Age of Vikings and Fanatics: Total war

Quote:

---

Ok, one question actually. I believe you have used the "untrained" attribute for most units so far, right? Well, I think we should used the "trained" attribute for the better units such as the huskarles and perhaps also the hird, because I believe that's necessary in order to make the unit for a tight-looking shield wall. Perhaps those units should also have a slightly larger shield? For the fyrd and lighter axe and sword infantry I think you should keep things as they are.

---

Trained/untrained: The unit's you see in the picture are just modells, and skins. I haven't edited the atributes for them yet. (no time) The unit's sofar have the abilitys of their original modells (briton_swordman & roman triarii)
They can later be given stats, atributes, and special ability's.

I have planned to give them larger shields. Specially the later unit's. My plan is to give the Northern factions other shields for the later units (upsidedown drop shape). There is however some limitations when the shieldt get too large for some unit's, when the weapons penitrate the shields aso. But some of this can be worked around..

http://www.mackenziesmith.com/assets...shield_180.JPG

-Skel-

OK - Byzantine units (heavily revised)

BACKGROUND

Byzantine armies of the 9th century had two main elements.

Each province or theme had what was effectively a semi-feudal militia or thematic army commanded by a strategos or general.

These themata were the first line of defense against the more or less permanent raids from the Arabs, Slavs and Bulgars.

The emperor himself had a central field army based at Constantinople called the tagmata which was typically used only in major punitive expeditions and against invasions too powerful for the local strategoi to deal with.

After a long period on the defensive, a series of able soldier emperors passed over onto the strategic offensive in the 10th century and actually began to win back significant territory on all fronts.

As the bulk of the Byzantine army was a local militia organised for mobile defence and which could not be easily transferred to new frontier themes far from their homes, this posed new problems and necessitated a series of reforms which are still imperfectly understood.

However we do seem to see an increase in the size of the tagmata and the introduction of new units like the klibanophoroi as well as increasing neglect of the thematic armies - many of whose soldiers land-holdings were swallowed up by the aristocracy.

We also see a growing reliance on mercenaries such as the Varangian guard, Norman and German cavalry and horse archers recruited from a variety of tribes - some of whom were actually settled in the empire in exchange for their services.

By Manzikert in 1071 much of the themata appear to have gone and been replaced by an expanded tagmata, mercenaries and by contingents raised by the great landlords (these were probably similar to the old themata but even less well armed and trained and loyal to the landlord rather than the empire).

This is often described as representing a disastrous decline - however this is based upon the traditional over-valuation of thematic troops, who were part-timers whose major role was to chase fast-moving raiders, and thus would have been far less effective in battle than the professionals of the tagmata and the better mercenary units.

With the destruction of the tagmata at Manzikert and its aftermath, much of the aristocracy went into revolt as did many of the surviving mercenaries (in fact for several years there was a state based around Ancyra ruled by teh Norman Roussel de Balliol).

How all these troops were armed is not as clear as it was once thought to be.

The assumption which is stil reflected in many wargamers army lists was that the highly trained units of the old East Roman field army which we know very well from Procopius and Maurice were settled on the land as themata but continued to operate much as they had in the sixth century.

This would have meant the themata were predominantly heavily armoured kataphraktoi with both bow and lance and that there were also armoured units of heavy infantry (skutatoi) and light infantry (psiloi).

However the level of training and equipment required by kataphraktoi makes it unlikely that many thematic cavalry were as well armed or trained as their 6th century predecessors and they were clearly far less effective in battle.

For instance by the 10th century manuals attributed to the emperors Leo VI and Nikephoros Phokas it is clear that three out of the standard five rank deep cavalry formation had lances and two ranks had bows as it was a waste of time trying to train part-time soldiers to use both.

(Which is just well as RTW won't let you have both in one unit anyway).

The themata's primary role was also to chase lightly armed raiders in often rough terrain which makes it unlikely that they wore full armour so in RTW terms they are probably light rather than heavy cavalry.

Similarly as Nikephoras Phokas had to reform the infantry to produce units able to hold their own in open battle, it was likely that thematic infantry were light troops whose primary role was to garrison forts and skirmish in rough terrain.

Tagmatic units however were far more heavily armed, at least semi-professional and may have included heavy infantry in at least the later 10th century.

Modelling the themata-tagmata distinction is however difficult and rather pointless in RTW terms as both players and AI will tend to recruit the best unit a settlement can produce.

It would also create a Byzantine unit roster so large that it could not be realistically presented on the battlefield.

What follows is therefore simplified.

BARRACKS
Town Watch: (still looking for the Greek term), light inf, short spear, no armour, helmet, shield, low morale = Roman Town Watch

MILITIA BARRACKS (how about town barracks?)
Peltastoi: light inf, long spear, bambakion (a quilted knee length cotton coat), helmet, large oval shield, short axe, medium morale, phalanx, = German Spear Warband or Libyphoenician Spearmen.

CITY BARRACKS
Skutatoi: heavy inf, long spear, lamellar cuirass, helmet, large oval shield, long sword, medium morale, phalanx = Poeni Infantry or Hoplites, 2-turn build?

ARMY BARRACKS
Menavlatoi: heavy inf, pilum (but carry fewer than Roman units), lamellar cuirass, pteruges, splinted greaves and vambraces, helmet, large oval shield, long sword, high morale, no phalanx = Principes or Early Legionary (but better protected), 2 turn-build

URBAN BARRACKS
Varangians: heavy inf, 2-handed axe, knee and elbow length mailcoat, gilded helmet, splinted greaves and vambraces, scarlet cloak, long sword, very high morale = Praetorian (but not urban cohort). 3 turn-build.

(strictly speaking Varangians should be mercenaries but need to restrict availability to late campaign and to Byzantines outweighs this).


PRACTICE RANGE
1. Psiloi Javelin (will check the Greek): light inf, javelin, one handed axe, no armour, small round shield, low morale = Eastern or Greek Peltasts

2. Psiloi Slinger: light inf, sling, one handed axe, no armour, small round shield, low morale = Eastern Slinger

ARCHERY RANGE
Psiloi Archer: light inf, bow, one handed axe, no armour, small round shield, low morale = Eastern or Greek Archer

CATAPULT RANGE
1. Skutatoi Archer (name is wrong - covers armoured archers attached to skutatoi units): heavy inf, bow, longsword, lamellar cuirass, helmet, small round shield, medium morale = Roman Auxilary Archers

2. Toxoballista = Roman Ballista

3. Manganika = Roman Onager

SIEGE ENGINEER
1. Spendones = Heavy Onager

2. Greek Fire Syphon (will check Greek term) recent reconstructions suggest this was like a modern flamethrower throwing a continuous stream of fire and thus could be a modified ballista firing very short range but devastating fireballs on a flat trajectory. It would be even better if we could somehow introduce a risk of it exploding and killing everyone in the vicinity....

STABLES
Trapezitoi: light cav, lance, no armour, helmet, large round shield, long sword, medium morale = Macedonian Lancers but less effective charge

CAVALRY STABLES
Sagittoi (need to check Greek): light cav, bow, lamellar cuirass, helmet, small round shield, long sword, medium morale = Eastern Horse archers buit less effective with bow and better in melee.

