Pike & Musket TW ( XVI-XVII mod) in the RTW

Well, as the majority seems to prefer sugar over potatoes (if you eat that much sugaryour teeth will fall off ~D ), I´ll change potatoes to sugar.


Actually about potatoes, they arrived to Ireland earlier than to Spain, 1545 IIRC and this info is from "World history Atlas" published by The Times.

The thing is, sugar is more expensive than potatoes, right? The it will give Seville that much more income converting it in probably the single richest province in the game. Which is probably right. But take into account that in Real life XVI cent Spain, America itself was taking up a good portion of the gold.

Well its great to see Ive managed to make a small contribution to whats shaping up to be a great mod, keep up the good work! :book:

Cheers for that Sugar-Chef! ~;) ~D ~:cheers:

look here for an interesting and maybe useful find. Thanks to eadingas and the EB team.

looks pretty interesting. I can't see how it will relate to the mod though. Anyone got any ideas on how to use this?

BTW I have started modelling some of the units for this and should hopefully post some screenshots at the weekend. (starting with infantry)

Yay I'm a full member and can now edit my posts

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sundjata Keita

looks pretty interesting. I can't see how it will relate to the mod though. Anyone got any ideas on how to use this?

BTW I have started modelling some of the units for this and should hopefully post some screenshots at the weekend.

---

Good news m8! ~:cheers:

I thought that at least the bit about burnable buildings could be useful. The other stuff is merely for aesthetycal purposes...

I've been thinking about several general issues lately. First is kinda important I think:
-As there was a consent as to create several patch versions for different factions (Saxony, Portugal etc.), should such patch campaigns all start at the same date, or be rather set each in different time, like MTW three campaigns? Personally I would prefer three campaigns starting at different time, and with some different factions too. I'd really appreciate a feedback on that.

-The second thing is a minor one, but still needs to be done at some point... What should be the colors of borders of Russia? I ask you this because as I learned Tzar's flag was black two headed eagle on the golden background. So now, following this example Russian colors are golden/black or the other way round, but how would it look like? To me - strange. Any ideas as to Russian colors (those on the campaign map level)?

Regards
EC

Quote:

---

-The second thing is a minor one, but still needs to be done at some point... What should be the colors of borders of Russia? I ask you this because as I learned Tzar's flag was black two headed eagle on the golden background. So now, following this example Russian colors are golden/black or the other way round, but how would it look like? To me - strange. Any ideas as to Russian colors (those on the campaign map level)?

---

Use white borders or light blue ones. IIRC the colours of the imperial navy were white and blue. I think black will be used for HRE/habsburgs, anyway....

Quote:

---

-As there was a consent as to create several patch versions for different factions (Saxony, Portugal etc.), should such patch campaigns all start at the same date, or be rather set each in different time, like MTW three campaigns? Personally I would prefer three campaigns starting at different time, and with some different factions too. I'd really appreciate a feedback on that.

---

Well, If that means changing unit rosters, then its not really doable....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwordsMaster

Well, If that means changing unit rosters, then its not really doable....

---

Well that wouldn't mean changing only unit rosters but rather making different versions of the mod. This is doable, only that it would require some more work and we would probably release the versions one after another and not simultaneously. More work, but more fun too! :charge:

About the light blue and white as Russian colors, well can be for me, but are you sure? I think we'll have to ask some Russian. I'll PM Dead Moroz, he should know (I hope).

Regards
EC

Quote:

---

Well that wouldn't mean changing only unit rosters but rather making different versions of the mod. This is doable, only that it would require some more work and we would probably release the versions one after another and not simultaneously. More work, but more fun too!

---

I think we should stick to one to start with.... By the time we're done, CA might have released some other game... ~D (Only joking, hope it doesn't take THAT long.)

I asked Dead Moroz about the Russian colors and he said black/yellow is the best option. He said white/blue navy flag was used only around 1700 and it was only a navy flag.

Regards
EC

Not to much activity around these parts since I was last on, I dearly hope that the production is still under way as it would be terrible to loose such a promising modification, maybe its just because the school year is under way again :P
:furious3: :book:

Hey man its all fine, the mod is not by ANY means dead. As far as I'm concerned the works on map continue, only that I want to come with some major change later. I've been also playing a bit making faction emblems and such.

As for some other things I've been thinking lately, there will have to be ancillaries and traits modded. I've been mostly thinking about ancillaries. What I think is a good idea is to make a number of 'title' ancillaries (faction specific). I checked ancillary files and it seems it can be done; we can attach an ancillary/title to a building and determine circumstances under which the ancillary/title is assign to a character. I have thousands of ideas for ancillaries in general (not only the title ancillaries); like for example muslim factions could be able to build "Harem"(sp?) which would generate wives (increases the chances of having children). So possibilities connected with the ancillaries are really big and I think we should use them. What you peaople think?

