Search results for query: *

I never expected it because for some reason on my last comp which was still W7 I never had that problem. Thanks again!

Worked like a charm, sir. Thank you for your help.

Hello,

Thank you so much for this mod, it has made playing so much more fun and easy for a non-comp-savvy dude like myself.

That being said, Ive been having a problem with my latest editing.

I am playing the Sword of Damocles Warlords 3.9 for Warband, and I really like making my own kingdom, so I got the idea of making my own faction units by replacing the mercenary trees. I also modified some weapons. I hit modify, then save, the same way that I did when I editing before, but even when I start a new game none of the changes take place. When I go back into the editor, all of the changes I made are still there, exactly as I made them, but they do not appear in the game. I am on an Hp Comp with Windows 7. Tweak MB works with the game, but none of the changes I made with Morghs are sticking.

I went through everything I did last time, updated before saving, I didnt change anything fundamental except weapons and name. I have waited about 20 days in game time, and no changes are being made. I am perplexed. Is there anyone that can help?

Matt,

Im not as big of an ass as I sound here, I actually agree with you on a lot of the weapon balancing issues, but frankly if you download the mod tools, you can fix this yourself. Formations will be a little more prevalent in 1776 from what I understand, but Poom is right, Auld and I do a lot of research for the game, and I was under the impression that you were being impolite or aggressive towards the modders. I apologize for my protective behavior, we have done a lot of research for both mods. If you have any other questions I would be happy to answer them. The response I wrote up above is more of an open challenge than a harsh as hell response. Questions are welcome, but I thought it was an attack, my apologies.

Bearskull,

ps. I too look forward to handing the Brits their asses in the MP version as a South Carolina Partisan.

The Colonel simply left his wallet at the party, they are trying to give it back to him.

Antigonos said:

Hey good post !

Fort Duquesne has had many changes but the date we are interested namely 1755 the fort had this configuration :

Spoiler

and another pic of fort necessity in siege :

Spoiler

Click to expand...

Does this remind anyone of the motte and bailey castles and the old castle town layouts? I have never noticed it before but it is very very interesting.

Agreed sir. A most excellent discussion.

Lol I didnt say STELLAR success, but for what it intended to do, that is to achieve peace, it did succeed for a short time. They dont call it "indian giving" for nothing, tribes went back on their agreements all the time. And revenge raids meant more than stealing horses, it meant killing settlers and burning crops, not on as large as scale as a warpath would, but its was not simple thievery. The South Carolina back country was the scene of numerous skirmishes and raids on both sides from 1758-1761, and besides the two British expeditions, the fighting was done by volunteer militia and "over mountain men" and not just in the Cherokee war, but Dunmore's War and the Yamase War. The people living on the frontier did not believe that they needed the redcoats to protect them, because they did the protecting themselves.

Kit: Look up the stuff about Moy-toy, he started revenge raids in 1758 before formal hostilities began. And Gov. Lyttelton of South Carolina organized 1,100 colonial militia and volunteers for an expedition against the Cherokee which originated out of Charleston. They moved against the "lower Cherokee" and was able to achieve peace and the surrender of a 2 tribesmen who had murdered whites, as well as the ransom of 28 chiefs. The tribe agreed to peace and it held for some months before bands of warriors began raiding again. It is not an astounding success, but it is some what moderate. The actions taken by these frontiersmen and militia was small scale but only in the fact that it was individual. Many actions on the frontier by colonial militia were no expeditions but more short term call to arms, when a raiding party was spotted the colonists would call to arms, meet them or drive them out, and then go back to their lives. Francis Marion, under Moultrie, took part in not only the Grant Expedition, but a number of independent actions that were done without regular support. The Regular relied on the colonials because they knew the land, and since many lived in close proximity to the Cherokee they knew many among them and could act as contact points.

My area of interest is the Southern Colonial Era and the Civil War, and my knowledge of the Northern Campaigns in the FaIW is scant. But a really good look at that time and place is "A Peoples Army" by Fred Anderson, its almost a companion to the Crucible. 

