View Full Version : Europa Barbarorum
Just seems to me that it'd strike a better balance between armies, than having Carthage have to either: A. Pump itself with mercenaries, or B. Be able to build units like aforementioned Gallic units, even in places where it'd make no sense for them to have that unit.
In a similar vein, this could be good for all of the factions, allowing them to hire a few things from other factions, though, for the purposes of being true to Carthage's military style of hiring so many locals, I'd imagine they should probably have more.
Steppe Merc
10-13-2004, 22:55
Yeah. It wouldn't be such a strech for Sarmatians to get Scythians as troops, or even Parthians recruiting Sarmatians/Scythians.
However, it would be better if we could do this via mercanaries, but since the mercanaries have to be totally seperate units, this creates some problems. Also, it would be better if rebels could be bribed, but again, I have yet to have a rebel army want to join me with the bribe.
I had originally thought it'd be best to go with mercenaries too, but right, there are issues with it. I know my idea for it isn't perfect, but, I dunno, seemed plausible, at least, and doable, too.
As for rebel armies, make the units that rebel armies use 'mercenary' units. Like, if you bribe the garisson in Ilyria, they'll join you because they're mercenary units, not the 'slave' units. Make the slave units mercenary, maybe? I'm not totally sure how it'd be done.
Aymar de Bois Mauri
10-13-2004, 23:48
1) Start a new thread, preferrably in the Dungeon, where we can begin the process of working on the mod. This existing Colosseum thread can continue to be a place for historical and unit research. However, it is too crowded to see quickly what must be done, so I think a new thread for starting the work is a necessity.
I agree. We'll keep posting Historical info here and we'll deal with the technical issues in the Dungeon.
2) Begin setting objectives for what we want to accomplish, and laying out steps to get there.
Teutonic Knight is already taking care of condensing Historical info and organizing the specific units to be altered. The rest still has to be appointed.
3) Determine who wants to take on which parts of the work of the mod.
We'll have to make a list like the one we have here.
4) Determine what parts of the mod can be done in parallel, and what dependencies exist. Begin laying out a plan for what work is done in what order.
Agreed. Who do you think should be in charge of this? Any volunteers?
With the agreement of the good people here, I will set up a thread in the Dungeon for beginning the process, and getting the ball rolling. Since I haven't read this entire monster thread, I apologize if this has been suggested, but in the "work" thread I also suggest we lay out our skills and interests so we know who we are working with.
Yes, I think it's a good idea. People should volunteer according to their area of expertise and interest.
But, please everyone, make it in the new EB thread at the Dungeon.
Done. Take a look here:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=37988
I, for one, am excited!
-khel
Aymar de Bois Mauri
10-14-2004, 01:49
The unit files, and all the other files that begin with export_, have a very specific format which, deviated from, causes the game to CTD upon loading. There is no script able to be added to the unit file that we can make changes in this way. In fact, adding anything foreign at all except for data in the exact format required is impossible. These files appear to literally be an export from a spreadsheet, no doubt part of the CA in-house editting tools.
The trick for changing the formations, or at least how they are handled, must therefore be found elsewhere, and I have not yet found it.
Argh!! :angry: That is not what I expected. :sad: I'll have to delve in, when I have the game, to find an alternative.
I like it; of course we'll need to test and tweak it I am sure. Also, as far as I can tell from all of my reading, would the Romans field more than one type of cavalry? Other than giving incentive to upgrade buildings, and get "better" units, I can't see justification for including more than one type of cavalry pre-Marian and post-Marian. Unless we want to go with the "extraordinarii" elite unit concept.
How many are in the game? 3, 4?
If we go for the Extraordinarii, we already have the graphics for them. We'll just use one of the existing ones.
Sorry, I wasn't clear. Connolly states that Livy did not say what the Hastati and Principes were armed with. Livy writes c. 340 BC. Connolly goes on to say that in Polybius' day (c. 160 BC) they were armed with pila. He then notes that we know they were in use at this time (Livy's day, c. 340). I was simply saying that we should assume, as Connolly does, that the early Hastati and Principes were armed with pila, unless we find a source that states definitively that they were armed with something else.
Ah. OK. Unfortunatelly, I can't be certain of the veracity of the theory I've spoke of, because I haven't those records at hand. But it does give me a lot to think about, because it was mentioned in several different sources.
Unfortunately, using your source, this would place the adoption of the pila well past Livy (c. 240 BC). However, unless I have missed it, it does not say what the early Hastati/Principes would have been armed with. So we can choose to accept Connolly's assertion that the pila was definitely in use c. 340 BC and assume that the Hastati and Principes were armed with them, or find a definitive source stating otherwise.
For the good of the MOD, we might not even doubt Connolly. Sometimes we must be practical. Therefore, I retract myself and vote for us not to worry about that. We'll keep the Early Roman Army with the Pilum.
Well, I see no real need to do it. I was merely trying to be as accurate as possible. As to stats, Connolly takes the position that Marius was given credit for innovation that took place over several centuries. In fact, many of the figures given credit for sweeping changes only implemented the "last straw," so to speak. He believes that over the course of the 4th through 1st centuries that the legion underwent constant innovation and improvement.
Given the frequency of warfare and what we see of the end result of such innovation (the changes in weaponry, organization, and tactics), there is no reason to believe that these things happened overnight. So, as far as making "early" hastati/principes/triarii weaker than "late" units, there is plenty of justification. As we have discussed above, I believe that we can make them armed alike. To their look, there is no real reason for me to change them as we would merely be speculating, unless someone can find a quote from Livy or another c. 340 BC that says they should look different from the republican legion c. 160 BC.
I see. Making a little bit of analysis on my readings, I'm also able to picture it. The Romans were known for their practical thinking and adaptability. I've seen and read numerous examples of this aproach. It isn't that hard to think that it was a progressive path. I should ask for a guy from the Osprey Thread at the Monastery to post some pics and excerpts of these books:
Early Roman Armies (http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1855325136/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-2800994-6517447#reader-link)
Armies of the Carthaginian Wars 265-146 BC (http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0850454301/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-2800994-6517447#reader-link)
Republican Roman Army 200-104 BC (http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1855325985/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-2800994-6517447#reader-link)
Roman Legionary 58 BC-AD 69 (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1841766003/qid=1097713098/sr=1-6/ref=sr_1_6/103-2800994-6517447?v=glance&s=books)
The Roman Army from Caeser to Trajan (http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0850455286/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-2800994-6517447#reader-link)
These books could give us valuable info. Unfortunatelly, I haven't got them... :cry:
Trust me when I say that tweaking the unit stats is a no-brainer. It took me ~ 15 minutes last night to go through and change every unit's defensive skill (I'm playing with ways to slow down combat). This is a simple task. I imagine skinning is a much more involved task.
Yes, I'm sure of it. It was simple but tedious, in MTW. In RTW, it's probably the same.
Yes, we can do this with resources, if not through some other mechanism. If a province has resource x, it can build units y and z. Not a problem. We can limit the units by culture as well, so you have to be culture c and hold province x to build y and z. However, I am not sure at this time if we can limit it by faction. I will check on this. (I would have to assume so, just make the building that can build the unit only available to a certain faction - I will look)
Preciselly. That is one of the ways to do it. The most obvious one, that MTW allowed, was to specify the faction. But if that cannot be achieved, the building will do.
Aymar de Bois Mauri
10-14-2004, 01:56
Sorry, maybe not reading into it enough, I think you misunderstand, Aymar, it allows many of them to be 'mobilised' far quicker than normal unit prodution, I'm saying make them mercs so as that you can raise a large, levy army as rome immensely quickly. I believe that they were historically able to raise massive armies quickly from otherwise crushing defeats. being mercs simply allows a roman general to hire a good 5-10 levy units in one turn for emergencies. This allows the romans to defend themselves against incursions far easier and to simulate their large base of manpower. If you have a better idea, i'd like to hear it.
OK. Now I understand. That might be a good idea...
But if they are defined as mercs, they can't be defined as recruits also. In that case, only the Velites, Hastatii, Princeps, Triarii and Equites would be defined as recruits, right? We would have to make these mercs really cheap but expensive to mantain - good only for emergencies.
Aymar de Bois Mauri
10-14-2004, 02:05
Good news! I have successfully changed the requirements of the imperial palace to be large city, scriptorium, army barracks, and catapult range. This, combined with the tweaks I have made to population growth, should ensure that the Marian reforms happen way down the line as opposed to c. 250 BC. I will play test it immediately and let you know what the results are.
Nice!!! :grin:
In the meantime, I have a question for you all. Given the requirements I posted above, think about how this will affect play balance for all factions. I cannot make it so that only the romans have this requirement for moving up to a huge city (without creating a new building tree for the governor's palace for just the romans, and editting the related references in the other files). This may mean that no AI faction will get to huge cities, or they will have a very difficult time to do so.
Is there any specific Roman building? If so, I have an idea that will allow the other factions to be unaffected by the changes. Instead of upping the requirements for Imperial Palace, you'll just have to make that specific Roman building, one of the requirements for building the Marian units. Then make that specific Roman building very hard to get to (all huge city improvements). Try it like that.
Aymar de Bois Mauri
10-14-2004, 02:16
Ok I'm back with some more goodies ~D
CarthaginiansNumidian Infantry
http://www.hat.com/Curr/fu8020d.jpg
Sorry, but this is incorrect. Numidians were berber, not sub-saharian africans. Therefore any representation that portrays them as black is incorrect. They had darker skin than the Carthaginians and Europeans but not black.
The Celtiberians were warlike Celtic tribes settled in Spain. As such they showed influences from both cultures; Celtic ferocity and Iberian stubbornness . We have portrayed them with large Celtic style shields and helmets but wearing Spanish cloaks and tunics. These war bands fought in an almost unstoppable wedge formation.
The Lusitani (the figures with the rimmed round shields) were first rate mountain fighters, adept at ambush, raid and skirmish. It should be remembered that Rome continued to fight such Iberian tribes long after the defeat of Carthage. It should also be remembered that Caesar and Pompey first engaged each other on Spanish soil, using Spanish troops as auxiliaries to their legions.
Please Stormy, no more info for the Celtiberians and Lusitanians. That is already taken care off. Re-read the earlier posts not to repeat information already available.
PS: Beware of your sources, please. Everyone wants this to be Historically correct. So, please, recheck your sources.
Aymar de Bois Mauri
10-14-2004, 02:18
If it were modded like MedMod, where you can only build units in home provinces, maybe just allow Carthage to construct some of the units of each faction? So, if Carthage has a Gallic province, they can make some Gallic units there (though not all of them), and so on.
I don't think so. Carthage used a lot of mercs. Many units will only be available as mercs. Gauls included. We'll have to improve Carthage's economy and navy to give them a head start.
Aymar de Bois Mauri
10-14-2004, 02:22
In early times the average Gaul warrior fought fanatically and naked, their hair spiked with white lime wash. By the time Hannibal began recruiting Gauls to his cause only a few warriors continued to fight in this manner. One such group were the elite mercenary Gaisatai. In eastern Galatia (located in modern Turkey) the practice continued with considerable success against the Macedonian successor state of Seleucus.
Please name your sources. I need confirmation of this way of making war... :thinking:
Once again:
PS: Beware of your sources, please. Everyone wants this to be Historically correct. So, please, recheck your sources.
Nice!!! :grin:
Is there any specific Roman building? If so, I have an idea that will allow the other factions to be unaffected by the changes. Instead of upping the requirements for Imperial Palace, you'll just have to make that specific Roman building, one of the requirements for building the Marian units. Then make that specific Roman building very hard to get to (all huge city improvements). Try it like that.
Actually, the building system is quite nice. You have types of buildings defined, such as temple_of_fertility (which gives population growth/farming bonuses). Then you have different levels of buildings of that type, such as temple_of_fertility_awesome_temple. These can have specific requirements for being built, such as level of city, dependencies on other buildings, amount of gold and time (of course), and culture/faction. They will have specific effects, which themselves can have specific requirements (such as faction, event, and so on).
Then, using (for instance) temple_of_fertility_awesome_temple in the export_buildings.txt file you can name the building different things for different factions (it would be Awesome Temple of Isis for the Egyptians, and Awesome Temple of Ceres for the Romans).
Is there a Roman-only building? Not really, not that I see. We could create a building that could be built by the Romans only, which the Imperial Palace would depend on, and which would have really rough requirements. Otherwise, most building types are shared by quite a few factions, and simply named differently and given different descriptions.
~:) This is fantastic, more men putting on their helmet for Europa Barbarorum and it makes me happy. Why you may ask, because finally we will just maybe get all the unique skins, maps, game play tweaks and more we all craved threw out the years of RTS gaming and on this fantastic engine I have a good feeling it will happen. It actually brings a tear to my eye LOL. Yes we crave it historically correct.
I'm not a modder but I say it again I don't mind helping in information. I will continue to post more military unit pictures and maps. ~:cheers:
Yes Aymar de Bois Mauri they are berbers not sub saharan africans. I posted it for the unit uniform and weapon. I knew you guys knew this. ~;)
"PS: Beware of your sources, please. Everyone wants this to be Historically correct. So, please, recheck your sources."
I will do so next time. The site where I got the pictures of the models had that info on their page from the company that makes the model. I shouldnt of posted that. :embarassed:
ick_of_pick
10-14-2004, 05:05
Another change to be made is that a bunch of Celtic Barbarians have stronger bows then the Middle Eastern Archers, or for that matter, all the other factions. Historically speaking, Romans bows were bad. The celtic bows were even worse. The whole idea of a "forseter warband" is cool and all, but a 15 missile attack rating is kind of ridiculous. The chances of a celtic bow out-performing scythian or parthian bow is almost non-existant. Just pointing out my observations.
Ick
chemchok
10-14-2004, 08:56
I know you're manily concerned with the barbarians, but I found this note on the development of the Ptolemaic army in the Encyclopedia Brittanica online (under Ptolemy IV).
"Following the defection of one of Ptolemy's best commanders, Egypt's Syro-Palestinian territory, Coele Syria, was seriously threatened by Antiochus III, the Syrian Seleucid ruler. In 219, when the Seleucid ruler captured some of the coastal cities, Sosibius and the Ptolemaic court entered into delaying negotiations with the enemy, while the Ptolemaic army was reorganized and intensively drilled. So grave was the threat that for the first time under the Ptolemaic regime native Egyptians were enrolled into the infantry and cavalry and trained in phalanx tactics. In 218 the negotiations collapsed, and Antiochus renewed his advance, overrunning Ptolemy's forward defenses. In the spring of 217, however, Ptolemy's new army met the Seleucid forces near Raphia in southern Palestine, and with the help of the Egyptian phalanx Ptolemy was victorious. Although holding the initiative, the Egyptian king, on Sosibius' advice, negotiated a peace, and the Seleucid army withdrew from Coele Syria."