Regards
EC

Lately I'm testing the almost ready map a lot, and so I'm playing campaign to see if the game is stable. What are my first conclusions that I need to share with you, is that we have to change the tech tree a lot. And not rather in its structure, which I think makes sense, but in its balance. So for example all farming upgrades should rather take more time I think, with the land clerance taking the longest to build.

I've been testing several things lately, ancillaries and naming issue.

About the ancillaries the good thing is we can have very precise triggers, but what I still don't know and have to test is whether unique ancillaries can appear again after their 'master' dies. This is important for the whole ancillary-title idea.

About the names, I've figured out nothing more as before. In short, captains bear first names, which looks kinda funny (eg. Captain John). For every faction tho, this problem can be solved in a different way, for example for Tatars this aint no problem as for them lets say Captain Arslan is ok (probably the same case is with the Ottomans). As far as I remember SwordsMaster once told something about that Spanish used two surnames, in such case the firs surname could go with the firstname, the other one would make a real surname (etc sth. like Diego Alvarez de Toledo I believe). Correct me Tony if I'm wrong.

Regards
EC

Quote:

---

As far as I remember SwordsMaster once told something about that Spanish used two surnames, in such case the firs surname could go with the firstname, the other one would make a real surname (etc sth. like Diego Alvarez de Toledo I believe). Correct me Tony if I'm wrong.

---

Nope, You are absolutely correct ~;)

I was thinking the same thing, in that case, Diego Alvarez de Toledo would be
Captain Diego Alvarez (captain)
Don Diego Alvarez insert family name (family member).


How about the Dutch names and surnames? As far as I know surnames were not adopted widely til about the end of the XVIII cent in the Netherlands.

I was thinking about the whole ancillary thing as well. Can a building in a province be assigned "chances" for creating ancillaries.

I mean, if, say a scriptorium gives you 30% chance of getting a "scribe" ancilla, then say the "Court" would give you 50% chance of creating a "governor" title.
So as long as the governor stays in the same province, he will get the governor title. (If the title generates twice for the same man, only one copy remains, right?)

I don't kow much about Dutch names so I have no suggestions here.

And if your 'governor' title (ancillary) is not unique this means every character that can be tested for it, will be tested. But the conditionals can be very precise as I said before, so for example governor would have to have management at 2 at least or sth, or some other constrains if needed. But the title-ancillary cannot be assigned twice for the same man. And the chances are not as for the building to produce ancillary, but the chances are for all of the conditionals together which in case of your example could be: character ended in settlement, remaining hitpoints 100, is general, and anything else you want, then if there's a general in a settlement who meets the requirements he is tested with the chance of say 50%.

Regards
EC

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eastside Character

I don't kow much about Dutch names so I have no suggestions here.

And if your 'governor' title (ancillary) is not unique this means every character that can be tested for it, will be tested. But the conditionals can be very precise as I said before, so for example governor would have to have management at 2 at least or sth, or some other constrains if needed. But the title-ancillary cannot be assigned twice for the same man. And the chances are not as for the building to produce ancillary, but the chances are for all of the conditionals together which in case of your example could be: character ended in settlement, remaining hitpoints 100, is general, and anything else you want, then if there's a general in a settlement who meets the requirements he is tested with the chance of say 50%.

Regards
EC

---

Thats great! I didnt know you could be that precise...

I'm going to start generating title ancillas asap then, and I'll specify what kind of token it should be. (Diplomats can have titles too).

Yeah, I'm exploring the possibilities with triggering ancillaries/traits, and it seems we can really do much in this area. We can link ancillaries to traits, but I still have to find if it's possible to link them with some particular names (or families) etc. .

Regards
EC

Hi all
Here is my suggestion for swedish provinces (but I'm no historian):
Småland(Kalmar), including öland and gotland
Götaland(Göteborg)
Svealand(Stockholm), has iron
Norrland(Umeå perhaps?), has timber
Finland(Helsingfors?)
Karelen(Viborg)

Please use swedish letters (åäö) if possible, it really makes it easier to read!

Hey, Narayanese !

Welcome to the Org!

Quote:

---

Please use swedish letters (åäö) if possible, it really makes it easier to read!

---

I guess that depends if you speak swedish or not... ~;)

Anyway you might want to check the maps section in this subforum and see if you would like to change something


Regards

I think Gotland should be a separate province, as it was danish at the start of the game

And I think yall Swedish folks should first check out camp map screenshots as all the regions you here suggested were modded in a long time before,and as a matter of fact no further region changes are to be made in Scandinavia.

It's just sometimes good to see what's already done to avoid such meaningless discussions...

Regards
EC

I'm sorry for not checking up better before posting EC..., you've made a nice scandinavian map ~:)
still, there was ironmining i bergslagen (area around southern tip of Dalarna) from mdieval times, and it was still going on in the 17th century, much of was shipped through Stockholm (today there is no iron ming there, only some copper mining).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwordsMaster

Nope, You are absolutely correct ~;)

I was thinking the same thing, in that case, Diego Alvarez de Toledo would be
Captain Diego Alvarez (captain)
Don Diego Alvarez insert family name (family member).


