[GS] Gathering Storm General Discussion Thread

It's Corvinius's castle, as said in the sneak peek thread. It's Hungary. :)
 
corvin-castle-hunyadi-castle-hunedoara-castle-or-castelul-huniazilor-castelul-corvinilor-in-hunedoara-romania.jpg

Corvin Castle.
It's Hungary
 
Actually it is Castle of Visegrad. It could still be Hungarian
Someone on Reddit posted this picture of the Visegrad Castle and it looks extremely similar to the teased background image with the Danube in the background and the walls along the hill slope.
Spoiler :

Hungary.jpg

 
When we, Hungarians speak about Matthias of Hunyad /Hunyadi Mátyás/ we would mentioned two castles: Vajdahunyad - aka Corvinus castle - which is in south Transsylvania /this is the nest of the Hunyadi family/ or the summer palace of the king: Visegrád. I don't see mountains on the picture so I would say it is not Vajdahunyad. About Corvinus. Matthias of Hunyad had an italian historian, Antonio Bonfini, he started to name him Corvinus, because there is a raven in Hunyadi's coat of arm. Actually, he wanted to suggest with this latin name, that the ancestor of the king were roman senator family... :) It's funny, that you use Corvinus for him, as real name!
 
Last edited:
I mean we all say Charlemagne or Gustavus Adolphus and neither were the names used by the contemporaries of either king :P
 
What I'm most interested about are some of the logistics. Like:
-If a dam turns a riverside tile into a reservoir, does that make the tile impassable? So, can you throw a dam in a mountain gap to close yourself off? Or will one of the new other structures (railroads, tunnels) let you get around it?
-Are land units allowed on Canal tiles? Are there any penalties for ships moving through canal tiles, or can I invade your city through your own canal?
-If tunnels are available, can a unit end up in a mountain tile, or are they still blocked?
-Similarly, the Golden Gate Bridge certainly looks like it should be a road to span a water gap. But will it disallow ships from moving between it? Or if a land unit ends up on it, is it counted as embarked?
 
I saw somewhere that railroads might just be better roads and as such also built like that (through traderoutes). That would be pretty lame, and I'm worried that it might be true. Thoughts?
Railroads may very well just be Industrial era regular routes, which would be disappointing. It would be nice if railroads were manually placed and offered some extra benefit.

What I'm most interested about are some of the logistics. Like:
-If a dam turns a riverside tile into a reservoir, does that make the tile impassable? So, can you throw a dam in a mountain gap to close yourself off? Or will one of the new other structures (railroads, tunnels) let you get around it?
-Are land units allowed on Canal tiles? Are there any penalties for ships moving through canal tiles, or can I invade your city through your own canal?
-If tunnels are available, can a unit end up in a mountain tile, or are they still blocked?
-Similarly, the Golden Gate Bridge certainly looks like it should be a road to span a water gap. But will it disallow ships from moving between it? Or if a land unit ends up on it, is it counted as embarked?
We won't know for sure until we see them used in gameplay, but I think the most logical answer is that reservoir tiles and canal tiles count as water tiles (which means land units must embark to enter). Bridge tiles (and perhaps canal tiles) may behave like city centers, allowing both land and sea units to enter normally.

Tunnels are more complicated; since units cannot currently enter mountain tiles, it's not clear how they get built in the first place.
 
Last edited:

Thank You! I think this is the first time anyone has asked for specific sources in this Forum.

My original sources were the WRG publications, compiling information on Ancient Military Practices, especially:
Armies and Enemies of the Ancient Near East, 3000 BC to 539 BE by Nigel Stillman and Nigel Tallis
Armies and Enemies of the Greek and Persian Wars, 500 to 350 BC by Richard Nelson
Armies and Enemies of Ancient China, 1027 BC - 1286 AD by John P. Greer
These, however, all date back to the 1980s, are a little outdated in places, and are long out of print.
More recently,
The War Horse by Louis Dimarco is now available in paperback or as an electronic download from Amazon or Barnes & Noble;
and a dissertation by Carolyn Willekes available on line at:
https://prism.ucalgary.ca / bitstream / handle / 11023 / 698 / ucalgary_2013_willekes_c...
- are both good summaries of the latest findings, and easier to start out than trying to digest all the archeological discoveries, including some very dense scientific studies of DNA and physiological studies of ancient horses.

Bottom line Summary:
There were at least 3 different 'types' of ancient, pre-domesticated horses, plus one with the physiological configuration of a modern Pony. The horse types ranged from 12 to 15.5 hands average, with the largest (averaging 14 - 15.5 hands) being geographically located from Mongolia west into the central Asian steppe.
The weight of these horse types is estimated to have varied from about 700 - 800 pounds. The general rule is that a horse can carry up to 30% of its own body weight (and pull up to 800% depending on the design of the wheeled vehicle, harness, and ground surface). That means these by modern standards small horses could carry over 200 pounds - easily the weight of a grown man, and even a medium-sized man with 50 - 60 pounds of armor and weapons.
Reinforcing that are illustrations showing Assyrian lancers in 8th century BCE wearing scale body armor (shown in Stillman and Tallis's work above) and even having some kind of armor on the front of their horses - which would be pushing the limits of the carrying capacity of the smaller ancient horses.
That the horses did not increase greatly in size between 4 - 3000 BCE and 300 BCE is that the Median horses prized by the Greeks as 'large' were 14.5 - 15.5 hands - but with very sturdy skeletons, indicating, perhaps, more stamina and carrying capacity (Nelson above, from Xenophon's work on Horsemanship).

The Botai culture kept horses for meat and milk, and horse skeletons from the Botai area (5500 BCE) show signs of bit wear on their teeth, meaning they MAY have been ridden - there is still a great deal of debate on this evidence, so I will not contend that Horseback Riding should be set back to the beginning of the game!
The Botai skeletons do show evidence of selective breeding, though, so they were definitely starting to, if not fully, domesticating the horses.
The Scythians from 1000 BCE on were definitely breeding for desired characteristics, specifically speed and endurance.

As an interesting aside, the gene for 'leopard spotting' in modern horses, which results in piebald, skewbald, and Appaloosa colorings, was present in the ancient Botai/Scythian horses, and I've seen the Appaloosa markings on a Chinese depiction of a 'flying horse' of central Asia, (part of a traveling Terracotta Warriors exhibit in the Dahlem Museum in [then] West Berlin in the 1980s) so the graphics in the game could include some much more colorful horses than it does now...
 
Back
Top Bottom