ELITE STABLES
Kataphraktoi: heavy cav, lance, knee-and-elbow length mailcoat, helmet, medium round shield, long sword, high morale = less well armoured version of Eastern Cataphract with less effective charge

(note thematic kataphraktoi would generally have worn less armour and tagmatic kataphraktoi more as did those who formed the first rank - this unit therefore represents a compromise with the worst-armoured kataphraktoi being covered by trapezitoi and the best by klibanophoroi)

ROYAL STABLES/HIPPODROME
Klibanophoroi: heavy cav, lance, mailcoat, splinted greaves and vambraces, helmet with veil-like mail face mask, mace, armoured horses, very high morale = Eastern Cataphract with less effective charge but greater staying power in melee.

Note: top level Byzantine stables should allow Races to be celebrated.
Arenas had however all been closed down centuries before.

GENERAL'S BODYGUARDS
These would have generally been kataphraktoi rather than klibanophoroi but with additions like scarlet cloaks, gilded helmets etc and maybe partial horse armour covering the horse's head and chest.

Almost all Byzantine helmets except the klibanophoroi's were open-faced.

Byzantines should be coloured like modern Greeks or Italians with short dark beards and moustaches. Varangians of course should be blonde and may have used Norman-style helmets with nasals.

:book:

Wow Apostate, that is some serious research, thnx.

Quote:

---

Varangians would in my view be a unit only recruitable as mercenaries in Constantinople - as you should not be able to recruit large numbers and they should be hard to replace - obviously they'd have two handed axes, long mailcoats splinted vambraces and greaves, gilded helmets and possibly scarlet cloaks (although these may not have been worn in battle they would look cool). would in my view be a unit only recruitable as mercenaries in Constantinople - as you should not be able to recruit large numbers and they should be hard to replace - obviously they'd have two handed axes, long mailcoats splinted vambraces and greaves, gilded helmets and possibly scarlet cloaks (although these may not have been worn in battle they would look cool).

---

I really hope this can be done.. The Varangians is probably one of my favorites, and will look awsome whatever...

Quote:

---

There is limited evidence for Greek Fire siphon projectors being employed in land battles but can't see where we can fit these into the tech tree even if we could manage a flame thrower animation.

---

This might be doable with a edited onager with larger fireball, and shorter range.


About mercearies, i think it wold be cool to have the byzantine empire depended on mercs. Atleast in the beginning, give them only poor, or too expensive units to recruit, and a really good celection off reliable bercs from both north, east and west.

-Skel-

On Byz. mercs they should be significantly but not totally dependant on them.

Although the manuals give the impression that their armies were all native actual battle descriptions show mercs as way more important.

One reason Byzantine archery declined for instance was probably the easy availability of large numbers of mercenary horse archers who were considerably better than anything they could produce themselves.

(even in the 6th century which was in many respects the high point of Byzantium militarily, Hun mercenaries play a suspiciously prominent role in almost every major battle).

As I've said before I personally feel Byzantine armies are massively over-rated - primarily because they are the only culture to have left detailed military manuals - but if they were so good why did they lose most of their battles?

My solution would be to make all native Byz units harder and more expensive to recruit than western or muslim units of the same level.

Build times of 2 or 3 turns for the tagmatic units would not be at all out of place.

ZoR should also make it hard or impossible for them to recruit decent units in conquered territories (as this evidently was a problem) - so the further they expand away from the core the more they'll need mercenaries.

The one new conquest which did produce high quality troops was Armenia which should be made particularly revolt-prone as the Armenian princes and church never accepted Byzantine overlorship.

The same should apply to the Slav provinces in the west.

Also other than Constantinople Byz towns should be seriously underdeveloped - one of the major new insights of recent scholarship is that to a large extent 8th and 9th century Byzantium was actually a one-city state, where the once flourishing towns and cities of Asia Minor and the Balkans were all seriously depopulated and often reduced to no more than forts.

Thus if Constantinople starts as a small city, I would make Thessalonica the only large town and everywhere else just towns or villages.

This would put the Byzantines in the same position as in early era MTW where they have a potentially great army but can only recruit one (or fewer)decent unit per turn.

Their starting field army should also include a bunch of mercenary units to get players used to using them (and to soak up some of their revenue and stop them from going into a rapid build strategy).

They should also start off at war with the Bulgars, Abbassids and Russians (but allied with the Khazars).

Some Byzantine sources:

You probably know the Ian Heath/Angus MacBride Osprey Byzantine Armies 886-1118 - which is actually very cheap if you hunt around (just bought a new one for £5.85) and has the best colour plates.

I don't have the rather similar looking Men-at-Arms book Romano-Byzantine Armies 4th-9th centuries by David Nicolle but it's probably worth a look.

Ian Heath's Armies of the Dark Ages for is indispensable for every faction in our mod but long out of print (I can probably scan and post individual pictures if necessary).

The best source of original Byzantine illustrations is the Scylitzes manuscript but I don't know of an accessible modern edition.

John Haldon's The Byzantine Wars doesn't have much in the way of illustrations but has probably the best battle maps and descriptions if we ever want to do any historical battle scenarios.

Haldon publishes a lot and seems to be aiming at an almost Stephen Turnbull-like domination of the market on Byzantine militaria but his other books tend to focus more on the institutional and social aspects of warfare.

Warren Treadgold's Byzantium and it's Army 284-1081 is even more institutionally-focused and seriously questionable in several respects (his very detailed reconstruction of the Byzantine order of battle makes infantry units far more numerous and important than the source documents suggest they should be).

There are translations of the main Byzantine military manuals but AFAIK they are all out of print and very hard to get hold of: there is however a useful summary by one of the translators at
http://www.deremilitari.org/RESOURCES/PDFs/DENNIS1.PDF.

Yet more on swords (no - not bloody claymores again)

I am now the owner of the gorgeous Thames and Hudson Bayeux Tapestry coffee table book which I cannot recommend highly enough.

This is by far the most important contemporary source on late viking era arms and armour.

What is very striking from looking at the entire tapestry for the first time is how few of the warriors shown are using swords in the battle scenes.

Out of something like 200 or 300 fighting figures only 8 of the Normans and 5 of the Saxons are using swords: probably under 0.5% of the total.

Of the remainder almost all of the Normans are on horseback and have lances and about 80% of the Saxons have spears and maybe 15-20% have two-handed axes (a few unarmoured Saxons have clubs and there is exactly one Saxon archer).

This lack of swords being actually used in battle is even more striking given that the Tapestry is hugely biased towards depicting the noble warriors on both sides who can afford them (and in fact most appear to be wearing swords at their belts) and only shows a few unarmoured lower class warriors on either side.

(i.e. in a significant if not altogether representative sample, skewed massively to over-represent sword-owners, there is a almost universal preference for using spears and axes instead of the sword in actual battle).

It is also significant that the sword-wielders that are shown are either army leaders such as Harold's brother Gyrth or are depicted in the final stages of Hastings and the pursuit afterwards - by which point many knights and huscarls would have lost or broken their spears and axes.

In several cases the swords are also clearly being used to deliver a coup de grace against a downed foe (when of course you are much less likely to damage it on an opponents armour or a parrying weapon).

This clearly confirms my suggestion a while back that viking-era swords were very expensive and rather fragile prestige weapons intended more for show (and perhaps the occasional formal duel) than for general combat use.

They were also clearly less than ideal for shieldwall fighting where a defender was unlikely to have room to swing a sword effectively, while an attacker needed the extra reach given by a spear or lance to reach the defenders unshielded areas.

(again in the Hastings panels several of the sword wielders seem to be fighting in the last stand after the shieldwall had broken and the prospect of making it home with your nice shiny sword undamaged must have looked pretty remote).

Which is rather a shame given that swordsmen units do look cool - however on balance I can't really support having more than a handful of such units in the mod (the Swabians, Byzantine Menavlatoi if we go for the pilum option, maybe a general's bodyguard unit or two).

