Genava55

https://www.facebook.com/CastilDeGriegos/posts/2249602671745226 https://www.facebook.com/CastilDeGriegos/posts/2249573321748161

I know, I found the old wall model in the game editor. Indeed it is impossible to make a real rampart for the moment. I am sharing the video simply because this is something I found cool. For the bonus I suggested as a unique tech for the Gauls, this is not really important that the current wall in the game is not a true murus gallicus (anyway only a few people knows the difference).

Interesting 3D model showing how a mixed type of rampart was built (mixture between Altkönig Preist walls and Murus Gallicus rampart)

https://www.facebook.com/evropantiqva

Well it really depends on the focus of the gameplay. Stronghold series is known to focus more on the buildings and the economy. The military is more about strategies than tactics, more about macro than micro. Siege defense also plays a big role, with a more dynamic system than 0AD and AoE. So everything stresses the need for open field and wide space. At the opposite, I would say Ancestors Legacy is the perfect example of the reverse situation, focusing more on tactical decisions. Terrain diversity, closer field, chokepoints etc. this is clearly suited to the gameplay.

So sad. Now I understand why it hasn't been implemented. And why there is only the aura of Brennus doing this kind of effect. This is sad because it would have been much more interesting for the gameplay. I think it was one of the bonus the most favored by the others. I think +5 for each CC should be a good. This is already a good start ahead. I don't think we need to include Barracks and Fortress in the bonus. The Sheep Age reference is a bit far-fetched, so we can adapt it easily. Actually there is a technology at the coral to reduce the training time of livestock so it should be something else. Reducing of 5 food the cost of an animal? That could be a bit too big on the long term. Basically for 10 animals, it gives one free (although the training time must be taken in consideration). Since players already overexploited the livestock as a broken strategy, I am worried. Increasing collecting speed of citizens on livestock meat, +5%? They are lacking technologies and increasing speed can be quite strong economically so let's go for a special tech. I agree for both. This is fair. Too strong? Or the concept itself? As unique technologies, I think of several for the Gallic cavalry: Trimarkisia. Basically the cavalryman had servants or squires bringing him new weapons and a fresh horse in the height of the action. I suggest an increase in health and/or mobility. Horned saddles. It was something in use in the Celtic cavalry starting around the 2nd century BC and it is commonly thought the Romans adopted it. I suggest an increase in attack for melee cavalry and/or range for skirmisher cavalry. Cavalry sword (cladios or cladiomaros?). The Celts popularized the first long cavalry swords in the West (independently to the nomads), in some case the blade length goes beyond 80 cm. The cavalry sword was adopted by the Roman cavalry as well, notably with the famous metal scabbards decorated with open work plates like in Badenheim and Ljubljanica. I suggest an increase in attack dmg (slashing obviously). ------ @borg- @av93 @badosu Do you have any idea for a bonus that could replace the Vae Victis suggested previously? Something that could encourage an offensive play style. Or do you have any wish about a kind of gameplay lacking in the game actually?

Thx. Indeed, my idea is to make the Gauls more offensive and the Britons more defensive, with good mobility which a key feature of the Celtic armies in general. The Britons are clearly more often using guerrilla tactics, this is clear in Caesar account and what is explained in Graham Webster books: And this is also what suggest the archaeological remains:

