Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678910 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 191

Thread: Facts & Features

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1

    Default Re: New: Facts & Features

    Sorry for my poor English. It's not my mother tongue.

    Quote Originally Posted by Resurrection View Post
    'Word Iran is modern Persian so it cannot be used. Alternative 'Eran' is from much older times (antiquity). In Middle Ages the most common name was 'Aryanam' gaining popularity from about year 1000 AD. In any case using any Iran/Eran while historically also justifiable would cause significant confusion imho.


    Can you inform your source? imho, Eran is accurate.

    ARYANS
    The name “Aryan” is the self designation of the peoples of Ancient India and Ancient Iran who spoke Aryan languages. Aryan is thus basically a linguistic concept, denoting the closely related Indo-Aryan and Iranian languages.


    ─ R. Schmitt, 「ARYANS」, 『Encyclopćdia Iranica』.

    ĒRĀN, ĒRĀNŠAHR
    ērānšahr properly denotes the empire, while ērān signifies “of the Iranians.”

    ……

    In the Pahlavi books of the 3rd/9th century the early Sasanian terminology is clearly preserved, e.g., in the Kār-nāmag, where Ērān is only used in the phrase šāh ī ērān and the title ērān-spāhbed (ed. Antia, 12.16, 15.9); otherwise the country is always called Ērānšahr (3.11, 19; 15.22, etc.). The same is true of the book of Ardā Wirāz, (ed. Gignoux, 1.4), where ērān dahibed “the ruler of the Aryans” alone appears beside the geographical name Ērānšahr. In the Dēnkard, 7, the same distinction is generally made (with anērān also designating the Non-Aryans). Here the phrase ēr deh, plural ērān dehān, from the Pahlavi translation of the Yašts, is also occasionally used for the “Aryan land(s).” Nevertheless, the fact that Ērān was also generally understood geographically is shown by the formation of the adjective ērānag “Iranian,” which is first attested in the Bundahišn and contemporary works.


    In early New Persian works, especially those depending on Middle Persian sources, the form ērānšahr alternates with šahr-e ērān, (e.g., Tārīḵ-e Sīstān, pp. 6 -7). The poet Farroḵī Sīstānī (d. 429/1037-38), or possibly a later copyist of his poems, still uses it in contrast to tūrān “land of the Turanians” (pp. 99, 256, n. 8). The territory of Ērānšahr, however, came in time to be restricted to the western part of the former empire. In Tārīḵ-e Sīstān (tr. pp. 17 ff.) it is said that “The total area was divided into four parts: Khorāsān, Irān (Ḵāvarān), Nīmrūz, and Bāḵtar [not “Bactria”]. Whatever is located toward the northern boundary is called Bāḵtar; whatever is located toward the southern boundary is called Nīmrūz; and the area in between is divided into two: whatever lies toward the eastern boundary is called Ḵorāsān, while whatever lies to the west is called Īrānšahr.” In the Nozhat al-qolub, (tr. Le-Strange, p. 34) it is even reported (from Eṣṭaḵrī) that “Arabian ʿErāq used to be called the Heart of Īrān-Shahr” (del-e ērānšahr). The general designation for the land of the Iranians was, however, by this time ērān (also ērān zamīn, šahr-e ērān), and ērānī for its inhabitants.


    ─ D. N. MacKenzie, 「ĒRĀN, ĒRĀNŠAHR」, 『Encyclopćdia Iranica』.


    Once more, I'm sorry for my poor English.

  2. #2
    TuCoT's Avatar Biarchus
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Thrace
    Posts
    606

    Default Re: New: Facts & Features

    I understand your faction naming system. You are naming the factions by their regional positions. (e.g. Aryanam, instead of Great Seljuks) Due to this you should check "Anadolu Selçukluları". Maybe you can use a more general name for both the Anatolian Seljuks and the Ottomans. How about "Türkiye (Turkey)" ?
    I know it is a modern name, but Türkiye (means Turkish land) was used for Anatolia since times of Anatolian Seljuk domination.

    My second suggestion is: Rűm Türkleri (Rűm Turks)
    As you know, Rűm means Anatolia in Arabic and Persian language (later Turkish), Anatolian Seljuks and Ottomans were born in these lands, so you can use this too.