One would think that if a man on a horse would use his lance before he used his sword - it's simply more effective, especially if he's a nobleman and can afford them. The Saxons had developed folded steel swords 500 years before the Japanese figured it out; should that not be reflected? If swords were magnificently rare and ineffective, why would anyone bother to attempt to improve them?

I've just skimmed through the last few pages, so I might have missed something, but concerning skeletor's post:

http://www.forskning.no/Bilder/10213...96_content.JPG

This doesn't look like a flag that Vikings (or pre-Christian Norwegians) would use. I may be wrong though.

It's not that swords were magnificently ineffective - more that they were weapons of last rather than first resort in a full-scale battle (and many warriors would only fight one or two such battles in a lifetime).

Of course they were also more portable than spears and axes and thus could be useful in non-battle combat situations of the sort that are typically described in the sagas (surprise raids on settlements, duels, ambushes, small scale skirmishes, brawls that turn deadly etc).

Saxon swords were indeed very good but even the best don't survive repeated contact with metal armour.

Even samurai swords, while the indispensable symbol of the bushi were not the primary weapon of battlefield units for the same reason.

Similarly the later medieval knight would never have been seen without a sword, but when it came to killing people on the battlefield lances, axes, maces etc specifically designed to punch through armour were the weapon of preference.

Weapons are not always adopted and developed for purely rational military reasons - the Tokugawa samurai for instance having in many respects outstripped the west in developing personal firearms, then suddenly chose to abandon them almost completely for social and aesthetic reasons.

Even today almost all modern armies still train soldiers in the bayonet despite the fact that virtually nobody in modern warfare has ever been killed by one and that modern assault rifles are too short and too fragile to be effective bayonet mounts anyway.

(this is explicity admitted by the training manuals but they still continue it as it is believed to 'foster fighting spirit')

British and French guard cavalry units also still spend a great deal of time on horseback decked out as Napoleonic cuirassiers and dragoons.

On the evidence of the Tapestry, viking era swords probably saw much more use than modern bayonets but always as a secondary weapon.

Note that I've just revised the Byzantine Units post above.

Major change is that I've given up on trying to distinguish between thematic and tagmatic units as it produces a far too complex Byzantine roster.

On Norse banners later heraldic symbols are not appopriate.

For pagan vikings the banner design best attested is the raven representing Odin which is probably best given to the Danes.

Other mythological motifs that might conceivably have featured on viking banners are Thor's hammer, the world-tree Yggdrasil, the Midgardr serpent biting its tail, wolves, bears, bulls, horses, longships etc.

The same sort of motifs would have been used by Russians and Slavs.

Bulgars, Magyars and other steppe nomads used horse tail banners which probably would not look good even if you could render them - probably stylised Sarmatian or Scythian horse motifs would be a substitute.

(the cross motif that featured on medieval Hungarian banners was of course post-conversion and not appropriate).

Khazars must of course use the Star of David (doubtful whether this was actually used in Khazaria, but what the hell)

The Byzantines invented the double-headed eagle symbol familiar from Polish Albanian and imperial Russian flags.

However imperial battle flags from the labarum downwards all seem to have had cross motifs (ordinary 4 armed crosses and not the orthodox patriarchal crosses or crucifix's).

The chi-rho (an X with a P superimposed on top) was also used and would be my preference as more exotic than an ordinary cross.

Franks (i.e. Germans, French and Italians) used old dragon shaped windsock banners and more medieval style square and triangular banners.

The most common symbols used in coins of the era are religious (crosses, stylised churches)

However fleur de lis do start appearing on Capetian coins in the tenth century so this works for France.

Similarly the Germans may have filched the Byzantine imperial eagle at the time of Otto II's marriage to Theophano.

A black crown (for the iron crown of Lombardy) might work for the Italians (it's actually easy to find pictures of the crown itself but it is now so encrusted in gold and jewels that none of the original iron is visible).

Red and white dragons symbolise the Welsh and Saxons respectively in Geoffrey of Monmouth (early 12th century) and the use of 'the dragon' as an ephitet for several earlier Welsh kings makes it the obvious symbol for Wales.

St Andrew's cross only really became the national symbol of Scotland in the 14th Century - personally would prefer something from the Book of Kells (which was probably at least started in Iona under Scottish royal patronage before it was taken to Ireland).

Like other Germans the Saxons would have used dragon windsock banners - however you can obviously have only one dragon faction so I'd prefer the Sutton Hoo helmet.

Muslims used white triangular standards under the Umayyads, black for the Abbasids and green in al-Andalus.

While Muhammad's personal standard apparently had an eagle motif, later Islamic standards were either plain or had verses from the Koran embroidered onto them.

Crescents are regarded by many modern Muslims as idolatrous (as symbols of the moon Goddess) and was in fact the ancient pre-Roman symbol of the city of Byzantion-Constantinople and adopted by the Ottomans in 1453 to signify their taking over the empire.

Hi! Nice work, The Apostate. For the cavalry I have no comments, it looks really good as it is. Perhaps though I'd like some zone of recruit additions. According to my sources, the Byzantines apart from the internal conflicts also lost some of their troops recruiting capabilities by losing the lands from which they had earlier recruited their troops. Which would be the ZOR:s for the Byzantine cavalry? Trapezitoi sounds much like trebizond, is there a relation? Weren't the kataphraktoi recruited quite far to the east in Asia minor? Anyway I think ZOR would help limit the Byzantines from becoming overpowered in the campaign and also make it possible to simulate how the Byzantines could suddenly lose some of their recruiting abilities if they lost certain provinces.

For missile I'd like if we didn't use the R:TW style with same building complex for siege engines and handheld missile weapons. Also I'd like to have a system where archers are available earlier. Weren't archers almost standardized as main missile weapon at the time? If so I think the first archers should be available in a level one building or at least not later than the second level. I had in mind the first archers available in the tree should have very low stats and be militia, and the later archers, trained in perhaps the level 2 or 3 building, should be more professional. Crossbows should be level 4 and will rarely appear in the mod because it's so hard to get to level 4 buildings, and the best normal archers should be in the level 3 building. It would be helpful if you could tell me which of the missile units you mentioned were themata and which were tagmata. For infantry I'd like splitting up sword/axe units to one complex and spear units to another complex, a la M:TW. Temporary suggestion (in a shortened down form - weaponry, info and look is still as in the post above):

- Siege engineer (requires town, toxoballista), Siege engineer's workshop (requires large town, manganika), Siege engineer's guild (requires city, spendones, greek fire siphon projectors [maybe, maybe not])
- Muster field (psoloi javelinmen, town watch), Town militia (the town watch you searched for a greek name for, +5% law), Police force (the town watch you searched for a greek name for, +10% law). One alternative is to use generic units for these town watch/town guard units, i.e. a la M:TW use an urban militia. If it's not totally wrong I'd actually suggest it to save work so we don't have to model a unique militia, that's rarely ever used other than for keeping as garrisons, for every faction. Then we can use the names "urban militia" and "urban guard" that I used. Depending on whether the faction had much public order and law institutions, it'll either get only one of them or it'll get both of them.
- Bowmaker (psiloi slingers), Bowmaker's workshop (psiloi archers), Bowmaker's guild (skutatoi archers), Master bowmaker (crossbowmen, pavise crossbowmen).
- Weaponsmith (-), Weaponsmith's workshop (-), Weaponsmith's guild (menavlatoi [sword and pilum]), Master weaponsmith (varangian guard [sword]). I suggest we
- Spearmaker (peltastoi), Spearmaker's workshop (skutatoi), Spearmaker's guild (heavy skutatoi), Master spearmaker (-). I read somewhere there were lighter and heavier (in terms of armor) skutatoi. Is that incorrect? At least I think that'd be good for the tech tree if there were more than just two levels of spear units.
- (using M:TW names for the buildings - I think we should keep the building names same for all factions so it's easier for the player to know what they are for all factions - after all it's just a cosmetic detail:) Horse farmer (trapetzitoi [light cav, lance, sword]), Stables (sagittoi [light cav, bow, sword]), Cavalry stables (kataphraktoi [shield, lance, sword]), Elite cavalry stables (klibanophoroi [lance - and mace I believe? You forgot to tell what secondary weapon they had in your post. Anyway wasn't mace common among byzantine heavy cavs? So at least one unit should have maces - with anit-armor bonus - I think.])