And under "The Ptolemies" on EB
"Native revolts in the south, which had been sporadic in the second half of the 3rd century, became serious and weakened the hold of the monarch on a vital part of the kingdom. These revolts, which produced native claimants to the kingship, are generally attributed to the native Egyptians' realization, after their contribution to the victory at Raphia, of their potential power." -This was followed by the Ptolemies adopting Egyptian customs (instead of Egyptians adopting Hellenic customs, as was the case before), granting regional governors more control, and marked the beginning of the decline of the empire.
So you can assume that
1) Before 217 the Ptolemaic armies were made up of a small amount of Hellenic diaspora that were trained in Greek warfare and tactics. They were heavily supplemented by mercenaries from the Aegean.
- In game terms: this would translate as expensive greek phalanx and cavalry units and NO "Egyptian" units.
2) After 217 you would primarily see Egyptian troops (although trained in Greek military tactics).
- In game terms: you're not talking about Old Kingdom units, but their would be a significant change, almost like an Egyptian version of the Marian reforms. Cheaper units, no more access to greek infantry, lower quality of frontline infantry units. I would also imagine that the Egyptians/Ptolemies would not abandon cavalry at this point for chariots, but whatever, everyone has beat that horse to death.
I hope this at least provides some sort of an analytical starting point to see where CA abandonned a historical representation of Ptolemaic Egypt and how it could be corrected.
Aymar de Bois Mauri
10-14-2004, 09:32
Is there a Roman-only building? Not really, not that I see. We could create a building that could be built by the Romans only, which the Imperial Palace would depend on, and which would have really rough requirements. Otherwise, most building types are shared by quite a few factions, and simply named differently and given different descriptions.
Problem is: I don't know if new buildings are possible. I've heard that ANY change to the buildings implies a CTD... :bigcry:
Aymar de Bois Mauri
10-14-2004, 09:35
Yes Aymar de Bois Mauri they are berbers not sub saharan africans. I posted it for the unit uniform and weapon. I knew you guys knew this. ~;)
Good to know that you know... :wink:
"PS: Beware of your sources, please. Everyone wants this to be Historically correct. So, please, recheck your sources."
I will do so next time. The site where I got the pictures of the models had that info on their page from the company that makes the model. I shouldnt of posted that. :embarassed:
My advice is for you to make cross-references with other sources, (preferably reliable ones). Make several searches, in reliable historical sites and books. Then compile. It is better that way.
Aymar de Bois Mauri
10-14-2004, 09:38
Another change to be made is that a bunch of Celtic Barbarians have stronger bows then the Middle Eastern Archers, or for that matter, all the other factions. Historically speaking, Romans bows were bad. The celtic bows were even worse. The whole idea of a "forseter warband" is cool and all, but a 15 missile attack rating is kind of ridiculous. The chances of a celtic bow out-performing scythian or parthian bow is almost non-existant. Just pointing out my observations.
Ick
15? I didn't know that. :thinking:
No yeomen using longbows for Celts in the period, hey? :grin:
Just another thing to add to the list. :thumbsup:
Aymar de Bois Mauri
10-14-2004, 09:41
@ Stormy
I found this link and thought it might apply to your Assyrian argument. It also has a ceramic figurine that shows the typical riding dress of a Parthian.
the term "Parthian" (http://parthia.com/nineveh/03.htm)
Perhaps the Assyrians were simply a portion of the Parthian empire. Oh, and the one temple picture you posted from Hatra is Hellenistic/Roman in design with local decorative techniques. It was constructed by the Parthians c. 150-200 CE.
Temple Link (http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/ev.php-URL_ID=8579&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html)
Good info, chemchok!! :thumbsup:
Aymar de Bois Mauri
10-14-2004, 09:51
I know you're manily concerned with the barbarians, but I found this note on the development of the Ptolemaic army in the Encyclopedia Brittanica online (under Ptolemy IV).
"Following the defection of one of Ptolemy's best commanders, Egypt's Syro-Palestinian territory, Coele Syria, was seriously threatened by Antiochus III, the Syrian Seleucid ruler. In 219, when the Seleucid ruler captured some of the coastal cities, Sosibius and the Ptolemaic court entered into delaying negotiations with the enemy, while the Ptolemaic army was reorganized and intensively drilled. So grave was the threat that for the first time under the Ptolemaic regime native Egyptians were enrolled into the infantry and cavalry and trained in phalanx tactics. In 218 the negotiations collapsed, and Antiochus renewed his advance, overrunning Ptolemy's forward defenses. In the spring of 217, however, Ptolemy's new army met the Seleucid forces near Raphia in southern Palestine, and with the help of the Egyptian phalanx Ptolemy was victorious. Although holding the initiative, the Egyptian king, on Sosibius' advice, negotiated a peace, and the Seleucid army withdrew from Coele Syria."
And under "The Ptolemies" on EB
"Native revolts in the south, which had been sporadic in the second half of the 3rd century, became serious and weakened the hold of the monarch on a vital part of the kingdom. These revolts, which produced native claimants to the kingship, are generally attributed to the native Egyptians' realization, after their contribution to the victory at Raphia, of their potential power." -This was followed by the Ptolemies adopting Egyptian customs (instead of Egyptians adopting Hellenic customs, as was the case before), granting regional governors more control, and marked the beginning of the decline of the empire.
So you can assume that
1) Before 217 the Ptolemaic armies were made up of a small amount of Hellenic diaspora that were trained in Greek warfare and tactics. They were heavily supplemented by mercenaries from the Aegean.
- In game terms: this would translate as expensive greek phalanx and cavalry units and NO "Egyptian" units.
2) After 217 you would primarily see Egyptian troops (although trained in Greek military tactics).
- In game terms: you're not talking about Old Kingdom units, but their would be a significant change, almost like an Egyptian version of the Marian reforms. Cheaper units, no more access to greek infantry, lower quality of frontline infantry units. I would also imagine that the Egyptians/Ptolemies would not abandon cavalry at this point for chariots, but whatever, everyone has beat that horse to death.
I hope this at least provides some sort of an analytical starting point to see where CA abandonned a historical representation of Ptolemaic Egypt and how it could be corrected.
Once again good info, chemchok. I knew that they had difficulties that lead the Greek leadership to recruit native troops, but I was unaware of the extent of those reforms in Ptolemaic times.
Regarding the possiblity of scripting an event that will lead to an Egyptian "Marian" reform, I think it's not possible since the Marian reforms are hard-coded. Therefore, unless someone performs a miracle, your good idea cannot be implemented. :embarassed:
Chemchoks idea is good but like Aymar de Bois Mauri said it cannot be implemented. My idea was to add both hellenic and egyptian units for the Ptolemaic regime. Hellenic units will be a bit more expensive compared to the natives that live all around the Ptolemaic held lands. My problem though is that I haven't seen much photo art based on the Ptolemaic military. My question is how do they look in dress customs and what kind of units will they have ? ( is it all hellenic after all ? or like a mixed culture ? ) I mean hellenic units will dress in hellenic battle uniform and egyptian and others will dress in theirs ?
chemchok
10-14-2004, 18:11
Chemchoks idea is good but like Aymar de Bois Mauri said it cannot be implemented. My idea was to add both hellenic and egyptian units for the Ptolemaic regime. Hellenic units will be a bit more expensive compared to the natives that live all around the Ptolemaic held lands. My problem though is that I haven't seen much photo art based on the Ptolemaic military. My question is how do they look in dress customs and what kind of units will they have ? ( is it all hellenic after all ? or like a mixed culture ? ) I mean hellenic units will dress in hellenic battle uniform and egyptian and others will dress in theirs ?
You probably won't find too much photo art, and if you do it will probably be just "art." In fact, the confusion over the composition of the Ptolemaic army is probably one of the reasons why CA went in favor of older-looking units. Hellenic culture was a mixed culture to begin with; the melting pot of the Mediterranean (and especially Alexandria), but it became something uniquely Egyptian over time.
For the elite Hellenic units, I'd use the Greek units as a template and probably not change them that much - much like the Selucid version of the Greek phalanx units that are in the game now. I don't know about the Egyptian uniforms, my guess would be that they dressed differently from the Hellenic units. Historically, by the time you have Egyptian units in the Ptolemaic armies you have the Ptolemies recieving their kinghsip in Memphis (instead of Alexandria) and adopting Egyptian dress and customs; in other words, you have a form of native Egyptian nationalism. This would probably be reflected in the dress of the army (ie, units that might have fought using Greek tactics, but did not look like the Greeks). I'll look at the Egyptian units in the game again, as well as at some image resources and offer some suggestions if you want.
Aymar de Bois Mauri
10-14-2004, 19:34
Perhaps the Assyrians were simply a portion of the Parthian empire.
I hadn't read your conclusion, only seen the sites.
Well, you're wrong and right. The Assyrian were, before 600BC, like the Persian, Babylonian and Medes, different cultural identities within a very related ethnicity. Of course that these populations were related in some way, having originated from about the same location. There is a very good, earlier link, posted by Colovion about the political and social identification of these populations with one another. You can find the link here:
The Assyrians after Assyria (http://www.atour.com/news/national/20000703a.html)
Parthians, however, were much later northern invaders. They've gathered under their wing a lot of other populations and their territories during the contruction of their empire, including Assyrians, Medes, etc...
So, were some of these populations part of the Parthian Empire? Yes, in terms of territory. Were they related to the Parthians? No, they were different etnhically and culturally. Therefore detached from the "tribal" Parthian organization.
Aymar de Bois Mauri
10-14-2004, 19:45
Chemchoks idea is good but like Aymar de Bois Mauri said it cannot be implemented. My idea was to add both hellenic and egyptian units for the Ptolemaic regime. Hellenic units will be a bit more expensive compared to the natives that live all around the Ptolemaic held lands. My problem though is that I haven't seen much photo art based on the Ptolemaic military. My question is how do they look in dress customs and what kind of units will they have ? ( is it all hellenic after all ? or like a mixed culture ? ) I mean hellenic units will dress in hellenic battle uniform and egyptian and others will dress in theirs ?
Nope. They will dress on the best war outfits for the time (Greek). So, efectivelly, they won't be that different. We can flavour them a bit for distinction between units. You can get a glipse here:
Early Ptolemaic 320BC-275BC (http://www.dbaol.com/armies/army_42a_figure_1.htm)
Later Ptolemaic 275BC-40BC (http://www.dbaol.com/armies/army_42b_figure_1.htm)
You idea is the most practical one and closelly resembles the one I had in mind for the Egyptians: historical correct mixed units.
You can see in the Late Ptolemaic Army the existence of Celtic warriors - probably mercs from Galatea(sp?) in Anatolia.
Aymar de Bois Mauri
10-14-2004, 19:58
You probably won't find too much photo art, and if you do it will probably be just "art." In fact, the confusion over the composition of the Ptolemaic army is probably one of the reasons why CA went in favor of older-looking units. Hellenic culture was a mixed culture to begin with; the melting pot of the Mediterranean (and especially Alexandria), but it became something uniquely Egyptian over time.
Hellenic culture was mixed but with specific regional influence. Seleucids, Antigonids and Ptolomies all became different cultural as well as military identities. They were mixed in culture yes, but not in war gear. Remember, soldiers used the best available for that time. The best protection, the best weapon. War wasn't a fashion show.
For the elite Hellenic units, I'd use the Greek units as a template and probably not change them that much - much like the Selucid version of the Greek phalanx units that are in the game now. I don't know about the Egyptian uniforms, my guess would be that they dressed differently from the Hellenic units. Historically, by the time you have Egyptian units in the Ptolemaic armies you have the Ptolemies recieving their kinghsip in Memphis (instead of Alexandria) and adopting Egyptian dress and customs; in other words, you have a form of native Egyptian nationalism. This would probably be reflected in the dress of the army (ie, units that might have fought using Greek tactics, but did not look like the Greeks). I'll look at the Egyptian units in the game again, as well as at some image resources and offer some suggestions if you want.
Sorry. But you're wrong in this particular sentence:
This would probably be reflected in the dress of the army (ie, units that might have fought using Greek tactics, but did not look like the Greeks).
As I've said earlier, the armours, shields and weapons were the same as the Greek troops, obvious from someone using the same tactics. However, their decorations might be different relating to their different cultural influence (shield marks, colors, etc...) Their skin should be a little darker too.
What does this men for the MOD? That the Egyptian units, like an Egyptian Phalanx, will be copied from their Ptolemaic equivalent (when available), but having different shield and armour markings, as well as a darker skin.
chemchok
10-14-2004, 20:11
Yeah, my mistake, I thought the Assyrian territory started out in Parthian control in the campaign. It was my first, awkward post here to suggest that the Assyrians not be included as a playable faction. I am familiar with the Assyrian's history, and a big fan of Sargon's, Ashurnanipal's, and Ashurbanipal's relief carvings for whatever its worth.
From Colovion's link -
"The Babylonian, Median and Persian empires should thus be seen (as they were seen in antiquity) as successive versions of the same multinational power structure, each resulting from an internal power struggle within this structure. In other words, the Empire was each time reborn under a new leadership, with political power shifting from one nation to another."
Historically, you have Alexander, the Seleucids, the Parthians, and then the Romans controlling this region. Like the article said, you still had Assyrian culture in the area, and there are still Assyrian Christians today, but that doesn't mean they were/are independent. Anyway, I suppose you could include Assyrian units for the Seleucids or Parthians, but IMHO it would make more sense to have Persian units available to these factions. Assyrians would have been conscripted and incorporated into the Persian army, adopting their techniques. [which is pretty much in agreement with your earlier post]
OK. Now I understand. That might be a good idea...
But if they are defined as mercs, they can't be defined as recruits also. In that case, only the Velites, Hastatii, Princeps, Triarii and Equites would be defined as recruits, right? We would have to make these mercs really cheap but expensive to mantain - good only for emergencies.
correct, Aymar thanks for the recognition ~:grouphug:
chemchok
10-14-2004, 20:44
Hellenic culture was mixed but with specific regional influence. Seleucids, Antigonids and Ptolomies all became different cultural as well as military identities. They were mixed in culture yes, but not in war gear. Remember, soldiers used the best available for that time. The best protection, the best weapon. War wasn't a fashion show.
Sorry. But you're wrong in this particular sentence:
This would probably be reflected in the dress of the army (ie, units that might have fought using Greek tactics, but did not look like the Greeks).
As I've said earlier, the armours, shields and weapons were the same as the Greek troops, obvious from someone using the same tactics. However, their decorations might be different relating to their different cultural influence (shield marks, colors, etc...) Their skin should be a little darker too.
What does this men for the MOD? That the Egyptian units, like an Egyptian Phalanx, will be copied from their Ptolemaic equivalent (when available), but having different shield and armour markings, as well as a darker skin.
LOL, fair enough, but I wasn't arguing for Old Kingdom units, just something that doesn't look like a carbon copy of the Greek units. I just saw your DBA Online links, I have never heard of the site but have seen plenty of pics on the forums here. How historical is the site, are these unit portrayals from actual accounts of units appearance or informed assumptions?
Problem is: I don't know if new buildings are possible. I've heard that ANY change to the buildings implies a CTD... :bigcry:
That is not true - I have successfully added requirements to buildings. The trick is understanding the exact syntax the game is looking for, which requires quite a bit of trial and error. I imagine adding a new building is also possible if one is able to determine the correct method to do this, and the correct links in other files.
