Search results for query: *

Re: the above

I guess as a musician/singer I have a soft spot for guys like Jack Churchill and Rick Rescorla who sing/play war songs and what not whilst in the middle of badassery.

While neither Jack Churchill nor this next fellow are my favorites, both are men worthy of respect and I don't recall seeing this fellow mentioned:

Cyril Richard 'Rick' Rescorla

A Cornwall native, he started off his military career as a British paratrooper, inspired my the American men stationed in Hayle in WW2, where he grew up. He then served in an intel unit in Cyprus during the Cypriot insurgency, then a paramilitary inspector in the Northern Rhodesia Police. He went back to the London, served in the police a little, then retired. Apparently he didn't have enough, because sometime after he moved to a YMCA in Brooklyn, he joined the US Army. He started at 2nd Lt. and by the end of his career, attained the rank of Colonel. He served in Vietnam, fought in the Battle of la Drang, and during his service, was awarded the Silver Star, the Bronze Star with Oak Leaf Clusters, a Purple Heart, and the Vietnam Gallantry Cross. He was known by his men as "Hard Core", and was well known for good humor and compassion for his soldiers. He then went on to earn some degrees, co author a book or two on criminal justice, and so on.

So basically, the guy was a notable badass in two different nations' armies as well as serving in police work and being a pretty bright fellow, right? Well, this pales compared to his most notable service.

Rick served as a security advisor for Morgan Stanley (he was actually with Dean Witter at this time, but they later merged with Morgan Stanley) in the WTC attack in the early 90s. He and a couple others predicted the truck bombings; these predictions were ignored. When they evac'd the building, he was the last man out. So later, when Dean Witter and Morgan Stanley merged, he was named security director. He battled through prostate cancer (which spread to his bone marrow) in the late 90s.

History has a way of repeating itself, right? After the truck bombings, and during his time as security director, he also pointed out the threat of an airborne ramming attack on the WTC buildings and was repeatedly ignored. Despite that, and despite being the security director only for Morgan Stanley (a handful of floors, I believe), he laid out evac plans for all the buildings and had at least the Morgan Stanley staff practice the evacs every 3 months. Of course, we know what happened on September 11, 2001. I'm just going to quote the wikipedia article I've been blatantly ripping off at this point:

At 8:46 a.m., American Airlines Flight 11 struck World Trade Center Tower 1 (see September 11, 2001 attacks). Rescorla, following his evacuation plans, ignored building officials' advice to stay put and began the orderly evacuation of Morgan Stanley's 2,700 employees on twenty floors of World Trade Center Tower 2, and 1,000 employees in WTC 5. Rescorla reminded everyone to "...be proud to be an American ...everyone will be talking about you tomorrow", and sang God Bless America and other military and Cornish songs over his bullhorn to help evacuees stay calm as they left the building, including an adaptation of the song Men of Harlech:
Men of Cornwall stop your dreaming;
Can't you see their spearpoints gleaming?
See their warriors' pennants streaming
To this battlefield.
Men of Cornwall stand ye steady;
It cannot be ever said ye
for the battle were not ready;
Stand and never yield!
Rescorla had most of Morgan Stanley’s 2,700 employees as well as people working on other floors of WTC 2 safely out of the buildings by the time United Airlines Flight 175 hit WTC 2 at 9:03 a.m. After having led many of his fellow employees to safety, Rescorla returned to the building to rescue others still inside. When one of his colleagues told him he too had to evacuate the World Trade Center, Rescorla replied, "As soon as I make sure everyone else is out". In Amanda Ripley's words:
Moments later, Rescorla had successfully evacuated the vast majority of Morgan Stanley employees out of the burning tower. Then he turned around. He was last seen on the tenth floor, moving upward, shortly before the tower collapsed. His remains have never been found.[9]
According to Stephan Newhouse, chairman of Morgan Stanley International, Rescorla was seen as high as the 72nd floor evacuating people, clearing the floors and working his way down. He was last seen heading up the stairs of the tenth floor of the collapsing WTC 2. His remains were not recovered. As a result of Rescorla's actions, all but 6 of Morgan Stanley's 2,700 WTC employees survived. Four of those six were Rescorla and three deputies who followed him back into the building - Wesley Mercer, Jorge Velazquez, and Godwin Forde.

