Genava55

To be precise, I am personally against the idea to build groups based on history and general strategical guidelines and to stick with those to balance the civs. I understand that the civs belongs to the same conceptual groups due to their design, because in the way we design a faction we are constrained by historical evidences. So it is logical that the Iberians, the Britons and the Gauls have several similarities in their strategies. Because historically they had. It is logical that Macedonians, Seleucids and Ptolemies have several similarities as well. But I am against the idea to balance the civs only with their similar counterparts. If the Iberians, the Britons and the Gauls are only balanced in regard to each other, then it will probably result to unbalance when players of those civs will face other civs from other groups. Because let's face it, it would be the case regularly. So I suggest those grouping should be different according to their goals. I agree to group the civs between them according to their similarities and history when it is done with the purpose to draw the general kind of strategies and gameplay. Like in Wijitmaker proposal with thematic group. But when it is grouping in the purpose of balancing the civs, it should be mixed groups. Because it is not directly the civs that are unbalanced but some general strategies that are far better than others. As I said, I agree with your observation that 78 matchups to balance is too much. I agree with your idea to balance the civs only in their own group. I simply don't see the relevance to balance a civ only against a similar civ.

Exactly. The issue with balancing very similar factions (the so-called "Celtic" group of European barbarians factions for example) will probably result in strong imbalance between the groups instead. I don't see the need to make historical groups for a purely gameplay motive, eg balancing the civs. I agree that balancing 78 matchups is too difficult. But at least it should be balanced between different kind of factions, as a representative sample of the reality (eg the players won't care at all of the historical groups online).

Group 1: Mediterranean supremacy Romans Carthaginians Athenians Group 2: Aegean enemies Spartans Macedonians Persians Group 3: Galatian safari Gauls Seleucid Ptolemies Group 4: The rest of the world Britons Iberians Mauryas Kushites Obviously the names of the groups are only an excuse but at least like this the civ could be really balanced

A generic peltophoroi could work as well for a better skirmisher unit. Or the original peltastes could be replaced by psilos or euzonos or akontistes, and the pelstates added as a better skirmisher. For the sword issue, anyway the system is broken and hardly justified so let's make a sword hoplite unit with the minimum effort and let's see if the system will prevail in the future.

I agree. In fact this is a common issue with Polybius work, he came up very often with a logical explanation without really having any evidence for this. This is hard to distinguish what comes from witnesses or other literal accounts and what comes from his own reasoning and thoughts. But indeed it seems the idea of the African elephants being smaller than the Indian ones was a common conception during classical times. I don't think there are evidences in classical literature for the ancients to know about different species of African elephants. Initially, in the beginning of the thread I thought there was one, the Adoulis inscription: I thought Troglodytic would have been applied to a different kind of elephant but actually this is not necessarily the case after discussing about it with Nescio and reading the article he gave me. So maybe the ancients didn't really know about the bush elephants we all know today. The difficulty is first the inconsistencies in elephant representation and the lack of elephant remains in ancient context. Furthermore, the few remains found are generally not analyzed with DNA techniques, exclusively from an osteological perspective. Which is known to be ineffective in the differentiating African elephant species, excepted if the whole skeleton is found (but it is never the case). An example with this article in which the authors are clearly unable to identify the subspecies/species from the bones (or the tusks in this case), only from reasoning: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352409X16302693

Anyway, amateurs won't solve easily problems experts cannot. This is difficult to keep parsimony in one hypothesis when there is incentivisation for gameplay diversity and uniqueness. Moreover there is contradiction between current evidences and historical accounts for Ptolemaic war elephants. Several hypotheses can be drawn but none can be really ruled out neither proven correct: Polybius made up account or mistake. This is possible since it is not the first time there is made-up explanations in Polybius' work. So common bush elephants are still a credible hypothesis. Elephants from a population of Bush elephants being smaller because of selective pressure (see island effect / Foster's rule / Insular dwarfism). Younger bush elephants because they were easier to capture and to tame. Forest elephants from not clearly identified past ecosystems at the proximity of the Sahara. Unknown species or subspecies of "North African" elephants today extinct from which the Ptolemies gathered their war elephants. Clearly an issue arise with the relation between the Ptolemies and the Kushites, because there is a possibility they were using the same elephants (at least at some point).

https://www.facebook.com/pages/category/Community-Service/Meine-Ehrenamtliche-Bodendenkmalpflege-in-Brandenburg-227264538040786/

Nice job. It is a shame we didn't have proper Celtic heroes yet as a reference for you.

Other pictures of this iron helmet (with bronze front band): Lead weight at the front is simply to balance the whole thing because it has been reused as a bucket.