    Just my humble suggestions.

  3. #3

    Default Re: New: Facts & Features

    Quote Originally Posted by TuCoT View Post
    I understand your faction naming system. You are naming the factions by their regional positions. (e.g. Aryanam, instead of Great Seljuks) Due to this you should check "Anadolu Selçukluları". Maybe you can use a more general name for both the Anatolian Seljuks and the Ottomans. How about "Türkiye (Turkey)" ?
    I know it is a modern name, but Türkiye (means Turkish land) was used for Anatolia since times of Anatolian Seljuk domination.

    My second suggestion is: Rűm Türkleri (Rűm Turks)
    As you know, Rűm means Anatolia in Arabic and Persian language (later Turkish), Anatolian Seljuks and Ottomans were born in these lands, so you can use this too.

    Just my humble suggestions.
    How about just Ruhm or Anatolian?
    Zahir al-Din Babur called osmanid Anatolian. And Muhammad Haidar called them Ruhm.

  4. #4
    Horatius Flaccus's Avatar Biarchus
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Nijmegen (Netherlands)
    Posts
    685

    Default Re: New: Facts & Features

    I believe they are naming the factions as they called themselves at that time. Hence the Rhomanía.

  5. #5
    Hengest's Avatar It's a joke
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Great Britain
    Posts
    7,523

    Default Re: New: Facts & Features

    2 new updates

  6. #6
    Tiro
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Mumbai, India
    Posts
    229

    Default Re: New: Facts & Features

    Nice Updates... i cant think of anything better than that..M2TW Dots will be an epic.. Hope you get more followers than SS + TATW combined...
    Take regular breaks and do it coolly

  7. #7
    Meneth's Avatar I mod, therefore I am
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Posts
    5,531

    Default Re: New: Facts & Features

    The AI, in general, is pretty horrible.
    That's why we've got an economy script to help it out.
    Also, the dowry system only applies to the player. I've scripted it, and all it needs now is some testing once the game is nearing beta-ready to see if the current values work well.

    I've also made a funeral system where one has to pay for the funeral's of great generals, or get penalties for a while. The effects haven't been scripted yet, but the back-end has. It's pretty much only a matter of deciding on the effects now, then testing it once DotS is more complete to see if the effects are okay.
    I've also scripted a duel system which is pretty much done, and like the rest, mostly just needs tweaking and testing.
    Hopefully my systems will make the game more interesting and unpredictable.

  8. #8

    Default Re: New: Facts & Features

    Could someone please explain the Condottieri mercenary units to me. Who gets them, and why are they so special, and whats the difference between them?
    Thanks!
    By the way, I love the State funeral idea!

  9. #9
    Horatius Flaccus's Avatar Biarchus
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Nijmegen (Netherlands)
    Posts
    685

    Default Re: New: Facts & Features

    Quote Originally Posted by The Turk View Post
    Could someone please explain the Condottieri mercenary units to me. Who gets them, and why are they so special, and whats the difference between them?
    Thanks!
    By the way, I love the State funeral idea!
    Quote Originally Posted by Hross View Post
    They will be generals, with traits etc but only one-off units, once they die they are gone. They cover the following condottieri:

    La Compagnia del Cappelletto
    La Compagnia Bianca del Falco
    La Compagnia della Stella
    La Grande Compagnia
    La Compagnia degli Inglesi
    Compańía de Luis de Navarra
    Companyia Catalana d'Orient
    Google them for more info.

    They are mercenaries, so I guess anyone can hire them.

  10. #10

    Default Re: New: Facts & Features

    Quote Originally Posted by The Turk View Post
    Could someone please explain the Condottieri mercenary units to me. Who gets them, and why are they so special, and whats the difference between them?
    Thanks!
    Condottiere 1300–1500 - click on "search inside book" for more info.
    Quote Originally Posted by Enros View Post
    You don't seem to be familiar with how the burden of proof works in when discussing social justice. It's not like science where it lies on the one making the claim. If someone claims to be oppressed, they don't have to prove it.