Click to expand...

Here's the full Wikipedia article if you want to read about him in detail:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Rescorla

What a badass.

ancalimon said:

Pants! said:

Actuall Ancalimon, the Turks just built the wall to keep the Chinese in, sort of like a zoo, to see what would happen to the turko-chinese language without turkish interference, and then they let the Chinese take credit for the wall to make them feel better about themselves.

Also, at the time, the Turks were very busy teaching the Mongols how to be badasses, and they didn't want to corrupt their Chinese experiment with the results of their Mongolian experiment, so it sorta served a useful double-purpose. Of course, as you know, the Mongols are just an offshoot of Turks that are really awesome with short little horses, anyhow.

Click to expand...

And you label my ideas as deranged imagination?

Click to expand...

I am here to guide you to your full potential, young padawan. Search your feelings, you know it to be true.

Actuall Ancalimon, the Turks just built the wall to keep the Chinese in, sort of like a zoo, to see what would happen to the turko-chinese language without turkish interference, and then they let the Chinese take credit for the wall to make them feel better about themselves.

Also, at the time, the Turks were very busy teaching the Mongols how to be badasses, and they didn't want to corrupt their Chinese experiment with the results of their Mongolian experiment, so it sorta served a useful double-purpose. Of course, as you know, the Mongols are just an offshoot of Turks that are really awesome with short little horses, anyhow.

ancalimon said:

Allegro said:

ancalimon said:

Tell me.  Which one you don't understand? I'll happily teach you basics of Turkic and scan pages from dictionaries

Click to expand...

First of all, you are in no position to teach me anything about language. You are just a schizophrenic that force connects pieces and assumes himself learned and able. And the fact that you are present 24/7 browsing the same page makes me think that your medical condition has worsened drastically over the passing months.

And to answer your question; Turks dont connect words with "-ı" midfix (or whatever its called), thats ******** Arabic. And no, Arabs arent Turkic. And rome-rımaq is a really weak attempt, its not even a Turkic word. Even Oghuz Kaghan mythology didnt exist when the Greeks founded Ephesus, what Oghuz are you talking about for ****'s sake?

Thats what you do, you find a similar Turkic word and force relate them to each other by twisting the both ends to touch each other.

Click to expand...

These ramblings are not satisfactory. Tell me the when Oghuz Khan mythology came to existence. 
Tell me what "Desht i Kıpchak" means. Rımah, Rımak (the name of Rome as Etruscans called it) is definitely compatible with Irmak, Irmah (Turkic for river).

River <  from Turkic ARI (oscillating, wavering, pulsating, cleansing, purifying, spilling sins)  -    VAR ( it exists, it is there, it is collected there)



Here.. Let me show you more Turkic words found in Etruscan which also passed to other European languages like:

SACRUM:  ăâúlâ, sâqîn, sâú-tchi (secret, protected, wary) > sacrum (Latin-holy), Sacré (French-holy), Secret (English), Sagrado (Spanish-holy))...  All of these from Turkic.  Also Turkish saklı (secret)  sakınılan (protected) are from Turkic ăâúlâ, sâqîn, sâú-tchi


SOLEMNIS: şîlân (şölen (Turkish, from Far-Eastern Turkic) : banquet, feast, exhibition
Solemnis ::  Latin: festival = English: "the solemn feast of" = Spanish: "la fiesta solemne de" = French "la fête solennelle de" = Basque: "la solemne jaieguna" = Catalan: "la festa solemne de" = Portuguse "a festa solene da"


CAPYS: (birth)  from Far Eastern Turkic.  úâp> kap

kap: catch with hands. To have

úâpeci:  to have by pulling by force.


KLAN:  I've talked about this Etruscan word.  It's from Turkic OKLAN meaning "child", "bearer of the arrow", "someone who will grow up to be an OQ"


AVİL, RİL:  these have the same meaning as YIL (year)


KİARTHİ:    From Turkic  KİRLİ : dirty, dark, tanned


IDUS, CALENDAE :  From Turkic  aytche-luq: The remaining (days of the month),        úâlân (kalan):  the remaining

Click to expand...

