Genava55

I have a vague idea about an economic + slave system + mercenaries. It is starting with the introduction a new resource: money/gold. My idea is that each factions can build different buildings permitting the production of specific goods (ceramic, transformed food, bronze dishes, etc.) and each goods need a specific quantity of raw material (food, wood, metal or stone). Each building need to be connected with a market or a port to sold your product which give you a quantity in coins/gold. The interest for the player is firstly a capital gain (the product sold gives a higher value in gold than if you would have sold the raw material). Finally, the buildings need workers to be efficient and productive. You need to use a part of your population, putting them in the buildings to work. My second idea is a slave system. I have seen that it was already suggested before. In this case, I suggest it because it fit well with the previous idea. The player can use money/gold to buy slaves, but to be interesting it should have an advantage. Either a better productivity (a slave work harder and longer) or either to be not included in the population account (I'm not in favor of this one since a slave needs to be feed and to be housed). The backslash: the slaves can't protect buildings from conversion, can't fight, can't build anything and maybe can be stolen. My third idea is to pay all the mercenaries in coins/gold with the advantage of a fast training. They should be more expensive than normal units and maybe with a temporary limit (after 3 min they are disbanded if you don't pay again for example). Why am I suggesting a money system? To give the possibility to players to focus on a economic system with good advantages but with increasing risk since opponents could focus on a few buildings to disturb the resources of the player. We can even force the players to build the productive buildings far enough of the market. It also increases the motivation for players to scout the opponent's base.

Well, it could be like AoM with definitive choice or like Starcraft 2 with costly choices but not definitive.

I agree with the existence of different roles on the battlefield. I disagree with the dichotomy heavy or light, often generalized outside of the battlefield. It is why peoples are using the idea of medium infantry to fill inconsistencies in the theoretical framework but in this case you should apply it to the Roman legionaries as well: "Velites had wholly disappeared by the time of Caesar. Their detachment from the establishment of the legion made possible a gradual decline in numbers, a decline made more likely by the changed conditions of warfare, the greater availability of foreign auxiliaries and the destruction of the economic base for military class distinction. Above all perhaps, the long service and professionalism of the first century army made the ordinary heavy infantryman better able to fill the role of velites as well as their own. In this context of gradual decline, the final disappearance of the velites need not have excited remark." - Bell (1965). Tactical Reform in the Roman Republican Army. There is also a good example of "light infantry" tactics performed by legionaries during the Battle of Ilerda between Caesar and Pompey. Heavy and light roles on the battlefield are more based on the unit formation, the training of the men and the quality of their officers.

The main difference between the hypaspist and the common phalangite is the training and the experience. Hypaspist had daily training including 56km of walk with full equipment since king Philippe. Not the phalangite. If you look in the history of the Roman army, you will see how they are able to perform actions that even "light" infantry in the hellenistic world would barely perform. It is the training the difference.

I think you have put your finger on the main problem in the discussion. Light and heavy infantry doesn't mean anything for ancient times, it is a modern view. There is a problem with this idea of a different armement for the hypaspist: The duel of Horratas against Dioxippe, the former is very probably a hypaspist, duelling with a sarissa. And when Alexander killed Cleitos with a sarissa took from the hand of a bodyguard... role belonging to the hypaspists. Finally when Nicanor, commander of the hypaspists asked his men to used their sarissa to lay the wheat/crop against the Getai.

I agree at 100%. The Kushites were a good exception because they could take the role of an Egyptian inheritors factions and letting the Ptolemaic to be more hellenized. The only other candidate I see as really credible is the Odrysian kingdom. Well, it is not that easy either. For example, the current Roman Republic faciton is depicted with Polybian legions and with imperial era building. There isn't a lot of remaining buildings from the Republic era. It is why it is really difficult (and maybe too much difficult to change it).

