Genava55

I think yes. The only thing bothering is the circular iron shield boss. This is something that appeared among the Przeworsk culture in modern day Poland, not in Denmark... At least until the Roman era. I don't know if we should restrict the evidences to material found in Jutland or not.

Borremose "fortress" Iron age Jutland village of Hodde Celtic weapons: Bones weapons: Wooden weapons: One-edged swords: Celtic like spearheads: Battle-scene:

For the symbol, I would suggest a solar wheel. We can use a reference from the late bronze age since there is no record of native art: https://media.lex.dk/media/17783/standard_helleristninger.jpg For the heroes, Boiorix is the best candidate, we have some info about thim. Lugios, Claodicos and Caesorix are barely mentionned in the source. According to the ancient sources, Boiorix seems to have had a certain preponderance on the other mentioned Cimbres leaders. Thus, in 105 BC, it is at the head of the Cimbres that he crushed the army of the legate Marcus Aurelius Scaurus in Transalpine Gaul. Livy described him as a young man full of pride and arrogance. According to this same author, Boiorix made prisoner the legate Marcus Aurelius Scaurus. While the latter tried to divert the Cimbres from Italy, the young leader had him tortured (Periochae, LXVII). His name was not mentioned on this occasion, but everything leads to think that he took part in the battle of Arausio (October 6, 105 BC), then during the later expeditions. Boiorix was again mentioned in July 101 BC. when he came himself to challenge the consul Caius Marius. Both agreed that the confrontation of the two armies took place at the level of the Raudian Fields, near Vercellae (Verceil, province of Verceil, Italy) (Plutarch, Parallel Lives of the Illustrious Men: Life of Marius, 26). It was during this battle, the battle of Vercellae (July 30, 101 BC), that Boiorix died, while fighting in the front rank (Florus, Abridged Roman History, III, 4; Orosius, Histories against the pagans, V, 16, 20). Lugios died in the same conditions, whereas Claodicos and Caesorix were taken alive (Histories against the pagans, V, 16, 20). Florus, Abridgment of Roman History, III, 4: "Their king Boiorix fought bravely in the front rank and made his death pay dearly." Orosius, Histories Against the Pagans, V, 16, 20: "Among these many forms of miserable death, it is reported that two chiefs rushed at each other with naked swords. The kings Lugius and Boiorix fell on the battlefield; Claodicus and Caesorix were captured." Plutarch, Parallel Lives of Illustrious Men: Life of Marius, 26: "Boiorix, king of the Cimbres, at the head of a small detachment of cavalry, having approached the camp of Marius, provoked this general to fix the day and the place of the combat, to decide who would remain master of the country. Marius answered him that the Romans never took council of their enemies to fight; that however he wanted to satisfy the Cimbres on what they asked. They therefore agreed that the battle would be given in three days, and on the plain of Vercellae, a convenient place for the Romans to deploy their cavalry, and for the Barbarians to extend their numerous army." Livy, Roman History (Periochae), LXVII: "Mr. Aurelius Scaurus, lieutenant of the consul, is defeated by the Cimbres and falls himself in their power. Called by them in council, he tries to make them give up the project of crossing the Alps and penetrating into Italy, by telling them that the Romans cannot be defeated. He is killed by king Boiorix, a young man filled with pride and arrogance." ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Teutobad is not very well known and there is a legend he was a giant: Florus, Epitome of Roman History, 1.38 - ca. 150 CE : The War with the Cimbri, Teutones and Tigurini The Cimbri, Teutones and Tigurini, fugitives from the extreme parts of Gaul, since the Ocean had inundated their territories, began to seek new settlement throughout the world, 2 and excluded from Gaul and Spain, descended into Italy and sent representatives to the camp of Silanus and thence to the senate asking that "the people of Mars should give them some land by way of pay and use their hands and weapons for any purpose it wished." 3 But what land could the Roman people give them when they were on eve of a struggle amongst themselves about agrarian legislation? Thus repulsed they began to seek by force of arms what they had failed to obtain by entreaties. 