What I find appaling is the lack of archers. I mean, sure they have the horse archers, but they don't rise up to good old fashioned ground missles ability to fire quickly. Perhaps we might be able to make some kind of slave archer band. Plus all I see are
Steppe Spearmen
Runaway Slave Spearmen
Hun Horde Spearmen
Steppe Heavy Spearmen
The huns, if forced on foot, usually had a sword to deal death with. Usually the upper class had good swords. Maybe a higher tier sword weapon.
Well that is all I shall write before I research heavily. I don't want to sound foolish.

Indeed, more infantry archers and swordsmen. Perhaps add more varied units too as they did fight alongside other nations when they were a plundering the Romans.

Although we can't make these guys too dominant. They were past their prime by now.

I'm sorry as once again I'll have to spend some time on wiki. Never played much as the Huns, and not particularly well-acquainted with them either...

Are they settled by 500AD? If so, would their way of life change a bit, as the Mongols did when they conquered and moved into China (and got soft)?

More inf, less cav, yes.

Actually the Huns sort of dissipated after the death of Attila.

They were a powerful force in and of themselves.
They were an overwhelming force when united under Attila.
They were almost invincible with the subjugation and incorporation of other tribes.
After Attila, the other tribes broke loose and the Huns themselves fell apart.

Thus they returned to being just powerful by 500. Later they would themselves be conquered by the Mongols (I am not sure of this, but the paths of the Mongols would be right through and over where the Huns returned to).

But for our modpack, around 500, they would be on the downslide from overwhelming to just plain powerful.

I think the Huns should have very fast and strong cavalry. I also think the Huns should have a limited unit roster, since they were only small in numbers. According to some, the huns all fought mounted. The infantry came from allied and subjected tribes such as Goths, Alans, Sarmatians and some more.

@Terikiel - The Huns were long gone by the time of the Mongols, although it has been proposed that the Bulgars were descended from, or related to, the original Huns themselves, and the Magyars also claim descent.

Perhaps the actual Hunnic units, of which there would be fewer, but particularly elite in nature, could be recruited at the normal barracks, while the majority of the roster is trained from what in other nations is the AoR Barracks (if we having those seperately.

The lower level normal barracks could just give some xp bonuses to compensate for a lack of recruitment until minor/large city level.

Take, for example, our current list:
Barracks:
Hunnic Archers (large town)
Hun Lancers (minor city)
Hunnic Heavy Cavalry (large city)
Hunnic Elite Warriors (huge city)
Warlord (huge city)

AoR Barracks:
Runaway Slave Spearmen
Steppe Spearmen
Steppe Swordsmen
Steppe Heavy Spearmen
Herdsmen
Tribal Cavalry
+ AoR units

Alternatively, make all of the above 'barracks' units available at the government buildings, and give the Huns no use for barracks etc, to reflect their nomadic nature. AoR barracks would exist symbolically as a meeting point for subjects to present themselves for conscription, or such.

Omigod I need to go and actually play a Hun campaign on Vanilla BI - something I've never tried. Not a fan of steppe factions, for the most part.

It looks like the Hunnic archers (HA) are at the top of the tech tree. Weren't they known for their HAs? I know in BI they are much easier to get. I think Hunnic archers should be lower down on the list.

Lab

They're only large town...?

Alternatively, make all of the above 'barracks' units available at the government buildings, and give the Huns no use for barracks etc, to reflect their nomadic nature. AoR barracks would exist symbolically as a meeting point for subjects to present themselves for conscription, or such.

I like this idea. "AoR" Barracks can reflect the auxiliary nature of local warriors, while the real Huns, who pretty much are a warrior people, are recruitable from any settlement where the Huns go. Hunnic mercenaries, for the same reason, would also be plentiful.

I like the idea, too.

As my old french teacher would say, "Bon Idee", I think

Bonne idée, I believe.

Another idea might be to include some Bulgar units in their roster somewhere (as part of the Huns or AoR) since the Bulgars have been offered as descendants of the Huns. Shows the player where they vanished off to historically.

*EDIT* Make the Herdsmen govt too, so stop the revolt CTD.
We could also make a dismounted copy of Hunnic archers and Hun Elite Warriors to give people some dismounted archers to play with. Elite Warriors would also be competent męlée fighters.

[This message has been edited by Drakontos (edited 11-03-2010 @ 03:30 PM).]

The French word for "good" is bonne. The Italian word is bene. I'm starting to see a connection here...

Anyway, dismounted Hunnic "heavy archers" , sounds ridiculously awesome. A lancer unit (great charge power, poor sustained combat capabilities), 2 heavy cavalry units(good sustained combat and defence but medium charge: <8), 2 horse archer units (1 light, 1 heavy) would complete the cavalry department.

For the infantry dept, we have - if everyone agrees - a heavy dismounted heavy archer unit with long range, composite bow's killing power as well as a shield and a sword. A medium defensive spear unit, 2 heavy swordsmen units, no axemen, and etc.

I think that the Huns should have infantry that is moderately goo. After all, they were able to capture walled cities of Gaul and Italia, and you cannot take walls with horses. Also, I just got an awesome idea. What if we gave them a hunnic version of the sassinid sughdian warriors? Eh? Eh?

[This message has been edited by Kilos of Thermon (edited 11-06-2010 @ 10:40 AM).]

The Italian equivalent of 'bonne' is 'buona.' But 'bene' is the equivalent of 'bien,' and these two also translate as 'good,' so good effort!

For the infantry dept, we have - if everyone agrees - a heavy dismounted heavy archer unit with long range, composite bow's killing power as well as a shield and a sword. A medium defensive spear unit, 2 heavy swordsmen units

Are you suggesting that we remove the current infantry units? At present we have (from the AoR barracks) spears, swords and heavy spears, plus Dismounted Archers and Dismounted Elite Warriors from the govt buildings.

Also, cav-wise, were those additional units on top of the current roster? We have only one heavy cav at present, but 3 lancers.

Thanks

Hunnic society, war-making ways, and culture:

Quoted from Wiki:

The Huns kept herds of cattle, horses, goats, and sheep. Their other sources of food consisted of wild game and the roots of wild plants. For clothes they had round caps, trousers or leggings made from goat skin, and either linen or rodent skin tunics. Ammianus reports that they wore these clothes until the clothes fell to pieces. Priscus describes Attila's clothes as different from his men only in being clean. In warfare they utilized the bow and javelin. The arrowheads and javelin tips were made from bone. They also fought using iron swords and lassos in close combat. The Hun sword was a long, straight, double-edged sword of early Sassanian style. These swords were hung from a belt using the scabbard-slide method, which kept the weapon vertical. The Huns also employed a smaller short sword or large dagger which was hung horizontally across the belly. A symbol of status among the Huns was a gilded bow. Sword and dagger grips also were decorated with gold.

With the arrival of the Huns, a separate tradition of composite bows arrived in Europe. Each siyah was stiffened by two laths, as in the longstanding Levantine tradition, and the grip by three. Therefore, each bow possessed seven grip and ear laths, compared with none on the Scythian and Sarmatian bows and four (ear) laths on the Middle Eastern Yrzi bow. There is no evidence that the Huns used bows in any way superior to those of their contemporaries.

Ammianus mentions that the Huns had no kings but were instead led by nobles. For serious matters they formed councils and deliberated from horseback.

Jordanes and Ammianus report that the Huns practiced scarification, slashing the faces of their male infants with swords to discourage beard growth. Another custom of the Huns was to strap their children's noses flat from an early age, in order to widen their faces, as to increase the terror their looks instilled upon their enemies. Certain Hun skeletons have shown evidence of artificially deformed skulls that are a result of ritual head binding at a young age.

You mentioned Bulgars earlier? Well I think they can be the Heavy spearmen or one of the Heavy cavalry units. Apparently the Huns became the Bulgars after their demise and downfall. From the look of things it seemed that they gradually dispersed and transformed until the Hunnic identity became analogous with a Bulgurian one, though they are still fundamentally two different ethnicities.

If we believe this map, the Huns were pushed eastwards to the shores of the Euxine after their defeat at the hands of the Gepids. Do we wanna reflect that on our map?

Quoted from Wiki:

After Attila's death, his son Ellac overcame his brothers Dengizich and Ernakh (Irnik) to become king of the Huns. However, former subjects soon united under Ardaric, leader of the Gepids, against the Huns at the Battle of Nedao in 454. This defeat and Ellac's death ended the European supremacy of the Huns, and soon afterwards they disappear from contemporary records. The Pannonian basin then was occupied by the Gepids, whilst various Gothic groups remained in the Balkans also.

Later historians provide glimpses of the dispersal and renaming of Attila's people. According to tradition, after Ellac's loss and death, his brothers ruled over two separate, but closely related hordes on the steppes north of the Black Sea. Dengizich is believed to have been king (khan) of the Kutrigur Bulgars, and Ernakh king (khan) of the Utigur Bulgars,

Govt Building:
Tier 1 - Herdsmen
Tier 2 - javelin-throwing shield-and-spear infantry: In short, Hunnic Javelinmen
Tier 3 - Hunnic (+Mounted?) Archers (L. Town)
Tier 4 - Hunnic Lancers
Tier 5 - Hunnic Heavy Cavalry
Tier 6 - Hunnic Elite Warriors (Heavy archers?)
Tier 6 - Warlord (huge city)

AoR Barracks:
Runaway Slave Spearmen
Steppe Spearmen
Steppe Swordsmen
Bulgar Heavy Spearmen
Tribal Cavalry
+ AoR units

I was thinking that any units we added to the government tree could be named 'Bulgar x' instead of 'Hunnic x,' so that the player could choose to play as the Bulgars if they chose.

At present I've depicted the Huns as the Kutrigur Huns in my mod, and it seems to work quite well. You don't really want them attacking the Alans and taking Armenia, after all, but presumably either as the Huns reclaiming their European possessions or as the Bulgars following their historical route into modern Bulgaria/Romania/Macedonia.

You don't really want them attacking the Alans and taking Armenia, after all

Would that require much coding (or whatever it is)? About the Bulgar-X idea: I would keep them to a minority, if only for gameplay's sake - I never knew the Huns and Bulgars were so closely related, and I don't know if many future downloaders will really care about the Bulgars that much. As to

the player could choose to play as the Bulgars if they chose

If you replace all Govt building Hunnic-X units with Bulgar-X, where is the choice?

Sorry, I wasn't very clear - I meant any additional units which we add to the already existing BI roster which then are included in the 'govt tree' group.

What we're going to do with the Bulgars is make them a major rebel faction - basically a rebel faction with a full unit roster, so we probably shouldn't be tying them to the Huns too much.

As to what other people have said the huns (under Attila) themselves were horsemen, but they had a bunch of other tribes join them like the alans(I know they are their own faction in this) and etc. so the idea of the aor barracks is good for them...

They also should have a unit like elite warriors(HA) in vanilla, but i think they should be easier to recruit since almost all of the huns were expert horse archers.

They had composite bows so (in my opinion) they should have a larger range...
One more thing, I think the huns should have a little of a fear factor (I have no idea if this will work or not) because they were thought to be demons that never got off their horses...

[This message has been edited by ElephantLord (edited 11-08-2010 @ 07:45 PM).]

But Lord of the Pachedermes. Consider that they were known that mainly when gehngis and attila led them. after that, they settled. They are fearsome, but not as demonisized as they were several decades earlier.

The Huns did have laminated composite bows, but in my research I came across a quote that said the bow was no more powerful or of longer range than other contemporary bows.

It was the perceived ferocity and brutality of the Huns that 'demonized' them in Western eyes, not the power of the bow.

With that in mind, maybe granting a fear factor is historically in order, but not increasing the power or range of the bow. Then again, maybe not- it was mostly civilians and politicians who feared them. To the military, they were no different from the Persians or other horse-archer faction.

Mmmmk...

Nickel, the huns are not the same as the mongols...

Good old ElephantLord's back!

Quoted from Wiki:

With the arrival of the Huns, a separate tradition of composite bows arrived in Europe. Each siyah was stiffened by two laths, as in the longstanding Levantine tradition, and the grip by three. Therefore, each bow possessed seven grip and ear laths, compared with none on the Scythian and Sarmatian bows and four (ear) laths on the Middle Eastern Yrzi bow. There is no evidence that the Huns used bows in any way superior to those of their contemporaries.

This research, Terikel?

Quoted from Terikel:

With that in mind, maybe granting a fear factor is historically in order, but not increasing the power or range of the bow. Then again, maybe not- it was mostly civilians and politicians who feared them. To the military, they were no different from the Persians or other horse-archer faction.

I am slightly inclined towards granting a small fear bonus. They might not be as feared as portrayed by ancient writers (who were all enemies of the Huns with no reason to portray them any other way), but the historical texts are there, and maybe the writings do have some sound basis.

Thus, I propose one special unit that's undermanned but "scares nearby enemy infantry". Some of the Hunnic elite were known to practise artificial cranial deformation (that's a mouthful), and they'd certainly look intimidating to anyone in their path.

Gov't Building
Tier 5 - Longhead Warriors (name to be discussed...)

That was it.

I thought of an idea, it might be complete garbage though...

We could have one unit that when you sack/exterminate a city it gives extra denarii...

The annoying thing is, is that there isn't enough information about them as some other factions.

[This message has been edited by ElephantLord (edited 11-10-2010 @ 07:39 AM).]

The Huns did practice cranial deformation, e.g face binding, squashing noses, from infancy. And also wouldn't they be feared because of the acts of their forebears or would they have become settled, have lost their reputation as invaders and so on by this period?
As for the unit that gave a better yield when looting a city, how about a screeching woman, or similar unit, one that is not much use in the battle but a prepared commander will be glad for because of the money boost. I'm saying women because it was generally the women that followed armies that did the best looting, the men being too occupied raping or drinking and stuff, they would also trawl over battlefields with long nives and take money and jewellery and stuff off dead/soon to be dead enemies.
It's probably not possible is it? Or s there something within the game which lets some units have more money than others?
It could be called the Harridan or something. Not necessarily women, maybe young and old men, people who would not be much use in a fight. Then again, it could be professional soldiers, but men who are used to plundering and so know all the hiding holes and the like.
But, it's probably not possible.

[This message has been edited by Feudal Principes (edited 11-10-2010 @ 11:20 AM).]

well, this isn't a unit, but that sounds more like a retinue member kind of thing to me

wouldn't they be feared because of the acts of their forebears or would they have become settled, have lost their reputation as invaders and so on by this period?

I'm inclined towards believing the latter. However, wouldn't a unit like Longhead Elites be cool? The fear factor is probably not as significant as it used to be, when the Huns were the harbingers of death across Europe, but I believe a single unique unit given the "scare infantry" would be enough to represent that reduced fear factor.

Please comment on this unit.

We could have one unit that when you sack/exterminate a city it gives extra denarii...

In vanilla any mercenary unit within the besieging army imposes a loot penalty to the end sum. I'm not aware of any means to reverse the penalty into a bonus, however. And yes it does sound more doable through a retinue member.

My question, though, is why would the Huns in particular have a loot bonus? Excuse my ignorance, but I'm not personally aware of their reputation as superior looters

If it's a general bonus available for every faction/ barbarians only, it should probably go into the other threads.

@Drakontos:

On Bulgars, you propose a mix of Bulgar and Hunnic units from the govt building? Can't see why not. Perhaps a 60H:40B ratio, what say you?

Giving all Hunnic units a fear bonus would be a good idea. If we were to increase sacking times specifically for the Huns, which is a good idea by the way, that would be done via retinue member. Finally, on the topic of the Bulgars, as I said earlier, they're probably going to be separate from the Huns at this point.

80:20/ 90:10? I understand that they'll be a major rebel faction, but once rebels get smashed they do not live on, unless spawned again in rebellions. Perhaps a bit of the Bulgar "influence" would keep them alive with the Huns?

The current hun cavalry unit has more men in it than a regular cavalry unit. Besides that, the hunnic heavy cavalry, for example, have stats equal to barbarian nobles. So should we perhaps improve their stats but make the men in te unit normal?

Giving all Hunnic units a fear bonus would be a good idea.

I prefer limiting it to one special unit. The Huns did not have the fear factor back in their golden days under Attila, why would they as a failing faction have that now? And there's overpowering issues.

Yeah, one unit, but which unit? A cavalry unit obviously, but higher or lower tier?

Given that the Huns were on their way at this time, I would suggest a higher tier unit for the fear. The rest, well, they just weren't as scary any more after Attila died.

I posted it before... ah never mind.

Government Building
Tier 5 - Longhead Warriors

Some of the Hunnic elite practised artificial cranial deformation (i.e. head-binding) from childhood. The result was a scary mess of a skull that intimidated opponents unfamiliar with such sights. I haven't put them into infantry or cavalry, because I want to put it up for discussion, speaking of which, the unit name is also to be ascertained

I have seen those freaky skulls they left. Damn Huns, you scary!
Can't really think pf a better name than Longheads.

Flathead Hun Warriors?

Monster Huns?

Scary Hun Warriors?

Ironhead Huns?

Or my personal favorite: Coneheads (but they are from France... SNL)

[This message has been edited by Terikel Grayhair (edited 11-22-2010 @ 04:21 AM).]

I was thinking more along the lines of Hunnic Kickass Eggheads myself.

Mutilated Warriors? More wounds make for hardy warriors, while disfigured forms strike fear into enemies, making battle easier.

Monster huns gets my vote.

Just call them Veterans, or scar bearers. I also think the huns should be seperated up by rebel factions. A leader has to unite them under their flag. Also lasso fighters sounds awesome. Imagine a battle and your great cavalry charge ends with your general getting dragged off his horse with a rope.
Edit: Okay I knew and has seen pictures of huns with scarred and beaten faces but i just saw those skulls! Who the hell thought of that?

[This message has been edited by eth689 (edited 11-25-2010 @ 08:28 PM).]

Lasso warriors! I forgot about those! I was researching a bit, and came across a fragment concerning a battle. The Huns, in addition to bows, also used the lasso in battle.

Good going, eth.

I also think the huns should be seperated up by rebel factions. A leader has to unite them under their flag.

That would go with the general idea of the Hunnic dispersal and the lack of a strong unifying ruler, but I'm not entirely sure the BI engine can handle that. Good idea, though.

@Terikel & Eth, I also saw the use of lassos in battle, but refrained from suggesting them because I totally ruled out their possibility, due to modelling lassos and skins and all the modding challenges they present. I could be wrong, and it could turn out that they're not as hard to make as I assumed. Amyway it's a cool idea, very cool and revolutionary.

On Hunnic Monster Scary Eggheads, let's call them Tribal Elite Cavalry (assuming we make them cavalry), or we can coolify them (that's a made-up word) and call them Bellatoris Prava [Deformed Warriors], which could seem quite weird due to my amateurish grasp of the Latin tongue.

EDIT: Or Hunnic Nobles (to be concise)

[This message has been edited by GeneralKickAss (edited 11-26-2010 @ 08:05 PM).]

That works with me. The latin thingy sounds cool but i don't think the huns learned much latin while killing romans. we can do it, cause most the cities in vanilla are called campus whatever lgys. also are they gonna be able to be as powerful in this version, i know we are trying but anyone with horse archers are really hard unless you have them too. i just played as the goths and the huns kicked my ass even when i horded and attacked them lol

[This message has been edited by eth689 (edited 11-26-2010 @ 04:36 PM).]

This is a remark in the way of religion. None of the Hunnic Gods have actually been discovered. They probably had a sun god and a war god. Should we make up Gods, or use Gods from the neighboring tribes?

They probably also had a coneheaded god.

I move we name one of the Hunnic Gods - drumrolls - Terikel Conehead.

/lame joke

But seriously, did the vanilla Huns have gods? I didn't play them much - never got round to settling down and actually starting building stuff.

Quoted from Myself:

On Hunnic Monster Scary Eggheads, let's call them Tribal Elite Cavalry (assuming we make them cavalry), or we can coolify them (that's a made-up word) and call them Bellatoris Prava [Deformed Warriors], which could seem quite weird due to my amateurish grasp of the Latin tongue.

EDIT: Or Hunnic Nobles (to be concise)

Comments?

And finally, lassos - are they hard to model?

I'm baaack! At least briefly, before I march off overseas. Let's see if we can get some thread turnover in the next few days.

RE temples: in Vanilla they had Chinglu (battleforge) and Ragrehs (horse). If in doubt, we can always give them some other nomad deities. Cross-cultural pollination, as it were.

RE coneheads: I say we put a ? next to them on the list, and decide depending on our access to a skilled modeller/how easy a lasso turns out to be to make. If it falls through, we can give Hunnic Elite Warriors fear and mention something in their description about the head binding.

A somewhat unique game start could be to give the Huns two provinces - for the Kutrigur and Utrigur Huns respectively, and have them divided, separating them by as much as we can while maintaining accuracy. The leader will then need to defend each while attempting to unite them. Region dependent, of course.