Printable View
With an increased limit of 30 Factions for Medieval 2, does anybody know if they are considering expanding EB2's map? I think it would be awesome if they made it stretch to the Far East, adding the Qin Dynasty................. and that would also attract a lot of people to the mod.
Just wondering if that was being discussed all.
Discussions about china aren't happening. The only current discussions I've seen with regards to this question are concerning possibly extending the map to the southeast in some way, to get enough of India to justify having an Indian faction, or "satrapy" of a bigger faction (ala Bactria), and some slight discussions of extending the map south around the upper Nile. I think it's unlikely any increases will happen (personally), *if* the province number limit stays the same. I don't think we have any indication that that has changed. It would be very difficult for us to sacrifice a lot of our current ones for additional ones further away from the center on a bigger map.
Awwww.....that's too bad. However I do agree that if it comes down to having a detailed, in-depth map or sacraficing some other factions and increasing provice size just to have a bigger map, then I can live without extending my Roman Empire into China.:beam:Quote:
Originally Posted by Teleklos Archelaou
And besides, EB's map is already great and extrordinarily large as it is.:2thumbsup: I hope they do add an Indian faction though.
Any way China could be a special choice for Custom battles though. I alwways wondered who would win in a battle,China or Rome.Quote:
Originally Posted by CaesarAgustus
That's a great idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by scourgeofrome
Personally I have wondered that same question............ in the timeframe of the Qin Dynasty the Chinese almost certainly would have won, since Rome was still relatively weak then, not even having totally conquered Italy. However, at the height of both Empires, I think that the overall superiority and flexibility of the Roman legions would have prevailed.Quote:
Originally Posted by scourgeofrome
Of course, if one Empire were to invade the other the invader would lose because of the inevitable desertions, due to the long march (remember that Alexander was forced to turn back because his troops would not go further than the North of India). Also, they would have to cut their way through Persia just to reach the opposing civilization.
Rome and China did actually have some relation though. In the 100s, either Marcus Aurelius of Commodus (i think) sent emissaries to China (whom they calles the Seres), and the Chinese correctly identified Rome as being the dominant power in the far West.
If you're interested, go to Wikipedia and type "Sino-Roman Relationships" for more information.
Interesting.Looks like China almost fought Rome though.Stupid Parthia.If they hadn't lied,we could have a China vs. Rome match.Rome would have kicked their butts though (biased statement).Quote:
Originally Posted by CaesarAgustus
Edit:Another thing I always wondered was who would have won,Alexander or China.
Not as biased as you might think...........the Emperor might have had some nice Chinese slaves to serve him had they made it over the Black Sea.........Quote:
Originally Posted by scourgeofrome
At that time China was not an Empire but about a dozen warring states. Alexander might have won a couple battles had he reached China, but he definetly would have been defeated at some point and he definently would not have conquered th far East! Somehow i doubt the superiority of the rigid, inflexible phalanx against waves of Chinese light infantry and crossbowmen.Quote:
Originally Posted by scourgeofrome
Just to ask,with EB2 you guys might actually put China in the custom battle selection.Might have to change my opinion on what mod to use.*starts dreaming of fighting China with everyone from Kh to Rome to Pahlav to Sweboz (Lets see what China thinks after fighing real barbarians)*
I don't think that a war would have ever happened between Rome and China. To the north of both nations were the plains, filled with Sarmations, Scythians, and the rest for the Romans and the Xuangnu(sp) and the Mongols on the Chinese side. And no urbanized empire would want or be able to control these areas.
And to the South there is Persia and India. Say that Crassus had done a little research on his enemy and had several miracles and by 100ADish Persia was Roman, the Romans might turn toward India, but they would be so far from Rome that they would have little control and organization. The historical height of the Roman Empire was stretched to its limits.
Then there are the Himilayas.
On the China side, the Chinese were never really a conquering nation like Rome. They were rarely able to control a territory that had a different racial group in it. Nearly every generation, they had to recapture Indo-China.
The only way I could see it happening would be if China miraculously crossed over from Tibet into India and Rome miraculously took Persia, but then it would be skirmishes between Persian militia and Indian conscripts. But if you put both nations in the game you would end up with something stupid like China conquering Mongolia and the Russian plains and filling it with huge_cities and then attacking Rome through Dacia.
China vs. Rome probably only works as a custom battle, but it would be interesting to see even if only in that form. I assume nothing even resembling a China vs. Rome conflict ever happened. But I suspect this might require someone very knowledgeable in both China and Rome, especially with the bias that tends to follow this debate.
I am more of a Romeophile than most, but its unlikley the Republic would win against Warring States period Chinese, whose armies were already incredibly technologically and tactically advanced. Besides, sheer numbers...