4 Silanus could not withstand the first attack of the barbarians, nor Manilius the second, nor Caepio the third; they were all routed and the camps captured. 5 There would have been an end of Rome if that age had not had the good fortune to possess Marius. Even he did not dare to meet the enemy immediately, but kept his soldiers in camp until the irresistible fury and rage, which in barbarians takes the place of courage, spent itself. 6 The barbarians, therefore, made off, jeering at our men and — such was their confidence that they would capture Rome — advising them to give them any messages which they had for their wives. With a speed which amply fulfilled their threats, they bore down towards the Alps, which form the barriers of Italy, in three detachments. 7 Marius with wonderful celerity immediately, by taking shorter routes, outstripped the enemy, and coming upon the Teutones first at the very foot of the Alps, what a defeat he inflicted upon them, ye heavenly powers, at the place called Aquae Sextiae! 8 The enemy held the valley and the river flowing through it, while our men had no water-supply. It is uncertain whether the general acted designedly or whether he converted a mistake into a stratagem; at any rate the valour of the Romans under the constraint of necessity gave them victory. 9 For when the men demanded water, Marius replied, "If you are men, there it is yonder for you." With such ardour, then, did they fight and such was the slaughter of the enemy that the victorious Romans drank as much barbarian gore as water from the blood-stained stream. 10 Their king, Teutobodus himself, who had been accustomed to vault over four or even six horses, could scarcely find one to mount when he fled, and having been captured in a neighbouring forest was a striking figure in the triumphal procession; for, being a man of extraordinary stature, he towered above the trophies of his defeat. Eutropius, Abridgment of Roman History, 5.1 - ca. 369 CE While the war was going on in Numidia against Jugurtha, the Roman consuls, Marcus Manlius and Quintus Caepio, were defeated by the Cimbri, Teutones, Tigurini, and Ambrones, nations of Germany and Gaul, near the river Rhone; and, being reduced by a terrible slaughter, lost their very camp, as well as the greater part of their army. Great was the consternation at Rome, such as was scarcely experienced during the Punic wars in the time of Hannibal, from dread that the Gauls might again march to the city. Marius, in consequence, after his victory over Jugurtha, was created consul the second time, and the war against the Cimbri and Teutones was committed to his management. The consulship was also conferred on him a third and fourth time, in consequence of the war with the Cimbri being protracted; but in his fourth consulship he had for his colleague Quintus Lutatius Catulus. He came to battle, accordingly, with the Cimbri, and in two engagements killed two hundred thousand of the enemy, and took eighty thousand prisoners, with their general Teutobodus; for which service he was elected consul a fifth time during his absence. Orosius: Marius, now consul for the fourth time {102 B.C.}, pitched his camp near the confluence of the Isara and Rhone rivers. The Teutones, Cimbri, Tigurini, and Ambrones fought continuously for three days in the neighbourhood of the Roman camp, trying by every means to dislodge the Romans from their ramparts and drive them out on level ground. They then resolved to invade Italy in three armies. 10 After the departure of the enemy, Marius also moved his camp and occupied the hill overlooking the river and the plain where the enemy had spread themselves. When his army lacked drinking water, complaints arose on all sides against him; he answered that there was certainly water in plain sight but that it would have to be claimed by the sword. The camp servants, shouting loudly, were the first to rush into the fray; then the army immediately followed. Lines of battle were quickly formed for regular combat. An engagement was fought in which the Romans were victorious. 11 On the fourth day both sides again drew up lines of battle upon the field. The struggle raged on almost equal terms until midday. Under the burning rays of the sun, the flabby bodies of the Gauls melted like snow, and a massacre rather than a battle continued into the night. 12 Two hundred thousand of the Gallic soldiers, according to report, were slain in that battle, eighty thousand were captured, and barely three thousand fled. Their general Teutobodus was killed.

