Jump to content


Recommended Posts

I think tents would be too 'mobile' (and not really coherent with the rest of the buildingset). We could however add tents (with house functionality) for scenario designers (scenarios centering the Norse explorations).

You mean this blacksmith?


The building is a bit low IMHO.

Nah, leave the other buildings that are not modeled yet. They're not really fitted to the Viking texture.

My screenshot... (Which one exactly?)

Not too small though as they function as a small standalone base (resource dropsite, ranged attack, ability to train units)

What was that Crannog again?

This or any of those





My screenshot... (Which one exactly?)


Not too small though as they function as a small standalone base (resource dropsite, ranged attack, ability to train units)

What about those from the movie you showed ? I couldn't find the name though

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AFAIK there never was a "viking civilization".

It was more like a part of a society made of Balts and Germanic peoples (or perhaps better "initially mainly PPL from the surroundings of the Skagerrak and Kattegat") in a specific part of their life.

Many young man followed the "viking lifestyle" for a few years in the hope of getting respected and finding treasures.

The majority of this society seamed to consider PPL following this specific way of living for too long criminals or at least didn't welcome their return to the base society very much (Guess because it was hard to reintegrate them into the sedentary society).

So I'd see it more like an extended "initiation rite" of a civilization and not as a standalone civilization at all.

(As I wouldn't consider PPL being out on the wallaby a civilization)

Norse might be considered a civilization and seam indeed to be founded by some parts of the viking PPL - especially some exiled ones (e.g. Eric the Red was exiled for murder).

So the exploration (and later colonization) of Greenland by Europeans (at that age) was somehow an act of necessity for the explorers.

The European colonists in Greenland are AFAIK what now is considered "Norse" mainly (though there seams to be no strict definition whatsoever).

However, this was long after 500 A.D. (986 the first settlers arrived and the colonies lasted for about 500 years).

So I fear the image of "Vikings" is more based on legend, tales and rumors than it is based on facts and historical accuracy.

Though it might be interesting to have the original civilizations (Balts and Germanic peoples and later also Normans and (Celtic) Gauls) in that had extended knowledge in building small and fast ships able to cross oceans and - on disembark - exploit the local population to trade goods of warfare (e.g. horses) just to use them to raid other parts of the same local population or just blackmail them for stopping their raids this still happens after 500 A.D.: "The period from the earliest recorded raids in the 790s until the Norman conquest of England in 1066 is commonly known as the Viking Age of Scandinavian history. (English Wikipedia)"

It's hard to exactly distinguish the cultures since the names (Germanic People, Balts, Normans, Gauls, Celts) most of the times refer to PPL living in a roughly specified region with a roughly defined ancestry with a roughly known culture and often also blur with groups of PPL speaking a similar language. Additionally most of the naming and classification was done by other cultures and not the cultures themselves so we might still be quite wrong with our modern grouping.

EDIT: I didn't initially see that this was for a mod, not the main game, sorry. (Still hope this post might help clarifying things)

Edited by FeXoR
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Viking lifestyle was as much about trading as raiding. The Norse traded all along the European and Mediterranean coasts for luxury goods they couldn't produce themselves, such as glass, silk, spices, wine (especially wine), and Arab silver. To purchase these, they traded furs, amber, ivory - and slaves. Slaves were obtained by raiding - and gold as well, from the churches and monasteries.

Raiding was carried out mostly by landless young men who were seeking to establish themselves. It was a very strenuous activity - the Viking warships were built for speed, not comfort. See Raiders or Traders? | History | Smithsonian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This discussion is helpful and another indicator for the fact that we should not think as hard-coded as we do in terms of civilizations.

My research for 0AD Extended resulted in the following:

  • No longer pursue civs as they are (because the transformation of the culture/way of life was blurry and we don't really know about such hard distinction between the civs of this world, or at least those are very uncertain).
  • Instead we should research each item/entity that once did exist and where historical evidence exists. Those items we tag with those civilizations which might have used those items and also when they did use them (instead of assigning only 1 civ as it's currently done).

Folder structure

That's also one of the reasons for why the current 0AD folder structure is not really helpful besides being a contradiction in itself (e.g. gameplay and content organization mixed).

There are no real distinct distinctions between civs and civs can't have equal buildings with equal properties because each people did use different types of things and buildings in different times of their evolution. They didn't all use the same stereotype items, e.g. some peoples did use big horses at first and smaller and swifter in a later period, maybe imported/acquired/traded by other civs like Arabs.

The same is true for building sizes:

If a people did live in tiny tents, then the tents have to be tiny and not be made bigger only because other civs have bigger houses.


