Nitpicking
- Thread starter WCH
- Start date
xienwolf
Deity
For modern day applications at the least 
I think you'd need a sociologist or a Geological Historian to be absolutely sure you are getting the historical approach correct 
(Saying this based on the fact I know very little of the proper history of my own field, because I don't much need to worry about what & when, just what we learned from it)
I think you'd need a sociologist or a Geological Historian to be absolutely sure you are getting the historical approach correct (Saying this based on the fact I know very little of the proper history of my own field, because I don't much need to worry about what & when, just what we learned from it)
El_Duderino
Warlord
oh yeah using modern furnaces iron would be stronger but in this game i dont imagine any of the civs have furnaces that get that hot... well the kazhad might
Well people have had charcoal around for a long time. It's more the process of working the iron which improves it rather than actually melting it. Charcoal is necessary for the process as wooden fires would not be hot enough to melt iron.
The romans used iron weapons, and these proved far superior (combined with their tactics and military disposition) than the weapons most other civilisations possessed.
Places like Egypt would have lacked iron weapons as iron was incredibly rare during that era. So much so that it was more expensive than gold for this civilisation!
Al
The romans used iron weapons, and these proved far superior (combined with their tactics and military disposition) than the weapons most other civilisations possessed.
Places like Egypt would have lacked iron weapons as iron was incredibly rare during that era. So much so that it was more expensive than gold for this civilisation!
Al
El_Duderino
Warlord
my dates might be off but i was under the impression that reliable methods of making iron stronger than bronze didnt come around until after guns made armour useless
To my ears, this actually sounds more like a disadvantage than an advantage. Wouldn't the bigger morale hit be when your companions all survive a battle itself, but then you're forced to watch helpless as they die from infections afterwards? Not to mention that it'd tax the resources of the army more when they had more people to try to treat, assuming they didn't just outright abandon all their injured?
El_Duderino
Warlord
well if your going the morale argument i think iron would be better as in most areas it was cheaper and most soldiers could be equipped with it rather than just having the rich soldiers protected
but the disease thing i dont think would be applicable since when people were fighting with swords they didnt really understand what caused diseases
but the disease thing i dont think would be applicable since when people were fighting with swords they didnt really understand what caused diseases
I dont think that the reliable methods came as late as guns.
The Japanese had very effective methods for producing swords which involved "layering" the iron as they worked it. They produced a sharp, lighter but more brittle blade end, with a hardier topside to the weapon, allowing for a weapon that could cut exceptionally well, but was also incredibly durable.
Al
The Japanese had very effective methods for producing swords which involved "layering" the iron as they worked it. They produced a sharp, lighter but more brittle blade end, with a hardier topside to the weapon, allowing for a weapon that could cut exceptionally well, but was also incredibly durable.
Al
Tarquelne
Follower of Tytalus
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2001
- Messages
- 3,718
I think it would have been a matter of what they were used to, expectations (if X are dead on the battlefield then 10X (or whatever) will be dead within the month), and shock.
Medical care and travel back home both would have been fairly minimal. Plus there would have been a lot of servants around. It's not like the line soldiers did all the work anyway. (I'm pretty sure the account I read involved that sort of army.)
That's assuming the whole thing wasn't just a victor's boast. Or an ad from the local ironworks.
While it might suck to watch your friend die slowly, I don't think it would be as bone-jarring watching your friend get his head lopped off because the other guy had a sharper blade. Additionally, I don't think it would cost an army terribly more resources to take care of the dying than it would the living. There were no expensive medicines or tools to pay for or replace, no salary for professional healers. At most they might have one more meal, if they could eat at all.
As these are all purely emotional responses in an era none of us have personal experience with, my comments are pure speculation.
Tarquelne
Follower of Tytalus
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2001
- Messages
- 3,718
So far as FFH2 goes, I've assumed that when you get the tech allowing you to see a metal resource you start using it... that's what gives you your hammers bonus from the mine.
The tech that allows you to have weapons of that type is when you master the material and armies are supplied with weapons that out perform (one way or another) the previous weapon type.
I agree. Though "reliable" is vague. But methods were reliable enough to make elaborate armor and weapons out of it.