How about the Dutch names and surnames? As far as I know surnames were not adopted widely til about the end of the XVIII cent in the Netherlands.

---

Well I'm no historian but perhaps I could help with the dutch names
cause I'm dutch.
mail or pm me (I'm not sure u can do it in this forum) if you could use some help.

Thanks, but we have pretty good name list prepared months ago.

What I really need is a list of heroes for the Dutch - up to 30 and AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE !!! ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cegorach1

Thanks, but we have pretty good name list prepared months ago.

What I really need is a list of heroes for the Dutch - up to 30 and AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE !!! ~D

---

In my new Monastery sticky for Online Historical Resources I have just added a title for the Early Modern Age. Under Warfare you will find links that will be helpful in your research. The WHKMLA site has several interesting articles where Dutch heroes are named:

Dutch revolt

First Anglo-Dutch War

Dutch-Muenster War

Dutch-Portuguese War over Brazil

Etcetera &cetera..

seems like some ol'fashioned dutch Nationalism

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Emperor Umeu 1

seems like some ol'fashioned dutch Nationalism

---

I don' t post chauvinist nonsense links from any country, ever.

The author of that web site is Alexander Ganse, a German who works as lecturer at a South Korean College - hardly your chauvinist Dutchman...

Hey team,
I wanted you to know that I'm going to be less active in modding for P&M. You know, I gotta life, and my life is lately only getting more and more busy. With the beginning of April I'm starting another job and that will mean less time for other things, so modding is one of those things. Still, I will be doing sth for P&M, but as I assume, it will be less (slower progress on art work as its time consuming). So I just wanted to let you know that, and I hope this mod gets in full swing anyway! :charge: And I mean it for both of its versions! ~D And for the sub mods and expansions too! :bow:
I've been even thinking lately about installing good o' MTW and prehaps drawing some unit animations (as I worked out a good and not that time consuming method for it)...

Regards
EC

Good luck with it ! ~;)

BTW Maybe you could inform me about the method, I might be interested in this in some time ( when I will buy a PC here).

If you want the 1.0 release ask Swordmaster for the link. ~:cheers:


Regards Cegorach ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cegorach1

BTW Maybe you could inform me about the method, I might be interested in this in some time ( when I will buy a PC here).

---

Ok, only that the method is based on drawing skills.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cegorach1

If you want the 1.0 release ask Swordmaster for the link.

---

So I did, and I like it. Still the mod evidently lacks new graphics, I felt an impulse to change this and that ~;) . Also as I started the high period campaign as Poland-Lithuania and learned Jan Zamoyski is a Pikemen unit in Prussia, I was a bit bitter that he can't actually ride a horse :charge: :dizzy2: , but well...

Anyway I have a certain idea for P&M RTW version:

I really think we now should close the faction setup for basic RTW release. Last time we were talking about this, we didn't decide about all the factions and there were still some unclear aspects.

01.-HRE - romans brutii
02.-Spain - romans julii
03.-Electoral States - romans scipii
04.-Pope - romans senate
05.-Russia - greek cities
06.-Zaporozhyan Cossacks - seleucids
07.-Hungary - thrace
08.-Poland-Lithuania - macedon
09.-Sweden - spain
10.-Denmark - scythia
11.-Scotland - britons
12.-England - gauls
13.-United Netherlands - dacia
14.-Brandenburg - germans
15.-Turkey - armenia
16.-Crimean Tatars - parthia
17.-Georgia - pontus
18.-Venice - carthage
19.-France - numidia
20.-Saxony - egypt
20.-Portugal
20.-Persia


As you can see above, now we have 3 choices for a poll, bacause I think we should have a poll in this case to decide. Any other ideas for factions? Remember it starts 1480. As for the already accepted factions, two look akward to me in that time setting, but seems that for the sake of the big picture we have to have them from the very start; United Netherlands, Zaporozhyan Cossacks. I would hope to open that poll soon.

Regards
EC

[QUOTE=Eastside Character]Ok, only that the method is based on drawing skills.

>>>> Well... that is bad :embarassed:



So I did, and I like it. Still the mod evidently lacks new graphics, I felt an impulse to change this and that ~;) . Also as I started the high period campaign as Poland-Lithuania and learned Jan Zamoyski is a Pikemen unit in Prussia, I was a bit bitter that he can't actually ride a

>>>>>> He is leading Scottish Pikemen, if I remember correctly - I thought it is rather good - you know Scots from Zamosc ~:cheers:
But it is possible to give him something different by changing the unit in the startpos.txt.
Actually I had to change few things to make e.g. Cromwell led his Ironsides in late and similar ( Jarema is leading Husaria ~D ).
It is only 1.0 so it will be possible to change few ( or more) things here and there.

About graphics - there are some 'spare' entries in the Textures/Men BIFs e.g. Toplesloon etc, but generally it should be remembered that I had to place certain files in Custom directories to allow using additional factions and it should stay this way.

