[RS 1.6a] RS: The Horde

[Ferrus]

Unit sizes rebalanced for play on Huge settings. 2 hitpoints per unit. Elite units of the "civilized races" are double the size of line infantry. Auxilliaries and other low grade units are doubled the sizes of line infantry. All barbarian factions infantry are double the sizes of the "civilized races". Battles are abit more decisive as the barbarian factions morale has been brought down lower. Future updates will see morale across the board balanced out (as in lowered, I am tired of seeing spartan-like last stands unless you're a 1st cohort or just plain spartan)

Created initially out of a desire for a double strengthed first cohort described from the Eagle series of novels from Simon Scarrow (damn good book btw and you're not a legionaire fan if you dont go out and buy/read it), the idea grew until the entire roster was edited to bring the numbers down to more similar levels. Historically, the elite regiments whatever their race were larger in size due to the fact that they most often than not hold the right of the line where their unshielded side is more vulnerable.

Now you will never see an equal sized Roman army against the Gauls even with the roster full. No matter what you will be outnumbered if you play as one of the Civilized races against the barbarian factions. As it should be.

Version 1. 1
Save game compatible to version 1.0

Requires: RS1.6a

Does not support Alex.exe

Warning:
Please backup the original file
I haven't play tested the other races fully yet, so feel free to cry in agony at your defeats

Install Instruction;
Copy and paste over the existing file in the RTW/data folder

Download here;
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/downl...o=file&id=2872

As legate Vespasian would say, "UP THE AUGUSTA!"

Screenshots from version 1.1. The 2nd Augusta against their old nemesis, the Germans.

The Germans try to swarm the exposed flank of the 2nd Augusta. But there is more than enough germans to pin the legion in place. The legion holds but they are being forced step by step backwards by the huge crush of howling germans.



The 1st cohort stays and hold against thousands of swarming germans, knowing that to take one step backward will see all of them doomed.


For their efforts the brave 1st Cohort saved the legion but at the cost of more than half their numbers dead including their Legate who fought to the end. Most of the enemy dead is when they finally routed. As you can see it was an epic game with the new list (1.1) and i am perversely pleased with it.

[Timefool]

The file is not there anymore. The server went down on Tuesday and all the uploads were lost (http://www.twcenter.net/forums/annou...hp?f=850&a=320). You will have to upload it again.

[Ferrus]

Aite, i will. thanks for telling me.

edit: Done

[MarcusTullius]

Fantastic idea, look forward to playing with this!

[Ferrus]

Fantastic idea, look forward to playing with this!

Thanks =)

But it has come to my attention that the the fear causing units are raining havoc on the lower all around morale of the other races so other than the elephants, it has been all removed in the new update

[|Sith|Galvanized Iron]

That is just stupid, the "barbarians" weren't large unwashed hordes as the Romans described them. If you consider the population of Gaul it's obvious that the Romans grossly exaggerated the numbers of Gallic armies to win prestige in Rome, most likely the Romans were the ones who outnumbered the Gauls and not the other way around.

[Ferrus]

*Cough* I shall too take a patronising tone with you.

And how would we consider the population of Gaul my good sir? By the same records of the Romans? I am sure the profit made by caesar at the selling of his newly aquired slaves are poor indications of the populace then? I understand propoganda and all that but i am merely referring to the barbarian factions as a whole, not individually (and not especially the gauls). If the mass population migrations of the "barbarians" werent a concern, please tell me why Roma had some massive manpower problems that they were forced to increasingly over time recruit those self same "barbarians" into the auxiliaries and eventually the legions?

I placed this sub-mod here because of the "visual" effect of being faced by a large numbers of foes. If you dont like the mod then dont play it. End of story, instead of trying to be a history teacher and saying its stupid. I respect other people's opinions, as long as they dont resort to insults

[Ballacraine]

I just thought I had better mention that you wouldn't be able to play this if you are using Alex.exe base as it does not support hordes.

If your RMs don't mention this it may be worth putting in.

Balla.

[Ferrus]

I just thought I had better mention that you wouldn't be able to play this if you are using Alex.exe base as it does not support hordes.

If your RMs don't mention this it may be worth putting in.

Balla.

Thanks for mentioning this.

[|Sith|Galvanized Iron]

*Cough* I shall too take a patronising tone with you.

And how would we consider the population of Gaul my good sir? By the same records of the Romans? I am sure the profit made by caesar at the selling of his newly aquired slaves are poor indications of the populace then? I understand propoganda and all that but i am merely referring to the barbarian factions as a whole, not individually (and not especially the gauls). If the mass population migrations of the "barbarians" werent a concern, please tell me why Roma had some massive manpower problems that they were forced to increasingly over time recruit those self same "barbarians" into the auxiliaries and eventually the legions?

