why do people keep asking for LS in the game when they can just put it in themselves with their own mini mod? (from what i hear though all unit slots are filled unless you run alex.exe)
Printable View
why do people keep asking for LS in the game when they can just put it in themselves with their own mini mod? (from what i hear though all unit slots are filled unless you run alex.exe)
Actually, I haven't heard a question asking where LS is for several months now.
In the EB2 message boards there was one that was locked. The first of many to come (I am guessing) since the EB team has now completely switched to EB2. I am just putting this out on the EB1 boards because its busier then the EB2 boards.
Hm yes. However, there are more pressing matters.
Why isn't EB inflatable, for example.
You have the best name ever. :laugh4:
And yeah, the EB team has definitively killed the LS question.
Thank you, I try. :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Reverend Joe
But what I don't understand is that by the time 10 years (40 turns) passes the game is already ahistorical with factions taking areas that they didnt take until later (parthians moving into AS in 263 [in my game]) wars that didnt occur until later (Rome and Carthage fighting in 268 [again in my game]) so I usually thought it wouldnt have been that big of a problem just to put in a LS unit, have it extremely difficult to get (i.e. wait until 20 BC and have special blacksmith) and have a funny description like: "Heres your LS unit fanboys! Even though (add history facts/lesson here), you wanted it so much so we put it in at the very end, have fun using it for the remaining 136 turns, the last 1008 turns must have been worth it huh?" But since they have explicitly said no many times, I was just wondering why people still complain and ask for it to be put in instead of adding it themselves.
Maybe because they don't know how to add it in themselves?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Hunt
What is LS anyways?
Also shame they have quit working on EB1, a EB1.2 would be nice tbh.
Lorica SegmentataQuote:
Originally Posted by Rilder
It's a type of plate armour used by the romans sometime after the game period
amen I can't even play M2TW with this computer :shifty:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rilder
Part of an early version of the lorica segmentata was discovered in the excavation at Kalkriese. Students of Roman history will quickly recognize where I am going--Kalkriese is likely the site of Varus' military disaster. This disaster is of course the battle of Teutoburg Forest, which took place in AD 9. It is thus very probable that the this type of armor was in use under the reign of Augustus--whose reforms I suspect made this armor a viable option for those legionaries willing to suffer its many nuisances. However, for all we know the lorica segmentata may have been known of even during Caesar's campaigns in Gaul, if very primitive and completely impractical.
Including an entire cohort of legionaries equipped with such armor thus strikes me as being of dubious historicity. However including a texture of a single such legionary within an entire cohort following Augustus' reforms is not necessarily ahistorical, and is plausible in M2TW thanks to some new features not present in RTW. Trying to suck up by labeling everyone interested in the latter course as "fanboys" not only is lame, it displays your lack of knowledge of what you are insulting others about. I suggest you at least do your research, Mike Hunt, before making posts like those above.
That said, not reading the FAQ is simply stupid and never excusable--even for someone who has had four beers.
what about officers? instead of regulars?
I have read what you have typed in your first paragraph from other LS threads (which I have throughly read) and I think I am a bit knowledgeable about the subject (although obviously not as much as 99.9% of the people but I do know from what I have read in the threads). And I feel as if you made this post not out out of sharing knowledge but because you were insulted by my choice of the word "fanboy". While that was rude (to which I apologize), honestly I don't see how its any less rude to see the question appear multiple times with the side in favor of LS presenting the same evidence/argument again and again (for example: your first paragraph) and although being turned down each time continue to bring it up again when the question reappears. And I am one who wishes LS was in the game (alot!) and I have checked eagerly to see if someone actually made a mod to include the unit but so far nothing. I have become somewhat annoyed and dissappointed with LS fans now because of this and I think that while I recognize that you may know much more about the topic then I ever will, you really must be full of yourself to think that my above post was meant to be explicitly insulting to you and all LS fans when really it was just bad humor on my part. Once again I apologize for the "fanboy" comment and I will refrain from such attitude in the future, but it really seemed at the end of your post to be a bit harsh and jerk-ish.Quote:
Originally Posted by TWFanatic
Also I don't understand about the "trying to suck up part". Who am I sucking up to? The EB team? Would they let me be one of the first to try the EB2 beta if I sucked up to them or something?
:focus:
Anyway one of the reasons why I think we haven't had too many past 1.1 LS threads yet is that there *is a minimod for them*.
Really!?!?! Holy crap, where is it!Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
Mini mods subforum. :idea2:
Well obviously, I mean where else would you look for EB mods lol. I meant what topic is it under, but after giving it another look I am assuming you are talking about mucky305 Late Roman Empire mod?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
That could be the one, IIRC Mucky made an LS reskin of the Augustan legionary?
