|
|
|
 |

February 18th, 2009, 06:46 PM
|
Corporal
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 130
Thanks: 153
Thanked 21 Times in 12 Posts
|
|
Re: Brazen Benevolence (Bronze Armors)
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimMorrison
It seems that there was a convergence between the declining availability and quality of copper/bronze, and the gradually increasing knowledge of iron working, that led to the change. It is just conjecture, but from what I'm finding, it sounds like bronze would not have been supplanted by iron until later in history, had supplies of higher quality ore been stable - this is highlighted by the fact that Egypt continued to use bronze almost exclusively for centuries after iron became more prevalent in other regions of the world.
|
This is consistent with the mineral availability argument. The gradual change is interesting, though not entirely surprising. However, in some cases, cataclysmic events may have precipitated the change by disrupting trade. Both the fall of the Hittite Empire and the dark period before the emergence of Doric Greece are roughly contemporaneous with the beginning of the Iron Age.
As far as good numbers go, Jim, I think the bronze density is pretty accurate - it reflects a composition of about 12% tin. The number I gave for iron is for pure iron, I think, and not cast iron or meteoritic iron. I don't how many impurities from ores may have been left in the iron from the smelting processes of the Early Iron Age, but if we are willing to assume relatively few, then the density for pure iron may also be quite reasonable.
|

February 18th, 2009, 08:58 PM
|
 |
Lieutenant General
|
|
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Utopia, Oregon
Posts: 2,676
Thanks: 83
Thanked 143 Times in 108 Posts
|
|
Re: Brazen Benevolence (Bronze Armors)
Quote:
Originally Posted by analytic_kernel
As far as good numbers go, Jim, I think the bronze density is pretty accurate - it reflects a composition of about 12% tin. The number I gave for iron is for pure iron, I think, and not cast iron or meteoritic iron. I don't how many impurities from ores may have been left in the iron from the smelting processes of the Early Iron Age, but if we are willing to assume relatively few, then the density for pure iron may also be quite reasonable.
|
Well that's the thing, from what research I did, it is believed that the quality and composition of both bronze as well as iron was very unreliable early in their use. At the onset of the iron age, however, even though knowledge of bronze had reached a point that very high quality metal could be reliably smelted, the lesser quality ores required smelting temperatures nearing what was needed for iron to begin with. However, the actual justification for the transition is slim at this point, because understanding of the iron ore was very low, and smelting iron was wholly unreliable. Levels of adulteration in the metal varied wildly, and there were no effective methods of dealing with poor ore - it would be smelted, and cast, and then beat with a hammer - if it shattered, you just started over again from scratch. This says to me that yes, only once the ease of procurement shifted dramatically in favor of iron, did it become favorable to focus primarily on its forging.
That is to say, as much as decent quality early iron age iron was better than decent quality early iron age bronze, it was not enough of a difference to justify the change - it required further economic pressure, and supply chain problems.
So what I wondered at this point, was how the bronze of the time, measured up to the typical iron of the time, in application. Also, it makes me wonder if perhaps as far as cost goes, in the game, that it would make sense for bronze to have a slightly higher gold cost (to illustrate the importation of raw materials) while iron would have a slightly higher resource cost (to simulate the fact that not all iron is even usable once smelted). Beyond that, I'd guess that in game it would be fair to give iron +10% prot over bronze, generally speaking, while really I doubt actual encumbrance would shift until maybe steel would get a reduction of 1 (ironically, "steel" could not be created in large quantities for mass production until the 19th century.....).
|

February 18th, 2009, 10:55 PM
|
BANNED USER
|
|
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 4,075
Thanks: 203
Thanked 121 Times in 91 Posts
|
|
Re: Brazen Benevolence (Bronze Armors)
I don't know what you mean by 'mass production of steel couldn't be done till the 19th centuries'
But damascene blades, as well as japanese ones were famous as far back as the 1300's as I recall. And they were certainly made in large enough quantitites to support military action.
|

February 19th, 2009, 02:45 AM
|
 |
Lieutenant General
|
|
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Utopia, Oregon
Posts: 2,676
Thanks: 83
Thanked 143 Times in 108 Posts
|
|
Re: Brazen Benevolence (Bronze Armors)
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrispedersen
I don't know what you mean by 'mass production of steel couldn't be done till the 19th centuries'
But damascene blades, as well as japanese ones were famous as far back as the 1300's as I recall. And they were certainly made in large enough quantitites to support military action.
|
The making of steel was known long before then, yes, and well made steel was highly sought after for weaponry. However, it could not economically be made in large (or 'mass') quantities at that time - certainly not enough to outfit entire armies in high quality steel armor. When steel was employed for armor for the rank and file, it would be of an inferior quality (though some nobles, and elite knights, who tended to be nobles, could afford it).
For example, steel was still in such low supply at the advent of the railroad, that the inferior metals used in the rails would wear out every 3-6 weeks in the busiest junctions.
|

