonuses and different units that can be used quickly. However, the player can continue as a generic faction to unlock other choices such as Corinth, Thebes or Syracuse in the next phase. This is just a rough draft to illustrate how it might work. But I really think it's a better approach to bringing diversity into the game without degrading the visual quality of the game and without bringing in too much art. Umbrella factions can also address the problem of balancing civilisations that are either too weak because of a lack of variety, or too strong because of too great a diversity of units and technologies. The fact that certain units are dependent on specific choices can lead to interesting strategies and counter-strategies. This approach could also solve problems such as that of the Iberians. Which is still a faction implemented as a patchwork of three very different cultures. Introducing the option of choosing sub-factions or minor factions during the game would highlight the differences within the Iberian Peninsula without creating new, similar designs. I'm thinking in particular of the difference between the Iberians and the Celtiberians, who were culturally, politically and linguistically very different, but who had points in common in the architecture of their cities and fortresses. The aim of my proposal is to take advantage of the diversity of the ancient world without overloading the game with too many elements. But also to allow for diversity in the scenarios, and to allow for a respectful treatment of ancient peoples and cultures.

Age of Respair Liegecraft

A pile of turf blocks