Tech trees

[GoreBag]

Just a question...

Is it possible to add the "academy" series of effects to other buildings? If so, perhaps largely upgraded temple buildings should have them.

[Rodion Romanovich]

@NeonGod: Yeah, that's a good idea. I haven't looked into it but it might be possible. Would add an interesting touch.

[Incongruous]

I just had to post this little fact, sorry if its tye wrong thread.
Did you know that Anglo-Saxon/Englisc swords were better than thos of the Samurai, no shit. They could cleave a man in two with one stroke. So you might want to give the more expensive swordsmen really awsome attack.

[Jarlabanke]

What exactly do you mean by "better"? As I've understood it the general consensus is that most swords were pretty much ideal for their specific purpouse, of course taking in to account the methods and material available to the smiths. So saying that this or that sword is outright better than the other just simply doesn't make sense.
As for cleaving a man, do you mean head to toe
or just right across the waist?
No doubt though the swords of this period was indeed very good workmanship as many smiths used so called pattern welding, a system similar to that used by the Japanese, which was later abandoned as getting the right type of steel was made easier by new inventions.
Further more the same type of swords were used pretty much all over northen europe, France and the british isles with the french being generally regarded as the best smiths.
Swords were however not really as unusual as people often make them out to be, with several thousands of finds in Scandinavia alone, and that taking into account that that we've thousands of unexcavated graves (though admittedly most probably belonging to farmers) and that the most common burial practice before the arival of christendom was inhumation.
I'd say one should be careful to give the sword to much damage in relation to other weapons especially the two handed dane axe, swordstroops should probably just have faster attack or better defence values than higher damage. Or if given higher damage, should lack the same anti armour capabilities as axes.

[Incongruous]

Ok, this was on a channel four programme call "Dark ages:Barbarians". On it they had a group of sword experts who clearly stated that Anglo-Saxon swords were far more superior to those of any other nation/pepole including the japanese i.e the Japanese method os sword making was inferior to that of the Anglo-Saxons, the Anglo-Saxon swords were the sharpest and strongest around.
Yes, they all said that the sword could cut a man down the middle.
If you don't beleive me you can get the programme out, its really really good.

[ScionTheWorm]

Kingdom of Englisc will have some badass elite units...

I'm by the way doing progress in the unit modelling/skinning. 10 irish/scots almostdone. just to inform I guess I won't post them until the two factions are done though, maybe some teasers...

[Jarlabanke]

Did they mean superior at the time or through all time, as in Anglo-Saxon sword being superior to a 17th century Katana or just the ones made around AD 1000?
I must say I would be intrested in seeing the program as all temporary sources I've ever read praise the French swordsmiths as the best. I must say I'm curious
as to how you know how sharp a 1000 year old sword was when it was made, though I must say I've read about viking swords cutting paper to this day.

[King Ragnar]

Kingdom of Englisc will have some badass elite units...

I'm by the way doing progress in the unit modelling/skinning. 10 irish/scots almostdone. just to inform I guess I won't post them until the two factions are done though, maybe some teasers...

Teasers!!!! please

[Incongruous]

Yeah, please post some teasers.

[Incongruous]

I have been thinking about this for ages. You know the Englisc knights, I reckon that due to Englands complete isolation from the contonetal feudal system they could have their own unique look, perhaps much like the Rohirim from LOTR, thats actually what tolkien thought Englisc knights would have looked like if william was defeated.

[skeletor]

i'm not really sure but that's probably true, but the Rohirim, and most of Rohan's soldiers is on the movies very vikinginspierd. I thought of having that style on the early Englisc, and maybe the welsh, along with the viking's raiders. And give the British ones more Frankish/Norman style knights for the later unit's.

The faudal system spread all across Europe, and i guess at one pint or an other, the brit's would have adopted it too anyway. It reached norway and sweeden eaven tho they allso were pretty isolated by sea. I think the adoption of these political systems has alot to do with the relations betwen kings and nobles all over Europe. It was infact normal for noble sons and princes to be raised by other kings/nobles. And it was a way to determin witch king was the most powerfull (The lesser king wold rais the child of mightyest one)

-Skel-

[Incongruous]

I doubt that the Englisc kings would have adopted the feudal system, Englands system was the best around and the richest, infact maybe they would have not even introduced knighthood as they already had the equivelant in Thegns.

[ScionTheWorm]

englisc

[Incongruous]

Reply to Jarl.

No I believe that after the conquest AND "THE NORTHERN HOLOCAUST" the type of pattern welding that had made Englisc swords so deadly went out of use.

[Ranika]

I doubt that the Englisc kings would have adopted the feudal system, Englands system was the best around and the richest, infact maybe they would have not even introduced knighthood as they already had the equivelant in Thegns.

