Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 102

Thread: Historical Accuracy proposals

  1. #61
    Anakarsis's Avatar Biarchus
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Argentina
    Posts
    603

    Default Re: Historical Accuracy proposals

    Quote Originally Posted by Ullr View Post
    I was doing some research myself over the past few weeks (was looking to tweak a few units from my old XC3), So at least a few points can come in useful on here: mostly archer stuff.

    Germans:

    The area typically had little in the way of iron, and as such used more clubs and maces, instead of swords or, more prominent in the RTW engine; axes. Of course they were around, but not too common, so maybe the sheer number of axe units might be toned down a little. This wasn't by chance: A culture lacking in iron had little in the way of iron armour, and so focused on armour piercing weapons to try and even the score against armoured opposition. I believe the closest large resource of iron was sweden, hence the big axemen (feorldmenn, eorldmenn, huskarls) of saxons ,danes, and norse from around 4th Century AD onwards. Maybe putting the 2handed axemen as some kind of AOR unit from skandza or jutland might work out better, or possible switching the "2 handed axemen" and "berserker" roles in game, with zerkers being toned down a little and made standard in unit numbers.

    Romans:

    Had little in the way of effective heavy cavalry (im seeing the "preatorian cavalry" here). Most of the early republic used spain to aquire cavalry, so as mentioned in another post, maybe more spanish AOR cavalry.

    Archer auxiiaries were almost solely AOR (numidians, cretians, syrians), not recruitable everywhere. Though roamans did know of the composite bow, i cant recall from what time frame this was.


    A little under-represnted archer wise. Archery was bigger in the eastern diadochi's than the homeland. Reports mention compostie bows from way before RTW's timeframe (as well as a vague refernce to a bow "of composite design" actually found in Tutankhamens tomb). Along with the scyian/cimmerian rampages across syrai and the levant of around 6th C BC means they would most certainly of had composites.

    Nubians also had a longbow, similar to the indian, as well as the Ethoipians, the latter of the two is backed by Herodotus; mentioning 4 cubits long at least, making something near 6 foot??? (no 69):
    http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/hh/hh7060.htm


    Well this is an old post but there is think that i'll like to comment

    First, yes, Germans had a deficit in iron, so they could not equip heavy infantry and relied in assault infantry with little armour and samble weapons specially conceived to be highly effective against enemy armour. They had clubs, maces, and small axes: while the first ones were possibly more common than axes in our timeframe, i find unlikely that they differenciated these types to the point of grouping them separately. That is why since vanilla itself i always assumed that German axemen are representing a bunch of axemen, macemen an clubmen fighting together with similar effect fot the enemy troops.

  2. #62
    Decanus
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Pico Rivera, Califorina
    Posts
    530

    Default Re: Historical Accuracy proposals

    I don't know if this has been said but should the Hoplites also carry a sword as a secondary weapon

    Like this Hoplite

  3. #63

    Default Re: Historical Accuracy proposals

    They only really used their swords if their spear broke or was knocked out of their hand. Though having the ability to switch between the two would be pretty cool.

  4. #64
    Decanus
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Pico Rivera, Califorina
    Posts
    530

    Default Re: Historical Accuracy proposals

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow Dragon View Post
    They only really used their swords if their spear broke or was knocked out of their hand. Though having the ability to switch between the two would be pretty cool.
    thats extacly what I meant the abbility to swicth swors with spears

  5. #65
    Zarax's Avatar Triple Chaosmaster
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    8,382

    Default Re: Historical Accuracy proposals

    I agree, unfortunately giving hoplites a sword results in degraded performance as they would either charge or receive a charge using them depending on the weapon slot and randomly switch between sword and spear in combat.
    The Best Is Yet To Come:

  6. #66

    Default Re: Historical Accuracy proposals

    How about making a Patronus trait for the Patricians and a Cliens trait for the Plebians?

    Patronus: -3 Unrest 1+ Law

    Cliens -1 Influence +3 Persional Security

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clientela
    Last edited by The_Blacksmith; May 03, 2011 at 04:08 AM.

  7. #67

    Default Re: Historical Accuracy proposals

    Well you could move the Punic wars to their right date.The conflict began in 264BC and ended in 146BC when Chartage was leveled to the ground.
    1 Punic war:264/241
    2 Punic war:219:201
    3 Punic war:149/146
    On my campaign this triggers at 274BC.

  8. #68
    GeoHitmanGR's Avatar Ordinarius
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Tripolis, Greece
    Posts
    743

    Default Re: Historical Accuracy proposals

    actually it is trigerred by a normal war between Carthage and Rome.
    The date is not fixed it is in the judgement of the AI.
    An attack of either side starts a punc war a punic war while a ceasefire
    (or protectorate maybe) concludes it


  9. #69
    Valkar's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands,
    Posts
    1,133

    Default Re: Historical Accuracy proposals

    Uhm...

    The Gothic Cavalry model as Heavy_cavalry for everyone. As CA made it, it's based on a Goth, not on a Celt or Gaul.

