SrJamesTyrrel
Legionary
posted 26 August 2008 16:18
EDT (US)
202 / 253
Danilh - that's terribly vague, don't you think? :P.
What i hoped to accomplish (and we ARE on hold i think) includes:
New textures, and some new models, to create new "fine-sized" lists for each army. That is, I would prefer to avoid the unnecessary roman lists (thirty types of astoundingly similar infantry that could be done with experience) while paying better attention than they do to other armies (the barbarian factions in particular lacking good options).
I don't see a reason to pursue things like AoR etc. though. Or trying to rewrite the ENTIRE game as this often ends up in things going backwards (like how missile units are even more overpowered in RTR than vanilla, despite their goals - simply because they had too many other things to think about)
Anacharsis
Legionary
posted 27 August 2008 18:24
EDT (US)
209 / 253
I think that EB complexities are totally out of place in this mod. There is no such different cultures, except for religion (that is NOT a system of gorvernment/recuitment). as far as we know, these were all PAlatine-type economies, with minor differences (Eqypt worked more like the traditional concept of "empire"....to a certain degree, Elam was more like a huge tribal confederation, etc.) and pastoralist-bringand groups like the Habiru (some historians indentifies the Judges age Hebrews with these Habiru groups). Perhaps using something similar to the "pastoralist" government of the EB can be appropiate,
AoR also seems innapropiate. The mod is based on relatively small geographical limits, there is no need for AoR as far as i see.
Hebrews before 1000 BC probably were very similaar in technology to other aramean/syrian groups...so i think that they can have access to chariots before the Kings period, althrough shepherd nomads like them probably has litte access to Chariot facilities, and the Bible do not mention them until Solomon
I just discovered reading the Bible that Solomon was half-Hittite. VEry curious.
SrJamesTyrrel
Legionary
posted 27 August 2008 22:39
EDT (US)
210 / 253
I would be most in favor of a limited AoR system, or an assimilation period ala RTR.
I do think that a wide spreading of hidden resources across broad regions would suffice, particularly for the regions mentioned.
Having not played EB, i know nothing of their complexities.
We won't be able to properly control when the hebrews get chariots, they need only to build the necessary buildings, which are upper-tier. On easier difficulties they will get them quite early, while on harder difficulties it may a while. they are also in a unique position in that, while most nations recruit chariots from their aristocracy (major cities), there is little doubt that chariots were introduced to the hebrews through conquest.
Speaking of conquest, they should only hold Israel and Judah for the entire game, taking other kingdoms past the end of this. It could be argued that if the chariots were the result of conquest, not of internal developments, that we can make chariots unfordable on the budget of United Israel alone - so as other cities are taken, they will have enough money to create a chariot corps. This is relative of course, as on easy things are more affordable than on hardest...but it might be the best we can do.
most of my historical background comes from "self-evident" sources such as the bible, but it has always seemed very clear that not only are the hebrews not aramaen nor syrian in any respect, and that their technology, along with that of other tribes of canaan and arabia, was distinctly inferior before the eleventh century bc.
One of the things that does become staggeringly obvious in accounts of the time period is that, although cultures were not so divided, strong loyalties by tribe were very important. egypt and assyria were notably (and necessarily) adept in pressing foreigners into armed service, but most tribes relied on their home cities to collect wealth and produce men with which to own conquered lands until colonization would catch up.
As for Solomon, read more closely. Although Bathsheba was wed to Uriah the Hittite, she had no children by him. Solomon is the son of Bathsheba by David, both of whom are Israelites. Although it does not say specifically that Bathsheba was a jew, the matrilineal inheritance of the faith demands that if solomon is a jew, then the mother of solomon is also a jew. As for any question that David may not have been the father, solomon could not have been king unless it were so.
Anacharsis
Legionary
posted 27 August 2008 23:41
EDT (US)
211 / 253
Yeah, you must be rigth. Bathsheba was simply given in marriage to Uriah. I tought that she also was Hittite just for that.
Syro-Canaanite-Aramean technology was in no way inferior. It was one of the first regions to develope widepreaded Iron technology (along with all the Taurus mountains and the zone south to the Urals, and perhaps the Zagros but i dont know for sure). In fact i think that their Chariot technology was superior in the time period than, say, the "low-country" (Babylones, Chaldea, Summer).
At least most wargames gives them a lot of chariots LOL.
SrJamesTyrrel
Legionary
posted 28 August 2008 11:00
EDT (US)
212 / 253
you can't keep lumping in hebrews and other southern semitic peoples with syrians and aramaeans! lol. they are dramatically different. there is no such thing as "Syro-Canaanite-Aramean" - what technology was in canaan came purely from hittites, egyptians at times, and philistines, and this was what shaped the region's history. they were still fighting with sickel-axes two hundred years after the rest of the world had moved on to proper swords. When they did develop military technologies, it is no doubt from generations of being defeated by them.
Yitzkshatriya
Legionary
posted 06 September 2008 04:45
EDT (US)
221 / 253
One thing, with the Hebrew units. You should throw Tzitzit on them. As per;
Numbers 15:38: "Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them, that they shall make themselves fringes (Tzitzit) on the corners of their garments throughout their generations, and they shall put on the corner fringe a blue thread."
SrJamesTyrrel
Legionary
posted 11 September 2008 13:06
EDT (US)
235 / 253
A full-conversion for RTW, Judea: TW is set in the Holy Land and tracks the history of the region from 1200-900 BC. Development, Demos, Discourse...here!
saint694
Legionary
posted 13 September 2008 08:44
EDT (US)
236 / 253
like the idea and i was checking to see if hewbrews had chariots and theres rumors say they do as they found chariot wheels in the red sea
ProvostGuard
Legionary
posted 03 October 2008 17:13
EDT (US)
240 / 253
Greetings.
I'm interested in helping. I used to be a modder and texture artist in the Age of Empires III modding community but gave up due to the game's limitations. I have never modded RTW before but can probably learn.
I also love Biblical history, so I might be of some help there...
If your interested in having me on the team, just ask. Thanks.
God bless.
Anacharsis
Legionary
posted 06 October 2008 16:02
EDT (US)
241 / 253
Ok, my bad, linking Amorreans with Arameans was an animality lol.
I agree with the Phoenicians as a Faction. They were pretty important in the local politics narrated in the Bible.
Medes and Persians should be the same faction, named
"Ayranians" or something like that
SrJamesTyrrel
Legionary
posted 07 October 2008 12:13
EDT (US)
242 / 253
Although both the medes and the persians originate in this time period, they were a disorganized people without enough to be considered a faction. Even Gaul had a "high king" of sorts if it was only in name. Since this mod focuses on Judea, and the "brigands" system is so classy, i think it makes the most sense, "incorrect" as it may sound, to limit the iranian presense to very tough rebels (well, not tough in their infantry, but that they have horse archers and other fast missile units).
Andalus
Legionary
posted 09 October 2008 09:11
EDT (US)
243 / 253
Are you talking XGM-style gold/silver chevron rebels here?
SrJamesTyrrel
Legionary
posted 27 October 2008 22:14
EDT (US)
250 / 253
Forgive me, I reverted back to speaking of Iranian tribesmen after saying those other nations should probably be left out.
If javelins were a part of rebel armies prior to the persians (and we are quite prior :P) than we may as well follow that advice! (in addition to the northern archers which are responsible for introducing cavalry and horse archery into the assyrian empire where it most certainly flourished)
Anacharsis
Legionary
posted 29 October 2008 08:27
EDT (US)
253 / 253
I´ve made some reasearch and i found the problem with the iranians. They are clearly part of the Elamite confederation by the time of the Middle Assyrian kingdom. The problem with Elam is that their language has not been decyphered yet. They were a VERY important nation since at least 2500 BC, but as we do not have their sources usable (there is a lot of sources but we do not know what they say). They always were a tribal confederation until the coming of the mede kins.
Today the teories of the "migrations" are not in good health in academies. Most history-specialized texts after 1980 speaks of the Iranians as a local development, and not as an invasions over an "Elamite Substract"
Why not simply given the Elamites some cavalry units named "iranian" recruitable only in their plains?