Genava55

I found really weird the Celtic wall being called "Taux" in my 0AD, which is set in French... until I understood that the wall is actually called "Rate" in English but somehow, an automatic translation got the Celtic name for the wall as an English word... rate like in a measure, for a value or for a varying quantity. Which is "taux" en français.

It would be nice to build an entire concept around mercenaries. Currently, the few mercenaries in game are related to the civ/faction, to the military tree. For example Scythians archers for Athenians and Thracians for Macedonians. But it would be really cool to have mercenaries related to the map. Just a quick idea, the map could have settings for a mercenary environment, a kind of 'mercenary biome' giving a set of units that any players in the current game could recruit from. For example a map with Mediterranean flora could have also a Mediterranean set of mercenaries available, with Italics, Iberians, Cretans, Numidians etc. It could be wide (Mediterranean, Asia, Central Europe etc.), specific (Italian Peninsula, Anatolia, Greece etc.) or random for fun. Obviously it would be cool and would bring a lot of diverse units with different aesthetics. And people like this kind of things. But I think there are even more rational arguments for it. First of all, it can bring balance between the civs without bringing its related dark brothers, monotony and homogeneity. It can bring balance because some civs have historically a lack of units in certain areas, and it is therefore difficult to balance those civs in various situation. For example naval units, this is really a big issue for some civs. But if all civs have access to a variety of naval units through mercenaries in naval maps, then players start to consider a wider range of civs when playing in those maps. Obviously, I am not suggesting making all the civs the same in regard to their weaknesses and strengths, mercenaries should have a counterpart, a penalty (price, limited number or/and something else). Furthermore, some civs could have a few unique techs related to mercenaries (like Carthage could have for example). The goal is not to make Britons equally powered to Athenians in naval maps for example, no. It is simply to eliminate an entire blind spot. Because there is a huge difference between a civ with weak navy and a civ totally useless in this matter. Second aspect, it would give more spotlight to other cultures that are interesting and/or appreciated by everyone but not planned in the game roadmap. Especially in the case where 0AD do not add a dozen factions easily, it would be appreciated by modders and people making historical campaigns in the future. Samnites, Thracians, Germans, Cantabrians, Lusitanians, Numidians, Scythians, Rhaetians, Illyrians and a dozen more interesting people. Finally, it is a flexible concept that can be easily adapted to the game. It could be gaia entities in the map to capture to get the possibility to recruit the mercenaries (I think Delenda Est is doing this) but it could be also directly from a building every civ has (an embassy for example). Or even lazier, from the market. To not make the mercenaries the equivalent of the common roster, there are many possibilities to add negative aspects nerfing them, with the idea to find the golden mean.

The Xiongnu invaded Japan? I like the idea, it is only difficult to find reference for historical mercenaries linked to the Xiongnu, especially for a naval expedition. It could be solved if the mercenaries instead of being related to the faction would be linked to the map.

A really nice lecture I recommend

Yeah that's them, I find it confusing. Thx, for the reply.

Is the word Veranda really appropriate? http://www.macedonian-heritage.gr/HellenicMacedonia/en/C1.1.1.html Are the columns on the right side clearly identified? https://www.jstor.org/stable/43636542?seq=15#metadata_info_tab_contents

Probably disagreements between archaeologists, the footprints of the remaining building can be difficult to interpret: http://en.protothema.gr/palace-of-aigai-biggest-building-of-ancient-greece-opens-to-public-photos/ https://www.aigai.gr/www.aigai.gr/en/explore/palace.html Edit: Either open and uncovered, or open but with columns and covered by a roof.

Not on the timeframe but still interesting

Its very old https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurgan_stelae Heroes have balls, that's very Indo-European Edit: More seriously on the matter (but we are off-topic)

From Archéo Art facebook page:

Probably a video much more useful for the Britons.

Next step, sexual offender Carnyx player: (it is a real thing coming from Ottó Herman Museum)

For the units:

About Gobanion, I have chosen it because of Gobannium, the ancient name of Abergavenny. Although, it could be related to a 'smith divinity (Gofannon in Welsh, the equivalent of Vulcan) which makes the thing complicated. Uxelon is a personal reconstruction but it is really made-up. I simply used the root Uxel-/Uxello- we see in place-names like Uxellodunum. In modern languages, it gives uchel in Welsh, uasal in Irish and uhel in Breton. The problem in this case is that the word tower in modern Celtic languages are all borrowed from Latin (turris), even through English (tower comes from turris). Antosolicon is also a made-up reconstruction with -soli-/-suli- related to the sight and the eyes. It uses also the root anto- which is plausibly related to a kind of limit, although it could be both a physical or a metaphysical limit so... maybe a better candidate should be randa or randon as we find it in Camminoranda and Equoranda, plausibly at the territorial limits of civitates. Eposton for the stable, with an inspiration from Celtiberian boustom which is basically the roof of the cows/oxen. Miletucerdon is a made-up reconstruction with Miletu- for destruction and Cerdon for artisan/craftsman. Celicnon is problematic, but it is a proposal from Delamarre and Savignac: https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/celicnon I choose Celicnon for the wonder because it is based on the sanctuary of Corent which was a place of gathering and feasting and not only a religious place. Since Delamarre and Savignac proposed it is a feasting-place, I took the opportunity even if it is a contested hypothesis. Remogantion is for a unique building based on a theatron-like building found in Corent as well. It is interpreted as an assembly or a senate since Caesar mentioned those in his account. Although it should be maybe Remocantion, from Remo- (first, prince) and -cantion from the tribe Cantiacii. Cantio- has similarities with Old Irish céite, a word for an assembly. I don't know why I wrote gantion instead of cantion. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Celtic/kantyos Cranogion is an uninspired made-up word from Cranog because I didn't find anything that would be the equivalent in Gaulish. Obviously it cames from Irish crann, but then it would be prenn in other P-Celtic languages. The problem is that the Crannog reference comes from Ireland and Scotland which falls in a difficult topic from a linguistic view of the ancient times (pre-roman Iron Age). For the wonder called Emain Macha, I have nothing to do with this name. I hope it helps. Final edit: words for the wall and the palissade are missing. The wall should be rate (ráth, ráith in Irish) but the palissade...

