Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 156

Thread: HTW Project 2:Bronze Age Total War

  1. #61
    Member Member SicilianVespers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Regnum Siciliae, Apuliae, et Calabriae
    Posts
    194

    Default Re: HTW Project 2:Bronze Age Total War

    Are you guys planning to add any central mediterreanean factions? Like the Siculans/Sicanians, Etruscans or Sardi?

    These would all be perfect candidates for factions. The Siculan culture at the time was similar to Mycenaean, Rock-cut tholos tombs, Palaces, even down to the rapier swords. They also had extensive trade connections with Greece and Troy.

    Kokalos was the king of Sicania/Sikelia at the time Minos arrived. His Capital, Kamikos, was built by Daedalus himself.

    All three were later involved in the Sea Peoples invasions:

    Siculans = Shekelesh
    Sardi = Shardana
    Etruscans = Tyrsenoi

  2. #62

    Default Re: HTW Project 2:Bronze Age Total War

    Well, those three seem like very good aspects! The Sardi will definitely be in, because the Shardana were primarily involved in the 'sea-peoples' bit, as far as I Know, so although they may be called the 'sea-peoples' or a similar thing, their representation is sure to be in..!

    Where exactly was the Silucan Culture based, and who influenced them... I have yet to hear but their name:\ It seems as though you're indicating their culure was quite like that on Crete at the time. Some more information for my own behalf would be great, as I'm sure debating their addition to the list (which they might be on, as I can't recall if they are or not!) would be something worth doing if we could know more about them!

    I'm not sure if we know much, or anything at all, to fit Etruscan culture before the Dark Age, so if there isn't much, havin' them in may cause problems, as their last chance to enter the game (in the late era) would be 1,500 BC:\

    But don't worry, for Rome, we'll probably do a couple of small projects for 'tests', and I'll be sure we do one in Archaic/hellenic Italy, so you'll get all of the Etruscans you want!

    -Gregory-

  3. #63
    Member Member vodkafire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    147

    Default Re: HTW Project 2:Bronze Age Total War

    I was under the impression that the Sea People WERE the Mycenians (+ sardinians and some others), and they were either a result of or somehow related to the Trojan War(they were refugees, like Odysseus, that scattered away from home). They later settled to become the Phoenecians and Phillistines. Anyways, this was what I read.
    "Efficiency is intelligent laziness." -David Dunham

  4. #64

    Default Re: HTW Project 2:Bronze Age Total War

    I'm confident in saying that is NOT correct... The Sea people's had little connection with the Greeks, if any. It is in fact much more likely that they were connected to the Trojans than the Greeks, and the Shardana and Sardinians (lol, can't recall if those are the same guys at the moment), etc, would make up the ranks of the sea peoples, who apparently have MUCH more eastern influence in their arms and armor than Greek, and it's not likely any connection was made between them except for trading, possibly.

    Using the works of Rovert Morkot (who even states all of this is very controversial) I can tell you that he believes the Sea peoples, Dorians, and Phyrgians all invaded practically simultaneously in different area's of the Mediterranean. These invasions are, according to him, traced to Illyria, Thrace, Libya, Sardinia (or just by the Shardana peoples) and in the area inhabited by the Arzawans. It is suggested The Shardana actually didn't come to Sardinia until after their invasion was repulsed by Rameses III of Egypt, and that they colonized this place after their defeat by his army.

    I can provide more information later...

    -Gregory-
    Last edited by Gregorius0202; 08-17-2004 at 03:00.

  5. #65
    Mediæval Auctoriso Member Member TheSilverKnight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Madrid, España (University)
    Posts
    2,608

    Default Re: HTW Project 2:Bronze Age Total War

    Quote Originally Posted by komninos
    Hi,

    Apparently the Bronze Age TW has captivated many of you.
    Apart from the new map that when it will be ready it will be released in the Mapping Library Project thread, it will have a number of new units.

    The Map it self will initially be ready for HTW use but with only a few units and buildings so an experienced moder can make an HTW add-on with it. Then again I might do it while making the Bronze Age TW.

    It will start at 3000BC, pass to the High period at 2000BC in Late at 1100 and end at 800BC. This will fairly connect it to HTW. This coincides with the rise and fall of the Mycenaean’s. In 3000BC they were just a small city rising to dominance in the surrounding area, in 2000BC they are a powerful city but they still have many enemies in there area, Minoans, Minians, Pelasgians all dominate several parts of Greece, plus they all struggle for sea trade roots to Egypt and the Middle East. At 1100BC the Mycenaean power is undisputed they control the most Greece and all the sea roots. They go to war with Hittite Empire that was declining. Suddenly in about 1200BC they disappear while the social structure is crumbling.

    The units you are looking here are Greek units of the early and high period. The Octaspis is the pinnacle of the Mycenaean war engineering. The old tower shield was substituted by a new type. The 8-shaped shied permitted the better use of the pike but also its shape allowed it to be used for shuffling and opening britches in the enemy formation thus exposing the enemy and making them vulnerable to attack.
    Have you actually managed ot make it so it's in the B.C. era?? That'd be so awesome if you did. I'd download HTW just to see how you did that
    "I'm like the Vikings -- I come here, I steal your women, your booze, your dough, and then I go back home." ~ Wiz
    "Play RTW and wait till 1,000 people die and look at them from above. Then tell me it was worth the oil." - Byzantine Prince

  6. #66
    Ashes to ashes. Funk to funky. Member Angadil's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Madrid, Spain
    Posts
    2,242

    Default Re: HTW Project 2:Bronze Age Total War

    Well, if one puts the razing and burning of the Mycenean cities typically attributed to the Dorians (who were Greeks, right?) within the widespread, roughly synchronous destruction ascribed to the "Sea Peoples" one could argue that some of the "Sea Peoples" were Greeks... However, it is probably better to reconsider the whole "Sea Peoples" concept...

