Meneth's Systems #1

[Leesin]

Excellent work!

[napoleonic]

how exactly duels being done? my guess is that the game will just spawn a message saying a duel has happened between character a & b, with a being the winner.

1. is my assumption correct?
2. how will the game keep track on where the characters are? I mean it must be weird if suddenly there's a duel between 2 generals that are separated 5000 miles and one of them are currently inside a boat in the middle of the sea? lol
3. what exactly the bonus and penalty from the duels?

indirectly with question number 3, wouldn't our generals will somehow have bleak futures and quickly becomes worthless especially since you implement such limiting systems when generals comes to 30?

and with that, so we only have 10 years to use a generals? tell me again how many turn/year this mod have?

[Annatar]

Concerning the average life expectancy:

I took a class on medieval Europe, and the professor had written his own books on the subject matter. One of the main issues he had with "mainstream" history was that it failed to distinguish between what health was like in medieval towns and cities, compared to villages and farms. Anyway, his main point on that was that in reality, the terrible hygiene in cities and large towns would indeed lower life expectancy, but that was normally only so for the common man. Also, people in towns, villages, farms, etc. did really live pretty healthy lives, barring the onset of plagues, injuries and death in childbirth. I fact, just because we "live longer" today does not mean we are any healthier. When you take in to account that an apple from 100 years ago had 20 times the amount of nutrients of one today, and you expound that to all agricultural products, you find that people had access to better food in the past. We just have better medicine and antibiotics, but being alive is not the same as being healthy. Ask the average modern North American to put on armor and fight a battle at 55 years of age. I think we can all imagine the results.

The point is, a script that kills people off between the ages of 30-50 would not be very historical.

[Meneth]

Concerning the average life expectancy:

I took a class on medieval Europe, and the professor had written his own books on the subject matter. One of the main issues he had with "mainstream" history was that it failed to distinguish between what health was like in medieval towns and cities, compared to villages and farms. Anyway, his main point on that was that in reality, the terrible hygiene in cities and large towns would indeed lower life expectancy, but that was normally only so for the common man. Also, people in towns, villages, farms, etc. did really live pretty healthy lives, barring the onset of plagues, injuries and death in childbirth. I fact, just because we "live longer" today does not mean we are any healthier. When you take in to account that an apple from 100 years ago had 20 times the amount of nutrients of one today, and you expound that to all agricultural products, you find that people had access to better food in the past. We just have better medicine and antibiotics, but being alive is not the same as being healthy. Ask the average modern North American to put on armor and fight a battle at 55 years of age. I think we can all imagine the results.

The point is, a script that kills people off between the ages of 30-50 would not be very historical.

According to our research (please ask Hross or something for specifics. I'm not a researcher, I only implement stuff), old age would be pretty debilitating in the Medieval age, and average life expectancy was around 50.
Due to game limitations, the chance of dying at 20 would be the same as of dying at 70.

[Hengest]

The point is, a script that kills people off between the ages of 30-50 would not be very historical.

It doesn't, it makes natural death possible between those ages which is historical and which hasn't been done in any other mod. Are you seriously saying that because they ate organic food they didn't die younger? Grave finds and historical documents -especially concerning the lives of the nobility all clearly state that life expentancy was much lower than today. Men could easily die of wounds from battle, women in childbirth. The range of diseases which don't exist now were prolific and lethal - and even for basic issues like a rotten tooth could lead to serious health problems- even if it was chiselled out -without anaesthetic, since hygiene was non-existent. If you had an infection in your leg, they would saw it off. Nobility suffered from leprosy, gout and all sorts. Viruses and ailments were often treated with bloodletting.... It doesn't take a genius to work out that our script is grounded in history and realism.

People seem to be scared of the realism here, but you get your generals at the age of 5, they become active at 20 (which is when by law knights were due military service) and can potentially die from then on in adulthood. The fact is that factions will have HUGE starting populations of accurate generals and characters, so there will be no danger of worrying about a few generals dying before 40.

If you want something more cosey- there's always Stainless Steel.

[sumskilz]

People seem to be scared of the realism here

I was actually up all last night with anxiety just thinking about it.

[Space_Ed]

Concerning the average life expectancy:

I took a class on medieval Europe, and the professor had written his own books on the subject matter. One of the main issues he had with "mainstream" history was that it failed to distinguish between what health was like in medieval towns and cities, compared to villages and farms. Anyway, his main point on that was that in reality, the terrible hygiene in cities and large towns would indeed lower life expectancy, but that was normally only so for the common man. Also, people in towns, villages, farms, etc. did really live pretty healthy lives, barring the onset of plagues, injuries and death in childbirth. I fact, just because we "live longer" today does not mean we are any healthier. When you take in to account that an apple from 100 years ago had 20 times the amount of nutrients of one today, and you expound that to all agricultural products, you find that people had access to better food in the past. We just have better medicine and antibiotics, but being alive is not the same as being healthy. Ask the average modern North American to put on armor and fight a battle at 55 years of age. I think we can all imagine the results.

The point is, a script that kills people off between the ages of 30-50 would not be very historical.

Woah woah woah!

I took a class on medieval Europe, and the professor had written his own books on the subject matter.

Great. Most of my professors have written books and published articles but I don't assume they are correct in everything they say.

Saying you took a class on medieval europe doesn't qualify you to generalise about fundamental aspects of medieval life.

the terrible hygiene in cities and large towns would indeed lower life expectancy, but that was normally only so for the common man.

As Ross said, the ruling classes would have suffered from an extremely wide range of diseases too.

I fact, just because we "live longer" today does not mean we are any healthier.

Yes it does.

When you take in to account that an apple from 100 years ago had 20 times the amount of nutrients of one today, and you expound that to all agricultural products, you find that people had access to better food in the past.

Ah, and here we come to the best part of your post. Where did you pull this from? 20 times the amount of nutrients? What is your source for this? Do these extra nutrients include the by-products of rot? Maggots? I really don't know what you are basing this on. Let's say that you are right and that apples then had "20 times the amount of nutrients" of a modern apple... you then assume that this was the case for all other agricultural products...

EDIT: I just noticed you mean apples from 100 years ago... so you are assuming that these apples from 100 years ago would be of similar quality to apples from 900 years ago? That is an extremely precarious assumption.

Better access to food in the medieval ages?

I don't think they had supermarkets with an enormous abundance of food from every corner of the globe in the medieval ages. People generally don't starve to death in Europe these days...

Ask the average modern North American to put on armor and fight a battle at 55 years of age. I think we can all imagine the results.

Yeah fat obese Americans attempting to put on armour and fight. Yeah that would be hilarious... Anyway if there was a need for them to do it due to a modern day feudal system then they would train their whole lives for it just like knights did back in the day. Then the modern average American would certainly be far better off than their medieval counterparts due to their improved diet and healthcare (assuming they have insurance that is ).

Anyway your point is ridiculous and all the evidence shows that it was much more difficult to live a healthy life in medieval europe than today.

[mynameisowen]

Woah woah woah!



Great. Most of my professors have written books and published articles but I don't assume they are correct in everything they say.

Saying you took a class on medieval europe doesn't qualify you to generalise about fundamental aspects of medieval life.



As Ross said, the ruling classes would have suffered from an extremely wide range of diseases too.



Yes it does.



Ah, and here we come to the best part of your post. Where did you pull this from? 20 times the amount of nutrients? What is your source for this? Do these extra nutrients include the by-products of rot? Maggots? I really don't know what you are basing this on. Let's say that you are right and that apples then had "20 times the amount of nutrients" of a modern apple... you then assume that this was the case for all other agricultural products...

EDIT: I just noticed you mean apples from 100 years ago... so you are assuming that these apples from 100 years ago would be of similar quality to apples from 900 years ago? That is an extremely precarious assumption.

Better access to food in the medieval ages?

I don't think they had supermarkets with an enormous abundance of food from every corner of the globe in the medieval ages. People generally don't starve to death in Europe these days...



Yeah fat obese Americans attempting to put on armour and fight. Yeah that would be hilarious... Anyway if there was a need for them to do it due to a modern day feudal system then they would train their whole lives for it just like knights did back in the day. Then the modern average American would certainly be far better off than their medieval counterparts due to their improved diet and healthcare (assuming they have insurance that is ).

Anyway your point is ridiculous and all the evidence shows that it was much more difficult to live a healthy life in medieval europe than today.

You are comparing the average commoner nowaday to a king/emperor from then. I have no doubt in my mind that they were a lot healthier than the majority of us. Food was indeed more nutritous, supermaket crap thats been halfway around the globe has nothing on something grown in your backgarden. This is obvious. Kings and queens did have access to good food and enough of it.

It is very true that common people back then had horrid life expectancies but the nobility lived far superior lives. Disease was widespread but famine was not for the nobility. They had all the food and exercise they could need.

This example is off the top of my head:- Alexios Komnemus died aged 62 his son Ioannes Died aged 55, his son Manuel died aged 39. All three were emperors and so had access to the best of the best. All three spent their lives campaining. I cannot imagine a modern man training, marching, fighting, riding, not to mention the stresses of running an empire, and not to mention sustaining injuries, and falling ill, that could live to the ages above. They might have been lucky, but I doubt it. Their relatively long lives come from them living healthy lives, i.e. looking after their bodies and eating and exercising enough.

The modern average american has no reason to don suit of armor and chop people up but they did, and that is what we are comparing.

Im sorry but I feel I have to stick up for this guy. Flaming him for a stating his opinion isnt cool. You guys are doing a great job on this mod but interesting debates make ideas thrive. We know you've done your research but you guys dont open anything up for debate. If its decided by you then it goes in the mod, fair enough your making it, but dont expect averyone to agree.

[THE IBERIAN]

awesome and I like all the stuff u made +rep

[Goofy]

One word - respect.
+rep

~Goofy

[Hereje]

well done!

[Mads]

very nice!

[cedric37]

Awesome ideas and stuff

+rep

[Alexandros I.]

Excellent concepts! +rep

[-Duke Nukem]

I got one word: GROOVY!

[paradamed]

I really liked these features. They are very realistic. I just need to make a correction. Lepra is not an std (sexual transmitted disease).

[part_time_player]

Very nice, looking forward to this. Like the Ivanhoe movie, interesting bit of trivia, that scene was shot in Doune castle where they also filmed Monty python & the Holy Grail. "Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberies!"

[Hengest]

Yepp but some earlier potential outbreaks of STDs were wrongly diagnosed as lepra-
wiki: Lobdell and Owsley wrote that a European writer who recorded an outbreak of "lepra" in 1303 was "clearly describing syphilis."

Glad you liked the cinematic- no one seems to have commented on it. Maybe they don't get that it will be a pop-up, in game

[\Vazul's Ghost/]

It's a great clip. I only figured out that it would appear in game after watching it in youtube rather then the embedded video. Maybe someone should add that info to the post...

[Meneth]

From the OP: "In-game cinematic pop-up for the Duel event"