===[TASK]=== Current issues with Celtic units and guideline for the next

[Nescio]

19 hours ago, Genava55 said:

I have a few questions about how you would like quick visual identification of the units.

What do you think about the shield shape evolving according to the experience (basic, advanced, elite)? Initially I made suggestion with the shape changing accordingly but I think now it is not necessarily a good idea.

I am thinking to propose something more restrictive on the shield shape for each unit. For example a Gallic Spearman using only oval and tall shields, Gallic Skirmisher using only square and medium shields and Gallic Swordsman using hexagonal and tall shields.

Maybe we could simply use shield bosses, capes, helmets and adornments to distinguish the experienced units. For the Britons, shield decoration and tattooes can be an additional way to distinguish the experienced units.

Easily identifying units with a single glance is a complex problem with no straightforward solution. Moreover, things that work when zoomed in (e.g. the “Rank icon above status bars” option) are not that effective when zoomed out.

I think for most players it's more important to know the unit class (e.g. spearman or swordsman) than it is to know the rank (e.g. advanced or elite). Reserving certain shield shapes for certain units could help. Changing the shield shapes when units promote is not a good idea. I agree higher ranks could get fancier clothes, body paintings, helmets, and shield patterns, as is also done for units of other factions.

For capes there is no clear consistency; e.g. the athen cavalry javelinists (b/a/e) all have capes, but the athen cavalry swordsmen (b/a/e) don't; the mace cavalry javelinists and spearmen don't have capes, but their spart equivalents do.

For the Celts specifically, how common was body armour? Currently the basic and advanced cavalry javelinists have a naked torso, but the elite is clad in chainmail.

Also, the basic brit and gaul infantry slinger and cavalry javelinist lack player colour (@wackyserious).

[Genava55]

On 2/21/2020 at 11:06 AM, Nescio said:

For the Celts specifically, how common was body armour?

Among Gauls, there are evidences for linothorax or leather armors during the 5th, 4th and 3rd century BC. It seems to be quite common among elite because of the widespread representation of this kind of protection on different material from different regions. Possibly, it could have been an affordable protection for the cavalrymen because a scabbard with infantrymen and cavalrymen represented on it shows all the latter wearing those armors. They were higher class warriors so it could be plausible. Chain mail is becoming visible in burials around the 3rd century BC but it was quite rare and probably reserved to the elites. During the 1st century BC, production of chain mail seems to increase, probably because of a proto-industrialization with the factories starting to be specialized on different steps of the conception of weapons and adornments in general. But still, it would have been affordable to the higher members of the warrior class, maybe the cavalrymen in the 1st century BC were commonly using it. Helmets should have been a bit more common than the body protection, especially with simpler designs like the Coolus.

Among Britons, a few chain mails have been found. Five at my knowledge, at Kirkburn, Lexden, Folly Lane, Baldock and Hayling Island. Like on the continent, it seems affordable for the elites. But there is no evidence for leather armor or linothorax. For the helmets, only a few have been found and some are related to Roman auxiliaries. However, highly decorated adornments, decorated shields and decorated scabbards were more common on the British Isles proportionally (although it could be due to a bias in the burial practice and a bias in the way archeology is performed in Britain in comparison with France and Germany).

Edit: recent chapter

Spoiler

Interesting reading

 

On 2/21/2020 at 11:06 AM, Nescio said:

Currently the basic and advanced cavalry javelinists have a naked torso, but the elite is clad in chainmail.

Cavalry javelinists should be higher than average warriors. The concept of cavalry javelinists is often flawed by the unconscious comparison with the light infantry (ie generally poorer people) but actually light cavalry wasn't of the same status than the light infantry, even among classical civilizations. It is simply the use of body armor that is less useful for light cavalry (anyway the exposed part to missiles is the horse itself). I think it is not impossible that an elite Celtic cavalryman fighting with javelins could afford a body armor, furthermore because no evidences suggest clear defined tactical roles for Celtic cavalry. The possibility that Celtic cavarlymen were able to fulfill both light and heavy roles on the battlefield shouldn't be discarded. However, 0AD is a game with its own mechanics so it is ok to differentiate the two roles with two units.

Edited February 25, 2020 by Genava55

[Genava55]

On 2/21/2020 at 11:06 AM, Nescio said:

I think for most players it's more important to know the unit class (e.g. spearman or swordsman) than it is to know the rank (e.g. advanced or elite). Reserving certain shield shapes for certain units could help. Changing the shield shapes when units promote is not a good idea. I agree higher ranks could get fancier clothes, body paintings, helmets, and shield patterns, as is also done for units of other factions.

Ok. Thx for your opinion and I agree.

