Ideas and Suggestions

[rhalina]

Hello !

Maybe tou can do something on an little tiny thing : the haircuts! For barbarians, a lot of differents haircuts in the same unit could be fun !

Another thing, about the warcries : RSII has great sounds for it, instead of the basic ones... Maybe it could be fited on barbarians (once again :p ) units?

And maybe an system of ransom, for the great lords (i will buy Kingdoms soon, and will see what happen on it for the ransom, i know just the things about the vanilla and hundred yeas war, on MIITW.. ) even some turns later..?

One thing i found fun on the MIITW vanilla was the sorcerers and heretics, with all the mixture of religions during these years, it could be great to have these sort of guys... Arianists, eclesia catholica fanatics, ...

Then, i saw in some texts, about the Soissons's armies, composed by "veterans who haven't fighted barbarians since many years".. Maysbe some new units for romans, like the "senior palatinae"... Some of them, with strong moral, = veterans, the others, the guys with great life, with wine, females, lazyness... --> Less moral, less costs, less stats...

[Aurelius Silvanus Tacitus]

There should be buildings that reflect a faction's political (like the agens in rebus and curiosi HQ[secret police] and social attitudes(like the consortium [historicaly a village community of small and medium landowners that were responsible for the tax return of each and every one of them], the office of the defender of the peasants,the office of the defender of the plebeians[historically both founded to protect the poors from the abuses of the aristocracy and stop the spread of the colonate(servitude), they didn't work and noobody wanted to be a defender.]that reduces the aritocracy's privileges and the colon communities,latifundia that increases them...)

[Riothamus]

Hello !

Maybe tou can do something on an little tiny thing : the haircuts! For barbarians, a lot of differents haircuts in the same unit could be fun !

Another thing, about the warcries : RSII has great sounds for it, instead of the basic ones... Maybe it could be fited on barbarians (once again :p ) units?

And maybe an system of ransom, for the great lords (i will buy Kingdoms soon, and will see what happen on it for the ransom, i know just the things about the vanilla and hundred yeas war, on MIITW.. ) even some turns later..?

One thing i found fun on the MIITW vanilla was the sorcerers and heretics, with all the mixture of religions during these years, it could be great to have these sort of guys... Arianists, eclesia catholica fanatics, ...

Then, i saw in some texts, about the Soissons's armies, composed by "veterans who haven't fighted barbarians since many years".. Maysbe some new units for romans, like the "senior palatinae"... Some of them, with strong moral, = veterans, the others, the guys with great life, with wine, females, lazyness... --> Less moral, less costs, less stats...

Great ideas rhalina

We are currently working on a Britainniae mod that will include Domain of Soissons 460-61AD. You might want to post some ideas over there
INVASIO BARBARORVM 2: CONQUESTUS BRITANNIAE

There should be buildings that reflect a faction's political (like the agens in rebus and curiosi HQ[secret police] and social attitudes(like the consortium [historicaly a village community of small and medium landowners that were responsible for the tax return of each and every one of them], the office of the defender of the peasants,the office of the defender of the plebeians[historically both founded to protect the poors from the abuses of the aristocracy and stop the spread of the colonate(servitude), they didn't work and noobody wanted to be a defender.]that reduces the aritocracy's privileges and the colon communities,latifundia that increases them...)

Great stuff..
There is something along these lines implemented in the Vandals campaign and in more detail but a lower scale in the Britanniae campaign. It is vital to set up trade with the backing and building of an established curial class. Provinces are split up with a domestic and a military type governorship depicted in types of buildings you can build. Both are necessary for the factions prosperity but seemingly can cause the faction pulled in two different directions.
Much more can be done with this...its still a developing idea within the game

[Aurelius Silvanus Tacitus]

In the game you should choose if in a province you support the plebeians or the aristocracy, and if you govern the empire in a totalitarian, authoritarian or liberalist manner.Also there should be an aristocratic and totalitarian trends in the empire if it's collapsing and a liberalist popular one if it's prospering.

[rhalina]

<< We are currently working on a Britainniae mod that will include Domain of Soissons 460-61AD. You might want to post some ideas over there
INVASIO BARBARORVM 2: CONQUESTUS BRITANNIAE >>

Where to? Did i need to create a new post?
Is Soissons beeded to the conquest of Britain? oO

[Riothamus]

<< We are currently working on a Britainniae mod that will include Domain of Soissons 460-61AD. You might want to post some ideas over there
INVASIO BARBARORVM 2: CONQUESTUS BRITANNIAE >>

Where to? Did i need to create a new post?
Is Soissons beeded to the conquest of Britain? oO

Soissons(Northern Gaul) is part of the game as well is Germania.

