Re: Faction summary: Britons
If we can make the Britons this interesting to play with, we should do the same with other factions. The Britons would be a good faction for HRTW
Re: Faction summary: Britons
Edorix, no offense, but can you mod at all? Most of the so called "historian-researchers" are just useless in the modding world. Why? They only copy and paste info from webs and books saying "this should be included, this not, etc"; but other than that they don't do anything at all. Post like this abput factions almost anyone can do them, but to speak of what needs to be done to do it in-game is a different matter. As a modder myself, ahowl11 i'm telling you britons are not worth the effort (off course i'm not at 100% in the team, so my opinion could be taken just as a tought). But unless you have excellent codders to create all that Edorix has said, or Edorix does it himself they should NOT be included.
Also i would suggest to you ahowl11 that every faction discussion like this SHOULD be supported with ideas of what needs to be modded to implement them in-game, even if their positions are "historians", as RTW players we all here know what can be done and what can't (even if we're not able to do it ourselves).
Re: Faction summary: Britons
I am with Xpartacus - britons are not worth the effort, since they are a small, historically insignificant faction. Not to mention, they had crazy problems with the fact that they never unite under one power. Regarding them those are my 5 cents (as we say in Bulgaria).
Re: Faction summary: Britons
The thing is, though, Edorix does mod, and he has his own mod, "Pritanoi Reborn".
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/downl...o=file&id=3097
And by the way this is why we are discussing everything before moving forward. Obviously not everyone will get exactly what they want but hearing everyone's opinions helps a great deal. At least give credit to Edorix for taking the time to write all of that out. He has said that he loves the Britons and I'm sure he would not just copy and paste that information from the internet or books. That was a well thought out plan, and since it was well thought out, I will definitely give the Britons major consideration. You see I would not care what faction Edorix was proposing, but the fact that it was clear, understandable and professional makes the idea of having the Britons in game a good possibility. And the fact that he has the ability to mod, backs up his proposition.
If anyone wants a particular faction give clear reasons why, and good back up with historical research and something unique about the faction. I don't care if it was the Umbrians or the city of Argos. If you provide clear propositions such as above your faction will get consideration.
Also your arguments are well noted. It will be a tough call. The Britons are on the bubble for sure. I would like to see them, but if a better faction came along it might cause conflict.
Re: Faction summary: Britons
Oh, i see... personal warning tho - be careful when we get to the thracian/getic/dacian factions.
Re: Faction summary: Britons
Are you going to propose a Getic faction? I'm all for one. But more than one could be pushing it, unless we decide to make Thrace Getic instead of Hellenic.. That should be an entire topic in itself.
Let me make a thread for them. This thread is about the Britons only
Re: Faction summary: Britons
Sorry I'm late, I got lost on the path of life. :P
Anyway, jokes aside, wanted to complement Edorix for his knowledge and summary of the ancient Britons.
@hameleona
A Getic Thrace would be interesting, however Thrace is somewhat of a unique faction, no matter in which form is included in mods, it really spices up the game.
@Xpartacus
I was offended by your comment on "historian-researchers". Just kidding, everybody has his opinions, and I shall point out that you are right up to some point. I kinda feel useless myself sometimes because I cannot mod, however once upon a time (in 2010) I wanted to make a minimod of mine for RTW vanilla multiplayer, with the purpose of balancing the factions by changing the stats of the units and importing some from BI and ALX. It failed because of the overly conservative RTW MP players that liked Gaul and Spain getting smashed all the time and the overpowered Pontus and Egypt beating every other faction with almost no effort.
Re: Faction summary: Britons
I'm sorry if i offended anyone, i didn't meant that EVERY historian is useless, what i tried to point out is that if you check any mods new threads you'll see at least 3 wanna be "historians" (at least) for every 1 modder (name skinner, modeller, codder, mapper, etc). I by no means say your work is worthless, but to be real historians you need to support your opinion with sources (a real research provides at least 4-5 different sources), since the ones that are actually useless just copy-paste (specially from wikipedia), take the info they provide as granted and that's it. I saw once a modding thread were "historians" just kept pointing out cities and more cities, i counted and they had around 300 cities just for Europe and North Africa.... so much for a researcher huh? So, historians not only should provide information, they provide letters and more letters about units and never at least provide a image (or 2-3) for modellers to base their work, etc. All i'm saying is as historian you just don't say tons of words withput knowing if it is even going to be possible to achieve.
Re: Faction summary: Britons
Don't worry I wasn't offended. I do find images for the modders, because it makes their work easier, and I don't really like to copy - paste wikipedia itself, just its sources.