If you want to we could discuss what changes are the most necessary ones.

When I will 'be back' ( with a PC capable of running RTW) I will also correct whatever is necessary for a future patch for the MTW release, but concentrate my efforts in preparing RTW release - at least for custom/multiplayer mode ( with me as one of the first players ~D ).



Anyway I have a certain idea for P&M RTW version:

I really think we now should close the faction setup for basic RTW release. Last time we were talking about this, we didn't decide about all the factions and there were still some unclear aspects.

01.-HRE - romans brutii
02.-Spain - romans julii
03.-Electoral States - romans scipii
04.-Pope - romans senate
05.-Russia - greek cities
06.-Zaporozhyan Cossacks - seleucids
07.-Hungary - thrace
08.-Poland-Lithuania - macedon
09.-Sweden - spain
10.-Denmark - scythia
11.-Scotland - britons
12.-England - gauls
13.-United Netherlands - dacia
14.-Brandenburg - germans
15.-Turkey - armenia
16.-Crimean Tatars - parthia
17.-Georgia - pontus
18.-Venice - carthage
19.-France - numidia
20.-Saxony - egypt
20.-Portugal
20.-Persia



>>>> I'd like to have Persia in the 'basic' release and Portugal and Saxony in patched versions.

Persia is the best out of those three for me as well, but I'm sure there are also other people who would go for Portugal (just take Count Dementhor, our webmaster), or Saxony. I was thinking the whole team/community is like too large to disregard and some issues should rather be collective decisions.

I forgot about Genoa, it's an extremely valid faction for the whole P&M timeframe, and a one that was important too. It's really a pity we are stuck with 20 factions. :furious3: Makes me wanna :furious3:

Regards
EC

I was thinking the whole team/community is like too large to disregard and some issues should rather be collective decisions.

Of course I agree. ~:cheers:

How about removing the Tatars and the Cossacks and putting in Persia and Portugal. The Tatars and Cossacks are way too small to stand against Poland Russia, Georgia and the Ottomans that share more-less the same area. And in the RTW engine, it is probably easier to impelement the mercenary character of the cossacks.

NO :charge:

Both factions are too uniqe to be removed !! :duel:

They both aren't really more unique than Ireland or Berbers for that instance. It's all a matter of likes and dislikes.

I think you are here simply biased towards Cossacks as a Pole. For a Pole Cossacks seem important, but when you look at the big picture the situation changes. Tatars technicly should be some kind of Turkish vasal. Generally Tatars and Cossacks are enemies to one another and removing one means removing the other. Same if you want one of them to stay, the other stays as well. Only that not necessarliy as a faction.

All in all I'm not gonna be arguing about leaving Cossacks out, because I will crush them quickly anyway, hehe. ~;) The issue here is more that circa 1480 THERE WERE NO COSSACKS! And so not no Zaporozhyan Cossacks too. The fact they have never been, by any means, a faction, is a different story. I just find it ... strange that you Cegorach, as a Pole, that you are so strongly for the Cossacks. ~:eek: I mean I really find it weird. ~:confused: My ancestors would turn up in their graves if I here supported that idea. Merely rebels. Remember Jarema's words when Cossack 'diplomats' came in the name of Khmelnystky: "Buntownik, nie Hetman!*" And those words, I believe, properly describe what the Zaporozhyans were c. 1648. Otherwise they would be soldiers in the armies of the Commonwealth, Russia, Turkey, or just some bandits.

I think that OiM mod has all about Cossacks you would like to have, but then it's more localised and actually centered around the Commonwealth and neighboring countries. And that's how I think it should be - Cossacks as a faction in the expansion, not the big scale mod.

And as said before, I'm not very much concerned if Cossacks will or not be a faction, they will be rebels to me anyway and so I will treat them. :charge:

As for the Tatars, hmm, myself being 1/8 Khazan Libkanum Tatarlar, I would like to see them as a faction that they were, although a Turkish vasal. But if them being vasals means its a bye bye, then I would also get rid of Cossacks and put there Persia and Genoa. Portugal is nice but it was united with Spain after all. Splitting these two, is I think like splitting Poland and Lithuania. It would look as much akward, tho Lithuania was an independent country in its own rights until 1569 but ruled by the same guys that ruled Poland. Making them separate makes no sense, the same I think applies to Portugal and Spain. The bonds were too strong to separate them.

* - means: "A rebel not a Hetman!"

Regards
EC

OK have a better solution:

Let's do it this way - in a basic version ( 1480+) there will be no Cossacks, but in later ( patched, around 1572+) they would replace Georgia ( in pieces at that time and not so important if we have Persia).

The Tatars however have to be there, simply because they were an important factor in eastern european balance of forces between Russia, Poland, Sweden and THEM. Besides the Ottomans were more concerned with the conquest of Hungary and Austria not with Poland or Ukraine ( up to 1650).