From here on our forums, click this link below. It takes you right to the mods progress etc..
INVASIO BARBARORVM 2: CONQUESTUS BRITANNIAE

[rhalina]

Ok, here i see the mod

(i have some pbs with my computer of the summer, WLM and Firefox will makes me crazy.. ^^ )

I will read all this topics, and then, my find ideas, bad or good ones.. :p

[Dunadd]

I've played Invasion Barbarorum Flagellum for RTW BI 1.6. It was a serious improvement on the original, but Roman legionaries in it are way overpowered with a defence of 35 (compared to max 25 for anything else) and Hun horse archers have a worse archery than generic steppe horse archers do.

The history books i've read say the Huns were feared by the Romans and by other nomads because of their ferocity and because of the power of their bows - which were asymmetrical (longer top than bottom half) composite bows, at least as powerful as a longbow.

Is there any chance Roman legionaries will be less invulnerable in this version and Huns will have a better archery rating?

Late Roman legionaries were definitely well trained and good troops with large shields and metal helmets, but many of them didn't even have metal body armour, just rigid leather - a defence of 35 is more like what you would expect on a medieval knight than a late Roman legionary. That, combined with Huns' unremarkable archery rating of 6 means they are almost invulnerable to Hunnic archery, with 5 or 10 minutes fire from several units killing a handful.

Romans have plenty of archery troops and heavy armoured cavalry to cope with Huns in other ways - plus their legionaries have plenty of throwing weapons to hurt any Huns that get too close.

(Also on a separate issue the original game and most mods make catapults and onagers far too effective against troops - they should only be effective against walls and buildings).

If there's no chance of this being changed, could anyone tell me how to edit unit ratings myself on my own pc?

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

what version of IBFD 1 do you have? It was fixed in the later versions...
leather armor - as i have stressed to many people - was only used during ceremonial parades. Leather subarmalis was worn to support the weight of the chainmail though.
Artillery was used in combat and roman artillery was more accurate and effective than you think. Scorpios in fact should be more accurate than they usually are in total war.

[Dunadd]

Hi Aetius -EDIT - i think it's actually IB Ruinae Roma, though I got confused because 'flagellum dei' came up on the loading screen and thought it was that.

I agree with you that scorpions were very effective against troops - it's just catapults/onagers being effective against troops that seems wrong to me - but it's easy enough to fix by going to the export_descr_units file in the IBFD folder and removing area effect from them for anyone who dislikes it.

I was also maybe exaggerating how invulnerable legionaries are to archery since their defence skill doesnt count against it and their shield skill only counts to the front and and left (again according to the edu file).

However i do think most history and archaeology shows hunnic horse archers were considerably more dangerous than most other horse archers and so they should have a higher archery rating - and that some of the legionary units with defence 35 or more are slightly too good. As the stats stand at the moment they can cause massive casualties to an entire Hunnic army - while in reality heavy infantry surrounded by horse archers with very powerful composite bows would have been in big trouble (as bad as for Crassus' legions against the Parthians)

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

yes hun bows should be more powerful - 130 cm vs the usual 80 on symmetric bows

[vimy]

a few ideas

1) Hunns rate of fire for there horse archers should be increases dramatically. They are believed to carry there arrows in bunches of 5 in theleft hand while mounted and firing the 5 in very rapid succesion. This could be for there elite HA or as a general rule
2) Is it possible to implement a lasso weapon, nomad horsemen of this era were famous for using lasso's and other ropes to carry away soldiers and break formations of infantry
3) spear chains, many spear infantry units, especially the cheaper ones, were chained together so that cavalry could not break there formation, (and they couldnt run away easily)
4) outside of faction rebels, a few scripted rebellions of lesser know groups could shake things up. IE, you can have a single full stack of Bulgar raiders apear in dalmatia, they would terrorise the region but never really become a threat because they are just a spawn grey flag rebel force. (much like the rebel bulgars that apear near constantinople in 12th century stainless steal) they could be scripted to capture the region and then sit tight.


thanks guy,
really looking forward to your mod.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Well, remember this mod takes place in 410. The Bulgars and Slavs and Avars were not until the mid 6th century.
Also, I've never heard of spear chains before. I'd be interested to know where you heard that?
Also, on the huns i'd like to see a source on that. I know they had a MUCH more powerful bow but i've never heard about it's rate of fire.

