Jump to content

Inclusion of regional differentiation for Celtic factions


Recommended Posts

Opening a new thread instead of flooding the one concerning the rework of the Britons.

Stan asked me if it was possible to have technologies specific to the tribes, I include in this suggestion any regional characteristics that could be used, including from neighboring cultures.

On 06/04/2021 at 10:37 PM, Stan` said:

How about having techs specific to the different tribes ? Ideally paired techs. Could unlock some unit rather than an arverni one? 

I already made a similar suggestion in the past concerning some regional units, notable a Lepontian axeman and a Rhenish anti-cavalry horseman. Although maybe it is a good opportunity to open-up a new thread with various similar ideas that could work for the Gauls or for the Britons. I won't give reference for everything because this is long and generally nobody cares so only on demand.

- Lepontian/Lepontii, unique axeman unit (for Gauls).

Spoiler

The Lepontii are a people characterized in particular by the culture of Golasecca, a Celtic culture that preceded the arrival of the culture of La Tène during the 5th and 4th centuries. This people have kept unique characteristics despite the influence of the culture of La Tène and also shares some specificities related to weaponry with their Rhaetian neighbors. Notably some unique helmets and a local type of axe:

https://wildfiregames.com/forum/uploads/monthly_2019_02/image.jpeg.8c0c8e1dee41f303e7662c3d3c8b846f.jpeg

image.thumb.jpeg.538e0bdda2f2e3397ac67c8a29bbabd1.jpeg

image.thumb.jpeg.a897d580b846dd1600549f1e1ecdb310.jpeg

http://www.rupestre.it/valcamonica_rupestre/img/img093.JPG

http://www.rupestre.it/valcamonica_rupestre/img/img114.JPG

http://www.rupestre.it/valcamonica_rupestre/img/img108.JPG

Peut être une image en noir et blanc de animal et vêtements d’extérieur

 

- Treveri/Treverian, cavalry tech bonus + agrarian tech bonus (for Gauls). The Treveri were described by Caesar as having the most powerful cavalry in Gaul, and they were well-known for their courage. So I suggest a unique tech giving them a bonus for the cavalry. Finally the famous reaper added for the Gauls as a tech is a particular development from Eastern-Gaul where the Treveri are. Probably because of the climate and of a particular crop that work well with this kind of reaper. So they could have this bonus tech as well.

- Aquitani, bonus for the infantry champion (for Gauls). The Sotiates, an Aquitanian tribe, made a strong last stand against the Romans with a famous mention of the Soldurii, a kind of bodyguard, that defended their king to the death.

- Lemovices, bonus for metal mining (for Gauls). Their territory is well-known to have count numerous auriferous deposits, both from archaeological excavations and literal accounts. 

- Norici / Taurisci, bonus for metallurgy or unique tech for steel weapons (for Gauls). Tribes from Noricum are described as having produced high quality steel by classical accounts.

- Belgians / Belgic / Belgae, combination of bonus for guerilla from Eburones and Nervii references (for Gauls and Britons). In Caesar's account, the Eburones outmatched a few times the Romans by their cunning tactics and their volley of missiles. Finally the Nervii are described as having a weak cavalry but compensating with their infantry. They used also some cunning tactics by working with branches and wooden traps to block the cavalry.

- Armorican, bonus for navy and bonus for forts (for Gauls and Britons). The Armoricans were known for their navy, notably during the conflict between the confederacy leaded by the Veneti against the Romans. So a small bonus for their military ship. Finally, the Armoricans have built an impressive multi-layered fort inside the oppidum of Paule so they could have a bonus for their fortress or a defensive bonus for the Civic-Center.

-------------------------------------------

I need to find the equivalents for the Britons but the sources are sh*ttier so it takes time.

 

Edited by Genava55
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

By the way, it seems that the iron scythe (the farming tool) has been really popularized by iron age population from Central Europe. I wasn't sure about the commentary of Olivier Buchsenschutz ("They invented the plough, a rudimentary harvester and the rotating millstone. They also invented the scythe, which means that they store hay, and they can keep their livestock in winter.") in an article for National Geographic, but it seems real, I discovered later that the earliest scythes have been found in Switzerland, dated around 800 BC* (I didn't know) so why not including this reference as an alternative to the reaper (which could be specific instead).

*The Western European Loess Belt: Agrarian History, 5300 BC - AD 1000. Pages 118-119 and 221.

Edited by Genava55
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Genava55 said:

Does this kind of proposals interesting or am I wasting my time? (I got tired of my monologues)

I like the beginning, but it takes time to assimilate so much information.

