To be fair, I won't be following the model of feudalism, monarchism, or the autocratic governmental styles associated with the Roman Empire. I'm unsure if my soon-to-be nation, of which is comprised of jungle-bound anthropomorphic rodent people, will be subjected to the same limitations as ancient human-esque nations were. In their society, when someone is born, their specific eye color determines what sort of occupation they will undertake once they come of age. Though, like most arts and professions in this era, the way individuals are educated in their assigned tasks is by acting as an apprentice to a master smith, miner, seamstress, ect.

This economic and societal set-up stems from my nation's absolute reliance on efficiency, team-work and achieving suitable results that will benefit the collective. These ideological beliefs are further augmented by their stern emphasis on maintaining strong family ties.

HazmatMedic said
I'd presume all but the most basic education would be unavailable to peasants. By basic education, I mean it would be a stretch for a lower class citizen to count to ten, or write his name.I suppose, however, it depends on ones job. Messengers and military scouts will have to read, write and count, as they cannot convey useful information otherwise.As a general rule, higher class = higher education That's bigger than me, if that is your issue. Ancient weapons could be huge, and the Hoplite Spear would make an excellent polearm for the era.I don't quite understand what you mean by "more sophisticated polearms". Could you explain, or give a comparison? I'm not trying to sound rude or ignorant, I genuinely don't understand.I currently stand by my ruling that all cold weapons are acceptable, unless someone has a major problem with it.I mean, it hardly makes a difference if my soldiers are wielding Gladii or Wakizashis does it? They're both swords, both bladed and both are designed to kill. The only differance that it practically has is the time periods, but they look dramatically different aesthetically.And to return to the cinquedea, is it really that much of an issue if we have cinquedeas rather than, say, daggers? They do the same job equally well and have the same strengths and weaknesses, just one looks prettier than the other.

Not exactly no, but I'm seriously going to be miffed if I see people walking about with 15th century suits of plate armor.

ASTA said
Not exactly no, but I'm seriously going to be miffed if I see people walking about with 15th century suits of plate armor.

I know, I'm dead against that too. I'm limiting any "future tech" to cold weapons only. No plate armour, no holy hand grenades, no galleons and cannons, just swords and shields. You really need to worry about longbows and slings in terms of ranged weapons.

Of course, if we all agree, I may consider crossbows, but we'll leave them out for now.

Crossbows were in use sometime around 420 BC: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gastraphetes

The repeating crossbow, though far weaker than conventional crossbows, was also created in the 400s: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repeating_crossbow#History

In use widely? No, not at all. But they were there.

Wernher said
Well, I know this involves me, only thing I can say is that the educational system, while present, is mainly a mean of indoctrination and insure as much cultural homogeneity in the realm, as I stated, it's only basic calculus, writing and reading, plus most will not even succeed in retaining most of this since there is no measure to help those that can't follow the pace. Only 1/50 maybe retains most of this and 1/100 are good enough to be part of the ruling elite (Which serves anything from warrior, administrator, judge and tax collectors).So the idea isn't really to educate people more than it is to separate the wheat from the shaft & keep social unity.

If you haven't already Wernher, check your PMs.

Oh.
Well then, I guess they're perfectly acceptable.

As always, if anyone has a problem with any of the additions or rules, just say so.

I think by advanced polearms they meant things like halberds and guisarmes, which didn't exist until the medieval era. And hazmat, I know my NS has been there for a couple of days without any additions to it, but I am working on it.

HazmatMedic said I mean, it hardly makes a difference if my soldiers are wielding Gladii or Wakizashis does it? They're both swords, both bladed and both are designed to kill. The only difference that it practically has is the time periods, but they look dramatically different aesthetically.

And to return to the cinquedea, is it really that much of an issue if we have cinquedeas rather than, say, daggers? They do the same job equally well and have the same strengths and weaknesses, just one looks prettier than the other.

No. Just.... No. Honestly, if you truly believe that then there's really no reason for you to ban anything in the RP. By your logic there, since you've allowed crossbows, then someone could come in with compound crosswbows, since you know, they're both crossbows, and they both shoot bolts at thing to kill them. The only difference is the time periods, right? I mean, it's not like one is more efficient and just overall better than the other one, or that one utilizes materials that was previously unavailable when the other was made.

Right, now that we're going to be looking at this with history and reality. There is a massive difference between Gladii and Wakizashis. First and most glaring of these differences is the purpose either blade is meant for. Gladii are meant for lunging and stabbing. Wakizashi are meant for cutting and slashing. While you can slash with a Gladii, and you can stab with a Wakizashi, that is not what either is meant to do and your strikes will be ineffectual at best, and probably show your fighter off as desperate. Second of differences here, and perhaps the thing that is truly the worst of this ruling, is the construction of the blades. Gladii can be made from bronze, iron, or steel with the material only affecting the durability of the blade and the cutting edge. Wakizashi on the other hand, are made of specially forged steel, using techniques that are beyond what our civilizations should be capable in this era. Without using this steel, a bronze or iron blade, even perhaps a steel blade of the era, would be incapable of sustaining the structural integrity of the blade, and result in a vastly shortened life-span of the weapon.

There is also the point in which some weapons simply are better at killing than others, in that everyone should know that japanese blades were notorious for being sharp enough to cut into armor and many times through bone if enough power was put behind them. That is because of the construction of the blade and the quality of the material being used allowing the craftsmen to forge a cutting tool far superior to the weapon you have compared it to. This is because steel was very much a thing in the 14th century and later, allowing for the widespread use of this material in the creation of arms for the militaries of the time. Flashback to the 5th century, and steel is almost non-existent for how little it is used, since bloomeries were the only method of forging the metal.

