Jump to content

===[TASK]=== Crowd Sourced - Thracians (Faction)


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Sundiata said:

And at least one Thracian mural shows it's functionality as more than just a religious symbol:

Ceremonial does not mean symbol (although the Labrys is both). Yes it is a functional tool  for religious ceremonies like in every other indo-european cultures. We have the same issue with the Celts, we found a tremendous amount of axe-heads in settlements, but they are generally associated to ceremonies when they are outside a domestic context. Try to apply this hypothesis and this reasoning to other civs, the Romans use axe-heads in ceremonies too and it doesn't mean they commonly use axes on the battlefield. Seeing the "barbarians" as functionally different from other civ is a bias.

1 hour ago, Sundiata said:

Here's an article about a Thracian axe recently returned to Bulgaria. A Bulgarian archaeologist describes it as a Labrys, and points out it was probable a battle axe, also saying "She points out that the Ancient Thracians used the double-bitted labrys ax for both battle and hunting as well as a cult (religious) artifact, and a symbol of power."

http://archaeologyinbulgaria.com/2014/03/14/mysterious-benefactor-from-maryland-returns-thracian-ax-labrys-smuggled-from-bulgaria-to-usa/

The axe looks a lot more functional than ceremonial axes (more ornate ceremonial axes usually don't look so functional):

More functional for the battlefield? Really? Did you have an idea of the weight of such an axe-head and the imbalance in wielding such weapon? Against something that fights back, this is suicide.

Look at the evidences for KNOWN and ATTESTED battle-axes among other cultures and contexts, generally the axe-heads are smaller or thinner. Even the viking axes evolved to lighter forms to resolve this issue, even the two-handed axes tend to be lighter over time because that's really impractical. They made thinner heads or with a narrower blade to lighten and increase the balance of the weapon. The design of this Labrys is horrible, the blade is far too thick for a proper use on the battlefield. In comparison, a broadaxe is far more lighter because the head is hammered to have a thin piece of steel. So a fat double-bit axe, that's not credible as a weapon.

Since Bulgarian archeologists are often involved in very unethical actions and claims, I will stick to a skeptical view unless there is a convincing evidence.

1 hour ago, Sundiata said:

Hmmm, I don't think silence means consent.

That's generally an undesired effect of community-based projects. But I rose the issue with intent because I know this is a way to get attention. I want simply to avoid a common situation when someone took a considerable time to produce something for a project and people start expressing their opinion on the concept only at the end when most of the work is done.

3 hours ago, Duileoga said:

No sabía que acá el silencio significaba consentimiento.:huh:

That's not a rule, this is simply a consequence of human behaviors.

1 hour ago, Sundiata said:

Stone and wood is good. But the stones should actually be well cut in the Hellenistic inspired structures. But most Thracian architecture wasn't Greek style cut stone.

That's, I think, the core of the issue, finding something that could fit for both Hellenistic inspired structures and the common structures of the inhabitants. That's why I am reluctant about a design based entirely on wood because I see it as an impossible equation to solve. Ideally, if we want to honor the Thracian culture, we should be able to include a Royal tomb or/and a rock-cut monument. Either as a wonder or as a functional building.

Personally I find interesting your references posted previously because it depicts houses built with bricks and stones as something in use for the commoners:

  

On 5/23/2018 at 11:50 PM, Sundiata said:

 

630813051_ScreenShot2018-05-23at13_24_30.thumb.png.e3e84e0d92d70334f6844ffda9a232ca.png

681955062_ScreenShot2018-05-23at13_24_00.thumb.png.30d926f13972f432a886b815d908ea6a.png

1728009395_ScreenShot2018-05-23at13_22_27.thumb.png.b6c06cdc36c8a02368ed2e338f3e7d06.png

984438289_ScreenShot2018-05-23at13_21_54.thumb.png.e7ba65737fa00ad61551e31f87f3f0cc.png

1480194344_ScreenShot2018-05-23at13_21_35.thumb.png.6435925078d6e592cc21c03b7fff2a2b.png

2024439989_ScreenShot2018-05-23at13_21_09.thumb.png.f8828338b786ffcaf384ccc0f0731977.png

 

 

1 hour ago, Sundiata said:

But the Dacian capital Sarmizegetusa also featured stone architecture and even a stone paved road. It's better to just use Dacian references for the Dacians and Thracian references for the Thracians, regardless of comparisons between the two. They shouldn't be artificially contrasted, nor equated. There's enough material in this thread to create a number of referenced structures, unique to Thracians, as well a number of referenced structures for Dacians. That should be the start. 

My point was not about that, this is simply an issue with the iron age in general: a house is a house. The basic structure of any settlement can look very similar along different cultures. My point was on the design and on the variability of the references in the same culture. You have a few stones in Dacian structures, as there is stone for the Gallic structures as well. But that's not the point! I am trying to talk about the guideline, the general direction of a design, the features one should easily see*. There is no way the Dacians would not have their design based on wood. Yes there would be a few stones, but most would be wooden. This is a problem of texture and coherence in the visual representation of a civ in a game. Contrary to the Dacians, the Thracians had very contrasted urban centers.