    And for that purpose, I would recommend a look at R. Drews' book, The End of the Bronze Age. It provides a very useful critical discussion of who the Sea Peoples *may* (or may not) have been and I believe he is rather successful in showing how preconceptions, assumptions etc... have colored and biased the perceptions of this group.

    Drews favors a vision of the Sea Peoples as an assorted collection of "barbarians" living on the fringes of the "civilized" palatial societies of the Late Bronze Age. Not peoples/nations engaged in any sort of long distance Volkwanderung. These barbarians had at times been raiders and at times mercenaries for their richer neighbors, but eventually turned against them at a larger scale than the previous marauding and wrought widespread havoc. So, in continental Greece it was Dorians. In Anatolia many attribute the destruction of Hattusa and the other Hittite centers within the arc of the Halys to the Kaskans, not long after Suppiluliumas II, the last known Hittite king, had to fight the first and only Hittite naval battle off Cyprus, presumably facing a different threat (he won that one). In Egypt, Ramses III had to beat not only the "Sea Peoples", but also two Libyan invasions. Merneptah before him had also turned back a Libyan invading force added to which were several of the groups later to be found among the "Sea Peoples" that Ramses III defeated some thirty years later.

    What seems clear in any case is that it is hard to think of the guys under the "Sea Peoples" label (whether barbarians attacking their neighbors for plunder or migrating peoples in search of a home) as any sort of homogeneous group. They seem to have been a truly motley crew.

    Btw, I see Drew's book is offered by amazon.com jointly with Collapse of the Bronze Age by Manuel Robbins for about 40 bucks. Can't say anything about that one, but Drews' is definitely worth reading, not only because of the Sea Peoples. Good review of Late Bronze Age warfare too. You don't need to agree with his conclusions, but the evidence he reviews and synthetizes is very valuable (Yes Greg, I know you've heard this recommendation from me before ).

    Cheers
    A.
    Last edited by Angadil; 08-17-2004 at 12:39.
    Europa Barbarorum. Giving history a chance.

  7. #67

    Default Re: HTW Project 2:Bronze Age Total War

    Great information Angadil. It seems Drew pretty much either collaborated with Morkot, or they both think alike! I merely got my information from some maps in an awesome Greek Atlas that's currently out by Pengiun, and has a section discussing the 'Sea peoples'. As you said, Dorians, Libyans, and many other large 'barbaric' forces seemed to have collapsed inwards on the Mediterranean Basin's larger, more civilized factions all at about the same time, as far as most people believe! These movements by each tribe are shown on the map I have, and it's quite interesting!

    Although I couldn't go into detail about it or get into much of a conversation with you, since I've only got an atlas sittin' in front of me, and you have a really reliable source on the information, I can see where each source has rather the same Idea as to the "myth" of the Sea-people's!

    I'll look into your recommendation, as well! My next set of purchases will likely include the following, though...

    Warfare in the Classical World
    Osprey Military, The Zulus
    Osprey Military, The Zulu War
    Osprey Military, Zulu 1816-1906
    Osprey Military, Aztec, Mixtec and Zapotec Armies
    Osprey Military, The Aztec Armies
    Osprey Military, The Army of Alexander The Great
    Osprey Military, The Ancient Greeks
    Osprey Military, Arthur and the Anglo-Saxon Wars

    These, coupled with what I already have, as far as the works I'm interested in go (mainly ones with din depth information about arms and armor, since I'm interested in reeactment!)...

    Osprey Military, Armies of the Ancient Middle-East
    Osprey Military, Scythians 700 BC-300 BC
    Osprey Military, The Spartan Army
    Osprey Military, The Thracians 700 BC-46 AD
    Osprey Military, The Ancient Assyrians
    Osprey Military, New Kingdom Egypt
    (All of the above have been ordered, but haven't arrived as of this time!)

    Peter Connolly, Greece and Rome at War
    Peter Connolly, The Ancient Greece of Odysseus
    Peter Connolly, The Greek Armies
    Peter Connolly, The Roman Army
    Pengiun Atlas to Ancient Greece
    Warrriors and Warlords, the Art of Angus McBride
    Body Armor, Woodsman Savage & Hall
    Weapons, by the Diagram Group
    Swords and other Edged weapons, numerous Authors, including Connolly.

    If there are any you think you may be interested in Angadil, just lemme' know, and I'll let ya' know what they're about;).

    Adios!

    -Gregory-

  8. #68
    Member Member flip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Portucalense
    Posts
    452

    Default Re: HTW Project 2:Bronze Age Total War

    Drew's book its great, I bought it by Amazon severall years ago, and pik it recently for lecture.

    kom, if you can buy it
    CHIEF DESIGNER

    Hellenic Total War

  9. #69
    Member Member komninos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    752

    Default Re: HTW Project 2:Bronze Age Total War

    Hi all,

    Lots of posts here ... and no time ... typical me

    Any way,
    Please check the map it is from Greece till Mesopotamia so no central European or Italian factions. Also please can someone help by proposing names and regional attributes??? I can make a wild guess but it would be just that!