I did. It makes sense for the fortresses and the barracks because they are inspired from broch, oppida, hillforts and fortified farms. Place with inhabitants. The thing is that initially, every civ had a population bonus with other buildings than houses. Notably the fortress. So it would make this feature of the Celts very unparticular. BUT, Nescio suggests changing that. See: https://code.wildfiregames.com/D2950 So if the other civ have mostly the houses and the CC to increase their population capacity, then a Celtic faction could have this particular feature of increasing pop with fortresses and barracks. Interesting, this is kinda doing an archaeological dig in 0AD to find this old artifact never implemented displayed on the menu of the game Clearly this is often difficult to strictly differentiate them from the archaeological record, especially in comparison with the other civ. They have more similarities than differences. However, by mixing archaeological and historical references with a bit of imagination and liberty, it is possible to suggest different things. Thank you borg- for the support. To explicit my suggestion (I will put it again below this message), I choose these bonuses for the Gauls because they are associated with the La Tène civilization which is booming early. I suggested the reference to Ambigatos because in Livy account, the Gallic invasions started because Ambigatos asked his sons to settle his people elsewhere to solve an overpopulation crisis (basically). I also liked the reference to Vae Victis and I added the headhunting practice because I think those are well-known references and because I think it would be an interesting mechanic to encourage an offensive gameplay. The reference to the reaper should work nicely with the first bonus to facilitate an early booming. Finally the reference to Montefortino is because the necropolis at this place is a well-known example of cultural exchange between Etruscans and Gallic populations (the Senones). For the Britons, the reference to the Sheep Age comes from an academic publication in which the author says that a zooarchaeologist would divide prehistory in Britain according to the dominant animal in the records and that the Bronze Age and the Iron Age belongs to the Sheep Age until the Roman conquest. The reference to Inis Mona is about the battle of Anglesey, the only account of Druids in a battlefield (although tragic), the Druids didn't fight but prayed and cursed the Romans. The reference to the construction bonus comes from the fact that several hillforts are showing successive occupation with destruction and reconstruction (Danebury is a good example). The reference to bodypainting is really an important feature that should be emphasized in the game to distinguish the Britons with the Gauls. The reference to earthwork comes from the fascinating hillforts we found in southern England with complex ditch and walls made of earth, stones and wood. The teaching center is a reference to the account of Caesar about druidism, suggesting that Gallic Druids went to the British Isles to be trained. Finally a reference to the Celtic Epic literature because the only remaining account of this Celtic tradition is coming from the British Isles and because the Homeric warfare of the Britons would be a good pretext.

Thank you for taking the time to correct me. It could make sense but it seems to be a very broad bonus. It applies also to fortresses, towers and walls. This is maybe irrelevant for those cases. This one doesn't really make sense from a historical point of view in comparison with other civs. It makes sense. It could be a bonus called "wattle-and-daub", although it could work both with Britons and Gauls. Therefore, this is more a matter of strategical design for the civ. Concerning the Vae Victis mechanics, why it has been removed? Personally I could understand why, especially if there is something similar with the hero Brennus (although it seems associated to units instead, I don't know why), loot and plunder are widespread phenomenon in the past. Maybe it could be replaced with headhunting, which is something more particular in the case of the Gauls.

English subtitles in this video, discussing the origin of daggers in the Roman army I also recommend the other videos:

Interesting depiction of a Gallic warrior:

illustration of a warrior with a shield based on the Salisbury hoard, a sword based on the hilt from Hod Hill and on the scabbard from Isleham and finally the shield from Leicestershire on the side. Note that the warrior is also carrying a javelin with a bonehead. Finally, this artist is producing a lot of fantasy material but I like the bodypainting of the warrior: https://www.deviantart.com/dewitteillustration/art/Warhammer-Albion-Brightwoad-Bearer-794994101

A lot of illustrations in those threads: http://imtw.ru/topic/48629-rimskoe-carstvo-regnum-romanum-i-rannyaya-respublika/ http://imtw.ru/topic/969-drevnii-rim-epoha-imperatorov/page__st__110__p__2202023#entry2202023

Ritual sauna as a building?

Suggestion. Gauls: Ambigatos: Bonus in population capacity given by any CC Vae Victis: Resources acquired from destroying and capturing buildings Headhunting: Resources acquired from killing heroes (or champions too). Invented the Reaper: Bonus in collecting food from farms Montefortino: team bonus, reduced blacksmith tech cost and research time Britons: Sheep Age: Bonus related to livestock Inis Mona: Druids increase attack speed of nearby units (or reduce attack speed of nearby enemies) Build, Endure and Rebuild: Construction bonus (reduced time or reduced cost) Britanni vitro inficiunt: Bodypainting gives infantry bonus (speed, healtpoints, health regen?) Masters of Earthwork: Reduced stone cost for CC and walls. Teaching Center: team bonus, reduced resources cost for healers. Celtic Epic / Mabinogion: team bonus, reduced training time for champion (or heroes)

