celtic reference

[Nescio]

13 hours ago, Genava55 said:

Recently the topic of Celtic civ bonus has been the subject of debate: https://code.wildfiregames.com/D2841

Since the Gauls have the unique feature, in comparison to the Britons, to build dense fortified farms with granary and livestock, a bonus in relation to this could be a good idea.

For example the barracks could accept the storing of resources, just an idea.

Suggestions for new team bonuses (and also technologies) are certainly welcome! Current things that don't make much sense can be deprecated.

As for the resource dropsite idea, I doubt the AI can handle it, since Petra uses the Storehouse class, rather than the DropsiteMetal etc. classes.

[Genava55]

On 8/19/2020 at 10:25 AM, Nescio said:

Suggestions for new team bonuses (and also technologies) are certainly welcome! Current things that don't make much sense can be deprecated.

As for the resource dropsite idea, I doubt the AI can handle it, since Petra uses the Storehouse class, rather than the DropsiteMetal etc. classes.

Ok thx for the info.

From a historical point of view, the Britons suffer from the comparison with the Gauls, the same way the latter with the Greeks or the Romans suffer it. Making a strict and accurate comparison is not real useful in this case. Even classical literature is not really fair and interesting in the comparison between Gauls and Britons (see Strabo):

https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Strabo/4E*.html

 

Currently both factions have as general bonus:

• Increase in food collected from farm and livestock
• Druids increase attack speed of nearby units

Gauls have, as a team bonus, the reduced blacksmith tech cost and research time.

Britons have, as a team bonus, the decrease in resources for priests/healers.

Gauls have as unique technologies/bonus the reaper increasing food collecting on farm, vae victis to get resources from destroying or capturing buildings, and finally they have "Carnutes" giving attack to their druids.

Britons have as unique technologies Sevili Dusios (which is a reference to body painting) to increase both attack speed and moving speed of melee units and Turos Maros (which seems to be a reference to folklore and tales high walls) to increase height bonus for units in structures.

From a critical point of view:

The general bonus in food collected from farm and livestock is credible for both factions. We know that both civilizations were relying a lot on agricultural and pastoral related products for export. About the Gauls, the shift from the Hallstatt to La Tène period saw a quite sharp change in crop practice with new species and more homogeneous crop type in the same field suggesting a focus on productivity. At the same time, a lot of deforestation happened to clear more lands and to feed the furnaces for increasing iron production. The Britons saw this process with a more gradual pace and a bit later, during the Oppida period with increasing Gallic/Belgic influence. Although there is one particular early feature among the Britons, at Danebury around the 5th century BC there was a lot of storage pits and small granaries to hold a significant quantity of grains. So the Britons weren't exempt of innovation, while on the continent the Gauls first increased their grain productivity, the Britons first increased their storing capacity. Concerning pastoral activities and livestock, the difference are smaller. Both were known for their animal derived products, the Gauls had a small advance on the size of the animals but that's it. The most striking difference is about pigs being more frequent in Gaul than in Britain and the reverse for the sheep. See reference to the sheep age in this article.

The general bonus for Druids increasing attack speed is a bit... both watertight and questionable. There is nothing to support it but it is enough plausible to consider it as a valid hypothesis. I don't recall any reference of druids in the battlefield excepted in the particular case of Anglesey/Mona. Although in this case, the Britons' druids were frightening the enemies more than inspiring their men but we have only the point of view of the Romans so the second option is plausible. Maybe the bonus is better suited to the Britons.

The team bonus you choose for the Gauls is good as we discussed it. A bonus in blacksmith tech is credible in regards of the influence they had on nearby "barbarians" and in regards of its legacy among Gallo-Roman blacksmiths.

We already discussed the reaper as I suggested it and I think there is no issue with it. We should simply considerate the Gauls already have a food bonus.

The Vae Victis is a good and popular reference to Brennus and it is a fair bonus since the Gauls were known to loot and plunder (even if the Romans did the same on a bigger scale, history is written by the victors). Honestly the Britons probably did the same but there is no record of it.

The Carnutes reference is a bit misunderstood. The Gauls weren't political retards and they had general assemblies above the tribal scale. One of this assembly was a meeting of all the druids in Gaul and this meeting was generally held somewhere in Carnutes territory. This assembly during the Gallic Wars decided to revolt against the Romans and to kill Roman citizens everywhere. However, the druids didn't kill the Romans themselves. So it doesn't relate to the bonus from a critical point of view.

The Britons team bonus is in relation to Caesar account (6, 13) suggesting an insular origin of the druidism and still an active place of teaching for Gallic druids at his time. That's credible although the bonus is maybe underpowered with the current use of the priest/healer.