Regarding the possiblity of scripting an event that will lead to an Egyptian "Marian" reform, I think it's not possible since the Marian reforms are hard-coded. Therefore, unless someone performs a miracle, your good idea cannot be implemented. :embarassed:
There are other events than just the Marian reforms. It would be relatively simple to hijack one of these as the key event for the Egyptian reforms. The trick is understanding what triggers the various events. I am not sure yet if we can create our own. If the event triggers are all hard-coded, for now we cannot. If other events are triggered in the text files we should be able to make our own. I have not looked into this at all yet.
Lady(ies?) and Gentlemen,
I see very little activity here:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=37988
Please, if you are involved in this MOD and want to see it go from a theoretical exercise into actual execution, we need to all make the effort to post there. I would love to get into the nuts and bolts of modding the game, but I need to know who is going to be toying around with the files with me, and who is working on the unit skins and such. We have lots of work to do and lots of people willing to do work; Now it is time to pull this all together.
So, if you are as excited about turning these great ideas into a game experience as I am, drop by the thread, take a few moments to comment about your own areas of interest and skill, and suggestions for next steps. We will soon have the ball rolling, but we need to get everyone engaged.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=37988
See you there!
-khel
The war band they have for the Ptolemaic units in DBAOL could be Galatian, thats a yes. I got question for future factions, should the Galatians be added to the future faction list as a weak faction and also the Nubian units in game will be dismissed ? I looked at some maps of the Ptolemaic empire and I never seen maps or read about them holding Nubia ( Nubia, maybe to be added in the future by expanding the map and adding new provinces to the south of the in game egyptian provinces ) I did read information about the Ptolemaic empire did find Nubia important because of trade and elephants and had a great interest for Nubia. It did not say Ptolemaic empire had Nubia under conrtol in its history... is this true over all ?
I know the in game Map is very unique. It makes you feel like you are almost in the terrain where you are at. If you have noticed the geography of the campaign map and if it got a river nearby or a mountian and when you go into battle mode you can see those rivers and mountians that you seen in the C-map. Yes, very unique and fantastic map made for this game. Now, about future provinces. If any of you plan to make future provinces I can provide satellite images of terrain so we can get that almost realistic terrian feature made by CA too.
ick_of_pick
10-14-2004, 21:33
Assyrians were definitly recruited as soldiers by the dominant power in the regions, namely the Seleucids and Romans, whom the Assyrians supported more than the Persians, but they would not have fought in the traditional Assyrian fashion, but in the style of whatever army they were recruited into, either lined up in a phalanx with thier Greek and Macedonian buddies, or as heavy cavalry for the Persians because Mesopotemia had large, well-bred horses.
Once the Assyrians regained thier independence from Persia in 87 BC, they consistently defeated the Romans, Armenians, Persians, Medes and Chaldeans who tried to take the land more than once. By that time the Assyrians had probably reinstituted their obnoxious but effective fighting methods of an all-archer infantry center, backed with a shock core of heavy lancers and mounted bowmen. Assyria should begin as a protecerate of Seluecia, just like All the Roman Families begin as allies, and the player, Human or CPU can decide what to do from there.
Ick
P.S. I don't really think of Celts as barbarians. They are a peaceful and culturally sophisticated people so long as they're not being mass-murdered by Romans or Saxons.
The Sword of Cao Cao
10-14-2004, 22:46
Seeing as I'm at the moment reading a historical novel that takes place in Gaul during Julius Caesars time. Gaul has become very interesting to me, so I'd like to help with the Gallic reasearch. I dont know as much as PSYCHO, but I'm good at researching and pretty good at getting good istes and pictures. What do you guys say, want another Gaul?
Aymar de Bois Mauri
10-14-2004, 23:30
LOL, fair enough, but I wasn't arguing for Old Kingdom units, just something that doesn't look like a carbon copy of the Greek units. I just saw your DBA Online links, I have never heard of the site but have seen plenty of pics on the forums here. How historical is the site, are these unit portrayals from actual accounts of units appearance or informed assumptions?
Of course, there will be specific units that the Seleucids or other Hellenic factions won't have. IMHO, Nubians and Egyptian archers, can still be used, as well as some spear levies. What do you think?
Regarding the site, from what I've seen, it mostly concurs with what I've read or seen in other sites and books. Obviously, I haven't seen the site in totality, so there might be incongruencies, but I haven't found them so far.
Aymar de Bois Mauri
10-14-2004, 23:33
That is not true - I have successfully added requirements to buildings. The trick is understanding the exact syntax the game is looking for, which requires quite a bit of trial and error. I imagine adding a new building is also possible if one is able to determine the correct method to do this, and the correct links in other files.
OK. Then hope is still possible... :smile: That possiblity would solve the Marian reforms.
Aymar de Bois Mauri
10-14-2004, 23:36
There are other events than just the Marian reforms. It would be relatively simple to hijack one of these as the key event for the Egyptian reforms. The trick is understanding what triggers the various events. I am not sure yet if we can create our own. If the event triggers are all hard-coded, for now we cannot. If other events are triggered in the text files we should be able to make our own. I have not looked into this at all yet.
From my experience with MTW, these events were hard-coded and therefore impossible to modify. I don't think RTW is any different.
Aymar de Bois Mauri
10-15-2004, 00:02
Lady(ies?) and Gentlemen,
I see very little activity here:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=37988
Please, if you are involved in this MOD and want to see it go from a theoretical exercise into actual execution, we need to all make the effort to post there. I would love to get into the nuts and bolts of modding the game, but I need to know who is going to be toying around with the files with me, and who is working on the unit skins and such. We have lots of work to do and lots of people willing to do work; Now it is time to pull this all together.
So, if you are as excited about turning these great ideas into a game experience as I am, drop by the thread, take a few moments to comment about your own areas of interest and skill, and suggestions for next steps. We will soon have the ball rolling, but we need to get everyone engaged.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=37988
See you there!
-khel
khelvan is completelly right. What are you all waiting for? Even Vercingetorix has alrady volunteered himself and he is much more involved in TWC!!! :angry:
:help: :help: :help: :help: :help: :help: :help: :help:
JOIN IN THE THREAD!!!
POST YOUR HABILITIES AND PREFERENCES OF WORK!!!
EVERYONE NOW!!!
:help: :help: :help: :help: :help: :help: :help: :help:
Mouzafphaerre
10-15-2004, 01:21
Well, Mouzafphaerre, what can I say? I had absolutelly no idea of that forum!! Seems you didn't advertized it enough here at the ORG... :sad:
Dear Dom Aymar,
We did advertise the project and whoever volunteered to become a part of the team were given the address of the forum. It was planned to be a temporary place, that's why we didn't announce it publicly. ~;) In any case, that's history now...
As for the conceptual work, maybe you could give us some hints as to the best form of coligating the EB thread info? I'm having some problem in getting all this info sorted through. Any ideas? :confused:
A single thread for such a large project in which various branches of work is involved looks chaotical. ~:eek: My suggestion would be asking our respected admins to open a dedicated section under the dungeon with various child boards (historical research, graphics and artistic work, data collection, general management etc.)
Then, some patient volunteers should transport the necessary posts to the relevant boards.
With my best wishes and cordial support,
:medievalcheers:
_
PSYCHO V
10-15-2004, 02:00
Seeing as I'm at the moment reading a historical novel that takes place in Gaul during Julius Caesars time. Gaul has become very interesting to me, so I'd like to help with the Gallic reasearch. I dont know as much as PSYCHO, but I'm good at researching and pretty good at getting good istes and pictures. What do you guys say, want another Gaul?
~D We can always use another Gaul!
I'm seeing if I can get a copy of photoshop for home. Know my way around it ok so I'm hoping to help with the skinning.
chemchok
10-15-2004, 02:07
Of course, there will be specific units that the Seleucids or other Hellenic factions won't have. IMHO, Nubians and Egyptian archers, can still be used, as well as some spear levies. What do you think?
I don't know, I can't find one single description of what native Egyptian units looked like or how they were organized during the period. But yeah, Egyptian archers sound good and they should have stats reflecting the use of a composite bow. Cheap levy pikemen and Egyptian hoplites should be around too.
Anyway, you could add -
Elephants (though they would be African elephants and smaller than the Seleucid version which were Indian elephants)
Gauls, which were often used as mercs
Here's a battle list from Rapha:
http://www.fortunecity.com/underworld/straif/69/engraphia.htm
Here's another link on the armies of the Hellenic regions (this must have been scanned and converted to text - it's from a 1911 dictionairy, but it has a lot of references to classical authors)
http://41.1911encyclopedia.org/M/MA/MACEDONIAN_EMPIRE.htm
And from the link above for the skinners: "The Hellenistic armies were distinguished by their external magnificence. They made a greater display of brilliant metal and gorgeous color than the Roman armies, for instance. The description given by Justin of the army which Antlochus Sidetes took to the East in 130 B.C., boot-nails and bridles of gold, gives an idea of their standard of splendour (Just. xxxviii. 10, I; cf. Polyb. xxxi. 3; Plut. Eum. ~ id. Aemil. 18; id. SuIte, 16)."
Anyway, I'll see if I can find out if there was a battlefield standard or royal insignia for the Ptolemies (unless someone else knows of one).
Oleander Ardens
10-15-2004, 10:14
Talking about bows I think that the Celtic tribes in Gaul and Britain usually used bows similar to the ones found at Nydam from 200BC, were a Germanic longbowdesign was found. Various types of large bows of yew or other wood have been found in Europe since the Neolithikum, and all of this various designs might be an option, but the Longbows of Nydam are the closest in time.
The western warheads don't differ from the huntingarrows, although greek, punic, nomadic and roman influence might have led to an adoptation of other designs. This change is clearly visible in eastern celtic areas, where the influence of more advanced archery has left it's tracks since the Hallstatt timeframe...
About Nubian Archers in the Ptolomaic Army; They controlled for a long timeframe some southern regions with nubian population, so they could have had access to such men. It may be also possible that Kushite Archers were serving in the Ptolomaic army in exchange of lux. goods or money for the Kushite state, but there is no evidence of it...
Cheers
OA
Steppe Merc
10-15-2004, 23:45
So how many classes should there be? There can be the Steppe peoples (Parthian, Scythian, Sarmatian), and that would probably be the best. I know the Greek archers were composite too right? Almost certain that they would be far less powerful than the Scythain model though. What other kinds of bows were used, say by Carthage and Selcuid?
Aymar de Bois Mauri
10-16-2004, 00:13
The war band they have for the Ptolemaic units in DBAOL could be Galatian, thats a yes. I got question for future factions, should the Galatians be added to the future faction list as a weak faction and also the Nubian units in game will be dismissed ? I looked at some maps of the Ptolemaic empire and I never seen maps or read about them holding Nubia ( Nubia, maybe to be added in the future by expanding the map and adding new provinces to the south of the in game egyptian provinces ) I did read information about the Ptolemaic empire did find Nubia important because of trade and elephants and had a great interest for Nubia. It did not say Ptolemaic empire had Nubia under conrtol in its history... is this true over all ?
The Galatians will be mercs. IIRC, they weren't an important independent faction for enough time to be considered in the game. Besides, not to worry about adding new factions. Nobody yet knows how to add them.
IIRC, Ptolemaic Egypt had no political or military domain over Nubia. Therefore, unless someone finds new evidences, the Nubian units will be modified in looks (please post relevant info - period pictures) and hired as mercs by the Prolemaic Egyptians, not recruited as levies.
I know the in game Map is very unique. It makes you feel like you are almost in the terrain where you are at. If you have noticed the geography of the campaign map and if it got a river nearby or a mountian and when you go into battle mode you can see those rivers and mountians that you seen in the C-map. Yes, very unique and fantastic map made for this game. Now, about future provinces. If any of you plan to make future provinces I can provide satellite images of terrain so we can get that almost realistic terrian feature made by CA too.
If we ever add provinces, that would be nice. But we'll have to get DJ or BKB in to the fray. I'm no good with the strategical map.
Aymar de Bois Mauri
10-16-2004, 00:22
Dear Dom Aymar,
We did advertise the project and whoever volunteered to become a part of the team were given the address of the forum. It was planned to be a temporary place, that's why we didn't announce it publicly. ~;) In any case, that's history now...
Sorry to hear that... :sad:
A single thread for such a large project in which various branches of work is involved looks chaotical. ~:eek:
It is... :cry:
My suggestion would be asking our respected admins to open a dedicated section under the dungeon with various child boards (historical research, graphics and artistic work, data collection, general management etc.)
Then, some patient volunteers should transport the necessary posts to the relevant boards.
Thst'a an excellent idea!! I should have tought of that. :wall:
With my best wishes and cordial support,
:medievalcheers:
Thank you very much !!! :medievalcheers:
Aymar de Bois Mauri
10-16-2004, 00:25
I'm seeing if I can get a copy of photoshop for home. Know my way around it ok so I'm hoping to help with the skinning.
Good. We're gonna need lots of skinners...
Aymar de Bois Mauri
10-16-2004, 00:44
I don't know, I can't find one single description of what native Egyptian units looked like or how they were organized during the period. But yeah, Egyptian archers sound good and they should have stats reflecting the use of a composite bow. Cheap levy pikemen and Egyptian hoplites should be around too.
We'll just have to make them different from this: :egypt:
Anyway, you could add - Elephants (though they would be African elephants and smaller than the Seleucid version which were Indian elephants)
Agreed. But just to be thourough, in terms of size:
North African Elephants < Indian Elephants < Sub-Saharian African Elephants
Gauls, which were often used as mercs
I'm starting to doubt the inclusion of merc Gauls everywhere. Some people in other threads said: Hirable by Carthaginians, Egyptians, Seleucids, etc...? That's too much, although I agree with the Galatian mercs for Egypt.
Here's a battle list from Rapha:
http://www.fortunecity.com/underworld/straif/69/engraphia.htm
Here's another link on the armies of the Hellenic regions (this must have been scanned and converted to text - it's from a 1911 dictionairy, but it has a lot of references to classical authors)
http://41.1911encyclopedia.org/M/MA/MACEDONIAN_EMPIRE.htm
And from the link above for the skinners: "The Hellenistic armies were distinguished by their external magnificence. They made a greater display of brilliant metal and gorgeous color than the Roman armies, for instance. The description given by Justin of the army which Antlochus Sidetes took to the East in 130 B.C., boot-nails and bridles of gold, gives an idea of their standard of splendour (Just. xxxviii. 10, I; cf. Polyb. xxxi. 3; Plut. Eum. ~ id. Aemil. 18; id. SuIte, 16)."
Great links and graphical info tips. That will help. :thumbsup:
Anyway, I'll see if I can find out if there was a battlefield standard or royal insignia for the Ptolemies (unless someone else knows of one).
There is:
RTW Shields (http://www.twcenter.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=11761&hl=shields)
But, if possible, please confirm it.