This is a very simplifying comment. England was a relatively poor, unknown place for a very long time (people knew it was there, but simply didn't care about it; it was a poor, rather useless place). The introduction of the feudal system improved their national taxation greatly (as the similar system employed by Saxons was rather ineffective at tax collection), and allowed the Norman lords to exploit the natural resources of England effectively. The Saxon system was inefficient in managing resources; many of the pre-Saxon Roman and Celtic-Briton mines fell into disuse, quarries were abandonned, etc., and they didn't have much of a solution for dealing with the problem. Calling that system the 'best around' is inaccurate, to put it lightly; it was a good militarist system that allowed one to assemble a large army, but was ineffective at harnessing what was present, and made forming a cohesive force difficult. The feudal method had the advantage of superior resource management, though, it had a slightly inverted militarist effect; assembling an army was hard because vassals had the ability to persue their own interests, though it also introduced a more professional army (in England, anyway) as feudal lords often afforded their soldiers better equipment (though it wasn't always the case, and levies were still used, but substantially less). All of the political systems in the islands and in northwest Europe had merits, but they all had problems; the Saxon system relied substantially on looting for a very long time; they had begun their incursions in Britain by raiding surrounding territories, and hadn't really outgrown the necessity to accomodate an amount of their wealth through terrorizing neighbors (though the Normans did much of the same thing, even to allies, but their government could fund itself easily without raiding).

As for knighthoods, that's a rather broad comment; every developed nation had an equivalent, even if they weren't feudalists. Gaels (who had a kind of representative government with a militarist-monarchy, and found feudalism to be an abhorrent concept) had Ridire/Rittire, the Welsh (with a type of elective monarchy) had Teulu, who filled the exact same role as a Thegn or a knight; it was simply a necessity of the period. One needed a military elite to successfully engage any war. Few actually had to 'introduce' knighthood; an example would be lowland Scotland. When they adopted Norman feudalism, the lesser chiefs and their retainers (the ridire) became knights. 'Adopting' knights as a military unit was never really much of an issue.

[Incongruous]

When William became the first Norman king of England he inherited the most sophisticated, richest and the best political system in Europe. If England was a nothing place then why bother conquering it. The fact is that England was known, rich and politicaly sound (this is by the time of Alfred the Great's final years).

As for the knight thing I was just questioning the name of Englisc knight and pointing out that instead of using the name knight, why not just use the Englisc equivilent of Thegn.

[Ranika]

I didn't say it was politically unsound. It was, however, a nothing-place. It was conquered for natural resources and a large populace; the natural resources made the island rich, but the Saxons were hardly using them to the extent the Normans did, and William didn't 'inherit' a political system, he installed Norman lords in the Norman feudal method. There's a difference between the region being rich and the owners being capable enough to utilize said wealth.

And England was a minor (at best) kingdom for centuries; they didn't become respected in any major sense until the late middle ages. They were pushed around by numerous major powers, and even minor powers, and only gained much respect through the Crusades, and even then they were generally ignored for a long time. Because of the outcome of history, and the natural wealth of Britain, one may overblow just how powerful the Saxon-English were; they were secondary though, minor, and because they were essentially raiders. Even after being essentially unified, they acted autonomously in numerous respects. Welsh documents point to alliances being formed with Saxon aristocracy, against other Saxons; that's not a sign of a stable system. Alfred the Great largely maintained Saxon unity by brute force, not political cohesion; he was a powerful leader, and good at organizing what he had. Enough to keep weaker leaders in line. However, to compare that to Normans, who had a very streamlined system, with very definite power balances, is a far cry. The Norman feudal system encouraged substantially more loyalty, and allowed one to keep the nobility loyal, and control a wide area easily.

[Incongruous]

I still stand by what I said, England was a rich kingdom. What countries pushed England around.

Back on topic, Englisc knights should not be used, but instead something like Thegns should, plus they should look different.

[Ranika]

Rich in what context? They controlled a comparatively large amount of land; they would have money solely based on the size of the population and taxation. However, smaller kingdoms were producing as much wealth with fewer people, and had more developed lands. The Normans (for example) were producing far more, despite having a smaller territory (and generally less rich).

And they were pushed around, depending on era, by the Welsh (their deals with Mercia generally reamed Mercia), by the Picts (smashed the Angles up badly, and forced them to relinquish much of northern Northumbria, which almost immediately fell under Scottish control), and by the Scots (similar early circumstances, as well as Robert the Bruce's royal screwjob on Edward the II and III), and Danes (the Danelaw).

The Saxons were poor, considering the size of their population and holdings; they might have had more money than X kingdom, but they should have had MORE, and would have had with better management. It was such a problem that Alfred the Great resorted to burhs to defend his land; why would he do that if he had the money for a proper defense? He lacked the money to defend everything he had with a real military, and had to resort to using peasant-built and maintained burhs to do so. He couldn't even afford to pay those who built the burhs. Instead, he had to guarantee them plots in the burhs. If he had properly been exploiting the resources England provided (as the Normans did), he could've had proper forts instead; the Normans clearly did better with the land developmentally than the Saxons had.