Creating nice looking design for the structures is not something easy and if there are several civs based on wood and wattle-and-daub, it could become challenging at the end.

*illustration

On 8/7/2019 at 5:19 PM, Nescio said:

Thank you for the information posted, it looks very promising! Yes, having a complete and unique architecture set is imperative for any civilization—the Illyrians should get their own set. The Thracians already have a few structures (barracks, centre, corral, houses, temple, tower); they were committed by @Stan` a year ago:

1115167620_Screenshotfrom2019-08-0717-10-38.thumb.png.5e2ea1a0c51067a944326dd6f1da707c.png

It's a start; hopefully more structure actors will be created in the same style.

 

1 hour ago, Sundiata said:

Thrace was relatively densely populated, and sites like Seuthopolis and Helis (isn't that one Getic?), definitely represent a fractional amount of the population. So indeed, good references for elite structures, but not for the rest. 

Anyway most of the game is inevitably depicting the elite oftener than the commoners. This is the case for all the civ currently.

Edited by Genava55
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 231
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Here is a tiny A23 mod with six Thracian units (actors, icons, templates; three ranks each), made with existing art assets: thracians.zip [EDIT]: As you can see the swordsmen use the Iberian fa

Edit: Hello all! I meant to reply to this thread with my repository a long time ago but... Here is my Thracian mod with the thracian units that are already in 0 ad and @Stan`'s thracian buildings

Overview of the Thracians (I will edit this post through time to update the thing when I have the time): The Thracians are a mysterious group of different tribes, often mentioned in ancient sourc

Posted Images

On 9/29/2020 at 8:09 AM, Duileoga said:

Buenas @Sundiata

Estoy de acuerdo , además creo que si se hacen primero los Tracios (aún con alguna influencia helenística) luego se podrían añadir más elementos de estilo griego (edificios y unidades ) y a esos elementos nuevos se les incorporaría a los Odrisios y entonces tendríamos dos facciones nuevas y originales.

Disculpe las molestias*

Imo instead of two Thrace factions, it would better to make Odrysians (More hellenized) and Dacians (More ''barbarian'' influenced by Celts and Scythians).

For Odrysian roster maybe something like this:

Infantry spearman

Infantry swordsman

Special Romphaia infantryman

Infantry javelinist

Infantry archer

Cavalry javelinist

Cavalry spearman

Champion Noble Hoplite

Champion javelin cavalry (when weapon switching is added could also use sword)

Mercenary Getae horse archer

Mercenary heavy peltast from a hellenized tribe (Paeonian, Agrianian)

Bastarnae mercenary (cavalry swordsman?)

Edited by Ultimate Aurelian
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/30/2020 at 2:42 PM, Ultimate Aurelian said:

Imo instead of two Thrace factions, it would better to make Odrysians (More hellenized) and Dacians (More ''barbarian'' influenced by Celts and Scythians).

Most players outside this forum won't know what "Odrysians" are, so I think Thracians works best, just based on the Odrysian kingdom and also some traditional Thracian units as your roster indicates. 

Thracians and especially Dacians should for sure be added. I will reiterate my opinion that Empires Ascendant should just go ahead and add the later "Part 2" civs to the game. "Part 2" being so far away, it would essentially be its own game and then you might as well go with a different time period, like Medieval or Bronze Age.

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 04/10/2020 at 02:10, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Most players outside this forum won't know what "Odrysians" are, so I think Thracians works best, just based on the Odrysian kingdom and also some traditional Thracian units as your roster indicates. 

Thracians and especially Dacians should for sure be added. I will reiterate my opinion that Empires Ascendant should just go ahead and add the later "Part 2" civs to the game. "Part 2" being so far away, it would essentially be its own game and then you might as well go with a different time period, like Medieval or Bronze Age.

 

Buenas @wowgetoffyourcellphone , estoy de acuerdo con usted respecto a los Tracios .

Pero ¿Cuántas actualizaciones habrá de 0.A.D? quiero decir que ya están casi todas las letras del alfabeto , ¿Cuándo ya no queden más significará que el juego ya está terminado?(intentaré apoyar en el trabajo para incluir algunas y entre ellas a Tracios o Dacios o ambas)

Además de que ¿Con cada nueva versión (0ad 25 y 0ad 26) habrán nuevas facciones o la intención prioritaria pretende mejorar los gráficos , música , mapas y jugabilidad (como lo fue poner los colores que diferencian amigos de enemigos)?

 

 

Disculpe me las molestias ocasionadas*

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Buenas 

 

Ya terminé con los bocetos de "Lusitanos" que ya subí a su Tópico y ya estoy terminando los bocetos para Arsácidas/Arsacids ;

 

Me gustaría ponerme ahora con los "Tracios/thracians" (sin influencia griega por ahora) , pero tengo muchos problemas para diferenciarlos de los "Dacios/Dacians"

 

¿ Alguien me podría enviar información por privado (mensajes) de los tracios (edificios) y sus fuentes para hacer los bocetos?(con esa ayuda tendré varios los bocetos solo en unos días)

 

 

DISCULPEN LAS MOLESTIAS*

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Join the conversation

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

Guest
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...