This way we would have a good selection of factions, armies in a balanced mod it should be, besides we could use OiM cossack units in more reasonable way.

So what do you think about it ?

It is a better solution, but I still think that the Tatars dont really add to gameplay. They will have only 1 or 2 provinces, and most of their units are going to ebe Ottoman anyway. Besides, we can´t make them "vassals" of the Ottoman empire which means they will have to stand on their own and will probably be crushed by the Ottomans themselves.

IMHO the Tatars as a faction should be out. Their lands should be given to a rebel faction, and their units made recruitable in the area for the Ottomans and maybe other factions in the area.

MAybe not the best solution, but we have plenty of Eastern factions already.

On the other hand, which factions do we have in N. Africa? Specially which factions do we have strong enough to defy Spain in the Western Mediterranean? IMHO the Portuguese should be a faction as they moved huge amounts of money, and had one of the most advanced navies of the era.

I don't know if any of you visited Citadel forum lately but right now we have a poll going on about the Senate faction. We have an idea that the Diet should be the Senate faction, with minions being the HAbsburgs, Saxony and Bavaria, and not including the Pope at all. We think this reflects the period better, and the Diet is much more like teh Senate than the Pope. However, no Pope in the game may seem strange to a lot of people, including myself even though I was one of the originators of the idea.
I was wondering what you think about that, seeing how you still have the Pope in your faction list.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yggdrasill

I don't know if any of you visited Citadel forum lately but right now we have a poll going on about the Senate faction. We have an idea that the Diet should be the Senate faction, with minions being the HAbsburgs, Saxony and Bavaria, and not including the Pope at all. We think this reflects the period better, and the Diet is much more like teh Senate than the Pope. However, no Pope in the game may seem strange to a lot of people, including myself even though I was one of the originators of the idea.
I was wondering what you think about that, seeing how you still have the Pope in your faction list.

---

Another reason to keep the Pope is to limit the expansion of superpowers like Spain and the HRE in Italy and also to spice up the italian map a little. The faction list we have now is not yet definitive though.

Well we have Venice Milan and Naples, so three Italian factions already, and pope is not really needed 'to spice things up' or stop the Spanish. We have an entirely different strategic situation, with Spain having to deal with Granada first, then the Aragon (sadly only a rebel faction) and the Portugese (also only rebels) before looking beyond their peninsula

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwordsMaster

most of their units are going to ebe Ottoman anyway.

---

Not true. Tatar army was differetn from any other in Europe at that time, and not like any other. The fact you see no difference between Tatar and Ottoman horse archers, doesnt make them be the same. Just the same way there are loads of Pikemen units in mod.

Quote:

---

Besides, we can´t make them "vassals" of the Ottoman empire which means they will have to stand on their own and will probably be crushed by the Ottomans themselves.

---

We cannot make them vassals, but can make them allies, weaker allies of a powerfull Ottoman Empire. Should they engage in hostilities with eachother, that would be just as it happened a couple of times when Karachi Beis wanted to seize power and become fully independent from Sultan by electing a new Khan themselves.

Quote:

---

IMHO the Tatars as a faction should be out. Their lands should be given to a rebel faction, and their units made recruitable in the area for the Ottomans and maybe other factions in the area.

---

In case they would be out their lands would have to be Ottoman, to make it reasonable. But after a deep consideration I would after all support the idea of having Tatars in game. I mean if considering we are including factions like Brandenburg, which was weaker than Crimean Khanate.

Quote:

---

MAybe not the best solution, but we have plenty of Eastern factions already.

---

Then count Western factions and compare the numbers.

Quote:

---

On the other hand, which factions do we have in N. Africa? Specially which factions do we have strong enough to defy Spain in the Western Mediterranean? IMHO the Portuguese should be a faction as they moved huge amounts of money, and had one of the most advanced navies of the era.

---

Yes, the Portugese were afluent and had stong navy, and I agree it would be very nice to have them as a permanent Spanish ally, but on the other hand if you look at their engagement in purely European affairs, they dont count much. They are important in context of new colonies, America, and naval expansion worldwide, but not in Europe. P&M however, deals pretty much with European warfare and the fact there is part of Africa on the map and that there is a part of Asia, is only because we have to have the real context. Given the Spanish-Portugese royal alliance, I think the reasons for splitting what was together, are not very much convincing to me.

Again, I can bring back example of Polish-Lithuanian state or rather two states which were separate until 1569, and still why dont we make Lithuania in game? Lithuania was big and stong and her Grand Dukes were Kings of Poland and sometimes of Hungary and Bohemia too.

You see, we can twist is all up even more. The question is does it make sense for the big picture. I think the answer is 'no'.

Regards
EC

Quote:

---

Yes, the Portugese were afluent and had stong navy, and I agree it would be very nice to have them as a permanent Spanish ally, but on the other hand if you look at their engagement in purely European affairs, they dont count much. They are important in context of new colonies, America, and naval expansion worldwide, but not in Europe. P&M however, deals pretty much with European warfare and the fact there is part of Africa on the map and that there is a part of Asia, is only because we have to have the real context. Given the Spanish-Portugese royal alliance, I think the reasons for splitting what was together, are not very much convincing to me.

