Page 10 of 62 FirstFirst 12345678910111213141516171819203560 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 200 of 1239

Thread: - Discuss IBFD Here -

  1. #181

    Default Re: == IBFD 7.0+ Discussion ==

    but gents!
    All of the units are wrong according wikipedia

    ...scolot said, so it should be correct...
    again for scolot: Thats what Pompeius means is that everybody can write a wikipedia article. You should look in the "discussions"-menue on wikipedia homepage. Esp. in the historical corner there are a lot of discussions. From this side I have to agree to Pompeius. I can remember some years ago in wikipedia there were so much mistakes there according the rebublican roman army and other things. Even for me wikipedia is a interesting source to get a general overview, but for deeper information you should refer some better sources. And Pompeius gave a lot of sources in his roman-army-thread. So he doesn't need do do the same again here for a newbie (small potato) like you and me.
    But I can give you one of my sources:
    http://www.amazon.de/gp/product/1855...546151-1763437


    Your ignorance regarding to the hard work of the last years is terrifying.

    I really have to recommend not to weight to much his false-evidences.
    I also suggest not to cater to much on scolot. He is only provocing and enjoys the reaction of the modders and of the good Pompeius.

    I mean you find very few good armoured noble men on germanic side in IBFD. Most germanic warriors a light equipped. Even on Saxon side. So scolots arguments are wrong. The player should decide by himself to recruit and deploy heavy units or not. The germans had the technological pre-conditions to do, but in real life the soldiers had to pay for their own equippment, that is the reason why most of them went light equippt to battle.
    All germanic tribes had in the late 5th century well equipped noble soldiers. And Pompeius said it clearly: The goths raised heavy cavalry in the battle of adrianople. That was 378AD. The mod IBFD plays more than 30 years later. Due to the exchange of goods and the trade, also due to the military service of so many germans in the roman army some germans tribes became more and more civilized.
    The later Ostrogothi kingdom in Italy or the new ambitious kingdom of the francs are good examples.

    Ah, I nearly forgott... A very good text Rio, thank you! I also play the "Arthorian"-mod sometimes. So it was a very interesting for me.
    Last edited by Coni; October 27, 2007 at 09:16 PM.

  2. #182

    Default Re: == IBFD 7.0+ Discussion ==

    Riothamus
    If you can point out some specific unit that you think needs altering the IB team is not above in talking a look at your opinions.
    Thanks.
    I have some ideas. When I wrote this message, I was going to present reconstruction (with detailed comments) of East Slavs noble warrior of 7th century. Reconstruction is made on the basis of last researches in this area by Belarusian researches. But the site (where reconstruction is placed) have suddenly begun unloadable . If you turn out, you can see it here http://gridni.historicus.info/ru/lib...rmours_VII-X/8.
    As soon as the reconstruction's site will alive, I'll necessarily state more in detail my ideas.

    n regards to the Saxon Cavalry the horse was treasured and its rider would have been armed like an infantry nobleman: chainmail armor and helmets armed with a sword or axe.
    Some info from this site:
    http://www.freewebs.com/merseybooks/...%20Cavalry.pdf
    Thanks. I have some remarks/comments. I shall state them later.

    And, Riothamus, my sincere apologizes, if my words (when I have told "unhistorical") were really ignorant ((c) Coni). I didn't wish to put someone the insult at all. Perhaps, the reason is my bad English: I've chosen a "wrong" word for my thoughts description...

  3. #183
    Pompeius Magnus's Avatar primus inter pares
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Frankfurt Main/Germany
    Posts
    5,364

    Default Re: == IBFD 7.0+ Discussion ==

    The next schematic is about the political system in Constantinople. Of course it was more complicated, but I think for understanding a little bit the system of the time it should be okay.
    Planed is also a schematic of Rome. In opposite to Constantinople we'll see that in Rome weren't any soldiers or Militias. Also very interesting I think.

  4. #184

    Default Re: == IBFD 7.0+ Discussion ==

    Quote Originally Posted by Coni View Post

    Ah, I nearly forgott... A very good text Rio, thank you! I also play the "Arthorian"-mod sometimes. So it was a very interesting for me.
    Thanks Coni

    Quote Originally Posted by Scolot View Post

    And, Riothamus, my sincere apologizes, if my words (when I have told "unhistorical") were really ignorant ((c) Coni). I didn't wish to put someone the insult at all. Perhaps, the reason is my bad English: I've chosen a "wrong" word for my thoughts description...
    No need to apologize.
    Last edited by Riothamus; October 28, 2007 at 06:42 PM.

