Scythian Wonder: Royal Kurgan

[nifa]

On 22/01/2026 at 6:33 PM, Genava55 said:

 

I think you have enough variation

Thanks for the refs. So I guess I should get rid of the entrance and give the hill a more conical shape?

[Genava55]

55 minutes ago, nifa said:

Thanks for the refs. So I guess I should get rid of the entrance and give the hill a more conical shape?

I think yes it would be better. You can make a ditch around the kurgan with a small pallisade and there add an entrance, with the statues. 

[nifa]

8 hours ago, Genava55 said:

I think yes it would be better. You can make a ditch around the kurgan with a small pallisade and there add an entrance, with the statues. 

[real_tabasco_sauce]

Love it!!

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

Looks great, except I think the grass texture was better on the original. 

[nifa]

wip

On 09/11/2025 at 6:36 PM, Genava55 said:

The burial chamber was decorated and we can imagine they used similar decoration outside when they performed ceremony celebrating their ancestor:

 

@Genava55 Do you by chance have further references for that wagon in this picture?

[Genava55]

2 hours ago, nifa said:

Do you by chance have further references for that wagon in this picture?

 

[nifa]

2 hours ago, Genava55 said:

 

wip

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

On 24/01/2026 at 5:57 PM, nifa said:

kk, let's use this. 

[nifa]

14 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

kk, let's use this.

That's just a mockup so far. With the other texture it doesn't look so bad either.

[ittihat_ve_terakki]

On 9/11/2025 at 12:35 AM, nifa said:

 

 

Hello. Kurgan stelae have recently caught my attention as well. They seem like remnants of a much older, shared cultural tradition. We see very similar examples across a vast geography, from Central Asia to Western Europe. I recall that there are many examples found in Ukraine and its surroundings. Using these in a wonder is definitely a great idea. I should say that I really like this original design and the overall concept. It conveys the organic, human-made nature of the period very well. It’s not perfect and that’s a strength. It’s rich in texture and detail. The variation in the curvature of the ground, the torches, the scattered rocks. All of these make it much better than the new model.

On 25/1/2026 at 1:57 AM, nifa said:

The new model feels quite lifeless and frankly, boring. There’s no sense of a sacred space, no visual grandeur. Just a hill. It’s also important to keep in mind that these grassy mounds form over time as monuments, graves, or structures like amphitheaters are gradually covered by soil and vegetation when they are abandoned. That doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be a hill, on the contrary, it adds a sense of depth. The issue is that it shouldn’t be "just a hill".

A similar situation can be seen at Göbekli Tepe (Potbelly Hill in Turkish). It was discovered as a hill because the structures there were either naturally or deliberately buried (For Göbekli Tepe, there are also theories that the structures may have been deliberately covered either as people left the area or to protect them from the threat of war. However, they were not buried while they were in active use.) 

So representing this as just a hill while the civilization is still active may not make much sense. For this reason, the latest example is not only visually underwhelming but also historically less grounded.

In the end, this is a game, not a documentary. So the priority should be strengthening the visual impact and overall atmosphere without making major historical mistakes. That’s why drawing from diverse references or adding creative elements shouldn’t be a problem. After all, our knowledge of thousands of years ago is limited and without imagination we wouldn’t get very far.

Well done.

 

Edited Thursday at 21:54 by ittihat_ve_terakki

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

I'd honestly like to have both styles in the game. The more exciting one as a Scythian wonder and the "boring" one as a map object. 

[Genava55]

6 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

I'd honestly like to have both styles in the game. The more exciting one as a Scythian wonder and the "boring" one as a map object. 

The first one doesn't seem to be based on real-world examples from the Scythian period. But in your mod, you can do whatever you want. Do you have any suggestions for improving the second one?

[Genava55]

11 hours ago, ittihat_ve_terakki said:

So representing this as just a hill while the civilization is still active may not make much sense. For this reason, the latest example is not only visually underwhelming but also historically less grounded.

A kurgan is a tomb. I understand your reasoning, but it's not supported by evidence. It was very common for tombs and burial sites to be looted or damaged a few generations after their construction. These kinds of monuments weren't venerated by the whole of society; it was a form of ancestor worship. It is, in a way, an expression of power. If the ruling clan changed, the monuments associated with the previous clan weren't maintained.