About the Britons, I really think there is a card to play with body painting and decorated shields to distinguish the ranks. I also think that their lack of armor (in comparison with the Gauls) could be compensated by an unique tech like the woad body painting exaggerating the medicinal properties of the pigment, giving them a slow health regeneration.

 

Edited February 25, 2020 by Genava55

[Nescio]

On 2/20/2020 at 3:09 PM, Genava55 said:

The role of the chariot could be more suited to the second phase and I really hope it could be used as battle-taxi for another unit.

  As in Homeric warfare.

Having visible slots on units would be a great feature to have, also for war elephants. I believe some work was started on it, but no patches have been committed yet.

On 2/21/2020 at 3:03 PM, Genava55 said:

Cavalry javelinists should be higher than average warriors. The concept of cavalry javelinists is often flawed by the unconscious comparison with the light infantry (ie generally poorer people) but actually light cavalry wasn't of the same status than the light infantry, even among classical civilizations.

Yes, you're right, and this applies to the other civilizations as well. Horses need a lot of food and space and are only useful for travelling and warfare; only the richest people (e.g. equites in Rome, hippeis in Sparta) could afford them. In Ptolemaic Egypt, “Macedonian” phalangites held 30 or 25 arourai of land, horsemen 80 or 100.

On 2/21/2020 at 3:03 PM, Genava55 said:

It is simply the use of body armor that is less useful for light cavalry (anyway the exposed part to missiles is the horse itself). I think it is not impossible that an elite Celtic cavalryman fighting with javelins could afford a body armor

In 0 A.D. “elite” means simply a promoted “basic” soldier, whereas “champions” are the real elite.

On 2/21/2020 at 3:03 PM, Genava55 said:

furthermore because no evidences suggest clear defined tactical roles for Celtic cavalry. The possibility that Celtic cavarlymen were able to fulfill both light and heavy roles on the battlefield shouldn't be discarded. However, 0AD is a game with its own mechanics so it is ok to differentiate the two roles with two units.

Again true for other civilizations as well: cavalry typically had javelins, spears, and swords; the same is true for most infantry. Differentiating units by weapon types is not really realistic, but certainly makes sense for 0 A.D. and similar games.

[Stan`]

@Genava55 Do you have any more suggestions for https://code.wildfiregames.com/D2641

 

[Genava55]

2 hours ago, Stan` said:

@Genava55

 

Do you have any more suggestions for https://code.wildfiregames.com/D2641

Seems good. Maybe Cassiuellaunos instead of Cassiuellaunus for the ancient hero of the Catafalque.

[Stan`]

@Nescio ^

[asterix]

commited today https://trac.wildfiregames.com/changeset/23526

[Nescio]

@Genava55, how common were donkeys in Gaul? And mules? And in the British Islands?

Somehow I associate Gauls with cattle, so I'm wondering whether an ox cart wouldn't be more appropiate for their trader. However, Celts are not my forte and I don't really know, hence my question.

[Genava55]

10 hours ago, Nescio said:

@Genava55

 

, how common were donkeys in Gaul? And mules? And in the British Islands?

 

Somehow I associate Gauls with cattle, so I'm wondering whether an ox cart wouldn't be more appropiate for their trader. However, Celts are not my forte and I don't really know, hence my question.

At my knowledge, the cattle are used to do the labor in the field. This a meal for the wealthy, not the farmers. The donkey is attested to the transport only during the Roman era in Gaul, probably because it is something inherited from the Romans:

For the moment I see only a document saying the introduction of the Donkey and of the Mule by the Romans at end of the iron age. I will check that in one of my book with more archeological data.

Edit: Nope. No donkey, neither any mule. I read an entire chapter about animal domestication over the territory of the Senones, these species are not mentioned.

Edited March 19, 2020 by Genava55

[Nescio]

18 hours ago, Genava55 said:

At my knowledge, the cattle are used to do the labor in the field. This a meal for the wealthy, not the farmers. The donkey is attested to the transport only during the Roman era in Gaul, probably because it is something inherited from the Romans:

For the moment I see only a document saying the introduction of the Donkey and of the Mule by the Romans at end of the iron age. I will check that in one of my book with more archeological data.

Edit: Nope. No donkey, neither any mule. I read an entire chapter about animal domestication over the territory of the Senones, these species are not mentioned.

Thanks, good to know! That means both the trader and the rotary mill actors are questionable: 

Spoiler

Any recommendations?

Furthermore, do you happen to know anything on the situation on the Iberian peninsula?

[Genava55]

4 hours ago, Nescio said:

Furthermore, do you happen to know anything on the situation on the Iberian peninsula?