Thats all I'm asking.Plus,you could have other ones like Sweboz vs China (lets see what China thinks about fighting real barbarians),KH vs.China,Egypt vs China,Carthage vs. China, Eperios vs China,Bactria vs China,Selucid vs China,Sarmatians vs. China.The list just keeps going and going.I mean,who wouldn't want to see the "superior"* Chinese ideal be stomped by elephants,shot by master horse archers,stabbed by hoplites,chopped by axeman,run down by kataphracts,or impaled by ballista.If this is avaible in EB 2, I will almost definately download it.It would be so much fun to do everything mentioned above.Quote:
Originally Posted by Danest
*This is just making reference to the Chinese belief that they were advanced and everyone else was just a bunch of barbarians.
Guys, remember that EB does have an ever so slight tendancy towards realism here. We're not going to go out of our way to include chinese units. That is much more along the lines of Mummy Returns Egyptians that we know from somewhere else. Sorry.
Sad to say you are pretty correct, man.Quote:
Originally Posted by Teleklos Archelaou
Besides, everybody knows that the Atlantian units take precedence.
Let's use simple logic. China defeated the Huns. The Huns destroyed and burnt Rome to the ground. China can as easily destroy and raize rome to the ground.
China was both more technologically advanced and numerically superior to Rome. The only way they could have warred would have been if they had been in close proximity to each other, but they were literally at the opposite ends of the world.
China really had no true massive organized enemies to fight against in most of its time, so its hard to judge how they would have warred. Some interesting facts:
The Chinese had developed the crossbow and repeating crossbow (chu ko nu commonly known) by the height of the Roman empire.
The Chinese also developed a variant of the halberd (the Ji) long before they appeared in Europe, and was a common infantry weapon. In fact, they have been dated as early as the Shang era (1766BC-1050 BC).
I know this is more medieval history, but the peace time standing armies of England and France in peacetime were in the tens of thousands (40 to 50 thousands). China during the Ming Dynasty had a peacetime standing army of over 1 million
It would be interesting to see a virtual China vs. Rome battle, but that definitely would not be realistic, and in all honesty, the technological and numerical superiority would be hard to illustrate in a game.
This discussion is largely asinine. Firstly, the Chinese were technologically different from the ancient Mediterranean, but not superior. I would certainly argue that the Hellenic kingdoms were technologically superior, and that rome was fairly similar.
You have to take it into several dimensions.
1) Logistics. Ancient Chinese states may have had armies of 1 million, what have you. They could hardly have fielded that many troops at one time. The largest army in the same place before the early modern era was at either Gaugamela or at Cannae. You cannot feed that many men in one place for long.
2) Fighting styles. Asiatic armies generally fought in a pre-military horizon style. Even the vaunted samurai still did this. They fought individual duals on the battlefield, and did not generally work as cohesive units.
3) the 'crossbow'. The Romans and Greeks had a similar device, the belly bow, and even then, it was found wanting. Crossbow bearers could fire one volley before the Romans returned fire with pila, cutting the lightly armored chinese down in kind.
Don't listen to everything you hear in video games and on the history channel. It's unbecoming and makes for horrible argument.
Also, the halberd... This is just silly. Falx, Rhomphaia, etc. There are hundreds of weapons the far east doesn't have.
Oh, and by the way. Those 'million man armies' got smashed by 30,000 or so mongols with no better technology than the ingame Sarmatians.
Simple logic how? That's post hoc ergo propter hoc if I've ever seen it.. Your logic is silly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Asean
Rome during the time of the Huns was a different beast to Rome at the time of the high Empire, or the late Republic.
The huns didn't do a god damned thing to Rome either. The Visigoths sacked it.
Let's reduce your logic:
Afghanistan defeated Russia. Russia defeated Germany. Therefore, Afghanistan will defeat Germany.
Umm...
The halberd isn't much of a weapon and is built around specific types of combat; it came into bigger play in Europe during a time when shields had been phasing out, and was used largely in what were more or less single duels (much like how the period Chinese would have fought). Urnamma mentions some good weapons the Chinese didn't have; the armor splitting falx for one would be an utter nightmare. The falcata too. The way the Chinese fought was vastly out-dated in the west. Celts had once fought a similar way, but had long since dropped it. Why? Because organized units and regimentalism made individual combat irrelevant. While duels still happened, mass combat was no longer based around it, because it was completely inappropriate for fighting a regiment working as a unit (so we see then Celts introducing their standards, horns for commands, etc.). Until then, we see Celts expansions almost stop utterly, even against enemies they were superior in number to. After they began using then-modern regiment tactics, they conquer the Po valley, obliterate early Roman armies and sack the city, and marched into Greece and beat the tar out of Hellenic armies (and totally annihilated the army of Macedonia) the whole way to Delphi (at times larger than their own), fighting largely the way they always had, but now supporting one another more effectively. Lack of organized units and focusing on personal combat would render them ineffective in a melee against most ancient western armies. Ultimately, without historical evidence of any combat between the two, predicting an outcome is dicey at best. There are far too many factors; morale, supply, quality of equipment, allies/mercenaries (like either one went so far to an opposing territory with no aide? No pathfinders, no local mercenary companies, etc.), tactics, skill of the commanders, individual skill and experience of soldiers, etc. The whole argument is completely asinine.
