Citadel:Total War units

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by two_Roses

I think that my argument of lances being dropped by alot of units is a valid point. Although I can see where you are going with this, and so I think that if we get lances to be dropped after theyve been used once - then we should implement them into the mod. I already explained why the lance was an obsolete weapon by the mid 14thC. in my previous post, its because alot of Western European countries used it as a simbol of wealth and as a ceramonial type weapon (pretty much like the SS honour daggers - never actually used in battle). Having said that lances were carried onto the battlefield, but in Western European battles a direct cavalry charge at massed infantry was not favourable as by the mid 14thC. foot soldiers (not just men at arms, which is an English way of describing virtually any foot soldier) carried weapons that could combat cavalry. Take the pole axe for example, a pointed tip at both ends (with an axe at one end) - you would stick the bottom point into the ground and brase it with your foot and wait for the horse to hit you, which of course would kniock you down but it would flip the horse and send the mount flying - thus making a cavalry charge ineffective. Ok so a lance has a chance of hitting the stationary soldier, but only if he is off to one side, in a charge at a block of men this proved ineffective and so direct lance attacks against Western European units should fail. Can you see where I'm going with this? Implement Eastern European units with lances, but make Western European units have a bonus fighting cavalry.
Yes exactly, they modernised, but how are you going to represent this modernisation throughout the game? I mean you wouldnt have a 1520 Gendarmes in 1550 would you.
Isnt this something that is done in Greece or the Balkans? Ahhh but have you tride hitting the target whilst it dodges you?

Oooo a rather polite form of insult that ~;) . I would personally say that English units, battle tactics and European armour is where my speciality lays. However alot of my research into the units and weapons mentioned for the mod, has been learned at the Royal Armouries in England. Which houses the most fantastic display of medieval to modern day weapons I have ever seen. It also regularly displays the usage of the weapons and the vunerability of armour types. If you are in England sometime, I recommend you visit it (My aim would be to actually work there someday). But back to the point, have you forgotten that even a basic peasent unit by the late 14thC. had a standard set of armour and a wide variety of weapons to choose from other than a sword or basic axe - therefore you must implement these into the factions.
Yes I had wondered about that. Well, if you can implement it, go for it. But I wouldnt want lances on Western units to be used more than once - otherwise its just too unrealistic.

---

Some good ideas mentioned here, and earlier, but you have to remember we are restricted by what is possible within RTW.

Firstly, while we can have 500 units, we are restricted to 255 models, each of which can have a large number of skins applied to it (porbably large enough to be considered unlimited).
The problem is, the rule of one skin per model per faction applies. So take a Sipahi model I made, as it so happens, the same model with a different skin can be used to represent a later age Sipahi, the problem? I need to use 2 entries in the models text file, despite only using one model.
Luckily, the Turks are the exception, being fairly unique, for the western faction I can do some recycling, though it means pikemen looking all alike, just with different colours. So a huge variety of differently armed units is just not feasable.

Yes exactly, they modernised, but how are you going to represent this modernisation throughout the game? I mean you wouldnt have a 1520 Gendarmes in 1550 would you.

This is a problem. I've ranted about it at the official forums, started a thread about it which even attracted attention of the CA staff member. They have chosen a completely wrong system of economy and especially recruitment and advance in tech. Every advance in armour should be reflected on all your applicable units, so once an upgrade is researched, it should change all existing units in game. Alas, the developers, for reasons beyond me never included this in the game. Even in RTW it represents a problem - hastati units are still around in 27 BC. Unfortunately, there is no way around it. I am so disappointed with campaign game that for the past few months I've played only custom and historical battles.
The thing is, a lot of old time veterans of the game agree that this blows big time, and it is quite possible that something will be done about it. I can't imagine it's that hard to implement. So I am of the opinion that we shouldn't rush the campaign. Work on the unit models is our top priority, hopefully the pace will pick up if you decide to pitch in, general history research is always good as is work on the campoign map. But we should perhaps wait to see what advances the expansion brings (we can safely say that it's going to be released by autumn).