The reference to body painting is indeed a very particular feature that should be put in front and be more visible in their difference to the Gauls. So a bonus in relation to body painting is clearly a good thing in my opinion. Although it can take various forms (attack dmg, attack speed, health points, health regen etc.). I don't know the origin of the name (Sevili Dusios), it seems to be a Latin quote but I don't find the source.

Finally the reference to the high tower and wall is BS. This is based on tales and folklore exaggeration.

As other proposals:

For the Gauls, the Murus Gallicus is a popular reference and it is an interesting kind of fortification because this is between a wall and a rampart. Most people confuse the Murus Gallicus with the "Ehrang type" walls also in use during the iron age but in fact the Murus Gallicus has an artificial embankment behind making it very close to a rampart. This is why the Murus Gallicus was considered such hard to destroy by Caesar (7, 23). We could translate it to a bonus for the Gallic walls, although the game doesn't portray really a Murus Gallicus nor a "Ehrang type" walls, it looks more like an "Altkönig Preist type" as found in Germany, Czechia, Austria etc.

For the Gauls, a rise of population and expansion during the La Tène period is obvious both in the historical records and archeological records. Initially the proto-La Tène culture started in Bohemia, Champagne (France), Eifel and Hunsrück (Germany) around 500 BC. In a century it spreads in western France, Northern Italy and in the Carpathian basin. Probably because of a mixture of cultural exchange, migration, warrior class mobility, religious and political networks etc. But to sum it up, the Gauls spread quickly. So any bonus giving them a bonus in early booming could be justified, in my opinion. The myth of Ambigatos told by Livy (5, 34) could be a good reference for this bonus.

For the Britons, their fortification are quite typical as well. Instead of building true walls they built mostly earthwork and wood ramparts often topped with a wooden palisade. This wasn't primitive work, they built quite complex hillforts with several levels of ramparts and ditches. The advantageous is that the earthwork rampart is solid and easier to build from a resources perspective. Although, this feature is more common in Southern Britain (or England), Danebury, Old Oswestry and Maiden Castle are good examples. In Wales, the use of stone walls is as much common as the earthwork ramparts. So, stone reduction cost of walls?

For the Britons, they are using reference from Northern British Iron Age (sic) or Iron Age Scotland,  notably the Broch of Caithness for the Britons' fortress. Caledonians and Picts never have been subjugated to the Romans, the territory is very remote and their societies were lacking strong power-places to ease the conquest. Why not giving to the Britons a bonus for their fortress with more capture points, as a reference to the resistance and freedom of the Caledonians and Picts?

For the Britons, once again about the Brochs, those buildings were not real fortresses but actual settlements or community's houses. They are closer to a civic center, as much as any oppidum. Moreover, they are often found in remote places (like in the Shetlands). Why not changing them to a kind of hybrid between fortresses and civic centers like Seleucid military colonies or Klerouchia? This would be an interesting unique building. That's really the unrooted to the territory feature that could make the use of the building different.

For the Britons again, the Crannog could be a valid candidate of unique building as well. And the model already exists.

For the Britons, since their fighting style is closer to Homeric warfare and their society ruled by warlike chieftains, why not giving them a team bonus related to champion training? A decrease of training time for example.

For the Britons, their hillforts and settlements show hints of destruction and rebuilt. This is not unusual, we see sometimes the same in the continent but it indicates the Britons are able to rebuild quickly their settlements. Danebury for examples suggests in its remaining layers several events of destruction.

 

Edited August 21, 2020 by Genava55

[Genava55]

Suggestion.

Gauls:

• Ambigatos: Bonus in population capacity given by any CC
• Vae Victis: Resources acquired from destroying and capturing buildings
• Headhunting: Resources acquired from killing heroes (or champions too).
• Invented the Reaper: Bonus in collecting food from farms
• Montefortino: team bonus, reduced blacksmith tech cost and research time

Britons:

• Sheep Age: Bonus related to livestock
• Inis Mona: Druids increase attack speed of nearby units (or reduce attack speed of nearby enemies)
• Build, Endure and Rebuild: Construction bonus (reduced time or reduced cost)
• Britanni vitro inficiunt: Bodypainting gives infantry bonus (speed, healtpoints, health regen?)
• Masters of Earthwork: Reduced stone cost for CC and walls.
• Teaching Center: team bonus, reduced resources cost for healers.
• Celtic Epic / Mabinogion: team bonus, reduced training time for champion (or heroes)

Edited August 23, 2020 by Genava55
Bodypainting for Britons

[Genava55]