Question on races: were races really related much to the quality of the militiary cavalry? If not, I suggest we should have a special building set for race arenas to fill the Byzantine need for more happiness buildings, as complement to the churches/cathedrals. We could have 1 or 2 levels of buildings, and in Constantinople itself, we could have the famous great hippodrome built from start but not possible to build elsewhere.

I suggested earlier that we should convert the vanilla R:TW games to "thing" and let the viking factions use it. That means both games and races are now occupied with this system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Apostate

On Byz. mercs they should be significantly but not totally dependant on them.

Although the manuals give the impression that their armies were all native actual battle descriptions show mercs as way more important.

One reason Byzantine archery declined for instance was probably the easy availability of large numbers of mercenary horse archers who were considerably better than anything they could produce themselves.

(even in the 6th century which was in many respects the high point of Byzantium militarily, Hun mercenaries play a suspiciously prominent role in almost every major battle).

As I've said before I personally feel Byzantine armies are massively over-rated - primarily because they are the only culture to have left detailed military manuals - but if they were so good why did they lose most of their battles?

My solution would be to make all native Byz units harder and more expensive to recruit than western or muslim units of the same level.

Build times of 2 or 3 turns for the tagmatic units would not be at all out of place.

ZoR should also make it hard or impossible for them to recruit decent units in conquered territories (as this evidently was a problem) - so the further they expand away from the core the more they'll need mercenaries.

The one new conquest which did produce high quality troops was Armenia which should be made particularly revolt-prone as the Armenian princes and church never accepted Byzantine overlorship.

The same should apply to the Slav provinces in the west.

Also other than Constantinople Byz towns should be seriously underdeveloped - one of the major new insights of recent scholarship is that to a large extent 8th and 9th century Byzantium was actually a one-city state, where the once flourishing towns and cities of Asia Minor and the Balkans were all seriously depopulated and often reduced to no more than forts.

Thus if Constantinople starts as a small city, I would make Thessalonica the only large town and everywhere else just towns or villages.

This would put the Byzantines in the same position as in early era MTW where they have a potentially great army but can only recruit one (or fewer)decent unit per turn.

Their starting field army should also include a bunch of mercenary units to get players used to using them (and to soak up some of their revenue and stop them from going into a rapid build strategy).

They should also start off at war with the Bulgars, Abbassids and Russians (but allied with the Khazars).

---

I agree to all of that. Much sounds like what I had in mind, and the parts that are new to me also sound very, very good. ~:cheers:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Apostate

On Norse banners later heraldic symbols are not appopriate.

For pagan vikings the banner design best attested is the raven representing Odin which is probably best given to the Danes.

Other mythological motifs that might conceivably have featured on viking banners are Thor's hammer, the world-tree Yggdrasil, the Midgardr serpent biting its tail, wolves, bears, bulls, horses, longships etc.

The same sort of motifs would have been used by Russians and Slavs.

Bulgars, Magyars and other steppe nomads used horse tail banners which probably would not look good even if you could render them - probably stylised Sarmatian or Scythian horse motifs would be a substitute.

(the cross motif that featured on medieval Hungarian banners was of course post-conversion and not appropriate).

Khazars must of course use the Star of David (doubtful whether this was actually used in Khazaria, but what the hell)

The Byzantines invented the double-headed eagle symbol familiar from Polish Albanian and imperial Russian flags.

However imperial battle flags from the labarum downwards all seem to have had cross motifs (ordinary 4 armed crosses and not the orthodox patriarchal crosses or crucifix's).

The chi-rho (an X with a P superimposed on top) was also used and would be my preference as more exotic than an ordinary cross.

Franks (i.e. Germans, French and Italians) used old dragon shaped windsock banners and more medieval style square and triangular banners.

The most common symbols used in coins of the era are religious (crosses, stylised churches)

However fleur de lis do start appearing on Capetian coins in the tenth century so this works for France.

Similarly the Germans may have filched the Byzantine imperial eagle at the time of Otto II's marriage to Theophano.

A black crown (for the iron crown of Lombardy) might work for the Italians (it's actually easy to find pictures of the crown itself but it is now so encrusted in gold and jewels that none of the original iron is visible).

Red and white dragons symbolise the Welsh and Saxons respectively in Geoffrey of Monmouth (early 12th century) and the use of 'the dragon' as an ephitet for several earlier Welsh kings makes it the obvious symbol for Wales.

St Andrew's cross only really became the national symbol of Scotland in the 14th Century - personally would prefer something from the Book of Kells (which was probably at least started in Iona under Scottish royal patronage before it was taken to Ireland).

Like other Germans the Saxons would have used dragon windsock banners - however you can obviously have only one dragon faction so I'd prefer the Sutton Hoo helmet.

Muslims used white triangular standards under the Umayyads, black for the Abbasids and green in al-Andalus.

While Muhammad's personal standard apparently had an eagle motif, later Islamic standards were either plain or had verses from the Koran embroidered onto them.

Crescents are regarded by many modern Muslims as idolatrous (as symbols of the moon Goddess) and was in fact the ancient pre-Roman symbol of the city of Byzantion-Constantinople and adopted by the Ottomans in 1453 to signify their taking over the empire.

---

So in total regarding faction symbols we have (mixed with some of my own suggestions):
- Danes - Raven (perhaps same symbol as vikings have in MTW:VI - so: black raven on white background)
- Sweden, Norway, Rus - subject to discussion. I suggest longships for Norway as they were so good sailors and explorers. Thor's hammer is undoubtedly one of the coolest of your symbol suggestions, so I think we should use it for one of the factions, no matter which one. Perhaps Sweden, because we already have suggestions for Danes and Norway and the Wolves seem appropriate for Rus. I personally think the Russian taiga in winter time is easy to associate with wolves... I suggest we don't use any banner with horse for any viking factions because the steppes people would be using them according to your suggestion and it's a bonus if the symbols are easy to distinguish. (colors for symbols?)
- Magyars - stylized horse motif. (colors?)
- Bulgars - either horse motif, the double lions or the albanian two-headed eagle
- Khazars - given that the posted flag isn't easy to convert to a circular symbol (R:TW requires you to use circular symbols for the menu etc.), I can agree with the star of David, although it's questionable 1. how total the religious conversion was and 2. if that conversion would make them change banner as part of their conversion.
- Byzantines - The chi-rho (X with a P superimposed)
- Franks - Fleur de lis (I have no pics of this one but I think I know how it looks)
- HRE - The earlier byzantine imperial eagle (black and yellow as in M:TW?)
- Lotharingia - Black crown (what color of background?)
- Welsh - Red dragon (on what background?)
- Saxons - White dragon or the Sutton Hoo helmet (sutton hoo helmet is cool, but what color of helmet and background?)
- Scots - ?
- Abbassids - Black triangle (on what background?)
- Al-Andalus - Green triangle (what background?)
- Rebels - The hayfork symbol from vanilla R:TW can be kept IMO

@ALL: I've been talking to Myrddraal about getting a subforum, and here's what I got as response:

Hi,

I've been following the progress of your mod, and personally I think it deserves a subforum. The conditions for getting a subforum are basically some proof of progress and signs that the mod is not going to die out.

