Genava55

For example in the case of the Cantabrian wars: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270465249_Augustan_triumphal_iconography_and_the_Cantabrian_Wars_Some_remarks_on_round_shields_and_spearheads_depicted_on_monuments_from_the_Iberian_Peninsula_and_Italy

Which is actually much much much much more complicated when you know the context of Gallo-Roman trophees. It could be. But natives used Roman stuff HEAVILY, this makes everything difficult and Romans don't build tropaion for their enemies but for themselves, for a Roman leader generally. So it could mix a lot of things together.

Take care!

Obviously the Greeks are in the best position with their multiples colonies (Massalia, Emporion, Alonis, Taras, Cyrene, Odessos, Istros, Sinope etc.) and their explorers (Pytheas, Megasthenes, Euthymenes, Colaeus etc.).

Incredible what some modders are able to do

The topic is nearly the same with early Gallo-Roman monuments where we can find masked helmets alongside Gallic stuff (but also Roman stuff): Although it is really difficult at that time to assess if the representation are natives or Romans. Actually this uprising brow is something you would observe on Italic and Hellenistic helmets.

https://www.facebook.com/departement57/videos/244413320272646/ 10000000_275031830723555_1110700475503094151_n.mp4

Strabo put the Astures in the same group with the Galicians and the Cantabrians, saying they have the same custom. Probably they are an intermediate step between both, an ancient Indo-European culture being Celtized by Celtiberian culture as well.

Furthermore, some civs like the Mauryas and the Han (if they are added) have relied much less on slavery. Serfdom was more important. Indeed, an interesting topic. It could have a rising price on the market in relation with their numbers in game and any assault on the opposite player could result in a lower price for the current player.

Yeah I think it is a bit too early for a poll. It will depend on the content of the changelogs. It is nice to have a list of the proposals although.

The conquest of Britannia by the Romans is probably out of frame (excepted if you include the Roman Empire lol). Although there is an account from Caesar that the Suessiones had power over a large area including a part of Britannia during the reign of their king Diuiciacos (Diviciacus), 1st century BC. There is also the short campaign of Caesar in the British Isles (but the problem is the actual Romans are depicting Punic Wars, although it could be easily corrected for a campaign). Else, there is the journey of Pytheas of Massalia. It could be a really beautiful way to introduce the game to new players through a tutorial.

Because there was multiple alpha with modern languages, like "Ides of March" instead of Idus Martiae, Osiris instead of ꜣsjr, Argonauts instead of Αργοναῦται. I don't think double standards should be a rule suddenly. Furthermore, technically the ancient Britons DON'T have any writing system, so you are asking an impossible task since the alpha relies on an alphabetical character. But on the matter of the word Ynys itself, yes I believe it was mostly pronounced the same way by ancient Britons since the pronunciation is mostly the same in Old Celtic languages and that the reconstructed proto-Celtic is something like this in IPA /ɨˈnˑɨs/ while in modern Welsh it is /ˈənɨ̞s/. So if we consider that the pronunciation is mostly the same, I see no issues. Edit: Finally, Ynys Môn is an interesting historical reference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_conquest_of_Anglesey

Yes, Ynys is basically meaning island in modern Welsh. Inis is from old Welsh and old Irish. The name Mona is given by Roman accounts. I am glad you like the song, this is an excellent band.

Ysbaddaden, a giant of Welsh mythology. Yr Wyddfa, a famous mountain in Wales. Ynys Môn, an island called Anglesey in English, a place where there was a sanctuary and famous for the massacre perpetrated by the Romans on this island. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_conquest_of_Anglesey In case the Britons got their re-work.

Channel dedicated to the study of Ancient History, with particular interest in the martial field, through a multidisciplinary approach in which the study of sources and the analysis of finds are combined with experimental archeology. All the videos are in Italian but numerous videos include some English subtitles. Gioal Canestrelli is a serious guy with some academic background and a reenactor: https://www.ibs.it/libri/autori/gioal-canestrelli https://independent.academia.edu/GioalCanestrelli

To discuss further this priest issue I consider important as well, the copy from AoE2 is really an issue, I agree on this matter. Maybe the game should include a whole system related to priests and religion. Maybe a system of rituals enabled in a temple to give a specific bonus or anything else. But really, the priest and religion are wasted aspects. Edit: if I recall, Ancestors legacy had some tech bonus related to religion, it was really basic although.

The original Iberians in 0ad seems to have been designed on purpose from both the Celtiberians and the Iberians. Maybe a unique gameplay mech should be to branch two civs with the Iberians and letting the player choose during the game at some point. This is not totally historical but if it is clear and transparent I don't see the issue. Besides this, I agree with @av93 remarks.

I suspect the El Argar origin but I am not sure. I don't think anyone can retrieve the original justifications for this. Anyway, if it's this, this is really a double-standard and inconsistent.

The problem is that those justifications are probably incorrect from a historical point of view.

Probably a reference to the Bronze Age culture "El Argar", suspected to be the ancestor of the Iron Age Iberian culture.

At least it doesn't convert an enemy by shooting wololo at his face. I like the idea but to work it should be built really fast and I see how it could be abused by some players. By spamming it to block some units

Isn't it something from Ken Wood (the guy not the alpha)? I believe he was really fond of the Iberians.

Suggestion: differentiating the civs with deeper changes in the mechanisms of gameplay similar to Age of Mythology, Warcraft III and Starcraft 2. People generally object that there are too many civs for this. Counterargument: Grouping the civs by similar features and each groups having different mechanisms unique to their groups. The civs inside the same group could have also a few moderate differences like actually in A23 and A24 or like it is in the majority of AoE2 civs. Goal: having real different gameplay experience from switching to another civ. Note: this has nothing to do with previous suggestions proposing to make the game unbalanced on purpose with tier-list. I still think the game should be balanced. Examples of group (this only an illustrative example): Bellicist civs: Romans, Macedonians, Spartans Inheritor civs: Seleucids, Ptolemies, Persians Far-away civs: Maurya, Kushites Thallasocratic civs: Carthaginians, Athenians Barbarian civs: Britons, Iberians, Gauls Example of unique mechanism: the inheritor civs group could have a unique free building at the start because they have prospered in a territory with a very long story. Or a bunch of free houses because there were a lot of prosperous cities on the territory they acquired.