Interesting depiction of a Gallic warrior:

[Genava55]

English subtitles in this video, discussing the origin of daggers in the Roman army

I also recommend the other videos:

 

Edited August 24, 2020 by Genava55

[Nescio]

On 8/19/2020 at 9:07 PM, Genava55 said:

Currently both factions have as general bonus:

The information displayed in game in the structure tree is loaded directly from the relevant files and is correct. In contrast, the information in the “History”/“Civilization Overview” is often incorrect and can't be trusted. The current (A24) situation is:

Britons:

• Civilization bonuses:
  • Structures −20% build time, −20% health, and −20% capture points.
  • Structures grant more population:
    • Market +5;
    • Barracks +4;
    • Blacksmith, Farmstead,  Fortress, Storehouse +2;
    • Dock −3.
  • Barracks, Range, Stable, Temple cost wood instead of stone.
• Team bonus:
  • Allied Healers −20% resource costs.
• Unique technologies: —

Gauls:

• Civilization bonuses:
  • Structures −20% build time, −20% health, and −20% capture points.
  • Structures grant more population:
    • Market +5;
    • Barracks +4;
    • Blacksmith, Farmstead,  Fortress, Storehouse +2;
    • Dock −3.
  • Barracks, Range, Stable, Temple cost wood instead of stone.
• Team bonus:
  • Blacksmiths −15% technology resource costs and research time.
• Unique technologies:
  • Workers +15% grain gather rate. (Town phase, 400 wood, 200 metal, 40 s)

[Genava55]

Thank you for taking the time to correct me.

1 hour ago, Nescio said:

Structures −20% build time, −20% health, and −20% capture points.

It could make sense but it seems to be a very broad bonus. It applies also to fortresses, towers and walls. This is maybe irrelevant for those cases.

1 hour ago, Nescio said:

Structures grant more population:

• Market +5;
• Barracks +4;
• Blacksmith, Farmstead,  Fortress, Storehouse +2;
• Dock −3

This one doesn't really make sense from a historical point of view in comparison with other civs.

1 hour ago, Nescio said:

Barracks, Range, Stable, Temple cost wood instead of stone.

It makes sense. It could be a bonus called "wattle-and-daub", although it could work both with Britons and Gauls. Therefore, this is more a matter of strategical design for the civ.

 

Concerning the Vae Victis mechanics, why it has been removed? Personally I could understand why, especially if there is something similar with the hero Brennus (although it seems associated to units instead, I don't know why), loot and plunder are widespread phenomenon in the past. Maybe it could be replaced with headhunting, which is something more particular in the case of the Gauls.

[Nescio]

2 hours ago, Genava55 said:

Concerning the Vae Victis mechanics, why it has been removed?

Actually I'm not sure it was actually removed; my guess is it was simply never implemented. Regardless whether it's “no longer true” or “not yet implemented”, in either case it's misinformation and shouldn't be displayed in game; hence D2720.

2 hours ago, Genava55 said:

It could make sense but it seems to be a very broad bonus. It applies also to fortresses, towers and walls. This is maybe irrelevant for those cases.

Indeed it is. It also applies to fields, outposts, palisades, the structures shared by all civilizations. In A23 and earlier releases, wonders were affected too, but that's no longer the case in A24 (see D2686/rP23824). The same is true for the athen/mace/spart civ bonus: Structures +10% health and +10% capture points.

Ideally each faction would have at least one, unique bonus, instead of these shared, broad bonuses; hence D2841. Other suggestions are certainly welcome!

2 hours ago, Genava55 said:

This one doesn't really make sense from a historical point of view in comparison with other civs.

It doesn't; I don't like it either, and I recall @badosu and @borg- disliking it too. I've now included the removal of those population bonuses in https://code.wildfiregames.com/D2950

[badosu]

Hmm, I couldn't find on that diff but someone more acknowledgeable mentioned the pop bonus makes sense for military structures, e.g. barracks. Not much for farmsteads, storehouses, etc...

[borg-]

55 minutes ago, Nescio said:

It doesn't; I don't like it either, and I recall @badosu and @borg- disliking it too. I've now included the removal of those population bonuses in https://code.wildfiregames.com/D2950

I don't like too.

I like bônus Idea by @Genava55.

I think all civs should be like 3 civ bonus + 1 team bonus.

[Nescio]

27 minutes ago, badosu said:

Hmm, I couldn't find on that diff but someone more acknowledgeable mentioned the pop bonus makes sense for military structures, e.g. barracks. Not much for farmsteads, storehouses, etc...

https://code.wildfiregames.com/D2841#127227

10 minutes ago, borg- said:

I think all civs should be like 3 civ bonus + 1 team bonus.