    Sea People were most probably of Greek origin Greg, sorry ... there are several reasons for that.
    1. They appeared as an aggressive force about the time of the Volcano exploded so there is a good chance of a migration force after the destruction of their main city in Thera. Probably they were driven away by the increased power of Mycenaeans.
    2. Pelasgians were one of the oldest Greek tribes in the Aegean, the name read actually Sea People Pelagos = Open Sea and Pelasgos might read Pegalu ios (if someone knows better ancient Greek than me correct me, I am an Engineer not a linguist) that translates to son of the open sea.
    3. The Sea People finally settled in the Lebanon area. The two kingdoms that appeared after the migration of the sea people and foreign to the existing cultures were Phoenicians and Philistines. Both words are strangely Greek in sound. Phoenicians most probably come from the word Phoenix a mythical bird that existed in Greek culture. I have hearted of a legend that the first king was Phoenix son of Minos this relates them to the Cretans. Philistines are mostly known though the bible. So the name might be changed. Stile can’t neglect the first part Phili or Phil that was used as an additive to classical Greek names and it means friend (usally of the second part of the name ie philolaos would read friend of the people) but I can’t get a clue on the second part of the word.

    Dorians were not Sea People they were actually mountain people living in the mountain region of Central Greece there was a region also in that area simply named Doris (similarities???). Probably they allied to Thebs during their decent they mainly destroyed the center of civilization Mycenae that led to the destruction of their empire but they also went north in to Macedon. They claimed decent from Hercules who probably was more than just a mythical hero ... more of a General might be closer to the truth so when his descendants were exiled they reclaimed there land.

    Remember decent does not mean travel from the north to the south but from inland to the sea hence the Decent of the Myriad that was from South to North. Unlike common belief Myceneans were just too powerfull to be overrun by some barbarian foreign tribe. There Chariot force was a charging one not of a ranged attack and by that time the relaid mostly on heavy infantry that chariot. There armies were well ordered, well trained, superbly equipped and with excellent leadership and finally they were at the top of there prime not at some decadent part like the Hittites. A task like that would be equivalent of the Taliban beating back the US with out any help.

    Dorians were definitely no anyone and definitely were not alone and the timing might have helped. It all happened about the time the Trojan War ended. Myceneans have lost a lot of men beating back not the Trojans but probably several Hittite derivative kingdoms or the Hittites. This led probably to a civil unrest (remember Greek armies were and remained vastly civic) and a lot of able rulers were lost. This is depicted in the tragedies of the Classical period. New blood rose to power that renounced the oaths of allegiance. So probably the whole kingdom collapsed inwardly in a civil war (typically Greek) and the Dorians simply found a way to get what they wonted. They remained in history as the destroyers of Mycenaean Civilization. This is more logically believable.

  10. #70
    Ashes to ashes. Funk to funky. Member Angadil's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Madrid, Spain
    Posts
    2,242

    Default Re: HTW Project 2:Bronze Age Total War

    Hmm... some comments (and, yes, some of them largely draw from Drews...)

    I suppose it would be necessary to ask what definition of "Sea Peoples" we are using... AFAIK, the term was first coined by Gaston Maspero in the late 19th century, by shortening the previous "peoples of the Mediterranean sea" that egyptologists had used to refer to the collection of ethnic groups (Lukka, Ekwesh, Tursha, Shekelesh, and Shardana) listed as part (not in very large numbers, judging from the Egyptian records of casualties) of the invading Libyan force in the reign of Merneptah. Maspero took the designation and transformed it into a proper name for the enemies that attempted to invade Egypt from the east in the reign of Ramses III. So the (in)famous label is a relatively modern creation and has nothing to do with Pelasgians even if the speculative linguistics were right (cannot judge that myself either). Oh, and Maspero used the term to designate the invaders from the east that Ramses III defeated and *only* them. When he did that, Mycenae, Tirynx, Knossos, Pylos, Hattusas, Ugarit and all or most the destroyed palatial centers whose razing was later ascribed to the "Sea Peoples" had yet to be excavated.

    The Egyptians however already had names for those invaders from the east. They were Peleset and Tjekker (aided by Shekelesh, Denyen, Weshesh and, perhaps, Tursha). I'd suppose Peleset is no longer Greek sounding. From it come Philistines, Palestine.... As for the Phoenicians, my understanding is that their name came from the purple dye they manufactured and monopolized. That color being something like Phoenicos (?) in Greek as in the scientific name of the flamingo, maybe the real bird behind the phoenix myth: Phoenicopterus=purple wings. From Egyptian documents is clear that both Peleset and Tjekker were people from the Levant. For example, they are often referred to as "Asiatics" (using the same term often found, for example, in New Kingdom accounts of victories in Canaan) and Rameses boasts of triumphs in the "land of the Peleset".

