Genava55

It's @wowgetoffyourcellphone that is deciding, it is his mod.

North Belgian/Rhine-Weser Early Germanic cavalry:

Nice! I like it. Do you want to add the cheek protections? Tell me if you need anything.

The word phalanx is only meaning a tight formation working as a wall with spear hedge. The word has been applied several times for the Gauls. But clearly the Greeks and the Hellenes were those that push the concept to its maximum.

That's nice. Largely good enough.

It is one of the Monte Bibele helmets (there are several decorated helmets from there this is why you can find differences between the helmet patterns, Rome at War is mixing two helmets but it is not that much a problem): A few tentative of reconstruction of different helmets here

Overall I agree with your proposal, very urban civilizations have a denser population so they should have houses and residentials with a better increase. However, it has nothing to do with science, nor they are more scientific than the others. Greco-Roman houses construction were not applying more scientific principles than their Gallic equivalents. It is another matter for more complex buildings but for houses it is not the case. At this time, engineering has little to do with scientific knowledge but more with practical experience and socioeconomical needs. So I agree, civilizations that were more rural than urban should have cheaper and simpler houses, but not necessarily a population bonus. In the case of the Gallic, maybe it makes sense to give them a strong asset in spreading strategies in regards of the history of the La Tène culture but not necessarily through population bonus by buildings. Good idea.

Lepontic/Rhaetian axeman Lepontic references: Rhaetian (Fritzens-Sanzeno-Kultur) references:

I hope the Britons will get more paintings too in the future.

What about the inclusion of two-handed swordsmen to the Mauryans? Arrian, Anabasis Alexandri: Book VIII (Indica), XVI. The Indians wear linen garments, as Nearchus says, the linen coming from the trees of which I have already made mention. This linen is either brighter than the whiteness of other linen, or the people's own blackness makes it appear unusually bright. They have a linen tunic to the middle of the calf, and for outer garments, one thrown round about their shoulders, and one wound round their heads. They wear ivory ear-rings, that is, the rich Indians; the common people do not use them. Nearchus writes that they dye their beards various colours; some therefore have these as white-looking as possible, others dark, others crimson, others purple, others grass-green. The more dignified Indians use sunshades against the summer heat. They have slippers of white skin, and these too made neatly; and the soles of their sandals are of different colours, and also high, so that the wearers seem taller. Indian war equipment differs; the infantry have a bow, of the height of the owner; this they poise on the ground, and set their left foot against it, and shoot thus; drawing the bowstring a very long way back; for their arrows are little short of three cubits, and nothing can stand against an arrow shot by an Indian archer, neither shield nor breastplate nor any strong armour. In their left hands they carry small shields of untanned hide, narrower than their bearers, but not much shorter. Some have javelins in place of bows. All carry a broad scimitar, its length not under three cubits; and this, when they have a hand-to-hand fight -- and Indians do not readily fight so among themselves -- they bring down with both hands in smiting, so that the stroke may be an effective one. Their horsemen have two javelins, like lances, and a small shield smaller than the infantry's. The horses have no saddles, nor do they use Greek bits nor any like the Celtic bits, but round the end of the horses' mouths they have an untanned stitched rein fitted; in this they have fitted, on the inner side, bronze or iron spikes, but rather blunted; the rich people have ivory spikes; within the mouth of the horses is a bit, like a spit, to either end of which the reins are attached. Then when they tighten the reins this bit masters the horse, and the spikes, being attached thereto, pr1ck the horse and compel it to obey the rein. For future improvement and upgrade of the faction, some ideas and inspirations: EBII units: https://europabarbarorum.fandom.com/wiki/Váru_(Indian_Elephants) https://europabarbarorum.fandom.com/wiki/Ksatriya_Gadáhasta_Yoddhr_(Indian_Macemen) https://europabarbarorum.fandom.com/wiki/Ksatriya_Khadgacarmadharas_(Indian_Swordsmen) https://europabarbarorum.fandom.com/wiki/Cápadhara_Yoddhr_(Indian_Longbowmen) https://europabarbarorum.fandom.com/wiki/Ksatriya_Árya_Rathas_(Indian_Chariot_Archers) https://europabarbarorum.fandom.com/wiki/Laghu_Asvánika_(Indian_Light_Cavalry) https://europabarbarorum.fandom.com/wiki/Prasadhara_Asvanika_(Indian_Lancers) https://europabarbarorum.fandom.com/wiki/Kauntikas_(Indian_Spearmen) https://europabarbarorum.fandom.com/wiki/Kseptrayah_(Indian_Tribal_Slingers) https://europabarbarorum.fandom.com/wiki/Tomara_Kseptrayah_(Indian_Tribal_Levies)

A question, the system with the different shield bosses, shield shapes and decorative art chosen randomly will be generalized to all factions?