Aymar de Bois Mauri
10-16-2004, 01:16
Talking about bows I think that the Celtic tribes in Gaul and Britain usually used bows similar to the ones found at Nydam from 200BC, were a Germanic longbowdesign was found. Various types of large bows of yew or other wood have been found in Europe since the Neolithikum, and all of this various designs might be an option, but the Longbows of Nydam are the closest in time.
Someone mentioned, in another thread, that the Britons and Gauls shouldn't have great archers. :confused: Is this true?
What you say is the exact oposite. The other person did not post any confirming info. Should he have any credebility?
The western warheads don't differ from the huntingarrows, although greek, punic, nomadic and roman influence might have led to an adoptation of other designs. This change is clearly visible in eastern celtic areas, where the influence of more advanced archery has left it's tracks since the Hallstatt timeframe...
Elite Galatian Archer Mercenaires, as an example? :wink:
About Nubian Archers in the Ptolomaic Army; They controlled for a long timeframe some southern regions with nubian population, so they could have had access to such men. It may be also possible that Kushite Archers were serving in the Ptolomaic army in exchange of lux. goods or money for the Kushite state, but there is no evidence of it...
So, Ptolemaic Egypt is going to have lots of varied specific units, to shut the mouth of unbelievers of Ptolemaic Egypt that said: "just another Greek faction"!!!
Good. :pleased: Try to confirm the Kushites and Nubians role in Ptolemaic armies, if possible.
Once again great info, Oleander Ardens.
I just had a a long game with the Egyptians ( no elephant units for Egypt ) and I can say boy this game is addicting. I could only imagine once all you guys get to put your touches to it ~:eek: how much more addicting this will be. DJ - BKB seems to have it all down when it comes to provinces. I can see adding some more of africa ( of course the sahara will be the biggest province in game ) and all the way into Iran and the steppes of central asia along with some of north europe. I can even picture adding to the east India ~D ~:eek: :dizzy2: haha I know its alot of work but the future is bright. Just some few ahead of the time ideas.
"Aymar de Bois Mauri: I'm starting to doubt the inclusion of merc Gauls everywhere"
I doubt it too, It is almost impossible to have gauls all over the known world. Think about it, If warriors from gaul need to defend their own lands and also becoming mercs with in europe. This will limit their warrior people very much. Now Imagine, if egyptians and Seleucids and some others will use alot of them as mercs this would have depleted these people by a large percent. Remember it takes many years to train with a sword and other weapons of that time. Warriors of Gaul would have been strecht out to a limit ~:eek:
Some sites
Good site on Nubia. (http://library.thinkquest.org/22845/introduction/index.shtml?tqskip1=1)
Same site but directed into the Kush Kindom section. Check out meroitic period (http://library.thinkquest.org/22845/kush/index.shtml)
Satrapa1.com (http://www.satrapa1.archez.com/)
Steppe Merc
10-16-2004, 02:47
hired as mercs by the Prolemaic Egyptians, not recruited as levies.
Huge problem with this. The mercanary system is better, but is still very flawed. You need to create seperate units that are just mercanaries. So you can't have greek hoplites as mercs unless there a Mercanary Hoplite unit.
Good members of the community, I would like to update my current development version of the mod by removing ahistorical units, and tweaking the unit balance of those that remain. Please take a look at this page:
http://www.onlinedesert.com/rtw/
Let me know what should and should not be included, using the factions we have today (as laid out on that site), in the first release of the mod.
Please let me know at this location:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=37988
Many thanks,
-khel
~:cheers:
Very good job khelvan on organizing and starting things off with a blast! ~:grouphug:
I would love to take credit for that page, but it wasn't me. I simply found a link to it and thought what a wonderful way to enable folks to contribute who don't have a copy of the game yet.
chemchok
10-16-2004, 06:03
There is:
RTW Shields (http://www.twcenter.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=11761&hl=shields)
But, if possible, please confirm it.
Looks good to me. Zeus was the patron deity of Ptolemy I Soter and he used the image of an eagle cluching thunderbolts as his personal standard. His succesors continued the tradition. Link (http://www.lawrence.edu/dept/art/buerger/catalogue/059.html)
Some other Eagle variations (http://www.oldromancoins.com/gegafr1.htm)
Another possible device you could use (in addition to the Eagle) would be the profile of Ammon or Zeus-Ammon. This cult originated in Libya, became popular in Egypt, and spread through the Aegean, plus his image became associated with Alexander - a perfect icon to tie Alexander, the Ptolemies, and Egyptians together.
Info/images of Ammon - link (http://www.livius.org/am-ao/ammon/ammon.htm)
Two Ptolemaic coins w/ Zeus-Ammon and Eagle (http://rg.cointalk.org/ptolemy/)
Oh, good note on the elephants and nice Egyptian smiley. ~:)
Oleander Ardens
10-16-2004, 14:50
Well this thread really becomes very chaotic indeed... ~;)
@Aymar: The role of Germanic and Celtic archers was in our timeframe at best secondary - if one mentions the "longbow" all seem to think we are talking here about great archers...
General info:
I studied a great deal of the available literature on archery in Europe starting from the neolithicum till the modern age; Archery was very important in the european neolithicum, both for hunt and war as we have vast findings of arrowheads in many different shapes. Archers even took on bears with so called "Vogelpfeile", "frecce per uccelli" or "birdarrows" as they seemed only useful for killing this very small games. But new researches have found such Harpoonlike arrows with rectangular flint blades inserted in the wood between bear skeletons, and infact such arrows a useful for a penetrating deep into the prey
"Ötzi", the Iceman used a very large bowstaff 1.86 m while being only 1.56 IIRC, which wasn't finished yet, but which was cleary meant to be as long as we found it..
Other founds in Danmark, Northern Germany and Switzerland show as a good deal of different designs, a function of the various uses and different cultural influences. All of this eurpoean bows are entirely of a single piece of wood..
To come closer back to the RTW timeframe:
The Hallstatt findings concerning archery are well documented, and are unique in showing a clear destinction between the western and eastern Hallstatt (the period in modern Austrian, eastern Switzerland, southern Bavaria, western Czeck REp. and Slovenia, which gave way to the La-Tene')
The western Hallstatt (more or less all regions West of the "Hallstatt" which gave this period this name) shows a archery equipment which contains small round quivers with 12-15 relative longer arrows, various types of blades with two wings, both useful for the hunt and warfare. No bows which could be directly related to it could be found, but all of this informations points to a long european shelfbow..
The eastern Hallstatt ( the Eastern regions of the Hallstatt) shows gorytos-like "quiver-bowcases" and large amount of different trilobate and other "scythian" arrowheads, togheter with nomadic horseequipment. The objects were mostly found in noble graves.
Similar "invasions" and adoption of foreign archery equipment could have taken locally place through the spread of punic, etruscan greek and roman influence, which is clearly visible before and during the RTW timeframe.
For example eastern recurved bows and eastern armor are used in Sardegna since 700BC through punic influence. Scythian bows are heavily present in art through the Amazons motiv, sometimes combined with local equipment like I saw in artpiece of southern Italy, but we really don't know if they were used by them in warfare...
More to come soon, I will try first to answer Steppe Marc questions:
I simplified that a little:
Angadil and I found very interesting info about changes in the Archery design by giving a close look to the various bows on the "gold from the Steppe". We were able to identify at least two different assymetrical bowtypes which were used by the nomadic tribes (Sarmantians, Ircyians etc) in the RTW timeframe.
1) So at least a assymetrical large bow: Used by some nomadic tribes, including Parthia
2) The short scythian "cupid" bow is well known: Used by the Scythians, Dacians, Greeks and Thracias, as well as by some middleastern tribes when RTW starts
3) The "perso-assyrian" composite bow seems to have been used by various people in the middleeast, the Arab penisula and Egypt
4) The long backcurved nubian bow with setback handle made of palmwood
5) A possible composite-laminar bow with setbackhandle, used by innerafrican and arabic tribes
6) The european flatbow
7) The european longbow
This should be all the important types. Note that it is often impossible to determine which exact type was used by specific people, although in most occasions one could make a good guess.
I will list up possible archer units with their likely equipment. Some of it will be personal guesswork with none to little facts to back it up, as we simply lack the evidence, but I will try to do my best... :embarassed:
Cheers
OA
Aymar de Bois Mauri
10-16-2004, 15:53
I just had a a long game with the Egyptians ( no elephant units for Egypt ) and I can say boy this game is addicting. I could only imagine once all you guys get to put your touches to it ~:eek: how much more addicting this will be. DJ - BKB seems to have it all down when it comes to provinces. I can see adding some more of africa ( of course the sahara will be the biggest province in game ) and all the way into Iran and the steppes of central asia along with some of north europe. I can even picture adding to the east India ~D ~:eek: :dizzy2: haha I know its alot of work but the future is bright. Just some few ahead of the time ideas.
All that would allow a Ancient Times MOD for Total War (from the Sumerians to the New Kingdom Egypt, from the Hallstat Culture to Veddic India). Time span 4000 years... :stunned: What about this idea, hey? :wink:
"Aymar de Bois Mauri: I'm starting to doubt the inclusion of merc Gauls everywhere"
I doubt it too, It is almost impossible to have gauls all over the known world. Think about it, If warriors from gaul need to defend their own lands and also becoming mercs with in europe. This will limit their warrior people very much. Now Imagine, if egyptians and Seleucids and some others will use alot of them as mercs this would have depleted these people by a large percent. Remember it takes many years to train with a sword and other weapons of that time. Warriors of Gaul would have been strecht out to a limit ~:eek:
We'll just have to keep some mercs special units only available in a very few select regions.
BTW, I HATE the green colour for mercs!!! :angry:
I'm going to MOD it for grey or black.
Aymar de Bois Mauri
10-16-2004, 16:08
Some sites
Good site on Nubia. (http://library.thinkquest.org/22845/introduction/index.shtml?tqskip1=1)
Same site but directed into the Kush Kindom section. Check out meroitic period (http://library.thinkquest.org/22845/kush/index.shtml)
Satrapa1.com (http://www.satrapa1.archez.com/)
Awesome sites, Stormy!! Specially the last one. :thumbsup:
Aymar de Bois Mauri
10-16-2004, 16:11
Huge problem with this. The mercanary system is better, but is still very flawed. You need to create seperate units that are just mercanaries. So you can't have greek hoplites as mercs unless there a Mercanary Hoplite unit.
No problem with that. We'll add them. But the green colour will go away. Black or grey will be much better.
I believe the unit limit is just about 250 units. We just need to keep this in mind and keep track of the number of units.
There should be no problem with mercenaries, IMO. As I said in the other thread I was able to add a "normal" unit to the mercenaries to be hired in a province on my first try. The unit card was the grey peasant, but I am sure we can figure out why and change that.
Aymar de Bois Mauri
10-16-2004, 16:32
Good members of the community, I would like to update my current development version of the mod by removing ahistorical units, and tweaking the unit balance of those that remain. Please take a look at this page:
http://www.onlinedesert.com/rtw/
Let me know what should and should not be included, using the factions we have today (as laid out on that site), in the first release of the mod.
Great site, khelvan!!! :thumbsup:
Everyone, please post your work preferences in the EB Modification thread here:
EB Modification (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=37988)
Aymar de Bois Mauri
10-16-2004, 16:49
Looks good to me. Zeus was the patron deity of Ptolemy I Soter and he used the image of an eagle cluching thunderbolts as his personal standard. His succesors continued the tradition. Link (http://www.lawrence.edu/dept/art/buerger/catalogue/059.html)
Some other Eagle variations (http://www.oldromancoins.com/gegafr1.htm)
Another possible device you could use (in addition to the Eagle) would be the profile of Ammon or Zeus-Ammon. This cult originated in Libya, became popular in Egypt, and spread through the Aegean, plus his image became associated with Alexander - a perfect icon to tie Alexander, the Ptolemies, and Egyptians together.
Info/images of Ammon - link (http://www.livius.org/am-ao/ammon/ammon.htm)
Two Ptolemaic coins w/ Zeus-Ammon and Eagle (http://rg.cointalk.org/ptolemy/)
Great links. The last one makes us wonder about the cultural heritage and myth that lead to the Christian depictions of the Devil.
"BTW, I HATE the green colour for mercs!!!"
"I'm going to MOD it for grey or black."
Agreed. I think they all should have different colors not team colors. Team colors is old fashioned for RTS. This goes for mercs and civs, like I said it feels old fashioned with to much team colors showing because the civ you pick either with civ made units or mercs should have less team colors because there is flags in the game and also your units are highlighted when clicked. Parthian team color is very horrid if you ask me ~;)
BTW, I do like the merc unit bedouin Camel Archers with green ( the way they are already )
One more thing I think, this is to do with a rebel unit. The judean zealots look to much like desert infantry ( north west african look. Berber - tuareg look if you know what I mean ) The desert infantry looks like a they from the north west african region and that is fine. The rebel judean zealots should look different. They are dressed in traditional Berber/tuareg outfit. This also goes for the bedouin calvary and arab calvary. I think they should be replaced with the Bedouin camel archer man mounted on the camel as for the judean zealots something more appropriate will do.
Maybe the judean zealot should look like this
http://www.dbaol.com/images/faces/1427_face.jpg
Colovion
10-16-2004, 21:12
Yeah that looks alright for the Judean Zealot - I like that. I'd say they should also have swords.
I also agree about the Mercs not being Green but instead being Grey or White.
Aymar de Bois Mauri
10-16-2004, 22:50
Well this thread really becomes very chaotic indeed... ~;)
@Aymar: The role of Germanic and Celtic archers was in our timeframe at best secondary - if one mentions the "longbow" all seem to think we are talking here about great archers...
General info:
I studied a great deal of the available literature on archery in Europe starting from the neolithicum till the modern age; Archery was very important in the european neolithicum, both for hunt and war as we have vast findings of arrowheads in many different shapes. Archers even took on bears with so called "Vogelpfeile", "frecce per uccelli" or "birdarrows" as they seemed only useful for killing this very small games. But new researches have found such Harpoonlike arrows with rectangular flint blades inserted in the wood between bear skeletons, and infact such arrows a useful for a penetrating deep into the prey
"Ötzi", the Iceman used a very large bowstaff 1.86 m while being only 1.56 IIRC, which wasn't finished yet, but which was cleary meant to be as long as we found it..
Other founds in Danmark, Northern Germany and Switzerland show as a good deal of different designs, a function of the various uses and different cultural influences. All of this eurpoean bows are entirely of a single piece of wood..
To come closer back to the RTW timeframe:
The Hallstatt findings concerning archery are well documented, and are unique in showing a clear destinction between the western and eastern Hallstatt (the period in modern Austrian, eastern Switzerland, southern Bavaria, western Czeck REp. and Slovenia, which gave way to the La-Tene')
The western Hallstatt (more or less all regions West of the "Hallstatt" which gave this period this name) shows a archery equipment which contains small round quivers with 12-15 relative longer arrows, various types of blades with two wings, both useful for the hunt and warfare. No bows which could be directly related to it could be found, but all of this informations points to a long european shelfbow..