Ah, but you see, I can show you how these Turkic words you bring up descend from the ancient language of American English:

ari (wavering, pulsing, cleaning, etc): From American English "AIRY" (blowing, breathy, wavering, soft)

var (it exists, it is there, it is collected there): From American English "FAR" (away, over yonder, there, not here, a long way)

şîlân (banquet, feast, exhibition): From American English "SILENT" (quiet, peaceful, reverent, still) -- As in a quiet, reverent observance held in a ceremony

sâqîn (secret, protected, wary): From southern American English "SEEKIN' (SEEKING)" (To find, to uncover that which is hidden, to look for)

kap (catch with hands, to have): From urban American English "CAP" (to shoot with a gun held in the hand)

oklan (child, bearer of the arrow): From Bostonian American English "A CLAHN (A CLOWN)" (an entertainer of children that frequently bears prank devices)

yil (year): From American English "WHILE" (a period or interval of time)

kirli (dark, dirty, tanned): From American English "CURLY" (a word that refers to a type of hair frequently possessed by tan and dark skinned individuals with roots in Africa and the Mediterranean)

úâlân/kalan (the remaining): From American English "ALONE" (separated from others, isolated, unique, the only one remaining; remnant)

I rest my case. Respect your ancient Anglo-American descendants. For you see, America is actually the lost land of Atlantis. We even have one of our space shuttles named after our forebearers. The language they spoke was corrupted with the land was lost, into Turkish and other ancient languages, which influenced that of the Etruscans and Greeks, then the Romans and so on... until it's slowly evolving back to its pure form, particularly in the US of A, where the government protects the discovered secrets of lost Atlantian tablatures and artifacts. The Native Americans, as we call them now, were old Euro-Asian Altantians sent east to find an alternate eastern route to the lost homeland, where after becoming isolated, they kept the land pure and unmarred by industry until such a time as they could be reunited with the west.

Also, I'd like to point out

[quote author=ancalimon... errr, Pants!]I don't need to prove anything.[/quote]

Actually, what really happened is some witch came by and turn some guy into a cow, and meanwhile the Turkish conquerors come up to this guy's buddy and ask him what this city is called, but he's too busy freaking out and is like "Is Stan a bull? Is Stan a bull? Oh my god!" and the confused Turks called the place Istanbul. It stuck.

Okay guys, here, I've got a mindblowing one for you:

Mount & Blade.... is Turkish.

Most any time you see a weapon like this, it's because it's an improvised weapon at least to an extent, usually revolving around one of two (often related) concepts:

1. Multi-purpose tool
2. Pick up a sturdy stick and beat someone with it (a rather effective improvised tactic that's been used since beyond antiquity)

As has been previously mentioned, such weapons as these were often used by archers, as they were tools already needed for other important tasks. Similar tools would have been hatchets, woodcutting axes, and knives. As an added bonus, these tools are reasonably effective against your most dangerous adversary: (often heavily armored) mounted combatants.

Now, you aren't likely to de-horse a guy with a knife or a mallet, but say you and your 30 nearby archer buddies manage to dehorse 5-10 charging horsemen with a couple quick volleys? Let's look at a couple things here. Investing money in a more specialized combat weapon such as a sword or a military polearm (as well as adding weight to your already necessarily equipment) is a waste of time when you're very likely both an inferior wielder and much less armored than such a foe. One-on-one, an engagement in melee doesn't bode well for you against such a foe in any case. On the other hand, in such a scenario where you may or have 1 or 2 archer buddies for every one of them, if the 2 or 3 of you pick up a big stick and use your considerable upper body strength to whack him with it, no matter what kind of armor he's wearing, it has a good chance of ringing his bell (even if he manages to wound one of you in the attempt). Then if there's one or two of you remaining, you can continue to take advantage of your notable upper body strength, grapple with the stunned opponent, then drop the hammer and switch to another situation appropriate tool--say a small, maneuverable tool such as a knife or hatchet--and yank the guy's helmet off, chop his neck, expose other possible weak places in his armor, etc. A messy business, to be sure.