Not an analysis but funny and interesting story about AoE2:

I want my Gauls naked as well

I added in a post above a translation of a German article about a semi-academic reconstruction of a sanctuary in Austria with the addition of elements from other sanctuaries. The original article with the references and the bibliography (I scrapped them for readability): https://www.academia.edu/2262344/Roseldorf_rekonstruiert_Ein_keltisches_Heiligtum_entsteht_in_Asparn_Zaya You can find a critical review in English of their work: https://exarc.net/issue-2012-1/aoam/roseldorf-rekonstruiert Some pictures to give you some motivation to read it:

A very good video. I rarely seen someone resuming the topic that well. He is maybe a bit harsh about the Britons but that was mostly correct. Edit: If I can criticize some parts of the video, it would be: - The name of the tribe Pictones/Pictaves should not be viewed as "the painted-ones" this is a very old analysis and it is not really reliable today. The root pict- should come from the PIE *peik and it is related to: colorful, spotted, paint, decoration, dappled, variegated, stitched, evil. So it is an excessive jump to conclusion to say the Pictones/Pictaves would have been bodypainted only from this. - The coin he displayed is actually 1st century BC evidence, so it contradicts his own argument. But indeed we have no testimonies of body painting or tattoos from classical authors so if it is in use, this is a minor practice among the Gauls and this is not very visible since foreigners missed it. - The La Tène culture didn't spread by replacing the people during the 5th century. We are actually CERTAIN that the population before the La Tène culture spoke a Celtic language closely related to Gaulish. Notably because of Lepontic inscriptions that are dated to the 6th or 7th century BC. Archaeologically we don't see a violent expansion, we see a cultural and material quick evolution. - The British Iron Age is not really "La Tène". It has adopted several La Tène features very quickly but it is quite a unique culture. In comparison, the continental La Tène culture reaches a much more homogeneous state since the 3rd century BC. - Finally I think metatron is doing a Polybian analysis by saying the Britons didn't adapt their warfare because of the absence of conflict with the Greek and Roman world. This is a bit too simple, like most of Polybius' self-interpretations. Social evolution has probably a huge role in this, because in a warfare-culture, warriors and aristocrats are strongly rooted in the structures of the society and from the interaction with their kin. Chariot warfare is probably related to smaller chiefdoms but more numerous while the continent La Tène reached earlier a "proto-state" with more centralized power and wider warrior-class / warrior retinues. Furthermore, the Britons did evolve and started to adopt more and more cavalry, but it is a trend starting at the very end of their independant period. The Britons didn't have conflict with the Romans first but they did with the Belgae (see the Suessiones' Diviciacus). Personally, I see similarities between Britons tactics and the guerilla warfare applied by Ambiorix. Otherwise, it was a great video.

Thank you for highlighting also the benefits. This is will be much appreciated to all the people that worked hard. Actually I can certify to you that we discussed the balance for MONTHS. We had a private discussion on the topic since december 2019:

Volume 2 is here: https://www.academia.edu/45028157/Vol_2_2_of_F_Quesada_Sanz_1997_El_armamento_ibérico_Estudio_tipológico_geográfico_funcional_social_y_simbólico_de_las_armas_en_la_Cultura_ibérica_siglos_Vl_1_a_C_MOnpogr_Instrumentum_3_Montagnac

By the way you seem to know a bit the topic, plus you are fluent in Spanish (probably your mother tongue). If you are interested you can suggest some rework for the Iberian faction and some addition for a possible new faction. Maybe you noticed, but the current Iberian faction is a bit messy from a historical point of view. It is mixing on purpose features and items from the Iberian sphere and the Celtiberian sphere, plus a couple of features from neighboring material culture and even a character/hero. I really find amazing that 0 A.D. is portraying such lesser known culture like the Iberian, but I am also sad it is ending in a patch-work of multiples cultures without clearly explaining to the player the differences. The Iberian Peninsula is a fascinating region with a lot of diversity. I don't think 0 A.D. could fit several factions from the Iberian peninsula but a second one could be acceptable and desirable. Personally I see three important cultural group (or supracultural group): the Lusitanian, the Celtiberian and the Iberian. I don't know really how to reduce it to only two factions. I suggested several ideas but I am not sure any of them is convincing, even for me:

Or auxiliaries. It says that the upper-left with the rectangular shield is based on a terracotta from Fayum (we discussed it already I think with Sundiata and Nescio in a different thread). The others are Libyans and Nubians from the famous mosaics of Palestrina/Preneste.

http://profesorjuliodapenalosada.blogspot.com/2015/12/le-soldat-lagide.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agatharchides It seems Agatharchide was talking about those cavalrymen.

Don't worry, there is no urgency. Thx again.