---

Well, but the spanish-portuguese merged crown was only due to the defeat and death of the portuguese king Sebastian in the battle of Alcazarquivir (N.Africa), in 1578, which is 135 years into the Mod´s timeframe. If we are not including the Cossacks because they were non-existant in 1453, then we should definitely include Portugal.

Besides, I would much rather have cossacks and portuguese in the mod than tatars and persians.

Of course that is only my opinion. It does make more sense to have Persia instead of Cossacks though.

Portuguese - we have no place for them I believe, Tatars were MORE important when it comes to the balance of forces and are more interesting to play I believe ( unusual army).

Persia is generally useful to balance the huge strenght of the Ottomans, besides I believe that the idea of the patch is the best solution to have the Cossacks in the game anyway ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cegorach1

Portuguese - we have no place for them I believe, Tatars were MORE important when it comes to the balance of forces and are more interesting to play I believe ( unusual army).

Persia is generally useful to balance the huge strenght of the Ottomans, besides I believe that the idea of the patch is the best solution to have the Cossacks in the game anyway ~D

---

I agree. Prehaps I'm biased as I have some Tatar blood in my vains, but I think SM is biased as well. It seems we cannot come to a campromise here. I said what I think, and I'm puzzled, so my suggestion would be either to have a poll for Tatars/Portugal/Genoa and what not, so for that one slot. Or just make a final statement Ceg and lets have what it is you want. I fear Tatars may not win the poll tho... it would be best (I think) for some objective history experts to wage the Tatars and Portugal and say whats to stay. Because me, you Ceg, and you SM, we arent really trully objective here I believe. Kinda hard thing here to settle. :dizzy2:

I take my askerler and ride into the steppes to avoid this clash. :charge: :charge: :charge:

As always,

Regards
EC

Prehaps we need not to argue at all, (or at least not about kicking out Tatars and inserting Portugal instead) look here:

01.-HRE - romans brutii
02.-Spain - romans julii
03.-Electoral States - romans scipii
04.-Pope - romans senate
05.-Russia - greek cities
06.-FREE SLOT - seleucids / earlier - Zaporozhyan Cossacks
07.-Hungary - thrace
08.-Poland-Lithuania - macedon
09.-Sweden - spain
10.-Denmark - scythia
11.-Scotland - britons
12.-England - gauls
13.-United Netherlands - dacia
14.-Brandenburg - germans
15.-Turkey - armenia
16.-Crimean Tatars - parthia
17.-Georgia - pontus
18.-Venice - carthage
19.-France - numidia
20.-Persia - egypt

Regards
EC

LOL, how come we didnt know about that spot earlier? ~D
About our discussion, I dont think I´m biased. I was born in Zaporozhye from a family that stretched from the Romanovs, polish descendants and a german from Danzig, I lived 10 years in Spain and study my degree in Ireland.

Hardly what you could call biased....

Anyway, that was just my opinion, but we could ask, for example Adrian II , as he appears to have a solid knowledge of history and has showed interest in this mod.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwordsMaster

LOL, how come we didnt know about that spot earlier? ~D
About our discussion, I dont think I´m biased. I was born in Zaporozhye from a family that stretched from the Romanovs, polish descendants and a german from Danzig, I lived 10 years in Spain and study my degree in Ireland.

Hardly what you could call biased....

Anyway, that was just my opinion, but we could ask, for example Adrian II , as he appears to have a solid knowledge of history and has showed interest in this mod.

---

Sorry man, I thought you was a hispanic, or spanish to be more precise. AnywayI am still biased towards Tatars, but as turned out we don't need to get rid of them them.

Our empty slot can be then Portugal, but also Genoa or Saxony. As for Portugal what I can say after your explanation of her status, I think it would be a pretty strong candidate. Do you think it would be possible to have Portugal and Genoa as one faction? Just an idea. And yeah, Adrian II would be of help here I think.

Regards
EC

Quote:

---

Sorry man, I thought you was a hispanic, or spanish to be more precise. AnywayI am still biased towards Tatars, but as turned out we don't need to get rid of them them.

---

No problem, I´m some fraction spanish too. My grandfather was spanish.

Quote:

---

Do you think it would be possible to have Portugal and Genoa as one faction?

---

Hardly. We have a mediterranean trading empire though, Venice. See, for me the main reason to pick Portugal, is the AI wont have an aggressive strategy if we just leave it rebel. There will just be lots of small armies sitting everywhere. They probably wont even try to expand or anything and will be easily swallowed by bigger "real" factions.

Other than that, Portugal could be a rebel faction, as they technically they had less influence in european politics than Genoa. The thing is, we dont want a too strong Genoa to overthrow France or HRE.