Such stun and grapple focused tactics are more ideal than running, as well (if you have other nearby forces that give you a reasonable chance of winning a battle if you stay cohesive), because when so much of your life is focused around upper body strength, you're likely to suffer a mobility disadvantage against guys who train to retain foot mobility in heavy armor. Unlike D&D elves, archers are not known for great foot mobility; in fact, in recreations, the folks who spend their time and nutrition/strength training with bows frequently get run down on foot by the guys who spend their time running around in heavy armor. Once melee has been engaged, distance is (ironically) the archer's greatest foe; it's much better for such a usually burly fellow to get as close as possible where he can use his upper body leverage to his advantage.

Now, hitting people with heavy sticks hasn't been solely relegated to archers. There have been infantry and cavalry who noted the advantages of whacking someone in armor with a heavy stick. And while said troops usually adopted more militarized weapons working on said principles (such as pollaxes and miltiary hammers), you get the occasional large fellow who decides that he can take this "heavy stick" idea to an extreme. Now, these are usually exaggerated over the course of time, such as the mallet in the OP, or the the kanabo/tetsubo seen on statues and fiction in Japan. Now, were there probably a few exceptionally large/strong individuals who decided they could do damage to someone with a 7-10 pound stick with a focused head? Probably. It's easy to see where such would have an intimidation factor if it was visible the person was able to use such an instrument with endurance . But anything beyond 10 lbs, and the 15-25 lb monstrosities such as fantasy-exaggerated tetsubos or 'great hammers'? Lol, no.

In any case, it's easy to see where someone carrying around such an implement as tool for other means would see it ideal to simply double such a tool as a weapon instead of adding the additional weight of a more purposed weapon that's likely to be no more (and possibly less) effective against that which threatens them most. It just wouldn't look like the ridiculously oversized croquet mallet in the OP, but rather, like a typical tool (think of the size of an axe you might use to chop firewood).

I wanted to point out that this is still alive. Been rather busy in the real world.

Just keep in mind that troop/item balancing, especially with such an expanded tree, is a time consuming and tedious process! No promises on a release date, but I may end up releasing 'chunks' if there's any demand for it (if, for example, you want to see how I've equipped and treed a specific faction, though their balance in relevance to the others may not be evident with such a release).

Pants! said:

Finally, the primary reason I want to give Khergit some infantry (reducing their cavalry numbers) is a balance issue.

Click to expand...

I feel I should elaborate on this a bit.

The rough timeframe that this is set in is arguably the most dominant time for cavalry in all history -- between knights and mongols, armored guys on horses were serious badasses. Not only that, but appropriate counters were only just being developed, not widely used--and then often poorly carried out by the frightened rabbits known as levy troops. Said balance is present in the game as well. Heavy cavalry is pretty much the most dominant force in the game, with the possible exception of horse archery--which, by the way, has some of the most well-executed AI tactics in the game. Compare this with infantry, which isn't so hot (with formations mods, you can atleast clump them into rough ranks and hope some of the poor sods brace a spear). Now, this isn't really a problem -- cavalry is dominant, rightly so. The problem is when you have some factions who are very infantry-focused, and then another faction whose entire force is cavalry, and at least 6/10 horse archery, arguably the overall best thing in the AI's hands. Now, the Mongols themselves were known for regularly winning battles at odds ranging from 1:2 to 1:6 -- Khergits have the advantage of having near equal or equal odds most of the time.

So how do you go about balancing this? Well, one is to nerf the Khergit horse troops until they're just a little better (for the sake of balance) than the other factions on smooth terrain. The problem here? This requires making their troops significantly weaker, which means they go and blow some major goats in sieges (which, by the way, isn't either balanced or appropriately representative of their real-world equivalent). The other option here is the obvious one--simply reduce the number of cavalry (while simultaneously giving them a mild debuff that still allows them to be moderately effective in sieges). You then make up for the debuff by gearing the replacements for the reduced cavalry (infantry, in this case) specifically for sieges. In doing so, you now have a faction that has far more cavalry than anyone else, utilizing one of the most interesting and effective strategies in the game.. and then the infantry troops to balance out their lack of power in sieges. And it works out well -- the number of cavalry for Khergits in a numerically even battle is working at what would have been good odds for the Mongols 1:2.