Note that the Arabs, while technologically far inferior to Hellenistic or Roman states, did defeat the chinese, largely because of their emphasis on group versus individual combat.
Regardless of all else as stated above the chinese revolved around individual duels so could not be represented on the RTW game engine which uses units.
The Arabs fought the Chinese?
china was in my dreams too, but now that i think on, it could be very hard to implement, cause game mechanics, for example, how to implement the passage from the warring states (ZhanGuo) to the first empire (Qin)? and then the passage from this first "legist" empire to the strictly confucian "Western Han"?
and then in the 9 a.C. there were a brief interreign of the Xin ("New") dinasty by the usurper WangMang until 25 a.C.
regarding the Arabs, pheraphs he is referring to some islamized city-states in the "Chinese Turkestan" (XinJiang=New Province, they had some defeats on traying to control this lands) but it not regard the EB time frame, I only recall of plenty of Arabs merchants as well as Christians Nestorians under the Tang dinasty. And there was even the last Sassanid Successor in exile at the court of the Tang, but the chineses never organized an expedition to take back Persia to the Sassanids.
If you want to call "China" that lands at that time (what is today the Chinese Turkenstan), then you can do, but at that times, it was a wild territory, that changed often from a chinese occupation to an indipendence, to an occupation by western kingdom and so on... anyway today this chinese province has an official national minority, who profess the Islamic religion.
In definitive, coming back to the EB timeframe, it could be an Hell of a work to implement a Chinese faction, if you want to be historical correct.
It could be done more easy, if you call that faction just "China" or "ZhongGuo", but it is not in the style of EB i think...
EDIT: what happened to this forum? is just my browser, or this are the definitive colours?:dizzy2:
:book: Yes, the battle of Talas, in nowdays Uzkekistan, in 751. Easternmost Arabian army vs Westernmost Tang incursion in Central Asia. The Arabs indeed won, although this says nothing about their alleged military superiority.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcusAureliusAntoninus
As a result Central Asia definitely staid in the Arabic-Persian-Turkic cultural area.
An other important consequence of this encounter lies in that Chinese prisoneers taught the usage of paper in Samarkand, allowing the technology to spread in the Muslim and then later on Christian worlds, ushering in a major technologic revolution comparable to the press printing.
So much for EB2 discussion, anyway about the map.
I love the look of RTR's new map, maybe something as glossy, similar sized as that would be good.
Dumbass: Yeah.
Do not make the map any bigger please! I can't see how an indian faction would do any good. Did they have ANY effect on the faction of that era? Don't thinks so. And besides, what would the faction do? Just sit there?
Instead focus on the area we got, and take away as many repel-factions as possible.
Just my two cents...
If a faction would have three big provinces, even on our current map, we have to think about it. Especially since we have a lot of units for them already, and so many of our factions had serous interaction with them (seleukids, bactria, saka, parthians). If we are given 9 or 10 new faction slots, it's hard not to think about a way to make that work.
The main problem for me about India, is the fact that it would be a half faction. (The same problem I got with Yuzhi-something(cant remember) I do not simply like faction right on the border of the map. It feels "wrong". It is wrong :P
I do rather see you make the map smaller to not feel the need to include such factions. Even if indian-troops is sweet. Have them as AAR troops.
