Genava55

Still the article says explicitly that Post-Roman Egypt got more gene flows from Sub-Saharan populations and that New Kingdom Egypt, Ptolemaic Egypt and Roman Egypt were less close to the genome of Sub-Saharan populations than Post-Roman Egypt.

Read the article.

All the best @av93

Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15694

Thx a lot!

How is it going ? Just wondering if you succeeded.

I replied there.

For any Principate or Dominate factions that could come in the future, it could be considered. Because it is grounded by historical evidences. However, if we want to portray each civ in a multi-ethnic fashion, it wouldn't be grounded by historical evidences. And this is similar to the gender neutral for the whole roster suggestion. No evidences and purely cosmetic.

That the Earth isn't flat is a fact, not an opinion. Your opinion about it can be wrong or right like you said. Another example, a gender biased society during ancient times and across multiple civilizations is a fact. Your opinion about it can be wrong or right in regards to this fact. Portraying differently the society in 0AD is a choice. Your opinion cannot be right or wrong in regards to a fact. It is easy to critizise when you are not trying to formulate a criterion yourself. You are simply saying the game has inaccuracies and you follow by asking for further inaccuracies. This is a logical loop and there is no criterion in your formulation to bound it. When I gave you nonsense examples like what if the Romans had black powder, it sounded illogical to you. But at no point you were able to formulate a criterion to explain why it sounds illogical. That's the issue with your reasoning and your whole demonstration trying to say there is no absolute rule we follow. Your reasoning and arguments are a pandora's box by itself because you can apply it to any suggestions.

People thinking they are moral zealots. You actually proved this is your motivation by implying there is a wrong and a right opinion. In Switzerland we vote regularly and about numerous things (like laws) and we are used to see the majority not following our own personal view. That's all.

White knights too. Rofl. This is so dumb I won't reply.

Accept it yes. I am Swiss, I am used to live in a real democracy. Support it no. But you can come back for this day, if you happen to be still around in a few years.

In the end, it will be the majority that decides and you will be disappointed.

If the Zapotecs are introduced, it is mandatory they could fight each other. It would be stup*d to forbid one faction to face another. Limiting the game like this would result in a backslash from the community. Thats the difference between self-whacking about fantasies and reality. Nobody planned the Britons to face the Kushites, it simply happen because each of them have good reasons to be included in the game on their own.

What if the Romans discovered black powder? What if the Spartans were bodybuilders fighting naked like in 300? What if this is a pandora box full of nonsenses that knows no end? Maybe you are simply lacking any motivation about history, thats why you are missing the point.

Are you familiar with Hanlon's razor? Personally I don't believe easily in conspiracies.

The problem with your position is that you are nitpicking every details unrealistic or not historical to argue for further unrealistic and not historical details. This attitude is really bothering and you are acting in bad faith. Where is the limit in your view? At which point you are considering that historical accuracy should have a weight in decisions if you consider de facto the game as inaccurate? My position is always the same, the game cannot be totally historical or realistic but we can still portray civilisations the more accurate possible to give a better representation to people of what they looked like. For me, an issue like Britons fighting the Kushites isn't bothering me because at least the civs are more accurate on their own. Britons fighting Kushites is a contextual issue in regards to history. While a gender neutral society for each civ is an issue per se. It will dampen down the accurracy of the civilization portrayed on its own. For such cosmetic changes, I don't see the benefit outweighting the cost.

I was just nitpicking, if the elephants lose their crushing damage, I am fine with it. Their role in siege warfare is minor. But I really object against any gender neutral army, this is going in contradiction with ancient cultures and their beliefs.

Clearly not. They weren't used as siege rams but they have a good pulling power.

There is some sense in the use of elephants against structure. The Sasanian Persians used them in siege operation against structures according to Procopius. I am just saying it is not totally wrong. For non-military units, I agree with the suggestion.

I will go further, I want to see blacks, asians and whites in every civs. Because it is FUN. I want to see white nubians among Kushites and black hastati among the Romans.

Because the Britons have fought the Romans and the Gauls, because Greeks and Carthaginians had knowledge of the Britons. Since the Romans, the Gauls, the Greeks and the Carthaginians are in the game, they can fight each other and the same for the other civs. We shouldn't restrict a civ to fight only a couple of others. If it bother you, the game has even illogical things like the Mauryas, a dynasty founded in 322 BC that could fight the Achaemenid empire that fell in 330 BC. The game portrays historical events occurring between 500 BC to 100 AD approximately. So it is mandatory to broke a bit the reality to fit everything in the game. Both geographically and temporally. Name one ancient civilization that employed female fighters in an equivalent amount than the male fighters (even nomads didn't). An egalitarian society in ancient time isn't something credible. There is no historical motive for this. There is no gameplay motive for this. This is purely political. At least, the idea that two distant civilizations clash is much more credible than something that wasn't observed anywhere at that time. And like I said, there are gameplay motives for it. In the future, there won't be any campaign portraying Britons fighting Kushites. There will be campaigns about real historical events like the Punic Wars, Alexander's conquests, wars between Kushites and Romans, the conquest of Britannia by the Romans etc. At least those events would be fairly portrayed in the campaigns. For the custom battles and the multiplayer, this is logical they could fight each other to let the player have fun.

It is often phrased that way but indeed 0AD isn't a real portray of history, nor putting historical accuracy above everything else. Actually, the gameplay and the design of the game are above the historical accuracy. HOWEVER, the gameplay and the game design themselves try to take inspiration from history to create a basic set of rules to follow, a framework. There is a kind of back-and-forth logic in how the game was framed and designed. History and gameplay aren't contradicting each other all the time. Now this is true the game didn't follow historically accuracy in absolute. But this is like everything in real life, it is rare that something follows an absolute rule. From a more practical oriented phrasing, the community made a huge effort to portray ancient civilizations as accurate as possible without hindering the gameplay and the fun from playing the game. Obviously there is a line to not cross. If someone argues about naked Conan-like berserkers with giant two-handed axes or to put lorica segmentata on Punic Wars hastati, this should not be ok. Even if it is cool or fun.

Munro-Hay, S. (1991). Aksum: An African Civilization of Late Antiquity. Edinburgh University Press. Phillipson, D. W. (2012). Foundations of an African Civilisation: Aksum & the Northern Horn, 1000 BC-1300 AD. Boydell & Brewer Ltd. Hatke, G. (2013). Aksum and Nubia: Warfare, Commerce, and Political Fictions in Ancient Northeast Africa. New York University Press. all available over z-library https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/168483/historicity-of-aksum

thx a lot Indeed, this is a bit of clickbait.