View Single Post
  #47  
Old April 14th, 2007, 10:20 PM
DrPraetorious's Avatar

DrPraetorious DrPraetorious is offline
Major General
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Lake of Hali, Aldebaran, OH
Posts: 2,474
Thanks: 51
Thanked 67 Times in 27 Posts
DrPraetorious is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Martial arts nations...

I'm of two minds about putting the False Knights (or whatever they end up called) on armored Aurochs.

On the one hand, the EA persians shouldn't have the stirrup. Which means that the lancers would need armor on the aurochs to help brace the lance-blow.

On the other hand, if I show them on armored aurochs, they should leave armored aurochs when they die and pay the resource cost for auroch barding, which might cripple the utility of the unit. The EA game is already non-historical in the sense that there are EA lancers on unarmored horses (and different EA nations are in different time periods anyway).

Does anyone know the persian name for a Tulwar? Since these guys are eeeevil, they get to dip their Tulwar in poison, which is a good buy for a high def/prot unit anyway.

The Guan Do sounds like a fascinating weapon, but isn't typical Cataphract armament.

I'm pretty sure that cavalry hammers came later. In any case, the in-game hammer would be sufficient. I believe that the early persians used various sorts of axes from horseback, for the same purpose (against armored legionaires, specifically).

Morningstars and ball and chain are European weapons exclusively, I believe. Persians definitely used a lot of maces, some of which might "qualify" as a morning star, by virtue of being, you know, spikey. The weapon is interchangeable with an axe, though, in terms of game mechanics (morning stars are slightly better, IIRC) - so no reason to give units with both.

Scythes and Lassos are definitely weapons for the mounted villains to consider, although not the false knights or the cataphracts. I don't think it's possible to mod entangling weapons yet, unfortunately.

Anyway, consider this:
Code:

#newweapon xxx
#name "light flail"
#att 0
#dam 2
#def -2
#flail
#nratt 2
#len 2
#rcost 3
#end

#newweapon xxx
#name "poisoned tulwar"
#att 0
#dam 4
#def 2
#len 1
#secondaryeffect 54
#rcost 4
#end



There'd also be a regular tulwar lacking the poison for rcost 3. Thoughts? A tulwar is about the length of a saber, right? Is that len 1 or len 2?

I'm not at home and can't check the weapons table, so I might need to adjust some of those values.
__________________
If you read his speech at Rice, all his arguments for going to the moon work equally well as arguments for blowing up the moon, sending cloned dinosaurs into space, or constructing a towering *****-shaped obelisk on Mars. --Randall Munroe
Reply With Quote