You make good points, and I should have been careful not to use universals in my statements. And I have read up on those operations you mentioned by Grant and Montgomarie, and you are right, those men under him were regulars and were under the command of the Crown. However, you assertion that the Cherokee were British allies before 1759 is not entirely true. Elements of tribes all over the colonies, including the Iroquois, were not always on the same page as the chiefs of their council fires, and factions of the Cherokee were not allied to the British before 1759, as was the same as the Catawba. Before the beginning of open hostilities and war, the Cherokee and Catawba tribes had been fighting among the back country settlers for years in small raids and skirmishes that were meant to drive out the white settlers that had moved in. Moy-toy the Cherokee leader had begun raids in 1758, which set off a series of frontier skirmishes and battles. The Yamasee war was fought by colonial volunteers and frontiersmen, and a professional army of Southern citizens, and the Cherokee began the war fighting the British and the colonials before they were made to switch sides. My assertion stands however, that the work of securing and combating threats along the frontier were the job of the frontiersmen and the colonial militia. The Cherokee was we are discussing now gave rise to what was called the "Regulator movement" in which backwoods bands of militia, riflemen, lawmen, hunters and the like formed groups for the mutual protection of the frontier. You were right, sir, the frontier wars were not fought entirely by the frontiersmen and the colonial militia, however considering that the numbers you quoted were nearly 4000 regulars, over a course of 3 years, it does not compare to the tens of thousands of frontiersmen and militia who were stationed in the area, or who had been fighting the indians since the frontier had been pushing west. Skirmishes and raids by both Cherokee and Shawnee. The Shawnee had been at war and raiding lands in Virginia and the Carolinas since 1755, and again in Dunmore's war in 1774, which was fought by the colonial militia. Your examples of Grant and Montgomarie stand as two examples which impeded my argument, but only cause me to change the statement...With a few exceptions, the job of maintaining security on the frontier, and combating hostile Indians was for the most part carried out by the frontiersmen and the colonial militia. The Cherokee were not the only problem, and as I said, "the Frontier wars, such as the Cherokee conflicts...between 1755 and 1780..." I have conceded your points about not being fought entirely by the colonial militia with regard to the two expeditions by British regulars, but those are just two examples used in a long history of violence on the Southern frontier.

The information I have used in this comes from "Partisans and Redcoats" by Walter Edgar and "The Dunmore War." by E.O Randall.

You make good points, both of you. But the Frontier wars, such as the Cherokee conflicts, that took place several times between 1755 and 1780, were fought entirely by frontiersmen and colonial militia. One thing you said was very interesting and I agree with, is that you said they wanted to take control of their political and economic destiny...well what is wrong with that? That is a tremendous motivator for war. But the underlying concept that it was a bunch of greedy, fatcats who didnt want to pay taxes is not the only thing, and the idea of no taxation without representation as a slogan and nothing substantial is also without real substance. Had the King (and being Irish-American capitalizing King is being done out of respect for the argument) offered representation of government to the colonies who knows what would have happened. Counterfactuals and what if history is only useful in some areas, and I do not believe this to be one of them. Ben Franklin was only one man, although he had considerable sway. And the reasons for starting a war and the reasons for fighting must go hand in hand. There were many educated men and officers in the Continental Army and the militias who fought because of the perceived wrongs done to them by the British, and it was the same for the private soldiers and sailors int he regular forces. A war cannot be sustained without the will of the people, and the people doing the actual fighting and dying. The mere fact that a great number of the men who started the war ended up without any money to their names is evidence that the war was not started simply because they wanted to make more money. John Adams was a farmer and a lawyer, and a man of high integrity even among the British, and he stood nothing to gain but freedom and the right to govern a nation of their own. Jefferson lost thousands of his own dollars, a congressman owned the house Cornwallis holed up in at Yorktown, and a good number died during the war. I understand that money is a great motivator for war, and indeed the sinews of war, but some wars, such as the American Revolution, were not simply started and fought to gain a few extra shillings among the rich. Britain also stood to lose a heaping pile of money if the war started, and if the colonists succeeded. British merchants stood to lose money if shipping was open to other empires, which is what the Intolerable Acts took care of. If it was greedy American merchants who tapped the well of anti-Crown sentiment among the colonies for the imposition of an unfair tax burden, it was greedy British merchants, who bent parliaments ear to have such restrictions put in place to begin with, so that they could continue their monopoly of colonial trade, and to your point, you see greedy merchants on both sides fanning the flames. However I do not believe them to be the only cause on both sides of the water, nor do I see the Congress as puppets of merchants or acting in their favor simply to make money. Contrastingly, the rich traders of Britain held a considerable sway over politics in the Isles, with the EIC and other private firms holding the reins of a great many politicians. Although such things probably could be found in the American congress as well.

However, to counter my own points, if you look into the history of privateers it is a much different story. The ability to plunder British ships and loyalist ships made many many people rich as a result. Profit may have been a large motivator for the war, but as you say, the ability to control ones own destiny, without the hindrance of the King was what put ink to pen and pen to paper for the Congress.

And it has been a pleasure, though I do not believe we will change our stance on many things, and even though you have made some good points, both of you, I still hold firm. I am not some naive American who believes it was all for liberty, although that was a huge part of it, but I believe the war was a matter of destiny from the beginning. There are a number of factors which I believe we can outline, and I invite everyone, with Slaytons permission, to name one thing they believe to be a cause of the War.

To back what Auld said, the Wild Frontier was closely related to a group called the Overmountain Men, the Watuga Republic, and the tribes in that area. It just means all groups west of the mountains...

