One of the things that is going to be a large part of this update is the new civilopedia text. I'd like to get all of the text finished, so I decided I would write all of the basic sections and what is needed to be done. If you want to, you can post what section or part of section you want to do.

Well, here's the list. Bolded lines are ones that still need to be done.

Civilopedia_BuildingsProjects
Civilopedia_Bonuses (mostly done)
Civilopedia_Religion
Civilopedia_Civics
Civilopedia_Civilizations
Civilopedia_Leaders (Broken Hawk)
Civilopedia_Techs
Civilopedia_Units

Well, I've just finished the religions, so I guess I'll do bonuses real quick, and then maybe techs.

Broken Hawk, how are the leader civilopedia articles coming along? You can use wikipedia articles for the entries if you want. I had to for a fair number of the civilizations.

Actually, I just started in earnest. I need about one more paragraph for Alfonso VI that I can consider credible. Attached is nice leaderhead.

Alfonso VI

Alfonso VI

Emperor of all Spain (imperator totius Hispaniae)
Lived: 1040–1109

Background:
Otherwise known as Alfred the Brave, he was King of Leon (1065–70) and King of a reunited Castile and Leon (1072–1109). The self-proclaimed “Emperor of all Spain” is romanticized in Spanish history and was often compared to the greatest of kings such as Charlemagne by troubadours. It was said that he was respected by Christian and Moor alike for being a man of law and order and a keeper of his word.

On May 25, 1085 his forces captured Toledo, former capital of the Visigoths, from the Moors. Alfonso established direct personal control over the city from which he had been exacting tribute. This event resonated throughout both the Christian and Muslim worlds. Pope Urban II later authorized crusaders from Marseille, Pisa, Genoa, and other cities to fight in Spain.

This was the first concrete step taken by the Christian Kingdom of Leon-Castile in the Reconquista. Alfonso IV’s oppression of such Moor vassalages led to the invasion of Spain by the Almoravid army of Yusuf ibn Tashufin from his Berber stronghold in North Africa in 1086 escalating the conflict for control of the Iberian Peninsula.

Attached is the text in a Word document. A potential leaderhead is in my last post of this thread. Let me know what you think Head Serf. Moving on... :salute:

Wow, that looks good! Do you think we should use those static pictures instead of moving leaderheads? I should probably make a thread on the topic...

I like the static leaderheads because you can find actual medieval art that helps immerse the player into the mod and gives them a better feel for the time period. In my opinion the animated heads just remind you that you are playing a game. They are just silly looking cartoons.

I have a couple typed out for some of the naval units. I'd like to offer to do more unit pedias; however, I'm worried that I'd not do them in a timely enough manner (given how long its taken me to finalize the naval entries (and they're not yet in a finished state)).

I'll post the couple of naval unit pedias I've done in the next couple of days, and perhaps, get a couple of others done if I can...

I've finished the buildings and projects, so I'll start working on the civics and religions next.

@ Craig_Sutter :
Thanks for offering to do the naval units, it can be somewhat time consuming work and I know I won't get all of this done without help. :cool:

Religions are done, I'm going to move onto bonuses and technologies now.

On the build screen it has + -1:mad: . That looks like it reduces anger, but in the civilopedia and on the city screen (and by effect) it actually makes people angry.

Which one is correct?

Broken_Hawk, how is progress on the leader text going? I just wanted to tell you that Piero Orseolo is now going to be Simone Boccanegra. I also wanted to ask you to enable PMs, because currently I cannot send you any.

Starting this weekend I'll have a lot more time to do them and turn the entries out on a regular basis. I have several color pics of Alfred below...

I,ll turn on PM.

Don't worry about getting static LHs, wait until you see the ones I found so you can see which ones need replacing. Unfortunately, I have to use coins for a couple of them.