    Under the esteemed patronage of Ramon Gonzales y Garcia IB and IB2 Mod

  5. #185
    Ramon Gonzales y Garcia's Avatar Nobleza y Valor
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    New York (Long Island)
    Posts
    1,743

    Default Re: == IBFD 7.0+ Discussion ==

    And in this mod Slavs are historical for 4-th century period, but German tribes (especially saxons and its knights!) are historical for the beginning of 7-th century period. And I have knowingly asked about a conceptual line of unit creation in this mod. Why such injustice concerning Slavs? Make'em for beginning 7th century too!
    the question of giving the Slavs armored units is an old one. Our previous contributor on the Slavs was very adamant about not giving them any armored units.

    from Oct 2006 (1 year ago!!! )
    thinking about the Slavs and heavy infantry/cavalry again (resurrecting old topic, might make new thread for this)...
    We can think this way:
    in present timeframe (410AD) Slavs wouldn't be fighting armored nor with cavalry
    BUT after some time, due to contacts w/ other peoples, they would start fighting Armored and start fielding cavalry.
    connecting this w/ a ti meframe would be possible (RTW marian reforms, not sure if doable in BI) but a simpler idea is to use AOR.
    We could imagine that IF the Slavs expand (or horde for that matter) then they would essentiually be coming in contact w/ these other peoples from whom they would be trading (or is it looting) armors and horses...
    in game this can be represented by AOR limiting recruitment of certain units in Germanic areas (armored warriors and heavy infantry) and Sarmatia (cavalry).
    Game-wise, this would make the Slavs a very interesting faction to play, as expansion leads to more powerful units.
    It would accelarate history a bit (well u can always choose to wait until the Hun empire collapses if u play the Slavs) but would actually be more realistic if u think about 'cause/effect' rather than 'time frame'...
    the answer was

    Hm… Armored – no. With cavalry – yes. Armor can be added with Armourer. Yes, I know, up to 2, but that’s how it worked in history. I don’t see anything bad in fact that Slavs didn’t use armor and have only light cavalry... and Serbs up to mid of XIII century fight as they ancestors – archers, javelin men, slingers, spearmen and rare cavalry (armed with bow and spear). And my ancestors survived with that type of warfare.
    I am well aware that this is just one man's opinion (or more correctly educated guess) and other people can also advance their own, often contrary opinion, but I would prefer to have a consistency in a given faction, so I prefer to follow just one man's 'vision' unless more convincing proof is advanced to the contrary.

    re: Germans
    There is a world of difference between the Slavs and the Germans who have been fighting for and against Rome for hundreds of years (sometimes forming the Emperor's bodyguard, sometimes forming the majority of the Roman Army)
    Prior to the beginning of the seventh century such regimentals like helmet, chain armor, armour, sword - is indispensable attribute of noblement of barbarous tribes...Only since the seventh century we can speak about distribution (but not universal application!) a heavy armour among ordinary soldiers...
    And I wish to tell once again. The heavy armour among ordinary soldiers starts to extend with the beginning of 7-th century. Before this period only noblement (including noble warriors) could have heavy armour. And this noblement was the minority of barbarous tribes.
    -may I return the question and ask your sources for this statement that heavy armor only being available to ordinary soldiers from 7th century, and especially Before this period only noblemen could have heavy armour
    -and could you define what an 'ordinary soldier' would mean in the context of the feudal Germans?
    Ramon Gonzales y Garcia

    INVASIO BARBARORVM II



    Proud patron of Riothamus, Pompeius Magnus and SeniorBatavianHorse
    If we had gone so far, it is because we stand on the shoulders of giants

  6. #186

    Default Re: == IBFD 7.0+ Discussion ==

    Hi everybody! Let’s start!

