You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Mod Design and Discussion
Moderated by Sebastien, John the Late

Hop to:    
loginhomeregisterhelprules
Bottom
Topic Subject: Dark ages mod
« Previous Page  1 2 3 ··· 6  Next Page »
posted 05-30-15 09:10 PM CT (US)   
Age of Kings: The Dark Ages
Total Conversion

Time period: 300AD – 1072AD (depending on region)

Main themes

Migration threatens existing cultures

Religious and social changes as new cultures meet

Establishment of new states as people settle into new lands

But China didn’t have a dark age!
Well they did deal increasingly with the expansion of Turkic and Mongolic peoples infringing on their lands. And it was one of the bloodiest periods in Chinese history. It was not a dark age as far as technology goes. But they were dark and troubling times even for the world’s greatest civilizations.

Neither did Korea, Persia, the Byzantines, Japan or India.
True, but again the constant warfare and incursions of new peoples into their borders fits nicely with the themes of the mod and these civilizations are necessary for the other civilizations—even if the label “Dark ages” doesn’t really apply to them.


Important changes
Nomadic peasants are faster, carry more

Buildings that do not attack, and are not walls/gates can be
converted like sheep. So grabbing your enemies’ military
base is completely possible. But he is likely to grab it back if you don’t keep defenders nearby, or wall if off.

Light infantry don’t receive armor upgrades

Skirmisher, archer, and cavalry archer lines don’t receive armor upgrades

Cavalry archers and skirmishers are faster

Skirmishers have less range, less piercing armor and are a trash unit, not an anti-archer unit. But their speed makes them decent guerrilla warriors if micro managed.

Spearmen have shields and thus piercing armor and archers no longer have a bonus vs them. This makes the swordsman the best unit for countering them.

Cataphracts are available to multiple civs. They are slower than all other cavalry (except elephants) but have substantial melee and piercing armor.

Camels are less powerful and available to only Arabs and Moors (others civs used them but exclusively as pack animals and transports).

Elephants are available to multiple civs and have an attack bonus vs cavalry.

Mercenary units are available but differ by civs and have a high gold cost.

Ages
Age 1: Tribal period?
In the earliest age you are part of a tribe just trying to stay alive and increase your population. Populations are small and armies are smaller. Because you lack the technology and infrastructure to make resource gathering efficient, the bulk of the population has no time to train for war. War is carried out by bands of warriors. Only the elite can afford weapons and have the time to train with them. Only elite infantry swordsmen, elite cavalry, and some UUs are available. For established civs (Eastern and Western Romans, Chinese, Koreans, Persians, Indians) this can be thought of as either the pre-history of those same civilizations, or the beginnings of new colonies. Nomadic civilizations get super cheap, mobile yurt-based architecture with VERY low HPs.

Age 2: Raiding Period
With an increase in population, infrastructure, and to a lesser extent technology, you can now supplement the warrior class with loosely trained infantry spearmen, skirmishers, archers, and even cavalry. But these are merely peasants and should only be relied on to bolster the warrior-class armies or in times of necessity. Elite warriors still reign supreme, and the stirrup, barding armor, and breeding of larger faster war horses give cavalry the edge over levy infantry (in most cases). Defensive technology increases somewhat as does resource gathering and military technology. Lastly you can team-up with other civilizations for raiding--gaining access to one or two of their unit types.

Age 3: Migration period
Even more infrastructure and influence means that now trained armies can be raised and equipped by the state or local leaders (nobles, warlords, etc…). Light infantry spearmen and skirmisher get improved training. Archers light cavalry, and siege engineers become an intermediate class of warriors. Heavy spearmen are now trainable as well. Defenses and agriculture technologies improve somewhat. Your civilization is booming and ready to take over new lands. Infantry and light cavalry are better able to stand up to elite swordsmen and cavalry.

Age 4: Settlement period
Your civilization has found a home. You are no longer migrating en mass, but instead, expanding from a centralized position. As a result, buildings are more permanent (more HPs) but cost more and take longer to build. Nomadic civilizations yurt architecture is replaced by permanent buildings. Additionally you can choose a culture to settle among, altering your tech tree and building graphics.

Light cavalry and cavalry archers take longer to train, cost more, or must be purchased as mercenaries. Defensive technology improves drastically. Stone walls and fortresses replace wooden ones. Infrastructure and troop training improves (faster train times). Cheap, quickly trained but slow loading crossbowmen become available (for a few Civs: Chinese, Celts, Khemers).

Note that depending on the civilization, goals, and play style, this may NOT be an age worth advancing to (Turks, Mongols, Goths, and Scythians could alternatively use those resources for offensive maneuvers). Other civilizations will race to this age to gain access to impressive defensive structures (Romans, Khmers, Indians, Chinese, Koreans, Slavs).


Units: Name (age they become available)

Barracks
Swordsman (1) -> Heavy Swordsman (1)
Peasant Spearman (2) -> Levy Spearman (3)
Heavy Spearman (3)


Archery Range
Bowman (2) -> Archer (3)
Skirmisher (2) -> Javalineer?(3)
Cavalry Skirmisher (2) -> Light Cavalry Archer (2)
Cavalry Archer (1) -> Heavy Cavalry Archer (2) -> Cataphract Archer (3)
Elephant Archer (2)
Crossbowman (4)

Stable
Elite Cavalry (1) -> Heavy Cavalry/Cataphract (2)
Scout Cavalry (2) -> Light Cavalry (3)
Elephant (2)
Dismounted cavalry (1): gain cavalry armor bonuses but are slow and expensive. Used only by cavalry armies if they really need an anti-spear unit.

Siege workshop
Battering Ram (2) -> Capped Ram (3) -> Siege Ram (3)
Bucket Onager (3) -> Improved Onager? (4)
Sling Onager (4)
Scorpion (3) -> Siege Scorpion (4?)
Traction Trebuchet (3)

Barracks technologies
Tower shield: Slows spearmen and heavy spearmen, but increases adds armor (+0/+2)
Shield wall: Slows infantry but increases armor (+0/+2)
Overhand thrust: Increase spear attack

Archery Range Technologies
Recurve bow (2) -> Composite bow (3): increase archer, crossbow, and cavalry archer (but not skirmisher) range and power
Thumb ring (2 or 3): increases archer (but not skirmisher or crossbowman) firing rate.
Sidearm (3?): Decreases archer and skirmisher minimum range to 0/

Stable Technologies
Stirrup: Increases cavalry and cavalry archer (but not elephant or chariot) attack rate.
Parthian shot: Increases cavalry firing rate.
Heavy horse?: Increases elite cavalry and heavy cavalry archer HPs.
Husbandry: Increase cavalry speed.
Cavalry charge: Increase elite cavalry attack, adds trample damage.

Economic techs
Brickwork: Increases building HPs.
Watermill: increases woodcutting speed

Mill technologies
Ard (1) -> Heavy plow (2) -> Breast harness (3) -> Crop rotation (4)

Blacksmith technologies
Elite cavalry armor: Mail coat (2) -> Bracers & greaves (4)
Light cavalry armor: Mail vest (2 or 3) -> Mail shirt (3) -> Mail coat (4)
Swordsmen armor: Mail shirt (1) -> Mail coat (3) -> Bracers & greaves (4)
Heavy spearmen armor: Mail shirt (1) -> Mail coat (3) -> Bracers & greaves (4)
Light infantry armor: Mail vest (4) (affects light spearmen, crossbowmen, and some UUs)
Cavalry barding (2): Very expensive upgrade that turns Elite cavalry into Cataphracts
Light Cavalry Barding: increases armor for light cavalry, changes graphics to “Elite light cavalry” unit
Melee attack upgrades: Carburization (1) -> Steel (2), Crucible steel (3), Wootz steel (4)

Under this set of armor technologies they type of armor (lamelar, scale, chain) is irrelevant. Lighter units might use leather or iron, but the protection is tied to the length and coverage of the armor, not the material or style.