Looking through the thread, you've already shown plenty of evidence of that. It would be good if you could collect a few pics and send them to me, to get a clear idea of how your mod is doing.

The final word is TosaInu's, but you were right to contact me first. I'll recommend you to him.

Thanks
Myrddraal

I reckon we could send all the screenies posted in this thread so far, and if I get some menu stuff and faction symbols ready today we could send that too.

I also got this PS:

I'm not sure what the exact cut-off in bytes is for sig pic size, but have you considered using .jpg:

http://img166.echo.cx/img166/7848/un...naticssvak.png

114223 bytes as a .png

If so then simply saving as .jpg reduces it to 58 565 bytes with this quality:

http://img64.echo.cx/img64/6010/unti...naticssvak.jpg

Spot the difference? Nah!

Feel free to use the link from the second one, its uploaded to imageshack.

Never even occurred to me but Trapezus was Trebizond so the name may have come from there.

'Trapeze' also apparently derives from these guys trick riding displays (which would actually have been copied from Central Asian nomads or even the Goths - there is a famous account of the Ostrogothic king Totila engaging in such a display before the battle of Taginae in 552).

However as a troop type trapezitoi were derived from late Roman light cavalry so should not be restricted to Trapezus.

On ZoR I would restrict all Byzantine units except maybe the town watch and psiloi to the core Byzantine provinces.

The Slavic and Armenian provinces later conquered would allow Slavic and Armenian units (the latter of which were high quality but unreliable) to be recruited instead.

Syrian Christians appear to have been notably unwarlike and the Byzantines had to encourage Armenians to move there to act as a garrison after they took Antioch.

The one eastern Christian community that did produce decent troops were the Maronites of Lebanon who were primarily foot archers.

Sicily was famous for its Saracen foot and horse archers under the Norman kings - whether the Byzantines would have employed them if they had conquered Sicily is doubful as they were far more intolerant than the Normans and Muslim communities generally did not last long under their rule.

At the very end of the period (after 1081) an influx of Anglo-Saxon refugees apparently led the emperor Alexius I to settle them in a colony on the Black Sea east of the Crimea where they literally founded a New England with a New York and New London - traces of which were still present when Genoese merchants compiled their charts 4 centuries later.

Always loved that story and wanted to do something with it, but can't see where it fits in here....couldn't resist dropping it in though.

Ok, good. When you say "Byzantine core provinces", do you mean Constantinople and all of Asia minor, or are the "colonies" elsewhere also to be included?

Another question that I realized I forgot in my post above: after Manzikert the Byzantine emperor of the time is said to have formed a cavalry guard called "the Immortals". Should those be a unit? If so, it should of course have a very small unit size, long training time and be expensive, and be in the level 4 building, perhaps also with ZOR Constantinople. What do you think?

Not sure about triangles for Muslims.

The Ummayads did use a throne called the Sarir as a symbol but almost certainly not on banners - which would have been white when they ruled from Damascus and green when they ruled in al-Andalus.

Apparently the crescent and star does appear on Ummayad coins of the 7th century - although at this stage the Caliphate was far less strict on the use of non-Muslim iconography than it ultimately became,

Can't remember what MTW used for Almohads and Egyptians.

Longships work well for the Norwegians.

The Swedes main deity appears to have been Freyr who was usually depicted as a bearded helmeted figure with a prominent moustache and even more prominent sexual organ - so maybe the hammer of Thor might be better....

Russia much later adopted the Byzantine Eagle and Cross of St Andrew as symbols but neither is appropriate for pagan Rus.

None of the pagan Russian deities look ideal - however what about the Firebird?

(something like the logo at the bottom of http://www.firebird-productions.com/the_game.htm)

Russians also used a four arrows/thunderbolts radiating from a circle motif that looks remarkably similar to the Roman legionary shield design and is probably associated with the thunder-god Perun.

Ireland I suppose is a harp and if all else fails Scotland will have to be a St Andrews cross.

If Khazaria had a symbol it would probably have involved a horse but then so would the Bulgars and Magyars - and they can't all have horses.

I must admit that the main treason I want the Star of David is so I can play kick-ass Jews for a change (I was deeply disappointed at the lack of maccabees and zealots in RTW).

On the Bulgars, these were originally Huns and the most famous Hunnic legend concerns the white stag which led them west into Europe - so the RTW British symbol could work for them.

The Chuvash descendants of the Bulgars who settled on the Volga today use a tree of life symbol in their modern flag - although I can't think of anything less symbolic of a steppe nomad than a tree.

The Balkan Bulgars adopted the Byzantine eagle as part of their attempt to take over the empire in the 10th century - however I think the Germans are a better bet for the eagle faction.

A stag could also work for the Magyars (who had no actual connection with the Huns but were generally described as Huns by everyone else - thus Hungary).

Wolves also seem a good symbol for nomad raiders.

The flag of Asturias is a gold cross on a blue background and does seem to be fairly well attested: http://www.answers.com/topic/flag-of-asturias

For the Welsh I suggest red dragon on white background. The dragon was used for centuries by the Britons, since the Roman conquest and Welsh kept it, and in Winter King of Bernard Cornwell, the flag of Domnonia is a red dragon on a white background... don't take the modern welsh flag cause it's modern... i have a book on Emblemes of the Celts and the Bretons, I can translate you what it say about the dragon if you want.

For the Scots, I suggest a celt symbol like a triskell or a tribann. St Ander's cross seems to have been used in XIth century but the legend about it results of a battle between Angles and Picts in the VIIIth century.

Sugestion for Scot banner..

Mind the war banner don't have to be the faction symbol.
- The eagle is taken from Book of Kells. (Can easally be changed.)

http://img166.echo.cx/img166/7109/banner1lr.png

-Skel-

The eagle is an interesting choice. Can you explain your rationale behind it?

About national symbols...I don't know of one in particular that would for this time period, but I know that Scotland has been associated with a unicorn for quite some time. There was a part Through the Looking Glass where a lion fights a unicorn; it was symbolic of clashes between Scots and English. However, I don't know how long this symbol was in use.

The eagle is actually just somethibg i found in Book of Kells, and i thought it looked cool. It, and the colors, can be replaced upon request.

-Skel-

I think the colours are great, actually. Just needs a touch of that ol' Sky Blue.

@ALL: I've sent some samples of our work so far to Myrrdraal and hopefully this will lead to TosaInu granting us an own subforum here at the .org!

@skeletor: I like the eagle as a battle standard. I think it'll be hard to use it as faction symbol though. The smallest faction symbol is only 30*30 pixels, and much of that can't be used by the symbol itself due to the need for a frame around the symbol, so it's barely 20*20 pixels in reality. Maybe it's going a little too far in simplifying the symbols if we adapt them to look perfect even for those smallest icons, but I believe we should at least make sure the faction symbols look very good in the 59*59 pixels format, and at least distinguishable from each other in the 30*30 format.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeonGod

I think the colours are great, actually. Just needs a touch of that ol' Sky Blue.