The word Chevalleir come from the French word chevallerie, which means 'skill on horseback'. After the collapse of Charlemagnes Frankish Empire and the centeral authority that came with it, the different lords were forced by the situation of the time to give grants of land to to his retainers. The retainers then in return pledged military service to their lord. The Frankish knights were generaly supposed to fight in a dense formation known as a bataille. The individual knights clustered around their lords in the battle line and were united by a banner or a war cry. One source says that "if an object was thrown amongst them, it would not have fallen on the ground but on the vertical lances". This cooperation went against the idea of chivalry so many times the knights would charge out impetuously, and breaking formation. The Arabs and the English used this to their advantage in there wars with the French.
Information taken from Warfare in the Medieval World by Brian Todd Carey.

That's a nice entry...:goodjob:

I've altered a little of the grammar and spelling (firefox has a spell checker).

The word Chevalleir comes from the French word chevallerie, which means 'skill on horseback'. After the collapse of Charlemagne's Frankish Empire and the central authority that came with it, the different lords were forced by the situation of the time to give grants of land to their retainers. The retainers then in return pledged military service to their lord. The Frankish knights were generally supposed to fight in a dense formation known as a bataille. The individual knights clustered around their lords in the battle line and were united by a banner or a war cry. One source says that "if an object was thrown amongst them, it would not have fallen on the ground but on the vertical lances". This cooperation went against the idea of chivalry so many times the knights would charge out impetuously, breaking formation. The Arabs and the English used this to their advantage in their wars with the French.

Information taken from Warfare in the Medieval World by Brian Todd Carey.

could do drekkar but the book has little info on it.

I am not going to be able to do the Leader entries as I promised. School is taking more time than I thought. Sorry.

I'll try to do some entries in the next week... I've a couple of vacation days coming at the end of the month.

No guarantees.

Glad to see Head Serf is back...

although I kind of feel like a student who hasn't done his homework while the teacher was away :)

I try to get some done, really...

Vassals are lords of territories who pledge military support in times of war. France made great use of Vassals in the wars of Charlemagne, and each lord was required to acompany the army with their personal retainers. Since the resources and time to become acustom to riding on horseback was extensive, generaly only lords had the time and resources to do so. This process led to the feudilization of France and other European powers. Other empires used vassals. The thengs of Anglo-Saxon England were vassals and rode on horseback but used horses for transportation, not warfare. The tagmata system of the Byzantines was roughly equivilant to this and in the Arab world, Emirs swore allegiance to Caliphs and Sultans.


Craig, could you please send this through spell check? By browzer doeasnt have that option?

Done... another good one.

Vassals are lords of territories who pledge military support in times of war. France made great use of Vassals in the wars of Charlemagne, and each lord was required to accompany the army with their personal retainers. Since the resources and time to become accustomed to riding on horseback was extensive, generally only lords had the time and resources to do so. This process led to the subinfeudation of France and other European powers. Other empires used vassals. The thengs of Anglo-Saxon England were vassals and rode on horseback but used horses for transportation, not warfare. The tagmata system of the Byzantines was roughly equivalent to this and in the Arab world, Emirs swore allegiance to Caliphs and Sultans.

I edited the above post to remove a non-word, feudalization, and replace it with a real one... subinfeudation.

Thanks, i thoght is might be to focused on france.

No, you covered everthing quite nicely.

I've been spurred by Adjidica's work to do a pedia entry for the Foot Knight. It is rather focused on England and France, so if anyone has anything to add about other countries, feel free to supplement what I've added.

I intend to do one for the Drakkar, longboat, medieval galley and medieval trireme in the near term.