And the Iroquois were almost exclusively allied to the British and the Colonials, that is why they are closely tied into the two British factions.

SleeStak said:

I don't know that the term fair is a meaningful word in this context.  Certainly the British weren't taxing the colonies at that time to pay for the colonies future protection, but to service the debts accrued during the seven years war.  The problem was that the successful conclusion of the war practically removed the threat of French intervention in the new world. As the colonies no longer feared the French (and they felt that they could handle the military burden of dealing with the Native Americans), they really did not need English military protection.  So, from the perspective of the colonists (at least the more independently minded colonist), the taxes were for a service that they no longer wanted. 

The English saw things a little differently. They had just successfully completed fighting a major war involving most of the major powers and undoubtly felt that the colonist (who actually paid very little in the way of taxes) should shoulder their fair share of the bill.  Of course, all of this was muddled by the fact that the British economically benefitted from their colonys through revenue generated in non tax ways. The Navigation Acts restricted colonial trade with European nations to the benefit of England, colonial trade was finaced through English banks again to their advantage, etc.

Of course, as always, taxes aren't really about fairness, they are about who the government can get to pay.  The English tried to tax the colonies and the colonies fought back with a boycott of English products (I think I read once that's why we drink coffee instead of tea but don't hold me to it).  The contest turned into a fight over who was in political and economic charge of the colonies and we had the revolution.  In short, no matter what the the ideolgues say, it was a war about money and not fair tax burden or political representation.

Click to expand...

That is your opinion, and a problem with finding the reasons for war is that the reasons why a group of people go to war are not uniform. You say that the war was about money, and not a fair tax burden or political representation...well the fair tax burden and political representation come from the money issue. To get back to my point however, the reasons for the beginning of hostilities in a historical context are always fluid. A great many men fought because they had no representation in parliament, a great many men fought because of the Intolerable Acts, and a great many men fought simply because they did not want a king 3000 miles away telling them what to do. The men in congress, although intensely entrenched gentry and aristocrats, did not all stand to gain from the Revolution. And to concede your point yes, many fought simply because they stood to make more money, and I will not dribble on about liberty and freedom although that does play a large part. As you say yourself, the French threat was neutralized, and the Indian fighting was done by frontiersmen and colonial volunteers, the presence of a large New World garrison was not necessary. Also, as I have stated before on this forum, many of the men in Congress who started the war ended up destitute and in the poor house without pennies to their names, the argument that the war was fought solely because of money is just not a true assertion from my perspective. 

One of the major problems the Colonists had wasnt that they were being taxed, but it was that they were being called British subjects and Englishmen, but they were not given  voice in Parliament (taxation without representation). Another sentiment was that the colonists believed they did not need British regulars stationed in North America for protection, or at least not the thousands that the Crown decided to keep. Much of the frontier protection, as you said, was done at the expense of the colonists themselves. In the Southern backwoods, groups of Scots-Irish, German and other immigrants formed into clans and groups for mutual protection. Fear of invasion from France was not that great considered that if a French invasion fleet was formed the British navy would have had time to confront it in the open sea or even the channel. The last, and I think most interesting point, was that if the British Colonial American command was taken away, the British would lose some 1500 commissioned officers because they would have nowhere to put them. Many of those officers were well connected through their relatives, and if the Crown had to dismiss them they would have to forfeit their commission fee which would be substantial for 1500 men. In order to replace them, they would have had to commission more colonial officers, who not only dont pay, but report to their governor, and not the Crown.

Most of this stuff is from Bernhard Knollenberg, Origin of the American Revolution: 1759-1766 (1960).

Great question by the way!

Banastre said:

SleeStak said:

Of course, the war wasn't really won on the battlefield. All sides experienced hardship, military success and failure.  The war was won in the will of the different participants to carry on the fight. In short, our independence was more important to us than the retention of the colonies was to the English, remaining English was to the Torries, etc.  Read a little more Banastre, it will make getting a rise from the readers of these boards easier.

Click to expand...

There are two reasons the Colonists won the Revolution.

1. France.

2. They wouldn't give up.

Even in the face of overwhelming odds and even after seemingly endless battlefield losses, their will to fight was what kept them going. Exactly as you said, we Brits didn't have a strong enough will to hold the colonies than the colonies did to break free. What they had was their only homeland, what we had was a tiny fraction of our empire. That was, along with French intervention, the reason we did not defeat them. In all the times I've debated this issue, I've never once heard an America say "we simply had more fighting spirit". Excellent post as Auldman said.

Click to expand...

Again, Banastre, you are grossly oversimplifying the events of the war. There are no wars in history in which you can fine tune the reasons for one sides victory over another in two points.