    Unlike common belief Myceneans were just too powerfull to be overrun by some barbarian foreign tribe. There Chariot force was a charging one not of a ranged attack and by that time the relaid mostly on heavy infantry that chariot. There armies were well ordered, well trained, superbly equipped and with excellent leadership and finally they were at the top of there prime not at some decadent part like the Hittites
    Evidence? Sources? Qadesh is considered exceptionally well documented for an ancient battle (records from both sides of the conflict some of them quite detailed) and there is still dispute about what really happened and who won... Is Mycenean warfare so much better attested? It should be for such sweping statements, but I doubt it... For example supporting the idea of Mycenean chariots carrying archers is the fact that alongside the Linear B chariot tablets from Knossos are tablets referring to stores of arrows and bows and to bow-making and bowyers... As for the argument "they were so great barbarians could not have defeated them while at their prime"... Well, first, history is reasonably rich in examples of barbarians inflicting defeats on "civilized" armies. Second, the argument is also logically flawed: from the beginning one option is excluded due to a preconception, thus becoming circular. Third, you are inconsistent, later you speak of unrest and civil wars (evidence for that?) Wouldn't that be decadence? Finally, what little the civilized dwellers of the cities have left written about the enemies that so critically threatened them at the end of the Bronze Age typically speaks of "barbarians" and "hordes".

    Greek armies were and remained vastly civic
    Again, evidence? A reliance on professionals and a limited importance of levies, conscription, militias, etc. seems the norm for almost all the palatial centers of the Bronze Age for which enough documentation has survived (Ugarit, Nuzzi, etc... ). Probably the Myceneans do not fall into the "enough documentation" category, but the tablets from Knossos and Pylos seem to point in that same direction. In any case, no basis for such a bold assertion.

    I hope I am not sounding too terse. Certainly, it's not my intention, but it's late here, English is not my first language and I'm awful with the emoticons...


    @Greg: Thanks for the offer. All of your purchases sound tempting (in fact, I recently got the Scythian and Thracian ones myself)... but I'd just be very grateful for some comment on the New Kingdom, Ancient Middle East and Alexander ones once you check them out... Ah, if Yadin's and Stillman & Tallis' books weren't so outrageously expensive...

    Cheers
    A.
    Europa Barbarorum. Giving history a chance.

  11. #71

    Default Re: HTW Project 2:Bronze Age Total War

    @ Kom'...

    Look at the first paragraph in Angadil's post above mine... That explains quite well what I think of as "sea-peoples", although my knowledge is limited in comparison to his own!

    ""peoples of the Mediterranean sea" that egyptologists had used to refer to the collection of ethnic groups (Lukka, Ekwesh, Tursha, Shekelesh, and Shardana) listed as part (not in very large numbers, judging from the Egyptian records of casualties) of the invading Libyan force in the reign of Merneptah."

    Right there... Also, I wasn't referring to Dorians, Thracians, or several other groups as being considered 'Sea-peoples' at all, but merely that the timing of their massed invasions of the Mediterranean kingdoms coincided with those of the Sea Peoples.

    Thera, if I'm correct in saying so, although having an advanced architechual and likely a good navy for it's time, would be too insignificant in size to have been the roots of the Sea-peoples, who would appear in vast numbers only 200 years later. Thera was destroyed in 1500 BC, and this date, in fact, is BEFORE the third Citadel age in Greece, and the Mycenaean conquests would be limited by this time at sea, as it is known and argued by Thucydides that the first large navies of the Mycenaeans were likely after this time, as they gained power before the Trojan War (which would happen some 300-350 years after Thera's destruction!).

    Although Greek origin is possible, it is HIGHLY unlikely that it would be such a recent event, such as the destruction of Thera, that spread the Sea-peoples through the Mediterranean, from my personal opinion...

    Once again, referring to the works of Morkot, who is more of a researching type than one to make up his own theories, as far as his atlas work is concerned, traces the 'probable' sources of the invasion of 'sea-peoples' to Libya, Crete, Sardinia, and some Northern places, which would also include the Dorian invasions, as well as Thracians...

    I personally have limited interest in the subject, as we really DON'T know, and I tend to stay away from conversations where I can't prove someone wrong, or be proven wrong myself... If you see what I mean.

    "Any way,
    Please check the map it is from Greece till Mesopotamia so no central European or Italian factions. Also please can someone help by proposing names and regional attributes??? I can make a wild guess but it would be just that!"

    I'm gonna' pick up a couple more versions of Ancient Middle-Eastern atlases like I have now, so I'll be all over that job! I have trade routs, trading goods, crops, stuff like that... So attributes shouldn't be too hard, if I get a hold of the right maps! Don't fear...:D

    @Angadil-

    Once I get those books, and read through them, I'll give you a hollar on how they turn out;)

    -Gregory-

  12. #72
    Member Member vodkafire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    147

    Default Re: HTW Project 2:Bronze Age Total War

    So how will it simulate the difference between iron and bronze weapons? I believe the Hittites had iron weapons since either 1500 or 1200 BC and irons did not really spread to other civilizations until after their destruction (in the city states era). However, the Dorians also had iron as well as the Philistines/Phoenicians(maybe through trade?) All the other civilizations (Mycenean, Eqyptian, Assyrian) did not have iron until the Hittites were reduced to city states and the Israelites got theirs from the Philistines.
    "Efficiency is intelligent laziness." -David Dunham

  13. #73

    Default Re: HTW Project 2:Bronze Age Total War

    Well, when the third age starts in 1,500, the units for the age will become available. We'll probably make it so that when this happens, any iron weapons that are going to be introduced will be at this time, whether they're from 1,500 BC or 800 BC, since it's all in the third age, and they will merely be designed as iron, and not Bronze!

