TODO for next version (v2.6)

[The Guy With No Imagination]

lol, i am only refering to inquister and caligula caesars' discussion no one else

[Sir Walter]

It's kind of important but I agree.

[florin80]

However, I don't think anyone has played until 101 AD (this is the cue for someone to prove me wrong ), which is the time when Trajan invaded Dacia, so I wouldn't say they are relevant to the Republican timeframe. Just because the Romans fought someone doesn't mean they are relevant (no one wants the Sassanids or the Huns in ). The Gatai, who are apparently not the same thing, are relevant to the timeframe. In fact, a few years before the start of the game, the Getai defeated Lysimachus, one of the Diadochs. The Getai would start on the lower Danube near the sea. I think the provinces may have to be rearranged, should they be included

They are the same people. I`m aware that a few authors have chosen to draw a line between them, but the common opinion is that they`re the same. Archeologically they show signs of the same culture. Strabo explicitly says they have the same language. Romanian historians especially refer to them as geto-dacians. You could of course try and argue against this, but what would be the point in this context? There is ample support for putting them under the same umbrella and as an rtw faction it doesn`t make sense to have them distinct. There`s no dacians vs. getai in any sort of context, mentioned in any of the ancient sources. They all seem to take them for either the same people or for two very related branches.
The term dacian is used generally by the latin writers and iirc it is introduced by them in a second century bc context(and Burebista - who Caesar contemplated a war against twice, not least because he supported Pompey - moved the power center in the Carpathians and started his conquests in the first century BC) which btw means you don`t need to wait until the early second century AD to find a relevance of the people the romans called daci or to find any significant connection between them and the roman republic. Incidentally, the crushing of the boii by Burebista`s dacians also occurs during the timeframe rtr covers and during its height the dacian state of Burebista was huge, if rather brief in existence. Getai is how the greek writers generally referred to this people. The general perception is that the getai were located south and east of the Carpathians(south of the Danube too) and the Dacians were located inside the Carpathian arc. But then again, the greeks got to know them coming from the south and south east and the romans probably got in contact with them from the west.
You also have to keep in mind of course that before the states of Burebista and, the more famous one for the western reader, that of Decebal, they were not a unified people. All those you encounter before this(including Dromichaetes) were local chieftains ruling over certain tribes or confederacies, some more successful than others. The terms getai and daci do not refer to a specific tribe or confederacy but to the whole people, pretty much as you can refer to thracians or sarmatians etc. The names might have started with a certain tribe(there`s a theory for the illyrian name similar to this), but by the time Herodotus was talking about the getai, the name had been extended to the generic sense I`ve mentioned.
Now, even if you take the getai as being strictly those from outside the Carpathian arc they`d still not be one united faction in the rtw sense of the word for most of our timeframe. Having them with one leader and one will is pretty much a rtw convention(like having the gauls as one faction).
You also have to consider that the territory they occupied is very big and more importantly, very geographically diverse. It ranges from plains that in certain areas are pretty much steppe like to the very rugged terrain of the Carpathians and areas with dense forests. That is bound to influence fighting styles and other differences. Further, the influences these people got from the outside were themselves very diverse. There was the hellenic influence coming from the greek cities in the east and from the more hellenized areas of Thrace. Then there was the scythian(and later sarmatian) influence in the east coming from the steppes. The western part(across the Carpathians) was more influenced by the celts and germanic tribes. The iron age is considered to have been introduced to the geto-dacians from two main directions(western - celtic and southern/south-eastern - greek). So, again, you can expect these to have further influenced a diversity in equipment throughout the geto-dacian areal.
Now, the reason the getai is preferred as a name for the faction is that for the start of the rtr mods(or eb and others) this is the term that was the most common for the people of this area and using the term the greeks have introduced, during a timeframe that is largely hellenistic makes sense. And I suspect the reason why generally the getai are depicted in rtw mods south and east of the Carpathians is not because the intra carpathic region is left free for the "dacians", but because in the 3rd and second centuries BC you have lots of celts running around that area and while the natives are still attested around there(in an apparent modus vivendi with the newcomers) you have to think that the ruling power was pretty much in the hands of the celts for large areas.
So to return to your statement, the better way to put it is that if you have the getai you have the dacians too.

[Sir Walter]

[AqD]

progress update:

- A mixed steppe faction has been added on campaign with basic scythian units borrowed from RG. I'll add at least 2 heavy cav, and probably some special units from the east (such as chinese crossbowmen ) It will be unplayable.

- The framework for multi-language support is all done.

I wonder if I should make the Mauryan empire unplayable too



Dacians and Pergamon kingdom will be scheduled after new bosporan/greek units are completed

[Sir Walter]

progress update:

- A mixed steppe faction has been added on campaign with basic scythian units borrowed from RG. I'll add at least 2 heavy cav, and probably some special units from the east (such as chinese crossbowmen ) It will be unplayable.

