quote: Modern Man Bonus- Cloning so when you build one modern man basic unit you get two. [I admit this is a little strange but it might work] |
| quote: a warrior sibko (Battletech) |
| quote: Gigantic Axe- +4 Melee -1 Mobility Jagged Sword- +2 Melee |
| quote: Full-Body Shield- +3 Armor -2 Mobility |
| quote: "Fire" Sword (A sword to be heaved like a javelin and start a fire)- +3 Melee |
| quote: Mule- +1 Support; they have all their supplies within easy access so their morale is boosted. |
| quote: Blunderbus- +1 Firepower +1 Melee, Dual Pistols- +5 Firepower +3 Melee, Automatic Pistols- +8 Firepower +3 Melee |
| quote: Leonardo's Tank- (Drawn by horses) +5 Armor, +4 Firepower |
| quote: Masking- Blanks out all radar screens. Is invisible. +8 recon. A U-2 for instance. |
| quote: Specialist Settlers should be able to have advantages at each of the various jobs |
| quote: Civ will shift from a tactical/city management game to a unit building/unit management game, |
How could you say that!!!!! | quote: Ours is a world where technological progress in general, and military-technological progress in particular, is often taken for granted. For as long as any individual alive today can remember, new devices have been coming off the assembly lines in an uninterrupted stream; as a result, it has become very difficult to imagine a world in which such advances did not take place and in which old, rather than new, was usually better. And yet, if we go back before 1500, that is precisely the world in which we find ourselves. Alexander the Great was presented with a suit of armour guaranteed to be of Trojan War vintage; which supposedly 900-year-old contraption he then proceeded to wear to battle....The warrors whom we meet in the early medieval chansons de geste did not appreciate new weapons either. Quite the contrary; very often the best weapons were considered to be old ones which supposedly had belonged to famous heroes now dead; and indeed the longer the 'genealogy' associated with any sword, the higher the value which was attached to it and the higher also the price that it could command. On a less anecdotal level, consider the history of fortification. Looking at the reliefs made for the Assyrain King Sanherib in order to commemorate the siege of Lachish in Judaea in 701BC....Without exception, all these elements (in the fortess in Judaea) were still present in medieval fortresses, such as thos constructed by Edward I in Wales around AD1300. What is true for the art of fortification is, not surprisingly, also true of siege technology. In the hands of the Greeks and Romans, this technology advanced rapidly between 400 and 200BC, after whcih it stagnated....The only new device added by the Middle Ages was the trebuchet....As a result, a capable Roman military engineer of the time of Marcellus (210BC)...would have felt himself quite at home in any siege operation before the invention of artillery; and might, indeed, have had something to teach his generally less competent successors. Passing form sieges to field warfare, we likewise find that the most important iron-made weapons-the mace, the sword, the spear, the lance, the pike, the javelin, and the axe in various forms-had all been invented by 600Bc (at the latest) and changed little thereafter. So had the bow in its various forms; and, of course, the various forms of body armour, such as shields, brestplates,helmets,greaves. Depending on tactical needs as well as cultural factors, all these weapons and devices were to assume a bewildering variety of ofrms and shapes. However, from pre-classical Greek times to late medieval ones not one of them underwent fundamental changes, and the great majority even remained in use rught down to the dawn of the modern age. Sixteenth- and even seventeenth century commanders...received a classical education. Consequently they were well aware of these similarities, as indeed they were supposed to be: given that the weapons that they used were sometimes almost identical to those of the ancients, they deliberately attempted to model their own armies on those of the Greeks and the Romans. Such was the case of the Swiss and German pikemen, the Spanish sword-and-buckler men, and the Dutch battalions. So obvious were the parallels, and so slow and sporadic )owing to the absence of a good theoretical framework) the technological progress, that even as late as 1724 a Frenchman, the chevalier de Folard, could write a famous textbook on tactics in which he advocated a return to the Macedonian formation of pikemen. The Oxford Illustrated History of Modern War P.175-178 |
