Genava55

I know bruh It was something I got in my mind for a few days (I have long train ride to go to my work place, which give me the time to think). I'm saying this because I know you didn't have balanced your mod. I'm worried about civilizations like the nomads because of their redundancy, they all have the same army and the same buildings more or less. Age of Empires II totally skipped the historical part to give them very different bonuses and specialties, creating very different strategies for these factions by a subjective trick. But AoEII have the (boring) advantageous to use always the same core of units which is not your case. For AoEII, it starts with a balanced baseline (and they have ended to make nomads OP but this is a different talk). But historically, it is not that much different. At the Battle of Carrhae, the Parthians were exclusively cavalrymen, at the Battle of Jaxartes the Scythians were exclusively cavalrymen and at the Battle of Mayi the Xiongnu were exclusively cavalrymen. The Huns are exclusively cavalrymen exception of their germanic vassals under Attila. The rare details about infantry in the Xiongnu ranks talk about dismounted horsemen (horses killed probably, a recurrent thing during the war both for the Han and the Xiongnu). It is not without reason that the Strategikon put the Huns, the Avars, the Scythians and the Turks in the same talk about how to deal with them. There are not real strategic problems with exclusively cavalry army with exception of rock-paper-scissor games... either it ends up to be to easy to counter, or they are overpowered. It is why I suggested a reunification of the factions, because it gives to the player all the small variations of each cultures with their respective strategies. Yeah, I'm myself skeptical about my own idea because of this. The only way I could see it possible is through unit conversion. For example, you start with a generic nomad civic center and generic nomads citizens with a limited building tree. At some point of the game (probably early), you can choose between three technologies icons in your civic center. If you choose for example the Scythians, all your generic nomad units are converted in Scythians citizens units, giving you the possibility to build new buildings from the Scythian tree. Maybe the same trick could be applied to the buildings to show the cultural transformation. I don't know if it is possible on a large scale like this and if it has an effect on the stability. My idea is simply to give more depth for the player to adapt its current game. If he wants to have a better defense, he could go for the Parthians. If he wants to boom he goes for the Xiongnu. If he wants to keep his option for latter he can goes for the Scythians and choosing a small reform in the late game, either the Sarmatians/Alans for a offensive strategy or the Crimean Greeks for a more balanced game with a couple of greeks units to counter anti-cav units. Like this each cultural factions brings depth and the player is not blocked in the same hardcore macro optimization and micro management to win. I understand. It was just an idea I wanted to share with you. It is probably a wrong idea but maybe it could help an intelligent idea to emerge from the talk like this

@wowgetoffyourcellphone since your mod is spanning on a very large timeline and since you want to include a lot of factions, I'm afraid you got trouble to equilibrate everything while still maintaining a standard for historical accuracy and still trying to create enough diversity. Isn't it better to regroup a bit more the factions together and to let the player choose the factions during the game like in AoM for the gods? It is only a suggestion, not a critic, I like your mod. I don't know how much it is technically difficult though.

My first thought that most of the players didn't use regularly scouting seems to be wrong. My second thought that the players that are using scout units do it for tactical reason seems to be partially wrong, they do it for strategy too. My third thought that the players are using it mainly in early game seems to be true. My fourth thought that the players have a lot of information by knowing the faction choose by the opponent seems to be true. Very interesting. What are you looking for when you are scouting the opponent's base? I imagine it is mainly the Civic Center position and which phase he is in. But are you looking for the number of women, the number of houses etc. ?

It depicts Goth refugees fleeing the Huns and settled by the Eastern Romans in Thracia.

Hi, I wonder if the players use scouting often in multiplayer or single player games since I didn't see it often in video replays. Then I opened a poll just to answer my question

Some good references to look for: Nomads of the Eurasian Steppes in the Early Iron Age (1995) by Jeannine Davis-Kimball, Vladimir A. Bashilov and Leonid T. Yablonsky. Kurgans, Ritual Sites, and Settlements: Eurasian Bronze and Iron Age (2000) by Jeannine Davis-Kimball, Eileen M. Murphy, Ludmila Koryakova, Leonid T. Yablonsky History of Civilizations of Central Asia - Vol. 2: The Development of Sedentary and Nomadic Civilizations : 700 B.C. to A.D. 250 (1994) by Janos Harmatta Ancient China and its enemies: the rise of nomadic power in East Asian history (2002) by Nicola Di Cosmo The Empire of the Steppes: a History of Central Asia (1970) by René Grousset

A good match with multiple strategies in the late game:

Art and re-enactment of Hellenic armors, even the Mycenaean period. https://www.facebook.com/HellenicArmors