 

also some prominent members have been absent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Genava55 said:

By the way, it seems that the iron scythe (the farming tool) has been really popularized by iron age population from Central Europe. I wasn't sure about the commentary of Olivier Buchsenschutz ("They invented the plough, a rudimentary harvester and the rotating millstone. They also invented the scythe, which means that they store hay, and they can keep their livestock in winter.") in an article for National Geographic, but it seems real, I discovered later that the earliest scythes have been found in Switzerland, dated around 800 BC* (I didn't know) so why not including this reference as an alternative to the reaper (which could be specific instead).

*The Western European Loess Belt: Agrarian History, 5300 BC - AD 1000. Pages 118-119 and 221.

It would be good if you could give us suggestions so that we can quickly without reading so much how we translate this into gameplay terms makes it easier to interact and understand each other.

There is a lot to read in this forum, and there are other civs and factions fighting for attention right now.We are a little short of staff after a while especially in the area of gameplay especially those who are dedicated to making the patches.

 

@Nescio I think we need your attention and your wisdom here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Genava55 said:

Does this kind of proposals interesting or am I wasting my time? (I got tired of my monologues)

I think it could be worthwhile. I also booted a game Praetorians with Aedui tribe,who were often allies of the Romans. I also think Helvetii and Arverni might be a good candidate. I especially like the Armorican suggestion

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LetswaveaBook said:

I think it could be worthwhile. I also booted a game Praetorians with Aedui tribe,who were often allies of the Romans. I also think Helvetii and Arverni might be a good candidate. I especially like the Armorican suggestion

The Aedui were precursors in minting coins (trading related bonus?). The Arverni were particularly hegemonic (more centralized monarchy, a lot of aristocratic burials, several locations producing artisanal goods identified in the archaeological record) so maybe a bonus for territory control (territorial extension, capture efficiency, capture resistance or something else). The Helvetii were a people that could have migrated several times and that resisted to Germanic aggression, there is also the famous mention of the phalanx they used but in reality the phalanx have been used several times in the past by other tribes (this is really common), so maybe a discount for their first building? (the 1st CC, the 1st barrack etc. I don't know if this is possible or too complicated).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
35 minutes ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:

The Arverni are kind of a must to incorporate as most of the heroes for Gaul are from that tribe.  I do like a lot of these elements, going along the lines of each of these choices representing the tribes confederating.

Finding examples for the Gauls is not an issue for me, I have read enough to get ideas. The Britons are tougher because numerous books from Tacitus are lost and a detailed account similar to Caesar's is missing. The archaeological record is also very much smaller, first because of the reduced area concerned but also because of the cultural context more complicated with simply less findings (burial practices less favorable to conservation). This thread is more to generate a talk of what could be needed if tribal specific tech are implemented.

Edited by Genava55
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

In our case it would not be choosing heroes, it would be choosing tribes, dynasties and even forms of government or sub factions.

I can go really far in the specificities if this is needed, almost like unique sub-factions, not with tribes directly but with regional zones.

For example:

The player chose Central Gaul => Arverni (Vercingetorix and Bituitus + centralized elected monarchy) or Aedui (Dumnorix and Divitiacus, oligarchy with two supreme offices, a civil magistrate, the vergobretos, and a military one) or Senones (Brennos and Acco, elected monarchy).

The same for Belgium with other tribes etc. There are also Cisalpine Gauls and Eastern tribes (Boii, Scordisci, Taurisci, Tylis kingdom, Galatians etc.).

The only thing is how to implement a specific government, how it could bring something to the gameplay.

For me the most important is to differentiate the Gauls and the Britons. The former should be more offensive than the latter, and the latter should be more oriented to guerilla and mobility. But including a few specificities, this is also something I support.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Genava55 said:

For me the most important is to differentiate the Gauls and the Britons. The former should be more offensive than the latter, and the latter should be more oriented to guerilla and mobility. But including a few specificities, this is also something I support.

 

Indeed. I think the Gauls would be for more of a straight stand-up fight, with their heavier chain armor and more elaborate set of helmets and formations, while Britons would use lighter warfare (skirmishing with javelineers and chariots). Plus, I think Gaul was (relatively) heavily populated and more conducive to large-scale military actions and musterings. Caesar alone probably killed half a million Gauls and enslaved another half-million, and it's not like he depopulated the entire countryside either. They were also known for their decent cavalry, while the Britons were not. So, yet another good way to differentiate.

The game really needs a better, larger tech tree for the Forge, that way we can pick and choose armor and weapon techs appropriate to the civs. Also, if the game (EA) had Promotion techs (like DE does) you could emphasize the importance of different unit types on a civ-by-civ basis. So, even if 2 civs had identical rosters you could differentiate them by allow each of those civs to promote different types/classes of units.

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

  • 3 weeks later...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...