Genava55

If you are interested by older roman history ;-) By the way, the Roman kingdom is very old 753 BC–509 BC and is probably not very different of the Etruscans kingdoms. Maybe a general suggestion to add the Etruscans should be more appropriate.

I personaly like the portrait in the current state.

Super interesting. Thank you @Sundiata !

Oh ok. No problem for me If you find an easy-to-swallow/ready-to-use vocabulary for buildings and units in the same process.

Mmm...

Configurations of Steppe Urbanism: Permanent Centres of Pastoral Polities in Mongolia Despite productive developments in archaeological approaches to urbanism, the study of constructed centers among steppe nomadic groups continues to receive cursory attention. Although the development of permanent centers of intensive social, economic, and ritual activities are often deemed incompatible with mobile lifeways and systems of pastoral production, revised considerations of the structures and environs of walled sites in early Inner Asia provide alternative notions of urban developments. Through a functional approach to urban centers and their sprawls, I propose that permanent settlement sites of the Xiongnu nomadic empire (2nd c. BCE – 2nd c. CE) were in fact complex built environments configured as expanded spatial occupations incorporating ritual arenas, production facilities, and key pastures. The case of central ‘urban’ places among early Inner Asian nomads thus highlights both the potency of urbanism approaches for studies of societal developments among steppe pastoralists and the potential for such groups to alter our understandings of the emergence and development of urban settings. http://innerasiaresearch.org/seminar-–-27-october-–-bryan-millar/ In a review of Erik Hildinger's “Warriors of the Steppe”, Christopher Berg wrote: “The steppe warriors were nomads, who moved from one settlement to the next to accommodate their pastoral means of subsistence. The steppe warrior's natural proclivity for war springs from their peregrination: “War is therefore a natural consequence of successful nomadism and like any skill needed for survival it will be practiced to proficiency." The steppe nomads were successful conquerors for many reasons including their unpredictability, large number of male recruits, the ability to illicit fear, and drill-like organization. [Sources: “Warriors of the Steppe: A Military History of Central Asia 500BC to 1700AD” by Erik Hildinger (Da Capo Press, 1997); Christopher Berg, Sam Houston State University deremilitari.org /^\] http://factsanddetails.com/asian/cat65/sub422/entry-5481.html

Maybe choose a color for each cultural group (barbarians, greco-romans, eastern civilizations etc.).

That's the easy part. I would be glad to let someone else to work on it for free. Thx.

In Irish mythology, the color for kings and sovereignty is more often the red and sometimes the white. Purple was rare because of the difficulty to get Tyrian purple pigments (the only known pigment at this time that can stay brightful through time)

Sure but are you in touch with specialists of proto-indo-european languages or even in the extinct Daco-Thracian languages ?

When I have the time yes. I'm not a linguist though but I can try something.

Daaamn. He's got talent. Small advice, don't forget to look to others queens like Amanishakheto and Amanitore for historical materials on the dress.

Some tactical elements for archers in the roman army: http://jaha.org.ro/index.php/JAHA/article/viewFile/132/111 "The archers have an important role in the beginning of the battle trying to demoralize and disorganize the enemy by causing great loses from afar. Their purpose in the beginning of the battle is to create gaps in the enemy’s attack line and, if possible, to eliminate as many components of the adversary’s commands. Thus, in case of an attack by heavy infantry or heavy cavalry the loses were minimized for their own side and the enemy would become more vulnerable." Peltasts and Javelineers in Classical Greek Warfare: Roles, Tactics, and Fighting Methods. https://etd.ohiolink.edu/rws_etd/document/get/wright1334275977/inline "In the notable battles at Spartolos, Olpai, Sphakteria , Amphipolis, and Aitolia, light - armed soldiers were undeniably decisive and proved their effectiveness with hit - and - run tactics (evading counterattacks), advantageous use of rugged terrain against slower opposition, and even as fighters within the main battle line (mixed with hoplites). The general Demosthenes emerged as an innovative leader of light - armed troops, and he seems to be the earliest Greek commander to seek proactively the various ways in which seasoned javelineers and peltasts could be put to use. By the end of the war, peltasts and javelineers seemed to be viewed as essential components of any Greek military operation, both within and outside of Greece proper. [...] The peltast and javelineer gained a more prominent position within Greek warfare through both the effective execution of new tactics and the improvement of their traditional roles. In Thucydides and Xenophon we see the full range of actions associated with these old and new roles : skirmishing, flanking and protecting of flanks, ambushing hoplites and mixed forces, guarding passes, seizing and defending high ground, raiding, storming positions, charging among or at the head of hoplites, pursuing an enemy in flight, and more. When serving under capable, specialized commanders such as Iphikrates, peltasts in particular became the period’s light troops par excellence and established themselves as an exceptionally formidable and versatile infantry arm. " Missile troops have clearly a role of disruption of the enemy's formations.