| quote: Ours is a world where technological progress in general, and military-technological progress in particular, is often taken for granted. For as long as any individual alive today can remember, new devices have been coming off the assembly lines in an uninterrupted stream; as a result, it has become very difficult to imagine a world in which such advances did not take place and in which old, rather than new, was usually better. And yet, if we go back before 1500, that is precisely the world in which we find ourselves. Alexander the Great was presented with a suit of armour guaranteed to be of Trojan War vintage; which supposedly 900-year-old contraption he then proceeded to wear to battle....The warrors whom we meet in the early medieval chansons de geste did not appreciate new weapons either. Quite the contrary; very often the best weapons were considered to be old ones which supposedly had belonged to famous heroes now dead; and indeed the longer the 'genealogy' associated with any sword, the higher the value which was attached to it and the higher also the price that it could command. On a less anecdotal level, consider the history of fortification. Looking at the reliefs made for the Assyrain King Sanherib in order to commemorate the siege of Lachish in Judaea in 701BC....Without exception, all these elements (in the fortess in Judaea) were still present in medieval fortresses, such as thos constructed by Edward I in Wales around AD1300. What is true for the art of fortification is, not surprisingly, also true of siege technology. In the hands of the Greeks and Romans, this technology advanced rapidly between 400 and 200BC, after whcih it stagnated....The only new device added by the Middle Ages was the trebuchet....As a result, a capable Roman military engineer of the time of Marcellus (210BC)...would have felt himself quite at home in any siege operation before the invention of artillery; and might, indeed, have had something to teach his generally less competent successors. Passing form sieges to field warfare, we likewise find that the most important iron-made weapons-the mace, the sword, the spear, the lance, the pike, the javelin, and the axe in various forms-had all been invented by 600Bc (at the latest) and changed little thereafter. So had the bow in its various forms; and, of course, the various forms of body armour, such as shields, brestplates,helmets,greaves. Depending on tactical needs as well as cultural factors, all these weapons and devices were to assume a bewildering variety of ofrms and shapes. However, from pre-classical Greek times to late medieval ones not one of them underwent fundamental changes, and the great majority even remained in use rught down to the dawn of the modern age. Sixteenth- and even seventeenth century commanders...received a classical education. Consequently they were well aware of these similarities, as indeed they were supposed to be: given that the weapons that they used were sometimes almost identical to those of the ancients, they deliberately attempted to model their own armies on those of the Greeks and the Romans. Such was the case of the Swiss and German pikemen, the Spanish sword-and-buckler men, and the Dutch battalions. So obvious were the parallels, and so slow and sporadic )owing to the absence of a good theoretical framework) the technological progress, that even as late as 1724 a Frenchman, the chevalier de Folard, could write a famous textbook on tactics in which he advocated a return to the Macedonian formation of pikemen. The Oxford Illustrated History of Modern War P.175-178 |
| quote: -Well a "fire" sword may or may not have been used. I am just estimating. I believe that it may have been used I think in Harry Turtledove's "The Videoss Cycle" Books used it (He majored in history) Although he may have invented it, I think not. -It would work like so; you realize in the Middle Ages how they would strap burning carcasses to the catapults and let them fly infecting and firing the people of the cities at the same time, well the fire sword would have a dove or such on fire impaled on the sword and it would be thrown to make confusion etc. |
| quote: This is from a distant future set of books set in the 2400's. A warrior sibko works like so. The warriors are brought up made from genetic materials of older warriors melded together to create perfect fighting machines. (This could be altered to regularly born warriors) Then they are set into rigorous training exercises. They will learn hand to hand when they are 7, and eventually work up to piloting a battlemech (Mechwarrior, or one of the rip-offs ie. Cyberstorm, Heavy Metal Gear) which is a massive fighting machine. |
| quote: It shoots off like a cannon and recoils into your arm. The 'ball' of the gun is like a cannon ball and is about two inches by three or so I believe. |
ridiculously big caliber with such a short barrel. I'm sorry it's not a infantry primary firearm. Again if we begin to accept supplementarythings like that we have to accept HMG/inf mortar/Inf gun/RPG/AT rifle/HE/AT recoiless/Grenade/AGL/etc. which I intend to be represented with primary ones thus a modern army unit, armed with assault rifles, is persumed to be fully equiped with inf-mortar/machine gun/AGL/etc. I better call those muskets as "Napoleonic inf firearm set" or Assault rifles as "Advanced inf firearms set". | quote: He really DID design this tank and perhaps build this along with the first hang-glider. |
Tweet
Comment