Isnt this something that is done in Greece or the Balkans? Ahhh but have you tride hitting the target whilst it dodges you?

Well I am from the Balkans. And such equestrian games are held all over Europe, in various forms. This just happens to be the one I'm familiar with.

I don't think one can dodge that much while being in a group of people. An individual with good reflexes could dodge a lance tip, sure, but a block of 1000 man, pressing on all sides, charged by 500 horses... Well some would get hit no matter what.

Oooo a rather polite form of insult that . I would personally say that English units, battle tactics and European armour is where my speciality lays. However alot of my research into the units and weapons mentioned for the mod, has been learned at the Royal Armouries in England. Which houses the most fantastic display of medieval to modern day weapons I have ever seen. It also regularly displays the usage of the weapons and the vunerability of armour types. If you are in England sometime, I recommend you visit it (My aim would be to actually work there someday). But back to the point, have you forgotten that even a basic peasent unit by the late 14thC. had a standard set of armour and a wide variety of weapons to choose from other than a sword or basic axe - therefore you must implement these into the factions.

didn't meen to insult you mate. :embarassed:

It is going to be hard to implement units with various weapons mainly because of limitations that GodsPetMonkey mentioned. Having one unit armed with swords, then the exact same unit armed with maces etc. would eat up too many slots. But using primary/secondary weapons, we can correct this a bit. Basic weapons we shall have are swords, sabres, lances, pikes and spears, axes, various polearms (poleaxes, halebards, bills, tirpan axe, some other I can't remember all now). I don't know what to do about maces or warhammers. It's seems a bit silly to have special units of 'macemen', and having a mace or hammer as a secondary weapon just seems wrong, since most soldiers in the period had in addition to their primary weapon (pike, bow, crossbow, poleaxe...) a sword. Weapons such as mace and hammers were used in addition to those, like a third weapon...which we don't get in RTW.
Scottish units are supposed to be included, as region specific and mercenary units. If you want you can suggest some since I don't exactly know much about them in the period.

So you think that only eastern units should have lances?
The relative effect a cavalry charge shall have on a formation of infantry in the mod (I'm talikg about the game now not real life) has not so much to do with the type of weapon used but more with the stats of the defending unit. A infantry unit with phalanx ability and reasonable armour and shield values, and good melee value and a special 'bonus versus cavalry' option we can turn on or off for units, will eat cavalry for lunch, any cavalry, east or west, heavy or light, lance or sword. They'll break like waves. It's just a question of balancing the game. On the other hand, a unit without that option (indicating a lower discipline and training), and poor stats, without the bonus and armed with a weapon not designed to be used agains cavalry, will be hard hit. Initial charge will create casulties, but then, during the subsequent melee the odds will even out or be stacked against the riders. So that infantry unit will either rout, or stand and fight - in which case the cavalry should best retreat and charge again. And here's the catch. Eastern cav shall either be classed as light or have better stamina value. I also think that it is possible to mod the time needed for turning around and manouvering. So an eastern cav unit shall be able to extract themselves from a melee faster and try again. This is how I think we have to model the penalties that heavy cavalry suffers in combat.

Why should the Western heavy cav units have a bonus versus cavalry (other than their naturally high armour values and presumably high melee)?

I will track down those Turks and add them to the list.

Two Roses my post was mainly about that age, I did not mean to say that later Bodkins could not penetrate heavy armor.

The only way we could really try to flush the game of old units at a certain point would be if we could have multiple reforms, but so far we can only have one that I know of so that will be for gunpowder weaponry.

I know why I did not include them!

They were not placed in a polished list to ensure that the Turks were not using too many units. If you would like to post a revised polished list go ahead. I have those on my computer under unpolished lists. They are more likre general information and research not a completed list. If you want all of the unpolished lists/jumbled data I can e-mail it to you.

Yes exactly, they modernised, but how are you going to represent this modernisation throughout the game? I mean you wouldnt have a 1520 Gendarmes in 1550 would you.