February 19th, 2009, 11:23 AM
|
Corporal
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 130
Thanks: 153
Thanked 21 Times in 12 Posts
|
|
Re: Brazen Benevolence (Bronze Armors)
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimMorrison
Well that's the thing, from what research I did, it is believed that the quality and composition of both bronze as well as iron was very unreliable early in their use.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimMorrison
That is to say, as much as decent quality early iron age iron was better than decent quality early iron age bronze, it was not enough of a difference to justify the change - it required further economic pressure, and supply chain problems.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimMorrison
So what I wondered at this point, was how the bronze of the time, measured up to the typical iron of the time, in application.
|
Sorry, Jim, I'm reading two different things from you. Are you claiming that we should be comparing early bronze to early iron (first quote), or that we should be comparing late bronze to early iron (second and third quotes)? I have been working under the assumption that we are doing the latter and not the former. but Dom 3 has enough anachronism that I could be making a wrong assumption.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimMorrison
Also, it makes me wonder if perhaps as far as cost goes, in the game, that it would make sense for bronze to have a slightly higher gold cost (to illustrate the importation of raw materials) while iron would have a slightly higher resource cost (to simulate the fact that not all iron is even usable once smelted).
|
Well, I would love to be able to tweak the gold cost of armor, but the modding manual gives no indication that we can. One would have to pass on the cost directly to the units equipping it - extra bookkeeping - yuck.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimMorrison
Beyond that, I'd guess that in game it would be fair to give iron +10% prot over bronze, generally speaking, while really I doubt actual encumbrance would shift until maybe steel would get a reduction of 1 (ironically, "steel" could not be created in large quantities for mass production until the 19th century.....).
|
I'm having trouble agreeing with this. Unless I'm misreading the source you provided earlier, the smelting process to use poorer ores was more involved, but I don't see any direct indication that the quality of the resulting bronze decreased significantly. Yes, the iron content may have been higher, but which way does that affect the bronze hardness and by how much?
|

February 19th, 2009, 12:02 PM
|
 |
General
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: R'lyeh
Posts: 3,861
Thanks: 144
Thanked 403 Times in 176 Posts
|
|
Re: Brazen Benevolence (Bronze Armors)
Quote:
Originally Posted by analytic_kernel
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimMorrison
Also, it makes me wonder if perhaps as far as cost goes, in the game, that it would make sense for bronze to have a slightly higher gold cost (to illustrate the importation of raw materials) while iron would have a slightly higher resource cost (to simulate the fact that not all iron is even usable once smelted).
|
Well, I would love to be able to tweak the gold cost of armor, but the modding manual gives no indication that we can.
|
Armors can have gold costs attributed to it? I thought it only raises resource costs.
|

February 19th, 2009, 08:57 PM
|
 |
Lieutenant General
|
|
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Utopia, Oregon
Posts: 2,676
Thanks: 83
Thanked 143 Times in 108 Posts
|
|
Re: Brazen Benevolence (Bronze Armors)
Quote:
Originally Posted by analytic_kernel
Sorry, Jim, I'm reading two different things from you. Are you claiming that we should be comparing early bronze to early iron (first quote), or that we should be comparing late bronze to early iron (second and third quotes)? I have been working under the assumption that we are doing the latter and not the former. but Dom 3 has enough anachronism that I could be making a wrong assumption.
|
Unfortunately, it seems that at a certain point, it really becomes age specific. As a general rule, EA should be early-mid bronze age, MA should be late bronze - early iron, and LA would be late iron age. Of course this opens up all kinds of cans of worms relating to the perpetuity of many units between 2 or even 3 ages, but is the degree of detail that would be required to show the range of difference in actual perfomance from early bronze, to late iron - with a high degree of similarity in armor value where the 2 overlap in the middle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by analytic_kernel
Well, I would love to be able to tweak the gold cost of armor, but the modding manual gives no indication that we can. One would have to pass on the cost directly to the units equipping it - extra bookkeeping - yuck.
|
For some reason I assumed that it was so, but if it isn't, then yes, providing that level of realism would require tweaking of the recruitment costs of massive numbers of units.
Quote:
Originally Posted by analytic_kernel
I'm having trouble agreeing with this. Unless I'm misreading the source you provided earlier, the smelting process to use poorer ores was more involved, but I don't see any direct indication that the quality of the resulting bronze decreased significantly. Yes, the iron content may have been higher, but which way does that affect the bronze hardness and by how much?
|
Well perhaps not significantly. But it seems to me that the reliability of acquiring good bronze, when it was available, likely declined somewhat, which made sponge iron, and other somewhat poorly performing forms of iron worth using.
I guess it's just that from what I'm finding, good early iron age materials were better than bronze, but that most early iron was not "good", and likely actually inferior to the best bronze available. So whatever the reason, "good" bronze became scarce enough, that people were often willing to settle for "poor" iron, even before "good" iron was commonly available.
|