  10. #70

    Default Re: Historical Accuracy proposals

    Quote Originally Posted by GeoHitmanGR View Post
    actually it is trigerred by a normal war between Carthage and Rome.
    The date is not fixed it is in the judgement of the AI.
    An attack of either side starts a punc war a punic war while a ceasefire
    (or protectorate maybe) concludes it
    Hm, I've been skirmishing with Carthage as Rome periodically in my early Roman campaign and I've never got a message about a Punic war... (I think I saw the message once before while playing as another campaign though...)

  11. #71

    Default Re: Historical Accuracy proposals

    Considering Carthage and Rome, I believe they start of as enemies in XC (standard campaign, no senate), while in actual history they were allies against Phyrrus and only became enemies in 265bce when the Punic Wars started. The Punic war started because the people in Messana first asked the Carthaginians to defend them against Syracuse but got second thoughts about having a Carthaginian Garrison and then asked Rome to be their protector instead... So I'd say that Carthage should be allied to Rome, be hostile to the IGCS and have the Rebels as Protectorate while Rome would still be neutral to the Rebels (as they are in the current version).

    of course, one could modify this oneself in the descr_strat file I guess (can you edit protectorates?) and I've done it before, but it would be nice to have the historical diplomacy in place by default...
    It would make the Roman start a bit easier though, as there'd be at least one less enemy to worry about. I did enjoy defending the Republic against the triple alliance, but it's not historically accurate. On the other hand, Carthage is not that big of a threat early on as they only send tiny stacks (2-5 units max) to land in Campania which is more of an annoyance than a serious threat.

  12. #72
    Zarax's Avatar Triple Chaosmaster
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    8,382

    Default Re: Historical Accuracy proposals

    IIRC they do start allied but AI tends to break that ASAP.
    The Best Is Yet To Come:

  13. #73

    Default Re: Historical Accuracy proposals

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarax View Post
    IIRC they do start allied but AI tends to break that ASAP.
    Could be so, yes... though if so, the carthaginians break faith with the wrong faction (spqr), they should go for messana no?

  14. #74
    Zarax's Avatar Triple Chaosmaster
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    8,382

    Default Re: Historical Accuracy proposals

    Unfortunately we cannot control AI after the first turn...
    The Best Is Yet To Come:

  15. #75

    Default Re: Historical Accuracy proposals

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarax View Post
    Unfortunately we cannot control AI after the first turn...
    So true...
    The way it is now does give an epic start if you play Rome, there's Phyrrus' full stack and just after you beat it the Roman rebels send a 3/4th stack into Brettia as the Carthaginians land a 1/4th stack in Campania while Tarentum still has a sizable stack to defend itself (though fortunately it often moves out of the city to march into Apulia, where you can crush it in the open).

  16. #76
    Antiokhos Euergetes's Avatar Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Antiokheia
    Posts
    4,273

    Default Re: Historical Accuracy proposals

    Why not have a script as in EB where if Romans or Carthage attack or occupy Messena war is declared? Or something along those lines..

  17. #77
    Zarax's Avatar Triple Chaosmaster
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    8,382

    Default Re: Historical Accuracy proposals

    Carthage will attack in any case, war in 264BC was not ensured in 275 and even our primary sources tell us that the 1st punic war started likely because of poor diplomacy rather than any party being really willing.
    The Best Is Yet To Come:

  18. #78

    Default Re: Historical Accuracy proposals

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarax View Post
    Carthage will attack in any case, war in 264BC was not ensured in 275 and even our primary sources tell us that the 1st punic war started likely because of poor diplomacy rather than any party being really willing.
    It was about the fact that Carthage wanted to take their troops to Capua or somewhere nearby while the main Roman stack was fighting Phyrus or Gelon (can't remember) somewhere around Arpi/Tarentum. Rome saw this as a treacherous move by the Carthaginians, because they thought that Carthage wanted to make use of the situation to conquer Capua (or some other city).

    Then there were also problems with Corsica, Sardine and Sicily between Greeks, Romans and Carthaginians IIRC..

    The bad diplomacy was indeed an underlying cause I suppose.. but at the same time I think that both parties knew what they were doing, although I always keep my mind on that Carthage didn't really wanted it while Roma was too imperialistic and too paranoia at that time.
    Last edited by AmirKhan; September 21, 2012 at 03:33 PM.

  19. #79

    Default Re: Historical Accuracy proposals

    A few historical accuracy proposals
    Firstly the historic capital of the Pontic empire was Sinope and accordingly they should start the camapign with thsi territory and with it set as their capital
    Secondly The Carthaginian Sacred Band was disbanded (alongisde all other units compiled of Carthaginians) after a defeat against Syracuse in 341 B.C and accordingly the elite components of their infantry after this consisted of Iberian and LibyPhoenecian units

  20. #80
    Zarax's Avatar Triple Chaosmaster
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    8,382

    Default Re: Historical Accuracy proposals

    Sinope was conquered later on, in 275 Pontus was pretty much confined to the area around Amasia.

    The sacred band were definitely heavy hoplites ("armed in the greek manner") and while it was never mentioned anymore as a unit it represents the cream of the citizen militia, which fought intensively in the truceless war (likely in the classical form) and the 3rd punic war (where it was likely reformed in the thorakitai style).

    The switch towards heavier liby-phoenician units is represented in game, both early with lesser quality civic units and later with them replaced by liby-phoenicians.

    If you wish to discuss historical accuracy issues then you should also provide sources to support your point of view
    The Best Is Yet To Come:

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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