Genava55

Scythian princess or priestess https://www.inform.kz/ru/obshnost-kultur-proslezhivaetsya-na-prostranstve-velikoy-stepi-kazahstanskiy-restavrator-ea94d3

Yeah it is sadly something repeated over and over by modern pseudo-historians.

Ok boomer?

Joyeux Noël Merry Christmas Feliz Navidad

The biggest difference in total war is that ranged units are locked by melee units when the fight is engaged. It is difficult to disengage the ranged units without taking massive losses. Yes. But it means the implementation of the attacks in javascript should take in account the different possibilities we could use. And the IA is the biggest issue because it should be adapted to use the features. Obviously the best is to group all the units with this feature and to associate them to the same key.

A poll on aoe forum suggests people want an automatic switch from ranged to melee when fighting in close combat: https://forums.ageofempires.com/t/poll-should-ranged-units-switch-to-melee-attack-in-close-combat/240872

From what I see it is wanted mostly to give to some units the abilities to switch between ranged and melee attacks. But I think it is more complex than that. The cases I identified are: Infantry ranged and infantry melee. Cavalry melee and cavalry trampling. Cavalry charged attack and cavalry melee. Naval ranged and naval melee (ramming). Siege ranged and siege melee. Elephant ranged and elephant melee. In some cases, the wanted feature is a switch between melee and ranged that would be manually activated. In other cases it is multiple attacks simultaneously like archers on elephants and siege towers with battering ram.

https://x.com/Majora__Z/status/1868429879135379728

Pella

In its prime, Cahokia was a prosperous city with a population similar to London’s. But this sprawling Native American metropolis from the Mississippian culture vanished long before Europeans arrived in North America. What happened? This Indigenous city’s enigmatic rise and fall has inspired countless theories and has long captivated the imaginations of archaeologists. And now, cutting-edge scientific research offers a glimmer of hope in unraveling the mystery of Cahokia's disappearance.

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: