.jpg.4d575d1d330147616620e755ddb4c44a.jpg)
Genava55
-
Posts
2.398 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
82
Posts posted by Genava55
-
-
-
16 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:
In reality, celts weren't able to conquer civs like that.
Conquering is: to take control or possession of foreign land, or a group of people, by force.
Actually the Celts did that. Multiple times.
-
1
-
-
13 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:
It tries to get around the historical fact that celts didn't have siege
It is true but I must qualify that by saying the Gauls did use equipment against Caesar (book V, 42-43; about the Nervii attacking Cicero camp):
Disappointed in this hope, the Nervii surround the winter-quarters with a rampart eleven feet high, and a ditch thirteen feet in depth. These military works they had learned from our men in the intercourse of former years, and, having taken some of our army prisoners, were instructed by them: but, as they had no supply of iron tools which are requisite for this service, they were forced to cut the turf with their swords, and to empty out the earth with their hands and cloaks, from which circumstance, the vast number of the men could be inferred; for in less than three hours they completed a fortification of ten miles in circumference; and during the rest of the days they began to prepare and construct towers of the height of the ramparts, and grappling irons, and mantelets, which the same prisoners had taught them.
On the seventh day of the attack, a very high wind having sprung up, they began to discharge by their slings hot balls made of burned or hardened clay, and heated javelins, upon the huts, which, after the Gallic custom, were thatched with straw. These quickly took fire, and by the violence of the wind, scattered their flames in every part of the camp. The enemy following up their success with a very loud shout, as if victory were already obtained and secured, began to advance their towers and mantelets, and climb the rampart with ladders. But so great was the courage of our soldiers, and such their presence of mind, that though they were scorched on all sides, and harassed by a vast number of weapons, and were aware that their baggage and their possessions were burning, not only did no one quit the rampart for the purpose of withdrawing from the scene, but scarcely did any one even then look behind; and they all fought most vigorously and most valiantly. This day was by far the most calamitous to our men; it had this result, however, that on that day the largest number of the enemy was wounded and slain, since they had crowded beneath the very rampart, and the hindmost did not afford the foremost a retreat. The flame having abated a little, and a tower having been brought up in a particular place and touching the rampart, the centurions of the third cohort retired from the place in which they were standing, and drew off all their men: they began to call on the enemy by gestures and by words, to enter if they wished; but none of them dared to advance. Then stones having been cast from every quarter, the enemy were dislodged, and their tower set on fire.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Nescio said:
The two-men-and-a-log concept belongs in Age of Mythology. People who advocate it don't realize how heavy trees really are.
Oh I do, indeed this is not something you can easily carry, even with a large team. But for the gameplay I find it acceptable. The realistic alternative is a team armed with axes and pickaxes.
-
-
3
-
-
20 hours ago, borg- said:
Are there any indication of rams by the Celts? If not, I would find it interesting to remove and add a two men and a trunk unit in phase 2. It would be interesting to differentiate and make these civilizations stronger in the first and second phase, and weak in the third.
Nope. Siege rams do not seem to be used.
-
2 hours ago, Grapjas said:
@Thorfinn the Shallow Minded@Genava55 do you have any thoughts about the spear(melee) cavalry armor/weapon kit? Would they normally have shields? Would they have a couple of javs (or other ranged)? The more civ specific the better
Still about the engineers? For the Romans, since the end of the Republic, it seems the praefectus fabrum was a high officer, from equestrian rank. A Roman knight. Not very high in the hierarchy but not so low. This is a starting position for an equestrian. So I believe it should have a good quality panoply.
-
36 minutes ago, Nescio said:
What's fascinating is the cultural differences with respect to those slain on the battlefield. Turnus' death in the final verses of Virgil's Aeneid immediately springs to mind.
Indeed, Pallas's spoils wore by Turnus is echoing with the numerous accounts where a Roman "hero" or "champion" took an item of his fallen foe. The famous Torquatus for example or even the helmet took from Gargenus by Flaminius (Silius Italicus, 5, 130-139), which itself has a spoil of a Suebi foe Gargenus had slained.