The eastern Hallstatt ( the Eastern regions of the Hallstatt) shows gorytos-like "quiver-bowcases" and large amount of different trilobate and other "scythian" arrowheads, togheter with nomadic horseequipment. The objects were mostly found in noble graves.
Similar "invasions" and adoption of foreign archery equipment could have taken locally place through the spread of punic, etruscan greek and roman influence, which is clearly visible before and during the RTW timeframe.
For example eastern recurved bows and eastern armor are used in Sardegna since 700BC through punic influence. Scythian bows are heavily present in art through the Amazons motiv, sometimes combined with local equipment like I saw in artpiece of southern Italy, but we really don't know if they were used by them in warfare...
Very good info. A thourough study. :thumbsup:
More to come soon, I will try first to answer Steppe Marc questions:
I simplified that a little:
Angadil and I found very interesting info about changes in the Archery design by giving a close look to the various bows on the "gold from the Steppe". We were able to identify at least two different assymetrical bowtypes which were used by the nomadic tribes (Sarmantians, Ircyians etc) in the RTW timeframe.
1) So at least a assymetrical large bow: Used by some nomadic tribes, including Parthia
2) The short scythian "cupid" bow is well known: Used by the Scythians, Dacians, Greeks and Thracias, as well as by some middleastern tribes when RTW starts
3) The "perso-assyrian" composite bow seems to have been used by various people in the middleeast, the Arab penisula and Egypt
4) The long backcurved nubian bow with setback handle made of palmwood
5) A possible composite-laminar bow with setbackhandle, used by innerafrican and arabic tribes
6) The european flatbow
7) The european longbow
This should be all the important types. Note that it is often impossible to determine which exact type was used by specific people, although in most occasions one could make a good guess.
:stunned: All that?!!! :surprised: How are we going to implement 7 different types of arrow projectiles? :confused:
I will list up possible archer units with their likely equipment. Some of it will be personal guesswork with none to little facts to back it up, as we simply lack the evidence, but I will try to do my best... :embarassed:
Please do so. Try to divide the possible units in specific bow categories. I'm still dizy about all those bows... :dizzy2:
Colovion
10-17-2004, 02:24
That would be incredible if you had different kinds of foot archers for certain eastern fations - I hope we can have some of them be hybrids.
Aymar de Bois Mauri
10-17-2004, 02:55
That would be incredible if you had different kinds of foot archers for certain eastern fations - I hope we can have some of them be hybrids.
Well, I've been scanning RTW's txt files and apparently, unless an hard-codded connection exists, several projectiles can be added. Therefore we can define a lot of different ranges and lethality for different types of bows.
As for "hybrids", what exactly do you mean? :confused:
Colovion
10-17-2004, 03:23
Some things on Scythian archers:
Well-known mercenary archers who fought alongside the Greeks, but sometimes also on the Persian side, were the formidable Scythians. They were recruited by the Athenian tyrant Pisistratus in die mid-6th century BC and served as mercenaries alongside the Athenian footsoldiers. They were also recruited as a police force within Athens. In the Battle of Marathon, there were no Scythians in the Athenian army, but a contingent of Asiatic Scythians, or "Sakae" fought with the Persian invasion force. During the 5th century BC the Persians also employed the Sakae to instruct their troops in archery techniques. The Scythians typically used a powerful composite bow. It consisted of a wooden core onto which was bound sinew and horn. When the bow was drawn the sinew stretched, while the strips of horn were compressed. Both parts of the bow therefore helped to propel the arrow. The bow was fitted with horn endpieces into which the notches for the string were carved. Typical also was the sometimes highly decorated bowcase or gorytos which contained a second bow and a supply of arrows.
http://www.africasbowhunter.com/ancient.htm
So Scythian archers = Sakae
I am guessing that by "hybrids" he means archers that also fight well as infantry and are well armed/armored. This is easy to do, I believe.
Colovion
10-17-2004, 03:39
As for "hybrids", what exactly do you mean? :confused:
In MTW there were Hybrid like archers which would use swords as well as their bows. Similar to the Greek Heavy Peltasts. Like the Turcopoles, Bulgarian Brigands, Longbowmen, Trebizond archers.... I guess teh Chosen Archer Warband is like what I mean - but I have yet to see any archers pull anything other than a knife out of their pocket; I guess I just want to see the Scythian and the eastern cultures have these kinds of units, though I don't know if archers fought in this way back then.
Oh here's a great link to a vast array of information dealing with just about anything. It's basically a link Tree:
Link (http://www.fanaticus.org/DBA/historical.html)
Here's one Notable one which deals quite in depth with Armaments at this time (mainly Roman):
LInk (http://www.redrampant.com/)
Examples:
Greek Helms (8) (http://www.redrampant.com/ancients/greekhelm.html)
Dacian Shields/Helms (4)/(4) (http://www.redrampant.com/ancients/daciashields.html)
Hey guys, I've recently joined EB, I've made a couple units, tell me what you think of 'em.
Thracian Mercenaries
http://img91.exs.cx/img91/1462/ThraceMerc2.gif
Nice skins, Tiger ;)
For those of you who do not have the game yet, I was directed to this map found online:
http://home20.inet.tele.dk/creativ/map.jpg
It is reasonably accurate. For now it would be great if we could determine which provinces should go to which of the existing factions. Getting more detail once we have more provinces and more factions will be a future step.
-khel
Steppe Merc
10-17-2004, 16:30
Sadly I can only see your Thracian models... and excellent job! Check out our thread in the Dugeon if you haven't already!
Aymar de Bois Mauri
10-17-2004, 18:51
In MTW there were Hybrid like archers which would use swords as well as their bows. Similar to the Greek Heavy Peltasts. Like the Turcopoles, Bulgarian Brigands, Longbowmen, Trebizond archers.... I guess teh Chosen Archer Warband is like what I mean - but I have yet to see any archers pull anything other than a knife out of their pocket; I guess I just want to see the Scythian and the eastern cultures have these kinds of units, though I don't know if archers fought in this way back then.
OK. Of course. Now I remember. I should have remembered Ottoman Infantry immediatelly.
Oh here's a great link to a vast array of information dealing with just about anything. It's basically a link Tree:
Link (http://www.fanaticus.org/DBA/historical.html)
Here's one Notable one which deals quite in depth with Armaments at this time (mainly Roman):
LInk (http://www.redrampant.com/)
Examples:
Greek Helms (8) (http://www.redrampant.com/ancients/greekhelm.html)
Dacian Shields/Helms (4)/(4) (http://www.redrampant.com/ancients/daciashields.html)
Fantastic links. Specially the RedRampant.com - a wealth of info, graphical and textual. We can base a lot of the unit modifications based on this pics. They're perfect... :thumbsup:
Sadly I can only see your Thracian models... and excellent job! Check out our thread in the Dugeon if you haven't already!
Your right oO. I can only see the Thracian mercenaries too! I also can't get into My Images and Image shack right now, but I'll be sure to fix it later.
Edit: Alright, here ya go
Egyptian Elephant
http://img94.exs.cx/img94/654/Egyptelephant.th.gif (http://img94.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img94&image=Egyptelephant.gif)
Egytian Phalanx
http://img94.exs.cx/img94/3042/Egyptphalanx.th.gif (http://img94.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img94&image=Egyptphalanx.gif)
Klerouchoi Egyptian Heavy Cavalry
http://img94.exs.cx/img94/1644/KlerouchoiEgyptianHeavyCavalry1.th.gif (http://img94.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img94&image=KlerouchoiEgyptianHeavyCavalry1.gif)
Hope you like em.
Good members of the community, we need help in the following specific areas:
-playtesters for current game and battle system changes
-volunteers to edit the descriptions and research family names for each of the existing factions (especially the Greeks)
-anyone remotely familiar with naval combat of the time period
Please see the following for details:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=37988&page=3&pp=30
Your assistance is much appreciated!
-khel
Excellent work TigerVX. The units are coming along pretty well I see. If you wish to make them a little more somewhat accurate the links below will direct you to some unit photos.
Later Ptolemaic 275BC-40BC (http://www.dbaol.com/armies/army_42b_figure_1.htm)
The mod looks like is going the right path ~:grouphug:
~;) Can't wait for this product.
Steppe Merc
10-18-2004, 22:58
I was playing the Parthians, and relized they don't have peltlasts or cataphract archers. I know they should have peltlasts, but what about Cata archers? I think they should, as it makes sense, but I'm not 100 percent sure...
Dead Moroz
10-19-2004, 09:03
I am sure! They should have them. Don't understand why they are not made by CA.
Men! I have few questions to you.
1. What about faction colors? Are you gonna leave them in game 'cause it's easer to see what unit is your and what is enemy's? Or you gonna use "original" colors of units to maximize realism?
2. What is "Domus Dulcis Domus"? Isn't it "Home Sweet Home"? Are you gonna fix it? :clown:
3. I have some ideas about Scythians/Sarmatians/Parthians and I'd like to take part in your mod. Can I?
Oleander Ardens
10-19-2004, 12:11
I and Angadil have done already a rather detailed research about the Scythians and Sarmantians. But you might be able to get more easily access to first-hand info, as a huge part of the arch. was done by Russians/Sov. citiziens, and published in Russian so you might be a valuable help.
Angadil is right rather busy with work, but you can drop me a PM, so that we can talk and organize....
Cheers
OA
Aymar de Bois Mauri
10-19-2004, 14:02
I am sure! They should have them. Don't understand why they are not made by CA.
If they had them in real life, they will have them in the EB MOD. But not in the early release. Still a lot of other work to do first.
Men! I have few questions to you.
1. What about faction colors? Are you gonna leave them in game 'cause it's easer to see what unit is your and what is enemy's? Or you gonna use "original" colors of units to maximize realism?
Nope. No pajamas or "Isn't She Pretty in Pink?" nonsense.
In fact, a fellow friend of us would be very pleased by this change. Too bad he hasn't posted in the ORG forums for a long time due to the suckness factor of the RTW release version... :rolleyes:
2. What is "Domus Dulcis Domus"? Isn't it "Home Sweet Home"? Are you gonna fix it? :clown:
Yeap. Ridiculous, no? Eventually we will... :wink:
3. I have some ideas about Scythians/Sarmatians/Parthians and I'd like to take part in your mod. Can I?
Of course. This is a community MOD, everybody with something relevant for the focus subjects of the MOD, can give their imput. But it has to be backed by fact. This is an Historical MOD.
Hello@all,
i'm looking forward for this great mod and i want to give you support.
My english isn't the best, but i've took my history exam in germanic history during roman times.So, if you need some input or information i'm more than happy to help.
Greetings from Ladenburg(b.t.w. a roman castell in former times)
Oleander Ardens
10-19-2004, 16:33
Every help is appreciated Safe ~:) - and your not the only histo. student here :bow:
In any case I would talk to Stefan the Berserker as he did mostly research the Germanic tribes. You can also sign you up in the Dungeon > RTW mod > mod dev. > EB thread, telling Aymar what you want to do specificly...
Cheers
OA
Aymar de Bois Mauri
10-19-2004, 17:25
Hello@all,
i'm looking forward for this great mod and i want to give you support.
My english isn't the best, but i've took my history exam in germanic history during roman times.So, if you need some input or information i'm more than happy to help.
Greetings from Ladenburg(b.t.w. a roman castell in former times)
Greetings, SaFe!!! ~:wave:
As Lord Oleander Ardens correctly told you, your help is apreciated. The Germanic tribes responsible is Stefan the Berserker (BTW he is German). So, please PM him regarding Germanic Historical info. Any other doubt, PM me.
Aymar de Bois Mauri
10-19-2004, 17:40
Every help is appreciated Safe ~:) - and your not the only histo. student here :bow:
In any case I would talk to Stefan the Berserker as he did mostly research the Germanic tribes. You can also sign you up in the Dungeon > RTW mod > mod dev. > EB thread, telling Aymar what you want to do specificly...
Cheers
OA
BTW, Oleander Ardens!!! Can I put you in the list for Historical faction and units descriptions or are you too busy with the strategical and economical part that you have been coordinating with khelvan?
just pm...ed Stefan the Berserker.
Hope i could be helpful.
Steppe Merc
10-19-2004, 21:50
Aymar, the Cata Archers are already in the game. It should be easy to make the Parthians be able to train them... for in my game they already can.
Aymar de Bois Mauri
10-20-2004, 13:07
Aymar, the Cata Archers are already in the game. It should be easy to make the Parthians be able to train them... for in my game they already can.
So, what was your doubt? I never said they wouldn't be in.
Here is the changelog from v0.10 that went out to our internal testers last night. You can find more technical details about what we're doing over in the Dungeon thread.
-Increased ground unit defensive skill across the board
-Reduced ground unit rates through terrain modifier across the board
-Decreased base farm levels across the board
-Increased attack factor for naval units and decreased defensive skill
-Changed Carthago Nova from Iberia to Carthaginians, changed Cirta from Numidia to Carthaginians, gave Lepcis Magna to Carthaginians
-Added ships to Carthaginian navy, added dinari to Carthaginian warchest, and tweaked Carthage AI
-Changed Samarobriva from Britons to rebels
-Changed Phraaspa to Armenian, changed Kotais to rebels
-Changed Campus Sakae from Parthia to rebels
-Changed Campus Alanni from Scythia to rebels
-Changed Campus Getae from Thrace to rebels
-Changed Bylazora from Macedon to Thrace
-Renamed Spain Iberia
-Renamed Egypt Ptolemaic Empire
-Renamed Greek Cities Aetolian League
-Changed Apollonia from rebels to Aetolian League
-Changed Syracuse from Aetolian League to rebel
-Changed Messana from Scipii to rebel
-Changed Ariminum from Julii to Senate
-Changed Croton from Brutii to Senate
-Changed Libya from Numidia to Ptolemaic Empire
-Changed Cyrenaica from rebels to Ptolemaic Empire
-made all factions except for slave and Senate playable
-Gave slave faction more denari
-Gave senate faction more denari
-Reduced roman navies to one bireme each
The campaign map may still need a few more tweaks to look historical at the beginning, so help there would be appreciated. Especially in the department of making sure the Latin names for each city are used, and the cities are all accurate (for instance, I don't believe Corduba even existed in 270 BC).
If you want to be involved in the testing please let Aymar (or myself) know and we will add you to the list of testers.
Cheers,
-khel
Edit: Several times now members of the community have suggested that we create our own web site for communication, collaboration, and distribution. We could have our own files and such. Unfortunately that is beyond my skill, knowledge, and capability. Perhaps if someone who does web development out there would volunteer, that could become a reality. It would certainly solve some of the organizational challenges we face.
Steppe Merc
10-20-2004, 20:47
I posted this in the Dungeon.
Right, I know a lot about Parthia, so I'll list the Parthian units, whether there good or not, and make suggestion changes/additions.
First off, all of them should be recoulered, loose the faction colours, and loose the pajamas.
Melee
1. Peasants - Not so sure. I hate peasants, so I can't comment on them in a non biased fashion.
2. Eastern Infanrt- Idea good, exicution bad. Loose the pajamas, and the hood. Stats are good, as their infantry sucked.
3. Hillmen- Pretty good. They did recruit many hill people, and they were better trained than their standard infantry. Mabye loose the hood.