It seems that the donkeys were already in place during the Iron Age for the Iberians on the coast thanks to the Phenicians.

4 hours ago, Nescio said:

That means both the trader and the rotary mill actors are questionable: 

I agree.

For the trader, since it is lightweight, I would say the horse should be used.

For the Celtic rotary mill, either we question the whole concept (because it has major historical flaws like other buildings) but it means that we should also consider an alternative or modify the balance.

Or we keep the concept and we use cattle. Technically most of the rotary mills are hand driven but among the Gauls, cattle is generally used for hard work.

 

Edited March 20, 2020 by Genava55

[Nescio]

21 hours ago, Genava55 said:

For the trader, since it is lightweight, I would say the horse should be used.

Were horses more affordable than cattle?

In 0 A.D. there are four trader actor designs: donkey, dromedary camel, horse-and-cart, ox cart:

Spoiler

The former two are evidently inappropiate for the Celts, so I guess the choice is between the other two. Designing a fifth actor is significantly more work.

21 hours ago, Genava55 said:

For the Celtic rotary mill, either we question the whole concept (because it has major historical flaws like other buildings) but it means that we should also consider an alternative or modify the balance.

Personally I'd favour deprecating the rotary mill then and giving the Gauls and Britons a civ bonus or special technology instead, in addition to the 20% building time discount they already have.

21 hours ago, Genava55 said:

It seems that the donkeys were already in place during the Iron Age for the Iberians on the coast thanks to the Phenicians.

And how about the Celtiberians, Lusitani, Vascones, etc.?

[Genava55]

2 hours ago, Nescio said:

And how about the Celtiberians, Lusitani, Vascones, etc.?

For the Celtiberians, I have found data showing the presence of the donkey, at least in Upper Rio Tajo. During the Iron Age.

I don't have found data about the Lusitani or the Vascones.

2 hours ago, Nescio said:

Were horses more affordable than cattle?

Both are not really affordable. It is thought that the local landowners or small chiefs supply cattle and horses to their clients or vassals. Cattle are used to do the hard work in the fields. They are not eaten by lower class people.

However, I don't think merchants and traders were unable to get those. A trader actor with a horse-driven or cattle-driven chariots are both possible.

 

2 hours ago, Nescio said:

Personally I'd favour deprecating the rotary mill then and giving the Gauls and Britons a civ bonus or special technology instead, in addition to the 20% building time discount they already have.

For the Gauls, we know they used a kind of harvester/reaper during the iron age and that the Romans adopted the thing during the Roman Empire. That could be a special technology for the Gauls to research.

Edited March 21, 2020 by Genava55

[Nescio]

On 3/21/2020 at 2:09 PM, Genava55 said:

For the Gauls, we know they used a kind of harvester/reaper during the iron age and that the Romans adopted the thing during the Roman Empire. That could be a special technology for the Gauls to research.

D2668

Edited March 25, 2020 by Nescio
typo

[Ultimate Aurelian]

A idea for the ingame Celtic mercenaries:

Ptolemies:

• Galatian Swordsman:
  • Basic => No helmet  / Trousers / Naked or shirtless/ no cape / Long oval shield without
  • Advanced => Eastern Montefortino / Trousers / Cape /Naked chest or tunic / Long oval shield with boss
  • Elite =>Bryastovets, eastern Montefortino or Thracian / Trousers / Cape or no cape / Linothorax or Mail/ Long oval shield with shield boss and orle protection

 

Carthaginians:

• Gaulish Swordsman (Based on Narbonnian coast Gauls who traded with Greeks and Phoenicians):
  • Basic => No helmet  / Trousers / Naked chest or tunic / no cape / Long shield without boss
  • Advanced => Montefortino / Trousers / Cape / Naked chest or tunic / Long  shield with boss
  • Elite =>Decorated Montefortino / Trousers / Cape or no cape / Leather Cuirass or Mail/ Long  shield with shield boss and orle protection

• Celtic Horseman (Cisalpine):
  • Basic => No helmet  / Trousers / Naked chest or tunic / no cape / Long shield without boss
  • Advanced => Montefortino, negau / Trousers / Cape /tunic/ Long  shield with boss
  • Elite =>Crested Montefortino/ Trousers / Cape or no cape / Leather Cuirass or Mail/ Long  shield with shield boss and orle protection

Edited May 17, 2020 by Ultimate Aurelian

[Genava55]

14 hours ago, Ultimate Aurelian said:

Ptolemies:

• Galatian Swordsman:
  • Basic => No helmet  / Trousers / Naked chest or tunic / no cape / Long oval shield with boss
  • Advanced => Berru or montefortino / Trousers / Cape /Naked chest or tunic / Long oval shield with boss
  • Elite => Ciumesti, bryastovets, montefortino or thracian / Trousers / Cape or no cape / Linothorax or Mail/ Long oval shield with shield boss and orle protection

The Galatians could be entirely naked in basic as well, since they are sometimes depicted like this in terracotta.