The Suebi, Semnones, etc. are generally thought as being related to the Jastorf culture. The Jastorf culture is mostly known for its incineration burials. It started during the 7th century BC, so it is old enough. The only issue is that they didn't put weapons in their burials until mid 1st century BC, probably due to the influence of the nearby Przeworsk culture. The first known figure of the Suebi is Ariovistus... and that's all for the campaign of Caesar. So they are basically ruled out just because of that. The Lugians or Vandals are generally associated to the Przeworsk culture, starting around 200 BC. Contrary to the Jastorf culture, they buried their people and they put weapons with them. It seems to have been a very martial society. Big issue although, they have mostly none known figures. Finally we have the Cimbri, Teutones and Ambrones. There are some finds from Denmark that could be useful. The Cimbri had Boiorix for king, the Teutones and Ambrones had Teutobad. Two chieftains of the Cimbri are also mentionned Claodicus and Caesorix. So I think the only candidate are the Cimbri, just to have enough historical figures.

Etruscans would be nice.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Thousand https://discoveringancienthistory.wordpress.com/2017/04/06/fighting-for-the-enemy-greek-mercenaries-in-persian-service/

I work with mods for other games. Mostly Total War and Bannerlord M&B.

I think it was motivated mostly by the amount of work, the necessity to reach a good level of quality for each civ and the difficulty to balance the civs. Splitting the workload is not a bad idea, but putting a strict limit was not a smart way to deal with the workload. Edit: btw there is less people working on 3d models and textures here than in any mods I work with.

Multiple structures could be a great idea. You could have a small sanctuary with a wooden statue, a sanctuary with a semi-natural groove, a sanctuary on water or on a marsh, a sanctuary with a tree and weapon offerings. You can also have an assembly place etc. etc. A sanctuary like the statue could provide an area bonus ideal for defense. A sanctuary in a groove should bring a general bonus but it should be defended while being far from the civic center. You can put condition on some sanctuaries, like being far from the civic center, built on a forest, built on water bodies etc. Going further, the Suebi could have an unique ressource, scrapping weapons from fallen foes, giving them unit bonus instead of experience. And they could have the choice to discharge those weapons in a sanctuary to convert it as a general bonus or to unlock unique tech. But this requires a lot of coding.

It was split in two. With the idea of an expansion or a second game. I was not involved in this decision, this is very old.

Do you know the difference between iron, steel and cast iron? https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundición_de_hierro https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alto_horno https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horno_bajo

Copper mostly during our timeframe. Bronze appeared later. Foundries? fundiciones? Absolutely not. I don't understand how you could say that.

I agree, although recently people suggested to remove Boadicea due to that. I am not in favor of removing her but indeed she breaks the limit.

The Origins of Maya States The Pre-Columbian Maya were organized into a series of independent kingdoms or polities rather than unified into a single state. The vast majority of studies of Maya states focus on the apogee of their development in the classic period, ca. 250-850 C.E. As a result, Maya states are defined according to the specific political structures that characterized classic period lowland Maya society. The Origins of Maya States is the first study in over 30 years to examine the origins and development of these states specifically during the preceding preclassic period, ca. 1000 B.C.E. to 250 C.E. Attempts to understand the origins of Maya states cannot escape the limitations of archaeological data, and this is complicated by both the variability of Maya states in time and space and the interplay between internal development and external impacts. To mitigate these factors, editors Loa P. Traxler and Robert J. Sharer assemble a collection of essays that combines an examination of topical issues with regional perspectives from both the Maya area and neighboring Mesoamerican regions to highlight the role of interregional interaction in the evolution of Maya states. Topics covered include material signatures for the development of Maya states, evaluations of extant models for the emergence of Maya states, and advancement of new models based on recent archaeological data. Contributors address the development of complexity during the preclassic era within the Maya regions of the Pacific coast, highlands, and lowlands and explore preclassic economic, social, political, and ideological systems that provide a developmental context for the origins of Maya states. The Technology of Maya Civilization: Political Economy And Beyond in Lithic Studies The ancient Maya shaped their world with stone tools. Lithic artifacts helped create the cityscape and were central to warfare and hunting, craft activities, cooking, and ritual performance. 'The Technology of Maya Civilization' examines Maya lithic artefacts made of chert, obsidian, silicified limestone, and jade to explore the relationship between ancient civilizations and natural resources. The volume presents case studies of archaeological sites in Guatemala, Mexico, Belize, and Honduras. The analysis draws on innovative anthropological theory to argue that stone artefacts were not merely cultural products but tools that reproduced, modified, and created the fabric of society. 3,000 Years of War and Peace in the Maya Lowlands: Identity, Politics, and Violence 3,000 Years of War and Peace in the Maya Lowlands presents the cutting-edge research of 25 authors in the fields of archaeology, biological anthropology, art history, ethnohistory, and epigraphy. Together, they explore issues central to ancient Maya identity, political history, and warfare. The Maya lowlands of Guatemala, Belize, and southeast Mexico have witnessed human occupation for at least 11,000 years, and settled life reliant on agriculture began some 3,100 years ago. From the earliest times, Maya communities expressed their shifting identities through pottery, architecture, stone tools, and other items of material culture. Although it is tempting to think of the Maya as a single unified culture, they were anything but homogeneous, and differences in identity could be expressed through violence. 3,000 Years of War and Peace in the Maya Lowlands explores the formation of identity, its relationship to politics, and its manifestation in warfare from the earliest pottery-making villages through the late colonial period by studying the material remains and written texts of the Maya. This volume is an invaluable reference for students and scholars of the ancient Maya, including archaeologists, art historians, and anthropologists. Architecture and the Origins of Preclassic Maya Politics Architecture and the Origins of Preclassic Maya Politics highlights the dramatic changes in the relationship of ancient Maya peoples to the landscape and to each other in the Preclassical period (ca. 2000 BC–250 AD). Offering a comprehensive history of Preclassic Maya society, James Doyle focuses on recent discoveries of early writing, mural painting, stone monuments, and evidence of divine kingship that have reshaped our understanding of cultural developments in the first millennium BC. He also addresses one of the crucial concerns of contemporary archaeology: the emergence of political authorities and their subjects in early complex polities. Doyle shows how architectural trends in the Maya Lowlands in the Preclassic period exhibit the widespread cross-cultural link between monumental architecture of imposing intent, human collaboration, and urbanism. Mexico: from the Olmecs to the Aztecs Michael D. Coe’s Mexico has long been recognized as the most readable and authoritative introduction to the region’s ancient civilizations. This companion to his best-selling The Maya has now been revised by Professor Coe and Rex Koontz. The seventh edition incorporates new findings in a number of disciplines. The solution to the long-standing puzzle of the origin of maize-farming has at last been solved, and spectacular new discoveries shed light on Mexico’s earliest civilization, the Olmec culture. At the great city of Teotihuacan, recent investigations in the earliest monumental pyramid indicate the antiquity of certain sacrificial practices and the symbolism of the pyramid. Expanded information on the Huastec region of the northeastern Gulf of Mexico is included, while discoveries in the sacred precinct of the Aztec capital Tenochtitlan have led to a refined understanding of the history and symbolism of this hallowed area.