    Riothamus
    In regards to the Saxon Cavalry the horse was treasured and its rider would have been armed like an infantry nobleman: chainmail armor and helmets armed with a sword or axe. Some info from this site:
    http://www.freewebs.com/merseybooks/...%20Cavalry.pdf
    Ok. A few comments.
    The famous sixth and seventh century Anglo-Saxon burials at Sutton Hoo have revealed horse cremations left as grave goods in Mounds 3 and 4, a horse harness in Mound 17, a horse inhumation associated to Burial 10. Warrior burials at Lakenheath in Suffolk, excavated in 1997 and 1999, were also accompanied by horses. An earlier discovery at Mildenhall, near Lakenheath in Suffolk, of an inhumation burial accompanied by a sword placed between two horses. These burials show that the horse was considered a prestige possession in Anglo-Saxon warrior society at that time – and given the usual military goods accompanying such burial, it is more than possible that the accompanying horses were part of this ethic too.
    Burial places with a horse, accompanied soldier in a next world, is not an argument at the proof of presence fighting cavalry. Burial places with a horse are known from the beginning of AD among the balts and finno-ugrish peoples. But nobody proves a presence in the ranks of Finns and balts military cavalry on the basis of this fact. Burial with a horse ia an usual funeral tradition of many indoeuropean peoples, therefore it is impossible to judge the presence of a cavalry on the presence of burial places with a horse.

    The seventh century Sutton Hoo helmet has a decorative plate showing a bareheaded cavalryman riding down a footman. The horseman carries a spear and small shield, and does not use stirrups. Also, a helmet plate from Mound 1 at Vendel shows a helmeted, eagle-crested warrior riding a horse armed with a spear and shield. These two contemporary pieces of artwork suggest that the Anglo-Saxons and their Swedish kinsmen were familiar with fighting mounted.
    But it is impossible to exclude a variant, that on this helmet is an image of any events from the Scandinavian epos.

    Carvings also lend support to the existence of a cavalry arm in Anglo-Saxon armies. The seldom-referenced Repton cross – believed to depict the Mercian king Aethelbald (d757) – shows a moustached warrior, equipped with a sword, shield and perhaps scale or chainmail armour. The better known, but often misunderstood, Aberlemno churchyard stone almost certainly depicts Anglo-Saxon cavalrymen too. Thought to be a commemoration of the Pictish victory over the Northumbrians at the Battle of Dunnichen (685), representation of helmeted and shielded horsemen should be considered to depict the Northumbrian king and, by association, his personal warband. A broad interpretation of the battle scenes shows the rout of the Northumbrians by lighter-armed Pictish cavalrymen after a failed attack on an unmounted Pictish shieldwall. This outcome reversed the earlier Battle of Degastan, where the Northumbrian Ecgfrith’s cavalry overcame Pictish opposition, where it was recorded that the Northumbrians filled two rivers with the corpses of Pictish dead.
    To tell the truth, I have not understood, what is the dating of these historical monuments. If these monuments are the contemporaries of this events, then it is really good argument. If they are not, we cannot consider them as authentic evidences.

    Should we believe that these quite specific descriptions were relevant only to the enemies of the Anglo-Saxons, or to their own troops too?
    I think, if this sculptures were made by anglo-saxones, they really had such kind of troops. Who made this sculptures?

    Aside from the pictorial and burial evidence, we should not forget that the language of the Anglo-Saxons included the following words:
    Ridda – rider
    Ridehere – mounted raiding force
    Ridwiga – one who fights on horseback
    Eored – mounted troop

    It is really powerful argument. But it is impossible to forget, that anglo-saxones could name these words some kinds of the enemies armed groups...

    Two names linked to the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons in Britain, whether real of legendary, are the Germanic warlords Hengist and Horsa. Hengist translates as ‘stallion’ and Horsa translates as ‘horse’.
    No. It is not so simply. It needs very serious etimology analysis. Maybe they are right, but we don’t see any analysis or any reference to it... Is any etimology analysis of it?

    If you can point out some specific unit that you think needs altering the IB team is not above in talking a look at your opinions.
    Ok. Let me start about slavs.
    If you use in your mod saxone units, reconstructed according to pictures in this book
    http://www.amazon.de/Arthur-Anglo-Sa...268104-4318163

    you would notice that well armed anglo-saxon troops (just like on the pic) are not ealier than 7th-century.
    So, make in mod well armoured slav unit like this:

    It’s a slav noble warrior of 7-th century too. Reconstruction according to archeologic and burial material from ancient settlement Hotomel (in Belarus). Armoury - a lamellar armour of the central-Asian type up to the middle of hips and hands, a spear, a bow, a sword (or a sabre of avarian type). Any comments on your wishes.

    Another ideas ‘bout armoury of slav warrior in that period are coming soon...

