Genava55

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.

For alpha 25 the Y will definitely causes trouble, except if you use a phoenician name. There is also Welsh mythology with Ysbaddaden.

Actually the ram can "outpace" spearmen, taking only one hit each 4-5 second. It means that you need to let the ram hitting your building to start capturing it.

For this the ram should be slower. But yeah, the capture can be a compromise solution.

https://www.docdroid.net/UAhXdak/xiongnu-combined.pdf It seems that the Xiongnu did have some agricultural fields in the south-east border of their Empire where foreigners could settle. It wasn't really their own population but they were a kind of vassals the Xiongnu used to have enough food the winter, to have metals, textiles and others craftsmanship. There is small walls even in pastoral fields and fortified small settlements probably to stock and protect food and goods. The Xiongnu seems to have the same superior bow than the Huns. Edit: to summary a bit what I see for the moment. - The Scythians have a varied roster possible. From the Greek authors, there is mention of mounted javelinists and horse archers with the famous hit-and-retreat and ambush tactics. From archaeology, there is swords and pickaxes, spears, various squale armours and shields. The pickaxe is probably an answer against armours and must be an advantageous. The Sarmatians and the Eastern Scythians developed further heavy lancer cavalry and cataphracts. Normally each Scythians warriors, even armoured ones, have both bows and lances. Something to think about if the switching weapons is implemented one day. Crimean Scythians seem to be often separated from their northern Neighbors, having sometime a different king than the others Scythians. I suggest then for balance and historical reason to put the Crimean in a reform to be chosen with the further Sarmatian's development as an alternative. Since the Sarmatians destroyed the Crimean Scythians, it is logical that the player must chose between two different pathways. - The Xiongnu is more obscur but several patterns seem to emerge and we can make reasonable assumptions. The Xiongnu built their empire on a multiethnic basis with sedentarian populations in their border. They must have the possibility to built defensive fortifications and farms. Since the mod make the difference between civilian and militarian buildings, it should be possible to let sedentarian based units to build such civilian buildings. It would explain why sometimes the Xiongnu have a lot of infantry during the defense of their borders against the Han (although with a very mediocre efficiency). Contrary to others nomads cultures, the Xiongnu have inhabited on their territory for a very long time. The Xiongnu have superior "hunnic-like" bows, long double edged swords, spears and leather and iron squale armour. For their horses, it doesn't seem there is any cataphract, only padded linen and silk protection probably against the arrows can be guessed from archaeology. - The Huns are clearly the more mobiles and have clearly the best horse-archers. Not only because of their superior bows but also thanks to battle tactics. In the archaeology, the Huns seem similar to the Xiongnu but with indications they start using mail armour in Europe. They must be the best raiders. The possibility to hire Germanics units should give them better shock units both in cavalry and in infantry. There is not mention of any cataphract or any armoured horseman. The Avars (closely relatives to them) did have good lance cavalry. Attila was very good in siege warfare during his campaign against both eastern and western Romans. Hierarchical classification, I suggest (to discuss): Horse-archers - Huns > Xiongnu > Scythians Close-combat cavalry - Scythians > Huns > Xiongnu Armoured cavalry - Scythians with nomad reform > Xiongnu > Scythians with Crimean reform > Huns Lancers cavalry - Scythians with nomad reform > Huns > Xiongnu > Scythians with Crimean reform Combat infantry - Huns > Scythians with Crimean reform > Xiongnu > Scythians with nomad reform Archers infantry - Huns > Xiongnu > Scythians Economy (self-production) - Xiongnu > Scythians > Huns Economy (Raiding) - Huns > Xiongnu > Scythians Siege abilities - Huns > Xiongnu > Scythians Defensive structures - Xiongnu > Scythians with Crimean reform >> Scythians with nomad reform = Huns This is clearly a matter of interpretation.

The problem is the lack of historical swordsmen among the Greeks. Because of the rock-paper-scissor logic it is a problem.

Yes you are probably right. I checked and it seems they are polyvalent pikemen. Anyway there are the Agrianes and the Triballi as good candidates. I agree.

