Scythian Wonder: Royal Kurgan

[Thalatta]

@Genava55 the point obviously is, as noted before, how something looks when it's freshly built. I mentioned the Colossus because it's a Wonder that came to mind that changed quite fast, thus the distinction between earthquakes and grass is quite irrelevant considering what the actual point is. And no, it was not "completely destroyed", it remained in the ground for centuries, still in its way a wonder, in words of Pliny the Elder: "even as it lies, it excites our wonder and admiration". But if earthquakes distract you so much, then another example more aligned to the grass issue: should the Statue of Liberty (assuming a game reaching the modern age) be built with the green patina already on it? Might look familiar, but it's inaccurate, which has been the point all along.

Now, another issue is, is the Wonder some generic kurgan? Because yes, some had pebbles, others not, so maybe it should be decided first which kurgan in particular should be represented (the largest?), and if it never had pebbles to begin with then there's not much discussion to be had, I think. Personally I might have gone for the mausoleum of Skilurus (which seems more unique).

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

41 minutes ago, Thalatta said:

Personally I might have gone for the mausoleum of Skilurus (which seems more unique).

Mmm... A structure which inspires little wonder, honestly. 

[Genava55]

5 hours ago, Thalatta said:

But if earthquakes distract you so much, then another example more aligned to the grass issue: should the Statue of Liberty (assuming a game reaching the modern age) be built with the green patina already on it? Might look familiar, but it's inaccurate, which has been the point all along.

This is indeed a better example and a good question/remark.

Just adding food for thought, the Gallic Wonder based on the Sanctuary of Corent is not clean and fresh:

So maybe it is a general issue in how 0 A.D. portrays the ancient civilizations.

[Thalatta]

6 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Mmm... A structure which inspires little wonder, honestly. 

Yeah, but in my opinion a Wonder should ideally be a particular structure, which should be the name of the Wonder, instead of a generic "Kurgan" (if regarded as more inspiring, which I can see why). This also would guide better how it should look like.

 

1 hour ago, Genava55 said:

Just adding food for thought, the Gallic Wonder based on the Sanctuary of Corent is not clean and fresh

And should be. For sure it was maintained (which I doubt for kurgans, mainly after a few years). These damaged versions I'd leave for the future for, well, damaged buildings.

[Genava55]

1 hour ago, Thalatta said:

Yeah, but in my opinion a Wonder should ideally be a particular structure, which should be the name of the Wonder, instead of a generic "Kurgan" (if regarded as more inspiring, which I can see why). This also would guide better how it should look like.

The only issue with Neapolis is that it is a very Hellenized town. There are some similar situations with the Saka (Eastern Scythians), notably Chirik-Rabat, a fortified town with Chorasmian architecture. 

[Grautvornix]

Should we provide multiple models of Kurgans and have a random selection which one to build and show? Or provide the user with options?  Or build a fresh one (with bpepples and let it "decay" over time of game into a grass covered kurgan?

I don't know....

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

6 hours ago, Grautvornix said:

Should we provide multiple models of Kurgans and have a random selection which one to build and show? Or provide the user with options?  Or build a fresh one (with bpepples and let it "decay" over time of game into a grass covered kurgan?

I don't know....

I like having multiple actor variations for the Royal Kurgan. Good idea. 

 

14 hours ago, Thalatta said:

Yeah, but in my opinion a Wonder should ideally be a particular structure, which should be the name of the Wonder, instead of a generic "Kurgan" (if regarded as more inspiring, which I can see why). This also would guide better how it should look like.

Ideally, I would agree with you. But I think with some civilizations, cultures, factions, that it's more difficult to pick a specific structure (see: Cimbri). So, picking a type of structure is okay, in my mind, especially if it's one of that culture's iconic structures. Kurgans definitely fit that bill! I like @Grautvornix's suggestion of having multiple actor variations. 

[Thalatta]

1 minute ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

with some civilizations, cultures, factions, that it's more difficult to pick a specific structure

Yes, that's totally understandable.

Regarding the "multiple actor variations", does that mean one chooses, or could it be that the mound evolves from pebbles to grass with time? That would be nice if possible.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

Just now, Thalatta said:

Regarding the "multiple actor variations", does that mean one chooses, or could it be that the mound evolves from pebbles to grass with time? That would be nice if possible.

I would love to have such a feature in the game for multiple things, such as wheat fields. But for now, what I mean is that we can have different variations of the structure so that it will look different sometimes when you build one (like how there are helmet variations). 

[Genava55]

At 33m50s

[Ultimate Aurelian]

On 18/04/2026 at 7:48 AM, Genava55 said:

The only issue with Neapolis is that it is a very Hellenized town. There are some similar situations with the Saka (Eastern Scythians), notably Chirik-Rabat, a fortified town with Chorasmian architecture. 

For a DE style wonder one of the palaces of the Neapolis could sort of potray a transition to a different cultural stage  (which is interesting if the wonder is supposed to unlock phase IV).

I think those towns could at least be used for buildings like walls and towers if the Scythians have them (IMO nomad civs could still have access to defensive buildings if they used them, but perhaps later ingame and only through a technology)

[Genava55]

"Great Scythia" flourished across the northern Black Sea steppes, including Crimea, from the seventh to the fourth century BC. The traditional view held that Sarmatian expansion from the east caused its collapse in the early third century BC. Although Scythian culture disappeared from much of the region, the Scythians were believed to have retained Crimea and established a powerful kingdom there.

This Crimean kingdom supposedly reached its height in the second century BC and pursued an aggressive policy towards the Greek cities. It subjugated Olbia, seized Chersonesos’ territories, and threatened the Bosporan Kingdom. The conflict ended when Mithradates’ general Diophantos destroyed the Scythian Kingdom, after which the Greek cities entered Mithradates’ state.

Archaeological discoveries since the early 1990s, especially at Neapolis Scythica, have fundamentally revised this interpretation. The city was once thought to have been founded in the late fourth century BC as the successor capital of Great Scythia. Excavations showed, however, that the earliest remains belonged to an unrelated Tauric settlement that disappeared in the early third century BC. The site was then abandoned for a considerable period.

New buildings appeared only around the middle of the second century BC. A political centre began to develop around 150 BC, followed by fortifications around 140 BC. After the settlement was destroyed by fire between 135 and 130 BC, a royal palace and stronger defensive walls were built. Only then can Neapolis Scythica confidently be identified as the kingdom’s capital. Its destruction in the late second century BC, probably during Diophantos’ campaign, suggests that the Crimean Scythian Kingdom existed for only forty to fifty years.

These findings reveal a major chronological and cultural gap between Great Scythia and Late Scythian society. The last sites of Great Scythia date to the early third century BC, while Late Scythian culture emerged only near the century’s end. The two societies were also fundamentally different. Fourth-century Scythians were nomads, known mainly through burial mounds, whereas Late Scythian communities lived in fortified and unfortified settlements with flat-grave cemeteries, mostly in the Crimean foothills.

The disappearance of Scythian burials from the Crimean steppe suggests that the Scythians were forced to leave the region rather than maintaining continuous control over it. In the foothills, they adopted a settled way of life and participated in the formation of a new, culturally mixed society. Local Tauric traditions played an important role, alongside Classical and La Tène influences.

Most scholars therefore reject direct political or cultural continuity between Great Scythia and the Late Scythian Kingdom. The term “Late Scythian” remains useful mainly as a scholarly convention: it describes a new, settled, and culturally diverse society rather than the uninterrupted continuation of earlier Scythian civilization.