    Ramon Gonzales y Garcia
    There is a world of difference between the Slavs and the Germans
    Yes, I agree with you. But what differs did you mean? Character of resettlement? Yes, in this case I agree. Or you meant something another?
    who have been fighting for and against Rome for hundreds of years (sometimes forming the Emperor's bodyguard, sometimes forming the majority of the Roman Army)
    Also what from that? Slavs (especially east part) during the centuries closely cooperated with steppe people (sarmats, huns, avars etc.). It is known, that among huns military groups there were Slavs. By the way, as the first teachers of German military art were certainly acted the celts which Romans borrowed a chain armour and a helmet. One more example. What ‘bout celts of northern region of Britain island? They have been fighting for and against Rome for hundreds of years too. Can you tell they have the same level of warcraft as germans?
    -may I return the question and ask your sources for this statement that heavy armor only being available to ordinary soldiers from 7th century, and especially Before this period only noblemen could have heavy armour
    Ok. Some citations
    Roman soldiers were also better equipped than barbarians. Although there was little difference in the quality of ironwork, the difference in quantity was telling. Rome, with the resources of a vast empire and dozens of arms factories, fitted out its soldiers with not only spears, swords, and shields but also heavy defensive armor. And the Roman army had whole units trained to fight as archers. By contrast, barbarian armies rarely used the bow, body armor seems to have been worn only by the very wealthiest, and even swords were rare.
    http://www.historynet.com/historical...tml?page=3&c=y
    It is last quarter of 4-th century.
    What was later?

    The Harper Encyclopedia of Military History (from 3500 bc to 1000 ad) by Dupuy&Dupuy. Sorry, but I have only russian edition of its book, so I quote with my translating from russian to english. (Therefore in advance I apologize for bad translation. )

    About saxones in Britain in 7th-8th centuries :
    Anywhere in the Western world military art did not fall up to such degree, as in Britain this period. Last rests military systems have failed under a pressure of unsociableness. By virtue of absence of direct participation in affairs of continent, Anglo-Saxon methods of conducting war since times Hengist and Horsa noticeably regressed. Such concepts as strategy and discipline, have completely disappeared from military use; all tactics was reduced to dishonourable forming the contradictory parties into the parallel fighting lines converged in stupid wanton slaughter until one the parties will not leave. As strengthenings rough similarity of palisades served, and the arms was insufficient and poor.

    About frank military organization in 6th-8th centuries:
    Frank soldier should get the weapon at own expense.... Except for franciska and a sword franks on arms had a short spear (angon) with hooks on a long and sharp tip..... Some franks had knifes and bows; arrows sometimes impregnated with poison. The shield of the round or oval form was unique protective arms. Only rich soldiers had helmets and chain armours.

    I can look for another sources (describing the same picture), but I shall stop on the description of the reason why good armoury was the privilege of rich estate. One more citation from Harper encyclopedia (with my translation too ). Describing Charles Martella's army the footnote in which is resulted is told:
    Stefan Luebeck writes, that Charles Martell "has mobilized all forces of the country for creation "the present cavalry which by then became solving force of military campaigns "
    ...
    The real opportunity of maintenance by all necessary mounted warriors from among vassals has been created. The ripuar (or rhine) franks law of king Dagobert (605-639 ad) times estimated equipment of such swarriors in 40 su, that was equaled costs of 18-20 cows.
    ....
    Such of equipment consisted of a saddle with aimings, which the avars delivered to the median Europe, and also an armour and ciurass..... Before occurrence of the present knights the cavalry promoted mobility of army...

    Note, it is the first half of 7-th century and no real knights. Only nobles and king environment were able to buy such kind of armoury at this period. The price (about 20 cows) of it was too high for ordinary warriors. What do you think? And such situation was not only among franks.

    -and could you define what an 'ordinary soldier' would mean in the context of the feudal Germans?
    Ordinary warrior – is not professional warrior, but he is the representative of a home guard. The soldier who has allocated in fight could will receive in the award from king some money for purchase of good arms, or such arms. But such lucky beggars were very little in comparison with those who presumed to itself good arms.
    And one question. Are you sure we can speak ‘bout «feudal Germans» in time frame presented in mod? I think no. Such concept can be applied for later epoch.
    Last edited by Scolot; October 31, 2007 at 04:02 PM.

  7. #187
    Pompeius Magnus's Avatar primus inter pares
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Frankfurt Main/Germany
    Posts
    5,364

    Default Re: == IBFD 7.0+ Discussion ==

    a lot of bla bla bla.
    But where are the news for us?
    Paying with cows... it seems that the armour was... a lot of if if if's ... but no evidence. Your so called sources are from some authors who wrote about the early 4th century and the 7th and 8th century. Nonsens for our mod.
    By the way (you can't know that, that's the reason why I tell you that now): The word ridda is in the german translation Reiter (rider) as well as Ritter (knight). It is not clear what exacly. But as I said, you can't know that. But that's the reason why you have the Pompeius Magnus in the thread.
    So it seems that the word Ritter was perhaps an important word in earlier times, even for the Saxons.

