Historicity of Broken Crescent

[Theodotos I]

Now, I realize this may look out-of-place, but it's not, trust me. I've not been able to find out just how historically accurate Broken Crescent is supposed to be. So I thought I would ask my favorite team of historians. I notice Keravnos is supplying some Greek for the mod, so it can't be trash, but I was interested in your opinions. Their forum is pretty dead here on the Guild, so I figured this was the best place to post this. Thanks ahead!

EDIT: If it's not meant to be accurate, don't mind me. I just don't know enough about the period.

[socal_infidel]

I believe their motto has always been, "Historically inspired, historically influenced, not a historic imitation." They've never claimed to be otherwise.

Cheers!

[The Persian Cataphract]

Their work is a one-of-a-kind; They have tackled an obscure era in history where the Near East was fragmented in a large number of warring states, and while gameplay-wise I feel that the rosters don't have much uniqueness between the factions, what they have done an excellent job in is in fact the historical department. The concept of a mercenary-system relying on the Deylamite and Ghulam cavalry symbiosis, is one of their most attractive features. Now, they do over-emphasize armour, which we are admittedly no less guilty of doing ourselves (:grin:), but it begs to differ with the traditional view of Eastern armies being "mainly unarmoured missile, excellent in archery but considerably poorer at melee", and I think they are doing much of the actual history justice.

As a commentator on Iranian matters though, I found it interesting that they found a way to relate the Chorasmians (Khwarezm) with the historical Parthians. Not necessarily correct, but an interesting notion. The Chorasmians, Armenians and Byzantines feel quite fleshed out; I kind of missed more of the Stratiotai-type cavalry (Which is basically the Byzantine equivalent of the Turkish Ghulam cavalry class), because they happen to be one of my most favourite Medieval cavalry units of all time :beam:

Overall, they have by large succeeded with embodifying their goals, and they have paved the road for M2TW modding considerably.

[russia almighty]

I think part of the armor problems came from some model work being done before messing with the models could be done.


They wanted, from what I heard, to give some of the cataphract units a single piece barding vs. that over lapping plate style.


The best touch was having the Turkic nomad cavalry have the rare female in the unit. I also like Makuria obviously, though I will tell you know, even though they are pretty historical, their position and shitty unit roster is historically meh. They are only for the hardcore of the hardcore.

[socal_infidel]

Three Pahlava sigs in a row:yes:

I was also pleasantly surprised to hear AD would be doing some modelling for EB II. The man is a machine. Good to know we'll see more of his work on the M2TW engine - for EB II at that!

[eggthief]

well they prefer gameplay above some, for example mirage said that they 'ressurected' the Ghaznavids because it would be in decline or something.

[Foot]

This is not the most appropriate place to do this. If you want to find out more I suggest you PM one of the mod leaders here or at the TWC. We are here to talk about EB not talk about other mods, and we all know that however proper the intentions of the OP may be, criticising a mod in a place where it is unlikely to be able to defend itself is both unfair and improper.

Do not think of the EB forums as your playground for anything, as modders we can appreciate the hardwork that has gone into BC, and because of that respect we certainly won't entertain conversations on it in such an inappropriate place as here.

Closed.

Foot