Printable View
yo,
i love this mod..however..will the timeframe be increased for eb2?? ive just read that lorica segmentata legionaries dont appear in eb1....its heart breaking to conquer the roman world and not receive these gleaming units at the end....oh sorrow
:shame:
No, I'm afraid you'll have to wish on.Quote:
Originally Posted by chomskola
Foot
I kind of wish for a different starting date for EB2. The ending date doesn't matter to me because I never finish a campaign.
When?
Maybe 275 BC. The situation in Greece starts a little mid-motion in 272.
Or 280 when Epirus was actually not a failing power, with Pyhhros's war in sicily with carthage and war in italy.
280 would be a bit difficult, because Macedonia was controlled by Ptolemy I Soter's eldest son, who was defeated and killed by the Galatians in 279, who were in turn beaten by Antigonus II Gonatas in 277. I'm really eager to see how the RTR team solves this come 7.0.
275 would be a decent one, for that's the year the battle of Beneventum took place, in which Romans reportedly defeated Pyrrhus. If that battle would have gone the other way, Pyrrhus might not have lost his hold on Italy. The year 272 is a bit late to me, because that's precisely when the Epirote power collapsed, plus a few other inconveniences (Spartan king being in Crete, Pella belonging to Pyrrhus, etc.).
I agree with you completely. But that's nothing a few small tweaks can't fix, is it? A few sloshes in the descr.strat and you'll be nearly there! I may try that on my own game...Quote:
275 would be a decent one, for that's the year the battle of Beneventum took place, in which Romans reportedly defeated Pyrrhus. If that battle would have gone the other way, Pyrrhus might not have lost his hold on Italy. The year 272 is a bit late to me, because that's precisely when the Epirote power collapsed, plus a few other inconveniences (Spartan king being in Crete, Pella belonging to Pyrrhus, etc.).
emerging factions come ot my mind..Quote:
280 would be a bit difficult, because Macedonia was controlled by Ptolemy I Soter's eldest son, who was defeated and killed by the Galatians in 279, who were in turn beaten by Antigonus II Gonatas in 277. I'm really eager to see how the RTR team solves this come 7.0.
Do you know how much research went into replicating the starting positions for factions for the year 272? A lot. We won't be changing the starting date at all, because we don't want to have to do that all over again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Imperator
Foot
It might be an interesting mini mod to change the date a few years, but even then it would be really difficult. No way it's just a few strokes of the keyboard in ds.txt. Get the family members' ages changed first. Possibly remove some characters who haven't been born yet, and add some who haven't died yet. Change the province ownership where needed - some scripts have to reflect those changes also. Change the army placement where needed. Change diplomatic relationships where needed. Change any scripted disasters to reflect the change. Change all the year in history traits (the dating text at the front of each) to reflect the change. Break up the KH faction, since pushing it earlier back makes it too distant to really think of it as an alliance of any sort. Etc.
But would you consider it for EB2?Quote:
Originally Posted by Foot
It seems doubtful. We might consider it, but it would be so much work, and we want first to port without trying to make all sorts of other changes, so I don't think it is that likely.
when did the lorica segmentata become standard issue for the roman legion, if it was ever a standard that is?
i think like 60ish ad for lorica
Use seems to have been limited at best, it first appears in 9BC but it doesn't come into common use until around 25AD.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iasonis
EB timeline actually ends with the death of Augustus. 14 AD. So, No lorica segmentata. Wish for something within our timeline.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustus
What is the obsession with Lorica Segmenta anyway? I'd rather have chain mail than that stuff.
It is very shiny.
which one offered better protection in terms of slashing, puncture or overall protection?
Padded mail. LS was good against blunt trauma.
My bet's on the LS. Smooth overlapping iron plates aren't exactly the easiest thing to get a blade or tip through (compare to the certain inherent issues mail has with the pointy stuff), and ought to diffuse blunt trauma pretty well - the same general principle scale and lamellar works by, just with bigger single pieces.
So why is padded mail btter then?
I'm pretty sure LS (like about any and all metal armour) was worn over some form of padding, unless the wearer was into hardcore masochism anyway. Didn't the Romans have a specific name for their standard pattern of such garments ?
And who said padded mail (not that there was much other kind anyway) was better ? Laminate armour was in many cases a developement that replaced designs like mail and lamellar...
Well, I've seen it said severla times in this forum, and above it says that LS units would have lower armour than LH.
I've seen that argument too. I'm just unwilling to accept it at face value, all the more so as it doesn't seem terribly credible that the pragmatic Romans would have expended so much resources trying to kit out the Legions with the troublesome and expensive thing if there was no return-of-investement. Armour design tends to be a field of quite literally cutthroat evolution after all.
Watch I thought it has been concluded that LS was cheaper than mail , just harder to make . Anyway chain reinforced with scales would be better , and look sexier .
Mail-and-plates you mean ? A millenia or two off the timeframe you know.
I think he means what the thorakitai argiraspidai wears...
:shrug: Layered metal armour is prohibitively heavy, which is exactly the reason it was exceedingly rare in infantry use.