    Interesting is the point about the military culture of sarmatians, avars and huns in the roman army. Partially you are right, but these periods had no political consequence and are unimportant for the empire in general.

    What do you think about Alaric and Ricimer or Stilicho (or 10 others?) .
    The german soldiers likewise their generals were more embadded in the roman army than any other nation. In the west as well as in the east. We find german soldiers even in Aeqypt. (I know we find also sarmatians in Britain)

    You don't brought us any evidence that the german soldiers were not able to wear or to buy professional armour. The example with the cows is only a local issue and should not be used for the complete germanic world. It seems more like a joke of you. I know you have this information from one of your book, forgett it. In some german tribes they paid with real money
    The francs or the goths got a lot of their equippment due to smuggling. It was not necessary to pay the smith with cows.

    I tried to explain a lot of things in the roman army thread.

    For clearly understanding: Nobody said that the germans raised thousands of heavy armoured warriors. Even in IBFD I can't find a lot of heavy armoured units. But it should be clear that even in the late antique the germans had always a core of noble or brave warriors who wear heavy armour. And this core, and that's for sure, became bigger and bigger in the 5th century. Some german tribes provided heavy cavalry in the 4th century.

    But if I watch the saxon units (your focus of critic) in IBFD I see that 90% of the units are super-light equipped.
    Thats the reason why I am a little bit confused about that what you want here in the IBFD Thread.
    What is the purpose of your postings?

    In general you are right. I said the same like you. A german "ordinary" soldier had to pay the equippent by himself. This is of course the reason why the majority of the german armies fought light equipped. So far, so good.
    But that changed in the 5th century.
    And nobody said that medieval knights were deployed in the late antique. Even in IBFD I can't find.
    But due to the close contact to the empire as enemy and as well as foederati(much closer than any Avars and so on) the germans like franks, goths and partially Alamanii were automaticly heavier armoured.
    But again: I can't find dozens of medieval "knight-like" units in IBFD.

    And we don't need your 7th century slav models because IBFD plays in the 5th century. Even for Rio's mod too late... sorry.
    Last edited by Pompeius Magnus; November 01, 2007 at 12:53 AM.

  8. #188

    Default Re: == IBFD 7.0+ Discussion ==

    @scolot
    I pay 20 cows if your next post is shorter

    I think it is a real provocation to suggest the IBFD Team to include more 7th century units.
    There are no 7th century units in IBFD now. Only because you find some "better" equipped saxons?
    Perhaps you don't get it: IBFD starts at 410AD.

  9. #189

    Default Re: == IBFD 7.0+ Discussion ==

    Pompeius Magnus
    Paying with cows... it seems that the armour was... a lot of if if if's ... but no evidence
    And what kind of evidence I have to present you? And what evidences of
    But that changed in the 5th century
    did you present in your post? Germans in Roman army? And? Why does it automatically mean that german tribes (not as part of Roman army) were better equipped than other tribes?
    It was not necessary to pay the smith with cows.
    Yes, it wasn't necessary to pay exactly in cows. But you have not absolutely correctly understood me. I (to be exact Dupuy&Dupuy ) meant not that soldiers should pay exclusively in cows. I meant, that cost of professional armoury was equivalent to cost of 20 cows (or 40 su). And it is not important, than the soldier paid off: money, cows, slaves, other goods and etc.
    You don't brought us any evidence that the german soldiers were not able to wear or to buy professional armour.
    But I didn't try to prove it. I only told 'bout that only the minority of barbaruos tribe can buy the professional armoury.
    And we don't need your 7th century slav models because IBFD plays in the 5th century. Even for Rio's mod too late... sorry.
    Can you explain how anglo-saxon warriors of 7th century (according to this book http://www.amazon.de/Arthur-Anglo-Sa...268104-4318163) did appear in this mod?

    Coni
    I pay 20 cows if your next post is shorter
    I think it is a real provocation to suggest the IBFD Team to include more 7th century units.
    I'll pay 20 cows and one more if you don't use any form of word "provocation" in your next post...
    Last edited by Scolot; November 01, 2007 at 03:47 AM.