I understand the criticisms regarding the aesthetic aspects; they are valid. However, any historical or sociological interpretation must be supported by facts and observations.

If we want to add objects and decorations, there has to be a meaning to it.

Edited 16 hours ago by Genava55

[ittihat_ve_terakki]

1 hour ago, Genava55 said:

A kurgan is a tomb. I understand your reasoning, but it's not supported by evidence. It was very common for tombs and burial sites to be looted or damaged a few generations after their construction. These kinds of monuments weren't venerated by the whole of society; it was a form of ancestor worship. It is, in a way, an expression of power. If the ruling clan changed, the monuments associated with the previous clan weren't maintained.

I understand the criticisms regarding the aesthetic aspects; they are valid. However, any historical or sociological interpretation must be supported by facts and observations.

If we want to add objects and decorations, there has to be a meaning to it.

I didn’t fully understand your message, what exactly is not supported by evidence?

Most of the buildings in the game are fictional. Most of the decorations are fictional. The soldiers clothing in the game is also fictional and it has to be, even if you take inspiration from examples in various museums you still have to design it fictionally because there’s no other choice. Historically, we don’t have precise knowledge about things from thousands of years ago. That’s why I strongly disagree with the statement, “If we want to add objects and decorations, there has to be a meaning to it.” It’s completely incorrect.

If we are going to make a historical correction about the Kurgan above, first of all, the grassy green hill is not accurate. That vegetation is something that formed naturally over time due to neglect after these structures were abandoned. When you look at them today, that’s what you see now but they were not like that when they were originally built. If a mound was constructed while the structure was in use, it would likely have been covered with stones or decorated in a way that gave it a more structured appearance.

If historical accuracy is a concern, then it’s a problem for both cases anyway because we simply don’t have enough historical data to achieve complete accuracy. If I’m playing a game and I have to choose between a visually engaging example and a boring one, I will definitely choose the first.

 

 

[Genava55]

1 hour ago, ittihat_ve_terakki said:

Most of the buildings in the game are fictional. Most of the decorations are fictional. The soldiers clothing in the game is also fictional and it has to be, even if you take inspiration from examples in various museums you still have to design it fictionally because there’s no other choice. Historically, we don’t have precise knowledge about things from thousands of years ago. That’s why I strongly disagree with the statement, “If we want to add objects and decorations, there has to be a meaning to it.” It’s completely incorrect.

1 hour ago, ittihat_ve_terakki said:

If historical accuracy is a concern, then it’s a problem for both cases anyway because we simply don’t have enough historical data to achieve complete accuracy. If I’m playing a game and I have to choose between a visually engaging example and a boring one, I will definitely choose the first.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0_A.D._(video_game)

"The historical accuracy of game elements has been the highest development priority. Unit and building names are shown in the original language of the civilization they belong to, and they are also translated into the language in which the user is playing the game. There is also a strong focus on attempting to provide high visual accuracy of unit armor, weapons, and buildings."

Edited 13 hours ago by Genava55

[Genava55]

On 09/11/2025 at 9:34 PM, Genava55 said:

On 22/01/2026 at 6:33 PM, Genava55 said:

 

[ittihat_ve_terakki]

You seem to have missed the finished state of the kurgan in the video you shared. If you look closely, there is no green mound there, the kurgan is completed with a stone-covered structure. In the next shot, it appears as a green hill because time has passed and the scene has shifted to a later period (you can tell from the clothing details, the buildings behind and even the visible wear and deterioration on the structure).

At some point, you have to adapt or create things. For example, who really knows what Germans barracks looked like 2000 years ago? Most likely, no such standardized structure even existed. But for the sake of the game you still have to design something.

I understand the effort to stay historically grounded, like having a unit fighting with a lightsaber would obviously break the mood. Still, I stand by my point: if one of two historically inspired designs creates a stronger visual atmosphere, I would choose that one. 

In any case, the green mound version is historically inaccurate. The video you shared clearly demonstrates that.

On 22/1/2026 at 8:33 PM, Genava55 said:

 

 

In my opinion, stone stelae should be more prominent in design, they are the most striking remains that have survived from that period to the present, rather than a green hill.