I placed this sub-mod here because of the "visual" effect of being faced by a large numbers of foes. If you dont like the mod then dont play it. End of story, instead of trying to be a history teacher and saying its stupid. I respect other people's opinions, as long as they dont resort to insults

Sorry, but modern genetic science have proven that the supposed massive migrations have had quite insignifacant impact on the genome of the settled areas. Especially genetic studies in Britain have shown that the population doesn't carry much of either Celtic, Saxon or Norman genes, but rather that the main genetic make up comes from a much earlier native population. If a large horde of Celts, Saxons whatever had settled the area it would have left a much larger impact on the gene pool. It's the same in most of Europe.

Historical documents can lie, genetics can't. So the hordes were largely exaggerated. Sparsly populated areas without urban centres, like Germania for example, doesn't spawn inummerable hordes as simple as that.

[charles the hammer]

Sorry, but modern genetic science have proven that the supposed massive migrations have had quite insignifacant impact on the genome of the settled areas. Especially genetic studies in Britain have shown that the population doesn't carry much of either Celtic, Saxon or Norman genes, but rather that the main genetic make up comes from a much earlier native population. If a large horde of Celts, Saxons whatever had settled the area it would have left a much larger impact on the gene pool. It's the same in most of Europe.

Historical documents can lie, genetics can't. So the hordes were largely exaggerated. Sparsly populated areas without urban centres, like Germania for example, doesn't spawn inummerable hordes as simple as that.

I feel that just saying genetics prove you right does not prove you right I personally do not believe that to be true nor do I believe genetic results because its hard to get samples on everyone. To my point no showing of work then I do not believe you. I could come in here and say everyone in the world can be traced back to the state alabama and can even say genetics are on my side but I have no proof.

[Ferrus]

Sorry, but modern genetic science have proven that the supposed massive migrations have had quite insignifacant impact on the genome of the settled areas. Especially genetic studies in Britain have shown that the population doesn't carry much of either Celtic, Saxon or Norman genes, but rather that the main genetic make up comes from a much earlier native population. If a large horde of Celts, Saxons whatever had settled the area it would have left a much larger impact on the gene pool. It's the same in most of Europe.

Historical documents can lie, genetics can't. So the hordes were largely exaggerated. Sparsly populated areas without urban centres, like Germania for example, doesn't spawn inummerable hordes as simple as that.

......Sigh. Ok thats your opinion as much as I want to argue against it, I just can't be bothered. The only thing i can say is that you are technically saying that the history we learnt of the great migrations that caused the fall of the western roman empire is a load of bull.

You can however argue with the Human genome project. Here is their take on human DNA on ancestry and so called human sub-species;

"DNA studies do not indicate that separate classifiable subspecies (races) exist within modern humans. While different genes for physical traits such as skin and hair color can be identified between individuals, no consistent patterns of genes across the human genome exist to distinguish one race from another. There also is no genetic basis for divisions of human ethnicity. People who have lived in the same geographic region for many generations may have some alleles in common, but no allele will be found in all members of one population and in no members of any other. Indeed, it has been proven that there is more genetic variation within races than exists between them. "

Feel free to message them about your beliefs here; http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresource...igration.shtml
and tell them that they are wrong. After all, they are only mapping the human genome. So please argue with them and not me. I am not a scientist and you probably arnt too, even if you say you are I probably wont believe you. This is the internet afterall. So end of story... again. Please take up your arguments with the scientists and either play this mod or ignore it.

Sincerely;
Ferrus

[|Sith|Galvanized Iron]

"DNA studies do not indicate that separate classifiable subspecies (races) exist within modern humans. While different genes for physical traits such as skin and hair color can be identified between individuals, no consistent patterns of genes across the human genome exist to distinguish one race from another. There also is no genetic basis for divisions of human ethnicity. People who have lived in the same geographic region for many generations may have some alleles in common, but no allele will be found in all members of one population and in no members of any other. Indeed, it has been proven that there is more genetic variation within races than exists between them. "

That's just not true, there are certain genomes that only occur among specific populations which can be used as a tag to trace migration, they are known as Haplogroups:

For example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_I1_%28Y-DNA%29

Also this article show that no serious scientist any longer believe in the replacement theory:

Oxford archaeologist David Miles has argued that 80 percent of the genetic makeup of native Britons probably comes from "just a few thousand" nomadic tribesmen who arrived 12,000 years ago, at the end of the Ice Age. This suggests later waves of immigration may have been too small to have significantly affected the genetics of the pre-existing population.[

[Ferrus]

Funnily enough this self same "article" has this attached to it.

This article or section may contain previously unpublished synthesis of published material that conveys ideas not attributable to the original sources. See the talk page for details. (August 2008)