This is a problem. I've ranted about it at the official forums, started a thread about it which even attracted attention of the CA staff member. They have chosen a completely wrong system of economy and especially recruitment and advance in tech. Every advance in armour should be reflected on all your applicable units, so once an upgrade is researched, it should change all existing units in game. Alas, the developers, for reasons beyond me never included this in the game. Even in RTW it represents a problem - hastati units are still around in 27 BC. Unfortunately, there is no way around it. I am so disappointed with campaign game that for the past few months I've played only custom and historical battles.
The thing is, a lot of old time veterans of the game agree that this blows big time, and it is quite possible that something will be done about it. I can't imagine it's that hard to implement. So I am of the opinion that we shouldn't rush the campaign. Work on the unit models is our top priority, hopefully the pace will pick up if you decide to pitch in, general history research is always good as is work on the campoign map. But we should perhaps wait to see what advances the expansion brings (we can safely say that it's going to be released by autumn).


Isnt this something that is done in Greece or the Balkans? Ahhh but have you tride hitting the target whilst it dodges you?

Well I am from the Balkans. And such equestrian games are held all over Europe, in various forms. This just happens to be the one I'm familiar with.

I don't think one can dodge that much while being in a group of people. An individual with good reflexes could dodge a lance tip, sure, but a block of 1000 man, pressing on all sides, charged by 500 horses... Well some would get hit no matter what.

Oooo a rather polite form of insult that . I would personally say that English units, battle tactics and European armour is where my speciality lays. However alot of my research into the units and weapons mentioned for the mod, has been learned at the Royal Armouries in England. Which houses the most fantastic display of medieval to modern day weapons I have ever seen. It also regularly displays the usage of the weapons and the vunerability of armour types. If you are in England sometime, I recommend you visit it (My aim would be to actually work there someday). But back to the point, have you forgotten that even a basic peasent unit by the late 14thC. had a standard set of armour and a wide variety of weapons to choose from other than a sword or basic axe - therefore you must implement these into the factions.

didn't meen to insult you mate. :embarassed:

No problems mate, I found it more comical than insulting ~;)

It is going to be hard to implement units with various weapons mainly because of limitations that GodsPetMonkey mentioned. Having one unit armed with swords, then the exact same unit armed with maces etc. would eat up too many slots. But using primary/secondary weapons, we can correct this a bit. Basic weapons we shall have are swords, sabres, lances, pikes and spears, axes, various polearms (poleaxes, halebards, bills, tirpan axe, some other I can't remember all now). I don't know what to do about maces or warhammers. It's seems a bit silly to have special units of 'macemen', and having a mace or hammer as a secondary weapon just seems wrong, since most soldiers in the period had in addition to their primary weapon (pike, bow, crossbow, poleaxe...) a sword. Weapons such as mace and hammers were used in addition to those, like a third weapon...which we don't get in RTW.
Scottish units are supposed to be included, as region specific and mercenary units. If you want you can suggest some since I don't exactly know much about them in the period.

So you think that only eastern units should have lances?
The relative effect a cavalry charge shall have on a formation of infantry in the mod (I'm talikg about the game now not real life) has not so much to do with the type of weapon used but more with the stats of the defending unit. A infantry unit with phalanx ability and reasonable armour and shield values, and good melee value and a special 'bonus versus cavalry' option we can turn on or off for units, will eat cavalry for lunch, any cavalry, east or west, heavy or light, lance or sword. They'll break like waves. It's just a question of balancing the game. On the other hand, a unit without that option (indicating a lower discipline and training), and poor stats, without the bonus and armed with a weapon not designed to be used agains cavalry, will be hard hit. Initial charge will create casulties, but then, during the subsequent melee the odds will even out or be stacked against the riders. So that infantry unit will either rout, or stand and fight - in which case the cavalry should best retreat and charge again. And here's the catch. Eastern cav shall either be classed as light or have better stamina value. I also think that it is possible to mod the time needed for turning around and manouvering. So an eastern cav unit shall be able to extract themselves from a melee faster and try again. This is how I think we have to model the penalties that heavy cavalry suffers in combat.