Khergits at this point will have 1/2 or greater cavalry.. the next highest faction has somewhere between 1/8 and 1/4 (and one of them at all have horse archers, though Rhodoks have their mounted crossbow thing going on). I don't really see how this makes them any less unique; certainly a bit more balanced, however.

LudwigWilhelm said:

Why people always want to give Khergits infantry? If anything, let them have "Chinese/Persian prisoners" to push the siege towers forward, but that's it. If one wants auxiliaries, one should either hire mercenaries or recruit people from Vaegirland or whatever. I find the mere thought of being able to turn a khergit tribesman into a foot soldier rather.... disturbing. If a mongol nomad ever got into a war party and got paid, the first thing he would do would be get himself a horse, before armor or anything else.

Actually, I've read somewhere recently that the mongolian word for "poor" means something like "one that moves on foot".

Just my 2c. I've been reading Conn Iggulden's "Genghis" series, and I've been playing a khergit/mongolian NE game, so I'm a bit sensitive on the matter. 

Click to expand...

Some clarification here: During Genghis's rule specifically, there was little to no infantry use. At this period in time, he was sweeping over the steppes and flatlands and infantry would have only slowed him down/disrupted his tactics. However, Genghis and the following leaders of the Empire would have hardly been keen to using prisoners. They (and Genghis in particular) were very religiously tolerant and typically welcoming of other cultures and their soldiers. This lead to many such troops and cultures either turning coat or willingly joining up with the Empire. This is where infantry came into play--particularly from the Chinese and Koreans who supplied excellent foot soldiers. These became more of a necessity (in fact, the pivot for the cavalry forces in some cases) as the Empire began expanding to regions not quite as accommodating for their horse tactics as the steppes.

Just as important, the Mongolian Empire was highly skilled at sieges, and had excellent siege infantry and equipment (again, thanks in large part to the east/southeast asians). This is my inspiration for making the Khergit infantry siege-focused in their equipment. They hardly viewed these folks as 'poor' or lesser -- their siege experts and heavy infantry were quite valuable, especially as the Empire had been expanding to rougher terrain. Such is the stage I see with the Khergits now -- they've conquered the steppes, and likely some nations to the east.. now they're bringing in infantry from their conquered lands to aid in the conquests of rough terrain such as the Rhodok and Vaegir lands. These infantry would be particularly focused and skilled at fighting in sieges. However, they are still a horse-dominant faction. Keep in mind that even with 1/2 of their army as cavalry, that is far, far more than any other faction in the game. I believe an infantry core will only enrich them, just as it further enriched the Mongols; not only that, it will help provide for a more balanced game.

A couple of side notes: I intend to rename the tribesman to simply 'nomadic tribesman' or such.. then it will split into 'khergit clansman' and 'khergit bondsman' (the integrated foreigners).

Also, not only would a Mongol warrior have a horse or two, an average of 3-4 seems to have been the standard. They would swap horses for faster travel, use them for milk (the majority were mares), and of course, when your entire style of warfare revolves around cavalry, spares are nice.

Finally, the primary reason I want to give Khergit some infantry (reducing their cavalry numbers) is a balance issue. However, there is a strong historical basis such as what I have posted above for infantry (particularly siege heavy infantry) and horseless archers within the army of their real-world parallel.

The Mercenary said:

The source code of the mod will not be released in the near future. You ideas will be taken into consideration. Please post in the suggestions thread in the future. People may adjust the text files as much as they like, as long as it remains unreleased except in this board and it is very clearly this mod with adjustments made, i.e. actually containing the title Native Expansion in it.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your reply. Fortunately, I have no interest in anything requiring the source (I don't see myself getting into a coding-heavy project in the near future). Your work has been fantastic besides. The bolded was pretty much the plan given your permission. Knowing that time has been limited for you and the time-consuming tedium that is troop editing (and balancing, and editing again, and rebalancing..), perhaps this will be a good testing bed for those aspects of your mod (and hey, I'm quite happy if any of my ideas get used).

Anyhow, thanks again for taking time to clarify matters.

daumor said:

Zealous cavalry changed to  just Zealot seems more in line with the faction imho. Loving the trees, hope Merc nods her assent. Maybe take the Kerg heavy infantry an odd mix of Vaegir/Phodock heavy infantry. This would represent their borders I think.