India had a huge effect on most of the factions in the east of EB's map. First Seleukid relations with the Mauryans and later smaller states was fairly intense (including a couple of wars, a famous marriage alliance, and a number of other events). Second the buddist missions sent out under Ashoka were fairly succesful in converting some eastern greeks to buddism, including a Baktrian king who was quite a buddist scholar. Third there are the large greek populations in northern India (also converts of buddism through the work of Ashoka). Fouth there are the succesion of Indo-____ Kingdoms that EB factions turn into; Indo-Baktrian, Indo-Saka, Indo-Parthian. Fifth, soley as the source of elephants in most hellenistic armies India was was a place that was often in the thoughts of the great powers of the near east and ancient mediterranean.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urnamma
well everyone talks about Crossbows and all, and say they are the best missile weapons since the invention of the Whell..that's not true you know.... a bunch of trained slingers could have wiped out the crossbowmen with little work, as from all of the roman man used armament, the slingshot was the one with bigger damage, and longer range, some estimates say that they could kill people at 400 meters(really long range), outdoing archers, and of course crossbows.... as for Archers..they too could cap crossbow's ass...because a trained archer can kill at 278(+-)meters. while a crossbow can only hit and kill at 147(+-) meters.... of course crossbows were also good cuz they didn't need much training...but alas, a trained force of archers or slingers...could be the end of an army with crossbowmen...
as for the Halberds and other polearms.... all i can say is that i pity the guys who would use them against the roman legions...they wouldn't stand a chance against the cohesive roman manipules, and fighting technics... i even say more...had the roman fighting technics been know to any faction of the Medieval Era. they would be virtually invincible....imagine portugal, a small country...if it had been able to use the legionary tactics and techniques, they would have swept across all of europe, as armies of the time relied on the duel tactics, and the steamroller tactic to destroy the incoming armies.... a bunch of men fighting as one would have changed the face of Medieval Warfare...
Qwerty: Ah I see, I didn't know they such an impact on the faction surrounding that area.
The quetion is maybe: is it enough? (Enough for a "half faction"? :P) Greeks turning buddist maybe is something for the script-guys? Were the wars big enough?
I leave that to the guys who know. As you might have guessed, I'm no expert.
Oh, but thats AD750, I was thinking more 300BC.Quote:
Originally Posted by Numahr
That was very well put Urnamma, great research. I will also add that in that general time period Chinese blacksmiths used new bronze forging methods to produce even longer blades to be used in the army. These blades of course would be horribly ineffective against the Roman scutum-and-gladius combination, which would mean heavy casualties for Chinese infantry. The Chinese also carried no shields, mostly relying on armor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Urnamma
However, i do think that historical realism should come before a bigger map in EB, and China would just make it more complicated. EB already has a great amount of diverse factions, and I would rather keep the same old map and instead have it made even more detailed, using the new faction slots to fill out the rebel spaces.
One idea though is that the discovery of the new world mechanism could be used for the discovery of the Far East (unlikely), or the Mogol invasion that takes place part way through the game could be made into a Chinese/Xiongu invasion. Neither of these are really historical, i guess, but could be interesting if added.
(For example, the invading Mongol armies coul be changed in to the army of Ban Chao, who took 70 000 men all the way to the Caspian Sea before turning back in the year 97).
:2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by CaesarAgustus
Okay,thats fine too.A what if thing.But all I'm asking is if theres a way to make a faction appear in custom battle but not the campiagn.OR you could make them mercenaries for the WAY eastern lands (like border lands) in small numbers (like maybe 1 or 2 every few turns).With custom battles now (in .74), mercs appear on the unit selection screen.So in theory by allowing rare Chinese mercs,the human could make an opposing all-Chinese army to fight with.Quote:
the Mogol invasion that takes place part way through the game could be made into a Chinese/Xiongu invasion. Neither of these are really historical, i guess, but could be interesting if added.
(For example, the invading Mongol armies coul be changed in to the army of Ban Chao, who took 70 000 men all the way to the Caspian Sea before turning back in the year 97).
put it simple the chinese had the quantity over quality... soldiers as far as the eye can see, nice techonology, but poor metals, and armors.... the roman had some quantity and extreme quality, organized soldiers... great armors and nice metals for them, and above all supreme tactics.... the chinese wouldn't stand much of a chance... its like the barbarians against the romans...great numbers but low quality gear against the legions....=) and the romans had the Know-how... and had slingers....and Cretan Archers!!!=)
as for the chinese units present in skirmish, and custom battles, is quite possible and fastly done... just get the Zhan Guo mod and rip the models and textures into your EB install...i've made it for 48 units already, and intend to do it for much more=)
Or, you know, they could use it for the Yuezhi migration which would actually be historical :idea2:Quote:
Originally Posted by CaesarAgustus
The bad side to this is that it leaves one less slot to use for the playable factions.
