SMST

You know, I don't believe it gets better if you are insisting THAT much ...

I am not sure, if understand that completely ... You mean that the fake-civilisation is modelled to one specific faction, but CAN be applied to any other?

Hm, I would like it better, if every civilisation had some alternatives, like the ones I mentioned. That way, you could make related civs out of the cultural background of said civilisation.

You know the difference between "myth" and "mythology", do you?

Here you go. This is a proper dictionary and it lets you display the latin transliteration.

Interesting how some languages are preciser than the other. At least in colloquial German, there would be no difference between the two. (maybe there is one made in scientific literature, don't know) Thanks!

Sidenote on the screen: Greek Chi (χ) transliterates to "ch", not "x". So, αρχιτέκτων -> architékton. Which would be the proper form, instead of architektonas. (which is accusative plural form) For the usefulness of the feature: Well ... I don't think it is needed. If 0 A.D. were to go there, the graphics had to look good in both 1st and 3rd person view and it would surely causing lags, as in Rise&Fall. Edit: I noticed the terrible spelling of "Akhadhmia". Seriously, what source do you guys have?

That is very true. Another thing that would be great. Although lately, I am leaning towards a "Sack of Rome" - tutorial. To have the Celts in somewhere.

Could you enlighten a non-native speaker about the difference? ("bog" and "marsh" both translate to "Moor" in German, that's why I ask)

The Greeks could be turned to Macedonians easily enough. Hoplites -> Pezhetairos Thracian Peltast -> Agranian Peltast Cretan Archer -> same Hippeus -> Prodromos (might change to Spear Cavalry) Same goes for Republican Romans -> Samnites. Maybe it would be not 100% accurate, but i think we can reach 90% at least ... it is for scenario purposes after all. I don't think it should be implemented in skirmish or multipayer.

And then some lilies, logs and sound effects, then it is epic, fantastical and beyond any description.

Well ... perhaps not for dinosaurs. But other than that, I could see such aesthetical replacement. Could be helpful if one wants a scenario with Macedonians (visual replacement of Greeks), Samnites (Romans), Germanics/Dacians/Thracians (Celts?), Numidians (Carthaginians), Indians/Scythians (Persians) and such. The question is if the WFG team is willing to do the art. (which would, as I understand your idea, oshron, the only thing that would be needed)

What is it like?

I agree, some tasty bacon is never wrong. But other than that, I see no relevance in your post. @oshron: Since England really just partipicated in the Third Crusade, (and even then, the English Crusaders would be largely of Norman kin, thus speaking French) I wouldn't choose English as a language. You could choose Middle High German or the French of that time. (don't really know if it is Provencal or something else) I would go for French, since the maiority of the crusaders have always been French. Then again, the two major knight orders who estabilshed there (Johannites and Templars) were from the HRE and they would be an obvious choice for chivalric heroes in your case. Your simplification would actually be like 0 A.D.'s subfaction selecting, as far as it is planned. I would prefer it that way.

I have to say, I like the second temple building which Vingauld linked. http://img180.imageshack.us/i/gournaysurarronde2eevch.gif/ The inner building, perhaps? @Vingauld: Are you a student of archaeology/history? I always feel somewhat dumbed down if I think I know something in my high-school half-knowledge about history and a person, which is actually STUDYING the subject turns up and crumbles my beliefs. @plumo: If there would be a seperate British and Gaul faction, one could make the Vingauld Temple as temple building for Gaul and the Megalith (I agree that Stonehenge should be a campaign structure) as the British Temple.

I heard about primitive temples, but I thought they were not very widespread. Well, I base this up on this Article of WFG (myth six: druids). While it is a interesting read, it does not cite any sources and therefore may be easily proven wrong.

Because in reality, the Celts had no temples and worshipped their gods in the open nature. I see your point, though. Prior to the Celts, there was a megalithic culture in Western Europe who built the great monuments such as Stonehenge, Carnac and the like. However, I assume the developers of 0 A.D. follow the theory that the druids used the megalithic monuments to their own purposes, thus making it "sacred places" of the Celts. Remember that this is a game, no history simulation.

No really, I'm not kidding. It fitted better with the rest of the UI design, if you ask me. Well, I am also the only one who liked the look of the old pre-alpha buildings more, so I'll just keep my mouth shut.

Indeed they did.

Updated the OP with revised factions and ages and added some brief description on plans for territorries.

Though the 2D work is indeed great, I have to say I like the screenshot portraits more. But this is to everyone's personal taste, after all.

Two Celtic heroes, Leonidas and the Spartans have their ingame portait replaced with artwork. Is this going to happen with all units?

As Mythos already stated somewhere, "basic formations" means "basic". Yeah, only one is working right now.

Yeah, Clio would also be an oppurtunity to open up the ingame history section or something. But I hardly think that this is any priority right now.

Any chance that you might tell us about the both methods floating around?