Re: Faction summary: Britons
Xpartacus, you're quite right to demand sources. The problem is I don't remember all the places my knowledge has come from. However the main sources I can think of that I have drawn on for this article are:
- Cunliffe, Barry Iron Age Communities in Britain: An Account of England, Scotland and Wales from the 7th Century BCE until the Roman Conquest, 2005.
- Finney, Jon Bryant Middle Iron Age Warfare of the Hillfort-Dominated Zone c.400 BCE to c.150 BCE, 2005.
- Cunliffe, Barry The Ancient Celts, 1999.
- Caesar's Commentaries on the Gallic War, Books IV and V.
Although if you want proof that this is not plagiarised, it would have taken you about thirty seconds to google one of my paragraphs and discover that it is not. It might be worth remembering that in the future before you make such an insulting suggestion.
As for my own credentials, I will publish no details here save that I have an outstanding general academic record and am engaged in work on the barbarian factions for Europa Barbarorum II.
Quote:
Post like this abput factions almost anyone can do them
No, they can't. Not posts like this, and not about this faction. Thank you.
Quote:
But unless you have excellent codders to create all that Edorix has said, or Edorix does it himself they should NOT be included.
It does not require advanced coding. The only tricky part as far as I can see is a) triggering the reform and b) remodelling the buildings and altering the settlement layouts. a) I am not familiar with scripting, but many mods have reforms so I do not think it should be too difficult to come to some simple and good compromise. I do not foresee that that should be a problem. b) I am not familiar with modelling buildings either; however, this is not even required. The only things that would remodelling rather than simply re-arranging are the tier 3 central building, the temple tree, and the addition of those square storehouses. I don't think any of that should be very challenging.
I have not thus far offered my skills as a modder because I would rather not commit myself in that department. I can mod, but I generally lack the patience to make anything really good. I am signed on as a historical advisor for the barbarian factions. I do not say that I will not contribute, but I certainly do not say that I will do any more work.
To nuance my own post, I will emphasise that the unit roster I suggested is just that - a suggestion, based on the archaeological and historical evidence, and the criteria of gameplay. Also the temple tree is far from perfect. Barrows and standing stones were revered by the Ancient Britons and incorporated into settlements, but they weren't "constructed" for veneration, if you see what I mean; they were already there. The totem poles are academically defendable however. The alternative is not to put the religious buildings in the settlement at all so we don't have to worry about the battle-map models, and stick with the sacred grove idea, for which I can make a different tree.
Quote:
i'm telling you britons are not worth the effort
Quote:
I am with Xpartacus - britons are not worth the effort, since they are a small, historically insignificant faction. Not to mention, they had crazy problems with the fact that they never unite under one power. Regarding them those are my 5 cents (as we say in Bulgaria).
These are prudent and important remarks, and it is a big question. Whether the Britons were important or not all depends on your perspective. They were certainly iconic, both then and now; but their political influence was admittedly nil. That is one of the reasons why however they are such an interesting faction. While much of Europe was building massive empires and waging calamitous wars, the Britons were having small-scale conflicts with each other. Towards the end of the game period, this began to change, and a single superpower did begin to emerge; that's when Rome stepped in.
But isn't the whole purpose of Total War to change the course of history? To sack Rome as the Carthaginians? To conquer Egypt as the Seleucid Empire? To lead a small obscure tribe on the edge of the known world to become an empire spanning its entire breadth?
Furthermore, you can make the Britons one of the most historically accurate factions in the mod thanks to my help and enthusiasm.
However, it is true, there is an argument to be had here. There could well be other factions that deserve a faction slot better than the Britons. However, that is for the "which factions?" thread; we cannot decide that Britain should be excluded because there is a better candidate, without seeing all the other candidates to compare them to. I suggest therefore that this discussion move over there.
Re: Faction summary: Britons
I personaly have nothing against britons.They are for me fun to play in the vanilla game and I do not see why shouldn't we put them in our mod.
If somebody says that Britons or some factions are wortless,you can say the same for every faction that got conquered by the Romans or generaly for every faction that got conquered...But remember why the Romans builded the Hadrian wall in Britain ?...or what happened in the Teutoburg forest ?...Those parts were never conquered by the mighty Rome...
For example if you play as Numidia you can say,ah they are worthless as they were just fighting between themselves and one tribe supported Romans one Carthaginians,eventualy they were conquered in the end,so they are worthless ?
The point of this game is that you change things that didn't realy happen in history,you write your own history with the faction you choose to play as in the time between 280BC-30BC...
And other view I like and that was said by Edorix :
If we play as Britons,Gauls,Germans,Thracians and so on then it is alright in my mind if you make a great kingdom or empire with them,But if you play with Suebi,Aedui,Boii or Arverni then it is for me illogical that with just one tribe you conquere the whole world and that would be preaty much not historical.