It's not even that. FYI, the 'barbarians' like Celts were just as advanced and disciplined as the Romans militarily. Never assume that someone will win automatically based on a few variables.Quote:
Originally Posted by iberus_generalis
The Celts didn't always outnumber the Romans, despite what the Romans themselves say. Herodotus claims that the persians had a 2.5 million man army that marched overland too ;)
Any chance you could convince the EB team to make it an optional add on?Quote:
Originally Posted by iberus_generalis
I'd note the battle of Telamon. Outnumbered, ambushed Gauls lost, but not due to a lack of discipline (to the contrary, the Romans were unnerved by their level of organization and discipline). When ambushed, their command structure for large unit tactics was good enough to swiftly draw up into two lines facing both sides of the ambush. The Romans didn't bowl over Gaul, they had a large number of Gauls fighting for them as well, and Gauls didn't always have numerical superiority, and still put up a tremendous fight. Mind that at the same time, they were in a civil war, what governments were still in place collapsed over arguments of to ally with the Romans or not, and they were being attacked by the Germanic tribes to their east. They still managed for a while in the most terrible conditions politically and militarily; most of their actual soldiers were dead or had allied with the Romans or fled to Britain and Ireland. Defeating barbarians for the Romans involved many factors, not a handful of advantages, which weren't necessarily all that advantageous compared to their opponents.Quote:
Originally Posted by Urnamma
Consider the Gallic charge. It was precipitated by a rain of javelins and sling bullets to disorganize the enemy and cavalry would wheel around the opposing flanks. The charge was intended to hit about the same time the enemy order broke. It was Romans who took the Celtic large unit command structure (the standards and horns, which allowed for fast command of large numbers of soldiers, since each company and regiment knew their standard, and each standard bearer knew the horn commands), though their officers were based on Greeks as I recall. Cunliffe is a nice place to start reading about how they fought, and he quite handily dispels the myth of 'large utterly disordered numbers'. It's quite plain they knew how to fight as a unit, even based on what their ancient detractors said (though a lot of them would say deriding things shortly after, like...what's his name, I think Urnamma would know; he said Celts fought harder and longer than any other mercenaries, and not a few sentences later called them lazy).
Damn, double post.
Personally I would argue against expanding the map any further. I could see maybe expanding it a little into India but even that would be a maybe as (as Lovejoy I believe pointed out) we dont want to have any "half factions.
I would rather us get rid of some of the "rebel" factions and add them in as an actual faction, even if some of them were small kingdoms, they could be a way of offering an alternative history...or more likely, more cannon fodder for the legions lol.
Kushan
You mean cannon fodder for the Hetairoi and Pezhetairoi right Kushan :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kushan
I stand corrected :yes: lol
Kushan
that was not a fine comparisons in my opinion, the chinese that were doomed by mongols ordes, were the chinese of the Sung dinasty, this was a sort of a Great Reinassence Period for the Chinese, it was comparable at somethink like Florence in the '400, or more generally at the italian states of the '400, their culture reached one of the most fine form of expression, and even the plastic arts, still now the masterpiece of chinese ceramics for example, are the Sung period, not the Ming in the view of a chinese, and there were an explosion of the commerce and of the "financial" activity, there were cities like HangZhou who was considered "urban cities" in the actual meaning of the term, the life was very "urban" for much men, and as counterpart, they were not a fine military power.Quote:
Originally Posted by Urnamma
I can recall, that the most used form of war, by the Sung emperors, was the corruption, they just tryed to buy the enemies or to make some commercial treaties, to make them calm, so in definitive i dont see all this military power for Sung China. There is a plenty of books on the Sung Period, and you can make an image of what it was, and how they were bad on the military side. There were corruption in the generals and even the "baojia" sistem of recruitement was very ineffective, since it was based on the recruitement of militia peasants, and the urbans class and financial class didn't have interest on fighting, even a lot of what we "Western" can call nobles, were absorbed in the financial activities, and even the confucian funtionaries, despite the confucianism, "officially", hated the merchant class.
but I agree that a comparisions between roman army and Han army (around 1 century b.c) is stupid, but not cause what you call the "individual" and "duel" style of fight of the chinese, remember that china was never and i say never a feudal state as we intend in the West, it was almost always a "burocratic" state even in his worst "dark ages", yes if you think of the Tang there were a sort of feudal nobless, but it was quicly absorbed in the functionary class, and it lost fast its power as the economy had its bump.
Returning to Hans, im not an expert of military history, but ive never heard of individual fighting style etc. The chineses have nothinkg to share with the japanish samurais...
The real power in china in all its confucian history, was never of the warring nobles, but of the functionaries (chen), and if a noble wanted to have some effective power, he has to become a functionary.
the main difference is resumed (with all the limitations of labels) by this two charachters: WU (martial) for the Japanish and WEN (cultur) for the chinese.
It could sound strange, but japanich had an history more comparable to that of our westerns, than the hystory of china, that is a long history of burocracy... and this is not only due to the "confucian" substrate, but even to the "legist" (or "legalist" i dont know what is the correct english word) substrate of the Qin period.
