Jump to content

Scutatus

Community Members
  • Posts

    35
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

273 profile views

Scutatus's Achievements

Discens

Discens (2/14)

0

Reputation

  1. Well that's not so far away in the great scheme of things. We're in early 2008 now after all. It's amazing where the time will go. (Wildfire Games staff suddenly have a collective heart attack as the realisation sets in) Did I just put that "earliest" back to 2010?
  2. @Mythos Ruler: Thank you for your honest and comprehensive reply. I appreciate that you wish to do the best possible job and don't want to rush it. Personally, I find that refreshing. It's almost unheard of these days. So often now games are rushed to meet an enforced unrealistic schedule. The result is that, even though games are often incomplete and/or bugged to hell they still hit the shops. Game companies just shrug their shoulders and say "whatever, we'll just patch the bugs post release, after everyone has bought our faulty product". As if that's perfectly ok. We wouldn't buy a car or vacuam cleaner the same way, so why is it ok to sell faulty products in the games industry? Thank you for actually trying to do a proper job before release. Years more huh? Fair enough. I'm not going anywhere. And also, I feel I must apologise. I appear to have inadvertently hijacked the thread with my O AD comment. Doh!
  3. I'm impressed Ramus. I can only dream of such a mastery of latin and marvel at your display of linguistic ability. Thank you. Oh, and welcome by the way. With your knowledge you will be a great asset here, I'm sure.
  4. CE and BCE might be the politically correct thing to do but it's hardly commonly accepted. For all it's "rightness" many people recognise it for what it is - a meaningless farce. The dates remain the same and everyone knows what is really meant by CE, so why bother? AD is still alive and well, even amongst historians and historical authors. It is not in any way at all any kind of slur against the different faiths and cultures in the world (it's not intended to be anyhow). It's just the accepted form of dating in the western world. We still use irrelevant hang ons from past languages and religions, from Latin, Greek, French, Norse and German to name but a few. No English man takes offence that we still use latin so much - even if we don't realise it, it's more common than many might think. Nor do we worry that we've understandably "borrowed" so much from the French language. We don't fret about so many of our words originating from Ancient Greece or that so many of our towns have Norse sounding names. It's our history, our heritage. For many our dating system is just one such hang on. Most people don't even stop to think what the AD really means. In fact in this day and age I wonder how many do actually know any more? It's not personal, and if one does take it personally then maybe they are being just a tad too insecure? If other faiths want to use CE then that's fine, no problem. I understand "in the year of our Lord" might be a little antagonizing to other faiths. But for those that don't have a problem with it there is no need for an enforced white wash. Traditional hang ons aside, try to remember that for some people (I.e Christians) it is the "year of our Lord". We don't go about demanding other faiths change their calendar to suit us - they are free to date however they wish - so why should we have to change ours for them? Christianity is a legitimate faith too you know. Why do people not worry about offending Christians? Let it be both CE and AD.
  5. For the record the Late western Roman Empire had "cataphracts" too (more acurately termed Contararii). Indeed, Sarmatian Contararii stationed in Britian could well be partly responsible for the origin of the Arthur myth. (yes that dreadful film did actually have a valid point - however badly it was presented) But yes, the east do seem to have been more interested in the whole mounted archer/contararii/true cataphract thing than perhaps the west was. This may have been because of the nature of the foes they faced: cavalry dominated Germans and steppe nomads coming down through the balkans and of course the Persians, renowned for their horse archers and cataphracts. Then there were the wide open vast ambiguous frontiers of Arabia and Northern Africa, where mobility was paramount. So understandably there was more interest in cavalry in the East but the west too recognised the importance of cavalry. Even in the west cavalry held higher prestige than infantry and were considered more important. Regarding Byzantines, with a cut off of AD 500 you won't see much of what we now call the Byzantines, at least not properly. What you would see is a truly Eastern Roman Empire - not yet entirely dominated by Greeks - who are doing things slightly differently to the west. Unlike the west, the east had the funds to buy peoples off and maintain a fairly effective military. They used Foederati just as much as the west but kept them in smaller units, allowing greater control over them. The East was richer and more stable than the west so could stomach reverses easier. They were also under less pressure so were able to keep a tighter hold on it's army. They don't seem to have allowed control of the army to slip into "barbarian" hands so easily. And when things did become a little uncomfortable, they had the funds to be able to "encourage" peoples to "keep moving". Unfortunately this movement tended to be westward. (ahem). Sadly the East were not perfect. It was they that were responsible for the mistreatment of the Goths, that encouraged them to ravage the balkans intially and then (after afore mentioned encouragement) travel west into destiny. In fact the East also paid the Huns to run off to the west as well. Oops.