What could be great should be to implement the Antigonid reform with the elite peltastai. They are not skirmisher, they are a polyvalent shock infantry with a few javelins, bronze pelte and a sword. http://europabarbarorum.wikia.com/wiki/Peltastai_Makedonikoi_(Hellenistic_Elite_Infantry)#EB2 Edit: else there is the Agrianes, attested in the army of Alexander and of his father.

Generally they used chariots/waggons in the case of women, especially the Scythians. "At that season the Scythians who dwell inside the trench make warlike expeditions upon the ice, and even drive their waggons across to the country of the Sindians. Such is the intensity of the cold during eight months out of the twelve, and even in the remaining four the climate is still cool. " - Herodotus. "The Scythians call themselves nomads as they have no houses but live in wagons. These are very small with four wheels. Others with six wheels are covered with felt; such wagons are employed like houses, in twos or threes and provide shelter from rain and wind [...] The women and children live in these wagons, but the men always remain on horseback. " - Hippocrates. And clearly there is lower class without a horse but what is the normal nomad citizen? A horseman. If the normal greek citizen is a hoplite and the normal roman citizen a legionary, we shouldn't restrict the buildings function to only lower class. I don't think a dismounting function is planned. This is why I asked if it is possible to build for a horseman unit. But if it is not possible, we can let the footmen doing the job since they must do the mining and wood cutting as well. With the exception of the slaves, most of the nomadic warriors will be footmen, especially in the middle game. Gladly, there is still the option of huge husbandry trick for an early cavalry rush. And yes there is sedentary populations as well, but they are not nomads anymore by definition. The Mongols of Temujin aren't culturally the same than the Mongols of Tamerlan.

The Scythians should have women amazon-like warriors with lasso abilities. Since this is a huge cultural group, they can easily have different reforms options like the Seleucid. For example Sarmatians cavalry lancers and Saka cataphracts for a traditionnal nomad reform or Bosporan thureophoros and Bosporan Daco-Thracian warriors for a crimean reform. The Bosporan units could even construct special hellenistic-like buildings. The Huns could have the eagle ability proposed by Sundiata (awesome idea). For example a unit with an eagle vision ability or simply a better vision. The Huns seem to have better cavalry archery with complex tactics. They could have vassalised germanic units in the late phase. The only thing is it ok for cavalry to have a building ability?

The Xiongnu is a very difficult culture to gather information about. I tried to access to some academic articles translated from chinese but even with the accreditation of my university nor the website sci-hub, I don't success to get it. The Scythian supracultural group seems to be the easiest to get information about. I think it should be ok to put the Sarmatians and the Alani in the Scythian faction. The Greco-Scythian emblematic kingdom is the Bosporan Kingdom: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosporan_Kingdom https://periklisdeligiannis.wordpress.com/2014/01/08/τηε-bosporan-kingdom-cimmerian-bosporus-part-i/ http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?636049-PREVIEW-The-Bosporan-Kingdom

https://www.fpri.org/article/2015/04/fighting-under-the-earth-the-history-of-tunneling-in-warfare/

Factions descriptions from the first Europa Barbarorum. Eastern Scythians (Saka): http://europabarbarorum.wikia.com/wiki/Saka_Rauka Sarmatians: http://europabarbarorum.wikia.com/wiki/Sauromatae Parthians: http://europabarbarorum.wikia.com/wiki/Pahlava Hunnic Warfare in the Fourth and Fifth Centuries C.E.: Archery and the Collapse of the Western Roman Empire (master thesis): https://digitalcollections.trentu.ca/islandora/object/etd%3A472/datastream/PDF/download/citation.pdf Nomads of the Eurasian Steppes in the Early Iron Age (1995) by Jeannine Davis-Kimball, Vladimir A. Bashilov and Leonid T. Yablonsky. https://www.csen.org/Pubs_Sales_Reviews/Nomads/Nomad-188579-00-2.pdf

Sorry, I thought it was a mistake. Btw, if someone is interested for some pics about the Scythians: https://maximus101.livejournal.com/146401.html https://blog.britishmuseum.org/introducing-the-scythians/ Edit: general pics about nomads http://steppes.proboards.com/post/30935/thread

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.