Why should the Western heavy cav units have a bonus versus cavalry (other than their naturally high armour values and presumably high melee)?[/QUOTE]

You read me wrong, I beleive that western foot units should have a bonus fighting cavalry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Uesugi Kenshin

I know why I did not include them!

They were not placed in a polished list to ensure that the Turks were not using too many units. If you would like to post a revised polished list go ahead. I have those on my computer under unpolished lists. They are more likre general information and research not a completed list. If you want all of the unpolished lists/jumbled data I can e-mail it to you.

---

For now I'll just revise some Scotish and Irish units. As I think we should recognise that these two parties maintained that they were seperate states. As the Irish originated from the scots, to make the game easier we could just use them as one "faction" in control of several townships.

Tom.

I think it would be great if we can include Ireland and or Scotland, that should be discussed in the central data thread. I believe we may have some free faction slots and if we do we can use them for Ireland and Scotland.

Ive got this link from a re-enactment forum I go on occasionally - its got some good pics for resourcing unit info etc etc.

http://www.livinghistory.co.uk/1100-...ots/index.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by two_Roses

As the Irish originated from the scots, to make the game easier we could just use them as one "faction" in control of several townships.

---

The Irish originated from the scots? I dont think so, it was the other way around in fact. The Scotti were actually Irish but called Scotti by the Romans. The people of Ulster were being pushed back into the sea as their land grew smaller and smaller because larger factions were taking it. Eventually their land came under the control of the Uí Néill and as they were not content with the boundary presented by the sea sailed over to Scotland, as we now know it. The Uí Néill were the ones called Scotti. :book:

We could have a Gaelic faction. That couldinclude both Ireland and Scotland.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saranalos

The Irish originated from the scots? I dont think so, it was the other way around in fact. The Scotti were actually Irish but called Scotti by the Romans. The people of Ulster were being pushed back into the sea as their land grew smaller and smaller because larger factions were taking it. Eventually their land came under the control of the Uí Néill and as they were not content with the boundary presented by the sea sailed over to Scotland, as we now know it. The Uí Néill were the ones called Scotti. :book:

---

Thats the one, I always get muddled as to who originated where ~;)

It would be pretty nice to have Ireland in the game but we have to consider the 255 unit model limit. Wheras we can have up to 500 units but the Irish were very different from other nations so we probably couldnt have the same model but different textures as another nation. ~:handball:

Yeah, icing on the cake afterwards pehaps?

If we find we have extra units that we fell we can use on Ireland and/or Scotland we could release one version of it and then release a version with the Irish when we get to it.

Well the Irish on the east coast of Ireland, and the Scots in the South of Scotland were pretty Anglocised or whatever. That means, just whack them in South Scotland and Ireland and have one or unique units such as Gaelic Clansmen as expert Swordsmen and use English Models and Units.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignoramus

Well the Irish on the east coast of Ireland, and the Scots in the South of Scotland were pretty Anglocised or whatever. That means, just whack them in South Scotland and Ireland and have one or unique units such as Gaelic Clansmen as expert Swordsmen and use English Models and Units.

---

Two units is really all the Scots had, kilted clansmen with Rapiers, and peasants - which basically allows us to use RTW peasants but re-textured.

Scots also had exceptionally long-barreled gunmen later on in this period, and they didn't use rapiers, they used schianova-style backswords and baskethilted broadswords (a broadsword is NOT two handed, it's called a broadsword because the blade is slightly wider than that of most other swords in this period); both look about the same, though schianova are a bit shorter. Both are a single handed slashing sword they used in combination with a large thick shield. Both Irish and Scots had riflemen once rifles were more proliferated, but, that's just a generic type of unit, I'd imagine. The Scots still occassionally used the cleighdemhor (claymore), the large two-handed affair, as well as a good number of pikemen. Scots found it fashionable to grow beards (a little note for skinning). There are plenty of 'Scottish' units possible.