There's way too much speculation and synthesis on this page. The acceptance of certain assumptions that have not been cited is considered a synthesis on Wikipedia. Please don't assume that you can associate I1 distribution with historical or mythical events, you can't. What you can do is cite sources that associate movements of people with migrations of I1. On the whole it is best to stick to a description of the distribution of I1 in Europe and the estimated founding events for subclades etc. We don't even know if large population moveents, such as the so called folk wandering occurred, it's a theory and many archaeologists think it has serious flaws, not least the idea that large groups of people could move about freely through a heavily forested continent where there were no roads. Most UK archaeologists thesedays dismiss large folk wanderings as myth, and practically impossible. Y chromosomes do have a geographic distribution, but they can rarely be assigned to specific ethnic groups, and it is OR to associate Y chromosomes too closely with any specific ethnic group unless a reliable source does so. Furthermore one should not impose our own modern world view onto the past, we do not know the ethnic makeup of the peoples of prehistory, we should not assume that these people viewed themselves as belonging to groups that we can recognise in the modern world. That's basic anthropology. Ideas like "Celt", "Germanic", "Anglo-Saxon", when applied to peoples rather than language groups are modern ideas (even inventions according to the archaeologist Simon James), we should not assume that we know what happened in prehistory, or that the peoples who lived there were ethnically identifiable to us today, because we don't. Stick to the facts, populations, geography, founding estimates etc. Scientific facts we can verify. Alun (talk) 07:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

There is more but i thought that section was more relevant. Now please for the love of the gods just stop. Please. The fact you even used wikipedia just pisses me off because every respectable student (and I am a uni student) is taught to avoid it like the plague.

I respect your view but please, it is not going to change mine one jot. You believe the Romans outnumber the barbarians. Fine, then make a mod where they are. In this mod, the barbarians outnumber the 'civilised' peoples, dragons are wingless lizards and flying pigs use stolen alien technology with a sophisicated language called pig latin which was stolen by the romans.

[charles the hammer]

Funnily enough this self same "article" has this attached to it.

There is more but i thought that section was more relevant. Now please for the love of the gods just stop. Please. The fact you even used wikipedia just pisses me off because every respectable student (and I am a uni student) is taught to avoid it like the plague.

I respect your view but please, it is not going to change mine one jot. You believe the Romans outnumber the barbarians. Fine, then make a mod where they are. In this mod, the barbarians outnumber the 'civilised' peoples, dragons are wingless lizards and flying pigs use stolen alien technology with a sophisicated language called pig latin which was stolen by the romans.

I agree and you did a better job articulating than I did. When will people learn wikipedia = mostly bad

[|Sith|Galvanized Iron]

I agree and you did a better job articulating than I did. When will people learn wikipedia = mostly bad

Look, I didn't learn this from Wikipedia, but unfortunately I haven't saved the links to the original sources so I had to use the second best.

That said Wikipedia is usually a good source.

[charles the hammer]

Look, I didn't learn this from Wikipedia, but unfortunately I haven't saved the links to the original sources so I had to use the second best.

That said Wikipedia is usually a good source.

Not if you want your info to be correct. You really only want it as a reference point not for serious discussion, as if even one point is off (which it usually is) then it can change the thing drastically. Wikipedia is okay as a starting point but it is mostly a bad place for people who are seriously interested in getting the facts. The main point here is you came in here and bashed this guys modification with no real info just with us having to take your word for it. (because once again wikipedia is not a reliable source)

[|Sith|Galvanized Iron]

The main point here is you came in here and bashed this guys modification with no real info just with us having to take your word for it. (because once again wikipedia is not a reliable source)

Excuse me, but he is bashing people he considers as inferior "barbarians" based on works of highly biased Roman authors (those are not reliable sources either)...

[charles the hammer]

Excuse me, but he is bashing people he considers as inferior "barbarians" based on works of highly biased Roman authors (those are not reliable sources either)...

He is got truth on his side while they are inferior sorry to break it to you but they are and while they probably exagerated some it really can not be proven to the contrary that they were not that large so he has everyr right I mean you do not sound unbiased yourself you are probably one of those people who hate rome for no good reason. (Now I understand why you talk with no info to back you up it is fun)

[Ferrus]

Excuse me, but he is bashing people he considers as inferior "barbarians" based on works of highly biased Roman authors (those are not reliable sources either)...

Where have I proclaimed that the "barbarians" are inferior? Have I made mention of that anywhere? The comments from my screenshots? The howling germans part? So because of that I consider them sub par and inferior? I LOVE celtic metalsmithing and their craftsmanship! I loved the cunning of the Germans in destroying Varus's legions. And I love the illyrian sense of loyalty and brotherhood when inducted into the legions. And I already told you that I recognise the fact that Roman works can be used as propaganda. Despite your assumption that I read things at face value, I question the sources, the authors, the timeframe it is written because I am trained and taught repeatedly by my professors to do so. Doing a history minor, I have no choice but to.

It is you I am more worried about, tauting about DNA and genetic science as though trying to use it to distinguish ethnic groups and worrying about 'racial' purity of modern humans. The point is moot. The fact is that humanity HAD A COMMON ANCESTOR 140,000 YEARS AGO! Again please go to the human genome project website and read from there. It is a respectable scientific website doing great strides in mapping our genetic data. Because we have a common ancestor you can't just say 'oh, he is a Frank and that one is a Saxon' because "There also is no genetic basis for divisions of human ethnicity."

Seriously, you can argue with the top scientists in the world working on our human genome and call them stupid if you like, but do not get me involved or defame me by putting false words in my mouth.

@charles the hammer; please do not taunt sith. He has his opinions, I have mine. I just do not like it when he uses disreputable sources and then defames me.