Funkydarion said:

Bearskull21 said:

Is it right to call the American patriots traitors? If a government is tyrannical enough, or harsh enough, does it give a people the right to rebel against that government? And does success in that rebellion, erase the nature of their insurrection? Whoever makes the best point, gets an Indian chief named after them in 1776...

Click to expand...

For the first question, I believe everyone's opinion is affected by who they are. I, as an American, do not feel that the American Revolution was a act done by traitors. As noted, some people who are from Britain feel that it was a traitorous act, which leads to my conclusion that you cannot put a right or wrong title on the movement.

The second question is one that is easier to answer from my point of view. I believe that most people would agree that a government that is tyrannical or harsh towards its citizens gives the people the right to rebel. The fact that people will have differing opinions on is whether or not the British government was not treating the American colonists with the same respect as native born British citizens. Some people in this thread have touched upon this topic, but one of the famous sayings from the revolution was "No Taxation without Representation" which meant that the British government was enacting taxes for the colonists when the colonists had no say for themselves on whether they wanted it or not. The taxes were for the most part not being paid by British citizens in Britain, but only by the colonists. The colonists did not have their own representatives in Parliament, so the taxes were being set by British lawmakers without any debate or talks with any colonial leaders. Also, the colonies were controlled by British governors chosen by the King or Parliament, meaning that the colonists did not have much control of things. Quartering of soldiers was another topic that raised anger with the colonists. Soldiers were allowed to quarter inside of colonial houses without paying the owner, and the owner of the house was required to feed the soldiers. This was an issue that angered many colonists, and is something they had petitioned King George and Parliament to stop.

For the last question, I do not believe that success in the rebellion erases the nature of the insurrection. I am sure many people viewed the United States with hate after it gained its independence, as I am sure many people may still view the US as a country of traitors. I for one know that the US  has committed many a atrocity, so it is not a perfect country. The causes for the revolution in my mind justify the need and I do not feel that they were wrong for wanting their own freedom. One of the reasons for the war ending was that many people from Britain were sympathetic towards the colonist's cause, and after awhile many people were tired of Britain fighting the war. I think many of them did not slight the colonists for their actions, although it was in British law treason of the highest degree.

As countries of the modern age, I would feel that we should respect one another and not have hatred because of our past. I have been on Ventrilo with friends from Britain, and then had one of their friends come on and talk down upon me for being an American. But I have also had friends from the US who have dogged my British friends for "losing" the American Revolution. I for one do not feel that the US beat Britain, but simply won Independence from them. Britain may have lost the territory, but as I have said many were sympathetic towards the Americans and wanted the war to end. I think such meaningless bitterness towards one another is pointless, as we should not be dwelling on such a thing.

This is my own personal opinion of course, and I am sorry if some of my facts turn out to be wrong. I do not mind being corrected if someone finds a flaw in my opinion.

Click to expand...

Very nicely put, and said sir.

Ive been there, sometimes its as simple as re-installing the mod and it should start back up just fine.

Poom...agreed, his teeth were quite fearsome.


Banastre...I am done refuting you, everything you have said is was wrong. Spain did not land troops at the Battle of Yorktown, Saratoga was not a guerrilla action because the commanders there, aside from Morgan, not only detested guerrilla tactics but were not guerrilla commanders, and the Continental Army was plagued with being undersized and out-gunned for the entirety of the war, colonial volunteers were not part of the Continental Army but part of the state governments or even individuals, and it was most certainly a stunning victory considering that the vast majority of the British government thought the entire war would be over in less than a year. Therefore, by defying expectations, and holding their own in toe to toe, and line to line battles until 9000 French arrived in 1779, four years after the war started, an American victory can most certainly be classified as impressive.

Everything that you have said has been wrong, and not only that, you say it in a way that suggest you lack basic manners. Sir, I would ask that you again, do more research, or in the case of what I am seeing, any research at all, and sharpen your saber before you attempt to duel.

Lavandina said:

I think Washington smoked pot.

Click to expand...

His nose was red a lot...and it wasnt illegal until the 20th century, so why not?


And Auld, as always a reasonable voice, my main point of contention was Mr. Banastre's assertion about the battles. My guns are down.

Slainte.

poomtang said:

Bearskull, if you want to pick a fight with the British Army you'd better watch out my friend and take cover, we don't take **** off no one especially American rebels like yourself, here's a picture of me and my army mates, we're on the way to get you personally

Oh by the way I'm the one on the right, the hansome one of course, the one with the pistol in my old mate Kev, and the other guys always back me up whatever's going on in my life, so final warning OK!

Click to expand...

Damnit, Poom...you got me! But I give credit where credit is due, and I have to respect what the British Empire was able to do and how long they were able to keep alive for. However, I only ask the same in return...but your boys look fearsome sir, quite the striking image!