PS do not confuse, the "individual and duellant" image that can give some movies like "Hero, of Zhang YiMou" or some litterature, i think for example to the "ShuiHuJuan" (the border of the river), or even the nasty brigands who follow the monk Xuan Zang in his travel in the West, XiYouJi) and all the successfull genre WuXia (martial) with the effective chinese armies, who were imperial amies, of levies.
The genre of the individual heros, and of the picaresque brigands who had some individual and heroic skills, was developed as a counterpart of the strong burocratic empire. And this individual and duellant heroes often fight against the Empire, or against what they see as an usurper dinasty... because in the optical of the confucianism you can't fight against the official power. So it often happen that these individual hero and their bands, fight against what they reputes usurper etc.
I'm not sure how you mean by legal, and mind that the west, at the time, had few unifying cultural aspects but what were necessity, which was mostly military aspects; governance varied widely (in southern Greece alone, there was philosophy driven proto-democratic Athens practically side-by-side with militaristic proto-socialist Spartans, a vastly different society). In terms of legality, the Celts would then probably be comparable, in that their problems mostly stemmed from advanced (as opposed to primitive as is often assumed) concepts of law. They were obsessed with it utterly, to the extent that it was the holy aspect of the society. Why were Celtic gods worshipped? Because they made the first laws and had legal recourse. Who was the most powerful person in any Celtic society? A judge, he even held legal authority over kings. Certainly, a king had military authority, but if he acted without accord of the judges in his realm, you can bet your ass he'd be fined, even if he was acting against an enemy (which was part of the problem; a well meaning king might have wanted to act again his X enemies who threatened his people, but judges might quickly find his actions illegal and punish him, making him need to consider it, and probably opt against illegal actions). The Aedui had ruled Gaul with extremely legalistic magistrates, which had been part of why Germans and Belgae had proven a threat, and led to the collapse of Gaul when people saw the Aedui as too weak to protect Gaul. Beuracracy was a terrible problem for them. Even in the more monarchist Arverni regime, judges held enormous authority and forced nobles into very uncomfortable positions (actually more uncomfortable, because, at least with Aedui, kings could empathize with the king of the Aedui, he was as much under the thumb of the magistrates of any of them, but for the Arverni, their high king was less in their power, though he still was).
"legism" was the official political doctrine in the period of the QinChao (the Qin dinasty, the First Empire) and even in the last period of the warring states. It was substituted by "confucianism" in the Han period, but its substrate never disappeared, even in the actual china.
I can summarize it saying that it was the power of the regulamentation, and of the "written law", everythink had its regulament and in our modern vision we could say that "it was not the law at service of the men" but "men at services of the laws", it was even a philosophical doctrine, and there were plenty of "legist" or "legalist" philosopher in that period, the Legism was one of the so called "100 schools" but it had its primal importance in that period, i.e. the last warring states and the Qin period. It was not any comparable to any western doctrine of that period in the West, and it posed the bases of the chinese burocratic state. Actually it is a questionable doctrine, cause in the modern vision the laws should be at the service of the men and not the opposite.
While you can find somethink like that in some centralized western state of the ancient time, or even in the celts as you do, there were nothink so organized under the philosophical, doctrinal, political, and idiological side as it was for the Qin, and it pheraphs conducted to the fall of the dinasty and to the raise of the confucianism.
PS i just tryed to google "legism" and there are some artichles, so it is the correct english translation i realize, and there are more specifical infos to find even under the voice "legalism"
If you are interested try to google "chinese legism" it should appear some results. Hope it helps!
Heres an idea for allowing Chinese units in the game.In the year whats-his name marched to the Caspian Sea,one of your This Year in History (correct me if thats the wrong name for it) pops up.ANd for several turns Chinese mercs appear in the region for recuitment (I mean come on.If a 70000 man army marched across Asia and back someone had to desert).
I was thinking not so much expanding the map, but enlarging it, adding more distance between provinces and cities.
well, this should be a good idea even for me, to keep the map as it is, and enlarge it to max possible, one think i dont like of RTW is that you can conquest 2 or 3 city with one only army in one turn... it should be nice to not see "towns", just as checkpoints for your army battlefest... anyway in EB it is a bit better, cause there aren't very "town crowded" places as in other mods
to make an add on with the chinese for EB, i would need to have the permition from both teams to do it, then i would also need to ask permition to the artists who made the skins and models of the chinese, i would also need some time to make the entries, tweak and balance them, beta test them so the add on could be safely released upon the comunity.... it's really easy to do, but it takes some time to do it right, and the permition of the respective teams... time speacily is something i have really short right now... i m owing a scan of a picture to Sarcasm but alas i have'nt had much time to mod, and even play in the last few months..busy with school and Real life... i only came to the forums yesterday after a disappearance of almost two months...but by december 8th i'll be back live and kicking mixing mods, moding my own things into RTW(as we can't as of yet mod M2TW) wich i plan to release as soon as possible(hint, i plan on doing a texture overhaul to the textures of RTW.... some of this works may already be seen in the screen section of this sub forum in my posts....)
but this add on is quite doable easy, and moderatly fast to complete, as all i need is already done...