  11. #11
    Hengest's Avatar It's a joke
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Great Britain
    Posts
    7,523

    Default Re: New: Facts & Features

    Quote Originally Posted by The Turk View Post
    Could someone please explain the Condottieri mercenary units to me. Who gets them, and why are they so special, and whats the difference between them?
    Thanks!
    By the way, I love the State funeral idea!
    Well they are one-offs for a start. We have been a little liberal with the historicity on these, since the armies were made up of hundreds or thousands of men. But we decided that these general's units would represent the 'core' element of the mercenary army and the background of the general himself.

    They will be:
    heavy cavalry
    pikemen
    heavy cavalry
    crossbowmen/medium infantry
    medium infantry/longbowmen
    heavy cavalry
    almughavars (light infantry)

  12. #12

    Default Re: New: Facts & Features

    great updates

  13. #13
    Queen Annes Revenge's Avatar Ordinarius
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    763

    Default Re: New: Facts & Features

    Nice job, I'm looking forward to this, but I very much dislike the stone forts. There are way too many siege battles in the game, and in every mod I've played, why not encourage more open field battles?

  14. #14
    Giorgios's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    England
    Posts
    1,722

    Default Re: New: Facts & Features

    Quote Originally Posted by Queen Annes Revenge View Post
    Nice job, I'm looking forward to this, but I very much dislike the stone forts. There are way too many siege battles in the game, and in every mod I've played, why not encourage more open field battles?
    Because historically, medieval warfare was very largely based around endless siege battles. That's why you didn't see many great quick, sweeping conquests in our period: warfare was a very slow, grinding process of rooting the enemy out of various fortifications.

  15. #15
    Queen Annes Revenge's Avatar Ordinarius
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    763

    Default Re: New: Facts & Features

    Quote Originally Posted by Giorgios View Post
    Because historically, medieval warfare was very largely based around endless siege battles. That's why you didn't see many great quick, sweeping conquests in our period: warfare was a very slow, grinding process of rooting the enemy out of various fortifications.
    Yeah, that sounds like a whole lot of fun.

    I take it there's no flexibility here since you're banning sub-mods? In that case, thanks but no thanks, I'll pass on this one.

  16. #16
    Walkman810i's Avatar Biarchus
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Czech Republic
    Posts
    648

    Default Re: New: Facts & Features

    Quote Originally Posted by Queen Annes Revenge View Post
    Yeah, that sounds like a whole lot of fun.
    I take it there's no flexibility here since you're banning sub-mods? In that case, thanks but no thanks, I'll pass on this one.
    Kthxbai.


  17. #17
    Tiro
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Mumbai, India
    Posts
    229

    Default Re: New: Facts & Features

    Quote Originally Posted by Queen Annes Revenge View Post
    Yeah, that sounds like a whole lot of fun.

    I take it there's no flexibility here since you're banning sub-mods? In that case, thanks but no thanks, I'll pass on this one.
    well see its not that sub mods wont be allowed.. Hross just said that any idea of a sub mod must be confirmed and approved by them and hence will be implemented on a latter stage.
    Plus DOTS is currently under progress.. when the beta is approved then only will the sub mods be thought about.
    Plus what Hross says is true... DOTS is focused in maintaining its historical accuracy and any sub mod that does not fit in DOTS should not be implemented

  18. #18

    Default Re: New: Facts & Features

    btw, will they be mongol invasion? and how do they work in DotS?

  19. #19
    Miles
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Stockholm (Sweden)
    Posts
    344

    Default Re: New: Facts & Features

    Why do you translate Sweden, into Swerike? It should be Svea Rike, Sverike, or Sverige.
    Last edited by The Awesome Boy; February 28, 2011 at 03:44 AM.

  20. #20

    Default Re: New: Facts & Features

    Quote Originally Posted by The Awesome Boy View Post
    Why do you translate Sweden, into Swerike? It should be Svea Rike, Sverike, or Sverige.
    Swerike is most ancient known name used. It's obviously latinised orthography using 'w' instead of 'v' which represtents 'u' in Latin. It was very common back then (in Czech for instance it persisted until 1870s). The name itself is a bit of an exception to our general rules about faction naming (being supposedly generic NOT including the type of government, in this case '-rike') but since it was also used as "Realm of the Swedes" and not just 'kingdom of' it is ok. Especially since there is no alternative.

    Mod Leader, Mapper & Bohemian Researcher

Posting Permissions

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