This is pretty good. The parthians infantry sucked, and most were skirmershers, so this is represented pretty well.
Skirmeshers
1. Slingers - Has pajamaitis. Has too strong of an melee attack. These guys were either mercanaries or hillmen.
2. Archers: Pretty good. But all of the archer units need to have better range, as the Parthians and the Scythians had the best archers hand down.
3. Onagers No good. The Parthians were a steppe people, and really really were bad at seiging. Get rid of this unit.
We should also add peltlasts, which the Armenians and the Pontusians already have. Just give them that.
Mounted Archers
1. Horse Archers- Again, pajamitis. Loose the pajamas, give them no head gear and long flowing hair. Mabye their can be two units: One Iranian Nomad, and another a Lesser Parthian Noble.
2. Persian Cavalry: I guess this is like the Parthian Nobles? The need longer hair, and their outfits need to be not purple, and far more colorful.
We should add the Cataphract Archers, which Armenia already has. Also, split the Horse Archers into two or three catogories as suggested. The Lesser Parthian Noble could have better melee and better armour. Also, as another nomadic unit (which would be trainable, but cost more), can toss javilens.
Heavy Horse
1. Cataphracts: As for one type of Cataphracts, this is good. But they need to hold their kontus in two hands. However, there should be three different classes of Cataphracts: One that has the horses unarmored. These are poorer nobles, probably with scale armour for themselves. Another could be a fully armoured cataphract, but with scale armour on himself and his horse. This and the first class would make up the large number of cataphracts. The fewest number would be the current Cataphracts, as these represtent extremely rich nobles, and would be few in numbers.
2, Camel Cataphracts: Um... This might be okay if we just give the camel no armour, and mabye the rider scale armour.
3. War Elephants: These are fine, if they are Indian Elephants (which it's really easy to change it to).
Right, so there should be three classes of cataphracts, as opposed to the one right now.
Others
1. Early General: This is the javilen tossing, unarmoured early version. Um... I think that if we want to keep this guy in, give them armour on them... But I fail to see why a general would be decked out like this when he could be outfitted in a cataphract way. But whatever floats your boat.
2. Later General: These guys are Cataphracts. Mabye they could be like Siphie of the Porte, and in addition to their two handed kontus, also have compound bows? Either way, they would be the most expensive and current class of catas.
Mercanary units:
1. Bedoun Camel Archers: Not to sure.
2. Bedoun Warriors: Not to sure
3. Arab Cavalry: Not to sure.
I'm pretty sure most of the Parthian mercanaries were either light infantry, nomadic tribes from Iran, or Greeks. I don't think they would have recruited mercanary cavalry when their cavalry was far superior, but I'm not sure.
Right. Please nitpick, point out inaccuracies, point out impossibilities, and make your own suggestions.
Aymar de Bois Mauri
10-21-2004, 13:36
just pm...ed Stefan the Berserker.
Hope i could be helpful.
If you recieve no answer, just PM me. I'll assign you some work... :wink:
Dead Moroz
10-21-2004, 15:00
Why are we going to create "Aetolian League" instead of CA's "Greek Cities"? It was just relatively small union in central Greece. Why not to create "Achaean League" for example? I think it's bad idea. We should keep original name - the Greek Cities - and make it mix faction of historically different Greek unions. I know it's "not historically accurately" (not politically correctly maybe ~;) ), but I'm sure it's the best variant. Look at Gauls, Britons, Iberians, Germans! They were not united factions, just a mix of similar tribes. But they presents as one faction in RTW and nobody complain about such terrible inaccuracy.
My suggestion for Greeks:
1. Keep original name - "the Greek Cities".
2. Give Syracuse and Pergamum to rebels.
3. Keep Appolonia as rebel region - it was territory of Kingdom of Epirus.
4. Give Corinth and Athens to Greeks.
I agree with Dead Moroz...sorta. It's more of an indifference to it, though, I think it's because I'm not totally certain who all was in the Aetolian League. I look things up on it, but I'm finding pickings surprisingly thin, though I always have trouble finding things online.
As an aside, the Gauls weren't simply similar tribes, they were several sub-kingdoms that formed in the collapse of one big one. While they did have a tribal society at lower levels, there was an actual sense of unity, though it is a pity the game didn't include, maybe, three factions.
I know I pony for the Gauls a lot, but they were very unique, as were all the barbarian peoples, which is, of course, the purpose of the thread. The Gauls, however, had a few larger, indepedent factions, who would've constituted a nice, unique 'racial' group, like the Roman or Greek or 'Eastern' factions.
Dead Moroz
10-21-2004, 15:23
I agree with Dead Moroz...sorta. It's more of an indifference to it, though, I think it's because I'm not totally certain who all was in the Aetolian League. I look things up on it, but I'm finding pickings surprisingly thin, though I always have trouble finding things online.
Here's the map! Sorry, in Russian.
green - Aetolian League
yellow - Achaean League
brown - Kingdom of Epirus
pinky - Macedon
red - independent territories
blue - Pergamum
I will translate all details later if you want.
http://www.ruslan-com.ru/zotov/16.jpg
chemchok
10-21-2004, 15:56
@ Dead Moroz and Ranika
I'm currently working on the research for the Greek Cities. You're right, CA basically created this faction around a Greek cultural heritage and not on any sort of historical alliance or coalition. You're also right about the Aetolian League not representing all of the Greek city territories as they currently exist in the game.
A true historical mix would be
1. the Attalids (for Pergamum)
2. The Achaen League
3. The Aetolian League
4. Sparta
5. the Aeacid Monarchy/Epirote League
The question is, how do you recreate that and still have playable factions in the mod? I think some historical fudging might be in order. Anyway, I'm working on a comprehensive historical overview of the Greek Cities and neighboring provinces that should provide a good basis for discussion. Of course, I'd be more than happy if both of you helped out too. ~:)
-Oh, and great map Dead Moroz, thanks for the translation (BTW, what do the red dots on the yellow background represent?).
chemchok, please see my reply to the testers in the Dungeon EB thread for my reasoning behind the choices I have made.
Essentially, of the factions you have described, we can only have one, plus Macedon. I chose Macedon (+ allies, Achaean League) and Aetolian League (+ allies). "Greek Cities" is not representative of anything.
Edit: At a later date we can add more factions (and the provinces necessary to support them), but for now we can only have 18 factions.
chemchok
10-21-2004, 22:27
Khelvan,
I replied in the other EB thread (and saw your post too). I didn't realize that factions can't be added before I read your other post – that simplifies things quite a bit. I read your methodology on Macedon and the Aetolian League, it sounds good, but there’s problems, for example, the Aetolian League was allied with Macedon from 270 to ~240 BC; the Achaean League was initially an enemy of Macedon in 270 BC and was responsible for driving them out of Corinth in 248 BC. But you have to pick a faction name, and the Aetolian League still works for me when it comes to Epirus/Sparta/Aetolia, only Pergamum seems like a real stretch to include in the League – a strong/wealthy rebel faction (named the Antigonids) would work better there. As for Peloponnesus, I think CA gave the region to Macedonia because they controlled Corinth, but that’s just a bad portrayal of their power in the province (and a total assumption of mine on CA's decision).
Anyway, like I said before, I’m working on a history of the region and will make some suggestions (and provide sources).
Oh, and whenever I use the term "Greek Cities" it's just to clarify what RTW faction I'm talking about; everyone generally knows what provinces are associated with it (minus your changes in the last mod version) - however some might not know what the heck the Aetolian League is. That said, I’ll use the Aetolian League from now on, or keep “Greek Cities” in quotes. ~;)
Aymar de Bois Mauri
10-22-2004, 00:33
I think I've answered this back at the other thread, but I'll answer it here too.
First off, all of them should be recoulered, loose the faction colours, and loose the pajamas.
Agreed. They will be based on your Osprey posts.
Melee
1. Peasants - Not so sure. I hate peasants, so I can't comment on them in a non biased fashion.
2. Eastern Infanrt- Idea good, exicution bad. Loose the pajamas, and the hood. Stats are good, as their infantry sucked.
3. Hillmen- Pretty good. They did recruit many hill people, and they were better trained than their standard infantry. Mabye loose the hood.
This is pretty good. The parthians infantry sucked, and most were skirmershers, so this is represented pretty well.
Can't comment, except for Eastern Infantry in which I agree with you. Don't know much about the Hillmen.
Skirmeshers
1. Slingers - Has pajamaitis. Has too strong of an melee attack. These guys were either mercanaries or hillmen.
2. Archers: Pretty good. But all of the archer units need to have better range, as the Parthians and the Scythians had the best archers hand down.
3. Onagers No good. The Parthians were a steppe people, and really really were bad at seiging. Get rid of this unit.
We should also add peltlasts, which the Armenians and the Pontusians already have. Just give them that.
I agree with the archers range and attack. Regarding onagers, as I've said in the other thread, no onagers means no ability to siege. The slingers melee I can't comment.
Mounted Archers
1. Horse Archers- Again, pajamitis. Loose the pajamas, give them no head gear and long flowing hair. Mabye their can be two units: One Iranian Nomad, and another a Lesser Parthian Noble.
2. Persian Cavalry: I guess this is like the Parthian Nobles? The need longer hair, and their outfits need to be not purple, and far more colorful.
We should add the Cataphract Archers, which Armenia already has. Also, split the Horse Archers into two or three catogories as suggested. The Lesser Parthian Noble could have better melee and better armour. Also, as another nomadic unit (which would be trainable, but cost more), can toss javilens.
Right. No pajamas. Osprey again. As for the CA, I can say that they will be added.
Heavy Horse
1. Cataphracts: As for one type of Cataphracts, this is good. But they need to hold their kontus in two hands. However, there should be three different classes of Cataphracts: One that has the horses unarmored. These are poorer nobles, probably with scale armour for themselves. Another could be a fully armoured cataphract, but with scale armour on himself and his horse. This and the first class would make up the large number of cataphracts. The fewest number would be the current Cataphracts, as these represtent extremely rich nobles, and would be few in numbers.
2, Camel Cataphracts: Um... This might be okay if we just give the camel no armour, and mabye the rider scale armour.
3. War Elephants: These are fine, if they are Indian Elephants (which it's really easy to change it to).
Right, so there should be three classes of cataphracts, as opposed to the one right now.
For the kontos to be held in two hands, we'll have to wait for the ability to edit unit animations.
As for the several classes you want, RTW has a 300 units max. Everyone must remember this.
I agree on the Cataphract Camels. No camel armour.
I agree on the Indian Elephants.
Others
1. Early General: This is the javilen tossing, unarmoured early version. Um... I think that if we want to keep this guy in, give them armour on them... But I fail to see why a general would be decked out like this when he could be outfitted in a cataphract way. But whatever floats your boat.
2. Later General: These guys are Cataphracts. Mabye they could be like Siphie of the Porte, and in addition to their two handed kontus, also have compound bows? Either way, they would be the most expensive and current class of catas.
I agree on the early general comment.
As for the late general, is it known that they used bows besides the kontos?
Mercanary units:
1. Bedoun Camel Archers: Not to sure.
2. Bedoun Warriors: Not to sure
3. Arab Cavalry: Not to sure.
I'm pretty sure most of the Parthian mercanaries were either light infantry, nomadic tribes from Iran, or Greeks. I don't think they would have recruited mercanary cavalry when their cavalry was far superior, but I'm not sure.
You have a point. Unfortunatelly, I'm not familiarized with the Parthian's recruitment to comment.
Right. Please nitpick, point out inaccuracies, point out impossibilities, and make your own suggestions.
Let's hope for someone more knowledgeble than me, regarding Parthians, to make suggestions...
Aymar de Bois Mauri
10-22-2004, 00:43
-Oh, and great map Dead Moroz, thanks for the translation (BTW, what do the red dots on the yellow background represent?).
Spartans marching... :wink2:
Khelvan,
I replied in the other EB thread (and saw your post too). I didn't realize that factions can't be added before I read your other post – that simplifies things quite a bit. I read your methodology on Macedon and the Aetolian League, it sounds good, but there’s problems, for example, the Aetolian League was allied with Macedon from 270 to ~240 BC; the Achaean League was initially an enemy of Macedon in 270 BC and was responsible for driving them out of Corinth in 248 BC. But you have to pick a faction name, and the Aetolian League still works for me when it comes to Epirus/Sparta/Aetolia, only Pergamum seems like a real stretch to include in the League – a strong/wealthy rebel faction (named the Antigonids) would work better there. As for Peloponnesus, I think CA gave the region to Macedonia because they controlled Corinth, but that’s just a bad portrayal of their power in the province (and a total assumption of mine on CA's decision).
Anyway, like I said before, I’m working on a history of the region and will make some suggestions (and provide sources).
Oh, and whenever I use the term "Greek Cities" it's just to clarify what RTW faction I'm talking about; everyone generally knows what provinces are associated with it (minus your changes in the last mod version) - however some might not know what the heck the Aetolian League is. That said, I’ll use the Aetolian League from now on, or keep “Greek Cities” in quotes. ~;)
Well, I am by no means an expert on the political reality of the successor states at the time. If you have a better configuration I am all ears, and if it means making the Achaean League rather than Aetolian, I would be happy to do so. We only have one faction to play with (at the moment), so please let me know what makes the most sense, and which cities need to be added to the new alliance.
Apollonius
10-22-2004, 05:49
Here a few images from Osprey's "Armies of The Carthaginian Wars 265-146BC" that you all might enjoy or otherwise find useful.. I haven't seen any scans from this book up yet, so I will risk putting them up here. Besides, I know how much you all enjoy pictures from the Osprey series (especially you, Steppe Merc ;-) ).
These soldiers are supposed to be representative of the types of men who would have fought for Carthage during the Punic Wars.
The Celtic shield patterns are especially suitable for use in R:TW. The "gallic helms" are also worth noting. The blue oval shield with the golden torc pattern has already been used in a mod; but I think that's coming from another Osprey release (probably the one about Gallic & British Celts).
(Here goes, I apologize for the size)
http://img45.exs.cx/img45/5854/CelticChieftain-CelticHorn-Blower-CelticStandard-Bearer.jpg
http://img45.exs.cx/img45/192/CelticHorseman-CelticSwordsman.jpg
Apollonius
10-22-2004, 06:08
.. And here's a few more, just for kicks (This time some home-grown Carthaginian troops as well as Celt-Iberian mercenaries).
Mind the captured Roman mail shirt on the Libyan Infantryman. The horse barding on the Sacred Band Cavalryman's mount at right is supposed to be lamellar, it's inclusion is based on the assumption that it might have been used (it had begun to appear in the Hellenic Kingdoms at this time).
http://img45.exs.cx/img45/6716/Liby-PhoenicianHeavyInfantryman-CarthaginianStandard-BearerSacredBand.jpg
http://img45.exs.cx/img45/1043/IberianHorseman-Celt-IberianHeavyInfantryman-IberianSwordsman.jpg
Dead Moroz
10-22-2004, 08:45
-Oh, and great map Dead Moroz, thanks for the translation (BTW, what do the red dots on the yellow background represent?).