Alcibiades used Iberians mercenaries, even when he was still serving Athens, it could be a replacement although a bit exceptional. Or the Thracians mercenaries could be simply generic swordsmen with sika-like sword. Neither the Spartans then, if this reasoning is valid (which it is).

Actual the convention is very strict because each building = one specific function (or a very few). This is a legacy of AoE with each faction being a clone from the others. But the convention and the template applied are not mandatory to follow this logic of 1 building = 1 function. The template could be based only on functions directly and be more adaptive to the particularities of each culture. For example a basic military production function and a basic defensive structure at the stage 1 could result to barracks and towers for the Greeks and to an unique building for the Celts like a fortified farm doing the job of both a barrack and a tower (this is just an idea to illustrate my point, not necessarily the right thing to do).

I am not questioning the whole thing. There is totally the necessity to tweak the reality to put it in a game. I am questioning the use of a strict template in which each factions must fit in, a template that is very restrictive in comparison from other RTS games. This template never have been thought to fit most of the ancient cultures. There was a huge dose of cynicism when I said that the game needed a lot of factions to bring diversity.

There is little differences between the different nomads in the art. It depends only from which perspective the Huns will be built as a faction. Especially since there is the Xiongnu planned in the mod, a 100% nomadic faction representing the core origin of the Huns. Although the actual Huns in Europe were probably a mixture of people, with a lot of permeability in the side of the nomads as it seen in multiple findings http://www.silkroadfoundation.org/newsletter/vol11/SilkRoad_11_2013_giumliamair.pdf So if the Huns represents the generic nomads in the beginning of the 4th century AD as reported by Sogdians, then a purely nomadic symbol will make sense. But if the Huns as a faction will be centered on the European Huns from Balamber to Attila and his sons, maybe it will make more sense to use a "bâtard" symbol from cultural transfers.

Technically this is something that have been found in the Altai and is dated to the 5th century BC. But it is possible that the Huns liked a similar symbol that evolved among the Germans. Else, the art of the Avar and of the Hepthalites Huns can be helpful (for the pleasure, admire the Samarkand/Afrosiab Wall paintings).

Which is mostly copy-pasted from AoE in our case. Which is itself a convention not based on historical facts but on a legacy from Dune II and Warcraft 1. I am not saying it is bad, this is a practical design that stood the test of time, but it is important to highlight the background of this convention. My point is that looking exclusively to the unique buildings/tech/units of the game to nitpick what is correct or not is equivalent to focusing on the tree hiding the forest. I am impatient to see the day when a nomadic faction will be added to the game. It will challenge both the coherence of this convention and the historical accuracy.

Some plankton are dropping, other are increasing, the trend is difficult to assess currently, most scientists are unsure of this publication and remain unconvinced because there is a sampling issue from the data. Most of the monitoring data are not continuous in time and in space. If you are interested, the impact of an afforestation of the Sahara is discussed here: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10584-009-9626-y.pdf https://www.nature.com/articles/srep46443

But the problem is the same. Do you really think that the Aztec and the Mayans built windmills and treadwheel crane? Do you think they built siege workshops? Do you think that the unique tech of the Aztecs, Garland Wars, is historically accurate to give a +4 attack bonus to the infantry? These problems with historical accuracies is inherent to the core gameplay of the game. This is the same with 0AD, barracks are not something very common in ancient times.

A lot of things do not make sense in Aoe2 and they still maintain these things (and people are approving) because it will break the balance if removed or altered.

I agree. Adding civilization only to add civilization, without having a minimum of documentation about them can be problematic if a nitpicker like me appears. Joke aside, faction like the early Germans are tough to document correctly. But I think one day they need to be include to make the transition to the part II. Currently we should focus on those with enough documentation and on the current factions that are in an upgrading process (thanks to people like you). Anyway I don't see why it should be a problem. Most of the differences are cosmetics/esthetics. All the factions follows the same basis for the buildings and the units, so clearly to bring enough diversity, the game need to include a lot of factions.

Ok. Weird. I did an update but I have still the issue, both in the editor and in solo matches. The current very dark one for the Celts is excessive I think. This is making the faction weird in comparison of the others. But no problem with using the other shades currently in use in other factions.

I use the SVN version but I have this that is appearing, is it normal ? The healers are very nice by the way There is still the wooden scabbard on the fanatics Edit: and do you want to keep the different shades for the bronze helmets? Because currently there is this issue only with the Celts and I am not sure it will be appreciated by the players:

Housebarns, an unique building or a bonus of population for the barn/corral?

https://www.docdroid.net/mBT66vo/gauls-architecture.pdf