The reasoning for not including a LS legionary is actually pretty simple. EB is about historical accuracy. Popular history doesn't count for anything, and nor do fan requests. The majority of Augustean legionaries wore chain mail, not LS, and nor was LS that common when it did become popular, so the standard Augustean legionary should wear chainmail.
Off course, another legionary could be added wearing LS, but there would be no functional differences between both units. The Romans are already overrepresented when it comes to units (engine constraints, alas, do count, as does the need to do all factions justice) and other factions don't get multiple versions of the same unit. I also don't recall any request for squamata-wearing legionaries, either.
Didn't centurions prefer chainmail? I could be wrong about this, but I think LS was only used by the rank-and-file.Quote:
Originally Posted by ||Lz3||
Understood. My point was that there is a difference between having one LS texture within an entire cohort wearing the LH, and having an entire unit equipped solely with the former cuirass. One is not inaccurate and the other is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Hunt
Everything you said is true...when spoken in regards to RTW. Not so when spoken in regards to M2:TW, for the reason expressed above. Doing what I suggested for M2:TW certainly does not require sacrificing historicity, in fact it could be argued that it enhances the game's accuracy by representing the introduction of a new form of armor. If it does not take another DMB spot, than it is certainly not over representing anyone to add another texture to a preexisting unit. I'm sure that every nook and cranny will be filled, just as it was with the RTW engine.Quote:
The reasoning for not including a LS legionary is actually pretty simple. EB is about historical accuracy. Popular history doesn't count for anything, and nor do fan requests. The majority of Augustean legionaries wore chain mail, not LS, and nor was LS that common when it did become popular, so the standard Augustean legionary should wear chainmail.
Off course, another legionary could be added wearing LS, but there would be no functional differences between both units. The Romans are already overrepresented when it comes to units (engine constraints, alas, do count, as does the need to do all factions justice) and other factions don't get multiple versions of the same unit. I also don't recall any request for squamata-wearing legionaries, either.
Regarding the lorica squamata: I plan on getting an expansion soon, and the first thing I will do is add (the other) LS-equipped legionaries as AOR units for the Romani in the eastern provinces.
its called "rome total war" :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Hunt
:smash:
Actually, that's not quite a simple as it may sound. From what is known, LS does not appear to be the average legionary's kit in Augustan times; even in it's 'heyday' it wasn't all that widely adopted. Now, assume a perfectly reasonable number of 5% [it being right on a common border line of what is statistically signifcant and what is not] as upper bound for the ratio "LS-ones to total # of legionaries"; to represent not more than 5% of the legionaries wearing LS (thus insignifcant to the total amount of legionaries, but still noticeable). In a perfectly random unit you then need at least '20 skins', of which only 1 features LS! Plainly, this is an extraordinary amount of work for something applicable to only 1 unit of only one faction, present for what is a mere appendix when compared against the greater time line of EB.Quote:
Originally Posted by TWFanatic
In short; face it: anyone can do the math and the outcome will be that to add LS even with the abilities of the M2TW engine will be asking a lot, and will certainly be all the way down the list.
EDIT: Apart from the question: is it actually possible. Because AFAIK it's not.
That would make 1 in 4 legionaries wear LS, a rather high percentage since only one suit has been recovered from the Augustean era (accepting, for the sake of the argument, that it was indeed from the battle of Teutoburger forest). Also, it's not sure that it would have been worn by a legionary. IIRC LS has been found more often in contexts associated with Roman auxillaries rather than true legions.Quote:
Originally Posted by TWFanatic
If you ask me, that's still stretching it for the sake of including a LS.
Thus we see that it is do to game engine limitations (not accuracy) in this case, as in so many others, that this feature cannot be included.
EDIT:
Where is this from? I have never heard this before.Quote:
Also, it's not sure that it would have been worn by a legionary. IIRC LS has been found more often in contexts associated with Roman auxillaries rather than true legions.
Er... I picked it up on the forum somewhere, but I can't for the life of me remember where.Quote:
Originally Posted by TWFanatic
Is there any evidence that Germanic warriors took some of the Romans armour and weapons as prizes? Because in my opinion, if I was a warrior and just slaughtered a Roman legion I would have gone for the LS because it was very new and shiny and never seen before and really does look intimidating then chain mail which i suspect was a major reason for its rising popularity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludens
yay, by a strange twist of fate, we got ourselves another LS thread.
I dun get it, who would want to fight in something that scrapes the skin off your neck before the fight even begins? Masochistic Legionaires?
