Printable View
Hello :2thumbsup:
Will we see Pannonian cavalry in EB2 ?
Thanks
Will we see some novelty or will it be the same units ? :book:
Are some units of camel planned ? I even dare to ask camel cataphract ? Or two humped camel drummers for the Saka ??? :2thumbsup:
Estimation ? i hope it is before the end of world in 2012 :wall:
Will you create your own model or is it going to be same ugly as s:daisy:t vanilla model :wall:
Well nothing has been concepted so far, so no. Was Pannonian cavalry particularly noted or special?Quote:
Will we see Pannonian cavalry in EB2 ?
Yes we have our own models for elephant units, I don't see why you would think we wouldn't.Quote:
Will you create your own model or is it going to be same ugly as s:daisy:t vanilla model :wall:
Watch the language btw.
In future you should just post all your questions in one thread rather than creating 4 different ones.
Not sure what you mean by novelty, we will have the units they historically used, so they will be for the most part the same as those in EB.Quote:
Will we see some novelty or will it be the same units ? :book:
Yes a camel archer unit is planned, nothing else though, their use in war was very rare.Quote:
Are some units of camel planned ? I even dare to ask camel cataphract ? Or two humped camel drummers for the Saka ??? :2thumbsup:
We don't know, sometime next year would be probable.Quote:
Estimation ? i hope it is before the end of world in 2012 :wall:
There are elephant units in M2TW.Quote:
Originally Posted by SneakyNinja
Pretty sure you could have put all your questions in one thread. However this is the only one i think i can answer. Seeing as this mod is for Medieval 2 total war I'm pretty sure they have to make they're own
@ Barry Soteiro
If you have multiple questions please put them in the same post rather than spread them around in lots of different threads. Simple forum courtesy.
Foot
oooooooo a semi-anouncement :D ok just a rough estimation without any backing and with a blur of one year but hey!
tho It's quite close to my estimations
i recently saw a documentary on the sahara and at the start of the game it seems dromedaries/camel´s weren´t present in the desert yet since it was still green enough to suport horses (ok ok i know we can´t believe all that the history chanel says but still it was an interesting doc)
Wiki says that by 3400BC the south had begun to dry out to its current conditions. The north had been drying out since 6000BC. It seems unlikelt that it was supporting horses at the beginning of our timeframe:Quote:
Originally Posted by moonburn
Quote:
The climate of the Sahara has undergone enormous variation between wet and dry over the last few hundred thousand years.[11] During the last glacial period, the Sahara was even bigger than it is today, extending south beyond its current boundaries.[12] The end of the glacial period brought more rain to the Sahara, from about 8000 BC to 6000 BC, perhaps because of low pressure areas over the collapsing ice sheets to the north.[13]
Once the ice sheets were gone, northern Sahara dried out. In the southern Sahara though, the drying trend was soon counteracted by the monsoon, which brought rain further north than it does today. The monsoon season is caused by heating of air over the land during summer. The hot air rises and pulls in cool, wet air from the ocean, which causes rain. Thus, though it seems counterintuitive, the Sahara was wetter when it received more insolation in the summer. This was caused by a stronger tilt in Earth's axis of orbit than today, and perihelion occurred at the end of July around 7000 BC.[14]
By around 3400 BC, the monsoon retreated south to approximately where it is today,[15] leading to the gradual desertification of the Sahara.[16] The Sahara is now as dry as it was about 13,000 years ago.[11] These conditions are responsible for what has been called the Sahara pump theory.
I believe dromedary camels were introduced to the region following the Arab conquests, although I could very well be wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by moonburn
The camel unit will be recruitable on the Arabian west coast for starters, so I'm not sure why this is being discussed.
That dromedaries and hybrid camels were brought further to Africa by the Arabs in the 7th century is true, but there were some dromedaries in some parts of Africa already I seem to remember from somewhere. I do know for a fact that some tribes (Blemmyae) to the south of Egypt used camels.
this is B-S-, a troll of infinite annoyance. after-all, most of these questions shouldn't need asking. and they shouldn't have to be broken up into 4 threads.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moros
still wondering why he hasn't just been blocked.
