Preview October 22nd 2005

[Csatadi]

SKel:
I will first try to get all the unit's done and playable, then maybe look in to this later.

You have right.
I think the mod should be playable at least as a beta. Even if you use bad skins because we can test the AI behavior and the problems early. This way the skinning and the writing-calculating processes can go in parallel.
Than you can add the correct and refined skins to the game with patches. IMO

if they didn't belive in going to combat with any armour, why then bring a shield?

I think their naked fight has cultic origin.
I like the idea of evolution. In the eary times there were berserkers with a single weapon and others also weared shields. Their first battle showed the evolutionary advantage of using shields. The single weapon-type berserkers had no chance making children and transmite their blindfold behaviour.

Althrough I understand your situation I was also in big trouble to find out what the old Magyar warriors should wear.

[Ranika]

A shield isn't just for defense like armor, it can also be used as a weapon. You can effectively bash some one down for a killing blow with a shield, and some cultures who used lighter shields or shields strapped to the fore arm would give them a spike on the boss to stab with. Also, berserkers aren't necessarily trying to just show their bravery, they can also be opting for mobility. In that sense, a light round shield doesn't really staunch mobility, and provides some protection in addition to being useful as a bashing side weapon.

[Archbaker]

hi,
great work, guys!
one detail.... : milites pedites means "soldier infantry", it's a pleonasm, as peditis,-is means infantryman and militis,-is does not mean militia, but simply soldier. at least thats what we have learned in school ;)
cheers

But a soldier and a militiaman [edit: I meant infantryman]is not always the same; cavalry are soldiers too. A milites is someone who marches in a contingent, but a pedites is someone who travels by foot.

I don't know Latin grammar well enough to say if the use of one noun as an apellative to another is correct, but Caesar seems to think so:
"Postridie eius diei mane tripertito milites equitesque in expeditionem misit, ut eos qui fugerant persequerentur."
http://www.debellogallico.org/index.cgi/bgtext/vol5_10

You are right, of course, in saying that the words equites and pedites on their own would be enough, but then equites would suggest members of the Ordo Equestri, merchants or knights rather than cavalrymen.

A shield isn't just for defense like armor, it can also be used as a weapon. You can effectively bash some one down for a killing blow with a shield, and some cultures who used lighter shields or shields strapped to the fore arm would give them a spike on the boss to stab with. Also, berserkers aren't necessarily trying to just show their bravery, they can also be opting for mobility. In that sense, a light round shield doesn't really staunch mobility, and provides some protection in addition to being useful as a bashing side weapon.

What Ranika said. To the extend of my knowledge, the medieval arming sword was simply not made to be used without a shield. Of course that doesn't mean that some didn't do so, but it looks a little weird to me. I do realise we are discussing a unit that is on the edge of the realm of strict realism already, though.
I don't think they would carry a "light round shield", actually. The viking shield was generally fairly large and held in the hand rather than strapped to the arm. I imagine it was used very offensively, but Tutankamon probably knows more about that.