Merchants were the lowest people, they didn't add anything to society (no goods or services), they just make profit off other people's work. :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Obelics
Mercenaries can't change based on time, there is a set list list for each reason that is the same throughout the game. Thus if they were mercenaries they would have to be there dispite the time frame. :embarassed:Quote:
Originally Posted by scourgeofrome
I don't like the idea of a large scaled map. Not only does the penalty for distance from the capital skyrocket, but cities will only trade a certain number of "squares" and trade would suck. :shame:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dumbass
That`s not neccesrily true. I played Darth Mod the last 3 months (I`ve uninstalled it a month ago in expectation for EB 0.8), and in one of it`s campaigns it has a pretty large scaled map. Actually it`s huge. The trade routes are just the same as in other mods, even with larger distances, and I`ve noticed no mayor problems with unrest... at least for me, my distant colonies have normal unrest and distance-to-capital problems...Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcusAureliusAntoninus
Here are some shots of the map:
Sicily is pretty huge now.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Pannonia woodlands and plains, a pretty large pasteurland.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Macedonia and the how-was-its-name trident peninsulae.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Latium, Umbria and Etruria... compare Darth`s Latium with the vainilla map:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Actually, it`s pretty fun playing with a large map.
*It slows down the game, delaying the steamroll effect, since armies take more time to get to their objective.
*It doesn`t affect trade in any way
*It multiplies the battlefields available in an area. For instance, if you`re taking Tarentum, or you`re fighting in a limited area such as Liguria, you don`t get the feeling that you`ve battled in that exact field before.
*In battle map, the hills and mountains aren`t so ridiculously steep, the hills have more gentle slopes.
*I dunno if it affects unrest. I haven`t felt that effect...
Off course, is a matter of personal taste and choice. For me at least, I find unquestionably better to fight in a bigger scale map.
But that`s something that we cannot ask to the team for 1.0... they`ve got much more important things to do...
Perhaps for EB2:rolleyes: ... anyway, that`s for the team to decide. And it`s certainly too soon to discuss it.
Cheers!!!!!!:2thumbsup:
Looks nice. I like the scale. All of the things we've got in the map and tweaks and such certainly prohibit anything major changed in EB1.0 though. I love big maps though for sure. :grin: Maybe if MTW2 is able to be modded they can do something really big. :laugh4:
well, if this was a sort of ideological sentence, i could be agree, i like this words... but i have to admit that it was not so, and it depends on the period, for example in the Sung period, the society was very "mobile" according to the standards of the age, expecially in the big cities, there were merchants who were respected as functionary, and functionaries who were merchants (but not officially). The Empire was strongly centralized (from a burocratical side) and the Permanet Imperial Army was heavy reduced. It was under the Sung that starts the raise of the prestige of the merchant class (this obviusly was mainly for the big merchants). Some of them spend their capitals even in assistential services, or at last of general interest. In this period there were the increasing of the monetary economy, and all the monetary systems of the previous regimes, was unified. Someone speaks of commercial revolution...Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcusAureliusAntoninus
PS paradoxaly, i could say that the china of Sung was very similar to the actual one:
official it is a Communitst State again, but everyone is trying to make money with the Market
the China of the Sung, officially it was a Confucian state, but everyone was going in the Commerce
PPS ehi! But that Sicily is deformed! (talking of 1 or two post above), or is it just my bad perception of the forms...
I agree, I really like the feel of the bigger map. I definitely think that EB2 should try for a bigger scale map....If M2TW can be unpacked that is....:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Teleklos Archelaou
If a bigger map is possible, I would also request that movement turns be increased accordingly, it should not increase the time it takes to traverse the map. I would hate to spend years crossing a province, for example.
Foot
Hmmmm :book2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Foot
But one should also consider that the team has already increased the distance an army can travel, by increasing the number of turns per year, from 2 to 4. Actaully, with the 4TPY change, the army can travel twice the distance in one year than with the 2TPY...
So enlarging the map would adjust things to the vainilla parameters of distance/time...
But as I said, it`s a matter of personal tastes.