Ideally, yes. More unique technologies would also be nice. It's probably best to introduce them one by one.

[Genava55]

  

1 minute ago, badosu said:

Hmm, I couldn't find on that diff but someone more acknowledgeable mentioned the pop bonus makes sense for military structures, e.g. barracks. Not much for farmsteads, storehouses, etc...

I did.

It makes sense for the fortresses and the barracks because they are inspired from broch, oppida, hillforts and fortified farms. Place with inhabitants.

The thing is that initially, every civ had a population bonus with other buildings than houses. Notably the fortress. So it would make this feature of the Celts very unparticular.

BUT, Nescio suggests changing that. See: https://code.wildfiregames.com/D2950

So if the other civ have mostly the houses and the CC to increase their population capacity, then a Celtic faction could have this particular feature of increasing pop with fortresses and barracks.

54 minutes ago, Nescio said:

Actually I'm not sure it was actually removed; my guess is it was simply never implemented.

Interesting, this is kinda doing an archaeological dig in 0AD to find this old artifact never implemented displayed on the menu of the game

58 minutes ago, Nescio said:

Ideally each faction would have at least one, unique bonus, instead of these shared, broad bonuses; hence D2841. Other suggestions are certainly welcome!

Clearly this is often difficult to strictly differentiate them from the archaeological record, especially in comparison with the other civ. They have more similarities than differences.

However, by mixing archaeological and historical references with a bit of imagination and liberty, it is possible to suggest different things.

16 minutes ago, borg- said:

I like bônus Idea by @Genava55.

Thank you borg- for the support.

To explicit my suggestion (I will put it again below this message), I choose these bonuses for the Gauls because they are associated with the La Tène civilization which is booming early. I suggested the reference to Ambigatos because in Livy account, the Gallic invasions started because Ambigatos asked his sons to settle his people elsewhere to solve an overpopulation crisis (basically). I also liked the reference to Vae Victis and I added the headhunting practice because I think those are well-known references and because I think it would be an interesting mechanic to encourage an offensive gameplay. The reference to the reaper should work nicely with the first bonus to facilitate an early booming. Finally the reference to Montefortino is because the necropolis at this place is a well-known example of cultural exchange between Etruscans and Gallic populations (the Senones).

For the Britons, the reference to the Sheep Age comes from an academic publication in which the author says that a zooarchaeologist would divide prehistory in Britain according to the dominant animal in the records and that the Bronze Age and the Iron Age belongs to the Sheep Age until the Roman conquest. The reference to Inis Mona is about the battle of Anglesey, the only account of Druids in a battlefield (although tragic), the Druids didn't fight but prayed and cursed the Romans. The reference to the construction bonus comes from the fact that several hillforts are showing successive occupation with destruction and reconstruction (Danebury is a good example). The reference to bodypainting is really an important feature that should be emphasized in the game to distinguish the Britons with the Gauls. The reference to earthwork comes from the fascinating hillforts we found in southern England with complex ditch and walls made of earth, stones and wood. The teaching center is a reference to the account of Caesar about druidism, suggesting that Gallic Druids went to the British Isles to be trained. Finally a reference to the Celtic Epic literature because the only remaining account of this Celtic tradition is coming from the British Isles and because the Homeric warfare of the Britons would be a good pretext.

On 8/21/2020 at 3:15 PM, Genava55 said:

Gauls:

• Ambigatos: Bonus in population capacity given by any CC
• Vae Victis: Resources acquired from destroying and capturing buildings
• Headhunting: Resources acquired from killing heroes (or champions too).
• Invented the Reaper: Bonus in collecting food from farms
• Montefortino: team bonus, reduced blacksmith tech cost and research time

Britons:

• Sheep Age: Bonus related to livestock
• Inis Mona: Druids increase attack speed of nearby units (or reduce attack speed of nearby enemies)
• Build, Endure and Rebuild: Construction bonus (reduced time or reduced cost)
• Britanni vitro inficiunt: Bodypainting gives infantry bonus (speed, healtpoints, health regen?)
• Masters of Earthwork: Reduced stone cost for CC and walls.
• Teaching Center: team bonus, reduced resources cost for healers.
• Celtic Epic / Mabinogion: team bonus, reduced training time for champion (or heroes)

 

[badosu]

I think keeping barracks and fortress pop bonus while having an additional +10(+-2) cc pop cap would be interesting for the pop cap bonused civ (brits in the context of that patch).