No, playable

I wonder if I should make the Mauryan empire unplayable too

Dacians and Pergamon kingdom will be scheduled after new bosporan/greek units are completed

Dacians first of course

[florin80]

I wonder if I should make the Mauryan empire unplayable too

What purpose would that serve? I mean if people don`t want to play them they`ll be unplayable de facto, but why force the option on them? You`ll lose some indian fans if you do.

[AqD]

What purpose would that serve? I mean if people don`t want to play them they`ll be unplayable de facto, but why force the option on them? You`ll lose some indian fans if you do.

Because they're incomplete, ahistorical (map too small!), and too easy.....

all right

[Caligula Caesar]

They are the same people. I`m aware that a few authors have chosen to draw a line between them, but the common opinion is that they`re the same. Archeologically they show signs of the same culture. Strabo explicitly says they have the same language. Romanian historians especially refer to them as geto-dacians. You could of course try and argue against this, but what would be the point in this context? There is ample support for putting them under the same umbrella and as an rtw faction it doesn`t make sense to have them distinct. There`s no dacians vs. getai in any sort of context, mentioned in any of the ancient sources. They all seem to take them for either the same people or for two very related branches.
The term dacian is used generally by the latin writers and iirc it is introduced by them in a second century bc context(and Burebista - who Caesar contemplated a war against twice, not least because he supported Pompey - moved the power center in the Carpathians and started his conquests in the first century BC) which btw means you don`t need to wait until the early second century AD to find a relevance of the people the romans called daci or to find any significant connection between them and the roman republic. Incidentally, the crushing of the boii by Burebista`s dacians also occurs during the timeframe rtr covers and during its height the dacian state of Burebista was huge, if rather brief in existence. Getai is how the greek writers generally referred to this people. The general perception is that the getai were located south and east of the Carpathians(south of the Danube too) and the Dacians were located inside the Carpathian arc. But then again, the greeks got to know them coming from the south and south east and the romans probably got in contact with them from the west.
You also have to keep in mind of course that before the states of Burebista and, the more famous one for the western reader, that of Decebal, they were not a unified people. All those you encounter before this(including Dromichaetes) were local chieftains ruling over certain tribes or confederacies, some more successful than others. The terms getai and daci do not refer to a specific tribe or confederacy but to the whole people, pretty much as you can refer to thracians or sarmatians etc. The names might have started with a certain tribe(there`s a theory for the illyrian name similar to this), but by the time Herodotus was talking about the getai, the name had been extended to the generic sense I`ve mentioned.
Now, even if you take the getai as being strictly those from outside the Carpathian arc they`d still not be one united faction in the rtw sense of the word for most of our timeframe. Having them with one leader and one will is pretty much a rtw convention(like having the gauls as one faction).
You also have to consider that the territory they occupied is very big and more importantly, very geographically diverse. It ranges from plains that in certain areas are pretty much steppe like to the very rugged terrain of the Carpathians and areas with dense forests. That is bound to influence fighting styles and other differences. Further, the influences these people got from the outside were themselves very diverse. There was the hellenic influence coming from the greek cities in the east and from the more hellenized areas of Thrace. Then there was the scythian(and later sarmatian) influence in the east coming from the steppes. The western part(across the Carpathians) was more influenced by the celts and germanic tribes. The iron age is considered to have been introduced to the geto-dacians from two main directions(western - celtic and southern/south-eastern - greek). So, again, you can expect these to have further influenced a diversity in equipment throughout the geto-dacian areal.
Now, the reason the getai is preferred as a name for the faction is that for the start of the rtr mods(or eb and others) this is the term that was the most common for the people of this area and using the term the greeks have introduced, during a timeframe that is largely hellenistic makes sense. And I suspect the reason why generally the getai are depicted in rtw mods south and east of the Carpathians is not because the intra carpathic region is left free for the "dacians", but because in the 3rd and second centuries BC you have lots of celts running around that area and while the natives are still attested around there(in an apparent modus vivendi with the newcomers) you have to think that the ruling power was pretty much in the hands of the celts for large areas.
So to return to your statement, the better way to put it is that if you have the getai you have the dacians too.

Ok, I admit I'm not really a specialist on that region. From what I can see, whether or not they are the same people depends on who you ask and is open to debate. They do appear to be of the same culture, though.

On a side note, since I don't think anyone who wrote things down ever went beyond the Carpathians (correct me if I'm wrong), so it is hard to tell the extent of the Getai/Dacians in the third century BC.

BTW, I am sorry about the other... discussion that took place on this thread.

[Sir Walter]

Because they're incomplete, ahistorical (map too small!), and too easy.....

all right

Map too small and too easy cancel each other out?