Alternative Blacksmith technologies
Elite cavalry armor: Iron lamelar (1) -> Chain mail (1)
Light cavalry armor: Leather lamelar (2) -> Iron lamelar (3) -> Chain mail (4)
Swordsmen armor: Iron lamelar (1) -> Chain mail (1)
Heavy spearmen armor: Iron lamelar (1) -> Chain mail (1)
Cavalry barding: Leather lamelar (1) -> Iron lamelar (2) -> Chain mail (4)

Under this alternative set of armor technologies, the heavy units are assumed to have more extensive armor (regardless of type) compared to lighter units. Heavy units also start with leather armor.

Navy: (needs work)
Defensive structures: (needs work)
Wonders (needs work)
Religion: (needs work)





Major Civilizations and the minor civs they cover:

Arabs
Islamic armies (except Moors), pre-Islamic Saracens

Infantry, archery, and light cavalry civ.
UU = Mubarizun: Very powerful Champion (infantry maybe?).
UT = Mamelukes: Takes a long time, but gives access to cheap home-grown (not mercenary) cavalry archers.
Strength and weaknesses:
No heavy cavalry. Do not get cavalry archer upgrade.
Mercenary cavalry archers (Turkish Mamelukes)
Strong foot archers, good infantry.
Good light cavalry.
Advanced technology, seigecraft, and defenses.
Get Camels?

Raid with:
Moors: Improve skirmishers and cavalry skirmishers. Add slingers.

Settle Among:
Arabs
Persians: Add catphracts and catphract archers. Gain Persian Techs. Weakens light spearmen and swordsmen?


Moors
Moors, Berbers, Egyptians, other North Africans, Andalusians

Infantry, archery, and light cavalry civ.
UU = Slingers: High attack and accuracy. Medium cost, but very fast training time. But only medium range. Will be outclassed by fully upgraded archers, but can be cranked out quickly for defense or rushing in early ages.
UT =
Strength and weaknesses:
Weaker heavy cavalry.
Do not get cavalry archer upgrade.
Mercenary cavalry archers (Turkish Mamelukes)
Strong foot archers and skirmishers (plus slingers).
Good infantry.
Good cavalry.
Advanced technology, seigecraft, and defenses.
Get Camels

Raid with:
Arabs: Better Spearmen? Add Mubarizun?

Settle Among:
Berbers
Iberians: Add heavy cavalry. Improve Heavy Infantry. Lose Slingers?


Eastern Romans
Eastern Romans. Maybe the Armenians or other people periodically under Eastern Roman rule.

Cataphract and defensive civ.
UU1 = Greek fire ship (4): same as in game, but slightly better.
UU2 = Greek fire tower (4): short range anti-ship and siege tower.
UU3 = Varangian Guard (4 with "welcome Varangians"): Super heavy infantry with attack bonus versus other infantry. Has hero mode enabled so they stay at the back of the formation, regenerate, and cannot be converted.
UT = Justinian compensation. Cheaper military units. Justinian often short changed his troops and made them “donate” their pay to the empire if they died.
Strength and weaknesses:
Good heavy cavalry and heavy spearmen.
Only mercenary light cavalry archers
Poor foot archers.
No light infantry.
No heavy swordsmen, just dismounted cavalry.
Mercenary Varangian guard (houscarls)

Raid with:
???

Settle among:
Eastern Romans
???
???

Celts
Welsh, Irish, Scotts. Maybe: Bretons. Not: Sub-Roman Britons? Post-Roman Gaulish populations. Picts?

Light infantry and monk civ.
UU = Woad raider (1): Elite light infantry, fast but doesn’t benefit from armor upgrades.
UU2 = Chairiot (1): Poor mans heavy cavalry that is outclassed by heavy cavalry after Age 1 (these WERE still in use among some Pictish and Breton tribes according to some sources).
UT = Arthurian Legend: Gain Arthurian Knights. I know the cavalry aspect is probably wrong, but who can resist giving the Sub-Romans this option?
Strength and weaknesses:
Faster spearmen.
Bonuses for skirmisher cavalry?
Faster skirmishers?
Cheaper, more accurate (but otherwise weak) archers.
Weak cavalry.
Excellent tower defenses (Duns and Booches).
Also get cheap wooden hill forts.
Weak crossbows (only if Picts are included in this civ).
Weak siege craft?
Excellent monks (pre- or post-Christianization).

Raid with:
???

Settle among:
Celts
Franks: Improve Light cavalry. Improve heavy spearmen. Add heavy cavalry? Lose light infantry and skirmisher speed bonuses? Lose woad raiders?
Sub-Romans: Light spearmen gain large shields (slower but better piercing armor). Lose Woad Raiders? Gain Arthurian legend UT?

Welcome Ostmen: Must be settled among Celts. Add Mercenary heavy swordsmen, heavy spearmen, and houscarls.

Chinese
Chinese dynasties and kingdoms: Jin, Song, Qi, Liang, Cheng Han, Yan, Wei, Zhou, Tang, Liao, Xia. Nearby peoples: Tibetans.

Defensive and crossbow civ.
UU = ??
UT = ChuKoNu (4): Increases castle and tower attack rate.
Strength and weaknesses:
Cheaper crossbows.
Easily heavy spearmen and crossbow combination.
No skirmishers.
Good cavalry.
Only mercenary light cavalry archers.
Food and villager bonuses from AoK?
Excellent walls and towers.
Solid siege craft.

Raid with:
???

Settle among:
Chinese

Franks
Franks (Salians, Ripuarians, Merovingians, Carolingians), Alemanian, Burgundians, Suebian?

Infantry civ that becomes a heavy cavalry civ.
UU = Throwing axeman (1): fast, (low) ranged , light infantry, bonus vs other infantry.
UT = Paladins: improves heavy cavalry in some way?
Strength and weaknesses:
Good mix of cavalry and infantry.
Poor archers.
No cavalry archers.
Only moderately good fortifications.

Raid with:
Huns: Add light cavalry archers and torch cavalry.


Settle Among:
Franks
Gallo-Romans: Light heavy cavalry. Add technologies? Add stone fortifications? Weakens throwing axemen.

Subjugate Gepids: Must be settled among Gallo-Romans. Improve heavy cavalry.


Goths
Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Vandals, Herules, Gepids, Lombards, Geats, Rugians, Scirians, Turcilings

Semi-nomadic Infantry and Cavalry civ.
UU = Gadraught (1): Light infantry with poor accuracy (swings and misses at times) but massive attack and bonuses vs buildings.
UT =
Strength and weaknesses:
Excellent heavy and light infantry and cavalry.
Okay archers.
No cavalry archer.
No fortifications until Age 4.
Forts are cheap but weak wagon forts.

Raid with:
Huns: Add light cavalry archers and torch cavalry.
Franks: Add throwing axemen.
Slavs: Add light axemen. Improve skirmishers.
Scythians: Add catphracts, catphract archers, and light cavalry archers.

Settle among:
Iberians: Gain stone fortifications. Improve cavalry skirmishers. (Visigoths)
Romans: Gain stone fortifications. Gain roman towers and defensive technologies. (Ostrogoths)
Berbers: Improve ship hit points. Improve skirmishers and cavalry skirmishers. (Vandals)

Indians
Empires & Dynasties: Sunga, Satavahana, Chera, Chola, Pandyan, Kharavela, Gupta, Vakataka, Haraha, Vijayabagara, Chalukya, Rahtrakuta, Pala.

Defensive archer civ.
UU = Steel Longbowman (1): elite archer with range comparable to a recurve bowman but higher attack damage.
UU2 = Chariot archer (1): poor man’s cavalry archer. Slow turning, but accurate and fast firing.
UU3 = Scythed Chariot (1): shock cavalry. Rapidly does damage the longer it is next to a unit (like a fire ship but with trample damage).
UT = Bamboo Longbow (2): increases archer range and attack
UT2 = Wootz steel (4): increases melee damage
Strength and weaknesses:
No cavalry archers.
Weak heavy cavalry?
No heavy infantry.
Light infantry bonuses?
Good fortifications.
Cheaper archers.
Elephants.

Raid with:
???

Settle among:
Northern Indians: Add catphracts. Weaken chariots.
Southern Indians: Faster light spears and light swordsmen.

Japanese
Yamoto, Kawachi, Wa, Japanese Empire, various Japanese Clans

Heavy archer and Heavy Cavalry archer civ.
UU = Dismounted Samurai archer (4): heavy foot archer with good armor and no minimum range.
UU2 = Samurai (4): Heavy cavalry archer with good armor and no minimal range.
Possibly a unique Naganata spearman?
UT = Feudalize: makes samurai available. Weakens other infantry.
Strength and weaknesses:
Good heavy cavalry archers.
No light cavalry archers.
Decent archers and infantry.
Decent fortifications.

Raid with:
???

Settle among:
Japanese
Koreans: ???

Khemer
Khemer, Cham, other non-Indian Southeast Asians (Burma?)

Elephant civilization.
UU = Ballista elephant (3): Ballista with tons of hit points and no minimum range, but weak to spears.
UT =
Strength and weaknesses:
Ballista Elephants are the most powerful unit in the game.
No heavy infantry.
Solid archers, light spearmen, and light swordsmen.
Excellent elephants.
No heavy cavalry.
No cavalry archers.
Excellent fortifications.
Excellent siege craft (scorpion bonuses?)

Raid with:
???

Settle among:
???


Koreans
Goguryeo, Baekje, Silla

Cavalry civilization?
UU: Hrwang -but what type of unit are they?
UT =
Strength and weaknesses:
This civ is a tough one. They just sound like China with more archers and fewer crossbows. Maybe more horses and less infantry.

Raid with:
???

Settle among:
???


Mongolians
Various Mongolian tribes, Khitan Liao

Nomadic cavalry archer civ.
UU: War drummer (1): Fast moving monk used for healing only, that keeps up with their cavalry. Note that the cavalry archer line will replace the mangudia.
UT =
Strength and weaknesses:
Nomadic
No walls or fortifications until age 4
Poor infantry
Excellent cavalry
Cataracts are slower and have fewer hit points.
Cheap home-grown cavalry archers.
More accurate cavalry archers – best in the game.
Weak siege weapons?

Raid with:
Turks: Add heavy cavalry.
Scythians: Improve catphracts and catphract archers.

Settle among:
Chinese: Add heavy infantry. Weaken light cavalry archers.


Norse
Danes, Norwegians, Swedes, Ynglings, Ingaevones, Yngvi, any Viking explorers/raiders, Normans? (with diplomacy) Kievan Russ (with diplomacy?)

Infantry and naval civ.
UU1 = Berserker (1): Light infantry with no armor, trample damage, low accuracy and high attack. This unit can be sent like an explosive to cut a swath through the enemy, but will likely die in the process (unless he is lucky).
UU2 = Houscarl (3): Extremely heavy infantry with a slow but very powerful attack.
UU3 = Longship (3): Same as in game.
Strength and weaknesses:
Excellent infantry.
Multiple infantry types that do not require much in the way of upgrades (so you can mix and match depending on the situation).
Good archers and skirmishers.
Good spearmen.
Lose heavy cavalry after the first period (the Norse fought on horseback during the earlier Vendel period).
Terrible cavalry (unless you settle among Slavs or Franks)
No cavalry archers.
Only moderately good fortifications.
Faster ships.
Weak siege craft.

Raid with:
???

Settle among:
Norse
Celts: Faster spearmen and skirmishers?
Franks: Add Norman charger (heavy cavalry). Add crossbowmen. Improve light cavalry. Add cavalry skirmishers. Lose houscarls. Lose berserkers. Lose attack bonus versus monks and monasteries.
Slavs: Improve light cavalry. Add heavy cavalry.
Anglo-Saxons: ???

Persians
Persian dynasties: Sassanids, Samanids, Ghaznavids

Cataphract and defensive civ.
UU: Zhayedan (1): Elite rear guard "immortal" cataphracts. Has hero mode enabled so they stay at the back of the formation, regenerate, and cannot be converted.
UT =
Strength and weaknesses:
Excellent technology.
Excellent fortifications.
Excellent heavy cavalry.
Only mercenary light cavalry archers.
Poor infantry (unarmored spearmen and dismounted cavalry)
Elephants.
Solid siege craft.
Expensive units are required to be good (like AoK Koreans)

Raid with:
???

Settle among:
???

Fealty to Turks: Improve swordsmen? Improve light cavalry. Cheaper cavalry archers (no longer mercenaries). Weakens catphract and catphract archers.
Fealty to Arabs: Improve swordsmen. Improve light and heavy spearmen. Improve light cavalry. Weakens catphracts and catphract archers. Changes religion to Islam.

Western Romans
Western Roman Empire, Sub-Roman Britain?, Gaulish population (as Roman loses its grip), Vlachs (not that they do anything in this period).

Infantry and artillery civ.
UU: Legionnaire (1): Medium level heavy swordsman (easier to mass than Elite heavy swordsmen).
Strength and weaknesses:
Excellent UU infantry.
Good cavalry.
Excellent siege craft/artillery.
Excellent fortifications--stone wall and fortification bonuses.
Excellent technologies.
Only mercenary light cavalry archers.
Poor spearmen? Or no spearmen? Sub-Romans used spears though?
Poor archers.
Expensive units are required to be good (like AoK Koreans)

Raid with:
Huns: Add light cavalry archers. Weakens legionnaires.
Goths: Add light goth infantry. Weakens legionnaires.

Settle among:
Romans
Britons: Add Scythian catphracts and catphract archers. Weakens stone wall and fortification bonuses.
Gauls: Improve swordsmen and heavy swordsmen. Weakens legionnaires. Weakens stone wall and fortification bonuses.


Saxons
Angles, Jutes, Saxons (continental), Anglo-Saxon Britain, Tuetones, Bavarians, Frisians, Chatti, Suebi?? Many many others

Infantry civ.
UU1 = Gehirdman (2): Heavy elite spearman with higher and faster attack than normal heavy spearmen.
UU2 = Seaxman (1): Super cheap infantry swordsmen (good trash units for combating spearmen in Age 2).
Houscarl is obtainable with diplomacy.
Strength and weaknesses:
Poor cavalry. –might change with diplomacy (Continental Germans)
No cavalry archers.
Only moderately good archers.
Excellent infantry.
Gehirdmen are excellent vs cavalry and other infantry.
Weak fortifications and fortresses.
Weak seigecraft?
Super cheap Seaxmen make for a decent infantry flood option early on.

Raid with:
Franks:
Goths:
Angles and Jutes:

Settle among:
Teutons: Add weakish heavy cavalry. Add tower bonus.
Sub-Romans: Must have raided with Angles and Jutes. Weakens light cavalry. Add gehirdman. Light spearmen can be produced faster and cheaper.
Franks: Lose seaxman. Add heavy cavalry. Improve light cavalry.

Welcome Norse: Lose gehirdman. Add houscarl.

Scythians
Iagges, Rhoxolani, Kushans, Alans, Cumans, Sakas, Kambojasm White Huns (settled), Red Huns.

Nomadic Cataphract and Cavalry archer civ.
UU = Alano war dog (1). Fast quick attacking but low hit point “cavalry.”
Strength and weaknesses:
Nomadic.
Get Cataphract upgrade for free, and in age 1.
Excellent cavalry.
Cheap home-grown cavalry archers.
Poor fortifications until age 4.
Poor siege craft?

Raid with:
Goths: Add gothic light swordsman. Improve light spearmen. Improve heavy swordsmen.
Slavs: Add light axeman. Improve skirmishers.
Huns: Add torch cavalry.


Settle among:
Slavs: Add light axeman. Improve skirmishers. Add slav fortifications and techs.
??? Did they ever settle among anyone else and maintain power?


Slavs
Slavs, Croats, White Croats, Serbs, Czechs, Polans, Bulgarains (with diplomacy?), Russ (with diplomacy?), many many others

Defensive civ.
UU: Light axeman (1): Light infantry with attack bonus vs infantry.
Strength and weaknesses:
Excellent fortifications
Decent siege craft.
Skirmishers regenerate (their real unique unit)
All light infantry regenerate? Probably too powerful.
Decent light cavalry.
Only mercenary light cavalry archers (without diplomacy).
Can get either Houscarls or Light cavalry archers with diplomacy.
Only moderately good heavy cavalry (without diplomacy).

Raid with:
Turks: Add light cavalry archer, heavy cavalry archers, improve light cavalry, improve heavy cavalry.
Goths: Improve heavy cavalry. Add light goth infantry.

Settle among:
Slavs

Fealty to Turks: Add light cavalry archer, heavy cavalry archers, improve light cavalry, improve heavy cavalry. Lowers skirmisher regeneration rate.
Fealty to Norse: Add houscarl. Weaken fortifications.

Turks
Huns, Avars, Kazakhs, Uyghurs, Krymchaks, Bulgars (Bulgarians with diplomacy?), Gokturks, Kipchaks

Nomadic cavalry archer civ.
UU1 = Tarkan (1): Light cavalry with attack bonus vs buildings.
UU2: War wagons (3): Slow cavalry archer with substantial piercing armor that attack short range with multiple arrows.
Strength and weaknesses:
Nomadic.
No walls and Poor fortresses until Age 4.
Excellent light cavalry.
Home-grown light cavalry archers.
Decent heavy cavalry.
Can get Gothic or Slavic UUs with Diplomacy.
Decent siege craft.

Raid with:
Goths: Improve heavy swordsmen and light spearmen. Add light gothic swordsman. Add skirmishers. Improve transport ship hit points.
Slavs: Add light axeman. Add regenerating skirmishers? Improve light and heavy spearmen.
Scythians: Upgrade to catphract and catphract archer. ???
Arabs: Improve swordsmen and light and heavy spearmen. Improve foot archers.

Settle among:
Persians: Gain Persian technologies and fortifications. Add elephants. Add light spearmen. Add light swordsmen. Add heavy spearmen. Improve foot archers.
Indians:
Slavs: Gain slav technologies and fortifications. Add light axemen. Add regenerating skirmishers. Add heavy and light spearmen.



This is still very much a work in progress, but I wanted to get people's thoughts on it and suggestions


Historical Sources:
http://www.heritage-history.com/?c=read&author=bradley&book=goths&story=goths

https://www.amazon.com/Encyclopedia-Military-History-Present-Revised/dp/0061812358

When all else fails, I often refer to DBAOL and Total War forums for ideas on military composition. http://www.dbaol.com/armies.htm

[This message has been edited by Dave3377 (edited 07-24-2017 @ 06:20 PM).]

Replies:
posted 05-30-15 09:24 PM CT (US)     1 / 202  
Looks very interesting feel free to use anything I made if you need.

I think it would be best if the camels are also generic units since there are elephants and cat's available for multiple factions.

Maybe you should move the dismounted rider out of the stable it might look odd to have a foot unit come out of it.Also the mercs should come out of some other building or else the markets will become military units may be you can buy villagers from it?

I would love to see packble Tc,slaver,rading units added special units to the game.
posted 05-30-15 09:41 PM CT (US)     2 / 202  
Cool ideas Mahazona

My only issue with the Camel is that I can't find ANY resources that suggest that anyone used them IN combat during this time period. They were often used as pack animals and as troop transports. But it seems like the troops dismounted from them before battle.

I just can't find anything where someone is actually riding the thing in battle and fighting on it.

But if ANYONE can show me evidence that it happened I'd love to incorporate them more into the game.
posted 05-30-15 11:58 PM CT (US)     3 / 202  
Well wiki says people used them in battle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camel_cavalry
posted 05-31-15 01:06 AM CT (US)     4 / 202  
What about the Alans? Are they included in Persians?

More importantly the Huns, are they included with the Mongolians?
posted 05-31-15 02:14 AM CT (US)     5 / 202  
Turks
Huns, Avars, Kazakhs, Uyghurs, Krymchaks, Bulgars (Bulgarians with diplomacy?), Gokturks, Kipchaks
Scythians
Iagges, Rhoxolani, Kushans, Alans, Cumans.
I think Berbers should not be added with Arabs they are different and you can have berber vs arab campaigns also.
posted 05-31-15 04:22 AM CT (US)     6 / 202  
Sorry didnt see those.

This time period is pre-Mongol so its interesting you chose to include them.
posted 05-31-15 08:37 AM CT (US)     7 / 202  
My only issue with the Camel is that I can't find ANY resources that suggest that anyone used them IN combat during this time period. They were often used as pack animals and as troop transports. But it seems like the troops dismounted from them before battle.
This is only true in some cases. The huge advantage of camelry is that horses are scared of camels due to their smell, which is probably why ES gave camelry a bonus against cavalry. Camelry were certainly used in combat, though - I can trace mentions of their use all the way back to Herodotus' Histories where they are used by the Achaemenids to defeat the Lydian cavalry.
I think Berbers should not be added with Arabs they are different and you can have berber vs arab campaigns also.
I agree. The Berbers and the Arabs were too different to be covered by a single umbrella civ such as ES did with the Saracens in vanilla. I'd actually add another civ that covered both North Africa and Andalusia, as that region of the Islamic world was so different from the rest of it, and from the 7th century onwards this is a major portion of your mod.
This time period is pre-Mongol so its interesting you chose to include them.
Check out the book Empire of the Steppe: A History of Central Asia by René Grousset. It is very old and out of date in some aspects, but it does an excellent job of describing the conflicts (dating back to even before the timeframe of this mod) between the Chinese and several nomadic groups from the regions that we would now know as Manchuria, Mongolia, and Central Asia.


As a general comment, I think the outline and proposed structure of the mod is incredible, and I will most certainly play it. I do have a few observations, though:

- Many of the civs have elite units available from early on. You're going to want to start them off at a relatively low cost (otherwise nobody's eco will be good enough to build them early on) and then have hidden techs increase the cost through the ages to balance them later on. This also presents an interesting gameplay choice - do you build more elite units earlier on when they are cheaper, or do you age up quicker to take advantage of those benefits?

- You're probably going to want to use the spelling "Cataphract" instead of "Catafract", which is more of a phonetic spelling than an actual correct one.
Skirmishers have less range, less piercing armor and are a trash unit, not an anti-archer unit. But their speed makes them decent gorilla warriors if micro managed.
You probably want to increase their base attack value, then. Their low attack value in vanilla is well-balanced because they're a hard counter, but they're already a pretty weak unit in vanilla. If you remove their niche as an archer counter, you need to add a little base attack (in addition to the speed) to make them worthwhile.
Spearmen have shields and thus piercing armor and archers no longer have a bonus vs them. This makes the swordsman the best unit for countering them.
I cannot stress how wonderful this is. Swordsmen are so underused in vanilla and I think this will let us see them more
Persian dynasties: Sassanids, Samanids, Ghaznavids
Add the Buyids as covered by the "Persian dynasty" umbrella as well
Or no spearmen? Sub-Romans used spears though?
This would be quite inaccurate, given that the vast majority of most armies would be spearmen. Poor spearmen would be accurate though - it represents the late-Roman transition into the Limitanei and Comitatenses system, where the Limitanei were small, poorly paid and equipped border garrisons that were generally expected to cave under pressure, and the Comitatenses were an elite mobile reserve that was able to then plug the gap. Late-Roman armies were built around a core of elite troops but didn't have the depth that they formerly had due to the massive manpower shortages they had starting with the Third Century Crisis.

Let me know if you have any questions or want advice from a gameplay or historical standpoint - I'd love to pitch in a bit on that front if you need it

~ Forgotten Empires ~

Storm on the Steppe | Galderton Hill RP | Proud member of Stormwind Studios

"Deyr fé, deyja frændr, deyr sjálfr it sama; ek veit einn at aldri deyr, dómr um dauðan hvern." - Hávamál 77.

[This message has been edited by HockeySam18 (edited 05-31-2015 @ 08:38 AM).]

posted 05-31-15 09:07 AM CT (US)     8 / 202  
Sounds great!
You probably meant "guerrilla" not "gorilla"
posted 05-31-15 09:27 AM CT (US)     9 / 202  
Extremely interesting project,I really wish you good luck carrying it out.
I'd like to be of some help but I'm a total newbie and you're probably better off without me.
The only thing I can do right now is giving a couple of historical suggestions about the Franks' and "Goths'"UT.

For the Franks I would suggest (just as you do) making their UT cavalry related. The military success of the early Carolingians is partially explained by the ability to call to arms a very large number of heavily armored cavalry for their campaigns. You could either make a UT that gives cavalry an armor bonus (to represent the adoption of the brynia, the tipical armor of the age) or one that make it cheaper, although I fear this last option would make the Franks a bit over powered.

Some of the people you mention under the "Goths" category have left a written records of their customary laws (e.g. Rothari's laws or the Lex Visigothorum) so you may want to give them an UT related to this. In alternative it can be related to the conversion from Arianism to Catholicism which most of this people experienced.

Also I always had the impression that the Burgundians were much more akin to the Gothic family rather than to the Franks, who just happened to be their conquerors, but I might be wrong.
Hope you find use for this. Good luck with the project!

Stat rosa pristina nomine, nomina nuda tenemus
posted 05-31-15 12:52 PM CT (US)     10 / 202  
Great ideas and great feedback everyone.
Quoted from HockeySam
Quoted from Dave:
My only issue with the Camel is that I can't find ANY resources that suggest that anyone used them IN combat during this time period. They were often used as pack animals and as troop transports. But it seems like the troops dismounted from them before battle.
This is only true in some cases. The huge advantage of camelry is that horses are scared of camels due to their smell, which is probably why ES gave camelry a bonus against cavalry. Camelry were certainly used in combat, though - I can trace mentions of their use all the way back to Herodotus' Histories where they are used by the Achaemenids to defeat the Lydian cavalry.
Still seems like a one-time gimmick for the most part. I really want to add more camelry, but I'm just not seeing them used enough. I definitely keep the camel as a scenario editor unit and an Arab unit (if anyone used them it should be the Saracens).

I kind of like the idea of making a camel unit that is a trader and is resistant to cavalry attacks. Then give this unit to the civs that had access to camels (Romans?, Byzantines?, Arabs, Berbers, Mongolians, Turks, Chinese, Indians, Persians)
Quoted from HockeySam
Quoted from Mahazona:
I think Berbers should not be added with Arabs they are different and you can have berber vs arab campaigns also.
I agree. The Berbers and the Arabs were too different to be covered by a single umbrella civ such as ES did with the Saracens in vanilla. I'd actually add another civ that covered both North Africa and Andalusia, as that region of the Islamic world was so different from the rest of it, and from the 7th century onwards this is a major portion of your mod.
I admit I cringed when I typed Berbers under the Arabs because I wasn't sure they really fit there. It sounds like they really don't so I'll look into making them their own civ. That will force me to do an .exe edit add new civs, so I'll have to figure out how to do that.

I like the idea of adding the Andalusians as their own civ too. I'll have to do some homework on them and pull them out of the Arabs. Same with Berbers. I need to do some homework on them too.

Really this one one of the biggest reasons I posted the thread; I wanted to get feedback on some of these decisions and see what more knowledgeable people would think. Thanks a ton everyone!

I've debated splitting the Huns from the rest of the Turks too. Then their are the Magyars, who functions much like the other nomadic horse archers but have a different language and origin. Still not sure what to do with them. I'd be all for adding them as a civ, I just worry that they wouldn't be distinct from the other from a game-play standpoint.
Quoted from HockeySam
- Many of the civs have elite units available from early on. You're going to want to start them off at a relatively low cost (otherwise nobody's eco will be good enough to build them early on) and then have hidden techs increase the cost through the ages to balance them later on. This also presents an interesting gameplay choice - do you build more elite units earlier on when they are cheaper, or do you age up quicker to take advantage of those benefits?
The balance and unit cost still needs to be worked out. I'll need to get everything else done and then toy with the costs to see what works best. My thinking was to keep the units fairly expensive in the dark ages to decrease the army size. But the lack of housing and resources in the dark age might already do that. So I'll have to experiment a bit. The solution might be to lower the costs of all the units for all ages, but up the cost to advance ages. I'm not sure. It will take a lot of play testing.
Quoted from HockeySam
- You're probably going to want to use the spelling "Cataphract" instead of "Catafract", which is more of a phonetic spelling than an actual correct one.
Yeah, I have a bad habit of using them interchangeably without noticing. I'm impartial, so if others think "Cataphract" is better, then Cataphract it is!
Quoted from HockeySam
Skirmishers have less range, less piercing armor and are a trash unit, not an anti-archer unit. But their speed makes them decent gorilla warriors if micro managed.
You probably want to increase their base attack value, then. Their low attack value in vanilla is well-balanced because they're a hard counter, but they're already a pretty weak unit in vanilla. If you remove their niche as an archer counter, you need to add a little base attack (in addition to the speed) to make them worthwhile.
Yes, that is the plan. I toyed with this extensively and the faster skirmishers with less range and a slightly higher attack functioned the way I wanted them to. They spread out and make heavy infantry chase them all over the map before getting killed or ending up out of the LOS of the enemy. The result is that they work nicely against heavy infantry. They can't take down heavy infantry 1v1 or even 12v12, but they scatter the army and put a big dent in them before ultimately falling.

I think that is how they worked in real life. They ran out in front of the army, harassed the enemy lines, then ran away and behind their heavily armored friends. I think rushing some skirmishers into a common path used by attacking enemies will do a decent job of weakening them for a very low price. They won't destroy the army, but when the army gets to your own army or fortifications they will be weaker and more likely to fall to your defenses.
They'll also have a good LOS so that they come back to harass the infantry again after the infantry lock onto and follow one of their buddies. This will also make them decent scouts. They are truly annoying and should motivate players to make cavalry and archers to kill them before they run away.
Quoted from HockeySam
Add the Buyids as covered by the "Persian dynasty" umbrella as well
I figured I missed a few. If anyone else notices missing groups feel free to add them.
Quoted from HockeySam with respect to the Roman spearmen
This would be quite inaccurate, given that the vast majority of most armies would be spearmen. Poor spearmen would be accurate though - it represents the late-Roman transition into the Limitanei and Comitatenses system, where the Limitanei were small, poorly paid and equipped border garrisons that were generally expected to cave under pressure, and the Comitatenses were an elite mobile reserve that was able to then plug the gap. Late-Roman armies were built around a core of elite troops but didn't have the depth that they formerly had due to the massive manpower shortages they had starting with the Third Century Crisis.
Thanks. That helps a lot. I might use a diplomacy-type tech to either help the spearmen (sub-roman armies that fend for themselves) or help lower the cost of mercenaries (something the Late West Roman relied heavily on).

That said, Mercenaries will probably only take up half the population space of their home-grown counterparts. With the Roman relying so heavily on these units to bolster their ranks they will actually need to devote more of their population to trading and gold mining. This will ironically increase the need to supplement their armies with mercenaries! However, this also means that they can pull an army out in minimal time because they don't have to waste time training them.

Other civilizations like the Turks will have all the home-grown quality warriors they need at their disposal and thus won't need as many peasants doing economic work.

[This message has been edited by Dave3377 (edited 05-31-2015 @ 01:17 PM).]

posted 05-31-15 01:34 PM CT (US)     11 / 202  

A few other things I forgot to add:

Sheep will be "trainable" as mills like in other mods.

Nomads will not get farming! They will have to rely on sheep herding, which is fine until the enemy comes and steals their sheep!

Raiding for resources, if I can get it to work right, could be a major aspect of the game.

Religion and religious changes will play a huge role. These will impact the cost, speed, and defensive capabilities of monks. For example, attacking a Christian monastery might be more lucrative than attacking a Buddhist monastery full of Kung Fu masters!

Some religions will disable the old religion. For example, Christianity wasn't very religiously tolerant during that time period. So if you Christianize then you lose the ability to train the old religions monks and lose the benefits of the old religion. There will be other consequences too, just not sure what they are.

By contrast, Islam, Tengism, Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism were a bit more religiously tolerant (though some of those groups more more tolerant than others as well). Not sure about Zoroastrianism, but not many people converted to that (mostly from it) at that time. Same with Norse, German, and Slavic paganism (which is such an awful blanket term for religions that never had a proper name recorded in history).

I wanted some of these religions to actually kill off any existing monks/priest form the old religion and destroy the old temples/monasteries. But I can't figure out how to do that.

What I don't want is one religion to be a "Better choice" than another. They all need to have pros and cons. Sometimes the pro or con might be that it takes away the bonuses of the old religion or leaves them intact. But they need to be balanced.

Also changing religions needs to be a big deal. It was a major influence on cultures when they collided via migration, war, trade, or missionary activities. I'd like to make a big deal in the mod.

I'll definitely be doing a lot of thinking before listing all the specifics and posting them for feedback. I do worry that people might be offended by how their religion functions in the game. That said, all aspects of religion on the game will be based on how they are generally thought to have influenced things during the 300AD-1072AD. In other words, the messages of the religions won't be as much a factor as how PEOPLE of that time period used the religions and responded to them.
posted 05-31-15 06:18 PM CT (US)     12 / 202  
Still seems like a one-time gimmick for the most part. I really want to add more camelry, but I'm just not seeing them used enough. I definitely keep the camel as a scenario editor unit and an Arab unit (if anyone used them it should be the Saracens).
Ah, I misunderstood your point. Looking at the time period, I'd say the civs in your mod who would have employed camelry would be the Arabs, Romans, Byzantines, Persians (after the rise of Islam), and Indians (near the latter part of the mod's timeframe). These are the ones for whom I can find evidence for atm, anyway.
I kind of like the idea of making a camel unit that is a trader and is resistant to cavalry attacks. Then give this unit to the civs that had access to camels (Romans?, Byzantines?, Arabs, Berbers, Mongolians, Turks, Chinese, Indians, Persians)
Good idea. The Romans actually introduced the camel to many parts of the Empire due to it's uncanny ability to travel over long distances in arid and dry climates.
I've debated splitting the Huns from the rest of the Turks too. Then their are the Magyars, who functions much like the other nomadic horse archers but have a different language and origin. Still not sure what to do with them. I'd be all for adding them as a civ, I just worry that they wouldn't be distinct from the other from a game-play standpoint.
I'd have one civ for Central Asian Turkic tribes and one civ for the nomadic tribes such as Huns, Avars, and Magyars that ventured farther westward.

Your idea for Skirms sounds great
Thanks. That helps a lot. I might use a diplomacy-type tech to either help the spearmen (sub-roman armies that fend for themselves) or help lower the cost of mercenaries (something the Late West Roman relied heavily on).

That said, Mercenaries will probably only take up half the population space of their home-grown counterparts. With the Roman relying so heavily on these units to bolster their ranks they will actually need to devote more of their population to trading and gold mining. This will ironically increase the need to supplement their armies with mercenaries! However, this also means that they can pull an army out in minimal time because they don't have to waste time training them.
Doesn't sound too unlike the problems the Romans ran into during the time of the late Empire, when they were continually forced to recruit barbarian mercenaries and pay them tribute due to manpower shortages within the Empire! Sounds great

~ Forgotten Empires ~

Storm on the Steppe | Galderton Hill RP | Proud member of Stormwind Studios

"Deyr fé, deyja frændr, deyr sjálfr it sama; ek veit einn at aldri deyr, dómr um dauðan hvern." - Hávamál 77.

[This message has been edited by HockeySam18 (edited 05-31-2015 @ 06:19 PM).]

posted 05-31-15 08:32 PM CT (US)     13 / 202  
Also changing religions needs to be a big deal. It was a major influence on cultures when they collided via migration, war, trade, or missionary activities. I'd like to make a big deal in the mod.
Perhaps you can check with daniel on how he got the 5th resource to work and make it faith o something which will be a resource generated when you have temples/monks/relics and can be used to research or buy units.I got the idea from knights of honor game.
I wanted some of these religions to actually kill off any existing monks/priest form the old religion and destroy the old temples/monasteries. But I can't figure out how to do that.
May be you can add different buildings for different religious buildings and make the upgrade tech to destroy them before taking on the new religion?
Raiding for resources, if I can get it to work right, could be a major aspect of the game.
This is quite possible to do check with john or denial also the slaver should be added,slavery was a big deal back in the roman era and afterwords.

Why not add the huns and mongols to the same branch both of the originated from asia. Think through about the civs and you might be able to free up a slot to add the berbers without doing a exe edit.
posted 05-31-15 09:32 PM CT (US)     14 / 202  
Quoted from Mahazona
May be you can add different buildings for different religious buildings and make the upgrade tech to destroy them before taking on the new religion?
I tried, but turning the building into rubble keeps the rubble on the map and no one can build over it. Upgrading it into a unit with 0 HPs also doesn't work. It makes the building into a shell of a building. It is dead, but stays on the map, can't be deleted, or built over. It's very frustrating.
Quoted from Mahazona
Raiding for resources, if I can get it to work right, could be a major aspect of the game.
This is quite possible to do check with john or denial also the slaver should be added,slavery was a big deal back in the roman era and afterwords.
Good call. Slavery was a big part of Rome, China, and other places too. Plus slave raiding was a big part of the raiding civs too (e.g., Turks and Vikings).
Quoted from MahazonaWhy not add the huns and mongols to the same branch both of the originated from asia. Think through about the civs and you might be able to free up a slot to add the berbers without doing a exe edit.
Actually, that wouldn't free up a spot at all because the Huns are currently part of the Turks. Eliminating the Scythians would work, but then we lose the awesome war dog and put war-drummer camels in Europe.

[This message has been edited by Dave3377 (edited 05-31-2015 @ 11:18 PM).]

posted 05-31-15 11:22 PM CT (US)     15 / 202  
To destroy monasteries, have you tried changing the hp to a negative number? I recall that (unintentionally) having the effect you want on Byzantine castles.
Actually, how do Post-Imperial and All Techs work in Age of Chivalry?
They don't. The latest release went as far as hex editing out the all techs button.


For the record, userpatch makes adding a new civ really simple. You don't have to do any exe edits yourself, just add a line to an xml.
posted 06-01-15 00:42 AM CT (US)     16 / 202  
I finally found a resource (albeit Wikipedia) that says the Berbers used Camelmen and Cavalry on the flanks of their formations. That would certainly suggest they fought on camelback.

But if I split the Arabs and Berbers, then what are the UUs for each?

The Arabs used champions (Mubarizun) who fought in single combat before the battle. But that practice was not unique to the Arabs, nor are Mubarizun a unique troop type.

The Berbers made use of Mameluke cavalry archers, but these are just Turkic slave-soldiers (kinda like Mercenaries, but with less freedom?). And the Arabs used them as well. Plus the Romans, Byzantines, Persians, Chinese, and Koreans all utilized mercenary cavalry (especially cavalry archers) from the steppes of central Asia.

The Berbers could keep the camel as their UU based on the lack of evidence that other civs fought while riding them (during the time period of the mod).

Visually, the black Africans serving as heavy infantry and archers in Berber armies would be a nice touch. But are they any different from other heavy infantry and archers?


I refuse to give either civ the Bactrian Camel rider who throws swords. The concept is ridiculous. And it's not even the right breed of camel. The Turks, Persians, and Mongolians lived in range of Bactrian species. So maybe if the Turks fought for the Caliphates as slave soldiers but did so while riding camels and juggling swords....ugh, it's too much.
posted 06-01-15 01:04 AM CT (US)     17 / 202  
You can always make the Mameluke a melee unit.This is game not a real history lesson so don't get over carried away by accuracy
But if I split the Arabs and Berbers, then what are the UUs for each?
Berbers can always use back tribal soldiers in their ranks and you can find plenty of arabic units for UU's since you make them cover a lot of people.
posted 06-01-15 01:20 AM CT (US)     18 / 202  
According to wiki the Berbers made use of slingers at the Battle of Bagdoura.
posted 06-02-15 09:34 AM CT (US)     19 / 202  
According to wiki the Berbers made use of slingers at the Battle of Bagdoura.
That makes perfect sense. I love it!

Shepherds used slings to redirect their flocks. When the sheep were getting to far away, they'd throw a stone just past them and the sheep would get spooked and run away from where the stone struck the ground. By doing this all day, they got really accurate with their slings. Armies throughout antiquity actually paid shepherds to serve in their ranks because of their ability with the slings. Finding a good slinger among the Berber peasants would be like finding a good horseman and archer among the nomadic steppe hunters. The civil skill translated excellently to war and they didn't need much training because they were already experts.
posted 06-02-15 09:50 AM CT (US)     20 / 202  
We might be able to recolor the inca uu slinger or resize the AoE slinger and use.
posted 06-09-15 07:47 PM CT (US)     21 / 202  
I added the Moors (though they are still similar to the Arabs).

I also added a blacksmith section.


I might move Wootz steel to the market and make it VERY expensive and have it only affect Elite cavalry and swordsmen melee attacks.

By contrast, a special Wootz steel blacksmith technology for the Indians will be cheaper and will affect all melee units.

My thinking is this: Only the elites could afford to buy the Wootz steel weapons or Wootz steel ingots for their own blacksmiths to heat up and forge.

By contrast, the Indians (and only the Indians) were making this stuff themselves using the monsoon winds to power their forges. So they had more of it and weren't paying the middleman (traders) to move the stuff from India to Norway!

This will also make the lightly armored Indian cavalry and often unarmored Indian infantry more formidable. But these units are really support troops for the main wings of the army: The archers and Elephants.

[This message has been edited by Dave3377 (edited 06-09-2015 @ 07:52 PM).]

posted 06-10-15 01:25 PM CT (US)     22 / 202  
I once tried the auto-convertable building thing. Completely screwed over the AI. They won't keep units next to each and every building nor will they wall up properly and even then, allied scouts just take control of the base by accident and break the AI counters/goals.

That said, it's definitely interesting for MP.


Looking forward to what you can create.

[This message has been edited by John the Late (edited 06-10-2015 @ 01:25 PM).]

posted 06-10-15 01:45 PM CT (US)     23 / 202  
I think the solution is to have an AI that keeps more units "home" for defense. I know that is doable. Plus making the units patrol should help them re-acquire buildings better if an ally steals them on accident (like villagers just doing their thing reacquire their sheep).

But in my concept testing I did notice an awful lot of blacksmiths being built (the stock AI made a new one every time they lost one). The same could happen for military buildings, which wouldn't be awful, but could really throw off the AI if you rush early and they squander all their wood on unnecessary buildings.

I think that making the AI build buildings normally when the town center is NOT under attack would work. So if they don't have a smith AND they are NOT under attack, then build a smith.

But if they are under attack, and the do NOT have a smith (or whatever building) anymore, then start a timer. When the timer expires, they will build the missing building. This way a temporary change of hands doesn't immediately prompt a new building. But an extended loss of territory will prompt new building and keep them from being crushed.

I hope I can make it work.
posted 06-10-15 10:28 PM CT (US)     24 / 202  
I added the Moors (though they are still similar to the Arabs).
One interesting difference militarily that you can explore is the fact that the Eastern part of the Islamic world tended to rely far more on slave soldiers than the Western part did. As time went on, both "halves" of the Islamic world grew farther and farther apart (militarily, culturally, and even religiously) until, I might argue, they were radically different even by the last two centuries or so of the timeframe of your mod.

~ Forgotten Empires ~

Storm on the Steppe | Galderton Hill RP | Proud member of Stormwind Studios

"Deyr fé, deyja frændr, deyr sjálfr it sama; ek veit einn at aldri deyr, dómr um dauðan hvern." - Hávamál 77.
posted 06-11-15 00:02 AM CT (US)     25 / 202  
I wonder if a Mamluk tech that makes cavalry archers available would work for the Arabs.

The tech could have a very long research time, so that even after reaching the 4th age, there would be a period of time before the widespread adoption of mamluks into the army. And during this time, only the more expensive mercenary cavalry archers would be available.

But this tech, once researched would transform the army from primarily infantry and light melee and spear throwing cavalry to one of cavalry archers.

[This message has been edited by Dave3377 (edited 06-11-2015 @ 00:04 AM).]

posted 06-11-15 04:04 PM CT (US)     26 / 202  
Settlement vs. Migration
During settlement ages, stronger buildings and defenses would be available.

During migration times, only cheap buildings low HP buildings would be available. The exception would be new Town Centers. New Town Centers could only be built during migration periods. So it you want to move in and take over your enemy, you have to do it during a migration/expansion period.

Then you can switch to settlement time and defend your territories and gradually replace your shacks and tents with sturdy houses and barracks.

New idea 1
Alternatively, rather than having 4 ages like AoK did. I could always make the ages cycle between settlement and migration.

I could do:
(1) Migration
(2) Settlement
(3) Migration
(4) Settlement

This would be great for civs like the Goths who move form one place to another, then pick up and move again. For example, the Ostrogoths left Gotland, moved through Europe to modern day Romania. Then they were driven from Romania by the Huns, ravaged Thrace, then eventually settled in Italy.

But this works less well for settled civs who are really in Age 4 the entire time, and nomadic civs that never stayed put (never really left Age 1).

New idea 2
Another idea is to have a different set of progressions for settled, semi-nomadic, and fully nomadic civs. Each could have a final age that requires settlement, but settled civs could act more like AoK civs, semi-nomadic civs could cycle like above, and nomadic civs could stay nomadic and super mobile in ages 1-3.

New Idea 3
Lastly, I could make the game cycle between settlement and migration anytime the player wants. Each time "migration" is researched, it enables "settlement." Then when "Settlement" is researched, it enables "Migration."

The issue is that I don't think this will work for 2 reasons.

First, once you research a tech, you can't research it again, even if the conditions that made it available are met again.

Second, anything that doesn't have a linear set of upgrades can crash the game when "All techs" are enabled.

However, for a limited number of times the migrate/settle cycle could work. I could make, say 20 "Researches," 10 migration and 10 settlement. They would each produce the same "technology" for either settlement or migration. But they would be researchable in order.

E.g.,
Migration 1 -> Settlement 1 -> Migration 2 -> Settlement 2 -> Migration 3 -> Settlement 3 -> etc...

[This message has been edited by Dave3377 (edited 06-11-2015 @ 04:10 PM).]

posted 06-11-15 04:23 PM CT (US)     27 / 202  
Why not have certain civs, e.g. Goths, Vikings, Huns, Saxons, Arabs be migration civs and have them age up from Tribal-Migration-Settlement or Ancient-Tribal-Migration-Settlement or something similar, then have more permanent civs like the Chinese, Romans, Byzantines, Koreans start out in Settlement Age? Or perhaps have them just advance through different periods of Settlement?
posted 06-11-15 11:51 PM CT (US)     28 / 202  
I wonder if a Mamluk tech that makes cavalry archers available would work for the Arabs.

The tech could have a very long research time, so that even after reaching the 4th age, there would be a period of time before the widespread adoption of mamluks into the army. And during this time, only the more expensive mercenary cavalry archers would be available.

But this tech, once researched would transform the army from primarily infantry and light melee and spear throwing cavalry to one of cavalry archers.
This sounds like a cool model to work from. I'd suggest having it not just enable Cavalry Archers but also a heavy melee cavalry of sorts, as well as a heavy spear/shield infantry (that would be effective against cavalry and other infantry but lose to archers and siege). This would make the slave soldier armies more diverse and represent their niche as the elite of many armies. One Abbasid Caliph even had a personal guard of 50,000 slave soldiers. The cavalry units could be moderately to expensively priced, while the infantry unit could be cheaper.

~ Forgotten Empires ~

Storm on the Steppe | Galderton Hill RP | Proud member of Stormwind Studios

"Deyr fé, deyja frændr, deyr sjálfr it sama; ek veit einn at aldri deyr, dómr um dauðan hvern." - Hávamál 77.
posted 06-12-15 01:32 PM CT (US)     29 / 202  
I would suggest considering changing the Mameluke from a sword throwing unit, to a spear throwing unit. I’m no Mid East-Dark Age expert, but I have come across numbers of instances where javelin cavalry were employed more or less extensively. Supposedly, it was easier to learn to throw a spear accurately than shoot a bow accurately, from horseback. The weight of the javelin, and the shorter distance, supposedly made it a more powerful weapon, while also allowing the rider to use other weapons (read: shield) more easily hand to hand than if he was carrying a bow.

I do recall reading that the Mongols used them heavily as well among their light cavalry. Perhaps, instead of an orthodox AOK setup, where we have a bunch of cav archers, with various bonuses, we could instead have javelin cavalry fill the role of ranged cavalry for most nations (like the Turcopoles for the Crusader States), and have longer range bow cavalry show up as either mercenaries or UUs for particular nations.

"It looks like a huge shark just took a bite out of Excelsior's ass"-Colonel Kyle Riggs, Star Force: Storm Assault
posted 06-12-15 01:52 PM CT (US)     30 / 202  
I think that heavy melee cavalry most closely fits the Mamluks.

I came across this some years ago, I think it's pretty interesting: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ain_Jalut
posted 06-12-15 09:58 PM CT (US)     31 / 202  
From a historical perspective, a scimitar-chucking camel rider is ridiculous so a change would be nice.

I would tend to agree with John about heavy melee cavalry - either swords or spears (but not thrown) would work. Many slave soldiers were also well-trained cavalry archers and heavy infantry, so I'd have a unit for those as well as I suggested earlier. However, referencing the Battle of Ain Jalut would be anachronistic given the timeframe of the mod.

I can't find (albeit after a rather cursory search) any reference of spear throwing cavalry aside from Genitours/Jinetes, which were used in the Maghrib, al-Andalus, and later adopted by the Christian kingdoms in Iberia and sometimes threw their spears (but also used them as melee weapons because one could not carry around an unlimited supply of spears as they do in AoE2). This makes them a viable option historically for your Moorish civ, but for other civs I'd stick with cavalry archers and melee cavalry (weaponry depending on the region).

~ Forgotten Empires ~

Storm on the Steppe | Galderton Hill RP | Proud member of Stormwind Studios

"Deyr fé, deyja frændr, deyr sjálfr it sama; ek veit einn at aldri deyr, dómr um dauðan hvern." - Hávamál 77.
posted 06-12-15 10:46 PM CT (US)     32 / 202  
From a historical perspective, a scimitar-chucking camel rider is ridiculous so a change would be nice.
I agree it would be extremely difficult to throw a sword of that size much like the great axe the frank uu is using.A meele cavalry armed with a spear would be best for this unit.

I think the norman knights threw spears before charging.
posted 06-15-15 00:00 AM CT (US)     33 / 202  
Throwing axemen
The Frankish throwing axeman is accurate according to Roman description. But it would have likely been a single axe, after which they would fight with a second axe or swords but without throwing it.

Mounted javelineers (Cavalry skirmishers)
Mounted javelineers were well known in antiquity. I see little reason to suspect that their widespread use was discontinued in regions where cavalry archery was not adopted. I also have a book that mentions them, but it is packed away at the current time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Javelin
http://www.dbaol.com/armies/army_65_figure_1.htm
http://www.dbaol.com/armies/army_70_figure_1.htm

But mounted javelineers wouldn't be civ specific. The Celts, Goths, Moors, Arabs, and Romans may have all likely made use of them during the time period (likely other civs too). I think of them as a poor mans cavalry archer/light cavalry unit. Their speed and range will make them good for killing off peasants and monks. But they will be easily countered with the sturdier light and heavy cavalry lines. I might use them as the scout that each civ starts with too.

Mamluks
After further inspection, it appears that the Mamluk system was adopted only at the very end of the time period of interest. I'll have to dig deeper to see how advanced the system was during the time period for the mod. My understanding is that it started out similar to mercenary service, but where the mercenary may or may not have chosen to enter into the line of work, an d where the commitment to service went beyond a simple contract.

Later they started buying children rather than trained warriors and training the children in the ways of war and Islam at training centers. Whether or not this later model was adopted during the time period of interest might seriously alter the technology.
posted 06-15-15 01:41 AM CT (US)     34 / 202  
I agree that Mamluks are rather late, your civ is called Arabs and that implies to me as the very first culture that originated from the arab peninsula.
So maybe a Beduin(camel rider)?
posted 06-15-15 08:55 AM CT (US)     35 / 202  
Throwing axemen
The Frankish throwing axeman is accurate according to Roman description. But it would have likely been a single axe, after which they would fight with a second axe or swords but without throwing it.
Yes, and the axe would have been much smaller, but there's probably no harm in keeping the vanilla graphic. The axe derives its name (francisca) from its use by the Franks, but it was by no means unique to them and was also likely used by (of the civs in your list) the Goths, Norse, and Sazons.
Mounted javelineers (Cavalry skirmishers)
Mounted javelineers were well known in antiquity. I see little reason to suspect that their widespread use was discontinued in regions where cavalry archery was not adopted.
Be quite careful with arguments like these, as military models and tactics often changed drastically over relatively short periods of time. The late-Roman army, for example, was fundamentally reorganized during the 3rd and 4th centuries into a model that even the Severans would not have recognized at all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Javelin
http://www.dbaol.com/armies/army_65_figure_1.htm
http://www.dbaol.com/armies/army_70_figure_1.htm

But mounted javelineers wouldn't be civ specific. The Celts, Goths, Moors, Arabs, and Romans may have all likely made use of them during the time period (likely other civs too). I think of them as a poor mans cavalry archer/light cavalry unit. Their speed and range will make them good for killing off peasants and monks. But they will be easily countered with the sturdier light and heavy cavalry lines. I might use them as the scout that each civ starts with too.
I forgot about the Welsh Teulu (which is a plural term, btw - I don't remember the singular atm but Kor will because he used it in Chivalry). However, even in the Wikipedia article (which must be taken with a grain of salt anyway) you linked above, the mentions of javelineers mostly refer to infantry. Roman javelineers were infantry and of the other civs you mention there is only record of mounted javelineers being used in mass by the Welsh (Teulu were an elite company of soldiers) and Moors (melee and ranged Genitours being well-attested in battle manuals from the region).

I'm not saying that cavalry didn't ever throw their spears, but as a legitimate purposed military designation it is quite rare. From a logical standpoint, one can carry far more arrows than spears, and it takes far less skill to wield a spear from horseback than to throw it from horseback. For your scout/light cavalry unit you'd probably be better off with a melee spear cavalry. However it's your mod so if you have different ideas then I'll not try to persuade you. I provide historical consultancy because the subject matter interests me
Mamluks
After further inspection, it appears that the Mamluk system was adopted only at the very end of the time period of interest. I'll have to dig deeper to see how advanced the system was during the time period for the mod. My understanding is that it started out similar to mercenary service, but where the mercenary may or may not have chosen to enter into the line of work, an d where the commitment to service went beyond a simple contract.

Later they started buying children rather than trained warriors and training the children in the ways of war and Islam at training centers. Whether or not this later model was adopted during the time period of interest might seriously alter the technology.
Slave soldiers were used in the Islamic world starting in the early 9th century (though wikipedia may have you believe otherwise), so you get about 200 years out of them in your mod. The Abbasids (750-1258) were particularly famous for their use of slave soldiers, and the Ghaznavids are probably your most famous example of a slave soldier dynasty during your time period that revolted against its (Samanid) overlords. Note that while the Ghaznavids became an independent political entity in 977, the system that created them had been in place for a long time.

Hope this helps!

~ Forgotten Empires ~

Storm on the Steppe | Galderton Hill RP | Proud member of Stormwind Studios

"Deyr fé, deyja frændr, deyr sjálfr it sama; ek veit einn at aldri deyr, dómr um dauðan hvern." - Hávamál 77.

[This message has been edited by HockeySam18 (edited 06-15-2015 @ 08:55 AM).]

« Previous Page  1 2 3 ··· 6  Next Page »
Age of Kings Heaven » Forums » Mod Design and Discussion » Dark ages mod
Top
You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register
Hop to:    
Age of Kings Heaven | HeavenGames