Indeed. Like you, I think it is related with very old fears resulting from events during the end of the Ice Age. People don't realize how much it was different at this moment, with gigantic rivers flooding most of the valleys. https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/03/channeled-scablands/ http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/04/original-brexit-how-tremendous-ice-age-waterfalls-cut-britain-europe And there is not only indication in the Black Sea for a sea level rising, but in the Persian Gulf too. https://www.world-archaeology.com/world/asia/iran/persian-gulf-the-first-migration/

The next frontiers in research on submerged prehistoric sites and landscapes on the continental shelf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Nicholas_Flemming/publication/324746001_The_next_frontiers_in_research_on_submerged_prehistoric_sites_and_landscapes_on_the_continental_shelf/links/5b97dceb299bf14ad4ce0e03/The-next-frontiers-in-research-on-submerged-prehistoric-sites-and-landscapes-on-the-continental-shelf.pdf

Why not Sarmatians, Yuezhi, Saka, Parthians or Xiongnu ? Xiongnu art: https://goo.gl/images/NXKnEn

Probably like mercenaries in general (then Hellenistic like). The standardization of auxiliaries units started mostly with Augustus (Octavius) but its premises where already in place during the Social troubles period (Gracchi, Jugurthine, Sulla, Triumvirates, Civil wars). For example there is many examples of Gallic auxiliaries since the first conquest of Gaul (Narbonnensis) but they keep mostly their native weapons, they only incorporate some pieces of roman equipment. It is only under Augustus that they started to use almost exclusively roman equipment, probably a reform established between 16 to 9 BC.

If people are interested in the subject, here a few helpful documents: Jonathan R. W. Prag: Troops and commanders: auxilia externa under the Roman Republic https://www.unipa.it/dipartimenti/cultureesocieta/riviste/hormos/.content/documenti_Hormos_2/J.PragTroops_and_commandersHormos2_2010_101-113.pdf Joëlle Napoli: Rome et le recrutement de mercenaires https://journals.openedition.org/rha/pdf/7055 La République romaine et le mercenariat au temps des Guerres Puniques https://journals.openedition.org/mcv/pdf/3892 Jonathan James McLaughlin: The Transformation of the Roman Auxiliary Soldier in Thought and Practice https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/111635/jjmcl_1.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y Salvador Busquets Artigas: Los externa auxilia en el siglo final de la República romana (133-27 a. C.) https://ddd.uab.cat/pub/tesis/2015/hdl_10803_285743/sba1de1.pdf The only clear account during the Punic wars are the Celtiberians used successfully by P. Cornelius Scipion in 211 BC. There is also the Cretans archers during the battle of Trasimene in 217 BC. There is also 2000 Ligurians, Cretans and Numidians called auxilia in 171 BC under Publius Licinius Crassus. But the Treaty of Apamea is an example of political restriction of the mercenaries use in 188 BC.

As I said in a previous thread, there is a hypothesis that Basque and Iberian languages are related. Basque has known some evolution to unify the dialects in one language. But the structure of the language and the etymological roots are definitely pre-indo-european. I think it is an acceptable compromise for the game to use it for the Iberians. And anyway, the Celtiberians had a different culture with a different language.

If we have slaves that cannot guard the buildings or fight, but with an economic bonus, it should be a good system.

You should use the private messenger function of the forum for the next time.

You are off-topic, I think.

Maybe something with sapping and tunnel warfare: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunnel_warfare#Ancient_Greece https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sape https://www.warhistoryonline.com/history/6-great-military-mines.html https://www.warhistoryonline.com/ancient-history/3-uses-mining-roman-sieges.html Julius Caesar, de bello gallico, book 2, 6: "The Gallic mode of besieging is the same as that of the Belgae: when after having drawn a large number of men around the whole of the fortifications, stones have begun to be cast against the wall on all sides, and the wall has been stripped of its defenders, [then], forming a testudo, they advance to the gates and undermine the wall: which was easily effected on this occasion; for while so large a number were casting stones and darts, no one was able to maintain his position upon the wall."

You are confusing the game with the mod aristeia. You are currently writing on the subforum of aristeia, a mod dedicated to the bronze age and the aegean period.

Atlantic Bronze Age: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Bronze_Age http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1546522/1/Armada and Martinon-Torres 2016 Albimeh AI.pdf Hallstatt: https://www.pintiavaccea.es/docpdf/Keltenblock.pdf http://www.regeszet.org.hu/images/angol/a_007.pdf https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/antiquity/article/rethinking-early-iron-age-urbanisation-in-central-europe-the-heuneburg-site-and-its-archaeological-environment/46834B4C62C4A5ACE70DD1D8587F474A https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/ojoa.12129

I think this breast plate is based on the bronze cuirass of Marmesse which is dated from 9/8th century BC, Hallstatt then. I don't think there is any bronze cuirass during La Tène. The only armor known during the British pre-Roman Iron Age is the chain mail armor (one finding in Kirkburn). Maybe the best option for Boudicca should be jewelry.

You mean recording some audio files ? Is there a thread about it?