Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 61 to 67 of 67

Thread: Version 2.0 goals and discussion (no Preview)

  1. #61

    Default Re: Version 2.0 goals and discussion (no Preview)

    For the 2.0, you should also focus on the Punjab region being an Independent state. The Sikh Confederacy helped the Maratha Empire and the Rajput hill states destroy the Mughal Empire and Punjab was the last annexed state by the British Empire.

  2. #62

    Default Re: Version 2.0 goals and discussion (no Preview)

    I have not played much ETW but this mod appeals to me. I would have preferred if more energy was spent to improve this mod by introducing more factions and specific features for India such as models for buildings. Is it presently still the case that the East India Company is passive if you are playing another faction?
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    My three short AARs:
    [BC] The Maharajah and the Guild of Thieves – a Chauhan Rajput AAR
    [1648] Thirty Years' War
    [Kingdoms] Antioch Crusaders Mod campaign
    and something not so short - [FKoC] Times full of Distemper
    Reviewed by robinzx at the Critic's Quill, Issue 31
    Last edited by Geoffrey of Villehardouin; December 13, 2012 at 09:07 PM.

  3. #63

    Default Re: Version 2.0 goals and discussion (no Preview)

    I really like the idea of a Crimea addition. With Crimea British skins, and the general area of focus, I think doing something on the First Anglo-Afghan War would be very interesting. So perhaps:

    First Anglo-Afghan War (1839–1842)
    The
    Crimean War (1853-1856)
    AngloPersian War (1856-1857)
    The Sepoy Mutiny (1857-1858)


    One thing that is interesting about this period is the evolution of weaponry that occurred, from flintlock muzzle loader in the 1830s, to bolt action, magazine fed rifle by 1888. For anyone whose interested I threw together a little bit of research that would hopefully help out with stats and weapons models for the mod. (I'd also love to see the 1853 Pattern Enflied model transported into the ACW mod).

    Firearms

    This covers infantry firearms, and so skips over cavalry carbines or arms issued to non-infantry types.

    First Anglo-Afghan War:
    British Army: British units were armed primarily with '39 or '42 pattern muskets. These were basically a Brown Bess converted, or constructed to fire percussion cap, not flintlock, but otherwise looked similar, same large caliber. It is possible some regiments in the First Anglo-Afghan War may have still carried flintlock India Pattern, Light Infantry Pattern or New Land Pattern Muskets, however it is more likely that their patterns would have been converted to percussion in the UK or India. The British Army would of likely tried to equip regiments going to war with the most modern weaponry first. Rifle Corps units in this period would of carried the Brunswick Rifle from 1838 onwards, and some specialized units from 1840 onwards.

    The EIC: The East India Company during this time used commercial pattern muskets, not those issued by the Board of Ordinance to the Army, however they were practically identical to the BO equivalents, all-be-it often issued earlier. From 1819 to 1839 the EIC purchased flintlock Baker Pattern Smoothbores. These were gradually converted to percussion cap in India in in the late 1830s. By 1840 production of Baker Pattern percussion cap muskets commenced in the UK.

    Crimean War: At the outbreak of the war the British Army was transitioning their small arms. Regiments deploying to Crimea absorbed most of the 1851 Pattern Minie Rifles already issued, as well as the new Enfields. As a result British units deployed with a mix of '42 Pattern Muskets, '51 Minie Rifles, and the new '53 Pattern Enfield. By the end of the Crimean War all '42 Pattern Smoothbores and Minie Rifles has been replaced by Enfields. I like how the latest of release of ACW handled units different units with rifled muskets and others with smoothbores. http://www.militaryheritage.com/enfield1853.htm


    The Rifle Corps used the 51 Pattern minie rifle in the Crimea until conversion to the 53 Pattern Enfield in 1855.

    Eventually the Rifle Corps were issued the Enfield 1856 or subsequent 1858 Pattern Short Rifles (not to be confused with the 1858 Navy Rifle which carried brass bands). The the '56 and '58 Patterns were shorter, two bands on the barrel, to the '53 Pattern's 3 bands. These did not make it to the Crimea.

    Breech loading rifles did not come into general issue to the British Army until 1866 with the Snider-Enfield conversion of 53 patterns.


    Brunswick Rifle (Rifle Corps)

    Similar appearance to Baker Rifle which it replaced. Different Hand Rail design, and percussion cap, not flintlock.

    Henry Patter Percussion Muskets (EIC, but British Army 39 or 42 Pattern Muskets look very similar)

    Identical to flintlock predecessors. No bands around the barrel, as with previous muskets. Brass hand rail adopted from Light Infantry Pattern Musket.

    Pattern 1853 Enfield (British Army, EIC)

    Smaller Caliber and thus more 'slender appearance'. Barrel and 3 bands around barrel were 'blued' ie darkened, and lock was case hardened, also giving it a dark appearance.

    Pattern 1856 Enfield (Rifle Corps)

    Barrel and two bands also blued.
    Last edited by pappagoat; April 27, 2013 at 09:17 PM.

  4. #64

    Default Re: Version 2.0 goals and discussion (no Preview)

    The 1853 Pattern Enfield model int he game is lovely, it's really nice to see! The model however has the hammer on the wrong side of the rifle, on the left, and the lock is visible from both sides, whereas ref pictures above, the hammer is on the right side of the rifle, and on the left only the lock screws are visible. Regardless, lovely model and I'm really glad you guys put the effort into this beautiful bit of work.

  5. #65
    bk2-modder's Avatar Libertus
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    In the greatest country on earth
    Posts
    74

    Default Re: Version 2.0 goals and discussion (no Preview)

    Any work still being done with 2.0? This was a great mod, and I enjoyed it, except with some issues with uninstallation, and it would be sad to see it dead........

  6. #66
    Don504's Avatar Ordinarius
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    770

    Default Re: Version 2.0 goals and discussion (no Preview)

    Sorry, but I'm pretty sure that no one is working on this mod.

    Explore the word and conquer it all.


  7. #67

    Default Re: Version 2.0 goals and discussion (no Preview)


Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Posting Permissions

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