Basically our list of possible factions is:

Cossacks
Genoa
Portugal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwordsMaster

Basically our list of possible factions is:

Cossacks
Genoa
Portugal.

---

Why Cossacks again? I mean we previously agreed to remove them mostly because they are not for the campaign starting in 1480 AD, but should be included in later campaign. That later campaign wouldnt take much time provided we have our first campaign done. Still kinda far from here...

Anyway I think Genoa and Portugal are fine options, but there were more factions circa 1480, like: Saxony (or some other German state like Switzerland or Bavaria), Wallachia or last but not least some Berber kingdom (Fez or sth). I think we should have a poll. The situation is clear that we have one slot empty, and potentially some five choices or so:
Portugal
Genoa
Switzerland
Berbers
Saxony

This is just an idea. I think you would much rather have Portugal than this poll, but is it possible Portugal gets most votes. I think it is likely. To spice thing up I think we can make this not just some poll, but a contest poll where we make a limit that eg. the faction which gets 11 votes first, that faction wins. Or something. I'm just trying to be creative. ~;)

I would probably vote for Genoa.

Regards
EC

Hmm, yes, Fez is also a godd option. But I've tried but there is just no info available on the web, or I couldnt find it... I might PM Adrian to see if he's got some....

As of adding more germans, well, yeahm but they dont add to variety either. They will all have the same units...

I would vote for Portugal or Switzerland ( was really powerful at that time) :charge:

Please start the poll :bow:

Hey guys,

Im back! What's new?

I'll have more time to help you again on this mod in the next weeks.

I really don't have much to say now.

I've got to update the site...

Cya... ~:cheers:

I thought about animal units in the RTW, do we need any ?

Ronin from OiM team suggested once a herd of bulls for Cossacks faction ~D

What do you think ?

Second - the elephants - maybe the Persians could get them as an exclusive and VERY rare unit ?


Finally - I don't think we will be able to release anything untill late 2006 i.e. after THE BARBARIAN Invasion and only some kind of demo version (custom and multiplayer) will be useful before this time.

Personally I want a well prepared and complete release.

For this reason I started working with renewed zeal and fanatism, now RTW edition will be no. 1 !! ~;)

I believe you will see some effects soon - especially from OiM team ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cegorach1

I thought about animal units in the RTW, do we need any ?

Ronin from OiM team suggested once a herd of bulls for Cossacks faction

What do you think ?

Second - the elephants - maybe the Persians could get them as an exclusive and VERY rare unit ?

---

I dont know much about animal units in that period. I think horses and camels were mostly used. I dont think Persia should have elephants in that period, but I'm not entirely sure here.

Bulls for Cossacks sound for me pretty much in the same way as Flying Carpets for Turks. Unrealistic, fun but unrealistic.

Generally, I think we should more care about the regular units for now, and leave all the strange units for later when we have the most important units done.

I believe we could work out a core of beta campaign using rtw units as placeholders for now. It would move forward modding campaign mechanisms and AI behavior. Placeholder units would have proper stats and only look wrong. Good for testing, and theres like hundrets of tests ahead of us guys.


Sincerely
EC

Quote:

---

Bulls for Cossacks sound for me pretty much in the same way as Flying Carpets for Turks. Unrealistic, fun but unrealistic.

---

You might me on to something! Can we have flying carpet arquebusiers? Please can we? can we? ~D

I know elephants were used up until the XIX cent by some eastern nations, mostly to pull things around and as a command point on a battlefield, but I dont think their use was widely spread...

Actually Cossacks did use bulls on occasion. Sometimes not necessarilly on purpose, but mainly they were a good way of causing confusion in the enemy lines.

In Taras Bulba there is a part where their bulls (or cattle or oxen, I can't remember what exactly) are made to stampede but are driven into the Polish lines. Even though Taras Bulba is fiction, it is a very good source for Cossack life/combat/strategy/idealogy.

Placeholder units would have proper stats and only look wrong. Good for testing, and theres like hundrets of tests ahead of us guys.


Great idea EC.

I will start doing this as soon as possible.

We will need to have everything in 1 place and start implementing our extensive data.
Of course I want to do this - I should be ready at the end of the month. ~:cheers:

Another thing, don't worry about units so much, we really have support of OiM team - check their beautiful units in the Forge ~:)

Do you need my help any more? I'm quite busy with my ZTW mod at the moment and the OiM team's models and textures far outmatch anything I can do. Maybee I could help with portraits (by making 3D face renders) and I can help with the cattle if you are going to include that as I am making a bull/cow model for ZTW. Also if you need help with rifles or anything. What do you think?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sundjata Keita

Do you need my help any more? I'm quite busy with my ZTW mod at the moment and the OiM team's models and textures far outmatch anything I can do. Maybee I could help with portraits (by making 3D face renders) and I can help with the cattle if you are going to include that as I am making a bull/cow model for ZTW. Also if you need help with rifles or anything. What do you think?