    -Gregory-

  14. #74
    Member Member komninos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    752

    Default Re: HTW Project 2:Bronze Age Total War

    This is a problem actually ...
    TW engine does not "auto-update" units so you can be in late while you will still have early units. The huge time span though and active game play (lots of combat) might help in smoothing this out and make a transition period of some (20-30) moves where the new units will cover 90% of an army.

    The difference in iron weapons can't be really simulated in TW. A sword is a sword and a good swordsman will know how to use it no matter what it is. The difference has to be put in the armor piercing flag but that is not good either. Probably new units will have better defence values in armor. So it might be simulated by the reduction of the armor effectiveness.

    Angadil, first don’t worry about your English most of as have it as a second language. Now on Dorians, I was mostly pointing that they were not some kind of foreign “barbarian” race. I have read many documents that point that there was a different culture living and Greeks descended from the north migrating here. If you live in Greece you know this is not the best thing to do ... the logical would be to migrate from Greece to the North (from an arid and dry to a fertile land where rivers are actually flowing all the year round). Achaians, Pelasgians, Ioneans, Dorians are simple people living in the area of modern Greece in different regions and there names point even in modern time the places where they came from and migrated.
    Dorians took advantage of what might have been yet another civil war to come to power unfortunately they were and remained less “cultured” and more inward thinking than the rest plunging the Greek world in the dark ages two times.
    If there was a barbarian threat the main kingdoms would unite again. The era is very similar to the Midle ages is social structure.
    The Greek culture was very warlike in all times so I goes they would be even in this age. The professionals would form the strong part of the army but the core was civic this tradition was passed to the Classical Greeks. These professionals would form the chariot force the Epetes (Knights in middle ages). But you are right the heavy charge of the Epetes would usually end the fight there and then as it was with the Knights. (Thins also make me think that I should use negative charge values to increase the range from -9 to 9). So you see the vastly civic was mostly pointing the numerical part the outcome would still be decided on a flat-out charge at least in the early age. Later with the pike unit used by the Greeks things became more tactical. In Late period (of the mod) things should be very complex. The Tojan war might be a special case since they could not transport a large number of chariots (but they might have built them there) so it was mostly an infantry force fight.

  15. #75

    Default Re: HTW Project 2:Bronze Age Total War

    "This is a problem actually ...
    TW engine does not "auto-update" units so you can be in late while you will still have early units. The huge time span though and active game play (lots of combat) might help in smoothing this out and make a transition period of some (20-30) moves where the new units will cover 90% of an army.

    The difference in iron weapons can't be really simulated in TW. A sword is a sword and a good swordsman will know how to use it no matter what it is. The difference has to be put in the armor piercing flag but that is not good either. Probably new units will have better defence values in armor. So it might be simulated by the reduction of the armor effectiveness."

    Oh, I see what you guys mean... I was under the impression he merely wanted units to have Iron 'looking' weapons, and not actual upgrades for it...

    Well, I can actually give a solution to this problem as well. Although there is no auto upgrade, new units can be introduced in each age. During the Late age, for example, we may have several Hittite units with grey weapons representing iron, of course. In order to make these troops 'weapons' appear better, we can merely make their attack power a bit more, to represent the effectiveness of their weapons over the Bronze ones used by other units on the field....

    I think this would work, but if there are any other thoughts, speak up:D

    Ciao..!

    -Gregory-

  16. #76
    Ashes to ashes. Funk to funky. Member Angadil's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Madrid, Spain
    Posts
    2,242

    Default Re: HTW Project 2:Bronze Age Total War

    Komminos. I never intended to imply that either Dorians or Myceneans were non-Greeks. When I used "barbarian" for the Dorians I was only referring to lower levels of material culture and, quite likely, complexity of social structure relative to the Myceneans. No emphasis on the "foreigner" connotation. In fact, in my posts I adhered to Drews' thesis that the destroyers of cities at the end of the Bronze Age were often non-civilized, dirt-poor groups living in their immediate vicinity. Talk about bad neighbors... In any case, in my understanding both Dorians and Myceneans were Greeks. Or, perhaps more precisely, Greek-speaking peoples (although of different dialects: North Greek for the Dorians and the South Greek of the Linear B tablets for the Myceneans).

    Cheers
    P.
    Europa Barbarorum. Giving history a chance.

  17. #77
    Member Member komninos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    752

    Default Re: HTW Project 2:Bronze Age Total War

    OK, dialects vary heavily in this time, Cultures too. Minoans were a peaceful and devoted people that relayed on there excellent navy to defend them and I guess the same goes for the Cycladic people there cities had no walls and there arms and armor was not heavily developed. Mycenaean cities on the other side had heavy multilayered walls and there arms and armor was developed heavily over the ages.

    Anyway I will post again the unit list but this time in XLS format that will have there attributes (class, armor, weapons ... and time periods). We need descriptions and an acknowledgment that these are fairly OK. (I have not yes entered the Iron-bronze simulation so in that they are a bit flat). If you don’t have MS Excel go to the www.openoffice.org and get it. (~50MB). This is really needed for the correct simulation of each period.


    Sugestion (1) - Continuity of the units i.e. Summer only lasted in the first age, but a player might make it till the end what units will he be able to use?

    Sugestion (2) - We can’t simulate the appearance of a nation. Should we have them from the beginning as weaklings? We can also use the no-King trick so they disappear in the first move and then they are response in random.