Personally, I would prefer if there is more regional culture included in each factions 0 A.D. currently have. For example, Iberians could permit different choices for the player: more Mediterranean standardized iberian infantry or more traditional tribal warfare with inclusion of Celtiberian and Lusitanian warriors. I am more in favor of deeper strategies and tactics than in a bunch of superficial factions with all the same game mechanics. More qualitative than quantitative. He used often this argument, and this is mostly true. Carthage was the reason for this evolution in the equipment. The only thing, he is forgetting the close influence between iberian and gallic mercenaries for Sicilians, Punics and Greek cities, because the oval shield must comes from somewhere for the Carthaginians too: Justinus: Epitome of Pompeius Trogus' Philippic Histories, book 20, 1: Dionysius the tyrant, who, we have said, had transported an army from Sicily into Italy, and made war upon the Greeks there, proceeded, after taking Locri by storm, to attack the Crotonians, who, in consequence of their losses in the former war, were scarcely recovering their strength in a long peace. 2 With their small force, however, they resisted the great army of Dionysius more valiantly than they had before, with so many thousands, resisted the smaller number of the Locrians. 3 So much spirit has weakness in withstanding insolent power; and so much more sure, at times, is an unexpected than an expected victory. 4 But as Dionysius was prosecuting the war, ambassadors from the Gauls, who had burned Rome some months before, came to him to desire an alliance and friendship with him; 5 observing that "their country lay in the midst of his enemies, and could be of great service to him, either by supporting him in the field, or by annoying his enemies in the rear when they were engaged with him." 6 The embassy was well received by Dionysius, who, having made an alliance with them, and being reinforced with assistance from Gaul, renewed the war as it were afresh. 7 The causes of the Gauls' coming into Italy, in quest of new settlements, were civil discords and perpetual contentions at home; 8 and when, from impatience of those feuds, they had sought refuge in Italy, they expelled the Etruscans from their country, and founded Mediolanum, Comum, Brixia, Verona, Bergamum, Tridentum, and Vicentia. 9 The Etruscans, too, when they were driven from their old settlements, betook themselves, under a captain named Rhaetus, towards the Alps, where they founded the nation of Rhaetia, so named from their leader. 10 An invasion of Sicily by the Carthaginians obliged Dionysius to return thither; for that people, having rebuilt their army, had resumed the war, which they had broken off in consequence of the plague, with increased spirit. 11 The leader in the expedition was Hanno the Carthaginian, 12 whose enemy Juniatus, the most powerful of the Carthaginians at that time, having, from hatred to him, given friendly notice to Dionysius, in a letter written in Greek, of the approach of the army and the inactivity of its leader, was found, through the letter being intercepted, guilty of treason; 13 and a decree of the senate was made, "that no Carthaginian should thenceforward study the Greek literature or language, so that no one might be able to speak with the enemy, or write to him, without an interpreter." 14 Not long after, Dionysius, whom a little before neither Sicily nor Italy could hold, being reduced and weakened by continual wars, was at last killed by a conspiracy among his own subjects. Diodorus Siculus Library of History, Book 15, 70: 1 From Sicily, Celts and Iberians to the number of two thousand sailed to Corinth, for they had been sent by the tyrant Dionysius to fight in an alliance with the Lacedaemonians, and had received pay for five months. The Greeks, in order to make trial of them, led them forth; and they proved their worth in hand-to‑hand fighting and in battles and many both of the Boeotians and of their allies were slain by them. Accordingly, having won repute for superior dexterity and courage and rendered many kinds of service, they were given awards by the Lacedaemonians and sent back home at the close of the summer to Sicily. Diodorus Siculus Library of History, Book 16, 73: 3 The Carthaginians recognized that their generals in Sicily were conducting the war in a spiritless manner and decided to send out new ones, together with heavy reinforcements.Straightway they made a levy for the campaign from among their noblest citizens and made suitable drafts among the Libyans. Furthermore, appropriating a large sum of money, they enlisted mercenaries from among the Iberians, Celts, and Ligurians.They were occupied also with the construction of battleships. They assembled many freighters and manufactured other supplies in enormous quantities. Diodorus Siculus Library of History, Book 20, 11: 1 After Agathocles had viewed the array of the barbarians, he entrusted the right wing to his son Archagathus, giving him twenty-five hundred foot-soldiers; and he drew up the Syracusans, who were thirty-five hundred in number, then three thousand Greek mercenaries, and finally three thousand Samnites, Etruscans, and Celts. The problem with this is the different treatment we made for barbarians factions and greco-romans factions. We accept the use of "hastati", "triari", "hoplite", but not the others, only because we are unfamiliar and because it is difficult.

