|
Post by Lignator on Dec 1, 2006 2:31:47 GMT
because I smited you! nothing personal, I just like messing around with the karma... Sorry for not being clear, I did not mean they fought bare handed, I was thinking about how they are in RTW, armed with nothing but little knives. That's what I was trying to say. Also I think the morale of peasants should be higher. they would have crappy morale, but it shouldn't be like in vanilla rome, where they do more running then fighting. What I should have said before is that there wasn't a peasant unit, but the skirmishers, archers, and levy units were the peasants.
|
|
|
Post by Antarki on Dec 1, 2006 2:38:35 GMT
What Vuk says is true. lets clear some things: If we remit to historical accuracy, well, every incan unit in the army was peasant in origin. and folowing the different Chronicles of the time, EVERY peasant in every andean nation had a minimal trainig with the sling (as i said before) and Club, so they where prepared for when the local lord called for conscription. In fact, many local armies of small shires where just compossed of peasants armed with slings and total loyalty to their Curaca (lord) If we know this, then we cant possibly say peasants where "unarmed civilians" at all: this can be true for ancient rome (and even there peasants recieved some training for they where also conscripted in republican times) if we make an inca- era based game, peasants should be a crucial component for city garrisons and even fast raised armies. the fact that they were cheap slingers gaved them already a great advantage, something that -this is crucial- didnt have the coastal or jungle civs. Mi idea is that the peasants should stay, but with a change in their stats. also, having them in 0 turns doesnt solve the question since they can already be part of an early army, and dont mess the managment thing. just my opinion Good bye!
|
|
|
Post by Lignator on Dec 1, 2006 2:49:35 GMT
I agree, but I don't think they should be called peasants.
|
|
|
Post by Antarki on Dec 1, 2006 2:52:46 GMT
mmm... i see your point
they can just be called Hatunruna: common people. I see peasant is a more "civilian related" term
|
|
|
Post by Murfios on Dec 1, 2006 3:03:52 GMT
Militia? sounds more fitting
|
|
|
Post by SSJVegetaTrunks on Dec 1, 2006 4:15:35 GMT
Hatunruna sounds good. Militia just sounds a bit too English.
|
|
|
Post by ByzantineKnight on Dec 1, 2006 5:00:37 GMT
Allpa Llank'aq (the current name for them in the mod) means Peasant in Quechua...
About the 0 turn recuritment; It is possible, but it wouldn't make for very fun gameplay...
|
|
|
Post by RichyG on Dec 1, 2006 11:06:04 GMT
You need a peasant unit to represent revolts anyway, so they should remian none the less. Also, their morale has to be low otherwise they'd just stand there fighting to the last man like they do it MTW2 and it seriously sucks!
|
|
|
Post by SSJVegetaTrunks on Dec 1, 2006 12:46:50 GMT
Yeah, a bunch of little, weak people forced to fight with a knife and paper armor that fight to the death doesn't make much sense.
|
|
|
Post by Antarki on Dec 1, 2006 16:08:27 GMT
Allpa Llank'aq (the current name for them in the mod) means Peasant in Quechua... About the 0 turn recuritment; It is possible, but it wouldn't make for very fun gameplay... Allpa Llank´aq Allpa: Ive not found what this means.. but i guess it stands for field maybe Llank´aq. stand for Llamkay, work. it means "worker". so, the name would be fiield worker? maybe bizantineknight knows exactly in fact, hatunruna is not a clearer name, since it just mean "man" (grown up man, adult man) but stands with the term normal people (peasants and city dwellers) recieved when they passed childhood (since there was a ritual to pass from childhood to adult) in the inca society, so we know they where called like this. What do you think? Bizantine knight, maybe you have the exact meaning of Allpa Llank´aq, please put it here to see wich goes better. bye!
|
|
|
Post by Vuk on Dec 1, 2006 17:07:56 GMT
What I meant is that, when a lord called all able bodied men to defend a city, they got everyone and armed them, which is quite different than a peasant who was conscripted into the army, trained between planting season and harvest, and sometimes give some pretty d**n decent arms. It seems many people get the two confused, but a military civilian (oxymoron of the year) had no formal training (or at least not related to his current service), and was only called in time of dire crisis (this is what most people think of peasants as), where as a peasant was recruited when fighting men were needed, trained, given arms, and could compose part of an expeditionary unit (which a civillian soldier obvioulsy could not). I don't mean to confuse or complicate things, but that is pretty important, and by adding another unit and changing the name of an existing one, you could solve your problem - just a suggestion.
EDIT: This applies to Medieval European Peasants, and most in antiquity, is it the same for SA peoples, Antarki?
|
|
|
Post by Murfios on Dec 2, 2006 16:44:41 GMT
So how About if we do the 0 turn pesant thing for the Mapuche only? That will make them a heck of a point in the neck. It can be like a racial bonus. Besides, they have a unique peasant.
|
|
|
Post by SSJVegetaTrunks on Dec 2, 2006 16:49:04 GMT
"It seems many people get the two confused, but a military civilian (oxymoron of the year) had no formal training (or at least not related to his current service), and was only called in time of dire crisis (this is what most people think of peasants as), where as a peasant was recruited when fighting men were needed, trained, given arms, and could compose part of an expeditionary unit (which a civillian soldier obvioulsy could not)."
The peasants in Rome are more like the onces that are recruited when fighting men are needed, which were trained, that's why it takes a turn to train them. IF we could make the other peasants, they would have to be much weaker, and the problem with that is that there's almost no way to make peasants weaker since they're almost as weak as possible.
|
|
|
Post by Murfios on Dec 2, 2006 17:00:26 GMT
thre is. Peasant in Vanilla had 4 attack and 1 defence. We coulkd make them; 2 attack and 0 defence.
|
|
|
Post by SSJVegetaTrunks on Dec 2, 2006 17:38:03 GMT
It should probably be only 1 attack since you can make them so quickly.
|
|