You have any plans for an item re-balance in the mix?

Click to expand...

Well, it so happens that the weapons I would use for Khergit infantry (spears, swords, and axes, in that order) rather match up with their neighbors anyhow. They'll mostly be spear-based, methinks with the occasional other instrument tossed in.

I actually called Zealous Cavalry 'Zealots' to begin with, but changed it at least for the sake of the trees to 'Zealous Cavalry' to make it more obvious they were cavalry. I've also got some minor tree changes to do to the Rhodoks (just changing their crossbow cavalry advancement a little).

Item re-balance is definitely planned - in fact, it has to be done hand-in-hand with some of the troop changes so everything meshes well (troops relying on weapons which should be doing their jobs and currently.. aren't).

Wellenbrecher said:

So... got any feedback from Merc yet?

Click to expand...

Not yet. Mind you, I haven't sent a PM yet either (Didn't want to bother until I was done with the trees). Now that I'm done with the troop trees, however.. we shall see!

Also, just made an edit to the merc tree. Made the male merc progression identical to the female merc. Both trees are pretty much the same now, as far as troop development goes.

The new Khergit tree has been added.

Also, the Nord tree has been tweaked. Their cavalry has been pushed back into the tree even more to make them a lesser percentage of the army (as it stands, they have less cavalry than any other faction). As an additional twist, the non-noble Nord cavalry is part of the female-specific branch. Cool, huh?

Edit: Nords tweaked again, archers now slightly less prevalent at about 1/3 of total force (as opposed to the 1/2 previous level). In addition, Obudshaers have been added back in using the same initial line as archers (the hunter line, which is spears + bows, now splits into a bow specific line [Archers/Skalds] and spear specific [Spearmasters/Obudshaer].

Swadians have a new tree. Force ratios work out to roughly:

1/4 crossbowmen
1/8 longbowmen
Just over 1/8 auxiliary cavalry
The rest = infantry and low tier ranged skirmishers (mostly infantry)

As visible in the ratios, the Swadians now have an auxiliary light/medium cavalry line centered around mostly workhouses. Altogether inferior to the noble cavalry (particularly lacking in lances), rather easy to unhorse, but enough to match or better the Nord non-noble cavalry.

Next task is the Khergits. I expect to add an infantry and archer line to them, but they'll still have by far the most cavalry heavy force in the game. Expect the ratios to work out something like:

1/3-3/8 horse archers
1/6-1/4 heavy cavalry
1/4 infantry
1/6 archers

Horse archery will still be quite the pain. These changes should make them a little less overpowered on the steppes (but still quite deadly on their home turf), and a little less underpowered in rough terrain. Should give them a boost in sieges, too.

Taking from Mongol history, their infantry will be heavy infantry (perhaps auxiliaries taken from occupied territories to the east?). They won't be quite as heavily armored as the other heavy infantry in the game, but fast. Expect them to have a weapon loadout tailored towards sieges.

Their archers will basically be heavier armored and fleeter of foot versions of their horsed brethren. They'll have the option to transform into the horsed versions at later tiers.

Wellenbrecher said:

I really doubt that this is possible without the source.

Click to expand...

Correct.

New addition: the updated mercenary trees.

Also, the 2nd male mercenary branch off of the 'Blade Brother' line has been changed from heavy infantry to slow-but-highly armored horse javelineers and archers (using the anglicized Cataphract to distinguish them from the Vaegir units). Like the female mounted crossbows, they're also quite proficient fighters (though not quite so much as Lady Knights/Lord Knights)

Nord tree revamped as per some suggestions. Added a light cavalry tree within the peasants. They use mostly workhorses they steal from the countryside, but the uppermost tier has a hunter or two snuck in. They're fairly fast (faster than heavy cav, anyhow), but not particularly strong in a charge and easily dehorsed. Of course, they're still fierce nords when unhorsed. Like their horseless brethren, these guys use a mix of spears, horsemen's axes, and swords (swords only present at the top two tiers of the cavalry). As their first major contact was with the Vaegirs, I imagine their horse tactics are 'borrowed' from them (but lacking upper tier medium cavalry, using mainly stolen workhorses as mentioned above..)

A couple of trees and all other factions save Khergits added.