1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

2nd UU's

Discussion in 'Civ4 - European Middle Ages Mod' started by Drtad, Jun 20, 2007.

  1. Ajidica

    Ajidica High Quality Person

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2006
    Messages:
    21,172
    so that is why as the italian states i couldnt build longboats even though i could build lateen galleys! makes sense, but still, where are the images going to come from and who is going to do the balence testing?
     
  2. Drtad

    Drtad It Stinks!!!

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Messages:
    838
    Head Serf has talent in both of these areas, but if he needs help I'd be glad tolend a hand, even though I am already devoted to at least ten other project right now since I am on vacation.:cool:
     
  3. Craig_Sutter

    Craig_Sutter Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2002
    Messages:
    2,753
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Calgary, Canada
    Looking at the UU list, again, I see that there are something like 9 more Knight UUs proposed and 7 more horse archer UUs. This in addition to those already having been created.

    This brings to mind another concern of mine regarding using UUs to get rid of horse archer/knights for nonhistorical civs. It means many civs will have UUs arriving at the same times. It sort of belies the purpose of a UU, that being to my mind, giving the civ some sort of strategic advantage for a short period of time. If so many civs have almost identical UUs arrive simultaneously, they become not so much UUs, as flavour units. This can be combated somewhat by imaginative unit creation, but nevertheless, it will create a bit of sameness amongst the civs, and take away a bit from strategy. If you don't want some civs to have horse archers or knights, just make them unbuildable by those civs, at least it many cases. This is my humble opinion.

    Nevertheless, I do like the Jinettes for the Spanish and Cataphracts for Byzantium, as well as a some of the others.
     
  4. Drtad

    Drtad It Stinks!!!

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Messages:
    838
    True. Perhaps we could make the base unit Early Cavalry and then have the knight replace it for western civs and the HA replace it for the Eastern civs? That seems good. (but then the Arabs and Moors don't have HAs, they have CAs (camel archers) if I am not mistaken... I guess we'll work it out somehow.;)
     
  5. Craig_Sutter

    Craig_Sutter Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2002
    Messages:
    2,753
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Calgary, Canada
    How's this sound:

    We create parallel units to match both the Horse Archer and the Knight. Depending on the Civ in question, we allow or disallow either of the twin units.

    For instance, for Horse Archer we could create a non-archer cavalry unit, Skirmisher or Irregular Cavalry, which civs without Horse Archers would have instead. This unit would certainly have differing graphic (sans the bow), and could have differing stats also (but would need to be balance). In this case, we would have to make certain it was also balanced with the Vassal as well. I would suggest str 5, no bonus vrs melee, -20 attack to cities, 3 movement and withdrawl of 20%. I'd also suggest no iron needed, and a cost of about 40. But I'm not a balancer.

    Similarly, we could create a non-western Europe alternative to the heavily armoured knight, using the same tech requirements as for the knight. We could call it Noble or Feudal Cavalry. I'd suggest a lower strength and cost than the knight. But again, this would take some balancing.

    Similarly, we might do the same with Foot Knight, designating a Nobal Foot or Heavy Swordsman unit for cultures where the heavily armoured noble was not the icon it was for the west Europeans.

    This would be done in a way similar to what was done with the cog/medieval galley, lateen galley/longboat for naval assets.

    I believe BTS would make this easier since I believe it allows alternate graphics for units based upon thier civ.
     
  6. Ajidica

    Ajidica High Quality Person

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2006
    Messages:
    21,172
    just give each "region" a uu. EG: like the eastern european nation an horse archer replacement uu like "stipendiarii" (mercenary knights) and get them a graphic wheich has a spear/sword and sheild but little armour .
     
  7. ohcrapitsnico

    ohcrapitsnico Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    2,267
    IMHO I don't think that term fits in Eastern europe as a latin word, what about a cuman horseman or steppe cavalry or alan mercenary??
     
  8. Drtad

    Drtad It Stinks!!!

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Messages:
    838
    Ajidica, I am not sure I quite understand what you are trying to say. I have thought it over extensively, and I think that just having a UU to replace the knight and horse arche for each civ is the only probable solution that will be feasible. We could have 3UU's to have a better balance later, but I think the 2nd UU's should only be used for historically accurate army composition.
     