We should not add full civs but instead add individual items where historical evidence exists and those should get a civilization tag, including time period(s), during which this certain people did use it.

This allows us to reuse all items and define the distinctions and which things which civ can build on a higher level, without having to care that much if it now can be called "Norse", "Norman" or "Germano-Slavic" as this can easily be re-assigned later on using the civilization tags. Also this would automatically allow us to distinguish between mini-factions and full civs (i.e. playable civs, which a player can choose to start on a map). The dinstinction is easy:

Once enough buildings exist for one people/culture (way of life), such that this civilization can produce all the things that re required, e.g. food, civil, economy and military items/units, then this civ can be chosen from in the game setup/ map screen.

Else it wont be available but it may be randomly placed as minifaction - if the map designer foresaw a spot for those and labelled it as such or using random or under limited Gaia instead of sophisticated AI control.

Edited by Radagast.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with the principe but how would you do that with the current state of things. Should we merge everymod and make sure they are compatible ? Also I was thinking that gameplay modification such as convert should always be separated from main mods, to be usable as plugins for any other mod. This way civ would be compatible with each other. And then become what you said earlier, just a bunch of assets. But to unify all this, we need to merge the structure for all mods. we could also do it for the main game and propose the changes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From a historical point of view as well as from a moders it would indeed be better to have something like:

- Art folder containing all models (and what's needed for them) independent of the civ it's used for.(maybe split in e.g. props, units and structures)

- An game content folder containing all placeable things in the game (maybe split in e.g. actors (non interactive), units and structures)

Those should be fully defined to be usable already but should not contain technologies or things they can build yet.

- A technology folder containing technology definitions including the higher level scripts needed for them.

- Tree like structure definition folder inheriting the game content elements to form civilizations/factions by adding things that can be build/researched with each game content type by it's owner.

Technologies should work for the "target" game contents like "melee, unit" would only apply to game content with both tags in it. So there's no need to add something like "gets bonus from tech X" for all game content but just add the tech with the target flag defined and it will work for all legal targets.

(Not sure how it works as is)

This way civilization definition would be extremely simple and adding minifactions too.

Mods ofc. should be able to add to/change any of the named things.

However, this will involve much work to change to and I don't know if the main game team supports this.

(Roughly IMO their point of view is: Though modding should be simple the central aim is to get a game going, which I agree with... though I like generalized structure)

Edited by FeXoR
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not even Aristeia yet abstracts the Civilization away. But the Civ tag doesn't need to be a class, it could still remain as is and mark the origin of an asset, e.g. where something came from if that is known.

Technologies should work for the "target" game contents like "melee, unit" would only apply to game content with both tags in it. So there's no need to add something like "gets bonus from tech X" for all game content but just add the tech with the target flag defined and it will work for all legal targets.

(Not sure how it works as is)

Thanks for the thoughts, the 0AD technologies already have exactly that functionality and are extremely powerful.

Concerning the file structure I have a slightly different opinion because the engine has reasons to require:





simulation/templates/ (general template hierarchy)

simulation/templates/units/ (mobile, spawnable, ...)

simulation/templates/structures/ (static)

which is fine.

The problem begins with the subfolders (content organization) where props is a subfolder which is misleading and has been misused over the course of time (initially being thought for specific props, i.e. graphical elements where e.g. the mesh's origin is specifically set to be easily attachable to a certain building's origin or root).

The props subfolder anomaly results in

1) annoyance due to complicated and long paths (e.g. props/units/helmet/ instead of simply helmet/).

2) mislead developers and artists as they think only those props or folders are available for propping to another object, which is absolutely wrong (every object can be propped to another!).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Generally it's simply embarrassing that Sander's template simplifications don't get committed. Whoever prevents Sander from committing, seems to overlook the potential of his promotion via tech. We set up a mod to address this failure of the 0AD team. https://github.com/0ADMods/promotion_boni_via_tech

But it's already been converted by us to use only relative boni as absolute boni simply make no sense and are not generally applicable (as units might have different absolute stats and thus adding e.g. 3 HP to a unit may be a huge improvement or not even noticable, depending on how high the base HP for this unit are).

Excuse my drastically chosen words, no offense meant, just the long frustration about a stagnating endeavour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thx. The folder structure (hard-coded folders) is credit of the 0AD team and they've done a good job. The subfolder structure of the content organization (which is not hard-coded in the engine but in the simulation side/i.e. mod 0AD only) is my concern.

The orders indeed need a state, especially if they should be visually expressed by picking a corresponding animation (e.g. GATHERING is a state in UnitAI). I think you even imagine a far more evolved and more modular concept than my minor self did. It makes me think about it.

