Genava55

I know three important accounts about them: Battle of Thermopylae (480 BC), Battle of Delium (424 BC) and Battle of Nemea (394 BC) In the three, there is no mention of their panoply. The best we have is Thermopylae where Herodotus does not detail the Thespians' armor separately from the rest of the Greeks. He describes the Greek forces collectively using long spears and shields. During the final stand, he notes that after their spears broke, the remaining defenders (including the 700 Thespians) fought with swords (xiphē), and eventually with their bare hands and teeth.

Maybe when the encyclopedia will be available within the game we could explain the context and the nuance around the concept of Marian reforms.

I think they can keep their black-and-white shields. We can also let them keep their black chiton. I think the most important thing is to stop calling them “black-cloak” or “Melanochitone.”

In this case no, it is purely an archeological category. The Frisian pottery is unique to the region and cannot be grouped within the Rhine-Weser or the Elbe traditions. Frisian pottery has its own features and it is spanning a period from the 7th century BC to the 4th century AD. It is highly probable that the original Frisian people has been replaced culturally during the 3rd and 4th century AD. Probably by migrants from the Lower Elbe and Jutland. It is entirely possible that the earliest Frisians spoke an orphan language since it is naive to believe that we are aware of all the linguistic branches of the Indo-European family. It is very likely that some branches disappeared without leaving any traces or legacy. However, it is important to realize that the Nordwestblock theory has its critics. Many of the arguments in this theory are based on an overinterpretation of onomastics. Several experts have already pointed out that many examples presented as impossible to explain using Celtic or Germanic languages are highly debatable. Furthermore, other experts have pointed out that certain features presented as representing a unique substrate in this region are in fact found in other distant regions. Furthermore, it is quite inconceivable to imagine a language that would serve as an intermediary between the Celtic and Germanic languages. The two language families likely diverged several thousand years ago, well before the Iron Age. The most likely scenario is simply an exchange of words, borrowings from one language to another. But that does not fundamentally alter the structure of the language. If it is a linguistic isolate, there is a good chance that it is a language derived from the Italo-Celtic languages. It is also simply possible they spoke a orphan Germanic dialect. We don't know much about them before the 3rd century AD so the question is open.

Archeologically, the term Rhine-Weser Germanic is used after the Roman conquest and the creation of the Roman empire. What you have in mind are the Ubii, the Usipetes and the Tencteri but their identification is uncertain. Materially they are Celtic. The Ubii had the oppidum of Dünsberg.

If you want to stay focused on the period between 500 BC and 1 AD, I suggest to choose the following: - Cimbri (Jutland) - Suevi (Elbe-Germanics) - Lugii (East-Germanics) - Bastarnae (East-Germanics?) The Cimbri could be based on material from Jutland and the events of the Cimbric war. The Suevi could be based on material from Jastorf and Grossromstedt cultures and the events related to Ariovistus: Iron-Age-in-northern-Germany.pdf The Lugii could be based on material of the Przeworsk and Oksywie cultures. The Bastarnae could be based on material of the Poienesti culture and their invasion of the Balkans between 200 and 100 BC:

Ah sorry, I thought you said the enclosure outside the temple. The enclosure outside the settlement/village is the necropolis I think.

En cualquier caso, este mapa muestra los pueblos germánicos en el siglo II de nuestra era.

You can find more information about them here: https://www.academia.edu/124853492/Meanwhile_in_the_North_Handmade_Pottery_beyond_the_Roman_Frontier At least it explains why they are separated on this map. Although the Old Frisian is related to Old English and Old Saxon, this is maybe a feature happening during Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Maybe it was not the case during the Iron Age. A sacrificial scene takes place in a fenced area right in front of the temple. The temple is the building on the right. The main building is seen on the left, and in the background, the palisade is under construction. Craftspeople are working in the area between the two buildings. In this case, the drawing is primarily based on our results from the 2025 excavation.