Maybe the Emo Legion?Quote:
Originally Posted by satalexton
For starters the local Germans would've been quite into Roman military stuff; as they were widely sought after in the Roman military... Nothing new & shiny about what (subject to much? debate) can be considered an inferior type of armour -- especially in the German homelands...Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Hunt
Well since LS was just starting to become "popular" (which I know can be debated about) around that time I would have thought that this would have been one of the first times the Germans came into combat with Roman soldiers wearing LS and thus would have been "new" to them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
LS=Lucky StarQuote:
Originally Posted by Rilder
My understanding is that the lorica segmentata was a very complex in its design, with numerous plates linked by copper-alloy buckles, hinges, and hooks and a leather harness underneath. It is understandable that all of these little pieces, which appear to have commonly broken and fallen off, would present maintenance problems. These little pieces are common finds on Roman military sites. I also recall hearing somewhere (any resident chemists to affirm/refute this?) that chemical reactions between the bronze fittings and iron plates fostered corrosion. It also took much more technological skill to produce a plate cuirass than one made of mail.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
That said, most modern tests I’ve seen seem to have confirmed the efficiency of segmented armor. It’s plates (unlike those of later medieval plate armor) were not hardened by forging which allowed the softer metal to absorb a blow, spreading its force. Mail can be pierced by pointed weapons and projectiles and shattered by blunt ones, but segmented cuirasses are far harder to pierce and much better suited to evenly distributing the shock of blows (I use the present tense because I am referring to present-day tests, which very well might be using higher quality iron than was available in Antiquity). The lorica segmentata also appears to be the preferred choice of cuirass amongst rein actors from what I have seen. Perhaps someone who knows more about these events can clarify why.
I'm yet to understand what you guys have against emos :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rilder
perhaps they were simply a form of dress armour to make their men feel miserable when parading and marching?
I'm in a marching-band myself and those damn boots and buckles do more hinder than help when playing the trombone... not to mention the heat in summer.
..plus side tho, it makes us look 'military' and cool in the photos =P
These are the ROMANS we are speaking of here. Virtually everything Roman had a practical purpose, including but not limited to military items. Looking "cool" would just be a convenient side effect. Besides, the LS was lighter than the LH and, once again, is apparently preferred by most re-enactors. Ultimately however, I would probably prefer to wear the hamata on parade and the segmentata in battle since the former was more comftorable but the latter was lighter and offered better protection in many ways.Quote:
Originally Posted by satalexton
You don't find anything wrong with whiny little pussies?Quote:
Originally Posted by Havok.
Anyways, looking at lorica segmenta pics, I wouldn't want to wear that anywhere, it doesn't even look cool.
Finding 'anything' wrong with 'whiny little pussies' is something, hating them because of that is another is it not? Now i'm wondering if you hate homosexual peoples too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rilder
Didn't you once insult me by calling me gay?Quote:
Originally Posted by Havok.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
I did not, though i did called you a lamer, lamer.Quote:
Originally Posted by lobf
Homosexuals are completly different then whiny little pussies who cut themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by Havok.
About piercing weapons; one would always wear some additional layer of clothing/armour underneath the chain mail, or the LS if only for simple reasons of comfort. I guess it hurts: 10000+ metal rings scraping off your skin; or getting your skin stuck between the two of the segements in LS...Quote:
Originally Posted by TWFanatic
As for Re-enactors choosing to stick with LS instead of other forms well; that can be explained by a number of reasons:
1) LS doesn't weigh as much as chain mail;
2) LS can be recreated/faked quite easily; chain mail can't (remember: 10000+ rings...).
3) LS is cheaper (see #2); valid even way back when
4) For some strange reason (a-historical Romans) the public associates the combination "Romans + history" with LS. It's not accurate, given the Romans never took to it the way the Greeks took to the Lineothorax for instance; but yeah ... Also; not like re-enactors give an accurate representation of the armies back then if you interpret the amount of re-enactors posing as soldier type X as how many of them were actually around; I mean: ever seen as many re-enactors choosing to pose as Pantodapoi-type soldiers?
?Quote:
Originally Posted by Havok.
As much fun as i could have ridiculing your silly internet words, this isn't the place for that nonsense. Stop baiting.Quote:
though i did called you a lamer, lamer.
I'd like to second this. Humour often translates badly acros the internet. Can a moderator clean up the offending posts.Quote:
Originally Posted by lobf
I have heard a number of vague references to a padded garment that was worn over the tunic and underneath the armor. The term subarmalis comes to mind. I've heard it used as a pretty generic term for any article of clothing worn underneath armor. Quick google came up with this: http://www.larp.com/legioxx/subarm.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
Not sure how accurate it is but all the reenactment sites seems to agree that little is known about this garment because it was made of perishable textiles and hence hasn't survived.