[AqD]

Map too small and too easy cancel each other out?

Well you cannot play a real saka or mauryan empire anyway..... And I have no plan to change the map

[Caligula Caesar]

But why shouldn't we be allowed to play them? Anyway, a faction which controls so much of the world on the map (Indus Valley and 3 Persian satrapies) should be there.

[AqD]

But why shouldn't we be allowed to play them? Anyway, a faction which controls so much of the world on the map (Indus Valley and 3 Persian satrapies) should be there.

if it's made unplayable, I could boost their unit size Such as 60 / 240 horse archers per unit



if not..... their armies and the supposed invasions would be be too easy to beat as soon as the player raises just one army

[Caligula Caesar]

Just give them more money. Wouldn't that do the same?

[florin80]

Ok, I admit I'm not really a specialist on that region. From what I can see, whether or not they are the same people depends on who you ask and is open to debate.

Almost everything regarding the ancient world is open to debate and you`ll have someone argue against each generally accepted thing. Out of curiosity, who did you "ask"? So far, the theories I`ve seen that divorce the dacians from the getai are mainly based on the fact that one can challange if he so whises about everything the supporters of the unity theory bring forward. How was Strabo able to know the getai and dacians were speaking the same language? How relevant is the culture zones seen in archeology in defining the same people? etc. etc. In other words, generally negative arguments. But then again, you can do that with pretty much everything and the problem with putting doubt behind everything that is not surely sure, you`re left with disparate episodes and artifacts that tell no story. Which would be horrible for the scope of a tw game.
The problem with the geto-dacians is that they`re more a concern for the romanian or bulgarian historians with few of their works translated into french, german or english to be available to the general public outside these countries. If you do a search now on amazon for example you`ll notice that besides a couple books on Dacia written by romanian writers there`s only MacKendrick`s books that as its title suggests is primarily concerned with archaeology. And you also have the two Ospreys(on thracians that touches the getai and the second on germans and dacians). That`s about it devoted to this subject in particular that`s available for the general english reader atm.
For whatever reason, there`s seemingly a general lack of interest in this subject outside the countries I`ve mentioned. I`m saying this because most of the other writers I`ve come across briefly mention the getai when they`re in contact with the hellenistic powers and then they have the widest range of opinion on them. In what looks like the description of Alexander`s brief expedition against the getai, Warry for example in his Osprey title on Alexander has him crossing the Danube to fight the Scythian! allies of the thracians. It leaves me the impression that people feel it free to write about them on the grounds of "who the hell knows best and could contradict me"/"who the hell cares".
The dacians figure more prominently due to the wars with Trajan, but even then just as brief as needed to complete the roman story that is being told, from the roman perspective.
As a result you hear people around here saying that it`s ok the dacians go down every time in x or y mod because historically! they never extended from their homeland anyway. Then what a heck was Burebista doing so successfully?

On a side note, since I don't think anyone who wrote things down ever went beyond the Carpathians (correct me if I'm wrong), so it is hard to tell the extent of the Getai/Dacians in the third century BC.

It`s done via archeology mostly(like identifying a certain type of ceramic that was both local and common throughout the whole region) and piecing together other scratches of information. There certainly was commerce with that region from the outside. So it wasn`t out of contact with the outer world. Via the merchants was probably one of the most common sources of information for the greek or latin historians. Modern writers at least often assume that this is how x or y ancient writer mush have got his info.
Btw, I hope I haven`t seem competitive and/or annoying with these two posts.

Because they're incomplete, ahistorical (map too small!), and too easy.....

OMG! you have such high standards that you take as a duty to impose on the less ... meritous gamers to bar them from going beyond temptation.

[Caligula Caesar]

Almost everything regarding the ancient world is open to debate and you`ll have someone argue against each generally accepted thing. Out of curiosity, who did you "ask"? So far, the theories I`ve seen that divorce the dacians from the getai are mainly based on the fact that one can challange if he so whises about everything the supporters of the unity theory bring forward. How was Strabo able to know the getai and dacians were speaking the same language? How relevant is the culture zones seen in archeology in defining the same people? etc. etc. In other words, generally negative arguments. But then again, you can do that with pretty much everything and the problem with putting doubt behind everything that is not surely sure, you`re left with disparate episodes and artifacts that tell no story. Which would be horrible for the scope of a tw game.
The problem with the geto-dacians is that they`re more a concern for the romanian or bulgarian historians with few of their works translated into french, german or english to be available to the general public outside these countries. If you do a search now on amazon for example you`ll notice that besides a couple books on Dacia written by romanian writers there`s only MacKendrick`s books that as its title suggests is primarily concerned with archaeology. And you also have the two Ospreys(on thracians that touches the getai and the second on germans and dacians). That`s about it devoted to this subject in particular that`s available for the general english reader atm.
For whatever reason, there`s seemingly a general lack of interest in this subject outside the countries I`ve mentioned. I`m saying this because most of the other writers I`ve come across briefly mention the getai when they`re in contact with the hellenistic powers and then they have the widest range of opinion on them. In what looks like the description of Alexander`s brief expedition against the getai, Warry for example in his Osprey title on Alexander has him crossing the Danube to fight the Scythian! allies of the thracians. It leaves me the impression that people feel it free to write about them on the grounds of "who the hell knows best and could contradict me"/"who the hell cares".
The dacians figure more prominently due to the wars with Trajan, but even then just as brief as needed to complete the roman story that is being told, from the roman perspective.
As a result you hear people around here saying that it`s ok the dacians go down every time in x or y mod because historically! they never extended from their homeland anyway. Then what the heck was Burebista doing so successfully?