And plate armor with a dent from a bullet is fairly common in collections. The mark's there, I've been told, to demonstrate that the armor is "bullet proof". At least against the sort of bullet the armorer was willing to fire at it... So advanced plate armor and not-quite-so-advanced guns even co-existed for awhile.
On disease: They understood infection enough to know a deep cut = extreme danger of sickness and death even if you survive the initial wound and bleeding.
The tech that allows you to have weapons of that type is when you master the material and armies are supplied with weapons that out perform (one way or another) the previous weapon type.
I agree. Though "reliable" is vague. But methods were reliable enough to make elaborate armor and weapons out of it.
And plate armor with a dent from a bullet is fairly common in collections. The mark's there, I've been told, to demonstrate that the armor is "bullet proof". At least against the sort of bullet the armorer was willing to fire at it... So advanced plate armor and not-quite-so-advanced guns even co-existed for awhile.
On disease: They understood infection enough to know a deep cut = extreme danger of sickness and death even if you survive the initial wound and bleeding.
Tarquelne
Follower of Tytalus
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2001
- Messages
- 3,718
Ah, I thought of how to put more clearly what I meant by "shock":
Frog in a pot. Turn up the heat slowly it just sits there, drop it in hot water and it'll try to jump right out again. (I've never actually tried this, btw.)
People are quite often just like that frog. They'll accept the unpleasant in a trickle but react strongly to the same thing shoved in their face all at once.
For whoever mentioned it, I didn't go from the Wiki... just memory. No idea where I heard it, and I readily accept my own fallibility.
Still, my understanding is that, in terms of the historical progression, bronze is better just more expensive than iron, but iron eventually leads to steel, which rocks the pants off of either iron or bronze.
Maybe that'd be a good way to show it? Make iron, say, twice as common as bronze...
Bronze weapons: bronze working, source of copper, +2 strength
Iron weapons: iron working, source of iron, +1 strength (with several units which require iron but can't use bronze)
Steel weapons: steel, source of iron, +3 strength, +20% versus iron weapons.
Mithral: same as current.
Re: morale effects, there've actually been quite a few military innovations specifically designed to make death less likely -- a wounded enemy is much better than a dead enemy. Landmines, for instance: they put just enough explosive in them that whoever steps on them will probably lose a leg and likely be castrated, not enough to kill. That way you also take out the guys who have to help carry him to safety, whereas if he died only he'd be dead.
Re: sociological analysis of prisons (for the record, I'm a sociology undergrad at the University of Toronto, specializing in deviance... so while I'm hardly an expert, this is my field), there are quite a few ways in which prisons worsen crime rate. I wasn't going to bother with the explanation, but since you asked... *ahem*
1) "Secondary deviance" is the term we use for calling someone deviant... like, "you broke the law, so you're a worthless criminal." The problem with this approach is that they generally believe it. Goes from someone who's just trying to get by to "you're a criminal" to "you're right, I am a criminal," at which point they start acting much more destructively than they did before.
2) Prisons contain a "culture of criminality" -- basically you're put in contact with a bunch of other "criminals" who become your only friends and who teach you the tricks of the trade. After you've spent a couple years there, you can end up pretty deep in crime, psychologically speaking.
3) Breaking of ties to normal society. One of the biggest causes of crime is a sense of alienation from the mainstream: you don't feel like you belong, and you've got noone to tell you "don't be a jerk, man," so you start taking what advantage you can. In order to remedy this, we try to build healthy social networks where at-risk people can "learn to be human," so to speak. Locking them up in a prison and keeping them away from "normal" people is the exact opposite of this.
4) At least in today's society, we give criminal records to released prisoners. In other societies this might be represented by tattooing or other forms of branding... essentially, stigmatizing the individual so it'll be obvious to everyone that he or she is a criminal, and therefore not to be trusted. This further removes the released prisoner from society, and makes reoffence nearly certain, especially as legitimate occupation may be prevented, so the options may end up being "steal or starve."
As far as studies to prove that this is the case... there aren't any, for obvious reasons. But we can look historically at the crime rate, and the impact that the advent of prisons had on it... and the answer is not much of one. They certainly didn't go down appreciably... anything more than that would be too spurious to say conclusively. But they didn't reduce the crime rate, and that's all my nitpick was: the game implies they would.