February 20th, 2009, 12:00 AM
|
Corporal
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 130
Thanks: 153
Thanked 21 Times in 12 Posts
|
|
Re: Brazen Benevolence (Bronze Armors)
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimMorrison
Unfortunately, it seems that at a certain point, it really becomes age specific. As a general rule, EA should be early-mid bronze age, MA should be late bronze - early iron, and LA would be late iron age.
|
Hmmm... My observation is that there is a lot of iron armor in EA. When I went through Edi's DB looking for monsters which equip bronze armors, they seemed to be a minority even within EA. Hence, my temptation to place EA at late bronze and early iron.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimMorrison
Of course this opens up all kinds of cans of worms relating to the perpetuity of many units between 2 or even 3 ages, but is the degree of detail that would be required to show the range of difference in actual perfomance from early bronze, to late iron - with a high degree of similarity in armor value where the 2 overlap in the middle.
|
If we follow your notion that early bronze factors into EA, and that the entire spectrum of both bronze and iron ages need to be considered, then Dom 3 really doesn't provide enough different armors (or perhaps even a wide enough mundane armor protection scale: 0 to 20) to model this.
The periods classifications which I had assumed were:
- EA: Late Bronze - Early Iron
- MA: Middle Iron (mostly iron and some early steel)
- LA: Late Iron (iron and decent steel)
These seem to fit the historical models from which the nations and units come - at least in my mind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimMorrison
Quote:
Originally Posted by analytic_kernel
I'm having trouble agreeing with this. Unless I'm misreading the source you provided earlier, the smelting process to use poorer ores was more involved, but I don't see any direct indication that the quality of the resulting bronze decreased significantly. Yes, the iron content may have been higher, but which way does that affect the bronze hardness and by how much?
|
Well perhaps not significantly. But it seems to me that the reliability of acquiring good bronze, when it was available, likely declined somewhat, which made sponge iron, and other somewhat poorly performing forms of iron worth using.
|
I don't think anyone in this thread disputes that. But, I have read nothing to indicate that poorer bronze started being used alongside or against the poor iron. Hence the contention that bronze in EA may well be superior to iron in EA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimMorrison
I guess it's just that from what I'm finding, good early iron age materials were better than bronze, but that most early iron was not "good", and likely actually inferior to the best bronze available. So whatever the reason, "good" bronze became scarce enough, that people were often willing to settle for "poor" iron, even before "good" iron was commonly available.
|
That is an interesting thought and could well be the case. And, I think you then agree that it is fair to compare good bronze to poor iron within the same period.
|

February 23rd, 2009, 08:30 PM
|
 |
Private
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 40
Thanks: 12
Thanked 6 Times in 5 Posts
|
|
Re: Brazen Benevolence (Bronze Armors)
Quote:
Originally Posted by analytic_kernel
- EA: Late Bronze - Early Iron
- MA: Middle Iron (mostly iron and some early steel)
- LA: Late Iron (iron and decent steel)
These seem to fit the historical models from which the nations and units come - at least in my mind.
|
My two sense on the times and ages is thus, and granted this is just my reckoning, as I am only the most amateur of historians:
to my reckoning the myths and such encompassed by the early age come from a wide range of dates, ranging from the early Caananites(1000-700 BC) all the way through the height of the Roman Empire (100-300 AD) during this over 1000 year period most of the bronze age happened as well as a good bit of the iron age. The later ages get harder and easier to judge, while the evolution of such nations as Arcoscephale gets hard to pinpoint time wise, as things like the advent of Islam and the changes that had on culture never really occur, but for the European based nations it seems that the middle age is late roman through the dark ages and into the early middle ages, depending on the nation, (300 AD - 1100 AD), also during which there were a great many evolutions in different places at different times in smelting and the forging of armor and weapons, such as the invention of chain mail, heavy plate mails designed to withstand the blows of lances, new hardened leathers, and so on. The late age roughly corresponds to the late middle and early renaissance, assuming gunpowder was never invented. For example Marignon's sea captains are reminiscent of the early Portugese(spelling?) and Spanish explorers, and Bogarus is reminiscent of late medieval Russia and the trade cities of Novgorod and Muscovy. Overall I would say that the time periods of the ages are so disparate, that we should accept that the Dominions world is a fictional creation and leave off consideration of particular forging developments beyond this mods original intention to re balance between bronze and iron, taking for the early age consideration some point in history when both bronze and iron were in use, and thus I must arrive at a similar conclusion as analytic_kernel and trust his judgment to use the above mentioned historical points as references.
|
The Following User Says Thank You to whiplashomega For This Useful Post:
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is On
|
|
|
|
|