---

Well, IMO, the more models the merrier ~;)

I think we´ll need all the help we can get. Hopefully after my final exams this year I might be able to take up my interrupted self-teaching MAX course, but I cant promise anything and that wont be until the 15th June or so...

I was thinking about adding CHAPLAINS as a kind of officer for certain units (elite) to have an excuse to give them a chanting ability, what do you think about this idea ? :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cegorach1

I was thinking about adding CHAPLAINS as a kind of officer for certain units (elite) to have an excuse to give them a chanting ability, what do you think about this idea ? :bow:

---

Well, I dont know.... Even if they were absolved before battle, that doesnt mean they were singing.... And the chaplain didnt actually go into battle either, so I think its kinda weak...

What we should do is add drummers as at this stage most of the european armies would have them.

I know, but sometimes they joined soldiers.

The drummers are an obvious choice, but as far as I know it is possible to add up to 4 officers, so why not use all entries ? ~;)

I have read the review in PCZone. I must admit that both balistas on chariots and the new formations ( shilton and shieldwall) look interesting - possibly for
warwagons with artillery ?
The formations are useful as well :book:

.
Just stopped by to say hello to the team. I'm so sorry that I couldn't fulfill my promise to cegorach1 but at least I haven't forgot about it and will try to do something as soon as I have some time for research. ~:(
.

Very good that you didn't forget.

I hope to get something soon :book:

my suggestion for the factions:

01.-Pope - romans senate
01.-Austria-Bohemia (with the HREmperor) - romans brutii
02.-Spain - romans julii
03.-German princes pro Papacy - romans scipii
05.-Russia & Cossacks - greek cities
06.-Crimean Tatars - seleucids
07.-Hungary - thrace
08.-Poland-Lithuania - macedon
09.-Portugal - spain
10.-Denmark - scythia
11.-Scotland - britons
12.-England - gauls
13.-United Netherlands - dacia
14.-German princes against Papacy - germans
15.-Georgia - armenia
16.-Persia - parthia
17.-Turkey - pontus
18.-Italian Citystates - carthage
19.-France - numidia
20.-Sweden - egypt

In fact it is already done, but we are waiting for the BI which should allow adding more factions :book:

Regards Cegorach ~:)

Hey Pinarius screw you if you want to use my ancestors to facilitate some crap western european faction

plus if you need any help with balcanic history and units of the Romanian countries you can ask me

I wonder if fortresses will be incorporated into this game because not only provincial capitals were used as fortresses

And pajalusta dont include that Turkish alliance

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Voevod al Moldovei

Hey Pinarius screw you if you want to use my ancestors to facilitate some crap western european faction

---

WOW! that will convince them to add a Romanian faction for sure...

nu stiu de asta

e polon directorul si nu au spatiu pentru tara romaneasca sau transilvania

Hmm,really?
In XVI-XVII there was Moldavian and Wolhynian Hospodar that since 1862 became the Princedom of Romania-I think;).So maby creators of the Mod could make some kind of Commonwealth of those two XVI-XVII century regions-player could rule both of them,as a one faction:)

The romanian countries did not unite until the 19th century and does not apply to the period the game is set in

Both had different Kings and regents plus the politics were very complex due to the turkish

Umm, wouldnt it be better in the end to have, oh lets say, cooler Safavid units then Romanian ones...better yet, we could use the huge RTR map to extend the Russian, Ottoman and Safavid empires. Just an idea.....

This discussion is pretty pointless, since there will be no release for RTW - MTW 2 is just too close to start anything, still animations, graphics etc will be prepared, in fact some are in progress all the time.

Regards Cegorach :book:

what the fuck there are enough muslims in the game already

second of all the romanians with their apparently un-cool units were one of the major deciding factors in european history first of all we defended the gates of europe for centuries second of all if we wold have been conquered earlier half of europe would have been under the turkish yolk

SO NOOOBODY TRY TO REPLACE MY ANCESTORS WITH MINOR HISTORICALLY INSIGNIFICANT FACTIONS

btw cegorach do you have a progress report

WATCH YOUR LANGUAGE ! i DON'T LIKE THIS HOSTILE ATTITUDE YOU HAVE EXPRESSED IN THIS POST. BETTER MANNERS WOULD HELP YOU MORE THAN SHOUTING LIKE ABOVE.
I WILL DELATE OR EDIT SIMILAR POSTS IN THE FUTURE.

I DISAGREE WITH YOUR STATEMENT ABOUT DEFENDING EUROPE, BUT THE MAIN REASON WHY MOLDAVIA ISN'T IN THE FACTION LIST NOW IS THEIR LIMITED NUMBER ( 20) WE WILL SEE IF MTW 2 ALLOWS MORE TO BE ADDED IF YES MOLDAVIA WILL APPEAR ( BUT NOT BECAUSE OF YOUR RECENT POSTS), IF NOT IT WON'T.

THAT IS ALL FOR NOW. :book:

CEGORACH