Genava55

Have the compatibility issues been resolved?

The exceptionally rich chamber grave of Gommern (Sachsen-Anhalt), from the late 3rd century CE. Grave goods include Roman tableware and military belt, gold jewelry, bow, other weaponry, and an embroidered round shield (boss made from a Roman drinking vessel) The nobleman was buried on Suebian territory, but a clay vessel shows connections to the Chatti tribe in the west. He was probably in war against Rome and/or in Roman military service for some time, and later became an important chieftain or local king. It is also suspected he received diplomatic gifts from the Romans. The grave also contained a board game, speaking for the strategic mind of the buried man. Depicted are the playing stones and metal fittings of the apparently foldable board, which is now decayed.

The dromos is a running racetrack.

Yep and it could be exclusive to the Spartans if the theater is exclusive to the Athenians. Otherwise there is the dromos of Sparta that could be unique.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tentative_reconstruction_of_the_palaestra_of_Aristotle’s_Lyceum_(Lykeion)_by_Dimitris_Koukoulas,_2013,_Athens_(45180131185).jpg

@Thorfinn the Shallow Minded do you agree with @wowgetoffyourcellphone about the wooden theatre of Sparta?

I think those are the champion's upgrade with experience

Giving shields to the Samurai cavalry is a bit ugly

Is there any news on this? https://code.wildfiregames.com/D368 https://trac.wildfiregames.com/ticket/252

Yeah, the design of the game is a bit cartoney, very colorful and very bright features everywhere

Close up preview of the units

Manor Lords release date => April 2024

The Order of the Dragon

Dynasty and Hierarchy in the Tombs of Monte Albán Oaxaca.pdf Codices_on_Stone_Genesis_of_Writing_in_A.pdf Early_Transformations_of_Monte_Alban_s_M.pdf The_Zapotec_writing_system.pdf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapotec_script

Using Vulcan should drastically increase the performance and reduce the lag. The list is there: https://trac.wildfiregames.com/query?status=assigned&status=new&status=reopened&type=defect&milestone=Backlog&group=type&col=id&col=summary&col=owner&col=type&col=priority&col=component&col=time&order=priority People making balancing changes and small features are not the same people than those working on the engine and on the core of the game.

Don't worry, I took this as an opportunity to look for more info on the topic. I know you didn't imagine it like that. It's just that if you assert different arguments in a confident manner, you push your interlocutor to respond in depth. As you can see, the Cimbri are probably the best candidate to have such bonus for their women. Although they are still no warriors, they defended themselves with axes, swords etc. So at least they could have a better weapon in game for fighting. The Lusitanians could have a sort of women warriors, at least there are two strong evidences that some women could fight as regular troops.

There aren't really any towers that the Celts built. This is something that is tolerated for the sake of the gameplay but there is no indication that there were watchtowers or fortified towers in the landscape. On the other hand, the northern Britons built Brochs, Duns and Crannogs. Jarlshof Broch and Caithness Broch are the inspiration for the current fortress of the Britons. Technically a broch is not a fortress, but a fortified hamlet or a fortified house. In some cases, the broch is only constituted of a single tower like structure. I cannot say much for the tower but indeed fortified small buildings were widespread in the landscape. So why not implementing what you propose.

Farewell Stanislas. You have been a fantastic leader and your involvement has been remarkable. We will miss you, but I understand your decision. I wish you the best and don't hesitate to come back to say hello on the forum.

I will continue my answer later this evening (because it takes time to have a proper argument)