The technologies are the silverbullet here. They are so powerful we can even get flow of time with them easily without having to overthrow everything. They will also serve for defining which structures a civilization can construct, which units can be trained, and so forth. It's our underestimated silverbullet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 2 months later...

i have previously worked on a mod for Medieval II TW, called Wrath of the Norsemen.

for this mod i made the whole Norse roster, as well as Carolingian Franks with added Saxon/Frisian mercs.

i do not know if it is possible to re-use any of these for use in 0AD. if it is of interest, please have at it.

some examples from prewievs:

norse 1.

norse 2.

norse 3.

frank 1.

slavic 1.

slavic 2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i was thinking perhaps the unit models/skins could be re-cycled. or at least parts of it like helms, weapons and parts of texture.

but converting them from M2TW .mesh and rigging them to use in 0AD might be as tedious as making new ones.

normaly i could offer to help, but at this point i am have a crappy laptop that is not even able to run 0AD propperly. and my original 3ds models and psd textures are trapped on a HD in a dead computer.

if i can afford to replace it within the next few months i can get back to that if still needed.

now, i am a history buff and a norseman, so i thought i just offer some information on norse military and concepts. the following might be a bit simplified and generalized, but should do for a computer game.


the north germanic society were generally militarized, every free men were expected to carry arms. each year the men met at the musterfield and formed the Leidang.

the Leidang were compulsively mustered and the king/jarl/chief/assembly decided wether to disband or campaign.

this practice were traditional among most germanic people and even Charlemange`s armies were mustered in more or less this way.

among the anglo-saxons of England this was called a Fyrd.

the Norse Leidang were based on ship crews.


a standard sized hip were manned by 24 oarsmen and one steerman. areas expected to supply 4 ships were called a Hundred(swe) or Hæred(nor).

some regions could muster much more and so in sweden there are the example of Tiundaland and Attundaland.


an area expected to build/maintain and man a ship were called a Skipsreite(nor) or Roslag(swe).


the group that were expected to supply a man for the ship, roughly eqivalent to an anglo-saxon Hide.


the captain of the Leidang ship were called a styrimaðr, he would likely have been a local chieftain or other notable figure of repute.


the Hird were the sworn men of any Norse ruler.

initially a warband (see Beowulf), but by 1200s developed into a actuall royal court with functions and positions beyond that of martial retinue.


originally interchangeable with Hird, but later to be understood as the army or host in general.


the retinue of any lesser lord or magnate farmer. professional fighters occuping parts of his lieges land, or gaining revenue there of, in turn for martial service. most likely 2nd, 3rd etc. sons of rich landowners, not entitled to inheritance of land.

if the liege were a king the housecarl would be part of the Hird.


shieldman or tableman. the knight of the 13th century Hird.

as the Skutilsveins, according to the Hirdskrå, were entitled to sit at the kings table. their title has been given the meaning of Tablemen, at least according to wikipedia.

while in truth the first part of the title, skutil, derives from the latin scutum - shield. thus the literal translation is shieldmen.


candlemen. the squire of the 13th century Hird.


hired men, mercenaries or possibly spies(supposedly). auxlillaries to the 13th century Hird.


common man.


young man, apprentice or farmhand. could possibly be understood as squire.



as opposed to other germanic peoples, like germans, franks and anglo-saxons, the norse did not consider archery a paupers tool. mather of fact it was considered a sport worthy even for kings.

also the norse were accustomed to battles at sea, exchangeing missiles prior to boarding. a good archer could gain prominence of posterity, such as Einar Tambardskjelve.



while hunting could be considered a noble pastime, having to relly on it for sustenance were not. those not owning land, and thus unable to support them selves by crops and livestock, were likely considered of low social status.


King or at least noble ruler.

kingship among the norse does not seem to be a "copyrighted" title. considering the multitude of kings that opposed Harald Fairhair`s unification of Norway, there were a self-styled king in every fjord.

the norse even maintained the notion of seakings, in reality pirate captains with no particular land except their own farmstead, such as the legendary Half.


Duke. supposed to muster 60 man. replaced by Hertug in 13th century Hird.


petty chieftain/officer. supposed to muster 20 men. replaced by Lendman in 13th century Hird.



Bonde(bōndi, būandi):

landowning freeman farmer, litterally dweller.

farmable land and livestock were the comon measure of wealth and social status among the norse, as well as other germanic people.

the norse generaly practised primogeniture, where the eldest son inherited everything. this and the relative shortage of useable land goes a long way to explain the viking raids as a mean to gain prominence and riches.


pirates. viking was not a title or a people, it was an occupation.

there are several theories on the term Viking. most notably that it derives from the area of Viken (Oslo fjord).

another is that it was originally applied to those seafarers that traded on the *vic towns of England and Frisia. certainly finds of coins not minted by the Franks, but found from England, Frisia, Denmark and Sweden, suggest a trade emporium in this northern area.


polearm, like a halleberd or glaive.