Are you really neutral on this subject? I'm tired of peoples using ancient history to satisfy their political agenda. For me it looks like you have a grief against the Basques.

I don't understand how it could be more rigoreous. It is like using old French for gallic populations and Italian for the Romans. There is no reason to think there is a continuity between the Iberian language and the Catalan. Using the Basque language is not perfect but it is still a valid hypothesis contrary to the use of Catalan.

I cannot help a lot, I don't read Spanish easily and I don't have the books of Quesada Sanz, but here a document he wrote: https://www.uam.es/proyectosinv/equus/warmas/online/Guerra Iberia Quesada.pdf

Actually, it doesn't make any sense either. Catalan is mostly from latin origins (Occitan languages). Iberian language is for the moment unclassified and there is still debate to know if it is a indo-european language or not. There is a hypothesis relating the iberian language to the basque: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vascoiberismo But for the moment, nothing is conclusive.

A suggestion to differentiate Britons and Gauls. Above the Britonic shields and below the Gallic shields: Basic knowledge about umbones chronology:

Sure. Adsedos: resident Atrebatos: dweller Andogna: native Atectos/Atextos: peasant (serfdom like) Cerdon: Artisan Dugilos: manufacturer Gobenos: blacksmith Uassos: servant, under-class member

An illustration of the possible resulting military tree with some suggestions for the names:

Proposals for regional units for the gauls: Germanic / Celto-Germanic horse-stabbers cavalry (anti-cavalry cavalry): "The horsemen sent by Caesar [Gauls and Germans auxiliaries]…wrought wonders of bravery. Many slid from their steeds, dove beneath their foes’ horses, and struck them in the underbelly." - Plutarch, Crassus "But the enemy [Usipii], as soon as they saw our horses, the number of which was 5000, whereas they themselves had not more than 800 horses, because those which had gone over the Meuse for the purpose of foraging had not returned, while our men had no apprehensions, because their ambassadors had gone away from Caesar a little before, and that day had been requested by them as a period of truce, made an onset on our men, and soon threw them into disorder. When our men, in their turn, made a stand, they, according to their practice, leaped from their horses to their feet, and stabbing our horses in the belly and overthrowing a great many of our men, put the rest to flight, and drove them forward so much alarmed that they did not desist from their retreat till they had come in sight of our army. In that encounter seventy-four of our horses were slain; among them, Piso, an Aquitanian, a most valiant man, and descended from a very illustrious family; whose grandfather had held the sovereignty of his state, and had been styled friend by our senate." - Caesar, De bello gallico, 4. Solduros (plural. Solduroi) bodyguard from the Sotiates (Aquitani): And while the attention of our men is engaged in that matter, in another part Adcantuannus, who held the chief command, with 600 devoted followers whom they call soldurii (the conditions of whose association are these,—that they enjoy all the conveniences of life with those to whose friendship they have devoted themselves: if any thing calamitous happen to them, either they endure the same destiny together with them, or commit suicide: nor hitherto, in the, memory of men, has there been found any one who, upon his being slain to whose friendship he had devoted himself, refused to die); Adcantuannus, [I say] endeavoring to make a sally with these, when our soldiers had rushed together to arms, upon a shout being raised at that part of the, fortification, and a fierce battle had been fought there, was driven back into the town, yet he obtained from Crassus [the indulgence] that he should enjoy the same terms of surrender [as the other inhabitants]. - Caesar, De bello gallico, 3. Nervii infantry: Upon their territories bordered the Nervii, concerning whose character and customs when Caesar inquired he received the following information: “That there was no access for merchants to them; that they suffered no wine and other things tending to luxury to be imported; because, they thought that by their use the mind is enervated and the courage impaired: that they were a savage people and of great bravery: that they upbraided and condemned the rest of the Belgae who had surrendered themselves to the Roman people and thrown aside their national courage: that they openly declared they would neither send embassadors, nor accept any condition of peace.” - Caesar, De bello gallico, 2. It added weight also to the advice of those who reported that circumstance, that the Nervii, from early times, because they were weak in cavalry, (for not even at this time do they attend to it, but accomplish by their infantry whatever they can,) in order that they might the more easily obstruct the cavalry of their neighbors if they came upon them for the purpose of plundering, having cut young trees, and bent them, by means of their numerous branches [extending] on to the sides, and the quick-briars and thorns springing up between them, had made these hedges present a fortification like a wall, through which it was not only impossible to enter, but even to penetrate with the eye. - Caesar, De bello gallico, 2. Treveri cavalry: By all these circumstances the cavalry of the Treviri were much alarmed, (whose reputation for courage is extraordinary among the Gauls, and who had come to Caesar, being sent by their state as auxiliaries), and, when they saw our camp filled with a large number of the enemy, the legions hard pressed and almost held surrounded, the camp-retainers, horsemen, slingers, and Numidians fleeing on all sides divided and scattered, they, despairing of our affairs, hastened home, and related to their state that the Romans were routed and conquered, [and] that the enemy were in possession of their camp and baggage-train. - Caesar, De bello gallico, 2. Helvetii spearmen/infantry: The Helvetii having followed with all their wagons, collected their baggage into one place: they themselves, after having repulsed our cavalry and formed a phalanx, advanced up to our front line in very close order. Caesar, having removed out of sight first his own horse, then those of all, that he might make the danger of all equal, and do away with the hope of flight, after encouraging his men, joined battle. - Caesar, De bello gallico, 1. Here the weapons of the Gallic War period:

Some proposals for the Britons with regional units from EBII: http://europabarbarorum.wikia.com/wiki/Kladibiakoi_(Goidelic_Swordsmen) http://europabarbarorum.wikia.com/wiki/Colgacilioi_(Caledonian_Swordsmen) http://europabarbarorum.wikia.com/wiki/Eqoreda_(Goidelic_Cavalry) http://europabarbarorum.wikia.com/wiki/Bodina_(Goidelic_Skirmishers) http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?760603-Help-the-EBII-Team-Screenshots-of-all-the-units-in-the-mod&p=15450247&viewfull=1#post15450247 These guys could give some elite light infantry and light cavalry for the Britons. Here some Britonic shields made by the EB team and posted on the preview of the Pritanoi faction: Other proposal with a focus on gameplay purpose but with still some historical background: The Mill Hill Deal warrior. Fitzpatrick wrote in his chapter "Druids: towards an archaeology" in the book "Communities and Connections: essays in honour of Barry Cunliffe" that the burial is of a religious man probably. Then why not battle-druid for the Britons? It could be a good alternative for the two-handed swordsman.

Correction, it is the work of J. Cabrera. Quesada Sanz is someone that wrote several books illustrated with the work of Cabrera. Here a high resolution one, i found on the web: He did this one too, they are Senones warriors of the 4th century BC: This one is made by RU-MOR, another spanish artist: Thx for the answer.

@stanislas69 @Lion.Kanzen I got a question, are you planning to display an appearance evolution of the units for each tech upgrades? Like in AoM:

It comes from a french documentary about Paris where they didn't even show the sanctuary, his work was only display for a few seconds, it seems that Pierre Gable is intentionally using the Arte logo as a proof of quality, mixing different pictures on the page with his own personal model without specify it. His model is in fact used by Dassault Systems on a video to make a promotion of their software: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-64kHmCJGMA Clearly for me, it is unethical. Since the sanctuary of Corent was modeled by a different company (court-jus prod.). Do you know this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_Genesis Thanks for the pictures. About these ones in particular, I want to scan them in good quality, since I have them in a book. It is a very good work from Fernando Quesada Sanz. The first one comes from different findings in Marne and Champagne (where the Hallstatt / La Tène boundary is more complex), with several inspiration from the Roquepertuse statues and this scabbard: It is what the Early La Tène warrior could look like.