A recent revision proposed by @borg- is under review and its goal is to provide an upgrade of the female citizen, for the Gauls and Britons, to a female warrior. The description of the revision is the following: I expressed my concern about the revision, due to the absence of evidence provided. The phrasing above is also very bold and very affirmative, which is bothering to me. @borg- answered with this message: I have several issues with this answer and I will challenge different aspects he mentioned. From his answer, I see the following key-points: In Celtic societies, women warriors were not uncommon. Many women in Celtic societies were trained to fight. The patch is made to bring women as a last line of defense. @borg-does not provide evidence, does not know any reference supporting the claim and says the counter argument, which he phrased as "women couldn't fight", is as difficult to prove. I will start with the point n°4 because I think this is an important issue and I think @borg- need to understand the problem with this kind of attitude. What you are doing @borg- is shifting the burden of proof to me while you are the one making a claim and you are following a fallacious reasoning known as the argument from ignorance. Furthermore, you are expressing another fallacy known as the strawman argument, by saying the counter-argument is to prove that women couldn't fight. The issue is not to know if women could or not fight. I will say it directly, all women could fight, whatever they are Celtic, Roman, Greek etc. My issue is that you are making a patch that would enable the possibility to upgrade all women as warriors for the Celtic civs. By asking to prove that women couldn't fight, you are asking for an impossible challenge which is irrelevant to your claim. And the problem I have with this attitude is that it is disrespectful to others in a debate. I know you didn't mean to be disrespectful, I don't think it was intentional on your part. But I want you to understand that despite everything, this is not a healthy attitude. Remember Brandolini's law and consider the time I am taking to answer here. Now let's start with points n°1 and 2. By saying the women warriors were not uncommon in Celtic societies, you are saying this was not rare and not exceptional. As if it was something the Celts were used to see in their societies, even if it was not the majority. The same about the training of women, if they were many. By looking at my favorites books I use as references, I don't find any support to this claim. For example in The Celtic World edited by Miranda Green, it deals a lot about the women, it mentions the quotes from the Romans about their aggressiveness and stature, it mentions that we know several burials of wealthy women suggesting they had access to political power etc. but at no point it is written or even suggested that the women fought as warriors or were trained to use weapons. The Celtic World is a massive book of 800 pages with 40 contributors, all historians or archaeologists. Yet it is not mentioned. In Barry Cunliffe's 2nd edition of The Ancient Celts, he doesn't mention any evidence for female warriors, females fighting on the battlefield or females training with weapons. Quite the contrary, he mentions that during the Galatian raids, the people following Leonorios and Lutorios were mentioned by the classical authors as being constituted of 20'000 persons from which half were non-combatants, because those were the children, the elders and the women. He also mentions that during the last battle of Boudica's revolt, the bagage train and the chariots were uphill and the women and children stayed with the bagage train to have a good view on the battlefield. I have the same struggle to find any reference about female warriors in the literature written in French (books written by Jean-Louis Brunaux, Venceslas Kruta, Luc Baray etc.). In the commentaries of the Gallic Wars written by Caesar, there is no mention of any fight including women, or only as passive victims. So I am really sure of myself when I am saying there is no mention of female warriors. The only mention of the aggressiveness of the women is from Ammianus Marcellinus (4th century AD): Ammianus Marcellinus is not a contemporary of the description he is writing. It is obvious he is mixing different references, notably from Diodorus Siculus, Strabo and Caesar. Although the whole account about the women is unique and does not exist in the original sources, it is also heavily exaggerated and scatty. But even in this account, it doesn't say the women use weapons to defend themselves or their husband. Quite the contrary, the animal strength of the women is compared to catapults. So in conclusion, the evidence concerning directly the Celts are lacking. Let's see what is said about their neighbors. There is one interesting account during the Cimbrian invasion, at the Battle of Vercellae, when the Romans defeated the Cimbri, Ambrones and Teutones. Plutarch also mentioned the women at the battle of Aquae Sextiae against the Ambrones: Strabo also mentions the role of women before and during the battlefield among the Cimbri: Plutarch and Strabo are considered as reliable enough in general. I will now show you the account by Orosius, a Christian priest of the 5th century AD, generally considered as unreliable [he is also dub enough to confuse the Cimbri as Gauls]: @borg- this is an interesting case where the women weren't trained as warriors, didn't fight in the battlefield but could have been aggressive after the defeat of their men. Just an example of a different interpretation from the aggressiveness described by the classical authors. If you want a real account describing women carrying arms and fighting, there is one by Appian. He describes the wars in Lusitania against Viriathus: In this case, this is a very explicit account. The kind of evidence which is lacking for the Gauls and the Britons. ( And before reading moldy arguments like saying that the Lusitanians are Celts so it's as if we could extrapolate to all the others, no the Lusitanians are no Celts: https://academic.oup.com/book/36477/chapter/321084624 ) The women of Salmantica, a city of the Vaccaei, they set a trap and hid weapons in order to protect the city against Hannibal, they fought against his soldiers. During the siege of Iliturgi, an Iberian city of Southern Spain (nearby Cordoba), the women helped the men to defend the city by providing ammunition: Concerning the martial arts, there is a mention of such training through a description of Cynane, half-sister of Alexander the Great and half-Illyrian from her mother Audata : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynane An example of women defending their cities with their husbands, the Aetolians, a Greek people, who were besieged by the Galatians: Otherwise, is there anything in the archaeological record? Yes. There are at least two burials of Celtic women with weapons. One is the "Rigana of Oleggio". A burial nearby the Lake Maggiore in Northern Italy and dated to the 2nd century BC. A woman was buried in an individual tomb, n°53 of the necropolis, with a complete panoply of weapons and several wares as her grave goods. One of the plate has the writing "Rigana". The term refers to the feminine counterpart of the Latin regulus and of the Celtic rix. And one is a burial in Bryher/Scilly, recently analyzed genetically and it appeared it was a female: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/old-iron-age-female-warrior-scilly-iburial-rcna96595 But in both cases, those burials suggest noble women, with a lot of prestige. It is not clear if those were proper warriors or mostly leaders.