Literally "regions of social unrests" - I guess this map made in Soviet time.
Aymar de Bois Mauri
10-22-2004, 14:33
.. And here's a few more, just for kicks (This time some home-grown Carthaginian troops as well as Celt-Iberian mercenaries).
Mind the captured Roman mail shirt on the Libyan Infantryman. The horse barding on the Sacred Band Cavalryman's mount at right is supposed to be lamellar, it's inclusion is based on the assumption that it might have been used (it had begun to appear in the Hellenic Kingdoms at this time).
Fantastic pics, Apollonius!!! :smile: :yes:
Just what we wanted to remodel the Celtiberians and Carthagianians. :thumbsup:
Feel free to post more pics on any subject of interest to the EB project. We don't mind if you post Historical info too. In fact, if you want to get involved in the project, just PM me...
Dead Moroz
10-22-2004, 15:15
I found great site with map of Roman Empire containing Latin names.
http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~vandersp/Courses/maps/basicmap.html
Suggestions for renaming:
- city "Bylazora" to "Sardica" or "Naissus" (see here (http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~vandersp/Courses/maps/detaile2.jpg) )
- city "Campus Scythii" to "Olbia" (see here (http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~vandersp/Courses/maps/detaile2.jpg) )
- city "Campus Getae" to "Tyras" (see here (http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~vandersp/Courses/maps/detaile2.jpg) )
- region "Bosphorus" to "Taurica" (see here (http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~vandersp/Courses/maps/detailf1.jpg) )
- region "Peloponnes" to "Achaia" (see here (http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~vandersp/Courses/maps/detaile4.jpg) )
- region "Ionia" to "Lydia" (see here (http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~vandersp/Courses/maps/detaile4.jpg) )
Wow, that is a great map, thank you!
Steppe Merc
10-22-2004, 20:29
- region "Bosphorus" to "Taurica" (see here )
I thought for sure Bosphorus was the major trading place in the Crimea... oh well.
I also like Bosphorus but it is also called Taurica. I also think we can add a Bosphorus faction in the near future, no ? I will like to see them added on if it is realistic for the period.
Thracian Update * for the modders (http://www.thrace.0catch.com/warriors.htm)
Dead Moroz
10-23-2004, 17:54
I thought for sure Bosphorus was the major trading place in the Crimea... oh well.
Bosphorus is just another trick by CA. Because BosPHorus is the strait between Marmara and Black Seas.
There was the state of BosPorus in Crimea. It was situated on smaller east side of Crimean peninsula and on opposite side of Kerch strait. The main city of Bosporus was Panticapaeum (modern Kerch). Chersonesus was just another independent Greek colony.
I think it will be cool if we will make the province of Bosporus besides with Taurica.
We need to discuss a few things. Over in the Dungeon thread we have heard rumors that someone is working on the starting point of the campaign being 300 BC. We need to make a decision about the starting point so that we do not do a lot of work for nothing.
We will also be needing people to look at each faction's units on the map at the start of the campaign to make sure they appear balanced and give a somewhat historical view, as well as avoiding any nastiness such as units belonging to the wrong faction in a city, and the like.
We could also use assistance updating family names and inputting correct family trees, especially for heavily editted factions, such as the switch to Ptolemaic Egypt.
In addition, virtues and vices can be heavily editted, so start thinking about things you would like to see in the game, or changed that already exist.
Finally, a lot of work can be done in parallel, but some edits will have to be redone for some things, so please drop by the Dungeon EB thread so we can coordinate our work.
Oleander, if you read this, please drop me a note.
Steppe Merc
10-24-2004, 18:21
I think for the time being we should stick with 270 BCE... just to make everyone's job easier.
As a side note, would Macedonian look similar in this time period to Alexanders? I have a bunch of Osprey pics on Alexander's army, but would they be similar to this time period?
Colovion
10-24-2004, 19:20
Yea - sticking with 270 makes more sense - I mean I have yet to get past 200BC yet...
Aymar de Bois Mauri
10-24-2004, 19:49
We need to discuss a few things. Over in the Dungeon thread we have heard rumors that someone is working on the starting point of the campaign being 300 BC. We need to make a decision about the starting point so that we do not do a lot of work for nothing.
I really don't think it's a good idea to make a 300BC map at the time. It will spoil everyone else's work. For the time being, a 300BC map can not happen.
We will also be needing people to look at each faction's units on the map at the start of the campaign to make sure they appear balanced and give a somewhat historical view, as well as avoiding any nastiness such as units belonging to the wrong faction in a city, and the like.
Maybe the Testing Team can do that?
We could also use assistance updating family names and inputting correct family trees, especially for heavily editted factions, such as the switch to Ptolemaic Egypt.
I think the sub-groups responsible for Faction Descriptions should handle that. Stefan the Berserker and SaFe are already doing it for the Germanic faction.
In addition, virtues and vices can be heavily editted, so start thinking about things you would like to see in the game, or changed that already exist.
A bit premature, maybe?
Dead Moroz
10-25-2004, 11:52
We will also be needing people to look at each faction's units on the map at the start of the campaign to make sure they appear balanced and give a somewhat historical view, as well as avoiding any nastiness such as units belonging to the wrong faction in a city, and the like.
Maybe the Testing Team can do that?
I can do it. No problems.
chemchok
10-25-2004, 16:20
On the topic of family trees, I've found some excellent resources.
Link: (http://www.friesian.com/hist-1.htm)
You'll find detailed family trees for Macedonia, the Seleucids, and the Ptolemies; there's also basic king lists for Thrace and Pontus.
Link: (http://www.friesian.com/armenia.htm#armenia1)
...same site; Armenian king list
Link: (http://www.friesian.com/romania.htm#numidia)
...same site; Numidian king list
Link: (http://www.friesian.com/iran.htm#parthian)
...same site; Parthian king list
Link: (http://www.hostkingdom.net/regindex.html)
This site is absolutely huge and a pain to go through, but it's extremely rewarding when you find what you're looking for. Basically, it's a series of "regnal chronologies" covering just about every period through history. I've found that the best way to find what you're looking for is to use the alphabetical index here (http://www.hostkingdom.net/alphapla.html). You can also use this site to find out who ruled over a specific city at a certain date (for example, whether or not it was a local king or an empire).
Oh, and I hate to be a pain, but could everyone start using image links whenever possible; the image loading times, along with the forum lagging/crashing lately are making it nigh impossible to be able to post. ~:handball:
Aymar de Bois Mauri
10-25-2004, 21:48
I can do it. No problems.
Great. Thanks. :thumbsup:
Aymar de Bois Mauri
10-25-2004, 22:02
On the topic of family trees, I've found some excellent resources.
Link: (http://www.friesian.com/hist-1.htm)
You'll find detailed family trees for Macedonia, the Seleucids, and the Ptolemies; there's also basic king lists for Thrace and Pontus.
Link: (http://www.friesian.com/armenia.htm#armenia1)
...same site; Armenian king list
Link: (http://www.friesian.com/romania.htm#numidia)
...same site; Numidian king list
Link: (http://www.friesian.com/iran.htm#parthian)
...same site; Parthian king list
Link: (http://www.hostkingdom.net/regindex.html)
This site is absolutely huge and a pain to go through, but it's extremely rewarding when you find what you're looking for. Basically, it's a series of "regnal chronologies" covering just about every period through history. I've found that the best way to find what you're looking for is to use the alphabetical index here (http://www.hostkingdom.net/alphapla.html). You can also use this site to find out who ruled over a specific city at a certain date (for example, whether or not it was a local king or an empire).
Oh, and I hate to be a pain, but could everyone start using image links whenever possible; the image loading times, along with the forum lagging/crashing lately are making it nigh impossible to be able to post. ~:handball:
:shocked: :stunned: :surprised:
chemchok to the rescue!!! :charge:
Absolutelly precious sites... :bow:
This info was something I was dreading would elude us. Specially regarding the least well known factions. Excellent work... :thumbsup:
sharrukin
10-27-2004, 07:33
I am very new to posting but I read that some info on Naval ships was needed. Hope this helps even if it is rather long.
To a large extent these great polyremes were ostentatious expressions of power and wealth rather than effective fighting ships, similar in political concept to the great longships of the Viking chieftains. Where they were intended for practical warfare the great polyremes were designed as fighting platforms capable of supporting large numbers of marines. Their seakeeping qualities, particularly in terms of speed and manoeuvrability were deemed to be less important than their carrying capacity.
The size and lack of speed and manoeuvrability of the polyremes actually made them vulnerable light galleys using ramming as the principal weapon. The battle of Actium brought full circle the naval arms race which had begun with the defeat of Athenian triremes by Macedonian and Phoenician fours and fives at the battle of Amorgus in 322. The fleets which met at Actium consisted of large polyremes from fours up to tens in the joint Greek and Roman fleet of Mark Anthony against Octavian's fleet in which none of the galleys were larger than sixes, and most were smaller. The pendulum in shipbuilding now swung the other way so that the large polyremes were outclassed and outmanoeuvred by Octavian's lighter, faster fleet.
Being methodical and orderly the Romans now standardised their warships on the basis of a developed and rather heavier version of the trireme for the Italian based fleets and the rather lighter Liburnian was used for the Provincial fleets.
The Liburnian was related to the Hemiolia and apparently began life a light pirate or raiding galley used along the Dalmatian coast. It first appears in the records at the battle of Naulachus in 36 BC. The Liburnian was a small aphract galley with two levels, in which the upper level or oars worked through a lattice bulwark whilst the lower level of oars emerged from holes cut into the sides of the hull just below the gunwhale
In addition to the trireme and the Liburnian the Romans continued to use some Quadriremes (fours) and Quinquiremes (fives) but these were either single banked vessels with 4 or 5 men per sweep, or two banked vessels with 2 or 3 men on each oar. All of these types were inherited by the Imperial navy from different cultures and earlier periods but Roman shipbuilders tended to follow the Phoenician rather than the Greek practise, eschewing the outrigger in preference for a slightly wider beam to accommodate the upper level of oarsmen in the standard trireme. The Roman trireme must therefore have been rather heavier and less manoeuvrable than its fourth century Greek counterpart
A possible plan of a Trireme
Overall length: around 37 metres (121 feet)
Overall beam: 5.5 metres (18 feet)
170-174 oarsmen in 3 files on each side: top file 31, middle and bottom 27- 29
Oarsmen spaced at 2 cubits (0.888 metres/2 feet 9 inches)
One man per oar
Oar length 4.2m (13 feet 8”) and 4.0m (13 feet) - short oars at ends of ship
Speed: able to cover 184 sea miles at about 7.5 knots without stopping
Versions, with a modified deck, were build for the transport of warriors (oplitagagos) or horses (ippagagos). The rowing port-holes were protected by leather bags (askômata), that prevented sea water to enter in the ship in a rough sea.
The trireme was built for speed and mobility. They were built low to the ground, the bottom row of rowers were just 18 inches above the waterline, and very narrow which meant that the triremes were not built to handle open ocean. The rough seas would make short work of a trireme because of its very low weight. The triremes were built for short, close in, battles. They were not made to handle long, open ocean campaigns. However, the triremes were very fast and maneuverable which gave them a critical advantage in the close-in battles that were typical of ancient naval engagements
In 431 BC, the service of 200 triremes for six months cost 800 talents or 4.8 million drachmae. In 483-410 BC Athens commissioned 1,500 triremes at a cost of 15,000 talents or 90 million drachmae.
In the Hellenistic era the tactics changed. The use of multiple oarsmen was encouraged by two important factors. Firstly, the predominant form of warfare of this period consisted in besieging cities from the sea, rather than in the inter ship warfare of the trieres era. Power and carrying capacity rather than speed became the order of the day and the extra beam required to accommodate multiply banked oars provided a wide deck to serve as a weapons platform, especially for the catapult. Although these large vessels had many more oarsmen than the older trieres only one man on each or was required to be skilled, the rest could be slaves or prisoners. Athens lost its dominance as a Sea power and the Rhodians became the greatest Greek sea-power.
The construction and requirements of a Greek trireme differed from that of a Roman quinquereme. The materials used by both ancient cultures to build their ships were different. Roman ships were built out of cedar, a durable, red-coloured wood. Greek ships were constructed from lightweight, soft fir trees. The two navies also had their own ideas for ship weight, as well. Roman ships were heavy and could not be blown off course easily, should the ship be presented with unfavourable weather . Greek ships were, as Kenny McMahon put it; "… rather light and [was] blown off course when high winds arose."(Ancient Greek Methods of Boating and Sailing, Internet source) The requirements of a Roman quinquereme were somewhat different compared to the expectations of a trireme, too. Romans were not at all seafarers, and would have been devastated by the Carthaginian Empire’s navy in the First Punic War, had they not made use of their land battle experience at sea. Carthaginian captains preferred to ram enemy ships, a standard naval tactic until the event of naval artillery, so Rome countered their seafaring advantage with the ‘corvus’, a gangplank that effectively turned a sea battle into a land battle with a boarding party of soldiers. A Greek trireme was created solely to be a "..floating battering ram[s]"(Kentley, 20). This also has much to do with the trireme design. Stephan Schulz stated that "[Then,] around 800 BC, the ram (a bronze tipped projection from the bow (front) of the ship) was developed as a ship-to-ship weapon. Suddenly, speed and maneuverability became prime concerns." (Ancient Galleys, Internet source) Although heavier, Roman ships were constructed with far better protective wood than Greek ships, and they would suffer less of a navigational crisis in the unfortunate event of a storm due tom their weight. Roman ships were also designed to make use of soldiers, but could also ram enemy ships, like the expert seafarers of the Greek navy.
http://www.artsales.com/ARTistory/Ancient_Ships/12_roman_galleons.html Some pictures here!
Dead Moroz
10-27-2004, 11:17
I found great site about Eastern European barbarians. A lot of info, maps and pics.
http://www.thrace.0catch.com
sharrukin
10-27-2004, 14:40
I have some info on eastern cavalry hope its of use!
The Ptolemaic Chariot unit could be used to represent Garamantian Chariots (mercs?) who at this time still used chariots in the grasslands west of the Nile valley.
Roman general units should be Triarii units not cavalry as this would be more historical (yes they were mounted but I don't think they had a bodyguard of cavalry). This would also prevent suicides to a certain degree just by slowing them down.
Should there be such a thing as barbarian peasants as they tended to be more rural with different social structures? Maybe something more like Viking Thralls or Woodsmen type units in MTW.
Parthia; Parthians are not Persians! Same ethnicity but the Parthians took over the Seleucid Kingdoms holdings in Eastern Iran. The militia hoplites in the urban centers would still be present but rare(I think-info on Parthia is so skimpy its hard to be sure). Eastern infantry (Persian pattern leftovers) elites should have spear as well as short composite bow. given that they will face hoplites and legionnaires its hardly unbalancing or scary.