I would disagree with the Berru helmet since it is something found during the 5th century and the first half of the 4th century, while the Galatian migration started really in the beginning of the 3rd century. Probably that the most common Celtic helmets would have been the Eastern variant of the Celtic Montefortino series:

 

Finally it is also possible that Galatian elites used more Hellenistic equipment:

https://battleshields.tumblr.com/post/12433075574/galatian-shields-these-galatian-warriors-are

http://profesorjuliodapenalosada.blogspot.com/2015/12/le-soldat-lagide.html

15 hours ago, Ultimate Aurelian said:

Carthaginians:

• Gaulish Swordsman (Based on Narbonnian coast Gauls who traded with Greeks and Phoenicians):
  • Basic => No helmet  / Trousers / Naked chest or tunic / no cape / Long shield with boss
  • Advanced => Berru or montefortino / Trousers / Cape / Naked chest or tunic / Long  shield with boss
  • Elite =>Boè or Port / Trousers / Cape or no cape / Leather Cuirass or Mail/ Long  shield with shield boss and orle protection

• Celtic Horseman (Cisalpine):
  • Basic => No helmet  / Trousers / Naked chest or tunic / no cape / Long shield with boss
  • Advanced => Coolus, negau or montefortino / Trousers / Cape or no cape /Leather armor/ Long  shield with boss
  • Elite =>Port, ciumesti or coolus / Trousers / Cape or no cape / Leather Cuirass or Mail/ Long  shield with shield boss and orle protection

The Boé, Port, Ciumesti and Coolus helmets are interesting but they are in use after the fall of Carthage (149 BC).

I think that it is possible to simply use different Celtic montefortino helmets, from simpler version to more decorated ones.

[Ultimate Aurelian]

1 hour ago, Genava55 said:

The Galatians could be entirely naked in basic as well, since they are sometimes depicted like this in terracotta.

I would disagree with the Berru helmet since it is something found during the 5th century and the first half of the 4th century, while the Galatian migration started really in the beginning of the 3rd century. Probably that the most common Celtic helmets would have been the Eastern variant of the Celtic Montefortino series:

 

Finally it is also possible that Galatian elites used more Hellenistic equipment:

https://battleshields.tumblr.com/post/12433075574/galatian-shields-these-galatian-warriors-are

http://profesorjuliodapenalosada.blogspot.com/2015/12/le-soldat-lagide.html

The Boé, Port, Ciumesti and Coolus helmets are interesting but they are in use after the fall of Carthage (149 BC).

I think that it is possible to simply use different Celtic montefortino helmets, from simpler version to more decorated ones.

 

The Ciumesti helmet dates from 4th century B.C i think; but i guess you mean that the typology did not become widespread until later.

Is the Coolus Manheim (Bronze cap without cheekguards) accurate for the punic wars timeframe ?

I think it was added to ingame Romans.

Thanks for the help, will edit it.

Using this picture as guideline, may be a bit too old.

Edited May 9, 2020 by Ultimate Aurelian

[Genava55]

1 hour ago, Ultimate Aurelian said:

The Ciumesti helmet dates from 4th century B.C i think; but i guess you mean that the typology did not become widespread until later.

I didn't say anything about the Ciumesti helmet. The Ciumesti helmet, outside of its fancy bird, has the same typology than the Eastern variants illustrated in my previous message:

Although it is probably not suited for infantrymen. Finally this burial from Ciumesti is dated for La Tène C1 by Aurel Rustoiu, which put it straight to the second half of the 3rd century BC not the 4th. So it could fit for a Galatian noble.

1 hour ago, Ultimate Aurelian said:

Is the Coolus Manheim (Bronze cap without cheekguards) accurate for the punic wars timeframe ?

Originally, there are two types of helmet with this round shape, the  bronze cap without cheekguards you are describing:

The Coolus which is slightly lighter:

The Mannheim which is slightly heavier:

 

Both are attested for the 1st century BC. There was some debate about the origins of these helmets because they have been found in both Roman and Celtic contexts. Now the typology is mostly viewed as one, the Coolus-Mannheim, to differentiate it from the later Coolus helmets in use in the imperial legions. Recently a Coolus helmet has been found in Switzerland and clearly confirms that this kind of helmet is known in native Celtic context up to 120 BC. Recently it has been suggested that the Mannheim variant was something popularized by the Romans during the Gallic Wars (and probably already slightly before). A hypothesis suggests that Julius Caesar ordered these kinds of helmet from Gallia narbonensis and Gallia Cisalpina where the oldest heavier Mannheim helmets are found.