Just found sketches of older helmets found in the 19th c., like most things in Britain those are gone: on-ancient-bronze-helmets-found-in-1818-at-ogmore-down-glamorgan-1872.pdf

For those reading Spanish fluently, it seems I found a detailed article about sauna in NW Hispano-Celtic cultures: https://revistas.unav.edu/index.php/cuadernos-de-arqueologia/article/download/27839/23445 Bonus:

Trarco is as well the new leader of the Lusitanians and Celtiberians factions design for Europa Barbarorum. I confirm he is a true boss on the topic.

Ok thx for the info. From a historical point of view, the Britons suffer from the comparison with the Gauls, the same way the latter with the Greeks or the Romans suffer it. Making a strict and accurate comparison is not real useful in this case. Even classical literature is not really fair and interesting in the comparison between Gauls and Britons (see Strabo): https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Strabo/4E*.html Currently both factions have as general bonus: Increase in food collected from farm and livestock Druids increase attack speed of nearby units Gauls have, as a team bonus, the reduced blacksmith tech cost and research time. Britons have, as a team bonus, the decrease in resources for priests/healers. Gauls have as unique technologies/bonus the reaper increasing food collecting on farm, vae victis to get resources from destroying or capturing buildings, and finally they have "Carnutes" giving attack to their druids. Britons have as unique technologies Sevili Dusios (which is a reference to body painting) to increase both attack speed and moving speed of melee units and Turos Maros (which seems to be a reference to folklore and tales high walls) to increase height bonus for units in structures. From a critical point of view: The general bonus in food collected from farm and livestock is credible for both factions. We know that both civilizations were relying a lot on agricultural and pastoral related products for export. About the Gauls, the shift from the Hallstatt to La Tène period saw a quite sharp change in crop practice with new species and more homogeneous crop type in the same field suggesting a focus on productivity. At the same time, a lot of deforestation happened to clear more lands and to feed the furnaces for increasing iron production. The Britons saw this process with a more gradual pace and a bit later, during the Oppida period with increasing Gallic/Belgic influence. Although there is one particular early feature among the Britons, at Danebury around the 5th century BC there was a lot of storage pits and small granaries to hold a significant quantity of grains. So the Britons weren't exempt of innovation, while on the continent the Gauls first increased their grain productivity, the Britons first increased their storing capacity. Concerning pastoral activities and livestock, the difference are smaller. Both were known for their animal derived products, the Gauls had a small advance on the size of the animals but that's it. The most striking difference is about pigs being more frequent in Gaul than in Britain and the reverse for the sheep. See reference to the sheep age in this article. The general bonus for Druids increasing attack speed is a bit... both watertight and questionable. There is nothing to support it but it is enough plausible to consider it as a valid hypothesis. I don't recall any reference of druids in the battlefield excepted in the particular case of Anglesey/Mona. Although in this case, the Britons' druids were frightening the enemies more than inspiring their men but we have only the point of view of the Romans so the second option is plausible. Maybe the bonus is better suited to the Britons. The team bonus you choose for the Gauls is good as we discussed it. A bonus in blacksmith tech is credible in regards of the influence they had on nearby "barbarians" and in regards of its legacy among Gallo-Roman blacksmiths. We already discussed the reaper as I suggested it and I think there is no issue with it. We should simply considerate the Gauls already have a food bonus. The Vae Victis is a good and popular reference to Brennus and it is a fair bonus since the Gauls were known to loot and plunder (even if the Romans did the same on a bigger scale, history is written by the victors). Honestly the Britons probably did the same but there is no record of it. The Carnutes reference is a bit misunderstood. The Gauls weren't political retards and they had general assemblies above the tribal scale. One of this assembly was a meeting of all the druids in Gaul and this meeting was generally held somewhere in Carnutes territory. This assembly during the Gallic Wars decided to revolt against the Romans and to kill Roman citizens everywhere. However, the druids didn't kill the Romans themselves. So it doesn't relate to the bonus from a critical