Scythia;Scythian Heavy Foot Bronze scale armour/spear/composite bow/sword 2. Scythian Levy Spear
Pre-Marius leaders should suck-yes I know Scipio Africanus-but even a stopped clock is right twice a day! The Romans changed their generals every year which prevented them from gaining experience as other faction leaders did. More so than the British the roman soldiers were "Lions led by Donkeys".
This was one of Marius's changes that made a big difference. The Senate resisted this proffesional general idea as a means to prevent dictators. They were right! It produced Sulla, Ceasar, Pompey, Mark anthony etc.
Could flaming arrows be used to replace Incendiary Piglets if game balance with regards to elephants becomes a problem?
HEIGHT ADVANTAGE/HEIGHT ADVANTAGE/HEIGHT ADVANTAGE-I WANT IT BACK! PLAYING ON A BILLIARD TABLE IS NO FUN!
Early Hastati and Principes used leather cuirass until 123 BC when Rome started issuing armour(what and to whom I dunno-Bronze breastplates?) shortly after this Romans started using Lorica Hamata(chainmail) copied from Celts. Collectively the Hastati and Principes were called antepilani ('before the columns'?) as they had virtually identical equipment. There were two types of pilum 1. heavy throwing spear(Germans used similar weapon called Angon?) 2. Javelin. Polybius mentioned a thin and thick spear as well.
Hoplites(Iphicratid);12' spear/small round shield/quilted linen cuirass reasonably maneuverable
Classic Hoplites;6'-10' spear/Hoplon shield/sword/layered linen cuirass(suprisingly good protection)sometimes augmented with bronze scales-NOT scale mail. The so called Hypaspists may be a Macedonian recreation of the Classic Hoplite to act in a fast and flexible role as the Sarissa Hoplites were anything but.
Sarissa Hoplites;18'-23' long Pike(may have been 16')two handed pike/slung shoulder shield/dagger largely useless if formation is broken(battle of Pydna).
Nations deploying cataphracts at some time in their history included the Armenians, Byzantines, Parthians, Pergamenes, Romans, Sarmatians, Sassanids, and others. The Parthian army that defeated the Romans at Carrhae in 53 BC operated primarily as a combined arms team of cataphracts and horse archers against the Roman heavy infantry. A cataphract charge was generally more disciplined and less impetuous than the charges of the knights of Western Europe, but very effective due to the discipline and the large numbers of troops deployed.
Cataphracts generally wore heavy armor of mail, horn, or thick quilted cloth, carried a shield, sat an armored horse, and charged with lances in a tight knee-to-knee formation. Most armies' cataphracts would be equipped with an additional side-arm such as a sword or mace, for use in the melee that followed the charge.
Cavalry Types
1.Equipped with bows in addition to their lances and heavy armor, to allow them to engage the enemy from afar before charging. Like MTW Steppe Heavy Cavalry-Lance and Bow Factions;Scythians(rare-maybe General unit only)/Sarmatian/Parthian-Armenia?
2. Cataphracts without bows are sometimes referred to simply as lancers. Like Byzantine Pronoie Allegon Factions;as above
3. Quilted Armour or Lobster cuir-bouilli Light Lance and Bow-Like MTW Steppe Cavalry with Bow Factions;Parthian(Azat)/Scythian/Armenian/Dacian(allied Roxalani-maybe available as Merc)
4.Horse Archers Factions;Parthian/Scythian/Armenian/Seleucid-rare for Dacian/Thracian
5.Medium shock Cavalry-spear and javelin Faction;Parthian/armenian/Thracian/Dacian/Scythian/Seluecid/Ptolemaic/Carthage/Iberian/Gaulish(south)/Pontus
5a. as above but low quality due to poor horseflesh and lack of skill Faction;Roman/Greek(sorta and sometimes)/Gauls(north)
6. Heavy horse Batavian-Frisian breed Faction;Germania(big horses not skilled riders or well equipped compared to eastern cavalry-better than Roman cavalry but a kid with a sharp stick could manage that)
7.Clibinarii(super heavies) very heavily armoured lancers Factions;Parthians
8.Bovinus Incenderius-not actually a horse unit. Cattle with flaming torches tied to their horns were used by Hannibal against the Romans. The Gallic Warbands could use this as a mount and the torches could keep the shirtless Gauls warm in the winter!
The Romans used cataphracts only late in their history, and even then primarily in the East. In addition to ordinary cataphract types they sometimes fielded a very heavy type called a clibanarius (pl. clibanarii), named after an iron oven due to their enclosed metal armor. The early Roman cavalry(equites) were supplemented by Illyrians(equites dalmatae) and Numidians(equites mauri). It could be argued that the Romans never developed good cavalry they just hired someone else to do the job for them. Wisely they played to their strenths(infantry) not their weaknesses(cavalry). Auxilia and Allied(socii) cavalry of the spear and javelin type were used in the early Republic.
Nations in the Middle East occasionally fielded cataphracts mounted on camels rather than on horses, with obvious benefits for use in arid regions but this was rare.
Dead Moroz
10-27-2004, 15:37
How about to move this thread into "Hosted mods" section and rename it into something like "Historical research"?
Aymar de Bois Mauri
10-27-2004, 17:43
How about to move this thread into "Hosted mods" section and rename it into something like "Historical research"?
Thinking about it. We just have to talk about it with the other guys.
Aymar de Bois Mauri
10-27-2004, 18:11
8.Bovinus Incenderius-not actually a horse unit. Cattle with flaming torches tied to their horns were used by Hannibal against the Romans. The Gallic Warbands could use this as a mount and the torches could keep the shirtless Gauls warm in the winter!
LOL :grin:
You got to be joking, right? :wink:
As for the rest of the information, it's very interesting. You seem to know much about ancient times navies and also about Eastern factions.
What about cooperating in the EB MOD? Even not knowing how to mod, we could use your knowledge in these areas:
-Naval battle changes > (exchanging info with khelvan and Colovion)
-Factions and units - info and descriptions > Romans and Eastern factions (exchanging info with Steppe Merc and Dead Moroz)
sharrukin
10-28-2004, 03:17
LOL :grin:
You got to be joking, right? :wink:
As for the rest of the information, it's very interesting. You seem to know much about ancient times navies and also about Eastern factions.
What about cooperating in the EB MOD? Even not knowing how to mod, we could use your knowledge in these areas:
-Naval battle changes > (exchanging info with khelvan and Colovion)
-Factions and units - info and descriptions > Romans and Eastern factions (exchanging info with Steppe Merc and Dead Moroz)
Yes I was joking! Hope CA does read it or it might end in the next patch.
Aymar de Bois Mauri
10-28-2004, 12:51
What about cooperating in the EB MOD? Even not knowing how to mod, we could use your knowledge in these areas:
-Naval battle changes > (exchanging info with khelvan and Colovion)
-Factions and units - info and descriptions > Romans and Eastern factions (exchanging info with Steppe Merc and Dead Moroz)
Hey, sharrukin!!! ~:wave:
What about this? Can I include you in these workgroups? Or not?
EDIT: Sorry! I hadn't seen your posts at the EB Forum. :embarassed: Welcome!! ~:wave:
eadingas
11-06-2004, 17:06
Hi, folks
I thought you might be interested in a map I made for my own mod (no name so far). It's based on RTR 3.2, hence the xpanded map. It has some changes to barbarian lands, so it may come in your area of interest... all names were found through some research, some are based on Ptolemy's map, which, although not very accurate, is still better than what CA came up with. Two new provinces for Britons and Gauls, no Home, Sweet Home - Gepids have their capitol where they're supposed to have it, on Vistula river, etc.
On the picture I give only the names that I've changed from the original. Oh, and my Latin grammar is pretty much random, so any corrections will be welcomed.
http://img95.exs.cx/img95/8357/barbarianmap.th.jpg (http://img95.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img95&image=barbarianmap.jpg)
eadingas
11-06-2004, 17:09
Eh... sorry, something wrong with the picture.
Here it is again:
http://img95.exs.cx/img95/1672/barbarianmap1.th.jpg (http://img95.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img95&image=barbarianmap1.jpg)
sharrukin
11-07-2004, 06:26
Eh... sorry, something wrong with the picture.
Here it is again:
http://img95.exs.cx/img95/1672/barbarianmap1.th.jpg (http://img95.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img95&image=barbarianmap1.jpg)
You should come over to the Hosted mod section, I think you could contribute a lot!
Have you had any map glitches extending it north as several people have reported that as a problem?
eadingas
11-07-2004, 11:52
The expansion is from RTR, not my own. I'm not that good at modding yet, I'm better at research :)
Sorry about this but I've tried to find what exactly the mod is going to be and the info is all over the place.
So I'll post it here:
I know you've been working on this for a long time now but have you ever thought of making most or all of the lower value units region specific and only the unique/elite units faction specific?
It's been bothering me for a long time and I think it makes more sense for any faction to be able to train in any region the lower value units of the original owner.
If you conquer greece you can train hoplites, if you conquer scythia you can train HA.
Am I losing your point completely?
eadingas
11-09-2004, 11:19
I think this is what mercenaries are for. You can _hire_ hoplites in Greece, and that's enough for me.
To train all new set of units, in real life terms, means that you:
1) capture the staff officers and army training personel and persuade them to work for the conquerors
and
2) you decide that warfare and training methods of the conquered nation is superior to yours, so it's worth introducing them into your army instead of your own. This would be contrary to all the evidence (=YOU conquered THEM)
Not to mention it would awfully clutter your building queue... and make the idea of differing faction armies pointless - everyone would just charge into several important provinces to make the best army - get into Africa to get the elephants, for example. Imagine Rome with legionaries AND elephants. Talk about unstoppable war machine.
Aymar de Bois Mauri
11-09-2004, 17:47
We're still discussing the implementation of generic units like peasents, town militia, etc...
So far, there is no definitive concept, but eadingas makes a pertinent point about the problems within your idea.
GeraldDuval
11-09-2004, 20:29
Hey all, I was wondering if i could help out. I am a Historian and reenactor. I have tons of personal researdh and refrence pics for you to use from my fellow reenactors to help show proper sheid designs, woven cloth, celt designs and more.
Gallic Commander and standard bearer:
http://www.ambiani.celtique.org/images/photos/galerie/photos%202003%20web/Gallia%20Antiqua/Lugulcos%20Sukellogenos,%20Brenn%20Teuta%20Ambiani%20et%20l%27enseigne%20de.jpg
http://www.ambiani.celtique.org/images/photos/galerie/photos%202003%20web/Entra%EEnements%202003/Camp%20d'entra%EEnement/P1010117.JPG
http://www.ambiani.celtique.org/images/photos/galerie/photos%202003%20web/Nagold/NAGOLD%202003%20037.jpg
Gallic Shields:
http://www.ambiani.celtique.org/images/photos/galerie/photos%202003%20web/St%20Romain%20en%20Gal/St%20Romain%20en%20Gal%20.%20Camp.%20web.jpg
Gallic Peltasts: http://www.ambiani.celtique.org/images/photos/galerie/photos%202003%20web/Montbeliard/DSCF0088.JPG
Gallic light cavalry:
http://www.ambiani.celtique.org/images/photos/galerie/photos%202003%20web/Entra%EEnements%202003/Camp%20d'entra%EEnement/cavalier%20gaulois%20Amb_iani.jpg http://www.ambiani.celtique.org/images/photos/galerie/photos%202003%20web/Entra%EEnements%202003/Camp%20d'entra%EEnement/Cavalier%20gaulois%20Ambiani.JPG
GeraldDuval
11-09-2004, 20:43
Briton Chieftans and standard bearer:
http://www.keltentruppe.de/galerie09/3267.jpg
http://www.keltentruppe.de/galerie03/1062.jpg
http://www.keltentruppe.de/galerie03/1061.jpg
Briton warband:
http://www.keltentruppe.de/galerie09/660.jpg
http://www.keltentruppe.de/galerie09/3243.jpg
http://www.keltentruppe.de/galerie09/3209.jpg
http://www.keltentruppe.de/galerie04/1314.jpg
http://www.keltentruppe.de/galerie01/401.jpg
Briton swordsmen:
http://www.keltentruppe.de/galerie04/carnyx01.jpg
Briton gaestate (yes, real reenactors, I'll be nice and just put the link)
Gaestate 1 (http://www.keltentruppe.de/galerie04/1269.jpg)
Gaestate 2 (http://www.keltentruppe.de/galerie04/carnyx02.jpg)
http://www.keltentruppe.de/galerie01/thm_335.jpg
http://www.keltentruppe.de/galerie01/352.jpg
http://www.keltentruppe.de/galerie01/364.jpg
Briton Peltast
http://www.keltentruppe.de/galerie01/362.jpg
Aymar de Bois Mauri
11-10-2004, 00:38
Hey all, I was wondering if i could help out. I am a Historian and reenactor. I have tons of personal researdh and refrence pics for you to use from my fellow reenactors to help show proper sheid designs, woven cloth, celt designs and more.
Feel free to do so. Would you be interested in joining the group? As an Historian and reenactor you would be of value to us in faction/unit descriptions, as well as giving advice on the looks of particular units.
anti_strunt
11-21-2004, 23:41
Hi, would it be possible to join this mod? ~:)
I'm not terribly good at modding, but I am quite the geography nerd, so maybe I could do some good in that field... :book2: :book:
Aymar de Bois Mauri
11-23-2004, 19:25
Hi, would it be possible to join this mod? ~:)
I'm not terribly good at modding, but I am quite the geography nerd, so maybe I could do some good in that field... :book2: :book:
OK. No problem. Be sure to consult our EB Forum at the Hosted MODs section. I'll add you to the Campaign Map group. Be sure to coordinate your info with the people in that same group and post your info in that thread.
Michiel de Ruyter
12-30-2004, 18:50
Apologoes guys,
I got a new computer, and then work for university got the best of me. I kiond of overdid the amount of classes I entered, I even had to drop one.
For two of them however, I got some brushes with the "barbarians", especially the Northern ones. One class had to do with the Roman province of Brittania, the other was a paper bout the demise of the empire, wether there was a military explanation.
I'll see what I can get done over the next few months... I have cut back on classes, and should have a bit more time for research come January 12.
For new and old members alike, the only place we discuss EB any longer is here:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/forumdisplay.php?f=70
I'll see if I can have this thread locked. Check out the link above, hopefully you will be pleasantly surprised at our progress. Also, if you're a member that went inactive, you'll need access to our hidden forums, where most of the real work is being done.
King Henry V
01-15-2005, 18:28
Who cares abouth a bunch of half naked savages who think that they can kill people by throwing a few heads at them? None of them can match the full force of the powerful Roman fighting/killing machine!
Aymar de Bois Mauri
01-18-2005, 02:23
Who cares abouth a bunch of half naked savages who think that they can kill people by throwing a few heads at them? None of them can match the full force of the powerful Roman fighting/killing machine!If you can't make a comment that can pass for one of a sentient being, please abstain from doing so. At least in this thread. IQs of less than 1 are not welcomed here...
Duke John
01-18-2005, 06:37
Replies such as yours, Aymar are not welcome either.
Dead Moroz
01-19-2005, 09:05
Don't altercate, girls! :party3:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.