1
RTR 0.5 Imperial Campaign / Re: Announcement/Discussion: Faction List
« on: March 18, 2014, 08:55:23 AM »
My pleasure.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Pages: [1]
2
RTR 0.5 Imperial Campaign / Re: Announcement/Discussion: Faction List
« on: March 17, 2014, 11:09:19 PM »
Are you planning to make new portraits? If so, the lack of variety the engine limits bring would be a pity, but could be worse; a northern Indian can easily resemble an eastern Iranian. As for the Indian settlements, unless the map goes far beyond the Indus, they wouldn't have been vastly different from other settlements to the West. The desert part does not apply with a good map 
3
RTR 0.5 Imperial Campaign / Re: Announcement/Discussion: Faction List
« on: March 17, 2014, 10:03:41 PM »I don't know about the Eastern Kingdoms. The problem with that massive superfactions is that they'll have to share the same culture, and, consequentially, the same UI and buildings. Saba and India are VERY different from the other factions, I don't think they would be well together.
I also dislike that, I find the 'Eastern' epithet a truly ugly one. Interestingly though, India and Southern Arabia had a lot of contact with each other since very early in history due to maritime trade routes, and resembled each other more than one would think. Also, as the main definition of culture in this particular context is just the building appearance, and simple structures all over Western Asia were adobe-made, it's not so bad. Only if the map encroached far into Mauryan territory would this become a serious accuracy problem.
4
RTR 0.5 Imperial Campaign / Re: History/Research: The Peoples of the Steppe
« on: March 14, 2014, 06:12:23 AM »
Good stuff.
5
RTR 0.5 Imperial Campaign / Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
« on: March 14, 2014, 05:56:44 AM »
Of course. A realistic setting so far in the game however is a whole other can of worms. Also yes, 'Armenian Heavy Cavalry' could only refer to Cataphracts by the time of the alliance.
6
RTR 0.5 Imperial Campaign / Re: Announcement/Discussion: Faction List
« on: March 12, 2014, 07:38:46 AM »
Seems reasonable to me!
7
RTR 0.5 Imperial Campaign / Re: Announcement/Discussion: Faction List
« on: March 12, 2014, 07:03:01 AM »
As I see it, the main strength of having pseudo-factions is to not get cultures mixed up, right? If so, I suggest only four: Greeks, Celts, 'Eastern', 'Western'.
8
RTR 0.5 Imperial Campaign / Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
« on: March 12, 2014, 05:50:56 AM »
Oh and by the way Mausolos, keep the gameplay in mind, regarding the Cataphracts. Anything can happen in the game, Pontus ending up as a bitter enemy of Armenia, for one.
9
RTR 0.5 Imperial Campaign / Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
« on: March 12, 2014, 05:46:50 AM »
If sounding 'Greeker' is not an argument there, convention definitely is though.
10
RTR 0.5 Imperial Campaign / Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
« on: March 11, 2014, 12:08:24 AM »
Haha, thank you both
Regarding Takabara, the tribes of North Iran such as the Hyrcanians usually fought as axemen, where the sagaris was very common. This may be a separate unit from the spear Takabara avaliable only as AoR, but I'm not sure yet. And the 'Armenian Heavy Cavalry' should definitely be post-reform. They were crucial in the Armenian armies and among the best cavalry around, but this is by the times of Arsacid dominion. Before that, the army had to resemble Achaemenid past more than anything else, that's what I can say for now. Also, based on what you say Mausolos, shouldn't they be AoR for anyone besides Armenia?
Regarding Takabara, the tribes of North Iran such as the Hyrcanians usually fought as axemen, where the sagaris was very common. This may be a separate unit from the spear Takabara avaliable only as AoR, but I'm not sure yet. And the 'Armenian Heavy Cavalry' should definitely be post-reform. They were crucial in the Armenian armies and among the best cavalry around, but this is by the times of Arsacid dominion. Before that, the army had to resemble Achaemenid past more than anything else, that's what I can say for now. Also, based on what you say Mausolos, shouldn't they be AoR for anyone besides Armenia?
11
RTR 0.5 Imperial Campaign / Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
« on: March 10, 2014, 10:38:39 PM »
Wait, what?
12
RTR 0.5 Imperial Campaign / Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
« on: March 10, 2014, 09:55:23 PM »
Thanks Mausolos, I forgot to ask to ask you about those units. Well, I'd leave the 'Perso' out of the name, since AFAIK there's no 'Graeco-Cappadocians' or similar as to need particular distinction, at least not in this period. Also 'Anatolian Infantry' wouldn't be the same to 'Pontic Spearmen', it'd be both an AoR unit there and a core Pontic unit fighting in the Anatolian fashion, maybe skirmishers with good melee skills. Likewise the 'Iranian Infantry' would be strong, lightweight infantry, probably also armed with javelins. However, they'll fight as Takabara. In fact, despite every single mod adding Sparabara in, I have reasons to believe that kind of tactic went all but extinct after the phalanxes became commonplace. By the way are you sure the 'Armenian Heavy Cavalry' should be a core unit for Pontus, if an avaliable unit at all?
Also, as Bercor said I agree on using a 'd', it does match with all but one Hellenistic kingdom name (And it's the way I found it). However, I prefer MithrAdates to MithrIdates. The Greeks may have used the latter more, but the former is closer to the original Iranian Mithradāta.
Lastly, your approach to using English-only names makes it all easier to sort out. I'd say dynastic names fit when the political entity is defined by the ruling dynasty itself, as is the case with the diadochi. When it's the opposite, like a state ruled by a particular people, as Mausolos said, where the dynasty may change and the polity doesn't, then it should be the country's name, which is the case for both the Kingdom of Armenia and the Parthian Empire/Confederacy.
EDIT: On a second thought, It doesn't apply to the Parthians. There was constant conflict among the clans and in the end it was them who chose the ruler, so the possibility of a dynasty change could well happen in-game. In reality, however, no one displaced the Arsacids as the ruling family. So 'Arsacid Confederacy' may be better. It does also link their Aparna origins in the beginning with their later status as an Empire.
Also, as Bercor said I agree on using a 'd', it does match with all but one Hellenistic kingdom name (And it's the way I found it). However, I prefer MithrAdates to MithrIdates. The Greeks may have used the latter more, but the former is closer to the original Iranian Mithradāta.
Lastly, your approach to using English-only names makes it all easier to sort out. I'd say dynastic names fit when the political entity is defined by the ruling dynasty itself, as is the case with the diadochi. When it's the opposite, like a state ruled by a particular people, as Mausolos said, where the dynasty may change and the polity doesn't, then it should be the country's name, which is the case for both the Kingdom of Armenia and the Parthian Empire/Confederacy.
EDIT: On a second thought, It doesn't apply to the Parthians. There was constant conflict among the clans and in the end it was them who chose the ruler, so the possibility of a dynasty change could well happen in-game. In reality, however, no one displaced the Arsacids as the ruling family. So 'Arsacid Confederacy' may be better. It does also link their Aparna origins in the beginning with their later status as an Empire.
13
RTR 0.5 Imperial Campaign / Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
« on: March 10, 2014, 09:14:05 AM »
Hey guys, I've been asked for the Armenian and Parthian rosters, and to improve on the Pontic one if I can. It'll take some research obviously, but for now, here's the—local—Parthian units.
Missile Infantry
Iranian Foot Archers
Iranian Slingers
Melee Infantry
Iranian Infantry
Parthian Spearmen *Reform Unit
Cavalry
Iranian Horse Archers
Parthian Lesser Nobility
Parthian Heavy Cavalry
Royal Retainers *Bodyguard Unit
Also my suggestions for the Mithradatid Kingdom (should be called this instead of 'Pontus'):
Missile Infantry
Iranian Foot Archers (Instead of plain old 'Archers')
Melee Infantry
Iranian Infantry
Anatolian Infantry
Cavalry
Cappadocian Landholders
Scythed Chariots
Missile Infantry
Iranian Foot Archers
Iranian Slingers
Melee Infantry
Iranian Infantry
Parthian Spearmen *Reform Unit
Cavalry
Iranian Horse Archers
Parthian Lesser Nobility
Parthian Heavy Cavalry
Royal Retainers *Bodyguard Unit
Also my suggestions for the Mithradatid Kingdom (should be called this instead of 'Pontus'):
Missile Infantry
Iranian Foot Archers (Instead of plain old 'Archers')
Melee Infantry
Iranian Infantry
Anatolian Infantry
Cavalry
Cappadocian Landholders
Scythed Chariots
14
RTR 0.5 Imperial Campaign / Re: Introduce Yourself!
« on: March 07, 2014, 10:13:33 PM »
Hey, patronized guy Nº7891249832 here. Regrettably, I'm one of those that comes and goes, but as long as you give personal requests for specific help, you'll eventually have someone willing to do it. You probably know that already, but, you know, just my two staters.
15
RTR 0.5 Imperial Campaign / Introducing Myself!
« on: March 07, 2014, 03:09:01 AM »
Greetings everyone! Ahowl has brought you to my knowledge a couple of weeks ago. As I told him, I have some experience from long ago with other mods, and know a fair bit about the graphical stuff, 2d and 3d. I can also help you with general research, specially regarding the 'Orient', which is the field I've researched the most. Though I don't have as much time as I had back then, I'll be glad to help you out as I'm also an accuracy freak most of the time
Pages: [1]