Here a translation of the description from the museum: The sanctuary or temple, which is located in the southeastern corner of the fortification, perhaps within a demarcated parcel. It has burned down, and beneath the destruction layer we found traces of two temple phases. The entire structure measures 15×16 m and is almost rectangular. On the outside, there is a deep trench (dug almost 2 m below the surface) in which sturdy round wooden posts stood at intervals of 30 cm. Inside this outer building, there was a smaller, yet still very sturdily constructed building or "room", 9.5 m long and 5.7 m wide, with an entrance to the south. Between the outer colonnade and the inner building, there are traces of a clay floor. The roof must therefore have extended all the way over the colonnade, covering the entire structure. The inner structure rests on four deeply founded load-bearing posts, and the wall is constructed of vertical oak planks. Finds of plaster suggest that the walls were plastered with a whitish and perhaps painted layer of plaster. Exactly in the middle of the inner building, there is a 2×2 m raised area built of solid clay; on top of this, in the youngest phase, lies an ornamented hearth that partially covers the hearth of the oldest temple, which is visible as a very intensely burnt zone in the clay. Here, it is very clear how the youngest temple was shifted approximately 75 cm to the north compared to the older temple, but otherwise it is nearly identical to the oldest temple. In connection with the rebuilding, the floor in the inner building was leveled. Only the older hearth remained untouched; the new one was simply laid directly over it. Preliminary results suggest that the temple functioned in the decades right around the time of Christ, and the younger temple may also turn out to be contemporary with the rebuilding of the village and the fortification of the central farm.

Of course. I understand your frustration and your sense of injustice. The developers have gone in with a sledgehammer without warning, and they’re ignoring any prior discussion whilst criticising others for not discussing things beforehand. But we must also understand that they have their own reasons, and the only way to change their minds is through dialogue. In this situation, where you’re the one at a disadvantage, you need to be better than them. You also need to be convincing to the others who are reading your posts here.

Fais un effort pour répondre de manière constructive. Tu donnes une mauvaise image de toi-même.

https://fr.pinterest.com/siresasa/dipylon-and-boeotian-shields/

An example from Athens to work with

Game of Thrones: War for Westeros

When you mention render submission being the main bottleneck, is the core issue that Pyrogenesis's rendering pipeline runs sequentially on a single CPU thread, or is it already multithreaded and just struggling with massive draw call volume late-game? Furthermore, is there any prospect for optimization through GPU instancing to batch identical units and cut down those draw calls?

The biggest part of the problem is calculating pathfinding and collisions between units. That's the main source of problems in all RTS games. And unfortunately, it has to be done in real time.

Still, precalculating AI decisions early on won't work. Game state changes so fast that plans become completely invalid beyond just a few seconds into the future. That early precomputation does zero to relieve late-game CPU strain, in fact, it does the exact opposite. Constant re-planning wastes processing cycles, massively complexifies the codebase, and drastically increases the risk of CPU throttling right when performance matters most.

This won't work for 0AD. The main issue late-game is CPU lag from live pathfinding and unit checks, not a lack of RAM. Precalculating AI plans early on wastes CPU cycles because as soon as a human player moves a single unit, the AI's precomputed plan is invalidated and has to be thrown out anyway. Disk swapping AI instructions would also cause massive frame stuttering.

Maybe, but it is not my case. I have seen recently CNC machines running on Windows NT, large printers running on Windows 98 and Windows XP, a SCADA running on Centos 5 etc.

They are used but not from modern Linux distro. Generally old hardware uses frozen old OS setups.

There is controversy following messages from some Linux kernel developers encouraging the abandonment of support for older hardware.

You are right. Roman "August 2" (a.d. IV Non. Sex.) wasn't August 2 in actual solar time because the pre-Julian Republican calendar was infamously uncalibrated at the time. The pontiffs had been delaying their civil dates by roughly six to eight weeks in order to avoid intercalary months. The war actually occurred in mid-June or early July 216 BC according to astronomical study that matched the equinoxes and the time of Apulia's grain harvest. The leap-year problem under Augustus is the only small error in your remark; it occurred much later and had no bearing on 216 BC.