Genava55

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.

Why not. Battle formations, tactical depth, moral management etc. could bring a lot of things to the game but this is a very huge work and a complex design to think about. It joins my remark in the other thread: It would be really innovative but we should ask to the technical heroes of the game how much it is difficult this kind of things.

For the moment the game is coherent with this huge European/North-African/Middle-Eastern network but adding the Han dynasty for example will mess it up a little bit because the Han are very far and the only pretext should be obscure stretching and justification through steppe civilization (a black-box where you can throw every cultures in to justify anything). Don't forget too that at this time China is not an homogeneous world. There is a lot of other factions that could be justifiably introduced through the Han, like the Baiyue/Minyue, the Qiangs/Chiangs, the Dians and the Nanyue. Even if I'm not against new civilizations, I agree and I think adding new factions should not be a priority. Even the Scythians, the Thracians or the Hans are excessive and we should let the mods experimenting and gathering information. I think there are two extremely opposed examples of successful RTS: AoE with numerous clone factions, Starcraft with only three factions but with huge difference and depth. 0 A.D is clearly between both, but we must ask ourselves the question of which side it is heading.

Others useful sources for Geto-Dacians: https://fsu.valahia.ro/images/avutgs/1/2005/2005050201.pdf https://www.academia.edu/3195737/Warriors_and_weapons_in_Dacia_in_the_2nd_BC_1st_AD_Centuries_-_Ph_-_thesis_abstract_ Argidava by Radu Oltean http://www.romaniadevis.ro/dacia/zona-geto-daca/reconstituiri-3d/item/cetatea-banita-reconstituire-3d

My suggestion for the faction symbols Scythian, Kuban region North-East of the Black Sea, 6th century BC For the Huns, from left to right:Germano-Hunnic 5th century AD in Romania, Germano-Hunnic 5th century AD in Italy, Scythians 5th Century BC in Altai (Russia), Scythians 5th Century BC in Tuetkin (Russia): For the Xiongnu:

It is already hard to make something vaguely correct in the Total War series, then in 0 A.D. it is a very difficult mission. Historically archers were used primarily to disorganize and demoralize enemy troops.

Yes exactly. The game let the player to create is own event. It is not the re-enactment of a historical battle.

https://www.docdroid.net/qpO72Yg/thracian-combined.pdf An extract: Something in French in case someone is interested: https://issuu.com/baranes/docs/l_e__pope__e_des_rois_thraces_2__ex

A useful document for symbol faction and art (even if the author didn't take any precaution in distinguishing Scythian and Hunnic cultures): https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259717838_Hun_Xiongnu_Scythian_Art An Unesco's magazine special issue on the Scythians: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0007/000748/074829eo.pdf Gold artistic goods in Tuva (Russia-Mongolian border) https://journals.openedition.org/archeosciences/pdf/2193 Nomadic Art from the Eastern Eurasian Steppes

At this little game we can argue there is Asian bronze items in North America through the Dorsets, Inuits and Chukchi trading. There are also numerous hints in plant and parasites paleoecology suggesting that the Americas wasn't that much closed. We have historically overlooked artistic goods to define contact zone and neglected the others things, which is biased in favor of Eurasian cultures. The problem with the rhetoric as used by Sundiata is its need to stretch the definitions and the boundaries of what is the limits of a culture, what is a contact between two cultures, confusing individuals interactions with societies interactions etc. The best examples are the use of La Tène Continental Celtic mercenaries to justify a possible interactions between British Iron Age populations and Eastern civilization, the use of the Parthian Empire to justify Achaemenid interactions with the Roman world, the use of Romanized Ethiopians in the Romanized territory of Britannia. It is like saying the Gauls could have interacted with the Huns because 5 centuries later, Attila raided the Gallo-Roman territory. At this little game, there is no boundaries and you can stretch anything very far (destroying the timeline of the game). It is like the debate to know who first discovered America. A lot of people argues with either strict evidences like viking settlement and Arctic cultures trading or with more fuzzy logical evidences like Chinese possible maritime exploration or lost Polynesian canoe. But there is only one true discovery: Columbus. Because it is the only one to have cultural consequences. To have changed the life of the individuals in both interacting societies. The rest is only anecdotal. The fact that tin from British population were bought by Egyptian populations is not an evidence of interaction between these two cultures because if another culture has bought or produced the tin instead of one or the other, it would have had the same effect. Edit: My conclusion is we have already broke the principle and it is not a problem.

Just a point about this. What could have been the interaction between Iron Age Britons and the Mauryan Empire? Or with the Koushites? Or between the Achaemenid dynasty and the Roman Republic? Or between the Iberians and a possible Chinese faction? Personally I am more about an accurate representation of each faction for a matter of respect for each culture and for the work of historians, but not about hardcore historical limitations. It is still a video game. Edit: my point is that talking about contact is not a good reason to exclude meso-american factions

I gave only historical references where we can cherry-pick to justify gameplay adjustment. Personally I would prefer something with the Marian reform and maybe giving an option for the Romans to unlock regional units when they capture their CC. Celtic cavalry and Celtic spearmen when they capture a Gallic or Britonic CC. Numidian light-cavalry and War Elephants when they capture Carthaginian CC. etc.

It is very vague indeed but with a historical background you can imagine what happens. They are either mercenaries or lend-troops from allies/vassals/defeated cities, they have simply the weapons of their nations.