Kievan Rus' Khaganate? I do not agree.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rurik
Printable View
Kievan Rus' Khaganate? I do not agree.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rurik
Does anybody, ever read, other peoples posts- before posting their own?
Epicness! :thumbsup2
My friend there is nothing to forgive. In fact we want critisism inorder to improve our selves ,always in a "civilised" way afcourse.:thumbsup2
You have to ask Koultouras about druzhina as its his favotite creation.
Plus he modified Strelac's double weapon animations (i must add Strelac in credits list).
These warriors (like Norman king'smen and Varangian guards) start as swordmen. But player can chose if he/she likes them to fight as douple axemen or swordmen. Against weaker units douple axes are realy a leathal tool but against realy heavy units and against cavalry the combination of sword and shield is very helpful.
In any time with ctrl+attack ,players will be able to have one weapon or an other. Those units under AI use both combinations.
I have to admit the Koultouras version is much more stable than Strelac's because tests shown us that unless player wont change his mind
the troops wont change the way the fight.
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/attac...5&d=1297514325
Please read Constantius' post ...
Obviusly not but this is a common practice.:)
Nationalists can be ultra ghey >___>
Nice faction though mmmm
speaking as someone that is currently in an Early Russian History course, i can attest that EVERYTHING here is as I have learned it at least:thumbsup2 I am not sure about the accuracy of the term Khaganate, I am not even familiar with it at all, but everything else is spot on, just as in the other previews. Basically I am saying that these guys seem dead on accurate based on my education in my own pursuit of a history degree.:whistling
Now for my reaction to the preview: AWESOME!
one question: will the Rus then have the ability to convert to Orthodoxy? Or perhaps even to convert to a different faith? or will you be stuck as a pagan?
Rus will be converted to Orthodoxy.
An event will change their religion.
Some "angry" rebels -presenting the throne rivals-will spawn against the Ruler.
That way we can both show what happened and stay -as possible- in the real history. Choosing an other faith would not be in the mod's objectives that are to "demostrate" the real history and let players learn by playing.
The "what if" in that case can be the choice of the "Rus" player not to engage in a war with pechenegs or with Bulgarians (a mission will come for that with a huge reward).
Missions will allow players to deside their game's path.
Example:
My lord our warriors are tiered to wait and seak for new loots and trade roads to discover. Rumors tell that in the south rich lands that owned by Romans wait to be looted. Do you wish to start a raiding campaign against those lands?
Yes
No
If the player will press Yes he will engage with a war gainst Romans.
If he will chose No all his generals will lose loyalty and the ruler will loose authority with the danger of an unrest!
You guys are somewhat fast with your previews. Great work and I love the units. Just sad that some people have a lack of manners and a rude way to comment things when the disagree with some stuff. But we all should thank the team for the huge amount of work they put in to create this MOD (not a history book which claims to be perfect) So keep it up guys, you are doing a hell of a great job!!!!:thumbsup2
http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=e...GANATE&f=false
and
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=3...GANATE&f=false
I don't yet own the books, but you can read a certain percentage here. These won't of course lay the debate to sleep, but do add to the discussion , which is what every good historical debate needs
Not at all, put the other one in there too. Glad to be of help
Great preview TGC, lovely units. Regarding the little conflict with the Rus, if your sources said this faction is named like that, then I believe it must be true, Wiki is a good reference but we can't simply use that source obviously, you had many others. it's impossible to be 100% however as long the current sources said the case, well I do not complain at all.:)
I think I would personally prefer a choice between religions, because having an event that changes them at a certain date really constricts the player and kind of cramps the feel of a mod. Vladimir might not have converted if he wasn't pressured at home by rivals to the throne and had such a great opportunity. Also it would be great if the mod could represent religion through traits, building a certain type of "temple" or church would increase the chance of being of that religion. Of course then you could have converts and such, which would really deepen gameplay a lot plus give a lot of depth to each general rather than assuming that every single person in a kingdom would be of one religion.
oh? remember that we have set-up religions as an extension of a factions cultural/political sphere, much like the Britannia expansion campaign. there are no Orthodox religion as such - there is a Roman "religionculture".
- Eastern Roman (for Romans, Roman Rebels)
- Romanesque (for Normans, Lombards, and the Papacy)
- Sunni (for Tulunids, Aghlabids, Chandax)
- Shia (for Fatimids)
- Steppe (Pecheneg and Turcoman,Magyars)
- Viking (Kievan Rus)
- Slavonic Balkan (Slavic+Eastern Roman) for Bulgaria, Bulgarian Rebels, Serbia and Croatia).
- Central european/slavonic (for East Franks, HRE, Great Moravia)
- Rebels (for Rebels)
Corect there are NO Orthodoxy and Roman Catholic dogmas in that time yet.
Those dogmas will actually start after 1054.
Christianity simply used to mark zones of influence in Europe!:yes:
I think that It will be totally oposite :hmm:- sword and shield combination against poorly armoured units, swords were totally ineffective against fully armoured men (swordsmen could aim unprotected parts but early medieval swords were rather slash types). Of course most of warriors were poorly protected and against them sword was very effective.
Sword and shield against missiles.
Dane axes against better protected enemies, able to crush shield, slice chainmail/helmet or at least break bones beneath them.
Dane axes against horses-I think that It was easier to kill horse with them than with sword (especially ''slash'' types). Look at Bayeux Tapestry-most of houscarls use 2 handed axe against cavalry, despite the fact that all have also swords. Longer weapon also increase safety of user.
I think there must be an element of phychological tactics also, just image the sight of a group of large Norseman/Anglosaxons shouting abuse at you, holding massive axes. Not something many men would want to stand up to
The word "shouting" reminds me the RTW with the "shouts" abillity .
I wonder if they are still fanctional in M2TW engine. It would be useful with units that wont use shieldwall like "bodyguards".:)
Do you mean ''druid'' ability, ritual chant? It works in MTW II, I've try it (also some American Natives in MTW II Kingdoms use It)
About psychological effect-in battle of Dyrrachium Varangians with dane axes frightened Norman horses, knights fled.
So maybe frighten_foot and frighten_mounted abilities for 2 handed axemen?
Koultouras has created a rather unique unit ballance!
Spearmen for example have extra bonuses (from 2-5 according to each unit's status and faction) against any kind of cavalry!
If these two sugestions realy work they would be some realy good additions to EDU ballancing!:thumbsup2