    Sugestion (3) - I had the idea of binding units to regions and not nations/cultures. I though on that and I fill this might not be 100% true. So I am thinking of making a “State rule” building. It will take ~10 – 20 years to develop and it will pacify the province. All provinces will have a high unrest value but this building will calm things down. When this building is built then you will be able to build your own units in this province. It will be bind to culture so people of the same culture will not need it. It will slow down conquest a lot since you will e fighting a rebellion after rebellion till the province is pacified, colonized and ruled by you people.


    Sugestion (4) - Caltures.
    Catholic - Greek (can’t simulate Mycenaean and Minoan)
    Orthodox - Egypt
    Muslim - Mesopotamian
    Pagan - Barbarian tribes (Libya, North Balkan, East and south Caspian ...)

  18. #78
    Ashes to ashes. Funk to funky. Member Angadil's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Madrid, Spain
    Posts
    2,242

    Default Re: HTW Project 2:Bronze Age Total War

    I'v been looking at your list of factions and times for them and the latest suggestions from Komminos and I have a number of suggestions comments...

    First, what seems a relatively glaring omission: The Empire of Mitanni. Core established largely on the left bank of the Euphrates (Hanigalbat), but in its moment of glory it controlled lands in southeastern Anatolia (Kizzuwadna) and Assyria that was actually turned into a vassal (not for very long, though). The king of Mitanni was one of the "Great Kings", a sort of select club at the top of the hierarchy of rulers of the Middle and Late Bronze Age who mutually acknowledged each other as peers. Members were Egypt, Hatti, Babylonia, Assyria, Ahhiyawa (Mycenae)... and Mitanni. Mitanni was a major player in the international scene, far more active than, let's say, kassite Babylon. It fought against Egypt, Assyria and, almost routinely, the Hittites who eventually subdued them.

    Minor omission: the Kaskans. Roughly in the area of the kingdom of Pontus in classical times. A constant thorn in the Hittites side from the very beginning of the kingdom of Hatti. Never subdued and capable of overrunning large tracts of the Hittite homelands (they seem to have raided Hattusa itself more than once) if the latter's showed any hint of weakness. They never evolved into an organized political entity (kingdom), although at least once a leader rose to prominence and agglutinated the Kaskans around him. The Hittite texts remarked that feat by stating that he "didn't rule in the Kaskan manner".

    Comment: Likians. Why only in Late? The Likians were the Lukka people that appear in numerous Bronze Age texts and they were important well before the fall of the Hittite empire. For example, in the Amarna archives in the days of Akhenaton, they are recorded as carrying out large scale piratical raids on both Cyprus and the coast of Egypt itself. Hittite rule upon them was at best nominal. Similar to the Kaskans they never formed an unified kingdom for most of their history. And that leads me to...

    The level of detail you guys seem to propose for the Balkans throughout the three Ages is not matched for other areas. Anatolia, for example. You don't seem to have hardly anyone there in Early and, to some extent, High. However, Sargon campaigned against Nur-Dagan, king of Purushanda (southeast Anatolia) and Naram-Sin fought against the kings Zipani of Kanes and Pamba of Hatti. In the 19th century the Assyrians established merchant colonies in Anatolia and they arranged numerous treaties about taxes, services, etc... with the kings of the indigenous cities of Nesa (Kanes), Hattusa, Kussara and others. During the second phase of the merchant colonies, the kings of Kussara, Pithana and his son Anitta, achieved a certain hegemony. They captured Nesa and transferred their capital there.

    Finally, I hope you guys make this work for RTW. I do not think that the diplomatic system of MTW can adequately acommodate how the Bronze Age Empires worked. Generally, they did not really annexed lands, but rather established client or vassal kingdoms (often substituting a ruler for some more "understanding" relative) that acknowledged overlordship and sent "gifts", but remained nominally independent and mantained some room for manouver. Hence the distinction between Great Kings, and plain, vanilla kings... The empire may or may not leave garrisons. When conflict arose, a Great King could summon all or most of his vassals to his assistance and they would come with their own troops. The option of client kingdoms is explicitly mentioned for RTW, so this way of doing things might be replicated...

    Uf, long stuff... I hope I'm not sounding too critical? This mod is an extremely attractive idea.

    Cheers
    A.
    Europa Barbarorum. Giving history a chance.

  19. #79
    Member Member komninos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    752

    Default Re: HTW Project 2:Bronze Age Total War

    Hi Angadil,

    I know there are omissions and that’s why I posted it so please if you feal there is something missing or should be changed post the faction list with the changes ... one thing though every faction has a rather long list of things that have to be done in order to become playable so lets not over do it.

    The detail in the Balkan area is because I would like to cause problems for the faction in the area, Myceneans will not grow as fast as the Eastern faction that have space to grow. But as I said I know there are omissions so please do fill them up.

    TW never had a good diplomacy level for any period. The problem with RTW is that till we are in position to mod it we have to decipher its files that will take some time plus we then have to build tools to work with them that will take even more time. So don't expect anything worth while till about a year after the RTW is out. On the other hand if we work as we did with HTW we can have a first working beta till Xmas

  20. #80

    Default Re: HTW Project 2:Bronze Age Total War

    The Sea Peoples

    At about the time of the Sea Peoples' invasions (circa 1200 BC), Mycenean supremacy ended, and about 100 years later the Dorians invaded from the north and replaced the Mycenean civilization.

    Scholars have debated this issue for years. But no one truly knows who those Sea peoples were.

    Even the ancient Egyptians (who were invaded by the Sea Peoples) did not know who these Sea Peoples were.