Probably not actually. Gaul specifically designate Gallia Transalpina. The game is portraying Brennus and Britomaros which are major protagonists in Gallia Cisalpina. So clearly, the Gauls of the game are not constrained to the people in the area of what the Romans called Gaul. This seems related to the ethnical label in use by the Romans, which is much more logical.

It depends on the definition of "Gauls" and "Gallic". For the ancients, the use of the words Galátēs, Galli, Celtae or Keltoi is inconsistent. In addition, they are using the same word for different cultures, like Keltoi/Celtae. So personally I use Gallic to refers to the La Tène culture in general. Concerning Bolgios, he is described as a Gaul by the historian Justin. Edit: another candidate could be Bathanattos, see: Representing historical evolution of a faction through strategical choices by the player is indeed a great idea. Although I doubt there is that much support for this idea (or this is a silent minority).

I was referring to this: The Gaesatae (‘spear-men’) were distinguishable as a distinct group and at Telamon appear to have been a lately arrived mercenary force. Their ritual nakedness may have been a demonstration of their oneness as a fighting body. Nakedness in battle is again referred to in Galatia in 189 bc, when the Tolistobogii and Trocmi took off their clothes before battle with the Romans, exposing their podgy white bodies, enhancing the vividness of their wounds as they were cut to pieces by the Roman force.

The current texture should be enough. As Nescio said, they are a mobile force during the Gallic Wars, so at the best they could have a helmet for the elite version, like the Coolus type.

Did the console says something? Is there any import message error?

Four wheeled chariot driven by cattle could be a possibility. The two attested animals in use for hard work and transport during the iron age are the horse and the ox (boeuf): The Gallic chariots were diverse and the most renown were those adapted for horses, although this is not necessarily the kind of chariot used by the merchants:

There is a good relief found in Italy depicting a Celtic chariot: No doubt that the naked warrior is a real thing in Gallic society. However, I really disagree with Barry Cunliffe's opinion about the oneness of fighting naked. The Gaesatae are recorded only one time as fighting naked and the account at Telamon seems to suggest an exception more than a common thing for them. Their king is Viridomaros/Britomaros and is described as bearing a colorful armor at the battle of Clastidium. So I don't see the "oneness" in that. Everything suggests it was also perform as an act of individual bravado, so I would be careful to associate it to any group identity. A larger excerpt from Diodorus Siculus (hist. 5, 29): A small note about the interpretation of their name, Gaesatae/Gaisatoi doesn't necessary mean "spear-men", the same way hastati doesn't always designate spearmen and samurai doesn't always designate attendants. The use of a word and its etymology is not the same thing, we know that in old Irish gaiscedach can designate a warrior or a champion in general even if the root originally derives from gae, the spear. Finally the duel of Manlius Torquatus is probably made up by several Roman authors. First of all, the Roman is described by Livy as being armed of a Spanish gladius, which is anachronic for 361 BC. The same for the long and heavy sword of the Gaul, a topos completely anachronic for 361 BC when the La Tène swords weren't that long. Livy described the Gaul as wearing colored clothes while Aulus Gellius described the Gaul naked with two swords (which is completely absurd). Dion Cassius says it was the king of the Gauls while the others do not. The oldest record comes from Cicero (and still, this is two centuries after the event) where is says: So it seems the reality is unclear. There was a duel but that's all. I don't think my eyes recovered from the chapter 3 yet. Personally I find this book not that much useful for anybody wanting to portray better the Celts because in there, Barry Cunliffe is mixing stuff from the Neolithic to the Early Middles Ages, from different cultures in addition with his own beliefs and certitudes.

Edit: Sorry Lion, I didn't see you just posted this video before

A Merovingian burial with the characteristic of a mounted aristocrat with a deep wound made by a sword or an axe on the frontal bone that healed. Another interesting feature... the skull shape suggests an African origin.

It is an "old" one but I just found it interesting. A few things about ancient Vietnam. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Dương_Vương

Indeed. The influence of Mycenaean on the late Bronze Age is undoubtful and the influence of the Etruscans and Early Greeks on the early Iron Age are also very important. An example: https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/S0079497X15000171

Nope. I live in Switzerland and I am not an archeologist nor a reenactor. I am a genuinely interested environmental scientist that like very much ancient history and archeology. I participated a bit in a few archeological projects through laboratory analyses but that's all. I simply translated the webpage for everyone here. This project is led by a reenactment group from the region of Amiens (therefore the reason of their name, Ambiani, the Celtic tribe of this location). They have a small re-enacted village at Pont Rémy (80) and the association is registered at Abbeville (80). But probably that for this project they filmed in different location in Picardie. They have worked with other association as well as the re-enacted village of Samara. https://www.les-ambiani.com/ http://www.samara.fr/