There is some question when exactly the north dried out completely. I raised this issue earlier about the coast of modern Tunisia. Several references to a large bay and even deeper inland access than exists now as late as the EB period are around. The question is when the water was low enough that ships could no longer pass as by then the lakes had also dried significantly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Foot
Calm down, at least we got some nice answers, like a rough estimate of the release date and the announcation of camel units.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibrahim
who said I wasn't? B-S- was simply his initials (can't be provoked to write his full username), and the rest is just matter of fact: he's a troll, he really didn't need to ask-especially not the way he did. and he does have a history...Quote:
Originally Posted by Skullheadhq
in any event: you do have a point, at least we have a general idea of these things. and at least we do have more merciful moderators-I doubt I'd be as courteous.
according to my best knowledge the great droughts that happened in the 16th century was the last time of agressive and fast loss of agricultural land until modern era but today i somehow suspect it probably as increased in the last 20 years since we´re always debating the global warmth and the last estimates say the sahara will cross the gibraltar straight and occupy parts of southern iberia by 2100 (pessimist expectations)
altough khadaffi discover of the aquifer resources in the sahara might have allowed for the taking of some land back but can´t be sure since i don´t know whats being done with the water i only know alot of it is being taken year round
but the sahara as been expanding pretty much for the last 6.000 years sometimes incredably fast particulary because of unproper agricultural use of the more fertile land (romans berbers arabs and the modern people europeans/colonised people)
fact remainds the sahara will keep drying up unleass something is done and the use of the aquifers bellow it will eventually dry up and eventually only upper up the atlas mountain range and aygyptos will water still be found (except for desalinization ofc but i don´t know much about the current state of the technology)
actually, no it won't. not normally.Quote:
Originally Posted by moonburn
the way it should work is that the expansion and contraction of the Sahara is dependent on, humorously enough, subtle variations in the Earth's tilt. one such shift created the Sahara in fact*. and so long as nothing is screwed with, it'll go back to savannah in a few thousand years.
now....that's assuming, as you correctly noted, Humans don't **** with the environment. Global warming will be the biggest problem, as well as poor agricultural practices (well, technically, outdated, not "poor"). doesn't help there is a substantial lack of capital in Africa, to import, or seed native plants that act as windbreakers-something done regularly to stop desertification in Arabia (which does have the money). bear in mind that the natural method of blowing sand around is the immediate mechanic of the Sahara's expansion in large parts of the region, so the method makes sense here. of course, you also need water to irrigate, so that's where the aquifers come in. again, capital gets in the way-government incompetence in the region also aids in hindering investment.
needless to say, with an area the size of the US, the economic potential of the region is vastly underrated, and requires investment.
*never more than 1 degree-thank God for the Moon...
Yeah I always thought the Sahara was "advancing" because North Africa agricultural activity basically ceased to exist...
it's the other way around.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arjos
specifically, the Sahara was once actually larger than it is today, during the Ice age. when the Ice sheets collapsed, it released a large amount of humidity that whetted the region. when the glaciers stopped retreating, the place dried up; this was counteracted by Monsoon activity, rendering the area as Savanna.
once the Monsoon retreated south to their present location, the area finally started to undergo actual desertification once again.
again, all this is regulated by the Earth's motion tilt (in this case), which changes cyclically, one of several such cycles called Milankovic cycles.
Thx for the info ^^
herm the milankovic cycles are 3 as far as i am aware ibrahim
anyway many defenders of the gaia theory state that before the sahara returns to being a savanah we will undergo a new ice age so those thousands of years you speak off mean alot of trouble and storms ahead because the increase heat will increase evaporation and create thicker and more permanent clouds that will cool off the earth (then i bet we will be bitching at the envirementalists and will try to burn as much coal as we possibly can to warm ourselfs in our subway tunell houses 20 meters under the snow \o )
anyway the practices you speak off being made in arabia and the levant have shown they are not effective on the long term and are very weak during extended droughts period however the chinese seem to be able to use them extremly effectivly to stop the gobi so maybe with a new nile damm proper use of the aquifers and the rain from the atlas range combined with true political goodwill and proper planing "might" turn the tide but until there the sahara will continue to grow in all directions forcing africans to go further south wich will increase the migratory pressure from gana nigeria somalia and such towards europe (in some ways the same can be applyed to marocans tunisians and argelians not lybians tough they have the money and the water to resist for a few more hundread years)
... why did you bring up Gaia Theory?