-
49 minutes ago, Nescio said:
Britons, Gauls, Iberians, perhaps others too, I don't particularly care.
If there is a need to make those civs more offensive/aggressive-oriented yes no issue with that. It is a modern misconception to think the 'barbarians' were better at plundering the others. In reality the Romans were by far the most active in this regard.
Edit: to be clear, if it is needed to make the civs different, I don't mind giving it to one or several 'barbarian' civs.
49 minutes ago, Nescio said:Also, should all units be better at looting, or only a subset?
Either all units or only melee units. The most accurate should be melee units.
49 minutes ago, Nescio said:What is still needed is an interesting name and description (i.e. short historical justification).
For the Gauls there are references to Vae Victis and the sanctuary of Delphi. Plundering is mentioned a few times in the Bellum Gallicum.
For the Britons, the destruction and plundering of the imperial temple in Camulodunum.
For the Iberians, I don't know.
-
1
-
-
Small article (a few pages) on headhunting during Celtic Iron Age:
A video in French on the same topic:
-
Personally I am 100% in favor of this. I didn't know it was doable from a different way without impacting performance.
To see if the bonus should be applied to both Celtic civ or only to the Gauls.
-
On the matter:
On 21/08/2020 at 3:15 PM, Genava55 said:Vae Victis: Bonus in resources acquired from destroying and capturing buildings
On 25/08/2020 at 7:39 PM, Nescio said:I'm not sure that's doable. There are two related nodes, <Loot> and <Looter>. <Loot> is what destroyed entities grant to the player that destroys them, <Looter> is what entities give to their owner whenever they destroy an enemy entity. Both are fixed amounts (integers). Technologies (and civilization bonuses) typically affect your own entities, not those of other players. I guess it can be done via local auras (which might be costly performance-wise), though that would not achieve exactly what you wrote: if an aura increases the <Loot> of an enemy structure, then anyone who destroys it gets the increased loot, not just gaul players; and if an aura increases the <Looter> of your units, then you get increased loot from anything you destroy, not just structures; as far as I know it can't be limited to specific targets.
I agree on the idea but it seems to require deeper development.
-
The Big Steppe Kurgans as Architectural Monuments
The steppes of Eurasia, a wide belt stretching from the Central Asian plateau, the Ordos, in the east to the Danube in the west have been inhabited, throughout the whole history of mankind, by numerous tribes and nations. Burial complexes or, as they are commonly referred to, kurgans are a striking illustration and often the sole evidence of their unique and expressive culture that reached our time. The mounds grouped in bigger or smaller clusters are the most numerous archaeological monuments on the continent and in the course of the past thousands of years have turned into an integral part of the steppe landscape. Yet, in the last two hundred years a great number of these unique burial architectural monuments have been irretrievably lost
https://scfh.ru/en/papers/the-big-steppe-kurgans-as-architectural-monuments/
-
For building siege engines, more than engineers, it needs officers to coordinate the work. Engineers in the Roman army were also officers if I recall correctly.
By looking at Vitruvius wikipedia page, you can get a good grasp of the topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitruvius
-
2
-
-
The sword, the shield boss and the javelinheads are wrong for a 1st century AD warrior. I don't think it is based on real references.
-
3
-
-
A new video of Evropa Antiqva on the druids. English subtitles.
-
1
-
1
-
-
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.
-
1
-
-
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.
-
4
-
1
-
13 minutes ago, Yekaterina said:
The Xiongnu did eventually manage to set up a naval force to invade Japan
The Xiongnu invaded Japan?
QuoteTherefore, we can give them a 'mercenary dock' and a 'mercenary warship' and it would still be historically accurate.
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.
-
1
-
-
A really nice lecture I recommend
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Nescio said:
If you meant columns of the veranda along the right side of the building, not that I know of; hence why I'm speculating they may have been wooden.