  6. Let's see, what peoples would I like to see from the period 500 BC to 1 BC that aren't already covered? Hmm well Seleucids are essentially covered in the Hellenes. Ancient Egypt didn't really exist by this period. But for a few brief windows of freedom it was mostly a vassal state for the Persian Empire. And then the Macedonians (which is kinda covered in the Hellenes). And then Rome (again it's been done). Sooo.... Parthians. With the real proper cataphracts and horse archer units they were so famous for. A real thorn in Rome's side for centuries and the cause of one of Rome's most infamous defeats. (Crassus anyone?) Or Scythians Sauromatians/Sarmatians. More famous for events AD it is true, but they were active in Asia and Europe in the last centuries BC - first Sarmatian incursion against the Romans was over the lower Danube in 16 BC. India? China? For Ad 1 to 500, well gee where to start... Germans: Ideally I'd like seperate federations i.e Goths/Franks/Vandals/Saxons etc but probably they would have to be one generic "German" entry, just as the Hellenes have been done. Sarmatians; (of course) gave us the precursor of the knight in the form of the armoured Contararii and were a horse archer people. They influenced Roman military policy and equipment considerably and were a real threat for centuries, especially when allied with other peoples such as Dacians and Marcomanni/Quadi. Oh, and Hollywood aside they really are a possible origin for the Arthur myth. Also, as a point of interest the Alans, a sarmatian people, settled in Brittainy and consequently handed down their name to us. Dacians; A formidable Thracian people with a culture in an advanced state of "civilization." The Romans struggled against them, receiving several bloody noses from Dacian blows. The Dacian Falx ( a scythe type weapon) particularly worried the Romans. So much so that they actually adapted their armour in the field to cope with it, giving selected troops reinforced helmets, the greaves of the Centurions and the laminated limb armour of the cataphracts. (some say from the gladiators but cataphracts are more likely for field modifications). In the end they only managed to conquer the Dacians by massing utterly overwhelming numbers. But even after the famous Dacian wars the Dacians that remained free continued to be a thorn in Rome's side. Sassanids; Essentially the continuation of the Parthian state but now again ruled by a native house, the Sassanid Persians were Rome's greatest foe in the east and easily their match. The two took turns to defeat the other in petty wars that usually accomplished little. Ocasionally a city or single province might change hands. Once in a while the Persian capital might be raided. Always the Sassanids bounced back and gave as good as they got. Huns: Although the myth about the Huns is far from the reality they were still truly formidable at their best and would still be an interesting faction to play, being the only Turkish (mongoloid?) people in the game. And again, as perhaps the most famous horse archer people they would have very intrigueing troop types. They have the added advantage that if you wanted to be sneaky you could combine Huns and Germans into one faction (representing the empire of Attila). China? India? Arabia? Islam hadn't quite arrived in AD 500, but it wasn't far off. It was near enough to perhaps use early Muslim units erm... but just not muslim. err. ok maybe not. Early Imperial Rome: The classic of Hollywood. Augustus, Claudius, Vespasian all that. Even Marcus Aurelius (just barely). I don't know why I'm even mentioning Early Imperial, it's such a dead cert. It would be nice if you could break the mould and maybe try the lesser known - but more interesting - Middle Imperial Rome? No? Ok it was worth a try. Late Rome. Still quite capable - up until the end of the 4th century anyway - it was still a might to reckon with, despite it's increasing dependence on Foederati and despite the fact it was "Roman" only in the political sense. Rome wasn't even the capital any longer. But spangenhelms and pteruges? Cataphracts and shieldwalls? What's not to like? Eastern Rome (of course ) Constantinople. Byzantium. Sadly the cut off comes just before the likes of Justinian, Belisarius and Narses but AD 500 is close enough for us to still be able to use that army. Lots of dual armed bow/kontus cavalry, horse archers, armoured Contararii, the last legionaries evolving into scutati (albeit badly discplined poor quality scutati). Shieldwalls. Huns and Germans for allies. And archers, lots of archers. Perhaps with some factional ability that revolves around either their diplomatic duplicity (buying enemies off) or perhaps something that relates to all their theological development. All in all East Rome would certainly be my favourite choice. (gee you think?) East Rome would be a natural adversary for the Huns, Sassanids and Goths.
  7. Technically the game should be Called AD 0 (the AD comes first). Although of course there was no AD 0, (it started at 1) because AD 0 would actually have been 1 BC. I have a headache. Progress seems to be going very slowly. This is understandable for a game being made in your free time without wages for the crew. (How on earth are you doing that anyway?). But like everyone else, after years of development (four? More?) I am wondering if the game is now due in months or still in years. The tantalising glimpses we are getting might suggest months. But then I don't know how many bugs you are chasing. If there are many and you are being thorough (which you seem to be) that could mean years. Bummer.
×
×
  • Create New...