Thalatta

How things stand right now, certainly there has to be a line stating "Regenerates: 1 Food / 5 seconds" (seemed that rate, and trying to emulate correct nomenclature).

Shipsheds should be rotated 90°, that way you can easily make them longer in the correct direction to fit the ships inside. Vanilla follows this idea, but it's also wrong there, because the game does this: When it should be like this (more efficient): These are Athenian structures, built monumentally, most other Greeks (like the Thebans, who were not good at sea) would use impermanent timber shipsheds.

Gosh, I never noticed this! They do, just checked. That has to be one of the reasons why I was recommended time ago to distribute the gatherers among different berries, one ends extracting more food this way. I can't find something I proposed time ago: I wouldn't make the berry tree disappear when done, but leave an empty bush that can provide a little wood. Either one chops them for wood, or leaves them for food. Now I'd add that one could then make regeneration a bit different: not slow and continuous, but faster and at certain times, depending on the tree type.

We are in the Delenda Est section (for now ). By this I guess you mean how they would look when promoting? That would be great, I think I mentioned to @Emacz long ago that their armour shouldn't be changed in the promotion system, instead some other extra equipment should change, like crests, cloaks, greaves… while the armour being left connected to their corresponding techs (it's not nice that both things are so disjointed in vanilla). Of course it would be more realistic if techs unlock unit variants instead of just changing stats, but as @LeJardindEpicure says, it would change quite some things. I'm not against that, it's just a different approach, but what I proposed falls in the middle of both worlds: you already have the units, just a bit more differentiated according to armour "weight", and each has corresponding techs that change their armour (stats and looks). If, in some particular cases, some tech allows for the production of something quite different, then a new unit could be unlocked (I'm going to mention something about this regarding siege machines in my post of the Athenians, since I ran hard into this problem some time ago).

It's debated to what extent they just used an exomis before more protection made a comeback, but yes, I didn't mention it because that would be indeed too confusing. I counted mobility (as in agility) as "adding" protection because dodging and parrying would count for it (since they are not appearing independently in the game, I think). But that's just headcannon, I avoid mentioning that and just tried to make the linothorax look more complex and better than the bronze cuirass (if I didn't achieve that is in part because I ran out of free AI images ). In any case, both types of armour appeared before the time frame of the game, and evolved in parallel, that's why I relied more on a "when they started to be adopted more often" criteria, thus the fact that linothorax is preferred at later stages is what throws me off quite a bit. Another take could be if you have medium and heavy infantry (assuming light have almost no armour), and each would have their own armour tech tree (for linothorax and bronze cuirass, respectively and independently). That would not only make more sense, but diversify units better, look more realistic (with certain constraints, like Skiritai, asuming they are medium infantry, always using linothorax and Spartiates always using bronze cuirass, when in reality it wouldn't have been so monolithic), and add to the gameplay (particularly if, in general although situational, earlier techs make heavy units preferable, and later techs make medium units preferable, for the Greeks at least, and it's nice that this would depend on each civ). I guess this can be a big change, although not as big as some mod I saw not long ago where techs were too split into too many different unit types (and anyway DE is into more techs, if I'm not wrong ).

Well, I don't think Farmstead techs or Arrow techs at the Forge follow a light->heavy progression for example, but a worse->better one. In the case of armour, I streamlined things now merging increased "mobility" and slight "resistance" decrease with an overall "defence" increase, along with cheaper costs, thus worse->better in many respects. Realistically, it's hard to talk about progression regarding armour, since their use overlapped a lot, but one can talk about when they started to be adopted more often. Also, only considering a Linothorax progression would be too made up, since we know very little about it in the first place (EDIT: but I remember thinking about if using a couple of Linothorakes types, have to look into it better, but for sure I wouldn't put Bronze Cuirasses after them).

This is the complete sentence: You cut out the part "in https://jeff-web-sketch.github.io/ClassicalWarfareAEASite/spartans.html", and then proceeded to ask if I meant the manual or the website. The answer was written right there all along. I don't mean my historical suggestions (which would be recommended if you want to be more accurate than vanilla anyway), but things that are objectively wrong (in particular, attempts at writing in Greek that you added and weren't even in vanilla). So, if someone says something else, and they actually play, they will still be just wrong

"Auxiliary" is an English word, meaning "helper" or "helpers", which in Latin are "auxilium" and "auxilia", respectively. The Romans would use the term "auxilia" for non-citizen subject units that would usually preserve strong local cultural traits. Thus, when you say "auxiliary", in English, I'd assume you are going beyond the Latin "auxilia", and generalising a very similar situation (which is actually not that common, mostly for vast civilisations). And that's what you seem to write in the Glossary. The problem is that for "Allies" you also write that they can be "subjects", and since this is strictly not true (are their part of your civilisation, or allies?) it ends overlapping with what "Auxiliary" means. You then decide to use "Allies" for what it seems to be better described as "Auxiliary". "Allies" should be those who are not part of your civilisation, but are your allies. The "bunch of information" is the manual. That "friendlier eventually would be to somehow briefly state the differences with vanilla" I mean the website, but you literally cut out "in the link". Just to compare what can be compared. As I've told you many times, just take notes. I see I sent you certain corrections on May 15, and that nothing changed the next day when you said you already corrected them. You are the one that has to check if corrections are properly implemented, to keep repeating the same things that are already written down (as has happened already with other things) is never going to work for me.