point of view. The Britons team bonus is in relation to Caesar account (6, 13) suggesting an insular origin of the druidism and still an active place of teaching for Gallic druids at his time. That's credible although the bonus is maybe underpowered with the current use of the priest/healer. The reference to body painting is indeed a very particular feature that should be put in front and be more visible in their difference to the Gauls. So a bonus in relation to body painting is clearly a good thing in my opinion. Although it can take various forms (attack dmg, attack speed, health points, health regen etc.). I don't know the origin of the name (Sevili Dusios), it seems to be a Latin quote but I don't find the source. Finally the reference to the high tower and wall is BS. This is based on tales and folklore exaggeration. As other proposals: For the Gauls, the Murus Gallicus is a popular reference and it is an interesting kind of fortification because this is between a wall and a rampart. Most people confuse the Murus Gallicus with the "Ehrang type" walls also in use during the iron age but in fact the Murus Gallicus has an artificial embankment behind making it very close to a rampart. This is why the Murus Gallicus was considered such hard to destroy by Caesar (7, 23). We could translate it to a bonus for the Gallic walls, although the game doesn't portray really a Murus Gallicus nor a "Ehrang type" walls, it looks more like an "Altkönig Preist type" as found in Germany, Czechia, Austria etc. For the Gauls, a rise of population and expansion during the La Tène period is obvious both in the historical records and archeological records. Initially the proto-La Tène culture started in Bohemia, Champagne (France), Eifel and Hunsrück (Germany) around 500 BC. In a century it spreads in western France, Northern Italy and in the Carpathian basin. Probably because of a mixture of cultural exchange, migration, warrior class mobility, religious and political networks etc. But to sum it up, the Gauls spread quickly. So any bonus giving them a bonus in early booming could be justified, in my opinion. The myth of Ambigatos told by Livy (5, 34) could be a good reference for this bonus. For the Britons, their fortification are quite typical as well. Instead of building true walls they built mostly earthwork and wood ramparts often topped with a wooden palisade. This wasn't primitive work, they built quite complex hillforts with several levels of ramparts and ditches. The advantageous is that the earthwork rampart is solid and easier to build from a resources perspective. Although, this feature is more common in Southern Britain (or England), Danebury, Old Oswestry and Maiden Castle are good examples. In Wales, the use of stone walls is as much common as the earthwork ramparts. So, stone reduction cost of walls? For the Britons, they are using reference from Northern British Iron Age (sic) or Iron Age Scotland, notably the Broch of Caithness for the Britons' fortress. Caledonians and Picts never have been subjugated to the Romans, the territory is very remote and their societies were lacking strong power-places to ease the conquest. Why not giving to the Britons a bonus for their fortress with more capture points, as a reference to the resistance and freedom of the Caledonians and Picts? For the Britons, once again about the Brochs, those buildings were not real fortresses but actual settlements or community's houses. They are closer to a civic center, as much as any oppidum. Moreover, they are often found in remote places (like in the Shetlands). Why not changing them to a kind of hybrid between fortresses and civic centers like Seleucid military colonies or Klerouchia? This would be an interesting unique building. That's really the unrooted to the territory feature that could make the use of the building different. For the Britons again, the Crannog could be a valid candidate of unique building as well. And the model already exists. For the Britons, since their fighting style is closer to Homeric warfare and their society ruled by warlike chieftains, why not giving them a team bonus related to champion training? A decrease of training time for example. For the Britons, their hillforts and settlements show hints of destruction and rebuilt. This is not unusual, we see sometimes the same in the continent but it indicates the Britons are able to rebuild quickly their settlements. Danebury for examples suggests in its remaining layers several events of destruction.

A very very very kind person shared this today: https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/1348978/1/337382_vol1.pdf https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/1348978/2/337382_vol2.pdf https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/1348978/3/337382_vol3.pdf On the third volume are the illustrations, some juicy black and white schemas.