  9. Craig_Sutter

    Craig_Sutter Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2002
    Messages:
    2,753
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Calgary, Canada
    My solution avoids having to do so many graphics. We would only need two more... one, a lightly or non-armoured cavalry with a sword or light lance, for the Skirmisher, the other a less-armoured unit than the knight, to reflect Eastern Feudal Cavalry or Nobility.

    I really feel this is the easiest way.

    If we were to go that way, we should avoid using a name for the unit that is too civ specific. After all, that's what we are getting away from when we want to redefine which civs have knights and horse archers.

    That being said, whatever the rest of you decide is fine by me. I've stated my doubts about using so many UUs for this purpose. I would prefer the 2nd slot to be used to supplement the first UU (for instance an amph unit for the Vikings). Nevertheless, having said my piece, I'll support whatever way we decide to go.
     
  10. Craig_Sutter

    Craig_Sutter Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2002
    Messages:
    2,753
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Calgary, Canada
    I've been doing a bit of thinking... is there any reason that horse archers must necessarily be replaced by a mounted unit. They have Vassalage and stirrup prerequisites. Well, many units could have Vassalage as a possible prerequisite. For example, a Huscarle unit could be created to replace Horse Archer for some civ, and it would have the prerequisite Vassalage, so it would arrive at the same time (or previous to if Stirrup is not researched) as Horse Archer. That unit could be upgradeable to Foot Knight, for instance. So Horse Archer would be replaced by this melee unit.

    Is there anything wrong with this idea. I'm unfamiliar with how UU's are installed.

    Anyhow, if it works, then to some extent we can get away without creating just horse archer and knight type UUs to do this, but can be a bit more creative.
     
  11. Ajidica

    Ajidica High Quality Person

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2006
    Messages:
    21,172
    that sounds good, and if their is a problem, im sure if we ask nicely, kael will probaly help us out. Or we could simpley dissalow units for certiant civs or have replacement abilities. example: foot knight will be dissalowed or have a replacement for the Arab countries and magyar couldnt have vassals.
     
  12. Pangur Bán

    Pangur Bán Deconstructed

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2002
    Messages:
    9,020
    Location:
    Transtavia
    Medieval Scotland should not have a unique unit called the "highlander" ... a "Highlander" is a person from the Highlands of Scotland, and was not designated as such for the vast majority of this period. There is no zone called the "highlands" for most of the middle ages; Scotland is not the ethnically divided country they that it later became. The unit called "Highlander" in most military writings is not an Iron Age swordsman, but a soldier carrying a musket and sword, or in British imperial times, a rifle. Up until about 1300 a Gaelic speaking soldier was simply called a "Scot", if from north of the Forth, or a "Galwegian" if from the south west ... an that was because of his geoethnicity, not his role as a soldier.

    Scottish Gaelic soldiers of certain kind were later called "caterans" or (when serving in Ireland), Galloglass. "Highlander" is a virtually underheard of designation in medieval Scotland: it should be cateran, Wild Scot, Mountain Scot, or simply Scot.

    Options for Scottish UUs:

    Between 1100 and 1350:
    Schiltrom - this is an English word in later texts; it's use as a Proper Noun in modern writing is completely the work of modern historians, but nevertheless it has become famous
    Galwegian - see wiki article on Battle of the Standard
    Scot - This term is only used after the reign of David I and refers to the Gaelic speakers who dwell north of the Forth; it comes into use because many of the people writing the sources at this time distinguished between native Gaelic speakers and French or English immigrants whose origin made them militarily distinctive in Scotland.
    Slogadach - lit. "leader of a host"; the head of the army of the bishopric of St Andrews in the 12th century was called the Slogadach.

    Post-1350
    Cateran - light infantry used in large numbers by most Scottish magnates from 1350 to 1450; the word literally means "peasant", and is etymologically identical to the Irish word "Kern".
    Wild Scot - Ethnic name given by foreigners and Scoto-English to Gaelic speaking Scots, whether they lived in the Highlands or elsewhere in Scotland.

    Note that "Clansman" is inappropriate and anachronistic for the medieval period. All Scottish society was strongly kin-based,;
     

Share This Page