The Irish didn't look at all like the Scots. Irish tuathnaght (clansmen) never wore kilts (the 'Irish' kilt is a product of British dominion, the actual Irish have never worn kilts) and for the most part preferred to be clean shaven (though mustaches were pretty popular too). They wear a long shirt called a leine; it goes to the knee, and they wear it with a belt. Subsequently, on stonework, that looks kind of like a kilt, because the belt makes it look like the lower half of the shirt is seperate. During the religious turmoils, the Irish also used a ton of French and Spanish rifles, and had elite marksmen in the west (which fought until the Irish civil war in the early 1900s; one is possibly who killed Michael Collins, actually). The Irish developed a number of swords, and didn't use baskethilt broadswords as often as the Scots (though there is a sword called 'the Irish hilt sword', which was actually Scottish in design, but the Irish favored it a lot). The wealthier Irish used cup-hilt sabres, usually, as time went on, combined with carrying numerous pistols. However, even in that period, the Irish still used a number of other swords; two-handed swords, hand-and-a-half swords, and longswords. Irish swords had a kind of unique look, and they're one of the few types of swords that can easily be identified with a specific nation, due to the open ring pommel, which is a very old design, used as early as 600 AD, and still used on Irish ceremonial swords much of the time. The Irish shield is the same as the Scottish shield (as it's where the Scots got their shield).

Additionally, the idea of a Gaelic confederation is horribly historically inaccurate. The Irish felt little kinship with the Scots at this point; they had their own problems. In the wake of Norman collapse in the country, everywhere outside of Connacht was in anarchy (the north of Connacht was spared a lot of problems, as it was never touched too close by Norman invasion). Even the English holdings in Ireland were not that firm (as an aside, Irish provinces should be very prone to rebellion, if possible). The Irish had not felt that close to the Scots for decades; they felt closer than they did to the English, of course, but they had little empathy for one another, and had their own problems. Plus, they were their own countries. There was no 'confederation'. The Scots had their own nation totally seperate from Ireland, and the Irish were still trying to get their own nation back. If a faction at all, it should just be the Scots. Ireland was in total disarray. You could let the Scots get Irish regional units (as, if incorporated into the Scottish nation, they'd probably continue to fight the same way), but having a totally ahistorical Gaelic confederacy seems so very artificial.

I had my doubts about a Gaelic Confederation, thanks for clarifying Ranika your help is always welcome. Aside from that he has also given me a ton of info on Scottish and Irish units of the era, if anyone would like it I can e-mail it to you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ranika

Scots also had exceptionally long-barreled gunmen later on in this period, and they didn't use rapiers, they used schianova-style backswords and baskethilted broadswords (a broadsword is NOT two handed, it's called a broadsword because the blade is slightly wider than that of most other swords in this period); both look about the same, though schianova are a bit shorter. Both are a single handed slashing sword they used in combination with a large thick shield. Both Irish and Scots had riflemen once rifles were more proliferated, but, that's just a generic type of unit, I'd imagine. The Scots still occassionally used the cleighdemhor (claymore), the large two-handed affair, as well as a good number of pikemen. Scots found it fashionable to grow beards (a little note for skinning). There are plenty of 'Scottish' units possible.

The Irish didn't look at all like the Scots. Irish tuathnaght (clansmen) never wore kilts (the 'Irish' kilt is a product of British dominion, the actual Irish have never worn kilts) and for the most part preferred to be clean shaven (though mustaches were pretty popular too). They wear a long shirt called a leine; it goes to the knee, and they wear it with a belt. Subsequently, on stonework, that looks kind of like a kilt, because the belt makes it look like the lower half of the shirt is seperate. During the religious turmoils, the Irish also used a ton of French and Spanish rifles, and had elite marksmen in the west (which fought until the Irish civil war in the early 1900s; one is possibly who killed Michael Collins, actually). The Irish developed a number of swords, and didn't use baskethilt broadswords as often as the Scots (though there is a sword called 'the Irish hilt sword', which was actually Scottish in design, but the Irish favored it a lot). The wealthier Irish used cup-hilt sabres, usually, as time went on, combined with carrying numerous pistols. However, even in that period, the Irish still used a number of other swords; two-handed swords, hand-and-a-half swords, and longswords. Irish swords had a kind of unique look, and they're one of the few types of swords that can easily be identified with a specific nation, due to the open ring pommel, which is a very old design, used as early as 600 AD, and still used on Irish ceremonial swords much of the time. The Irish shield is the same as the Scottish shield (as it's where the Scots got their shield).

Additionally, the idea of a Gaelic confederation is horribly historically inaccurate. The Irish felt little kinship with the Scots at this point; they had their own problems. In the wake of Norman collapse in the country, everywhere outside of Connacht was in anarchy (the north of Connacht was spared a lot of problems, as it was never touched too close by Norman invasion). Even the English holdings in Ireland were not that firm (as an aside, Irish provinces should be very prone to rebellion, if possible). The Irish had not felt that close to the Scots for decades; they felt closer than they did to the English, of course, but they had little empathy for one another, and had their own problems. Plus, they were their own countries. There was no 'confederation'. The Scots had their own nation totally seperate from Ireland, and the Irish were still trying to get their own nation back. If a faction at all, it should just be the Scots. Ireland was in total disarray. You could let the Scots get Irish regional units (as, if incorporated into the Scottish nation, they'd probably continue to fight the same way), but having a totally ahistorical Gaelic confederacy seems so very artificial.

---

I beleive for the 1400's the scotish sword was that of which you speak, however well into the tudor period your looking at Claymores and rapiers, of which a rapier would be for a more well to do character or specialist unit. I would be interesting in seeing what units you have come up with for the Scotish contingent.

Note:
A claymore is simply a heavier version of a rapier but relys more upon crushing the enemy with the impact than slicing and cutting at them. :duel:

Oh and although I highly agree that politically and historically we cannot make the Scots and the Irish one faction, I suggested/agreed that it might be for the best in the long run, as we may not be able to fit both factions into the game.

Tom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by two_Roses

Note:
A claymore is simply a heavier version of a rapier but relys more upon crushing the enemy with the impact than slicing and cutting at them.

---

This generalizes a bit much. All claymore means is 'greatsword', and was actually a number of different weapons. And the baskethilt broadswords of the Scots were not heavier versions of rapiers, they were an outgrowth of schianova backswords, which were older than rapiers; they aren't fought with remotely similar to the rapier. They were just a type of longsword with a basket guard to defend the wielder's hand. They look similar to a rapier, but that's more coincidence than anything else. The Scottish baskethilts also had very good cutting edges. They didn't crush with impact, they were slashing weapons; they carried bata or ambu sticks for bludgeoning or cracking armor as a back up.

For the Scots more unique units, I'd have some manner of swordsmen, using aforementioned basket hilts, Scottish pikemen, Sinoach men (they dressed themselves in fox skins as camoflauge at a distance, used altenratively bows or rifles, kind of rare though, more popular with the Irish), heavy greatswordsmen (the large two-handed swords were used as late as the Jacobite rebellion), combined with more 'regular' units; the lowland Scots were pretty much English in culture and employed near identical soldiers.

If we have The Irish or Scottish in the game it should be the Irish starting off with only one province and the rest of Ireland is rebels. It would be brilliant if you want a very hard game. Can you imagine the Scots and English starting off right next to each other on a very small Island? One of them would get wiped out at a very early stage. :charge: :charge: :duel:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ranika

This generalizes a bit much. All claymore means is 'greatsword', and was actually a number of different weapons. And the baskethilt broadswords of the Scots were not heavier versions of rapiers, they were an outgrowth of schianova backswords, which were older than rapiers; they aren't fought with remotely similar to the rapier. They were just a type of longsword with a basket guard to defend the wielder's hand. They look similar to a rapier, but that's more coincidence than anything else. The Scottish baskethilts also had very good cutting edges. They didn't crush with impact, they were slashing weapons; they carried bata or ambu sticks for bludgeoning or cracking armor as a back up.

For the Scots more unique units, I'd have some manner of swordsmen, using aforementioned basket hilts, Scottish pikemen, Sinoach men (they dressed themselves in fox skins as camoflauge at a distance, used altenratively bows or rifles, kind of rare though, more popular with the Irish), heavy greatswordsmen (the large two-handed swords were used as late as the Jacobite rebellion), combined with more 'regular' units; the lowland Scots were pretty much English in culture and employed near identical soldiers.

---

Yes I did generalise abit about the variations of claymore, but every claymore I have seen is the same virtually as the next. Although I must disagree that any claymore could be used as an effective slashing sword, the surface area of most claymores is rather large, in order to have an effective slicing action, the blade needs to be thin and sharp to excert maximum pressure on a single pressure point (or basically apply maximum pressure in a horizontal movement against a set of cells such as human or cloth). Although if you had the right angle on a human torso you could split a man in two, this has more to do with the pressure excerted by the attacker through the blade than the design of the blade for a tearing/slicing action - and was probably designed as a multi-purpose tool alot like knives with serated edges are. Therefore I would put the weapon stat to blunt and put the hitting power up to 2, as you will easily knock a man over with a claymore if used correctly by an experienced user.
Btw. I like your list of units - two thumbs up.

Tom.

It would definately be messed up if the Scottish always wiped out the English in campaigns....

I am a bit torn, I would love to see Ireland in the game and think it would be a great gameplay challenge, but I also think Scotland is the most historical.... Damn those tough decisions.

Having scotland or Ireland take control of europe is not historical nor is it historical for any other faction to take all of europe because it never happened. But I think England would win all the time against scotland and that would be a waste of a faction. Wheras Ireland is set apart from england a bit not on it! And they will have a chance to survive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saranalos

Having scotland or Ireland take control of europe is not historical nor is it historical for any other faction to take all of europe because it never happened. But I think England would win all the time against scotland and that would be a waste of a faction. Wheras Ireland is set apart from england a bit not on it! And they will have a chance to survive.

---

Having England, Germany, France, Italy, the Ottoman Empire....take control of Europe isnt Historical either......your point exactly is?

Scotland can easily hold its own against England, as someone said earlier, they have prettymuch the same units.

Tom.

And neither is having Ireland taking over all Europe. If you had Ireland, it would become a major sea power, and would invade England anyway, as well as all of France.

Well I think it would be less likely that the AI would quickly have Ireland smite down England, so I think it might be better to have it be Ireland from a purely gameplay point of view.

I meant if the AI did it all the time, then you would never get to fight England when it was a power.

But you see Scotland is at the most going to have two provinces and they will be pretty infertile at that. Wheras England is going to have three maybe four provinces and they will be fertile. Scotland will be wiped out in the game by England because they wont have enough money. But Ireland is set apart a bit and will have a chance to build up an army.

Quote:

---

Having England, Germany, France, Italy, the Ottoman Empire....take control of Europe isnt Historical either......your point exactly is?

---

That having any faction in the game isnt historical because the game itself isnt historical so people saying that Scotland is more historical than Ireland are wrong because I saw a post where someone was saying that Ireland was a squabbling mass of chieftans so it wouldnt be historically correct to have Ireland in the game because Scotland had more of a kingdom than Ireland.

I totally agree that Ireland is a better option for gameplay, but if Scotland is able to hold of the English a while then Scotland's historical accuracy may redeem it a hundred fold. I am currently leaning towards Ireland. Anyway we can shore up Scotland's position without making it ahistorical?

The Ottomans may have been able to take Europe. If the Europeans had fought each other a bit more and unified against the threat less often or less completely they may well have fallen. I am not sure this would have been so bad, because they were very fair to most conquered people and women. Though as with any army they did their fair share of looting they did, at least in the case of Constantinople) limit its length.

But is it better to have a more fun game or a game with absloutley everything historically correct there is only one way for scotland to expand and that is downwards! Through england and of course the english will retaliate. My point is that A certain faction will lose every time. If we could somehow get it so that Ireland attacks France it might be good...

Yeah, I wonder is there a way to change alliance status or probability for factions other than the Romans?
If having Scotland is bad for the game then i do not think it should be included, gameplay is to me the most important thing, as long as we do not leave history out.

Well I am calling it a night, tomorrow I will be able to be up until the dead rise and if you guys are on then we can sort through all of this.