Indeed. This area is outside my expertise and I have already too much to read for other mods I am participating with. It would be nice to have someone with an academic background, or at least comfortable with academic literature, and the motivation to tackle this topic. Customized tech tree would be revolutionary but it should be implement first then.

For your information, I voted yes to the two questions in the poll. My concerns however are: Contrary to the other civilizations already included or to the candidates generally considered, the American civs are purely prehistorical civs. Other civilizations are known from historical records and classical literature. Even people without a proper literature have been described by neighboring civilizations and have participated to the events related to civilizations with a literature we know and understand. For example, Iberians, Gauls and Britons were known and described by the Romans and the Greeks. From those civilizations, we know the names of multiple tribes, the names of several towns, the names of multiple leaders and kings. We know multiple battles and wars they participated in. We know the names of multiple gods they believed in. For the Protoclassic Maya and Zapotecs, we don't have the same level of information. This is an issue for the heroes for example. I don't think there is enough info to find three figures from their period. Currently, the designs of the Maya and Zapotecs have elements going out of our timeframe. Especially the Zapotecs. They have been designed for mods which don't have the same restriction related to the time-line. Although this is not really a big issue. There are some concerns about the balance. The American civs didn't rely as much on metal than our current civs. They didn't have any sort of cavalry. Their weapons are mostly based on Neolithic technologies. Animal husbandry wasn't very developed too.

I am opening this thread following the debate we had recently about following releases (A28+) and the inclusion of new civilizations. In the past, the community already discussed it, but it didn't get the same level of attention: I think it should be discussed in a specific thread, with a proper title and a proper structure, with a poll to know the opinion of the community. Two civs have been worked on for a mod, the Maya of the Protoclassic / Late-Preclassic period and the Zapotecs : We must remember that 0 A.D. is dedicated to a period of time ranging from 500 BC to 1 AD.

The few inscriptions known from this period don't tell much. It doesn't give as much information as the long texts of the Egyptians or of the later Maya. You cannot have a proper account with short inscriptions of less than 10 glyphes. So I maintain my point: this is not history in a strict sense. If it was the case, we should be able to get three real figures for the heroes. But it is not.

Are you sure that historical is the correct word? Archaeological yes. Historical no. Archaeology doesn't give you easy answers. Quite the contrary. Folklore from 2500/2000 years ago?

This is 0 A.D. copying AoE 2 once again but why not. This is a nice mechanic. Although mostly accessible late in the game.

Yes. But the point is that the Iberians are related to the history of multiple people. Their participation to the Punic Wars, their renown as mercenaries etc. While the Maya people and the Zapotecs are not related to anyone among the current civs. We don't even know any event from this period.

How do you think we can implement the capture of enemy's horses? Or are saying they should have cavalry at the start ? Siege towers during the protoclassic period? Or is this evidence from the classical period?

This story is very dubious. The remains are not accessible to anyone, the guy kept everything and doesn't let anyone access it.