Proposal

[Sundiata]

Yeah, Celt refers to celtic speaking people, who had close cultural affinities to each-other. Gaul is a geographical area (inhabited by Celts). People of Gaul referred to themselves as Celtae, not Gauls. Gaul as a political unit is a result of Caesar's conquest, who couldn't successfully subdue the area's north of the Rhine, and thus designated them a different people, so he could say he conquered "all of Gaul". But it seems Gallic and Germanic nobility spoke the same language, and the differentiation between the two is controversial to this day. Anyway, pre-Roman Gaul never formed a single political entity, so the term Gaul itself is pretty vague as well  But less vague than Celts, indeed..

Edited December 21, 2017 by Sundiata

[Dade]

On 12/16/2017 at 9:31 AM, Sundiata said:

A lot of the "pro-players" depend on the ignorance of their opponents to win...

Welcome to any multiplayer videogame reality

[Andrettin]

On 12/20/2017 at 12:34 PM, Nescio said:

I'm contemplating doubling the training time of all units in my mod, 0abc; this would make the game more slow paced, encourage raiding and keeping your own units alive; however, batch training and barracks spamming would probably become even more common in late game.

A simple solution to barracks spamming would be making certain buildings (like the barracks) increase in cost exponentially for each building of the same type that the player already owns. For example, the barracks increasing 25% in resource costs for each one built (the 25% being compounded with each other, not added to one another).

Edited December 27, 2017 by Andrettin

[Sundiata]

12 hours ago, Dade said:

Welcome to any multiplayer videogame reality

Yeah, very true... I don't have a problem with learning curves though. I also don't think the mechanics are all that bad, I actually like a lot of them. I just think some of them could use a rework/need fine-tuning/be more intuitive. The difference with other games is also that you can learn these mechanics from going through the manual/tutorial/wiki's, which currently isn't the case with 0AD. People often need to come to the forums, with the same questions, to figure out what's what, and even then, won't find out about many (important) things until much later (if ever). This can be unnecessarily frustrating for new players.  

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

On 12/21/2017 at 6:14 PM, Sundiata said:

Yeah, Celt refers to celtic speaking people, who had close cultural affinities to each-other. Gaul is a geographical area (inhabited by Celts). People of Gaul referred to themselves as Celtae, not Gauls. Gaul as a political unit is a result of Caesar's conquest, who couldn't successfully subdue the area's north of the Rhine, and thus designated them a different people, so he could say he conquered "all of Gaul". But it seems Gallic and Germanic nobility spoke the same language, and the differentiation between the two is controversial to this day. Anyway, pre-Roman Gaul never formed a single political entity, so the term Gaul itself is pretty vague as well  But less vague than Celts, indeed..

"Continental Celts" just seems less romantic than "Gauls," ironic as my use of the term "romantic" is in the context of our discussion. I think people know what we mean when we say "Gauls" though, so it kind of sticks. The Greeks called themselves "Hellenes" and everyone else "Barbarians."  More specifically, it's probable that mainland/continental Celts referred to themselves more along tribal or confederation lines, rather than as all-encompassing "Celtae", similar to many peoples throughout history, the Native Americans for instance, who thought of themselves along tribal lines, rather than as some kind of pan-American racial identity.  

  

[Sundiata]

6 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

"Continental Celts" just seems less romantic than "Gauls," ironic as my use of the term "romantic" is in the context of our discussion. I think people know what we mean when we say "Gauls" though, so it kind of sticks.

Sure, I think the term Gauls is ok, I was just trying to add nuance, and clarify that it never formed a political entity (not even under Vercingetorix), but that Celtic elites did share a common culture/language.

 

The Greeks called themselves "Hellenes" and everyone else "Barbarians."  More specifically, it's probable that mainland/continental Celts referred to themselves more along tribal or confederation lines, rather than as all-encompassing "Celtae", similar to many peoples throughout history, the Native Americans for instance, who thought of themselves along tribal lines, rather than as some kind of pan-American racial identity.  

Yes, Celts would firstly identify with their tribe, but: they did consider themselves part of an all encompassing Celtic culture as well, and had much more intimate tribal relationships (diplomacy) with each other than they did with non-Celtic (-speaking) peoples. The relationship between the Celtic nobility and the peasant populations they ruled is still a matter of debate (including the languages used by commoners). The cultural and ethnic affinities between these Celts has always been far greater than the affinities between the extremely heterogeneous Native American populations. Basically yes, there was a pan-Celtic cultural/ethnic/linguistic identity, but no political unity. 

 

 

[Grigoris]

On 27.12.2017 at 4:11 PM, Andrettin said:

_{A simple solution to barracks spamming would be making certain buildings (like the barracks) increase in cost exponentially for each building of the same type that the player already owns. For example, the barracks increasing 25% in resource costs for each one built (the 25% being compounded with each other, not added to one another).}

Barrack spam is industrial warfare, no more ancient warfare. Just had a 2v2 game, everyone made around 2 barracks, except one player managed to build in short time 11 barracks

It is a legal way to win, often ends with a clear winner or in rare cases as long stalemates (both opponents high recruiting rate), but this isn't really fun. In fact it's wasting ressources for countless attacks and hard to counter.

Personally, i would like to see gameplay more to evolve over the ages (I, II, III). Less barracks would still allow a big army, but you can't outplay others just by citizen soldier mass-production. It would be harder to replace losses and development for champions would be probably more important.

Increasing costs could be an effective way to regulate it. At some point, it's too expensive to build more barracks, the ressources could be used for other better options (supporting friendly weak economies, champs). This opens new strategies. Big economies would still keep some of their advantage, but overall similar (small) economies differ less between each other

Edited January 12, 2018 by Grigoris

[Lion.Kanzen]

On ‎28‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 2:10 AM, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

"Continental Celts" just seems less romantic than "Gauls," ironic as my use of the term "romantic" is in the context of our discussion. I think people know what we mean when we say "Gauls" though, so it kind of sticks. The Greeks called themselves "Hellenes" and everyone else "Barbarians."  More specifically, it's probable that mainland/continental Celts referred to themselves more along tribal or confederation lines, rather than as all-encompassing "Celtae", similar to many peoples throughout history, the Native Americans for instance, who thought of themselves along tribal lines, rather than as some kind of pan-American racial identity.  

  

Same win Mayans, many times archeologists thinks they were "noble peaceful".