-

Historical accuracy is not to be a burden to the gameplay but a means to improve, diversify and enrich it.

[Genava55]

33 minutes ago, ittihat_ve_terakki said:

You seem to have missed the finished state of the kurgan in the video you shared.

I didn't.

33 minutes ago, ittihat_ve_terakki said:

If you look closely, there is no green mound there, the kurgan is completed with a stone-covered structure. In the next shot, it appears as a green hill because time has passed and the scene has shifted to a later period (you can tell from the clothing details, the buildings behind and even the visible wear and deterioration on the structure).

If you look closely the other mounds are green. That's my point, after a few generations it look like this.

I am not against a pebbles/stones covering. I am just saying your reasoning, claiming that the people of one's 'civilization' were necessarily maintaining such structures in the long term, is wrong.

33 minutes ago, ittihat_ve_terakki said:

Still, I stand by my point: if one of two historically inspired designs creates a stronger visual atmosphere, I would choose that one. 

Only one of the design is historically inspired. 

Edited 9 hours ago by Genava55

[ittihat_ve_terakki]

6 minutes ago, Genava55 said:

I am just saying your reasoning, claiming that the people of one's 'civilization' were necessarily maintaining such structures in the long term, is wrong.

I didn’t say anything like that. I’m not sure this is being understood in the way I clearly meant it.

What I’m saying is that depicting this freshly built structure with green grass doesn’t make sense. Therefore the version you proposed is also not historically accurate. Grass like that typically appears later, when a structure is abandoned or poorly maintained over time. In that sense, it’s similar to depicting the Colosseum in its current partially ruined state as if that were its original form.

If you are going to replicate the example exactly, then it should be the stone-covered version. The green hill depiction is inaccurate.

7 minutes ago, Genava55 said:

Only one of the design is historically inspired. 

And “inspired” doesn’t mean copying. One just aims to be a boring (and false) replica while the other tries to create a more visually engaging interpretation.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

After reading the discussion, I do think we should ultimately go with something closer to this:

 

But pebbly:

 

 

Then the "map object" version would be the grassy variation. 

[Thalatta]

6 hours ago, ittihat_ve_terakki said:

depicting this freshly built structure with green grass doesn’t make sense.

I agree with this. Green mounds would be like building a destroyed Colossus of Rhodes because it stood upright for only 54 years after completion (took 12 to build), and remained on the ground for over 8 centuries. And luckily the pebble covering looks much better than a simple green mound, but this wouldn't be an primary argument for me, since I'd limit artistic freedom and pay utmost importance to historical accuracy. If solid evidence is not available, then "visually engaging interpretations" have to come from educated guesses, which I would keep as conservative as possible.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

On 22/02/2026 at 2:11 PM, nifa said:

The Scythian "house" can just be a cart that can move around. 

[Genava55]

19 minutes ago, Thalatta said:

I agree with this. Green mounds would be like building a destroyed Colossus of Rhodes because it stood upright for only 54 years after completion (took 12 to build), and remained on the ground for over 8 centuries.

This is an absurd comparison and you know it. On one hand, the Colossus of Rhodes fell due to an earthquake, and the Rhodians refused to rebuild it because of an oracle. On the other hand, the overgrowth of a kurgan with grass is a natural process that occurs in all cases if the monument is not maintained several times a year. In your example, the Colossus of Rhodes is completely destroyed. In the case of the kurgan modeled with grass covering it, it is still functional. We are comparing a natural disaster with an ordinary process. Furthermore a process that was difficult to stop. 

A kurgan is not something similar to a Greek monument. First of all, this stone covering is not found on all kurgans. Multiple kurgans are simply covered with clumps of earth. One should not assume that it was standard practice to cover a kurgan with a stone shell. In fact, this is most common in certain regions. But even when vegetation had overgrown the gravel surface, this was a common occurrence in the Scythian landscape. Most of the kurgan mounds still standing were in this condition. 

In any case, I’m not opposed to using a gravel surface. I also think it will look better. Once again, I’m criticizing a specific line of reasoning.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

Yeah, let's have a gravel surface one for the Wonder, since it's built by the player and is supposedly "maintained" by their people. And then we have a grass covered one for a map "ruins" object.