Deforestation is quite a normal thing in ancient times: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4004530?seq=7#metadata_info_tab_contents Even the region of the actual France was less covered by the forests at the time of the Gauls than these days. If you are interested in forestry management: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimal_rotation_age https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coppicing Some species can be used in coppicing management, others not.

Your welcome. Do not hesitate to ask anything.

Superb work. I love the gaze. If I can be punctilious, I would say the spearhead is not Celtic. The River Thames iron spearhead is a good example of Celtic Iron Age spears. If you want to continue in the direction of Celtic heroes, I can help. The only thing is that I have suggested several changes for the future. But anyway I can help you now and give you good information. For example, Caratacos: General help for British Iron Age art and patterns:

The best way to solve this problem is to forget the focus on the weaponry to explain the role of a unit. Rock-Paper-Scissor is simple and efficient but it doesn't mean it should be a Spear-Sword-Horse system. Heavy infantry can be used for generic infantryman and we can use something like "Shock infantry" for unit that are better at close-combat. No need to change the damage a lot, heavy infantry can have a mixture of 70% pierce and 30% hack and the opposite for Shock infantry.

Why not using heroes or even officers (like Delenda Est) to give the ability to set up a "tunnel" against a building? It could be something with a loading bar before to start or/and something you need to "build" with your men. As officer it could be a Primus Pilus centurion or a Tribunus Militum for the Romans, a Syntagmatarch for the Hellenes, a Corionos for the Celts etc.

Yes I agree. It is just to highlight the two ends of the spectra. The truth lies between an unproportional mix between both.

First of all, I'm not a competitive guy. My favorite RTS was AoM which I have mostly played in single player mode. I don't know why you take this badly the comparison with Starcraft and AoE. It was only a fundamental comparison. AoE is a clone factory balanced by numerical bonuses/penalties with only an aesthetic polish. Starcraft is a game where the factions are very different. It is only a fundamental question about the gameplay I'm rising: Do we want to add new factions to increase the depth of the gameplay and to propose a new way to play? Or do we want to add new factions to give more aesthetic diversity ? I think that currently we could already exploit more what is already created. Edit: For example if we stay on a basis with CC, barracks, fortress, market, houses etc. I don't see the interest to add a nomad faction. Even historically less-urban and less power centralized factions have the same basis than the urban and imperial ones in the current state.

You know, it is not mandatory to sacrifice the historical part for the gameplay. A healthy game will get anyway a lot of modders because they are looking for a new mean of expression, a medium to make what they want. Rome Total War 1 was awful but easy to mod, it got one of the biggest community. Mount and Blade is a fantasy game, it got even historical mods too. The engine of 0 A.D. is well suited for modders then you have no reason to worry. Having a competitive community in the other hand... Especially in the era of live streaming and gaming channels.

I'm not sure but I think he talk about something else. Maybe the split between graphics and simulation in the engine.

I have seen many mods dying for this reason in huge varieties of game but maybe my experience is wrong. I think having a basic game that works well and is well-honed is what attracts people with useful skills. I won't argue anymore since I'm not opposed to new civilizations in the game, I am simply a follower of caution and temperance. If adding new factions does not affect the development of the game then why not. But if you add more tactical depth and more depth to each faction, there is already a lot of work. And stay modest, bro'. 0 A.D. is still a fantasy game. Just like the Total War series. It is only an artistic interpretation of history for amusement.