  10. #190
    Pompeius Magnus's Avatar primus inter pares
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Frankfurt Main/Germany
    Posts
    5,364

    Default Re: == IBFD 7.0+ Discussion ==

    Scolot, old fellow. Take it easy.
    Your problem is that you came as unknown user Jonny X and in your 1st post you wrote that all units of all factions are unhistorical. And that's not right.

    And I also have this book from Osprey in my linving room at home. I have nearly all books of osprey publishing according late antique(expensive hobby!).
    In germany we say that osprey is making "populär Historik". So, these are books are made for "all" people who want know something about "this" or "that".

    In this case I would say Osprey made great books with amazing paintings. I also take this pictures always as presentation.
    But you shouldn't rate the subtitles inside the book too much.
    The barbarians don't started to be more modern from one day to another.
    (Today I am a barbarian December 599AD, tomorrow I am knight Jan 600AD)

    This process came step by step. Slow of course. And in this case it is absolutely normal that we find even in the 5th century more and more good equipped soldiers. Most of them were noble men. But even some "regulars or ordinaries" became better equipped.

    The tribes who served longer in roman armies had an advantage compared to other tribes in the deep wood of"free-germania". And so on. I mean that should be logical.

    In general you are right. We all should pay attention not to deploy too much full stacks of super-heavy-equipped armies on german side.
    But it is also historical that some (few) detachment of the goths or francs had better equippment.

    But scolot, I don't want talk polemical or angry with you. Sorry if you had the feeling I did.
    In general I give you 100 points for your deep interests in the late antique. I like users who make deep research to improve the game.
    But please be realistic: in IBFD the most germans are super light equipped (look at the Alamanni or most saxon units). I can't see any extremly a-historic units compared to the 5th century!
    But this is your opinion.

    @Edit for scolot
    I have an offer for you: You prepare some texts and photos for the slavic, Avars or Sarmatian factions (as you like) and then you can include your researches into my roman army thread. That would be very interesting for "all" the users. I mean it is at least more interesting than coments like "everything is a-historic".
    So, you are welcome to include your researches of the 5th (I prefer 5th!!) or 7th cent. (or both) into the roman army thread.
    Last edited by Pompeius Magnus; November 01, 2007 at 07:03 AM.

  11. #191

    Default Re: == IBFD 7.0+ Discussion ==

    Pompeius Magnus
    all units of all factions are unhistorical. And that's not right.
    Yes, it's not right. But I've told a little not that . Only this:
    all barbarous factions are made unhistorical: weapons and regimentals of these fractions mismatch the period presented in mod.
    I meant only barbarian factions (except Slavs). I didn't mean that units have unhistorical appearance (clothes, regimentals etc). In this respect units are made excellent! (I've forgotten 'bout RTR and start to play IBFD, it's true ). But the time frame, I think (it's just my opinion), for units is not absolutely correct. And only this aspect I meant when I told "unhistorical".
    First of all it conserns saxones. Why Duguth have a defence=28? As I understand from description, the have no good armour... And I'm still thinking
    that such saxon units as heortgeneats, knights and gesithas are for later period, not for 4th-5th centuries.
    But I try to tell you again. Mod is ecxellent. And all I consider it is necessary to correct is:
    1) Minimize saxon units attack/defense capability
    2) Add more armoured units (infantry and cavalry) to Slav faction
    3) And don't change existing unit models of other factions
    However, if you consider to leave in mod only units for 4th-5th centuries most of well armoured german units must be deleted. But don't do it. I think the units of later (6th-7th centuries) must be.
    This process came step by step. Slow of course. And in this case it is absolutely normal that we find even in the 5th century more and more good equipped soldiers. Most of them were noble men. But even some "regulars or ordinaries" became better equipped.
    Yes, it's right. But it's "progress" situation is not valid only for german tribes that were in tight contact with Roman Empire. Steppe region was full of well armoured mounted warriors for centuries (sarmatians, huns etc). Slavs (first of all), goths, gepids living in this region should adopt experience and arms of steppe warriors. A few irano-slavic successful unions since 3th-4th centuries are known to modern historians. Slavs warriors were in Atilla hordes. So I think the steppe and forest-steppe slavs had an advantage compared to other slavic and german tribes in the deep wood of"free-germania" and "Sarmatia".
    Besides that, we've forgotten about celts culture. Not only germans but slavs too were in close contact with celts culture. Swords (and other regimentals) of type close to celtic copies have been found in pre-slavic ancient sattlement in Grinev (West Ukrain) dated by the beginning of AD.
    Sorry if you had the feeling I did.
    Not at all. :tacticalw I was prepared for reaction like yours.
    But please be realistic: in IBFD the most germans are super light equipped (look at the Alamanni or most saxon units). I can't see any extremly a-historic units compared to the 5th century!
    And I can't see something incorrect if in mod would be included a few armoured units for slavs.
    I have an offer for you: You prepare some texts and photos for the slavic, Avars or Sarmatian factions (as you like) and then you can include your researches into my roman army thread. That would be very interesting for "all" the users. I mean it is at least more interesting than coments like "everything is a-historic".
    So, you are welcome to include your researches of the 5th (I prefer 5th!!) or 7th cent. (or both) into the roman army thread.
    Thank you a lot. But where it is better to me to do it? I have already promised to Riothamus, that I shall lay out the ideas about Slav unit here.