Was having a look at it now: Unit Tiers -"Auxiliary" would be better than "Allied". "Allied" is way more general than what you want. -I guess you couldn't solve how to change Champions to Elite, and the XP progression as Recruit->Seasoned->Veteran, which would be better according to the terminology actually used. -You seem to characterise Mercenaries other way around. They should be veterans selling their services (maxed XP), and would use local equipment if it's better (affected by Forge techs). Glossary -"Auxiliary" now seems what you defined before as "Allied", and "Allied" seems to be what it should. I would have then thought that in Unit Tiers you made a mistake, but then all the following tables repeat that. The rest is quite a bunch of information that would require a lot of time to understand. Maybe something friendlier eventually would be to somehow briefly state the differences with vanilla in https://jeff-web-sketch.github.io/ClassicalWarfareAEASite/spartans.html, for example. And in "16 historically accurate civilizations", that's simply not true, at most you could write "16 civilizations (striving to be historically accurate)". I guess you have still focused mostly on units stats, since there are simple corrections I think I already mentioned to you that are still not implemented, in the Spartans for example.

I have a post from four hours ago and another from one and a half hours ago still hidden :/

@lilypoppy, this was actually harder than I thought because there are some issues with Appian's account. I ended up using another version that made more sense, for then to realise it was "forced" to make more sense by transcribers. In any case, I'm using it, and will explain things at the end (referred with *, ** and ***) of the following summary (hidden for those who just want to skip it): For my campaign proposal, first of all, I don't really know what can be actually done regarding certain triggers, hopefully things can somehow work as I state (and I've seen in other games), otherwise modifications will be needed. Campaign title: you used Fire of Freedom, which sounds a bit weird to me. I guess it takes from Polybius' "Fiery War" term regarding these and related events. Burning Heart could be another name, hinting to Braveheart (a barely similar story), and it's a song by the band Survivor (Viriathus survived the massacre, just to have some obscure connections I guess). I arranged all in four scenarios: Scenario 1, The Blood of Lusitania (based on §60, §61, §62 and §63) Introduction: mention of the ongoing war, Viriathus made leader after saying they should escape the Roman army instead of seeking talks, or they could be massacred again. Setup: one starts with no resources, with a CC on one extreme, and on the other extreme an army with skirmishing cavalry close to a Roman army and settlements, with Belli and Titthi armies standing by (if Carpessus is Tartessus, the armies should start in the lower left, and the player CC in the upper right). Objective: distract the Roman army with skirmishing cavalry while the rest reach for the CC. After a certain time, supposedly after the first Roman wave is repelled, the armies of the Belli and Titthi should attack, and killing all of their troops wins the scenario. Scenario 2, The Fire of Carpetania (based on §64, §65 and §66) Introduction: mention about raiding and expecting different Roman armies to be sent, while planning to convince the Arevaci, Titthi, and Belli to join the cause. Setup: one starts with an army without builders, and no resources. Objective: certain amount of loot, treasures, tribute, and similar, as to be obtained, ideally making conquering not the way to go. At some point in time or progress, more and more Romans come into play (they should be unstoppable), and the option to somehow convince the Roman allies to join appears. The scenario is won when convincing a certain number of them. Scenario 3, The Wrath of Hispania (based on §67, §68 and §69) Introduction: mention the defeat against Aemilianus, along with the expansion of the war in other regions, and that after a few engagements, Servilianus has been sent with elephants from the Numidians and is seemingly defeating Viriathus in a battle. Setup: one starts with neither buildings nor resources, just with an army being attacked by a much larger Roman army (with elephants from Africa), and the Lusitanians having then to retreat, and plenty of passive units around become the player's when approaching them (or similar, to represent rallying of fleeing units). Objective: turn the tide of the battle by finding these "capturable" units fast. Capture buildings to start gathering resources. Certain Roman CC must be captured to win the scenario. Scenario 4, The Ashes of Betrayal (based on §70, and the rest) Introduction: mention that with the last victory Viriathus obtained a peace treaty, but that Caepio is not happy about it and convinces the Roman Senate to reignite hostilities. Setup: besides a certain amount of Gaia dropsites, I think the rest could be normal. The Vettones and Callaici could also be present to distract the Romans, which should start with advantage. Objective: destroy the Gaia dropsites before a certain amount of them is captured by the enemy. Ending: mention the ignited guerrillas, and Viriathus wanting peace but betrayed and killed, the new leader Tantalus trying but surrendering to the Romans, with the Lusitanians obtaining lands to live the peace, ending the war. This would be similar to the endings of movies like The Last of the Mohicans or The Last Samurai, not a victory in a way, but a story of resistance.