---

I thougt of it myself, blue it wil be. I have been downloading alot of cilt patterns, so i got a bit carried away with the green. I hope we can agree upon having sky blue as faction color for the scot's.

I will start working on the Welsh banner now. (red dragon onwhite)

-Skel-

Blue banner for the scots..
~:cheers:
It needs some work with the white line surounding the banners, and the glowing.. But anyway, here is some ingame pic's too.
http://img166.echo.cx/img166/1394/4evangelistslg7ry.jpg
http://img166.echo.cx/img166/295/blbanner0tk.jpg

If ayone can find cool pic's of dragons for the welch, i wold be happy if you could post it/link. Colors and size doesn't mather..thnx :egypt:



-Skel-

Also, is this good for the Welsh dragon? http://img166.echo.cx/img166/7021/welshdragon21zd.jpg And, wold it be apropiate to put fiff it up with tribal, christian, or other symbols/patterns?

-Skel-

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skeletor

Also, is this good for the Welsh dragon?

---

Yes, it's good. I tried resizing it and it looks good after resizing too. Great! ~:cheers:

Edit: Wow, those ingame shots of the Scottish banner are really great. Hm, I must have missed them first time I looked at the post. I believe for faction symbol we could just cut away the frame and fill the background inside the circle with the same pattern as the one that's now surrounding the eagle. With a thin circular frame added around it, it would be perfect.

Welsh drake looks very nice, and scot banner does too ~D

Good news!!! We now have our own subforum! ~D ~D ~D

Link: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/forumdisplay.php?f=106

All further discussions regardingthe mod will be carried out there!

This mod looks great! I'd like to produce some concept art for you guys, if you'd like?

Just something i thought was worth adding for historical accuracy. If the Welsh leader at the start of the mod is Rhodri Mawr, then you CANT have Gwynydd as the capital. Rhodri was Prince of Deheubarth/Dinefwr and that must be his capital. It wasnt until the last few hundred years of Welsh independance that Gwynydd took over as the most powerful principality. Deheubarth/Dinefwr was far stronger in the early years and def around the time period for this mod due to richer lands and the monastaries that they contained.

For Welsh rulers and names go here.

http://www.castlewales.com/gwynedd.html

By 912AD Rhodri was dead so you will want to start with his son Anarawd ap Rhodri. ITs quite a cool page that shouldhelp you a lot.

As for the Welsh flag or banner, i think the red dragon on a white background would be perfect,yet i dont think you should use a square flag. I cant remember the name for the shape but its goes into 2 points on the open side of the flag, like two triangles stuck together. That would adda bit of subtle depth to the flag IMO and give it more of a warrior class feel. And it would be a dirty white aswell, dont forget they didnt have Daz.

Glad to see the Book of Kells suggestion taken up for the Scots.

Didn't realise that the banners could be different to the faction symbols which gives a lot more flexibility.

On the Byzantine 'immortals' (athanatoi) - these were apparently quite a large unit raised by Alexius I after 1081 - (Bryennius states there were 10,000 of them but this may just be a literary reference to the original Persian immortals who were 10,000 strong).

They appear to have been raised from the remnants of the thematic armies of Asia Minor - most of whom would have lost their homes after the Turkish conquest and to have been re-trained to fight like the Normans with couched lance (which can be taken as evidence that native Byzantine cavalry had 'forgotten' how to charge with couched lances before this period).

Problem is that if you include the athanatoi and other Alexian units (there were also the turcopouloi or horse archers of mixed Greek and Turkish ancestry, and the archontopouloi and chomatenoi who seem to have been heavy cavalry), you have to drop some of the older units they replaced.

If we could somehow engineer a Marian reform event mirroring the changes of 1066-1081 and giving not just the Byzantines but other factions completely new unit rosters this would be worth doing.

Otherwise I think Hastings and Manzikert should be our end points.

Would love to create a mod that covers the early crusades but maybe that's a version 2.0 project

Ok. I think we should stop discussing in this thread now that we've recieved an own subforum. I've set up threads for the different subjects we've discussed. The discussions can continue over there where they ended here. If there is material in this thread we need we can always post it again in the new threads.

The subforum is here: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/forumdisplay.php?f=106

Thors hammer is better than one of Freys attributes because the hammers are more common in the archeological material. Furthermore you have Adam of Bremens classic description of the Uppsala temple; Thor in the middle, Frey and Odin on the sides. If anyone should have a banner connected to Frey it should be the Norwegians, as their kings claimed to be his decendants.

Concerning weaponary, swords can not have been extremely rare as there are a couple of thousands of them from Scandinavia alone. According to "The penguins historical atlas of the vikings" swords were actually more comman than spears in western Scandinavia, even though I myslef must say I doubt that.

What is confirmed though is that vikings returning from the Byzantine empire sometimes brought scalemails with them home, parts of these having been found at Birka. The varangian guard along with some of the more elite scandinavian units could use these to make them differ from the normal vikings, even though normal chainmail is thought to have been rather rare.

Hi i'm new here, have started some skinning. Here is two skins I've worked on this weekend, based on a model by skeletor. I've come to a point where I don't see how to improve it, so I would very much appreciate constructive critism! :charge: And maybe some ideas about the shield, I've got no clue. Thinking about putting some golden piece of metal on the top of the helmet.

SAXON ARMOURED FYRDMEN

http://img291.echo.cx/img291/3502/sc24bn.th.jpg

http://img291.echo.cx/img291/8929/sc33jm.th.jpg

SAXON FYRDMEN

http://img210.echo.cx/img210/9928/sc48et.th.jpg

I like to get some feedback on my work, not just post it when it's done. Some thread about skinned units to post "units under construction" would be much appreciated. I guess the list of all units and such to be included isn't fully complete, but we really should get a list or something over who's doing what, what factions, what's complete and so on when it comes to graphics. Would be nice to have when more skinners/modellers arrive.

SAXON CAVALRY, unfinished

http://img225.echo.cx/img225/1460/sc56xf.th.jpg

(don't care about the carthagian horses)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skeletor

I have been downloading alot of cilt patterns...

---

Oh...why would you be downloading tartans?

@Scion

I think the new skins are great, but the armoured fyrdmen need more beards. ~;p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScionTheWorm

SAXON CAVALRY, unfinished

http://img225.echo.cx/img225/1460/sc56xf.th.jpg

(don't care about the carthagian horses)

---

Good looking skins! Although I agree there should probably be some more beards ~:) Also make the saxon fyrdmen slightly darker and the saxon armored fyrdmen a more complex pattern for the shields. Perhaps make it look more dirty or make a wood pattern on the back of it.

BTW, all discussion about the mod is now carried out in our own subforum, over here: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/forumdisplay.php?f=106

We are discussing units in progress in this thread: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=48793

I'll be brief and unannoying, but want to mention before you do any Scots. Kilts didn't exist yet. Plaid patterns were used, but Gaels wore knee-length shirts with a belt (on a statue it'd look like a kilt at first glance), call a leine, not kilts. The kilt is a later invention. Plaid was worn as a shoulder cloak (a cloak come to the lower part of the shoulder and chest, fastened at the right shoulder), and sometimes on full length cloaks. They wore leather shoes or boots, and were bare-legged. Professional soldiers wore leather armor or padding, sometimes chain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

Good looking skins! Although I agree there should probably be some more beards ~:) Also make the saxon fyrdmen slightly darker and the saxon armored fyrdmen a more complex pattern for the shields. Perhaps make it look more dirty or make a wood pattern on the back of it.