    If the Myceneans had been these Sea Peoples (pirates), they would have been easily identifiable by the other cutures existing at that time.

    More than likely, the Sea Peoples were part of the huge migrations of unknown peoples that occurred in this part of the world during this time.


    Sea Peoples

    Sea Peoples is the term used in ancient Egyptian records of ship-faring raiders who drifted into the eastern shores of the Mediterranean and attempted to enter Egyptian territory during the late 19th dynasty, and especially year 5 of Rameses III of the 20th Dynasty.


    Historic Records

    The earliest mention of the Sea People proper is in an inscription of the Egyptian king Merneptah, whose rule is usually dated from 1213 BC to 1204 BC. Merneptah states that in the fifth year of his reign (1208 BC) he defeated an invasion of an allied force of Libyans and the Sea People, killing 6,000 soldiers and taking 9,000 prisoners.

    About 20 years later the Egyptian king Ramses III was forced to deal with another invasion of the Sea Peoples, this time allied with the Philistines. In the mortuary temple he built in Thebes Ramses describes how, despite the fact "no land could stand before" the forces of the Sea People and that they swept through "Hatti, Kode, Carchemish, Arzawa, and Alashiya" destroying their cities, he defeated them in a sea battle. He gives the names of the tribes of the Sea People as including: the Peleset, the Tjeker, the Shekelesh, the Denyen, and the Weshesh. However, because this list is identical to the one Merneptah included in his victory inscription and because Ramses also describes several fictitious victories on his temple walls, some Egyptologists believe that he never actually fought the Sea Peoples, but only claimed the victories of Merneptah as his own - a common ancient Egyptian practice.

    A Sea People appear in another set of records problematically dated around the early 12th century BC. Ammurapi, the last king of Ugarit (c.1191 BC - 1182 BC) received a letter from the Hittite king Suppliluliuma II warning him about the "Shikalayu who live on boats" who are perhaps the same people as the Shekelesh mentioned in Merneptah's list. It may be relevant that shortly after he received this communication, Ammurapi was overthrown and the city of Ugarit sacked, never to be inhabited again.


    Theories about the Sea Peoples

    The abrupt end of several civilizations in the decades traditionally dated around 1200 BC have caused many ancient historians to hypothesize that the Sea People caused the collapse of the Hittite, Mycenaean and Mittani kingdoms. However, Marc Van De Mieroop and others have argued against this theory on several points. Grimal argues that the kingdoms of the Mittani, Assyria, and Babylon were more likely destroyed by a group who dwelled on the edges of the settled lands called by the Akkadian word habiru. Another argument Grimal makes is that the attempted Sea People invasion of Egypt that Ramses III foiled is now seen as nothing more than a minor skirmish, the records of his victories on his temple walls being greatly exaggerated. Though it is clear from the archeological excavations that Ugarit, Ashkelon and Hazor were destroyed about this time, Carchemish was not and other cities in the area such as Byblos and Sidon survived unscathed.

    Another theory concerning the Sea People, based on their recorded names, is that they may have been formed of people involved in the Greek migrations of this period, either the Greek-speaking invaders (identifying the "Ekwesh" with the Achaeans and the "Denyen" with the Dananoi, an ancient name for the Greek people). This theory implies that the Philistines were part of this Greek-speaking confederacy.

    Lack of definite information about these ancient forerunners of the Vikings is the chief cause of their mystery, rather than anything concerning their intrinsic nature. As abruptly as they enter history, the Sea People leave it.


    More Information:

    The Sea Peoples are one of the enigmas of ancient history, though their culture has perhaps been the single most influencial legacy in the evolution of civilization. Pirates, noted for their advanced weaponry most commonly identified as Phoenicians (Puntians/Puntites), they are said to have first appeared ruling Tylos/Dilmun (Bahrain) in the Arabian Gulf as early as the end of the 4th millennium BC perhaps stranded there following severe flooding in Mesopotamia. They maintained trade routes on the coasts around the Arabian peninsula from that time until the Islamic period but are most famous for over-running Egypt & the eastern Mediterranean around 900 BC (Revised Chronology) or 1200 BC (Traditional Chronology). The collection of port city kingdoms they occupied was known as Phoenicia or Sidonia from the name of the most importan conquest Sidon.

    Alternative theories on their origin include a "Kult-Bund" i.e. groups from different nations partak ing in a common culture/way-of-life some originating in Greece and others Crete, Asia Minor (Anatolia), Libya and Asia, moving through the mediterranean and Arabian islands and coasts though never venturing far inland. They were certainly closely connected with coastal Arabs and the extent of Islam from Morocco to Indonesia may be a reflection of the trade routes they controlled/frequented. They were a curly-haired people who wore feathered head dresses similar to those used by the Iban in Sarawak and used high-prowed "Serpent" ships, later adopted by the Nordics and may have been the source for the "Fomor" in Hiberian (Irish) myth. Little is known of their original language, though Aku/Ego may have been the original term for self-reference. Ancestrally, the Maltese & Lebanese both have connections to them.

    They are supposed to have called their own homeland Ahhiyawa while the Bible has been interpreted as saying they hailed from Caphtor.

    Nations which have been grouped with Sea-peoples include:

    Danuna
    Sherden
    Tutsha
    Lukka
    Sheklesh
    Tjekker
    Palistines (subjected)
    Calushites (subjected)
    Zidonians (subjected)


    No "expert" knows for certain what occurred in those dark years of the 2nd Millenium BC (circa 1800-1000 BC). There are theories and ideas and guesses and assumptions. But that is all they are.