one of the 1st theories i learned so it´s always in my mind when i think about general trends and specific trends
the 100,000 year, 40,000 year, and 26,000 year ones? I know about them-but to my knowledge the immediate one to the formation of the (modern) Sahara is the 26,000 year one, maybe the 40,000 year one (obliquity) (26,000=the precession-I do admit I forgot the exact term: yes it does regard the Earth's axis, though I was wrong in stating it changed the magnitude of the tilt; that's obliquity's job). why you have to state this fact is lost to me. especially since if you truly read what I said, I made it clear the variation in the Earth's tilt is one of several such variations:Quote:
Originally Posted by moonburn
mind you, those are the three main ones, not all the cycles. there is also apsidal rotation, and Orbit inclination. neither was studied by Milankovic himself, but research has been put into them.Quote:
Originally Posted by me
what are you talking about? :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by moonburn
I never argued they were for the long term. I simply argued they could help slow down or stop desertification. the long term is another matter-one that requires investment in the region.Quote:
anyway the practices you speak off being made in arabia and the levant have shown they are not effective on the long term
you just contradicted yourself with this statement. and as I mentioned, irrigation is required, since droughts are constant in the Sahara.Quote:
Originally Posted by moonburn
:inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by moonburn
can you explain this "theory" to me? it might help me make sense of what I just readQuote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
It's an old theory that the world is a single self regulating ecosystem, AFAIK it doesn't stand up well to real world observations and is considered mostly incorrect these days.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibrahim
AFAIK, its more of a descriptive theory based on that idea and attempt to frame phenomena as the planet being an organism.Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbin
Its more of a concept than anything concrete unless you could fun little thought experiments like daisy world.
It makes sense that obviously you can view the world as a system but thinking it is using feedback to return to a baseline is where the theory errs. Obviously the earth is only livable on so broad an area of its surface due to tilt, tides and the oceans currents generated by those. That disturbing ocean currents has effects that feedback into other things such as cloud cover and moisture content is also obvious since both are largely based on temperature. The idea is that the feedback is regulated to maintain life on earth which seems more spiritual than scientific.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbin
oh, I see.Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
that is a most....unusual....idea.
since i´m also a believer of the aquatic monkey theory i guess stating that the gaia theory shouldn´t be so far off :\ besides technically the gaia theory does work imho all sub sistems of the planet are always working to make life possible on earth (not confortable tough) but it also states that changes in one of the sub systems implies a new cycle on the earth "mood" so as i said before the sahara becomes a jungle/savanah imho we will watch a new ice age on the northern hemisphere wich if we believe is a repetition of the previous one´s then the sahara will be the driest it as ever been until it returns to a kind of balance
as for people discrediting the theory or hypothesis a few of the last works made on what killed off the australian mega fauna say it was mainly due to human indirect action it seems that humans slash and burning techniques (either for hunting or for agriculture now you pick) activly changed the continent climate by making fires more frequent wich tilted the balance of the entire continent into less nutrient rich but more fire resistant vegetable life (i wonder if this could be one of the reasons why the sahara is crippled)
so the daisyworld thingie where biodiversity means a more healthy world shouldn´t have such a broad understanding since one specie can effectivly wipe out several other species and thus be counter productive to the "daisyworld"
and ibrahim what i understood about solar cycles is that there is 3 main vectors/causes on the way that the earth and the sun interact and thus depending on how all of 3 are alligned we can have warmer colder or more temperate climates and yes i know they have diferent time spaces on how to work but they can actually be combined and thus we should be able to mathematically predict the new time where the earth will turn into a snowball or a freaking desert but that doesn´t take into account other aspects of the interaction since we can´t predict solar flares and solar higher or lower activity wich can balance out the outcome or increase the effect
also according to the gaia theory living beings and a few geological effects could counter the solar effects by changing the stratosphere quimistry and thus the reason why i wonder if human actions and development didn´t acticvly contributed for the original saharan rapid desertification
i would like to point out i´m a generalist in terms of knowledge and not an expert in any area (well maybe touristic marketing) so all i say should be considered with a bit of salt and further references should be researched instead of taking my word for it