BTW, all discussion about the mod is now carried out in our own subforum, over here: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/forumdisplay.php?f=106

We are discussing units in progress in this thread: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=48793

---

Sure, will use the other thread now. Can't edit my posts though, do I have to be a member and not a junior member?

Any thoughts on events (such as the Stoic Philosophy, Archimedes' Screw, etc. in RTW)? Are any planned to be included?

What about events such as the Marius Reforms, those are hardcoded are they not?

I think one of the saxon kings reorganised the saxon army at one point but i can't remeber when or if this is even a true statement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScionTheWorm

Sure, will use the other thread now. Can't edit my posts though, do I have to be a member and not a junior member?

---

Yes, you need something like 20, 25 or 50 posts or so first.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Ragnar

I think one of the saxon kings reorganised the saxon army at one point but i can't remeber when or if this is even a true statement.

---

True, king Alfre did. It wasn't so mutch their weapons, or organisation he reformed, but he created a standing army (about 60.000 men i think), garisoned in forts spread along the border. This was a reaction to the dane raids, and made the fyrd able to respond to their surprize attacks.

-Skel-

What about music, are there any plans to switch the god-awful vanilla music with something better?
If that's a possibility, I have a ton of Norse folk music, and am willing to contact the bands about permissions for their usage.

That wold be really great Wikingus..

For the battlesequenses there are alot of Norwegian Blackmetal band playing Norse vikinginspier'd music, with a bit more horns and base than the usual folkmusik.
:medievalcheers:

You could make a "music" thread in the forum..

-Skel-

hello, i'm from NTW and just found out that we merged. i have no idea of what you're doing and where you guys are (in progress) could someone please tell me my job. cuz it''s annoying to do things done by other people already

From introduction:
- LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix - project leader/campaign map maker/skinner/unit editor
- Captain-Tiguris - project leader/skinner/unit editor
- The Apostate - chief of research
- skeletor - skinner/unit editor
- ScionTheWorm - skinner/unit editor
- King Ragnar - researcher/skinner

I guess we're still in the planning a research stage, but we've started making graphics (a lot posted on this forum). A few factions (If not only one) have a complete tech tree, and the campaignmap isn't finished. LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix has the overview, but I think it would be nice to have someone putting the finished pieces together (factions, faction-symbols, units that's finished/nearly finished) to a provincial campaign when a little bit more is done. Looks like you are a experienced datafile-editor, so i guess that would fit you.

Anyway, I think LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix knows best.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Emperor Umeu 1

hello, i'm from NTW and just found out that we merged. i have no idea of what you're doing and where you guys are (in progress) could someone please tell me my job. cuz it''s annoying to do things done by other people already

---

The campaign map is in progress, but it's hard to tell when it'll be ready. I'll probably make a first release of it with a temporary province list, as our province list is changing continually due to new research. If I do that, I can have it ready in two weeks or so, but it takes plenty of time to redo all the province drawings all the time, so I'd like it most if we could get provinces completely ready before I start with drawing the province borders.

While I'm awaiting the province list I'm looking at modding smaller details and working on some small graphics like loading screens, faction symbols etc. Parts of the project is still under research but around 5 units have been skinned and the progress on campaign map terrain is quite good.

At this time I believe you can help with modding smaller details such as quotes and names. For some reason I get errors when I do those things... I'll post some quotes and names suggestions in a new thread.

LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix: Is our lead-researcher missing? It should really be a priority, as you said it's a bitch when one have to change things... in fact I think all of the research an concept should be in place before we had started doing any graphics, even though that's boring and hard to do... what I'm saying is if we're missing active researchers, we should get someone that could do it.

As far as researcch go, I'll help as much as I can.

Thats great Jarlabanke.. Have you got any knowledge of the Scot unit's apperence? I am not sure about Clan-colors, cilts, blue faces ect...

Anyone in to scot's?

-Skel-

I think they will be quite similar to the Irish, allthough I don't know what they looked like either. I also read they were quite friendly with irish, maybe they should start as allies? (this could be terribly wrong..)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScionTheWorm

LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix: Is our lead-researcher missing? It should really be a priority, as you said it's a bitch when one have to change things... in fact I think all of the research an concept should be in place before we had started doing any graphics, even though that's boring and hard to do... what I'm saying is if we're missing active researchers, we should get someone that could do it.

---

I agree. I'll PM him. If we can't get one or two more tech trees commented by him n a few days time we'll have to do that part of the research ourselves. Then he'll only be able to help with the parts we haven't done yet, but we can't allow him to change the tech trees we've already decided upon because we can't do stuff over and over again.

So, Jarlabanke, can you take responsibility for researching the Saxons and commenting on my tech tree for them in the tech trees thread? I'll look more at provinces myself in the meantime, and it's probably best if the skinners order which faction tech trees of those I've listed in the tech trees thread needs research/commenting first. Can you, Jarlabanke, during the coming days take care of researching the tech trees the skinners want to skin units from during the coming week?

I would appreciate to get some or all unique units for these factions first:
- French
- Holy roman empire
- Normandy

I believe these are much similar to the Saxons, at least on model basis (with a possible exception for the helmets).

The "shared units" should be properly discussed before we start modelling them. (for instance, will catapult crew or crossbowmen have helmets, and stuff like that)

Note: I'll make a collection of complete units, then I'll start perfecting them. Then, maybe after several units are completely done for a faction + tech tree is complete we could make a thread for each faction with tech tree and faction-description as first post, and complete skins as the second.

To reiterate:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ranika

I'll be brief and unannoying, but want to mention before you do any Scots. Kilts didn't exist yet. Plaid patterns were used, but Gaels wore knee-length shirts with a belt (on a statue it'd look like a kilt at first glance), call a leine, not kilts. The kilt is a later invention. Plaid was worn as a shoulder cloak (a cloak come to the lower part of the shoulder and chest, fastened at the right shoulder), and sometimes on full length cloaks. They wore leather shoes or boots, and were bare-legged. Professional soldiers wore leather armor or padding, sometimes chain.

---

When they wore helmets, they were generally leather skull caps, or conical helmets (but with no nasal guard). They favored round shields, sometimes oval shields. The favored type of sword was mid-length (between that of a short and longsword), they used one-handed axes pretty often, spears, javelins, and sometimes slings, more rarely bows. They both dressed the same way in the period. Technically, the Scots didn't even exist yet. It wasn't called 'Scotland', the kingdom that'd become Scotland was soon to be called 'Alba', the Gaelic word for Britain. In 841 (according to the Propechy of St. Berchan and De Instructione Principus), Kenneth MacAlpin called the Pictish king Drust IX, and the remaining Pictish nobility from the seven remaining noble houses (including the only other claimants to the Pictish throne but MacAlpin himself) to a meeting at Scone to discuss peace between the Dal Riadans and Picts. Accounts vary of just how things went down, but by the end of the meeting, all the Pict nobles were dead, and it was a matter of MacAlpin proclaiming himself king of all Pictland and Dal Riada, forming the kingdom of Alba. He found Pict resistance, eventually wiped out the remainder of the Pict army, they rebelled every so often, but were eventually cowed into submission. Technically, though, the 'Scottish' kings, at the time, only really exerted rule over Dal Riada, the Mearns, and Fortrenn. Vikings controlled pretty much everything else at the time.