  12. #192
    Pompeius Magnus's Avatar primus inter pares
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Frankfurt Main/Germany
    Posts
    5,364

    Default Re: == IBFD 7.0+ Discussion ==

    Quote Originally Posted by Scolot View Post
    But the time frame, I think (it's just my opinion), for units is not absolutely correct. And only this aspect I meant when I told "unhistorical".
    First of all it conserns saxones. Why Duguth have a defence=28? As I understand from description, the have no good armour... And I'm still thinking
    that such saxon units as heortgeneats, knights and gesithas are for later period, not for 4th-5th centuries.
    But I try to tell you again. Mod is ecxellent. And all I consider it is necessary to correct is:
    1) Minimize saxon units attack/defense capability
    2) Add more armoured units (infantry and cavalry) to Slav faction
    3) And don't change existing unit models of other factions
    However, if you consider to leave in mod only units for 4th-5th centuries most of well armoured german units must be deleted. But don't do it. I think the units of later (6th-7th centuries) must be.
    Your item with the stats should be decided by the modders. I think that is something we can talk about.

    If the slavs had well-armoured warriors in the 5th century I also agree to include them.
    If your suggestions and presentations are slavic units from the 7th century: no way! It is not possible to include them in the mod.

    And as I explained there is really no evidence that the few well-armoured german units in IBFD existed only in the 6th or 7th century. I tried to explain several times now that there was always a well equipped core of troops.(even years before IBFD and 410AD)
    In my opinion we can talk about several minor fixes about the optical design, but fact is that some german units were better equipped and should be integrated into the mod. Also to represent a better noble "upper-class".

    The second item is the close contact of some german factions to the roman empire. Due to this fact the better equippmet came hand in hand.

  13. #193
    julianus heraclius's Avatar The Philosopher King
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,383

    Default Re: == IBFD 7.0+ Discussion ==

    It's good to see this discussion getting back onto a more level playing field. Scolot, i think you're opening line about all barbarous factions are made unhistorical: weapons and regimentals of these fractions mismatch the period presented in mod. was always going to provoke a stiff reaction from some people who are extremely passionate about this period. People like Pompeius and Gaiten have alot of knowledge of this period and I certainly respect them for that.

    And yes, not everything is always correct or perfect and we are always more than willing to look at new eveidence, but this evidence must be research well in order for it to be taken seriously.

    I assume Scolot that you did not intend to create a furore as this would not be acceptable here, but if you intended to create some stimulating debate than all-in-good.

    Some of the people involved in the development of this mod are in fact studying this period at University and we all love this period of history which is why we have created what we think is a great mod. It has evolved over the number of revised version as we have learnt more from each other.

    Remember, our greatest asset is all the people that follow this mod. I was inspired so much by this mod that I decided to contribute with information, ideas and the IJ mod itself.

    So please, keep the ideas coming.

    Cheers

    Avatar & Signature by Joar

  14. #194
    Pompeius Magnus's Avatar primus inter pares
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Frankfurt Main/Germany
    Posts
    5,364

    Default Re: == IBFD 7.0+ Discussion ==

    I agree with you Julianus Heraclius.

  15. #195

    Default Re: == IBFD 7.0+ Discussion ==

    quote=Scolot Only this:
    First of all it conserns saxones. Why Duguth have a defence=28? As I understand from description, the have no good armour... And I'm still thinking
    that such saxon units as heortgeneats, knights and gesithas are for later period, not for 4th-5th centuries."