Isn't to say Alfred was a bad king (clearly, he wasn't), but the Saxon governmental model ensures much of what went wrong economically, really wasn't his fault. So many mines and quarries were unused because of local powers that just didn't see it necessary; they were happy just getting by, and paying their tributes, and offering soldiers. In fact, utilizing their full local resources would probably attract unwanted attention in additional tributes being required, or invaders. Alfred couldn't be held to concern that a tin mine isn't being utilized; the Saxon model doesn't tend to address those things, and leaves more freedom of those decisions in local hands. The Norman model allows one to essentially force their lords to develop everything they can, and pay a larger scutage, increasing the royal treasury substantially more than one could get on the looser Saxon model.

[ScionTheWorm]

they were pushed around alot. Which country would you compare their wealth with?

[Ranika]

It's difficult to find a proper comparison, because we rarely have very many good records in terms of accounting from the period, so largely we need to go on what exactly they were capable of. In this case, defenses; Alfred was so strained that the only thing he could do to secure his borders was give peasants land in exchange for them building burhs. That's a bad fiscal state. A smaller country can have a better fiscal state and essentially be 'rich', even if they're making less money than a larger kingdom.

[skeletor]

I agree with you on the name part Bopa, since we are using lokal names on most of the unit's, this should allso be done for the "knights".

As Ranika wrote, the Scot's called them ridire.

In Scandinavian languages, they are called ridder (i think thats why their refered to as viking raider in English) or knekt (but that name is probably adopted from the word knight)

In germany: Ritter

As Bopa wrote the English factions called them Theng.

In france, they were called chevalier. (Thus this word is not recorded until the 1400's)

Byt then we don't get the chivaleric knight. I might be way off here, but i think the name chivaleric knight is produced by games. I have no idea what the HRE,

But imo, we should use the native names as mutch as possible, so:

Danes: ridder (the other factions didn't use shock cavalery until 1200's)

Scots: Ridire

English factions: Theng

Frankish: chevalier

HRE: ritter

This is a sol,ution, or simply call them all knight's.

-Skel-

[Ranika]

The Scottish and Irish Ridire would need a different model anyway, so I don't see why giving them the appropriate name would be a problem. There are tons of unit spaces too (500), so you can always use some of those spaces as additional entries for the appropriate titles of the different units, and vary their stats; I'm sure a lot need different models anyway (as elites rarely looked the same, since they were the height of varied military cultural traditions), so may as well use the proper names.

[ScionTheWorm]

I don't think model space will be an issue. who knows, maybe BI will increase number of models? Anyway, with vikings and gaels sharing lots of units, I doubt it will be a problem. One thing to remember is that a faction with a lots of horses needs different models for each horse. Off topic here though. When looking beyond the maximum number of models, the problem disappears totally with 500 max.

I vote native names. By the way, the native name for swedish nobles is actually "skinkerytter"

[Ranika]

There are 255 models, and 500 unit spaces; it's important to note that siege engines do not count against the 255 model count. With so many shared models (such as the Irish and Scots sharing nearly everything) there should be plenty of models to do unique 'knights', and more than enough unit spaces to have varying entries for different names.

[skeletor]

I vote native names. By the way, the native name for swedish nobles is actually "skinkerytter"

Ditto, and how could i forget about the skinkerytter's, their just as legendary as the berzerk's and the jomsvikings.

Can you add them to the techthree?

-Skel-

[ScionTheWorm]

Skinkerytter (Swedish heavy cavalry with tall iron helmets, clubs, and their special shaped shields called skinkeskjold)
Description - Swedish skinkerytters are some of the most feared warriors of scandinavia - they are true knights of the norse world. Armed to the teeth and with their fancy banner with all the colors of the rainbow, they rout hundreds just by turning up for the battle.

legio will add this to the tech tree when he comes back.

[skeletor]

I allso read somewere that they were masters in using leatherwhips in battle, and allso used black leather masks as cover for their faces.

I'm soooo looking forward to model these guys.

[ScionTheWorm]

I think we can use the same model for the infamous danish horebukk, zor unit in southern denmark. should be unmounted though

[Incongruous]

To Ranika.
What you said about Mercia and Northumbria is fine, but uh, I'm talking about the Kingdom of the Englisc whose first king was Alfred the great, Wales would never of been able to push this kingdom around. The only people that did were the latter Vikings and that only lasted a generation. As for Englands wealth, its coffers were huge, The Englisc kingdom (thats right, not the saxon, jutish or anglian kingdoms, the Englisc kingdom) was a wealthy .

As for the names its Thegn not Theng, haha, man that sounds funny, Theng, Thang, Thing.