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
-
28 minutes ago, m7600 said:
On the other hand, I wonder if it's really necessary to add it, since in some reconstructions they decided to omit it, in this one for example:
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.
-
Civ: Scythians
in Delenda Est
Posted
https://phys.org/news/2021-03-ancient-genomes-decline-scythians.html
Ancient genomes trace the origin and decline of the Scythians
Generally thought of as fierce horse warriors, the Scythians were a multitude of Iron Age cultures who ruled the Eurasian steppe, playing a major role in Eurasian history. A new study published in Science Advances analyzes genome-wide data for 111 ancient individuals spanning the Central Asian Steppe from the first millennia BCE and CE. The results reveal new insights into the genetic events associated with the origins, development and decline of the steppe's legendary Scythians.
Because of their interactions and conflicts with the major contemporaneous civilizations of Eurasia, the Scythians enjoy a legendary status in historiography and popular culture. The Scythians had major influences on the cultures of their powerful neighbors, spreading new technologies such as saddles and other improvements for horse riding. The ancient Greek, Roman, Persian and Chinese empires all left a multitude of sources describing, from their perspectives, the customs and practices of the feared horse warriors that came from the interior lands of Eurasia.
Still, despite evidence from external sources, little is known about Scythian history. Without a written language or direct sources, the language or languages they spoke, where they came from and the extent to which the various cultures spread across such a huge area were in fact related to one another, remain unclear.
The Iron Age transition and the formation of the genetic profile of the Scythians
A new study published in Science Advances by an international team of geneticists, anthropologists and archeologists lead by scientists from the Archaeogenetics Department of the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History in Jena, Germany, helps illuminate the history of the Scythians with 111 ancient genomes from key Scythian and non-Scythian archaeological cultures of the Central Asian steppe. The results of this study reveal that substantial genetic turnovers were associated with the decline of the long-lasting Bronze Age sedentary groups and the rise of Scythian nomad cultures in the Iron Age. Their findings show that, following the relatively homogenous ancestry of the late Bronze Age herders, at the turn of the first millennium BCE, influxes from the east, west and south into the steppe formed new admixed gene pools.
The diverse peoples of the Central Asian Steppe
The study goes even further, identifying at least two main sources of origin for the nomadic Iron Age groups. An eastern source likely originated from populations in the Altai Mountains that, during the course of the Iron Age, spread west and south, admixing as they moved. These genetic results match with the timing and locations found in the archeological record and suggest an expansion of populations from the Altai area, where the earliest Scythian burials are found, connecting different renowned cultures such as the Saka, the Tasmola and the Pazyryk found in southern, central and eastern Kazakhstan respectively. Surprisingly, the groups located in the western Ural Mountains descend from a second separate, but simultaneous source. Contrary to the eastern case, this western gene pool, characteristic of the early Sauromatian-Sarmatian cultures, remained largely consistent through the westward spread of the Sarmatian cultures from the Urals into the Pontic-Caspian steppe.
The decline of the Scythian cultures associated with new genetic turnovers
The study also covers the transition period after the Iron Age, revealing new genetic turnovers and admixture events. These events intensified at the turn of the first millennium CE, concurrent with the decline and then disappearance of the Scythian cultures in the Central Steppe. In this case, the new far eastern Eurasian influx is plausibly associated with the spread of the nomad empires of the Eastern steppe in the first centuries CE, such as the Xiongnu and Xianbei confederations, as well as minor influxes from Iranian sources likely linked to the expansion of Persian-related civilization from the south.
Although many of the open questions on the history of the Scythians cannot be solved by ancient DNA alone, this study demonstrates how much the populations of Eurasia have changed and intermixed through time. Future studies should continue to explore the dynamics of these trans-Eurasian connections by covering different periods and geographic regions, revealing the history of connections between west, central and east Eurasia in the remote past and their genetic legacy in present day Eurasian populations.
https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/7/13/eabe4414