Edited by absinthia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, Thank you for your interest. I the past I made a small method to get units for other games to get into 0AD (With anims) However maybe this is not the best idea as it would probably take more time than to adjust textures to new models.

I'm the artist that made most of the mod stuff. Even on your little guy netbook you should be able to launch atlas to test the mod. I'd be interested in feedback of it (units,helmets, weapons...buildings)

Also, I don't know anything about your skills, but if you could teach me some stuff about making armors textures, I and the community would greatly benefit from it.

About your HDD, you could buy a SATA/USB adapter or a IDE/USB one (If you don't know what I'm talking about don't bother) =)

Also source files are really nice to have to learn stuff =)

Edited by stanislas69
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i am using IBM Thinkpad X31 from 2003 and the hardware does not propperly suport shaders and such. so when i launched 0AD it was mostly black, i removed it as it used up to much HDD-space.

i plan to buy a used gaming PC sometime on the new-year, but being out of work it is not top priority.

i have both SATA and IDE drives with my moding files on them, buying adapters would likely cost me as much as a used PC.

as for skills i am quite adept with Photoshop. i have made skins for several Medieval II TW rosters.

3D modeling i only ventured into to be able to map and properly fit textures on models. though i have made a range of helmets, weapons and other simple 3D stuff.

i only learned to use Milkshape, which is super simple. when i tried with G-Max (free 3D-Max clone) i realized that i learned nothing.

as i understand advanced 3D software let you put shadows, tints and such effects. i never did, i allways made textures fully in Photoshop.

i would find it easier to teach creating textures if i made one and then explained what i did, how and why. but i suppose i could try to answer questions or comment on ones being made.

also i made some PSD templates for TW moddingteams, maile and different styles of scale armour etc. they are also locked away on external HDD, but i might possibly find someone to upload them somewhere.

lastly, one comment on Norse buildings.

houses with tiled roofs use wooden tiles and they did not use chimneys.

Edited by absinthia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think most (if not all) textures are made in Photoshop/Gimp. So that's fine. And quickly scrolling through the links you gave I think that these would perfectly fit in 0 A.D. and look awesome to! :thumbsup:

Not able to open 0 A.D. properly is indeed not really a desirably working situation, but we'll appreciate any feedback you have!

About the roofs: we're about to replace them with hay roofs. No chimneys at all? How did the fire smoke move to the outside? Just with a hole?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

About the roofs: we're about to replace them with hay roofs. No chimneys at all? How did the fire smoke move to the outside? Just with a hole?

yes, simply a (covered) hole in the roof to let the smoke out. the fireplace it self just a pit in the centre of the longhouse.

here from the reconstructed longhouse in Lofoten:

borg808-72.jpglonghouse interior

i suppose chimneys and masonry in general did not appear until medieval times, and then mainly in larger urban centers.

the earliest town-like center in Norway were Landa.

the Stavanger Cathedral is one of oldest stone building in Norway, supposedly erected sometime between 1100-1150.

the entrance used to be a square tower, of which only the base remains, torn down after a fire in 1272. some historians suggest that it was originally a fortified tower, though this is somewhat speculative. if so it would be a truly unique feature.

charred remains dated to 800`s and 1000`s, as well as skeletal remains from 1000`s, suggest the tower belonged to an earlier church possibly built of wood.

yet, the sagas tell of Einar Kongsmåg, a taxcollector, seeking refuge in the tower 1205 and four of his men being killed there. the assailants threatened to set fire to the tower suggesting the tower was not considered a sacral part of the church...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

due to the multitude of gods in the pantheon and the decentralized nature of Norse settlements, pagan religion was a personal matter.

for everyday worship a Horg, a simple stone altar, could be used for offerings of butter, ale and such.


at solstices communal offerings and ritualistic feasting could be performed at Hov`s, most likely maintained by local chieftains. at such events a wagon or sledge, symbolically carrying the sun, might be central.

the supposed great temple at Uppsala might be a (late) exception in this matter. stave churches might give an impression of the style in which temples were constructed. the earliest ones could verry well be refurbished hov`s.


as for funerals an oblong stonesetting, symbolising a boat, could be erected. possibly even with a boat burried inside. though i believe this custom were mainly practised in the late bronze/early iron age.



later great burial mounds (tumulus) would be erected by prominent families in areas of the landscape where it would be easily noticeable.



  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Create New...