Cheers :2thumbsup:
I know, and I don't want vanilla parameters, they sucked! It took about 10 years to get from carthage to alexandria. Thats absurd! I would certainly hate it if we went that way!Quote:
Originally Posted by k_raso
Obviously realistic marching times would be absurd as well, we can't simulate all the possible ways that an army can be slowed down, so I am not advocating that armies should march at realistic speeds. Current EB speeds are good (though I would prefer something slightly further, particularly with quite a few traits slowing down armies), and if we did increase the size of the map I would like speeds to rise accordingly.
Foot
The map we have is perfect for the number of provinces the game allows.
If we were to be allowed more provinces per map then we could...
a) either enlarge the map and have more of Asia, for example Both the Mauryas and Qin (which I would love to, if only to explore the possibility of themVSUs...
b) keep the map the same but increase the provinces in it, along with the factions making it much more interesting, albeit in a different way.
But, a bigger map without more provinces would be next to useless because we would have to "sacrifice" less important regions to make more provinces.. and who could be considered "less" important? Not an easy choice... Same limit map and more factions would possibly create TOO MANY one province wonders without many chances for survival, even if it would take a SUPER general to wade through that.
But, hey, that's what YOU eb player are here for....!
Second.Quote:
Originally Posted by Foot
https://img55.imageshack.us/img55/3481/scruffy2ze1.jpg
FORGET ABOUT THE CHINESE!!!11oneone
It wouldn't be balanced and the Map would concentrate too far on the east.
Plus the only contact between the Greeks and Indians and the Chinese was trade, and the silk road wonder illustrates that
What we need in EB2 is the extension to INDIA.
Baktria and Seleucia had lots of contact with the Mauryan Empire as mentioned earilier,
Plus the Himalayas would be a damned horrible thing to cross, and would be unrealistic.
alright.Good enough for me.Just though it would be a fun thing to make Chinese units avaible to fight.And for the Himalayas,I wouldn't even try that.If Hannibal had problems with the Alps,then it would be suicide to try the Himalayas.Quote:
Originally Posted by Olaf The Great
Plus, if the Romans crossed the Himalayas, they would be attacked by angry Nazi Yetis, Australian Elephantmen, dancing gnomes..... Or...Or.....Or Klingons!Quote:
Originally Posted by scourgeofrome
Now I hate mod bashing but I think the RTR 7.0 map they have in their preview is ridiculously large. I mean you can half of Finland in that, almost up to Lapland.
But about the EB(1) map, will you make the major deserts uncontrollable and have you considered blocking the area east of Leptis Magna to prevent "the sand wars" between Carthage and Ptolemies?
Done for 0.8...Quote:
Originally Posted by Thaatu
Yay :balloon2:
Several thoughts on this:Quote:
Originally Posted by scourgeofrome
Alexander the Great (though not exactly the Himalayas -> Hindu Kush);
Silk Road.
But under normal circumstances: it sort of would have been suicide to try such a thing. Another thought:
Steppe to the north.
Actually there are many new things in M2TW that could really help EB2.
If you do decide to increase the scale of the map (not size, scale, zooming in more) you can now mod the distance to capital penalty (aswell as Squalor!). Pretty useful.
Plus there is a new type of terrain, impassable desert. Appears as sand dunes on the campaign map.
A very good thing that was necessary in RTW. And yes, we are contemplating the possibility of a bigger scale map.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuffy
Which was very necessary too. A good way to limit the AI expansion in to historically non-important areas.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuffy
ok, guys, believe it or not, but I am actually a Chinese. And i am both surprised and fascinated by all the information you guys have put in. None of you guys are chinese and you know more than some of us! This roman vs chinese argument is very interesting. and although it is not plausible in-game, we could discuss it on the board!!
btw: hopefully I'm not biased towards the chinese :2thumbsup: , i love both civilization and spend a great deal of time researching on both...
ps: are there any chinese around these forums?? or am I lonely...:embarassed:
According to this thread: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...t=72463&page=2
Four EB fans/users at the Org are native chinese (of some sort) speakers, so I'd think you're not alone, although I guess it's still possible.
A game/mod *centred* on China and the far east would be great but stretching an RTW mod/game to include everything from the gauls to the chinese just means you lose all the interesting detail of the individual factions and they become generic blobs.
Argh! I want that so bad for my personal mod.Quote:
Plus there is a new type of terrain, impassable desert. Appears as sand dunes on the campaign map.
That's good, I found it ridiculous that you could pass through large, waterless deserts with thousands of men. EB definently has some realistic qualities that make the game a lot more fun to play.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuffy
UNRELATED QUESTION: Where can i get EB signature images? (I want a Romani one).
https://www.europabarbarorum.com/downloads_artwork.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by CaesarAgustus
Thanks.