Tech upgrade in 1066 for the christians

[Endre Fodstad]

In the next patch, the christians need a tech upgrade. In 1066, latin(and orthodox) christendom is practically in the iron age; and sometimes in the bronze age! The fact that some parts of the world lack wooden ploughs or the two-field system in 1066 is laughable; they were introduced in pre-roman times. Another thing is military technology: full-length mail hauberks were known in 1066 in just about every corner of christendom, as were something else than whatever a "tribal sword" is supposed to be; 11th century Finland has unearthed what CK unhistorically calls a "broadsword"(someone has been playing too much role-playing games...). After all, the crusaders were in many ways technologically superior in military terms compared to their turkish or arab foes.

Personally i feel that the entire leather armour tech group should go - perhaps to be replaced with a cloth armour tech group - layered cloth is a far more effective armour than leather ever will be(which is why leather armour is almost nonexistent in historical sources and finds - unless used as a support or linking material for other materials).

 

[Solmyr]

I guess the problem with this is that then they'd have to add a lot of new tech in order to make something available to research all the way to 1453.
It might help if you don't think of the advances as literal ones, but rather better versions of the thing in question. So wooden ploughs advance might not be literally wooden ploughs, just better ploughs than what was available until then.

 

[unmerged(8913)]

I guess the problem with this is that then they'd have to add a lot of new tech in order to make something available to research all the way to 1453.
It might help if you don't think of the advances as literal ones, but rather better versions of the thing in question. So wooden ploughs advance might not be literally wooden ploughs, just better ploughs than what was available until then.

I don't have the game yet, so I'm not sure if this would be possible, but might it work to change the lowest level of tech (names, description, effects, etc.) to the level above it, for example, and do the same with each level above that, and then make up new names, descriptions, and so on for the highest level of tech?

 

[Endre Fodstad]

The names are pretty irrelevant anyway, since I'm only using them for examples. The problem is mainly that christian europe is too far behind the rest of the world innovations-wise; as said, military tech in 1066 was in many ways better in the west than in the east...

 

[King]

well there are two solutions to the tech imbalance, one is too increase the Christian tech levels.

 

[Endre Fodstad]

If the other solution is chosen it should include the techs being renamed...

 

[King]

If the other solution is chosen it should include the techs being renamed...

Well renaming the techs would mean a lot of work for something that is essentially window dressing. Changing the names of the techs would not in any way change the effects of the techs. I can't see what exactly the problem is here?

 

[Endre Fodstad]

Well, ok; then let's change the name of every nobleman in the game, why not every province? Or the religions. The names are so dull. It is, after all, essentially window dressing.

CK might not be a history lesson, but it is about history. And technology is a fairly important part of the game...

EF

 

[Endre Fodstad]

Especially since, it seems from these forums(and the game), the medieval level of technology is the area where people's knowledge is either limited or completely wrong, most believing in the old myth of the low level of technology in europe during the middle ages.

Educating through games and all that.

 

[King]

The names of the nobles don;t really matter, so I would certainly not going to bother renaming all of them, but what does matter is how they relate. changing th erelationship of hte starting characters in the game, effects who stands in the line of inheritance for particular provinces.

 

[Aquitaine]

The names of the nobles don;t really matter, so I would certainly not going to bother renaming all of them, but what does matter is how they relate. changing th erelationship of hte starting characters in the game, effects who stands in the line of inheritance for particular provinces.

I disagree entirely, both regarding the nobles and the names of the technology.

Why don't you have 'the wheel' as a tech to discover? Because it'd jar you out of 1066 (or whenever) and you're going 'wait, they don't have THE WHEEL?'

I don't know about anyone else, but knowing a little bit about the period is really what interested me in CK to begin with. Paradox has a niche market here, and a significant percentage of them are going to pay a lot of attention to 'window dressing.' I don't consider the names to be that at all - de Hauteville versus Robert of Flanders versus Raymond of Toulouse -- knowing that all these people existed and did various things is what makes the game appealing for some people.

At least for me, technology is not quite as vital, but it is sort of an eyesore watching people use tribal swords and invent leather armor that was never used. For many years, Paradox has done nothing but crank out history games, so I'd be a little less surprised when your audience is looking for...well, history.

 

[King]

I disagree entirely, both regarding the nobles and the names of the technology.

Why don't you have 'the wheel' as a tech to discover? Because it'd jar you out of 1066 (or whenever) and you're going 'wait, they don't have THE WHEEL?'

I don't know about anyone else, but knowing a little bit about the period is really what interested me in CK to begin with. Paradox has a niche market here, and a significant percentage of them are going to pay a lot of attention to 'window dressing.' I don't consider the names to be that at all - de Hauteville versus Robert of Flanders versus Raymond of Toulouse -- knowing that all these people existed and did various things is what makes the game appealing for some people.

At least for me, technology is not quite as vital, but it is sort of an eyesore watching people use tribal swords and invent leather armor that was never used. For many years, Paradox has done nothing but crank out history games, so I'd be a little less surprised when your audience is looking for...well, history.

