What else matters? I'm just a poor player, like thousands out there
Exactly why should we listen to what you have to say
I somebody is so obsessed with historical "truth" to the extent that he feels
compelled to alter your mod to suit himself
Yes well that isn't my point at all so given your lack of ability to comprehend thought why are we listening to you?
then why not design his own?
Then he'd be guaranteed an attentive mass audience (of one!)
Typical hypocrisy of the from the yankee collaborators as you go on to say....
That being said, can I point out one feature that bugs me?
So what you are saying is that all the opinions of anyone whos head isn't in the sand are the ones we should listen to?
How about this I made suggestions to Rhys about both the playability and accuracy of his mod of which very little has actually been answered instead there have been vague ad hominems by those like you because you cannot directly answer my critiques. I stand by my critique the mod is too easy and the maps/historical accuracy could be improved. That said the issue of historical accuracy is less of one than the playability but is the easiest to fix perhaps.
Now to answer your fallacies...
The spectacle of the Ottomans
suddenly appearing in Sogut, complete with Napoleonic cannons, in 1200AD,
breaks me up every time.
Actually this is part of the reason why I tried to employ reason with Rhy because he seems to know enough to be quite accurate and I thought perhaps I could add some knowledge to that to improve on what was there. And nobody has yet claimed this mod is close enough to perfection to be defended as not being worthy of improvement. When the point comes that the returns on change are not greater than the cost of making them then I'll concede but we aren't there yet.
As for cannons in Sogut...actually the Ottomans were one of the first in the region to use cannons in warfare and it was among the reasons for their ascendency. The bone I have to pick with Rhy here is the lack of distinction between "Ottoman" and "Turk" given that they are not the same thing and that one is a modern creation just like the Kurdish example you incidently stepped in.
This just proves that you don't know of what you speak...
Saladin in Civilization is listed as an Arab leader which while inaccurate is moderately acceptable given that the best choices of the Prophet or one of any number of Caliphs could spark religious issues for muslims. But in actuallity Saladin was a turk, but thats turk with a small t and it highlights the problems of describing the Ottomans as Turks.
Now, how would you display or program these arriving nomadic cultures? (see... ;-))
I agree totally impractical and more importantly what would be the point of all these units existing without any impetus to do anything? They're barbarians so why not keep them as barbarians. Any way I like how Rhy handled civ spawning the only issue here was not the "Dates" when this happened because I could really care less and is very open to debate but rather the order in which they go. I think Spain and France being the first successor states to the Roman empire are logical. I would suggest the Vikings get bumped back a bit so they are at least more in the middle and perhaps the "Germans" get go a little later as well. In general however the order in which they spawned seemed to work pretty well.
Think about the Turks coming in from Central Asia, masses
of horse archers and a maybe a couple of settlers. They could invade
eastern Anatolia, sack one city, occupy it and found one or two more. And
definitely no cannons. (Where'd they get cannons before 1350?) If you
say China, that'll be simple bombards, right.
Except this highlights the problems of calling the ottomans turks etc etc. The ottomans were as much a revivial of byzantine/roman power as they were a "foreign" invasion.
I wanted to do that, and did one an attempt of moving German starting date back to germanic tribes, and assign some more axemen to them, and no settlers.
They didn't behave as expected (signing peace and not attacking cities), and the whole system was messed up because there wasn't a clear starting date anymore
Well one thing I would suggest is perhaps creating their start point to correspond with the beginning of the Holy Roman Empire under Otto I. This is more accurate, represents a proto-state that scholars say could have become a state, and still places Germany about at the same time for a start they are at now.
IMO the start order in Western Europe for 600AD should roughly be Spain,France....England, Vikings, Germany. Again I don't think the dates are as important as the order and I left the elipses to indicate where I think there is some room for artistic license and where I think some time gap should exist. Obviously since France starts around 660?? and England/Vikings should begin around 800 there isn't a huge gap.