Well, the lack of information written in English is one of the problems I encountered when trying to look them up. On the internet, I can find various things. On wikipedia, about 5 (!) different viewpoints are mentioned! Anyway, I asked Wien1938, who admittedly doesn't specialise on the Dacians either but told me the Getai lived on the lower Danube in Bulgaria and the Dacians only came later, with Burebista.

You know, a little while back, I saw a documentary which claimed that there is no archaeological evidence for the Saxon invasion and that the Romano Britains prospered after the Roman withdrawal!

It`s done via archeology mostly(like identifying a certain type of ceramic that was both local and common throughout the whole region) and piecing together other scratches of information. There certainly was commerce with that region from the outside. So it wasn`t out of contact with the outer world. Via the merchants was probably one of the most common sources of information for the greek or latin historians. Modern writers at least often assume that this is how x or y ancient writer mush have got his info.
Btw, I hope I haven`t seem competitive and/or annoying with these two posts.

Well, I for one can't see archaeology showing the two places as united, only of the same culture. I mean, the Arverni and the Veneti (in Brittany) were both Gallic, and they certainly weren't united. Good point with the merchants though. I have always wondered how far the merchants travelled from their own countries...

Oh, and you don't seem competitive or annoying. I mean, people are allowed to disagree with me - it is the way in which they do so that dictates whether they are annoying

[florin80]

Well, I for one can't see archaeology showing the two places as united, only of the same culture.

Right, and they weren`t united for most of the RTR`s timeframe. By which I don`t mean getai and dacians, but the many tribes mentioned in the sources for the whole areal. There`s a whole bunch of chieftains with their centers of power implied to be in different places.

Anyway, I asked Wien1938, who admittedly doesn't specialise on the Dacians either but told me the Getai lived on the lower Danube in Bulgaria and the Dacians only came later, with Burebista.

Just for the record, I don`t pretend to specialize in this either. I`ve studied it in school and besides the titles generally available in english I`ve also read a few others. But I don`t do this for a living.
About the getai in Bulgaria. They clearly extended there, but they were located north of the Danube too. I`d say mainly. Of course, when it comes to Dromichaetes there`s a whole issue on where to place his capital. The Bulgarians have found it south of the Danube(in Bulgaria) and the romanian archaeologists have found it in what the english readers know as Wallachia(in modern Romania). Which is the right Helis? For me personally given how the story goes(with who advances where and back) it makes little sense to have it south of the Danube, but anyway...
About the books. MacKendrick`s work, The Dacian Stones Speak, was, for me, a very enjoyable read. He went to Romania with an interest in the archaeological finds, but instead of putting together a dry boring text in the lines of "tomb x, body at this angle, pottery near the head, sword at the feet" phrase after phrase he managed to write it a bit like a journal, describing some of his personal experiences, with a bit of humor from here and there. It`s not a history of the dacians in the action orientated sense, but if you can, try to buy or borrow it because it`s still available. There`s a lot of info in it and you might like it. And there are few if any alternatives if you don`t speak romanian.

Good point with the merchants though. I have always wondered how far the merchants travelled from their own countries...

Pretty far apparently. Many of the exploration stories have a mercantile stratum to them. Now, if you get attic pottery or whatever in x dig, associated with y period you may guess it arrived there somehow through trade. But if the greek merchants went all the way to Grădiştea Muncelului in person or stopped somewhere on a danubian port/village and from there the goods were picked up by native traders is hard to know. Still, these meeting would have facilitated an exchange of stories/information I`d imagine.

[AqD]

Just give them more money. Wouldn't that do the same?

no. Money cannot make battle more difficult

[AqD]

Perhaps the Thracians should be merged with Pergamon kingdom?

[Sir Walter]

Perhaps the Thracians should be merged with Pergamon kingdom?

No. They were conquered at different times and fought differently. Stick to making Mauryans playable.