    Hi Scolot, I'm not sure where you got that defence of 28 for the Duguth( saxon hearth troops) Is it in 7.3? It has a 25 in IBFD From what I know and a 24 in the Rio Mod and I don't see where in the description it says they have no good armour. Just not the best...."The highest gift a lord can give one of his companions is land, and landed veteran warriors with warbands of their own make up the sturdy centre of the Saxon battle line. These swordsman may not be heavily armoured like the noble hearthweord, but they are stubborn and experienced, and well suited to holding important parts of the battle line.\n\nThis unit will disband when the horde settles in a new homeland." Quoted from Ibfd unit descrition.

    The Duguth was also known as the comitatus and a very important part of the Saxon armies. They were bound by an oath of loyalty and it was a disgrace for the Duguth to survive in battle while their king perishes. There was great pride and much to be gain in arms and wealth for fighting for their king. These men, especially the rewarded ones, were not far behind in comparison in abilities to the Roman Comitatenses by the 5th century and really had something to fight for.

    "The comitatus was a retinue of warriors that attached itself to a lord or king voluntarily. Through oaths of loyalty, the comitatus protected militarily the lord or king who, in his turn, granted individuals the protection of the comitatus and rewarded them with wealth."
    http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~mbstwck/feudalism.htm

    I don't think this unit is applicable to your argument
    But yes this is very healthy to debate such things and we wecolme it.

    Quote Originally Posted by julianus heraclius View Post

    And yes, not everything is always correct or perfect and we are always more than willing to look at new eveidence, but this evidence must be research well in order for it to be taken seriously.

    Remember, our greatest asset is all the people that follow this mod. I was inspired so much by this mod that I decided to contribute with information, ideas and the IJ mod itself.

    So please, keep the ideas coming.

    Cheers
    Well said julianus heraclius
    Last edited by Riothamus; November 01, 2007 at 05:00 PM.

    Under the esteemed patronage of Ramon Gonzales y Garcia IB and IB2 Mod

  16. #196
    IrAr's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Writing the book...every day.
    Posts
    1,113

    Default Re: == IBFD 7.0+ Discussion ==

    I suggest, and take this with a grain of salt as I am an Armenian national, that Armenia get just slightly more developed settlements. Many of the cities are old cities and they have Palisades!
    Also, it takes quite a while to produce anything close to what the Sassanids and Romans can. I don't mean numbers, I mean troop quality. Still, I love this mod and it is giving me possibly the best Total War experience I've ever had!

    Member of Anno Domini: Italia Invicta
    This makes me a happy half armenian panda--John I Tzimisces

  17. #197
    Pompeius Magnus's Avatar primus inter pares
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Frankfurt Main/Germany
    Posts
    5,364

    Default Re: == IBFD 7.0+ Discussion ==

    I started with a new optical system in the amry manual.
    I want friendly ask for the opinion of all users. The first article or chapter with the new JPEG pages is about the vexillations (last post).

    If the majority likes that I will remake all the other chapters (step by step of course).
    If nobody likes that I will continue with the old "normal" post-system.

  18. #198
    Mylae's Avatar Memento Mori
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ferrara, Italy
    Posts
    972

    Default Re: == IBFD 7.0+ Discussion ==

    i really like it Pompeius, because it is loke reading a book. it is better than the post system i think. go forward!!
    Extravagant developer of Invasio Barbarorum: Flagellum Dei; Developer of Paeninsula Italica
    Creator of the XV-Century Machiavello Total War Mod (2.0) for M2TW



    Honorabilis Gaius Baltar est mihi patronum.

  19. #199
    SeniorBatavianHorse's Avatar Tribunus Vacans
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Glasgow, Scotland
    Posts
    5,160

    Default Re: == IBFD 7.0+ Discussion ==

    Yes, I agree. Great work - it frames the post nicely!

  20. #200
    Ramon Gonzales y Garcia's Avatar Nobleza y Valor
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    New York (Long Island)
    Posts
    1,743

    Default Re: == IBFD 7.0+ Discussion ==

    only problem I can foresee with the jpgs is this:
    I am not sure about picupload but in imageshack, for example, pictures that haven't been used for somtime get deleted, and the bigger the picture, the faster they disappear. So the 'post type' is actually safer, but I do agree the picture type looks great.
    Ramon Gonzales y Garcia

    INVASIO BARBARORVM II



    Proud patron of Riothamus, Pompeius Magnus and SeniorBatavianHorse
    If we had gone so far, it is because we stand on the shoulders of giants

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •