Historical Rome Total War 1.0 (HRTW) [WIP]

[ahowl11]

hmmm possibly... i agree with asgaroth.. i say Sarmatian Virgin Horse Archers are good enough

[ahowl11]

money?

[TwoKnives]

money?

Well time is money.

[ahowl11]

good point.. i need to rest.. when i wake and have energy i will return to implementing units.. this week of school has been draining

[ahowl11]

they will have both units.. and ya it actually wasn't very hard at all

[ahowl11]

i dont know if the greek cities used companion cavalry

[El Santo Padre]

i dont know if the greek cities used companion cavalry

Neither do i, but i was saying just as "info" comment

[Skull]

Nice work,Ahowl!

Maybe we coud use the companion cav for the Nabatean uniqe unit? (with a little modification,of corse...)

[TwoKnives]

I highly doubt the greeks had companions but they should have a variety of light cavalry even horse archers:

The cavalry of Athens, which was first formed after the Greco-Persian War, and then consisted of 300 men, from the Periclean period onwards consisted of 1,200 men, including 200 mounted bowmen (hippotoxōtœ), who were slaves belonging to the state, and 1,000 citizens of the two highest classes.

(quoted from wikipedia) Also, they should have 1 Thracian mercenary heavy cavalry of some kind.

Anyway, as for the preview, i like the fact that you are making chariots less important. Back in 280 BC the only people that used chariots in Europe and middle east were the Britannic tribes and Pontus. However, I don't think that adding Barbarian Noble Cavalry to the Britons was a good idea, because nobles among the British tribes mounted chariots, not horses. Instead of them you could have added the "British Noble Chariots" (didn't come up with a better name ) using the British Heavy Chariots with lower stats and same price, or same stats with higher price and thus solving the "Britons-are-overpowered-due-to-their-extremely-cost-effective-chariots" problem.

Also for some reason CA made the 3/4 of the barbarians shirtless. Ok, some soldiers of the "barbarian" tribes fought shirtless, but not many of them. It would be a good idea to skin them so they have clothes.

I like the fact that you are adding Skirmisher Warbands to every "barbarian" faction, but they should use a spear instead of a short sword, because historically the spear was the most used weapon among the "barbarian" tribes. Only nobles could afford swords (either long or short). This would make Skirmisher Warbands more effective and would justify their price of 220 denarii (witch makes them more expensive than the better regular archers witch cost only 170 denarii).

Sorry for the long comment. Also if you need help just PM me.

[Edorix]

[*] The British general should have a mail coat and a cloak, but no helmet: no helmets for use in battle have been found in Britain in an Iron Age context. NONE. The famous battersea helmet with the horns has too small a circumference to have been worn by an adult and may have adorned an effigy of a god. The Gaulish general should also have a simple mail coat, not the weird layered cuirass thing they have in-game at the moment, however the Gauls are allowed helmets - not the one in-game though, it should basically be like a Roman helmet, not very tall and with the cheek-pieces.
[*] The Britons should not have any archer units. Archery was not practised in Iron Age Britain except during the Earliest Iron Age (which is actually the Bronze Age, but anyway).
[*] The British units should all have warpaint. We do not have any pictorial evidence for the patterns they used, and the written evidence is vague - but I can provide some evidence to use as inspiration, and examples of half-finished skins I have made which could be considered fairly decent guesses. We do know that their tattoos were more light blue (not dark as is generally thought), and we know they painted themselves with stylised animals among other patterns. Let me know when you want what I've got.
[*] British shields should all be either oval (like the vanilla warband shield) or hide-shaped (like the vanilla warband shield, but with semi circles cut out of top and bottom). Round shields are conspicuously absent from the archaeological record, although they were the norm in the Bronze Age and post-Roman period. This applies almost as well to the Gauls, by the way; round shields should be only for cavalry. Those enormous round shields which the late general's bodyguards have are completely ahistorical for any of the barbarian factions.

I think that's enough to be going on with...

[TwoKnives]

Good point Edorix. The problem is that for some reason, the team of this mod is active only on the other thread, so you should re-post your information there.

[hameleona]

We are active everywhere
PS: When i said useless i meant as a faction. Not that they wore lesser people, ore something. Just clarifying

[TwoKnives]

We are active everywhere
PS: When i said useless i meant as a faction. Not that they wore lesser people, ore something. Just clarifying

I understood, but they were far from useless even as a faction. They scared the out of their opponents (literally) with all the warpaint, they were skilled warriors, and had very good LIGHT MELEE infantry. To be honest, light infantry in vanilla is unrealistically weak, and heavy infantry unrealistically strong.

Now, I'm going to explain what roles they really played. Light melee infantry were lightly armoured (obvious) and were used for guarding flanks, flanking the enemy, assisting heavy infantry (sometimes even cavalry) etc. Usually big and tall non-noble men served this role. They almost always carried shield for more protection mostly against archers, and were weak against cavalry, but if they used spears, they could fend off against light cavalry. The charge of this kind of infantry was more powerful than the charge of the heavy infantry, since the former can gain speed more quickly than the later (I would explain why does this happen with the terminology used in physics, but since English is not my native language, I won't because I will surely make fatal mistakes).

Heavy infantry on the other hand, was used for doing frontal attack, hacking the enemy lines and (sometimes) countering enemy cavalry. They were slow, because they were heavily armoured, but overall were better fighters than light infantry, however the later usually had numbers in their advantage, so that doesn't mean that heavy infantry always wins when matched up against the light one.

[hameleona]

I understood, but they were far from useless even as a faction. They scared the out of their opponents (literally) with all the warpaint, they were skilled warriors, and had very good LIGHT MELEE infantry. To be honest, light infantry in vanilla is unrealistically weak, and heavy infantry unrealistically strong.

Now, I'm going to explain what roles they really played. Light melee infantry were lightly armoured (obvious) and were used for guarding flanks, flanking the enemy, assisting heavy infantry (sometimes even cavalry) etc. Usually big and tall non-noble men served this role. They almost always carried shield for more protection mostly against archers, and were weak against cavalry, but if they used spears, they could fend off against light cavalry. The charge of this kind of infantry was more powerful than the charge of the heavy infantry, since the former can gain speed more quickly than the later (I would explain why does this happen with the terminology used in physics, but since English is not my native language, I won't because I will surely make fatal mistakes).

Heavy infantry on the other hand, was used for doing frontal attack, hacking the enemy lines and (sometimes) countering enemy cavalry. They were slow, because they were heavily armoured, but overall were better fighters than light infantry, however the later usually had numbers in their advantage, so that doesn't mean that heavy infantry always wins when matched up against the light one.

speed is not the only thing in a charge. Mass is too
mainland celts, iberians, germans, dacians, thracians and scithians/sarmatians need to be factions. They had their shots to glory. Ok, maybe except my ancestors. Britons... brotons are a great faction for a mini-mod (and i've wondered, why no one ever made one), but on the global scheme... their insignificant. Just another celt tribe that didn't even tried to consolidate, whats left for world domination.
That's my point of view. So, yes, their are insignificant. Nothing personal.

[Asgaroth]

[*] The British general should have a mail coat and a cloak, but no helmet: no helmets for use in battle have been found in Britain in an Iron Age context. NONE. The famous battersea helmet with the horns has too small a circumference to have been worn by an adult and may have adorned an effigy of a god. The Gaulish general should also have a simple mail coat, not the weird layered cuirass thing they have in-game at the moment, however the Gauls are allowed helmets - not the one in-game though, it should basically be like a Roman helmet, not very tall and with the cheek-pieces.[*] The Britons should not have any archer units. Archery was not practised in Iron Age Britain except during the Earliest Iron Age (which is actually the Bronze Age, but anyway).[*] The British units should all have warpaint. We do not have any pictorial evidence for the patterns they used, and the written evidence is vague - but I can provide some evidence to use as inspiration, and examples of half-finished skins I have made which could be considered fairly decent guesses. We do know that their tattoos were more light blue (not dark as is generally thought), and we know they painted themselves with stylised animals among other patterns. Let me know when you want what I've got.[*] British shields should all be either oval (like the vanilla warband shield) or hide-shaped (like the vanilla warband shield, but with semi circles cut out of top and bottom). Round shields are conspicuously absent from the archaeological record, although they were the norm in the Bronze Age and post-Roman period. This applies almost as well to the Gauls, by the way; round shields should be only for cavalry. Those enormous round shields which the late general's bodyguards have are completely ahistorical for any of the barbarian factions.

I think that's enough to be going on with...

I like your ideas very much.

[TwoKnives]

I like your ideas very much.

They're not ideas. They're facts.

[ahowl11]

Edorix: with all of these changes how strong will the britons be?? can you provide a complete unit roster proposal for them? we must think of gameplay as well

[hameleona]

they will be useless... just like in reality of the time. (nothing against people in Britain - truth is, that most mods remove them for that reason).

[hameleona]

Let me finish the hoplites that we have started, and i'll start modeling the gauls.

@TwoKnives
since you look loaded with knowledge wore the hexagonal shields uset (the vanila naked fanatics are with that type of shield).



Those shields i mean/

[TwoKnives]

Let me finish the hoplites that we have started, and i'll start modeling the gauls.

@TwoKnives
since you look loaded with knowledge wore the hexagonal shields uset (the vanila naked fanatics are with that type of shield).

Yes, I know, but i am not "loaded with knowledge", please avoid using sarcasm, I know that you are tired because you are working hard on the units, but it is not an excuse for being rude. As for the shield shape, the hexagonal one is just another version of the oval shield, but the oval shields were actually bigger and longer. I can't describe it correctly so please refer to this link. http://wildfiregames.com/0ad/pages/p...ic_shields.JPG