Having +10 pop cap without any investment early on is HUGE while not scaling badly mid to late game, the value can be adjusted iteratively. Would make sense as well for a civ with a boom-oriented style. Keeping in mind that +9 pop cap is storehouse/farmstead/house as it is currently so an argument could be made for it to be slightly higher, OTOH you won't have to bother with having houses captured/constructed/invested so maybe not, testing would fine tune.

PS: That said, @Genava55 , from your reference description it seems maybe the bonus changes should be inverted? (pop cap bonus for gauls, construction bonus for brits?) cc @Nescio

Edited August 24, 2020 by badosu

[borg-]

On 8/21/2020 at 10:15 AM, Genava55 said:

Suggestion.

Gauls:

• Ambigatos: Bonus in population capacity given by any CC
• Vae Victis: Resources acquired from destroying and capturing buildings
• Headhunting: Resources acquired from killing heroes (or champions too).
• Invented the Reaper: Bonus in collecting food from farms
• Montefortino: team bonus, reduced blacksmith tech cost and research time

Britons:

• Sheep Age: Bonus related to livestock
• Inis Mona: Druids increase attack speed of nearby units (or reduce attack speed of nearby enemies)
• Build, Endure and Rebuild: Construction bonus (reduced time or reduced cost)
• Britanni vitro inficiunt: Bodypainting gives infantry bonus (speed, healtpoints, health regen?)
• Masters of Earthwork: Reduced stone cost for CC and walls.
• Teaching Center: team bonus, reduced resources cost for healers.
• Celtic Epic / Mabinogion: team bonus, reduced training time for champion (or heroes)

GAULS:

- Ambigatos. Interestingly. It can give Gauls a great rush capacity without having to build houses anytime soon.

- Vae. Similar to "ambigatos". Can give a great rush capacity and "boom" later.

- Headhunting. I wouldn't choose this among the 3.

- Invented the Reaper. Can give + 10% in grain gather per phase.

BRITONS: 

Celtic Epic / Mabinogion. Would put this as just a brit bonus.

Masters of Earthwork. Also for fortress and towers.

Britanni vitro inficiunt. Move speed. Very interesting for surprise attacks or boom. 

Inis Mona.I don't like this type of individual bonus, These bonuses can be given separately without being a civilization bonus.

[av93]

Ambigatos, Vae Victis and Montefortino makes great synergies as a rush civ, good design. Take care about a farming bonus, to be different enough to Ptolomies, the civ that should have the greatest bonus to farming

In contrast, Britons suggestions are more all round and defensive oriented. Weren't more decentralised and not so tech developed (so they could fill beter the "barbarian" rush trope? (I would give them also a skirmisher champion, instead of the not historic double sword man. (they should be the ultimate javelineer faction, because Iberian ambushers fit more Lusitanians rather than Iberians, regarding some sources that I've read in the past)

[Ultimate Aurelian]

4 hours ago, av93 said:

(I would give them also a skirmisher champion, instead of the not historic double sword man. (they should be the ultimate javelineer faction, because Iberian ambushers fit more Lusitanians rather than Iberians, regarding some sources that I've read in the past)

There is a thread for reworking Briton roster; it adds Irish champion skirmisher, and makes double swordsman a champion swordsman with shield.

 

[Genava55]

5 hours ago, av93 said:

Ambigatos, Vae Victis and Montefortino makes great synergies as a rush civ, good design. Take care about a farming bonus, to be different enough to Ptolomies, the civ that should have the greatest bonus to farming

In contrast, Britons suggestions are more all round and defensive oriented. Weren't more decentralised and not so tech developed (so they could fill beter the "barbarian" rush trope? (I would give them also a skirmisher champion, instead of the not historic double sword man. (they should be the ultimate javelineer faction, because Iberian ambushers fit more Lusitanians rather than Iberians, regarding some sources that I've read in the past)

Thx. Indeed, my idea is to make the Gauls more offensive and the Britons more defensive, with good mobility which a key feature of the Celtic armies in general.