[vimy]

Advanced elements of the Bulgar migration had arived well before they moved en mass, in fact, much of the Hunnic army was comprised of Bulgar nationals. Bulgars were just an example however, any minor fedorati nation would do just as well

at any rate, instead of completly random and inconsiquential rebelions, a few meaningful and potentially destructive, 'minor national rebellions" will make the player think twice about leaving his rear ungarrison and could be a very fun nasty surprise.

this would not be ahistorical as there are many know examples of fedorati turning against there masters and sacking a few towns etc.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Yes but the bulgar part would be. The huns were ethnogenically finno-ugrian with some mongolian and a little turkish (based on ammianus' statement that they came from the "ice bound ocean" and that section of chapter 3 in peter heather's the fall of the roman empire). It is highly unlikely that a large group of bulgars migrated with the huns. The Bulgars were turkish and the huns were mongolo-finno-ugrian. big difference.

[vimy]

in regards to spear infantry being chained together
This is actually to historians, but never really talked about outside of academia
remember, most infantry of the great powers were eseentially levied slaves and proned to run away at the first sign of enemy Cavalry, (which signified professional soldiery) so, they would be chained together to more effectivly hold the line.

the practice would not last commonly into the dark ages

history is full of examples of the failure of these chains.
There are suggestions, though no proof, of the Romans using Chain infantry fighting the huns at chaloons as a means to defeat the lasso
The Persians used chained infantry against the muslim invaders. The islamic skirmish cavalry would and lead away the Persian heavy cavalry into a trap then turn arround and methodically destroy the infantry, since they were unable to escape.

Some historians argue that the chained infantry refers to military ranking, but the combat records indicate otherwise. Most historians agree that eastern infantry did use chains in defencive formations to defeat primarily heavy cavalry, which was the main threat of the era before the nomadic hordes made skirmish formations dominate again.
The Saqssanids used this for there peasant infantry until the end.
i found this link with many enthusiast talking about the concept, read down and you will get a flavour of the debate
use a search under chained to find the deabate http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=9295&start=20

the chinese had both infantry and even mounted soldiers chained together, called Guang Zi Ma, they forced there men to fight to the death and once they died, force the enemy so walk arround them (and thus break formation) as there mass of bodies, men and horse was very hard to walk over.

There is a wealth of Ottoman documentation, well into the 18th century of light infantry being chained to gether to make a defencive stand, usually in front of there artillery.

allthough I have no record of Hunnic or other eastern Barbarians using this method, there penchant for using slave infantry as well as the established knoweledge of its use by all surrounding powers, would suggest that they did this as well.

in game terms, you can have a shiltrom type maneuver with zero ability to route but also zero ability to move.

[Constantius]

Kutrigurs (proto Bulgars ), Utrigurs (proto Bulgars ), Sabirs, Bulgar Chunni these groups are called Bulgars, Huns and Avares over the years by contempary sources and are often completely inter-changable, and quite possible come from a common Mongol/Turkic background

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Kutigur and utigurs were the two HUN suceccor states
at least that's what i've read

[vimy]

i think your information of the bulgars is incorect
the bulgar5s were Iranian and turkish origins, from the caucauses

they first apear in number in eastern europe arround the 7th century bc, mostly as nomadic tribes.
by the second century, the Huns occupied much of there lands and the Bulgars began moving away from there traditional homelands westward.

Many of the soldiers of the Hunnic empire, especially in the latter days called themselves Bulgars as well many non hunnic raiders.

on the collapse of the hunnic empire, several Bulgar succesor states rose, including those mentioned above

Bulgar migration would contine and eventually two bulgar states were creted, a northern one on the Volga river, called the Volga Bulgars as well as an western one, where we have modern day Bulgaria.

Bulgars are the forgotten race of the Barbariab invasion's, They were among the first invaders and they would long outlive the others. The reason why we do0nt talk about them much when discussing WRE is because they stayed in the east for the most part.

As far as them being northern, I think you are reffering t the Volga Bulgars, who idid travel and set up domain along the Volga river in modern day Russia, where they would have mingeled with scandanavian and Rus . Otherwise there main ethnicity is Iranian, with Turkish aristocracy.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Then it was even less likely that they were part of the hun migrations as I ranian is on the bottom of the hunnic ethnogenic list. They may have been incorporated by Attila the hun in the 430/440s as he expanded down to the caucasus and out east to the aral sea. But they were DEFINATELY not in Illyria and Dalmatia as those were bothe heavily defended by Marcellinus in the 430s and 440s. They were probably still over at the volga river.