Makes sense. That strange reason, btw, is most likely that ever-corrupting influence on modern culture--Hollywood.Quote:
As for Re-enactors choosing to stick with LS instead of other forms well; that can be explained by a number of reasons:
1) LS doesn't weigh as much as chain mail;
2) LS can be recreated/faked quite easily; chain mail can't (remember: 10000+ rings...).
3) LS is cheaper (see #2); valid even way back when
4) For some strange reason (a-historical Romans) the public associates the combination "Romans + history" with LS. It's not accurate, given the Romans never took to it the way the Greeks took to the Lineothorax for instance; but yeah ... Also; not like re-enactors give an accurate representation of the armies back then if you interpret the amount of re-enactors posing as soldier type X as how many of them were actually around; I mean: ever seen as many re-enactors choosing to pose as Pantodapoi-type soldiers?
Have any EB members or players ever been to a reenactment?
I have, not as a roman personally tho (I was an infantryman from the early Han dynasty). It was a community history event some years ago about the world during 200 BC (The XiongNu starts poping up in China, I think the romans just got rid of some local Gallic problems...cant remember clearly). Some dudes from another school acting as the romans came clad in LS...I asked them y and they told me cuz it's easier to make and the general public's too stupid to realize anyways... =_=;;;
...so much for our guys doing all that research, and the other guys just decided that principes wear LS cuz 'it was on Gladiator' =_=
I personally don't understand the mentality of people wanting LS in the game.
I myself didn't care.
I came here looking for a stable mod and to learn history.
What's in the mind of people who keep asking why there's no LS in the game?
Did they watch too much of a show or movie,
which set their expectations for EB?
Very curious.
Well i don't mind LS if it's within the game's timeframe, which it clearly isn't.
Popularism is surely a factor to be reckoned with, but it's still yet to be powerful enough to conjure an energy strong enough to affect the fabric of spacetime to such an extent that LS would appear in 200 BC.
Hollywood may give Peter Parker wall climbing powers, but until I see totalwar.org give vigilante powers to users to wear underpants on their heads and zap flies with their laser powered bosoms... I highly doubt that whining would do any good.
Allow me to answer your question, spcr_arcani. To a LS zealot, a Rome without LS is like Japland without Ninjas, China without kungfu masters, or 300 without spartans.
Hollywood shoulf really sod themselves, HBO gets a cookie tho, I personally think they did a far fairer, still not perfect, job.
Yeah I know. It's a figure of speech really; not genuine wonder. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by TWFanatic
About members, don't know; about players... well I'll let Hax answer for himself?Quote:
Have any EB members or players ever been to a reenactment?
mostly they just dont know their history too well, so they ask why LS isnt there.Quote:
Originally Posted by spqr_arcani
but for the seasons fellas, they just want some fun in the forum, so they ask it anyhow. :smash:
At a guess, I'd say it's because the LS is quintessentially Roman, and many people feel that a game about the Romans wouldn't be complete without it. I won't go as far as blaming Hollywood for this: LS appeared in practically all my school history books and most popular history as well. Often, these images are correct (in the sense that they display Imperial rather than Republican legionaries), but this has fixed the image in the public mind so that many people can't image Roman legionairs any other way than wearing LS.Quote:
Originally Posted by spqr_arcani
I have. I also visit medieval and "Celtic" festivals a lot.Quote:
Have any EB members or players ever been to a reenactment?
Wow! I envy you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
Ludens is quite right. The situation is almost humorously absurd and Hollywood is not entirely to blame. I once saw pamphlets for a lecture on the Punic Wars with pictures of Roman legionaries marching in segmented armor on the front. The Punic Wars!
EDIT: Not to mention a biography of Cicero with an image of the coliseum on the front. Cicero, a man who was not only born centuries before the construction of this building but who did not enjoy the games himself.
oh please. half the world, if not the majority, doesnt even know the difference between the greeks and romans. :shame:Quote:
Originally Posted by TWFanatic
the lack of interest in history by the sheeple (uninformed people) is horrible.
I've seen a reenactment of the medieval age in my city, but not participated. The bow tournament was nice, and I wanted to buy a cape but couldn't find a good-looking one. I also let the chance slip to get another sword.
I don't live anywhere near reenactment teams (at least AFAIK). :no:
That's the point. You'd think a man with a doctorate in his field would have half a clue what he's talking about it.Quote:
the lack of interest in history by the sheeple (uninformed people) is horrible.
Wait was that directed at someone specific?Quote:
Originally Posted by TWFanatic
TWFanatic, where do you live then?