2 hours ago, Ultimate Aurelian said:

Using this picture as guideline, may be a bit too old.

This picture is not that bad but it has a few issues. First of all, the way the helmets are presented is not suited for this kind of overview. The Celtic montefortino are in use from 400 to 150 BC approx. with a few evolution but not that much. Finally the Coolus cap is suggested to start around 200 BC, probably from the work of H.Russell-Robinson. However, this is a mistake from this author based on findings from Italy with little description (black market, 19th century archeology, private collection). He simply assumed from their shape and their technology that it could fit around the end of the 3rd century BC but recently this has been questioned especially by French and German archaeologists. The oldest reliable account is 120 BC in Switzerland.

[Ultimate Aurelian]

49 minutes ago, Genava55 said:

I didn't say anything about the Ciumesti helmet. The Ciumesti helmet, outside of its fancy bird, has the same typology than the Eastern variants illustrated in my previous message:

''The Boé, Port, Ciumesti and Coolus helmets are interesting but they are in use after the fall of Carthage (149 BC)'''.

I guess it was just a typo, would that kind of eastern Montefortino (I was using Ciumesti as short hand term.) be appropriate for Carthage mercs ?

Since you suggested it for Gauls in a older post.

Edited May 9, 2020 by Ultimate Aurelian

[Genava55]

2 hours ago, Ultimate Aurelian said:

''The Boé, Port, Ciumesti and Coolus helmets are interesting but they are in use after the fall of Carthage (149 BC)'''.

I guess it was just a typo, would that kind of eastern Montefortino (I was using Ciumesti as short hand term.) be appropriate for Carthage mercs ?

Since you suggested it for Gauls in a older post.

Ah yes a typo, sorry.

About the Eastern Montefortino, it is mostly in use in the Eastern regions but actually there is one found in Southern France at Tintignac, so I wouldn't be to strict on this.

However I think the common Celtic Montefortino found in Italy would be more widespread in Carthaginian mercs. This is the type found among Northern Iberians as well.

[Ultimate Aurelian]

1 hour ago, Genava55 said:

Ah yes a typo, sorry.

About the Eastern Montefortino, it is mostly in use in the Eastern regions but actually there is one found in Southern France at Tintignac, so I wouldn't be to strict on this.

However I think the common Celtic Montefortino found in Italy would be more widespread in Carthaginian mercs. This is the type found among Northern Iberians as well.

I agree, like with your champions; i wanted to give the mercenaries a regional flavor from the areas the Carthaginians had the most  influence(Rather than have just generic celts).

Also suggesting Cart Iberian mercenaries (Pectorale mostly disappear in Iberia around the time of the Punic Wars, except for ambiguous Roman descriptions of Celtiberian horsemen with shining armor):

• Iberian Skirmisher (Based on less celtified peoples; Illegertes ? Turdetani ? ):
  • Basic => No helmet  / Trousers / Tunic / no cape / Wicker shield
  • Advanced => Cloth or leather helmet / Trousers /Cape / tunic /Caetra
  • Elite =>Simple Iberian bronze helmet / Trousers / Cape or no cape / Local iberian soft armor or linothorax/ Caetra

• Celtiberian Horseman:
  • Basic => No helmet  / Trousers / Tunic / no cape / Caetra
  • Advanced => Leather helmet or simple bronze helmet / Trousers / Cape or no cape /Padded or Leather armor/Caetra
  • Elite =>Chalcidian or Montefortino/ Trousers / Cape or no cape / Leather, padded armor or Mail/ Caetra with bronze boss

[Genava55]

Current issues still going in A24 for the Gauls:

- Removing round shields as props everywhere for the buildings, mostly the houses.

- Moving the iron scabbard on the right side for the Gauls (elite spearman, champ. swordsman, ...)

- The Gallic heroes are still a bit fantasy.

- The Gallic temple is still not really accurate.

 

The Britons still await a complete overhaul.

Edited February 21, 2021 by Genava55

[Carltonus]

The Britons and Gauls wiki pages have been updated. Let me know if there are parts that need correction and/or expansion.

On 21/02/2021 at 12:19 AM, Genava55 said:

The Gallic heroes are still a bit fantasy [and the] temple is still not really accurate.

The Britons still await a complete overhaul.

Kindly expound.

[Genava55]

3 hours ago, Carltonus said:

Kindly expound.

This evening I will explain. I am working now.