<TEXT>
<Tag>TXT_KEY_UNIT_FOOT_KNIGHT_PEDIA</Tag>
<English> With the thirteen century, the apogee in power and influence of the mounted knight in the battlefield, particularly in France, had been reached. However, as the fourteenth century dawned, the importance of heavy cavalry was reduced by improved pikemen and longbow tactics. This was a bitter lesson for the nobility, learned throughout the 14th century at battles like those of Crécy, Bannockburn and Laupen. [PARAGRAPH:1]Unlike the French, the English learned from their defeats early in the fourteenth century and radically altered the way in which they waged war. The knights of England gave up their horses, or more accurately, got off them prior to battle. The English introduced foot service for the knight in the early Hundred Years War, to support their longbowmen and to combat the depleted French knights whose charge managed to reach the English lines through the deadly hail of longbow arrows. This tactic spelled disaster for the formerly unstoppable French cavalry charge, and the French knights soon followed suit in dismounting for combat, fighting primarily on foot from roughly 1350 to 1430. [PARAGRAPH:1]With the Wars of the Roses knights fighting on horseback and great cavalry charges with lances became a thing of the past. Knights would dismount and fight on foot alongside almost equally well-armoured professional soldiers or men-at-arms. [PARAGRAPH:2](in part from Wikepedia - Knight)</English>
<French> Non.</French>
<German> Nichts.</German>
<Italian> None.</Italian>
<Spanish> None.</Spanish>
</TEXT>

Wow, thats nice. Your location says you are from south korea yet your english is as good as most peoples i've seen in america.

I live and work in South Korea, but I'm from Canada.

To be fair, the entries I do are mostly cut and paste jobs from Wiki and any other source I can find good info in... so I can't claim most of the well-written passages. I do add to, edit, and adjust the entries to fit the needs of a Pedia entry. I cite the sources at the bottom of the entry (when I remember to do so).

I write most my entries, no wikipedia. also, i can do do mamluk cavalry but camel archers will be hard because technicly, they never really existed.

Edit: Sorry, i forgot camel archers existed in game.

Your entries are very well done and concise. How do you go about with your research?

Mostly from books ive read, namely Warfare in the Middle Ages by Brian Todd Carey. I would not call my entries consise, i thought they were to rambling. but it appears otherwise.

Mamluks were slave-soldiers of Egypt. The word Mamluk means "slave" in Arabic. The Ayyubid Empire used slave soldiers extensively and some became generals and led armies. The vizier Nizam al-Mulk said that "One obediant slave is better than 300 sons, for the latter desire their fathers death, the former long life for his master". With the transfer of military power to slaves, so did political power, and the Ayyubid Empire was overthrown by the Mamluks. The Mamluks were trained from neer birth for war and were elite cavalry. The Mamluks greatest hour was when the general Baybars (Baibars) led an Egyptian army to Palestine and defeated the Mongol army under Kit-Boga (Kitbuqa). The Mamluk cavalry was very sucessful but was defeated by the disciplined musket fire of the Ottoman Jannisaries, reared in the same style as slave soldiers at Raydaniya.
Information taken from:
Battle:A Journey Through 5000 Years of Combat by R.G. Grant
Warfare in the Medieval World by Brian Todd Carey

Craig, send it through spell check.

OK...

Mamluks were slave-soldiers of Egypt. The word Mamluk means "slave" in Arabic. The Ayyubid Empire used slave soldiers extensively and some became generals and led armies. The vizier, Nizam al-Mulk, said that "One obedient slave is better than 300 sons, for the latter desire their father's death, the former, long life for his master". With the transfer of military power to slaves, so did political power, and the Ayyubid Empire was overthrown by the Mamluks. The Mamluks were trained from near birth for war and were elite cavalry. The Mamluks greatest hour was when the general, Baybars (Baibars), led an Egyptian army to Palestine and defeated the Mongol army under Kit-Boga (Kitbuqa). The Mamluk cavalry was very successful but was defeated by the disciplined musket fire of the Ottoman Janissaries, reared in the same style as slave soldiers at Raydaniya.
Information taken from:
Battle:A Journey Through 5000 Years of Combat by R.G. Grant
Warfare in the Medieval World by Brian Todd Carey

Like it? i didnt have any definite source except those two books. it looks like Head Serf has alot to do, add the pedia entries and add the awsome units made by danrell.