A more historically accurate, and way more effective, method would be simply exiling those who refuse to buckle down. Especially with Raging Barbarians on: if you knew that stealing one more time would mean you get forcibly placed on the other side of the city wall and not allowed back in, what would you do?
Still, my understanding is that, in terms of the historical progression, bronze is better just more expensive than iron, but iron eventually leads to steel, which rocks the pants off of either iron or bronze.
Maybe that'd be a good way to show it? Make iron, say, twice as common as bronze...
Bronze weapons: bronze working, source of copper, +2 strength
Iron weapons: iron working, source of iron, +1 strength (with several units which require iron but can't use bronze)
Steel weapons: steel, source of iron, +3 strength, +20% versus iron weapons.
Mithral: same as current.
Re: morale effects, there've actually been quite a few military innovations specifically designed to make death less likely -- a wounded enemy is much better than a dead enemy. Landmines, for instance: they put just enough explosive in them that whoever steps on them will probably lose a leg and likely be castrated, not enough to kill. That way you also take out the guys who have to help carry him to safety, whereas if he died only he'd be dead.
Re: sociological analysis of prisons (for the record, I'm a sociology undergrad at the University of Toronto, specializing in deviance... so while I'm hardly an expert, this is my field), there are quite a few ways in which prisons worsen crime rate. I wasn't going to bother with the explanation, but since you asked... *ahem*
1) "Secondary deviance" is the term we use for calling someone deviant... like, "you broke the law, so you're a worthless criminal." The problem with this approach is that they generally believe it. Goes from someone who's just trying to get by to "you're a criminal" to "you're right, I am a criminal," at which point they start acting much more destructively than they did before.
2) Prisons contain a "culture of criminality" -- basically you're put in contact with a bunch of other "criminals" who become your only friends and who teach you the tricks of the trade. After you've spent a couple years there, you can end up pretty deep in crime, psychologically speaking.
3) Breaking of ties to normal society. One of the biggest causes of crime is a sense of alienation from the mainstream: you don't feel like you belong, and you've got noone to tell you "don't be a jerk, man," so you start taking what advantage you can. In order to remedy this, we try to build healthy social networks where at-risk people can "learn to be human," so to speak. Locking them up in a prison and keeping them away from "normal" people is the exact opposite of this.
4) At least in today's society, we give criminal records to released prisoners. In other societies this might be represented by tattooing or other forms of branding... essentially, stigmatizing the individual so it'll be obvious to everyone that he or she is a criminal, and therefore not to be trusted. This further removes the released prisoner from society, and makes reoffence nearly certain, especially as legitimate occupation may be prevented, so the options may end up being "steal or starve."
As far as studies to prove that this is the case... there aren't any, for obvious reasons. But we can look historically at the crime rate, and the impact that the advent of prisons had on it... and the answer is not much of one. They certainly didn't go down appreciably... anything more than that would be too spurious to say conclusively. But they didn't reduce the crime rate, and that's all my nitpick was: the game implies they would.
A more historically accurate, and way more effective, method would be simply exiling those who refuse to buckle down. Especially with Raging Barbarians on: if you knew that stealing one more time would mean you get forcibly placed on the other side of the city wall and not allowed back in, what would you do?
MagisterCultuum
Great Sage
I'm pretty sure that the iron that is stronger than Bronze is technically an early Steel.
Also, Bronze was largely replaced by Brass, which was superior to both Bronze and Iron (but not the best steel)
Weight was also probably an issue. The Copper alloys are much heavier than Iron and Steel.
Also, Bronze was largely replaced by Brass, which was superior to both Bronze and Iron (but not the best steel)
Weight was also probably an issue. The Copper alloys are much heavier than Iron and Steel.
That wouldn't surprise me... after all, the historical anecdote I'm going from is simply to do with the end of the bronze age and start of the iron age... so what I understood about the relative benefits of bronze and iron could only be true of the early days.
Still, there's a world of difference between iron and steel.
Also, one thing I've never quite understood about Civ IV is how rare iron is... that stuff is freaking everywhere. The entire goddamn planet is made out of iron... sure, most of that is underground, but it's not exactly rare on the surface.
Sofista
Deity
I think it's because of the order resource are layered - namely, iron is "delivered" late, thus has less places to be. Cfr alluminium, the most common metal in nature, being painfully rare in-game.