For the Gauls, swordsmen wasn't that rare. In the warriors burials of the Parisii, it was in 96% of the La Tène B2 tombs and 94% of the La Tène C1 tombs. In Hungary, it represented 55% of the tombs and 62% of the tombs respectively for LT B2 and C1 tombs. During La Tène D2, it represented 45% of the warrior burials of the Treveri. In a general analysis of several long-term sanctuaries, the votive offers are in majority composed of swords. Especially during La Tène C2. For the Gauls, I can suggest some regional unit like the Nervii swordsmen, the Treveri cavalrymen, the Suebi anti-cavalry warriors (germanic), the Volcae raiders etc. etc. But there is also stronger spearmen as a possibility for the common roster. For the Britons two-handed swordsman, I suggest to go for something more common, like a champion. Or for regional units from irish anx caledonian worlds with swords and clubs maybe. Edit some examples: https://mobile.twitter.com/EBTeam/status/646606115178942465 https://mobile.twitter.com/ebteam/status/646032847879438336 https://mobile.twitter.com/EBTeam/status/646306476684914689

I can't see most of the pics. I know this "tavern" found in Lattara, but it is actually during the Roman period (since the Narbonnaise was Romanized earlier). You can have an academic analysis here: https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/372294246DB2B888F516079B4DD2C011/S0003598X15001842a.pdf/communal-eating-and-drinking-in-early-roman-mediterranean-france-a-possible-tavern-at-lattara-c-125-75-bc.pdf I don't argue against the existence of "tavern" but against the use of them for recruitment process. I suggest an alternative with a more political custom, the feasting.

Yes. But I suggest to not trash the actual temple and to modify it. It is an interesting building for a feasting place since there is a central and open yard, with two pikes/poles in the entrance.

I think the sanctuary of Corent is best suited for the role of a temple. Since it was a place where the rituals were regularly performed and inside an urban area. What could have been a wonder building for the Gauls is the Sanctuary of Ribemont-sur-Acre. It is very bloody but it seems this is a place regularly visited and maintained without a lot of rituals. We can maybe mix this sanctuary with the one of Gournay-sur-Aronde. Since they are both symbols of victory, I think it is the best solution. Beside the temple/sanctuary/wonder discussion, I would like to suggest a modification with the tavern. Firstly, it is very cliché and I don't see the link with a religious war fanatic. Secondly, I have a simple suggestion to change that: creating a banquet/feasting building (the Celicnon) by lightly modifying the actual building of the gallic temple. Feasting is a practice linked with important social, political, and economic functions. Aristocrats were probably trying to recruit and impress the others in these places.

Yes I have seen it, but there is often a mix of Gallic and Britonic reconstructions, often pictures without any sources (where and when?) and I prefere to centralize the informations, it gives a better idea of the architecture and of the evolution. 0 A.D. is a game, it is impossible to get everything totally accurate, you need to have an artistic imagination to make a Gallic military barrack since this thing never existed. To get this imagination, you need to have an overview of the whole picture. From the items of everyday life to complex sanctuaries and fortifications. Thx a lot, there is a couple of pictures I didn't have. But the problem with pictures on internet is that people never put the sources and the basic informations (what, where and when). For example, a lot of peoples are using the illustration of J.-C. Golvin of Bibracte while he is mostly depicting a gallo-roman town. And about the Parisii oppidum, it is clearly a fraud and a plagiarism. It comes from someone that is unrelated to the archeologic world http://pierregable.fr/portfolio/oppidum-gaulois/ I checked a bit more the opinion of Delamarre and the debate around Octodurus. It seems his opinion is that "Duron/Durum" is meaning a closed place of trading under the control of a local aristocrat, by opposition with "magos" that means a open-field market. It's a recent debate, started in the 2000s, it is probably why it didn't reach english literature yet. The main argument of his view is a better coherence with the archeological findings where a lot of place have "-durum" in their name without any evidence of fortification. It could even explained why the Romans renamed sometimes the places in a "forum" version. And why "Dur-" is related to a door, as was "foris" for the Romans. "Duron" should have a similar meaning for the Gauls than the Forum for the Romans. Espero que estés satisfecho.