The Britons are clearly more often using guerrilla tactics, this is clear in Caesar account and what is explained in Graham Webster books:

Spoiler

From "The Roman Invasion of Britain": Methods of fighting and types of weapons and equipment developed as part of this concept of warfare elevated to a heroic level, fully supported by the tribal gods. The warrior was equipped in the panoply of bright and glittering accoutrements for himself, his horse and his chariot by the work of the superb Celtic metal workers and enamellers. Caesar gives an eye-witness description of the British chariots in action (iv 33). They appear suddenly and drive all over the place, the warriors in them hurling their javelins. He stated that the noise of the wheels spread terror and confusion, but he says nothing about scythes being fixed to the axles and there is in fact no supporting archaeological evidence. Yet this remains a very popular view of a British chariot. It was certainly an eastern custom and it would have been practical in an open desert for demonstration only, to demoralize an enemy unused to such a sight. In a well vegetated landscape like Britain they would seem to be more of a hindrance than use. After their sudden and terrifying appearance, the chariots withdrew, and the warriors they had carried sprang from them to join in the battle at points where they could be most effective, but when under pressure and tiring, they could leap on to the chariot and be driven away to recuperate. So the best fighters could be suddenly brought to a point of danger and as rapidly taken away. These tactics were used to some effect in the second expedition (v 15 and 16) when Caesar realized that his legionaries could not deal with such fluid and elusive units and that his cavalry were also at risk in dashing after the retreating Britons, only to find themselves cut off and surrounded. Presumably the Britons also used the German method of warriors springing off their small horses and fighting on foot, which would have given valuable support to the swordsmen from the chariots. Unfortunately for the Britons, these tactics could not be sustained since they are so tiring on men and horses, nor had they the resources for continuous replacements. It is like a boxer in the ring who relies on his speed and surprise to outwit his opponent, but if he fails in the early rounds, the other man by sheer dogged slogging will eventually wear him down. [...] Plautius had good reason to view his achievements with some satisfaction. The invasion had gone very smoothly, his victory at the Medway battle was notable and effectively placed most of the province in his hands. The only serious opposition came from the south-west but Vespasian had overwhelmed the hostile tribes with speed and boldness. But it must have been the sheer professionalism of the directed skill of the second legion in storming the hill-forts, considered as their impregnable bulwarks, which left the Britons stunned. They had no answer to this since the open downlands denied them the possibility of guerilla tactics. But Plautius knew perfectly well that his rapid conquest needed time for consolidation to enable the Britons to assimilate Roman ideas especially in economic development.

From "Rome Against Caratacus: The Roman Campaigns in Britain AD 48-58 ": Caratacus had by now some experience of Roman battle tactics and he must have thought deeply about the most effective way of using his ill-equipped levies against such discipline and professionalism. He had witnessed the enormous weight and power of the legionaries carving their paths through the packed mass of Celts. He knew too of the heavy losses his men would suffer in a standing fight. No doubt he would have preferred a different kind of war where his tribesmen could suddenly emerge from the forests and hills and attack small bodies of Romans, and by sheer surprise and ferocity do brisk execution before disappearing as rapidly as they came. In a terrain they knew so well this was possible, but not when the army was massed together and could not be attacked in this way. He could only plan guerilla tactics when the Romans were spread out over a large area in their separate units as construction and foraging parties; but if he was clever enough to choose a place to put them at the most serious disadvantage, he could inflict serious damage. It was essential, however, to be able to extract his tribesmen before they were cut down or forced to surrender. The site had to be deep into the British territory so as to lure the Roman force far from its bases, and in country suitable for his men to escape by melting into the forests and mountains where they could not easily be hunted by cavalry. His site must be one not capable of being surrounded so that the legions would be forced to a frontal assault at a carefully fixed narrow front. [...] Caratacus now planned the next stage of the resistance movement. This was based on two schemes which could be operated in concert. Firstly, it was essential that his warriors should continue the fight, but in a guerilla-type warfare whilst the Roman army was spread over the frontier preparing their new positions. While the forces of Scapula were to be kept fully occupied by these sudden and unexpected attacks, the greater plan was to be developed. This depended on persuading Cartimandua to change sides and to join him against Rome. A southward sweep of a large force of her tribesmen would trap the main Roman force between the two British pincer armies. [...] The guerilla war was turning into a nightmare for Scapula and his commanders, and it continued with many similar attacks in woods and marshes. The Britons were obviously taking full advantage of the difficult terrain they knew so well. It may have seemed to the Romans that much was due to chance and that there was very little planning in all these attacks. But this view could also have sprung from the sheer exasperation felt by the Roman staff officers, whose attitude to war was conditioned by the basic need for careful preparation and the formulation of tactical schemes before proceeding with any operation. The Britons had no such concept. There wasn’t necessarily any overall command, since each group of tribesmen may have worked independently of each other. They all had courage and guile and kept permanent watch on the Roman activities. Their attacks were determined by the opportunities provided by the vagaries of the weather and the possibilities of luring Roman troops into positions which gave the Silures the advantage of surprise and speed. Tacitus gives an excellent example of this kind of action—two auxiliary cohorts, which were foraging and plundering incautiously, were cut off. The word used here— intercepere—conveys the meaning of separating and implies that the Britons had been able to cut off the auxiliaries from the main body and then overpower them.