On the iron-bronze debate, I'd propose Ockham's razor: we may not know clearly, but back then... who ever returned to bronze after getting iron? Or created a mixed army with the elite forces carrying bronze swords? And how many times did a bronze-armed army defeat an ironed)) one?
@WCH: Great post on prisons. Question: wasn't that called "labeling theory"?
On the iron-bronze debate, I'd propose Ockham's razor: we may not know clearly, but back then... who ever returned to bronze after getting iron? Or created a mixed army with the elite forces carrying bronze swords? And how many times did a bronze-armed army defeat an ironed
)) one?@WCH: Great post on prisons. Question: wasn't that called "labeling theory"?
Tarquelne
Follower of Tytalus
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2001
- Messages
- 3,718
I think you're correct, but there's the issue of purity. Or, maybe, of just what "early Steel" means.
If you bought a steel item today you'd usually expect it to be pure steel. But IIRC roman swords, for example, generally only had layers of steel from the charcoal used to heat the iron. The presence of steel was a happy accident caused by the method of manufacture - the charcoal used to heat the iron case-hardened the outer layer, and that layer got folded into the sword when the weapon was made. So the swords weren't pure steel, or even mostly steel, perhaps. But the weren't merely iron either.
So I'd say there were still "iron weapons"... but the distinction is fairly arbitrary. The important thing, though is indeed the steel content. Too little and you may be better off with bronze. I think it'd depend on the hardening - or lack of hardening - the smith used. I've read that some iron swords had surfaces that are best considered high-carbon steel... but most didn't.
I like phrase "Iron weapons" more than "Steel weapons" for FFH. I think "Iron" has more of a fantasy-feel. OTOH, it might be nice to give the Khzad, or someone else, some steel.
Well.. between homogeneous steel armor and simple iron, yes. But it's more accurate to say that what's between them is a continuum. And while a lot of the early "iron" weapons were technically steel, or incorporated steel, it's still useful to speak of them as "iron". It emphasizes the differences between, say, a post-Bessemer "steel" sword and an Classical "iron" spearhead. It's just quicker than "early industrial steel" or "carburized ingot steel".
I guess, basically, I think it's a mistake to get too hung up on the word "Iron." Think "copper-alloy" and "iron-alloy".
If there were four weapon tiers then, I agree, your "bronze, iron, steel, mithril" would make good sense. But, at 3, I like "iron" better than "steel" for the reason given above.
MagisterCultuum
Great Sage
Well, my modmod is going to have:
Copper (requires copper recourse, no building or tech, cost ~30 gold, +1 str)
Bronze (requires copper, Bronze Working, Forge, cost ~40 gold, +2 str)
Iron (requires iron, Iron Working, forge, cost ~4 gold, +2 str)
Dwarven Steel (Requires Iron, Iron Working, Dwarven Smithy, ~5 gold, +3 str)
Galvorn (requires a late game Dark Forge of Eol wonder, Iron, cost ~50 gold, +3 attack str, +3 death)
Mithril (requires forge, Mithril Working, mithril, cost ~ 200 gold, +5 str)
(and possibly others, with more specific effects, e.g., Silver vs. werewolves, lead vs magic)
Copper (requires copper recourse, no building or tech, cost ~30 gold, +1 str)
Bronze (requires copper, Bronze Working, Forge, cost ~40 gold, +2 str)
Iron (requires iron, Iron Working, forge, cost ~4 gold, +2 str)
Dwarven Steel (Requires Iron, Iron Working, Dwarven Smithy, ~5 gold, +3 str)
Galvorn (requires a late game Dark Forge of Eol wonder, Iron, cost ~50 gold, +3 attack str, +3 death)
Mithril (requires forge, Mithril Working, mithril, cost ~ 200 gold, +5 str)
(and possibly others, with more specific effects, e.g., Silver vs. werewolves, lead vs magic)
Thanks.
Yeah, a lot of what I said has to do with labeling theory, but there's more to it than just that. And I don't like using the theory names, don't really see the point. A better term if you want to place it in a movement would be Critical Sociology in general, or the Penal Abolishionist Movement in particular (Penal Abolishionists generally also being from Critical-school of sociology. Critical school is essentially neo-Marxist... follows Marx's critique of industrial society without condoning his solution).
Similar threads