Anyway, at the beginning of your selected period, the 'Scots' (properly Dal Riadans or Albions) are essentially just Irish Gaels in Britain. They're culturally identical, and Dal Riada and then Alba was counted, for a few centuries, among the Irish kingdoms, due to their culture. Further, the Dal Riadans considered themselves 'Irish'; inasmuch as they often found themselves deeply involved in the politics of the Irish kingdoms, and were often used as a go-between between the Gaels in Ireland and the non-Celtic British. They would use the same weapons, troops, wear the same cloths, etc. Exceptions would be like Pictish units (as the Dal Riadans did place Picts in their service upon conquering some of their lands, and used them against their enemies), Strathclyder/Regyddite nobles (who used large two-handed axes, but otherwise would look like other Gaels, even though they were technically Gaelo-British), Inishnaight (Irish islanders from the Aran islands and other small satellite islands; they generally fought with axes, cudgels/maces, or spears, with javelins, and thick cloaks they used for defense), and Rastriagh (Irish berserkers, which came from different western Irish saint cults to warrior saints). The Gaels removed their body hair, some Irish Gaels still painted themselves in the west, and they often wore cruiddha; 'handlebar' mustaches (like R:TW Gauls/Britons), or clean-shaved, but didn't care as much for beards (though they were present). They favored leather or padded armor for regular soldiers.

The 'highlanders' don't really exist yet. The concept of 'highland' and 'lowland' Scots is a later advent, when Norman culture influenced the lowlanders, but the highlanders remained essentially Nordo-Gaelic in culture (with an emphasis on the Gaelic portion of their culture).

Consequently, if you use any Pictish units, they tattooed themselves, wore trousers, beards, often fought barechest/barefoot (though not at all always, of course, they also wore thick coats and cloaks and boots during winter), favored spears and axes, and longswords for their elites (usually bought from Gaels at great expense; Gaels rarely used longswords, and they were quite expensive), and wore bronze round helmets whenever they had helmets to wear. They wore leather armor sometimes, and, at best, 'chain' armor, but with very wide, heavy rings (Gaels also used this armor, as chain armor had long fallen out of major use by Gaels, except by champions and elite soldiers, but they needed metal armor sometimes for protection).

I could, though I must say that the vikings themselves are more of my area, and much easier to obtain correct information about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScionTheWorm

I would appreciate to get some or all unique units for these factions first:
- French
- Holy roman empire
- Normandy

I believe these are much similar to the Saxons, at least on model basis (with a possible exception for the helmets).

The "shared units" should be properly discussed before we start modelling them. (for instance, will catapult crew or crossbowmen have helmets, and stuff like that)

Note: I'll make a collection of complete units, then I'll start perfecting them. Then, maybe after several units are completely done for a faction + tech tree is complete we could make a thread for each faction with tech tree and faction-description as first post, and complete skins as the second.

---

Sounds good. I'll work on the tech trees and then mark them in red when they're ready for discussing about looks etc. in the units thread. I'll highlight those I want to discuss with you and get feedback about in blue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jarlabanke

I could, though I must say that the vikings themselves are more of my area, and much easier to obtain correct information about.

---

I think a complete unit-list for the vikings could be very handy for skeletor who's taking care of them. Or maybe there already is one?

As you pointed out it's pretty unproblematic because we know a lot about them. If you don't feel comfortable with one of the former mentioned factions, you choose another one. I find it difficult too, finding relevant information on that timeperiod. If you find some unique units or information, write it in the tech-tree thread so we can discuss it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

Sounds good. I'll work on the tech trees and then mark them in red when they're ready for discussing about looks etc. in the units thread. I'll highlight those I want to discuss with you and get feedback about in blue.

---

We should get an expert or two to take a look on it soon, someone that has really got a clue. Things that's not part of history for sure can then be ruled out so we don't waste time on discussing it. It wouldn't neccessarely take much time for someone to take a look on it.

Do we have a title/logo yet?

Just played around, only for fun..
http://img299.echo.cx/img299/6337/t19mu.th.jpg

Nope, we don't have any logo yet. Your logo is nice but the logo probably needs to fill these requirements I think:
1. it should work with transparency. Can be achieved either by having a frame or by having some type of glowing around the logo.
2. it should be possible to resize easily so we had better use vector graphics if possible
3. it should look good on top of the loading screens and preferably on most graphics (therefore, a good idea might be to have some kind of glow around the text like in the R:TW logo, so that it works on both light and dark backgrounds). Alternatively it could be made in a way so it looks good in many different color scales, i.e. both in a dark version and in a lighter version.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScionTheWorm

Do we have a title/logo yet?

Just played around, only for fun..
http://img299.echo.cx/img299/6337/t19mu.th.jpg

---

Wow, two thumbs up from me! ~:cheers: ~:eek:

Made it with Xara (great illustration tool), and can be exported to all adobe formats, jpg, gif ++
Of course with transparency. Maybe it should be different though

This image could be used for an "event" when a country becomes christian. if it is an event of course. thought it was nice.

"Triumph of Christianity" by Tommaso Laureti (1530-1602), ceiling painting in the Sala di Constantino, Vatican Palace. Images like this one celebrate the destruction of ancient pagan culture and the victory of Christianity.


Should play sad music... :wings: :whip:

Are any events going to be included? (never really understood the meaning with them)

Events will probably be included, but I don't think they're necessary really. For our version 2 conversion will probably be possible to include because then the expansion pack will be out and they'll have that function, apparently.

doesn't happen much in technology or disasters anyway that period... turbulent period culturally though, but I guess that's what we're simulating by playing the game

LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix: can you as a moderator make me a member from junior member? *wrote "noble irish nobles" goddamnit..* I wan't to be able to edit my posts

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScionTheWorm

LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix: can you as a moderator make me a member from junior member? *wrote "noble irish nobles" goddamnit..* I wan't to be able to edit my posts

---

No, but I can edit your posts in this subforum. Anyway I don't think you need that many more posts before becoming member, you've already more than 50.

Lol, you've got more ports then me junior! ~:joker:

-Skel-

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skeletor

Lol, you've got more ports then me junior! ~:joker:

---

i have given up hope.
I have really begun to understand that i'll never be more than a junior member. never made it, never will :wideeyed:

Can anybody explain to me the Ntw/Age of Vikings and Fanatics-situation? who's old ntw-folks, and what happened? is the age-concept the one to be carried out (don't know the difference really, but looks like there is one)?

it's the time not the posts i thought. though i have gotten rid of it very fast

Member at last!! :charge: :duel: ~:cheers: :juggle2: :drummer: :guitarist: :jawdrop: ~:snowman: :toff: :medievalcheers: :barrel: :barrel: :barrel:

I would be willing to do research for you guys if you guys allow internet research. ~:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Belatucadros

I would be willing to do research for you guys if you guys allow internet research. ~:)

---

I really need suggestions to faction symbols for some factions.. the problem is to find symbols for that time period, but just a description of a motivie is good too. (like magyar = horse)
- Lotharingia
- Abbassids
- Al Andalus
- Asturia
- Bulgars
- Normandy

I doubt that internet research is a problem ~:cool:

Alright ill try to get those.


:medievalcheers:

edit- so does this mean im part of the team or am i just outside help?

heh this does not mean your part of the team, that's not up to me. I think we're going towards to the end of the research stage, but Legio is the project leader so I guess he knows best.

thats perfectly fine, i dont need to be on the team but im happy to help reasearch.

I'll help u if you like with the Magyars (you can tell from my name that I'm obviously a MAGYAR)

The leader of the Magyars at the start should be Árpád, he is the legendry founder of Magyar (Hungary in English).
If you want I could give you some Magyar, Hun, Avar, Turkic, Khazar names , and if you like I'll find a siutable faction symbol. ~:)
Also what are you going to put on the pannonian plain and Carpathian basin?