And this is also what suggest the archaeological remains:

Spoiler

Edited August 25, 2020 by Genava55

[Nescio]

On 8/21/2020 at 3:15 PM, Genava55 said:

Britons:

• Sheep Age: Bonus related to livestock
• Inis Mona: Druids increase attack speed of nearby units (or reduce attack speed of nearby enemies)
• Build, Endure and Rebuild: Construction bonus (reduced time or reduced cost)
• Britanni vitro inficiunt: Bodypainting gives infantry bonus (speed, healtpoints, health regen?)
• Masters of Earthwork: Reduced stone cost for CC and walls.
• Teaching Center: team bonus, reduced resources cost for healers.
• Celtic Epic / Mabinogion: team bonus, reduced training time for champion (or heroes)

1. What exactly?
2. Can be done with a local aura.
3. Basically the current Celtic civ bonus? Fine by me.
4. A civilization bonus (i.e. free and autoresearched) or a special technology?
5. Maybe fortresses too? And perhaps increase time to compensate for the reduced stone cost?
6. Current team bonus.
7. Maybe not a good idea.

On 8/21/2020 at 3:15 PM, Genava55 said:

Gauls:

• Ambigatos: Bonus in population capacity given by any CC
• Vae Victis: Resources acquired from destroying and capturing buildings
• Headhunting: Resources acquired from killing heroes (or champions too).
• Invented the Reaper: Bonus in collecting food from farms
• Montefortino: team bonus, reduced blacksmith tech cost and research time

1. Just the Civic Centre, or also Barracks and Fortress? And by how much, +5?
2. I'm not sure that's doable. There are two related nodes, <Loot> and <Looter>. <Loot> is what destroyed entities grant to the player that destroys them, <Looter> is what entities give to their owner whenever they destroy an enemy entity. Both are fixed amounts (integers). Technologies (and civilization bonuses) typically affect your own entities, not those of other players. I guess it can be done via local auras (which might be costly performance-wise), though that would not achieve exactly what you wrote: if an aura increases the <Loot> of an enemy structure, then anyone who destroys it gets the increased loot, not just gaul players; and if an aura increases the <Looter> of your units, then you get increased loot from anything you destroy, not just structures; as far as I know it can't be limited to specific targets.
3. See previous point.
4. Currently a special technology.
5. Current team bonus.

[Genava55]

5 hours ago, Nescio said:

• I'm not sure that's doable. There are two related nodes, <Loot> and <Looter>. <Loot> is what destroyed entities grant to the player that destroys them, <Looter> is what entities give to their owner whenever they destroy an enemy entity. Both are fixed amounts (integers). Technologies (and civilization bonuses) typically affect your own entities, not those of other players. I guess it can be done via local auras (which might be costly performance-wise), though that would not achieve exactly what you wrote: if an aura increases the <Loot> of an enemy structure, then anyone who destroys it gets the increased loot, not just gaul players; and if an aura increases the <Looter> of your units, then you get increased loot from anything you destroy, not just structures; as far as I know it can't be limited to specific targets.
• See previous point.

So sad. Now I understand why it hasn't been implemented. And why there is only the aura of Brennus doing this kind of effect. This is sad because it would have been much more interesting for the gameplay. I think it was one of the bonus the most favored by the others.

5 hours ago, Nescio said:

Just the Civic Centre, or also Barracks and Fortress? And by how much, +5?

I think +5 for each CC should be a good. This is already a good start ahead.

I don't think we need to include Barracks and Fortress in the bonus.

5 hours ago, Nescio said:

1. What exactly?

The Sheep Age reference is a bit far-fetched, so we can adapt it easily. Actually there is a technology at the coral to reduce the training time of livestock so it should be something else.

1. Reducing of 5 food the cost of an animal? That could be a bit too big on the long term. Basically for 10 animals, it gives one free (although the training time must be taken in consideration). Since players already overexploited the livestock as a broken strategy, I am worried.
2. Increasing collecting speed of citizens on livestock meat, +5%?

5 hours ago, Nescio said:

A civilization bonus (i.e. free and autoresearched) or a special technology?

They are lacking technologies and increasing speed can be quite strong economically so let's go for a special tech.

5 hours ago, Nescio said:

Maybe fortresses too? And perhaps increase time to compensate for the reduced stone cost?

I agree for both. This is fair.

5 hours ago, Nescio said:

Maybe not a good idea.

Too strong? Or the concept itself?