    I have checked a dozen sources, including the Encyclopedia Britannica, and all sources state that the origins of the Sea Peoples are still not known for certain.

    Some experts may claim one thing, while other experts will often contradict those claims. There is NO general consensus. All their ideas are just theories.


    Some sources:

    http://www2.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/seapeoples.htm

    http://home.nycap.rr.com/foxmob/sea_peoples.htm

    http://www.fact-index.com/s/se/sea_peoples.html

    http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...32801?v=glance

    http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/SeaFolks.html

    http://faculty.biu.ac.il/~maeira/The...ilistines.html

    http://rapidttp.com/milhist/vol074ic.html

    http://www.periclespress.com/origins.html

    http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article?eu=403400

  21. #81
    Scruffy Looking Nerf Herder Member Steppe Merc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    7,907

    Default Re: HTW Project 2:Bronze Age Total War

    I just saw a show on the history channel about the Sea Peoples, and they said that often enemies ended up joining the Sea Peoples. And one of the guys that talked a lot was the guy who wrote "End of the Bronze Age".

    "But if you should fall you fall alone,
    If you should stand then who's to guide you?
    If I knew the way I would take you home."
    Grateful Dead, "Ripple"

  22. #82

    Default Re: HTW Project 2:Bronze Age Total War

    @Pericles-

    Very good information. Some rather vague and disputable stuff, but I'm sure your sources would explain plenty of it. Thanks much!

    @Kom'- I'm goin' to get a couple of atlases this afternoon, hopefully I'll have some region attributes set up soon. Could I get a list of regions by area from you, or a picture of the map? I still don't have HTW on this PC, so havin' it on the game won't help, if that's at all possible...

    Adios.

    -Gregory-

  23. #83

    Default Re: HTW Project 2:Bronze Age Total War

    Well, I got another atlas based on Egypt, so I have quite a bit of information on the area we need to cover, and I'm still tryin' to find one of these for Anatolia and the surrounding area, etc... So I can start workin' on region attributes!

    If I could get a picture of the map, like I said before, that'd be helpful, because I haven't seen it, and don't know where to look!

    -Gregory-

  24. #84

    Default Re: HTW Project 2:Bronze Age Total War

    so when can we download this? and a sugestion my polemusters(sp) in htw keep running and it was making me mad why dont you add some ragular infanitry with no javs and ......(thinking of word) ammo stuff

  25. #85
    Barbarian Member Ldvs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    France
    Posts
    553

    Default Re: HTW Project 2:Bronze Age Total War

    Quote Originally Posted by Real Deal
    and a sugestion my polemusters(sp) in htw keep running and it was making me mad why dont you add some ragular infanitry with no javs and ......(thinking of word) ammo stuff
    Polemists are reliable infantry men, have you ever noticed they were set to "skirmish mode on" ? If you turn this off, they will stand still.

  26. #86
    Member Member komninos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    752

    Default Re: HTW Project 2:Bronze Age Total War

    Hi all,

    Though working under the shade of RTW some progress has been made.
    All Barbarian, Greek, Egyptian and Nubian units till high period are in for testing perposes with the exeption of the Mirmidons. More to do like Summer Hittite but with RTW so close I fear for BA-TW ... at least in MTW engine.

  27. #87
    Barbarian Member Ldvs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    France
    Posts
    553

    Default Re: HTW Project 2:Bronze Age Total War

    Quote Originally Posted by komninos
    Hi all,

    Though working under the shade of RTW some progress has been made.
    All Barbarian, Greek, Egyptian and Nubian units till high period are in for testing perposes with the exeption of the Mirmidons. More to do like Summer Hittite but with RTW so close I fear for BA-TW ... at least in MTW engine.
    Not everyone will buy RTW as soon as it's out. Moreover its release date can but postponed and postponed again like HL2 (I hope not though)

  28. #88

    Default Re: HTW Project 2:Bronze Age Total War

    Quote Originally Posted by komninos
    Hi all,

    Though working under the shade of RTW some progress has been made.
    All Barbarian, Greek, Egyptian and Nubian units till high period are in for testing perposes with the exeption of the Mirmidons. More to do like Summer Hittite but with RTW so close I fear for BA-TW ... at least in MTW engine.
    I wouldn't worry about RTW.

    MTW-VI is a competely separate game and time period. So this game and its mods will be played for a long time to come.

    Plus, not everyone will be upgrading their computers just to play RTW.

    Just look at all the great games (and their mods) of the past that are STILL being played: AoE, AoK, Close Combat, Panzer General 2, EU2, Civ 2, etc. . .

    Keep up the great work

  29. #89

    Default Re: HTW Project 2:Bronze Age Total War

    "All Barbarian, Greek, Egyptian and Nubian units till high period are in for testing perposes with the exeption of the Mirmidons."

    Kom', which unit exactly is our Myrmidon one?

  30. #90

    Default Re: HTW Project 2:Bronze Age Total War

    I really looking forward to Ba-TW . but i dont know what civs are gonna be on them? and is it gonna be a bigger map? and what are some units are there gonna be? i wanna know because rtw is way to expense i would have to compleatly buy a new computer and vidoe cards for it thats cost around $800-$1000 that just too much.

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO