Cassador_Chris
-
Posts
224 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Cassador_Chris
-
-
Again,
Repeating crossbows came after the fall of the Han dynasty.
Also,
I don't see mounted crossbowmen as an improvement over the horse archers of the steppe. Besides, crossbows were usually given to heavy mounted soldiers as a minimal response to true cavalry archers and weren't meant to replace cavalry archers. In fact, they were vastly inferior to cavalry archers.
And lastly:
Keep in mind, that while soldiers could be recruited from whole China, Romans had IMHO tough times gathering large army.While Chinese were mostly natives, Roman Empire was mostly conquered region.
Okay, well, sure, the Roman Empire had more natural barriers, the Han empire had less. But I don't see that as a recruitment problem. Once you were conquered by the Roman empire, you were 'Romanized' and probably quite often would serve in the Roman forces that conquered you. Differences in culture prior to conquest would have mattered little after conquest.
In addition, don't be so fast to count the Chinese as all 'natives'. China is a huge place, and there are differences in culture throughout ancient China. Sure, not as drastic as what existed in Europe, but I'm quite sure that the southern Chinese didn't really find common kinship with those Chinese from the north. In addition, I don't doubt that Koreans, Mongolians, Manchurians, Tibetans, Turks, and the Vietnamese didn't like their conquerors much either.
So, Romans ftw?
-
A refugee who has fled from the evil empire! Tell me, sir, for national news, what was your experience like? How did you survive? What hellish things did you see on the other side???
Welcome back to this dimension! Time to partay! -
-
So the whole "woad raider" thing was a lie.
Just goes to show that History still has many secrets...and historians many flaws.
-
Sound for the Epigonion!! Check it out!
-
lol most infantry are farmers so almost no discipline, but I doubt the Roman cavalry can fight the Chinese cavalry that was influenced by the nomadic tribes of the north
Maybe. Now I'm no expert, but I thought Chinese foot armies were mostly crossbowmen. That means the Romans, with an army of mostly footmen with ranged pilum, are going to have to advance against powerful, ranged crossbowmen. If you take this further, that means the Chinese will normally get to choose the battlefield, which means a nice steep hill. Frankly, I think it would be like a bunch of swordsmen advancing on a bunch of musketeers--utter massacre.
Also, I don't think all chinese footmen were conscripts. I think I remember reading about the Han armies having large numbers of professional soldiers.
So, like people have been saying, cavalry will be important. I wouldn't cut out the Romans so soon. The Romans have employed some good cavalry units--including Numidians, Gauls, Germans, and Sarmatians. They also have a few 'copycat' units, like the famed heavy cavalry Cataphractoi.
-
That sorta sounds like my dream game.
Picture this:
1. The entire planet of earth as the in-game world.
2. Completely open-air [no loading times]
3. A first-person or third-person viewpoint.
4. Accelerated time, but continuous, with different servers starting at different 'eras' and running through to the present (lets say 25 years ago).
5. A continuous world that follows Earth's historical development (advances in technologies, etc.)
6. A 'generation' system where your character grows old and dies, leaving you to take command of one of his or her offspring.
7. A MMO laced with not simply one-on-one combat, but political intrigue, military ambition, and rewards for your skills, like armies of NPCs and players (if you can control them ((and if they're smart, because being a good soldier means promotion, riches, and eventually rebellion)))
8. Historically accuracy--basically a historic life simulator focused on politicians/warrior lifestyles--but all other lifestyles are open and available to the player should one want to spend their gaming hours protecting their sheep from wolves or bargaining goods at the market.
9. Any pure awesome-ness that you can think of.
The best part is....it will never happen!
-
Anthropology is so interesting. I wanted to be an archaeologist, until my parents convinced me that finding and keeping a job would be tough. Doesn't mean I still can't minor in it though.
-
The chinese also come in numbers tongue.gif
And lets not forget experimental firearms
The Romans will also come in numbers. I think I should point out that the huge population that we identify with the Chinese these days is actually a much more recent phenomenon. China, especially in its ancient days, had a much smaller population. A census taken in AD 2 reported 57.7 million individuals, while a census from 140 reveals only 48 million. In contrast, conservative population estimates of the Roman empire at its height in the 2nd century place it at around 65 million people.
Also, gunpowder was first invented by the Chinese in AD 850, long after our little scuffle between civilizations.
ok... then I think the Chinese army will win because they have powerful crossbows that can penetrate armor, and cavalry that can flank the infantry heavy RomansThe Romans also had crossbows and cavalry. Sure, hand crossbows weren't widespread until much later, but they still existed (not including, of coarse, the larger Roman siege/anti-personnel crossbows, which were widespread and used to great effect).
So my argument for the Romans wins, right?
-
Well, the ASTRA project has done it! They've successfully reconstructed the epigonion, an ancient Greek instrument.
Take a look at this:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/...90305080734.htm
I don't have any sound as of yet, though. They're demonstrating it this week though, so I doubt it'll be long before an example is up on the internets.
Dunno, might make an excellent sound for 0AD.
-
You know, I actually had an idea for an RPG/RTS that was set in a sort of set in a quasi-real fantasy world.
The races inhabiting this world would be people like this:
and a few fanciful sentient creatures like this:
http://www.stanford.edu/dept/HPS/BodyWorks...dinosauroid.jpg
or perhaps a more intelligent descendant from a creature like this:
http://clubnintendomx.com/imgblog/futuranimaux/squibbon.jpg
As well as things like Aurochs, dodos, and fanciful "Dixon" speculative evolutionary creatures.
And places like Atlantis, Stonehenge, etc.
Just to diverge from the traditional "JRRTolkein" fantasy.
okay, well, thats sorta like your idea, right? -
South America isn't in it either? darn. When they said the 'Americas', I thought they meant the "AmericaS". But whatever.
Viva South America, Africa, Asia, Australasia and Antarctica!
-
I just downloaded it yesterday. Any reviews? I am frankly wowed by the detail. Especially the sea battles. I mean, wow. You'll have to play it to get an idea.
On another note, it doesn't drastically change the idea of Rome or Medieval II Total War. It still had a similar feel to Medieval II before it, even despite the change in arms. Also, my major gripe with it was the denial of a "world map" to players. When I heard there was three maps (Europe, Americas, and India), I was like NO! NO! NO! WHHHYY! Anyway, I was really hoping for a world where I could use Russia to conquer all Asia and the Americas, or launch an offensive as the Ottoman Empire to seize India before the Europeans do (going the back routes, of course).
-
Perhaps Goths, Vandals, and Franks for Germanic sub-factions (Franks so we could use their cool throwing axemen). The problem would be finding unique heroes and super units for each. 2-3 heroes for each as well as 2 super units for each. Super units are our game's "unique units" unique to that faction or sub-faction only.
I don't think it would be so hard. Let me do a little exploring and I'll get back to you guys.
EDIT:
Oh, I can't WAIT until Empire: Total War comes out! I was practically dancing in my chair when I saw it was coming out so soon.
-
Would Germans be divided in Visigoths/Ostrogoths/whatever, just like Celts are divided in Gauls and Britons?
I think someone said this somewhere at some point in time.
I could see Germans break into Goths and Vandals. Goths being more land-bound and Vandals being more sea-bound. The Imperial Romans could actually break into Eastern and Western Empires perhaps.
-
Question though, Mythos. You considering using the same civilizations/gods?
Greeks, Egyptians, Norse, Mayans, and Hindus.
That's what I'd envision. Although I'd prolly combine the Mayans and Aztecs into an all-encompassing "Meso-American" faction.
Frankly awesome.
And this just came to me: If you're interested in mythology, you should definately check out this comic: http://www.zudacomics.com/high_moon. It's just begining its third season, and there is a ton of mytho-symbolism along with the appearences of some important mythological beasts and entities. Worth a look for any Age of Mythology fan.
If it counts for anything, you have my guarantee that it is full of awesomeness and good storytelling. -
I see. I obviously don't know the extent of the system being put in place in 0AD, but let me humor myself here. I did this on my rough knowledge of the different cultures and adapted.
Parthians:
1. Cluster-like Tech Tree. (ex. 5 base techs, each tech making 5 or so new ones available, which dead-end)
2. Typical 'branch' style Building Tree. (ex. this building leads to this building leads to these 2 buildings.)
3. Economy: Focused around manor-like buildings. Each 'region' is self-sufficient (this denotes a special gathering style that ensures no matter what the resource placement, the Parthians can gather the resources they need: lets say there is no stone in a province. A special building/unit can gather-albeit more slowly then usual-that resource)
4. Military: Nearly entirely cavalry: light horse-archers, heavy cataphracts, camels, some mercenaries tossed in.
Huns:
1. Leech-like tech tree. (ex. destroy enemy building, get a tech from it you haven't researched). A few techs unique to the Huns are available from the start with no tree, but at varying expensiveness.
2. One-size-fits-all buildings. A few base structures do everything thats needed of them.
3. Economy: Combines benefits from raiding (attacking enemy structures), as well as possessing a mobile economy. Buildings can be packed and moved, and the Huns don't lay claim to territories, inabling them to set up base inside enemy territories to suck them dry of vital natural resources.
4. Military: Initially consisting of light horsemen, they also have heavy infantry and cavalry (Germans), and excellent siege equipment. These could be mercenaries, super units, or the Huns could have the unique ability to destroy enemy structures to possibly recieve the ability to train an enemy super unit from their own structures.
Something like this then?
-
My favored factions for Part 2 would be:
- Imperial Rome (the stereotypical "Roman Empire" we've all grown to love)
- Eastern Rome/Late Empire/Early Byzantine (whatever you want to call it, I don't care. We'll probably call it Byzantine Empire to help distinguish it)
- Dacians
- Germans (Visigoths, Ostrogoths, etc.)
- Huns
- Parthians
I'm liking this.
I only have a few questions before I give a recommendation. I know this is really jumping the gun guys, so just tell me your "fun thoughts". Nothing is written in stone. So, how will all these civilizations be "drastically" different?
1. How will the two Romes differ in play-style? Both "good all round" civilizations?
2. How will the Huns and Parthians differ in play-style? Both good "cavalry archer" civilizations?
3. How will the Dacians and Germans differ in play-stle? Both strong "infantry" civilizations?
-
Difference between Iraq and Afghanistan is that one is a righteous war and the other... isn't.
Regardless whether one believes in the "just war" concept, history has shown us that wars never really advance the cause of development and equality and thus are failures of government policy. They are fought for the gain of small interest groups at the cost of everyone else. Through this reasoning, wars are thereby unjust and anti-democratic in their very nature.
Your "America should not be THE nation, but rather one AMONG other nations" is completely wrong.I didn't know I was trying to state a fact.
Anyway, I think past experience has shown us the cooperation, not domination, has been the most effective medium for international diplomacy. Take for example FDR's Good Neighbor Policy. In his inaugural address, FDR said "In the field of world policy, I would like to dedicate this nation to the policy of the good neighbor--the neighbor who resolutely respects himself and, because he does so, respects the rights of others--the neighbor who respects his obligations and respects the sanctity of his agreements in and with a world of neighbors....We now realize as we have never realized before our interdependence on each other; that we cannot merely take but we must give as well."
In short, FDR renounced the USA's claimed right to intervene politically and militarily in the affairs other other countries (specifically the nations of Latin America, where the U.S. had been militarily involved in since the 1830s).
The GNP resulted in greater "hemispheric" cooperation than had ever been seen before or since. A whole new series of treaties (political, economic, military, and cultural) where negotiated and standing treaties were renegotiated. FDR even recalled troops from the Caribbean and called for an end to colonialism and militarism.
The GNP made FDR a very popular man in Latin America. Not only that, but all nations involved benefited. The U.S. trade deficit with Latin America fell by 90 percent in a nine year period. Latin America found a market in the U.S. for their raw materials, and likewise provided a market for the U.S.'s industrial products. Latin American countries had new-found prosperity, the likes of which hasn't been seen since. Many Latin American countries would help the United States voluntarily during WWII.
To make a long story short, following WWII the U.S. reverted back to a policy of intervention and domination. The result has been a shattering. Today, poverty, crime, and unemployment are running rampant across Latin America--in some places reaching an all time high. Thousands upon thousands have been killed by U.S. backed dictators and insurgencies. Millions more by starvation and disease unleashed by exploitative U.S. economic policy. Pinochet, Manuel Noriega, the Contras--all put in power and supported by the United States with the interest of "fighting" communism and opening all markets to U.S. based corporations, a economic policy which has ruined many areas of Central and South America by draining wealth and impoverishing the populations. Public opinion of the U.S. is low, and many nations were reluctant, even against, helping the U.S. in any way in its unending "war against terror". Now who has benefited from this policy? U.S. corporations and a few conservative Latin Americans who were lifted by the United States to positions of unlimited power.
Anyway, I don't have much more to say. I think it is clear that cooperation > domination and would like to argue that the United States doesn't have to play the role of world leader and dominate everyone else. Just because there has "always" been a dominant power in history doesn't mean there needs to be one now. There are a lot of firsts in history, you know.
Edit: Just making some things a little more clear and less broad.
-
Wasn't the ancient Japanese military horse based, or am I imagining that?
Horses, bronze, and steel weapons were introduced in the 200s CE/AD. So its quite possible I suppose. Of course, that puts any reasonable Japanese military, at the very earliest, contemporary with the 0 AD expansion-era, or 1-500 CE/AD as I understand it.
An "Age of Mythology 2" full conversion is something I have in mind.Ooo. I like that idea. I never got into playing AoM because of the circumstances that I was in at the time it came out, so I'd be happy to play a mod from 0AD.
Question though, Mythos. You considering using the same civilizations/gods?
-
Oh, that's just suggestion/propaganda. I went to a public hypnotist event, and I was one of the people who got to go on stage and be hypnotized. It was a lot of fun, actually. Most companies take advantage of suggestion in their advertising.
-
I think everyone's right here.
Spore's a nice little game to play when you're bored. Sorta like Solitaire or Sudoku or Pacman. It's not a "serious" game by any means. I went through with one character and half-way through with another, and then my time with it was over. I just get on every now and then to play with the editor or run my little creature away from bigger fish.
But yeah. Over hyped, dumbed down, etc. I agree with both Mythos and HG-Alex.
-
Japan will be hard, they did not have a distinct military like Han China or Mauryan Indian had. dry.gif
And if ANYBODY mentions "What about the Samurai?" I'm going to conk them on the head with a history classroom ruler and then go on a rant about Ancient Japan.
any takers??? -
Lets hope its a good sign!
The vs game
in General Discussion
Posted · Edited by Cassador_Chris
How can you say that? What do you know of Chinese military tactics? Do you have examples of Chinese tactics that were inferior to Roman ones, or vise-verse?
You're going to have to do better than that.
Well, I can't find any completely reliable sources on the internet, but two the sites I came across backed your post, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. In any case, most sites pointed out that the so called "inventor" of the repeater probably did not invent it.
Still, repeating crossbows did not have much penetration power or range. One site mentions Chinese soldiers using poison to increase a bow's effectiveness.
So, how much of an advantage is the repeater against Roman armor and Roman pilum? Where in the battle would the repeater be most effective?
I suggest that the Han commander mount these crossbowmen on horses, send them off behind the main cavalry force. If the Han cavalry beats the Roman cavalry on either flank, the mounted repeaters could circle behind the enemy force, dismount, and fire their repeaters at backs of the Romans at close range. That's just a suggestion, though. It may be too complex of a move for soldiers to carry out effectively, or may be negated by strategic reserves in the Roman force, or even by the Roman cavalry or archers.