On 8/24/2020 at 6:16 PM, Nescio said:

Ideally, yes. More unique technologies would also be nice. It's probably best to introduce them one by one.

As unique technologies, I think of several for the Gallic cavalry:

1. Trimarkisia. Basically the cavalryman had servants or squires bringing him new weapons and a fresh horse in the height of the action. I suggest an increase in health and/or mobility.
2. Horned saddles. It was something in use in the Celtic cavalry starting around the 2nd century BC and it is commonly thought the Romans adopted it. I suggest an increase in attack for melee cavalry and/or range for skirmisher cavalry.
3. Cavalry sword (cladios or cladiomaros?). The Celts popularized the first long cavalry swords in the West (independently to the nomads), in some case the blade length goes beyond 80 cm. The cavalry sword was adopted by the Roman cavalry as well, notably with the famous metal scabbards decorated with open work plates like in Badenheim and Ljubljanica. I suggest an increase in attack dmg (slashing obviously).

------

@borg- @av93 @badosu Do you have any idea for a bonus that could replace the Vae Victis suggested previously? Something that could encourage an offensive play style. Or do you have any wish about a kind of gameplay lacking in the game actually?

Edited August 25, 2020 by Genava55

[borg-]

1 hour ago, Genava55 said:

I think +5 for each CC should be a good. This is already a good start ahead.

+10 since it doesn't give any bonus on dropsite or any other building. Only for CC.

1 hour ago, Genava55 said:

The Sheep Age reference is a bit far-fetched, so we can adapt it easily. Actually there is a technology at the coral to reduce the training time of livestock so it should be something else.

1. Reducing of 5 food the cost of an animal? That could be a bit too big on the long term. Basically for 10 animals, it gives one free (although the training time must be taken in consideration). Since players already overexploited the livestock as a broken strategy, I am worried.
2. Increasing collecting speed of citizens on livestock meat, +5%?

Reducing of 5 food is ok.

1 hour ago, Genava55 said:

They are lacking technologies and increasing speed can be quite strong economically so let's go for a special tech.

P2 tech. +10% infantry move speed?

1 hour ago, Genava55 said:

I agree for both. This is fair.

CC, tower, walls and fortress. No, it's not a good bonus if you compensate with increase time. Give a smaller stone reduction but without compensation.

1 hour ago, Genava55 said:

Too strong? Or the concept itself?

Too strong. Can be lamme on tg.

1 hour ago, Genava55 said:

As unique technologies, I think of several for the Gallic cavalry:

1. Trimarkisia. Basically the cavalryman had servants or squires bringing him new weapons and a fresh horse in the height of the action. I suggest an increase in health and/or mobility.
2. Horned saddles. It was something in use in the Celtic cavalry starting around the 2nd century BC and it is commonly thought the Romans adopted it. I suggest an increase in attack for melee cavalry and/or range for skirmisher cavalry.
3. Cavalry sword (cladios or cladiomaros?). The Celts popularized the first long cavalry swords in the West (independently to the nomads), in some case the blade length goes beyond 80 cm. The cavalry sword was adopted by the Roman cavalry as well, notably with the famous metal scabbards decorated with open work plates like in Badenheim and Ljubljanica. I suggest an increase in attack dmg (slashing obviously).

I like this.

1 hour ago, Genava55 said:

------

@borg- @av93 @badosu Do you have any idea for a bonus that could replace the Vae Victis suggested previously? Something that could encourage an offensive play style. Or do you have any wish about a kind of gameplay lacking in the game actually?

I will think of something.

Edited August 26, 2020 by borg-

[Genava55]

[Genava55]

https://www.facebook.com/evropantiqva

[Genava55]

Interesting 3D model showing how a mixed type of rampart was built (mixture between Altkönig Preist walls and Murus Gallicus rampart)

 

 

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

5 hours ago, Genava55 said:

Interesting 3D model showing how a mixed type of rampart was built (mixture between Altkönig Preist walls and Murus Gallicus rampart)

 

 

That was the "original" Celtic wall in the game. I would have had an armor bonus against rams. But there wasn't (and still isn't) a way in the engine to make the earthen ramp walkable. 

[Genava55]

25 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

That was the "original" Celtic wall in the game. I would have had an armor bonus against rams. But there wasn't (and still isn't) a way in the engine to make the earthen ramp walkable. 

I know, I found the old wall model in the game editor. Indeed it is impossible to make a real rampart for the moment. I am sharing the video simply because this is something I found cool.

For the bonus I suggested as a unique tech for the Gauls, this is not really important that the current wall in the game is not a true murus gallicus (anyway only a few people knows the difference).

Spoiler