Well let me expand on my opinion here. The Starting names of the counts are unimportant because the future names are generated dynamically. Thus if I call a character Otto, Heinrich etc. etc. this will have no effect what so every on game play. However choosing historical names does have the advantage that it is easier to find the historical relationships between characters for set up purposes. So giving characters historical names is a useful excerise.

As for techs, I believe the tech names will be cast in stone. If the tech names were changed now then it would lead to a lot of translation work for the distributers of the non-English versions of the game. So I think that any techname changes will have to be pretty amazing to make it into an official patch.

Now that is not to say that you guys can't go off and change the technames yourself. The fact there are now two of you calling for this rather than just one, means that there might be some demand for this after all. So all I can suggest is that those files ain't going to change themselves so you better get cracking

 

[Endre Fodstad]

Hmm. I sort of doubt that foreign versions of the game would be overmuch affected by a name change in english 1.01...
I could always provide a cosmetic name change for the techs that would more accurately reflect medieval technology(in fact I've offered to do this earlier, when the Tribal Swords appeared in screenshots) if 1.02 could implement that.
Overall, I think you'd be surprised to find how many people like their historical games to be historical...

The most important thing here, however, is not a name change for techs but a change in the scenario lineups tech-wise between the religous groups. Christian Europe did _not_ live in the germanic iron ages in 1066, were well on their way toward technological supremacy in 1187 and had it in 1327...it would be most fitting for paradox to address this in 1.02 - or you could start wondering if their main source was Jan Guillou....

EF

 

[King]

Hmm. I sort of doubt that foreign versions of the game would be overmuch affected by a name change in english 1.01...
I could always provide a cosmetic name change for the techs that would more accurately reflect medieval technology(in fact I've offered to do this earlier, when the Tribal Swords appeared in screenshots) if 1.02 could implement that.
Overall, I think you'd be surprised to find how many people like their historical games to be historical...

The most important thing here, however, is not a name change for techs but a change in the scenario lineups tech-wise between the religous groups. Christian Europe did _not_ live in the germanic iron ages in 1066, were well on their way toward technological supremacy in 1187 and had it in 1327...it would be most fitting for paradox to address this in 1.02 - or you could start wondering if their main source was Jan Guillou....

EF

Now thinking about this logically here. If we give everyone more tech then all will happen is that everyone will have all the tech well before the end of the game. So I do not think that this is solution here. If on the other hand we believe that the current tech advantage that the mulsims have substantially unbalances the game then the obvious answer would be to remove all/some of the techs the muslim nations have.

 

[Endre Fodstad]

Now thinking about this logically here. If we give everyone more tech then all will happen is that everyone will have all the tech well before the end of the game. So I do not think that this is solution here. If on the other hand we believe that the current tech advantage that the mulsims have substantially unbalances the game then the obvious answer would be to remove all/some of the techs the muslim nations have.

Sounds good, though that would bring everyone back to the bronze age...
Just out of curiosity, would you implement a tech namechange if provided with a list of more accurate names?

EF

 

[King]

Sounds good, though that would bring everyone back to the bronze age...
Just out of curiosity, would you implement a tech namechange if provided with a list of more accurate names?

EF

I don't know to be honest, I have never tried to change the tech names. I could give it go, it can't be that difficult?

 

[Endre Fodstad]

I don't know to be honest, I have never tried to change the tech names. I could give it go, it can't be that difficult?

I will get back to you on PM in a week or so with a list of tech names that does not sound like they came out of Dungeons & Dragons. Anyone want to contribute? This could make a juicy discussion.

EF

 

[unmerged(6777)]

Changing tech names as displayed in tooltips, etc, would be no problem. Changing them from a code POV would. So if you want to change the boiled_leather armour's name to super_duper_leather armour it would be a problem but changing "boilded leather" to "super duper leather" wouldn't. Since the "boiled_leather" would only be visible to someone reading the files, that's no big deal.

I would in no way oppose (and would help to implement) changes to the descriptions to help make them more historically accurate. I would oppose any significant change to the tech balance in the various scenario setups without extensive testing to ensure that it doesn't bring the Christians too much closer to the muslems - else they will be too easily overwhelmed.

 

[Endre Fodstad]

What of the names displayed in the regiment list for weapons and armour?
Would it be possible to make tech names that are not the same for the weapon in the regiment listing and the tech name(most of the weapons techs should be altered, probably partly to techniqe and school development as opposed to the weapons; the "short" and "broad" swords are for example pure Gygaxisms, whereas the "bastard" sword never existed in the middle ages; it should be called a "long sword").

EF

 

[Grosshaus]

I think it's perfectly OK for Christians to lack behind in tech in 1066, after all if you play a bit longer you will see the magnificent effect of spread leveling the difference smoothly. I have no idea about the other scenarios, though.

But what bothers me is provinces having buildings but not the required tech. All provinces with a church should have the techs needed to build that, all provinces with a hill fort should have the prerequisities of the hill fort etc. Those changes would perhaps be quite enough to represent the difference between Pagans and Christians, perhaps with some level 1 military techs to go with.

Oh, and Novgorod seems to be a special case for some reason tech-wise, it needs to be toned down.