The Thebans were quite big in music (mythologically, the walls of Thebes were built by Amphion with his golden lyre). Since the Han have Ministers, and I proposed Ephors for the Spartans, I'm going to propose Philosophers for Athenians, and had in mind Musicians for Thebans, for each civ to have a unique limited non-combat unit. Apparently, Theban aulos players were credited with adding keys to the instrument around 400 BC, like clarinets today (https://lucianofsamosata.info/wiki/doku.php?id=2013:aulos), with the most famous player of the instrument being Pronomos of Thebes (https://instrumentheritage.com/aulos). Timotheus of Thebes, as another example (both him and Pronomos had long beards):

Given the amount of sources already used in it, I can only recommend : I don't know what Feminine Mystique does, but Bibasis Dance could be an historical alternative making use of an interesting attested Spartan custom, and the icon a Spartan woman (who were famously fit because of their exercising) doing it: And as you might now, the armour progression shown is quite unrealistic (and I'm not sure about feeding wrong ideas just because they might look more intuitive ). This is explained by historian Roel Konijnendijk (posting as Iphikrates) in https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5d3bkk/what_is_greek_hoplite_armor_made_from for example, one of the main points being "no real evidence of the use of leather armour" in Ancient Greece (even when more medievally inclined people tend to think otherwise). Then, streamlining a bit what I proposed in Thoughts on the Spartans, one could start with Bell Cuirass, and go through the more period accurate techs (or their more prevalent adoption at least) Transitional Cuirass, Muscle Cuirass and Linothorax, while making them look progressively more interesting: One could add the pteryges (leather strips) on all armours, but they are an integral part of the last, and I ran out of free AI images (abs should be added on the second, and the last can be improved).

@nifa, just a couple of additional details: -The nine shields should have a rim, and be part of distinct stone blocks, as seen in the photo. -There should be no wood in it, everything was replaced with stone and metal.

Seems pretty good to me! You seem to have placed the spear as it was placed, according to these coins: I would just hang the sword higher up, and on the left side (as should be for right-handed people), to reproduce what's seen in the coins (maybe I'd also go for another kind of armour, but it seems @wowgetoffyourcellphone chose scale armour for some units, I wonder if for some reason): I'm quite confused about the helmet. You used a Chalcidian, while I'm not sure if the coins show a Boeotian, which would be highly irregular since the equipment placed in a trophy should be that of the defeated army, but on the other hand this is a highly irregular monument since, unlike all previous trophies, it was made to last, so I wonder if a decision was taken of using Theban equipment instead (which would require another shield device). I couldn't find any commentary on this for now, so I cannot say for sure what's going on with this (it could just be a Chalcidian or Corinthian tipped upward, but doesn't seem so on the right coin).

Meaning, you have to bully at least two players @Effervescent.

I see, no worries, when I have some time this week I'll go through the text (and some other sources) and summarise the story. From there one might have to simplify things (omit and only mention some battles, etc, not to be too repetitive) and divide things in thematic scenarios. From there you can take and modify what you want.

The Chinese had quite varied polearms for the time, like the San Ge Ji (three dagger-axe halberd), Pi (swordstaff) or Sha (spear blade). Pictures of these are shown in https://swordis.com/blog/chinese-spear, a more complete list in https://greatmingmilitary.blogspot.com/2019/03/telling-apart-chinese-polearms-quick.html (not all only for the Han), and the relative importance among weapons can be approximately inferred from this inventory https://handwiki.org/wiki/Engineering:Chinese_polearms#Han_dynasty_(206_BC–220_AD). I tried to make an infographic with Gemini but got fed up with its stupidity.

That would be the proposed "salvage" option that was the point of this thread

Ah, I see, but then it would be an issue of changing how Self-Destruct exactly works, given that in some situations (like this) it seems unsightly and overpowered, while it would still make sense in other situations (scorched earth). My first idea would be for it not to exist at all, while one being able to attack their own structures, or for things not to take time from troops, they could have the ability to set ones’ buildings on fire fast. Maybe a simplification of all this that changes the least possible could be for the button to exist but to have units very close by for it to work.

Yes, I agree, since surely these posts in Cyrillic are a first one. I'd maybe even go further and require mod approval for the first three posts, since I seem to remember someone posting something that made sense and then their second post was total spam.

It also works when the building is finished, because 100% built means 0% of resources back, so that works as a general rule

From what I've seen, maybe posts written in Cyrillic should require mod approval.

Well, I think those corrections are trivial and should take less than a minute, but I guess I have to start doing this at some point... Just to be sure: I have to create an user on git, apparently not directly linked to the one of this forum? (Thus people just use the same nicknames and profile pictures).