So yeah, the ruling needs reversed to 5th Century, and only 5th Century. That is what you advertised in your interest check, and that is what we are here for. I'm pretty sure no one joined the RP expecting to have their 5th Century nation go up against plate-wearing assholes with katanas. Seriously.

Alfhedil said
No. Just.... No. Honestly, if you truly believe that then there's really no reason for you to ban anything in the RP. By your logic there, since you've allowed crossbows, then someone could come in with compound crosswbows, since you know, they're both crossbows, and they both shoot bolts at thing to kill them. The only difference is the time periods, right? I mean, it's not like one is more efficient and just overall better than the other one, or that one utilizes materials that was previously unavailable when the other was made.Right, now that we're going to be looking at this with history and reality. There is a massive difference between Gladii and Wakizashis. First and most glaring of these differences is the purpose either blade is meant for. Gladii are meant for lunging and stabbing. Wakizashi are meant for cutting and slashing. While you can slash with a Gladii, and you can stab with a Wakizashi, that is not what either is meant to do and your strikes will be ineffectual at best, and probably show your fighter off as desperate. Second of differences here, and perhaps the thing that is truly the worst of this ruling, is the construction of the blades. Gladii can be made from bronze, iron, or steel with the material only affecting the durability of the blade and the cutting edge. Wakizashi on the other hand, are made of specially forged steel, using techniques that are beyond what our civilizations should be capable in this era. Without using this steel, a bronze or iron blade, even perhaps a steel blade of the era, would be incapable of sustaining the structural integrity of the blade, and result in a vastly shortened life-span of the weapon.There is also the point in which some weapons simply are better at killing than others, in that everyone should know that japanese blades were notorious for being sharp enough to cut into armor and many times through bone if enough power was put behind them. That is because of the construction of the blade and the quality of the material being used allowing the craftsmen to forge a cutting tool far superior to the weapon you have compared it to. This is because steel was very much a thing in the 14th century and later, allowing for the widespread use of this material in the creation of arms for the militaries of the time. Flashback to the 5th century, and steel is almost non-existent for how little it is used, since bloomeries were the only method of forging the metal.So yeah, the ruling needs reversed to 5th Century, and only 5th Century. That is what you advertised in your interest check, and that is what we are here for. I'm pretty sure no one joined the RP expecting to have their 5th Century nation go up against plate-wearing assholes with katanas. Seriously.

You'll have to forgive my admittedly poor comparison, it was about 2 in the morning where I am when I typed that. I was merely using it as an example. The differance between stabby weapons and slashy weapons is a huge one (because I'm 5 years old again.) : P

I mean in terms of aesthetics. If you were to say your soldier is carrying a Wakazishi, I would take it to mean he is carrying a Wakazishi-like blade, made of iron and without the fancy layering techniques the feudal Japanese used. If your pseudo-samurai went up against a pseudo-legionary, I would consider tactics and command way before I'd consider what weapons you were using.

I.e. Iron wakizashi - 1-2 foot blade, designed for slashing
Iron Gladius - 1.97 foot - 2.23 foot blade, designed for stabbing

That second part is the bit I'd consider. I'm merely saying if you want a blade to look a certain way (Like me with the Ghurka's Kukri) then it can look that way - but it will be just as strong as a blade that looks different. The difference we will practically apply is looks. Oh, and curved blades are better for cavalry, whereas straight blades are better for infantry.

So, to summarise - all "future weapons" are merely aesthetic. Having a Wakazishi will NOT mean you have access to all the fancy techniques and immense power that Japanese swords have - that's feudal, not Ancient. It WILL mean you have a very pretty sword, though.

Is that fair, Alf/Shimm?

HazmatMedic said If you were to say your soldier is carrying a Wakazishi, I would take it to mean he is carrying a Wakazishi-like blade, made of iron and without the fancy layering techniques the feudal Japanese used.

The difference we will practically apply is looks.

So, to summarise - all "future weapons" are merely aesthetic. Having a Wakazishi will NOT mean you have access to all the fancy techniques and immense power that Japanese swords have - that's feudal, not Ancient. It WILL mean you have a very pretty sword, though.Is that fair, Alf/Shimm?

That's not how it works, and you really need to do more research into your material before you make another post. Certain weapons are better than others because of the way they are constructed, and that is what I am trying to explain. There is also the point in that certain weapons cannot be made out of inferior metals because they will not hold their shape. Case in point, the wakizashi and tantos. They are significantly thinner in both the width of the blade, as well as the depth of cutting surface. A strong enoguh impact will shatter the blade if it is made of inferior metal, and then you are pretty much better off using the gladii, because its design was based off using more primitive metallurgy. Simply slapping on an arbitrary ruling as you are suggesting is breaking yet another of your own rules. Honestly.

Keep it realistic, keep it 5th Century. That is what YOU advertised to us in the interest check, and that is why we have chosen to give this another shot after the first thread died.

What Shim said. I've already found some very nasty weapons made exclusively in ancient times, and I've already put some into my NS. Trust me, you don't want to see me running around with equipment made in the 15th Century, because my military's weaknesses will be so thoroughly mitigated by said weapons that I'll be playing a totally broken nation...

Which is something I don't necessarily want. And I know for damn sure someone doesn't want to be facing my guys when they've got stuff capable of messing them up more than it already is. Let's just keep it 5th Century. We're already bad enough at finding ways around things as it is.

All right. I suppose that's fair. I could argue on, but that would be stupid AND wasteful. I was thinking entirely about looks and would have made them all the same strength anyway, but I can see that it's a dumb idea.

I liked this. I feel we kept things quite civil and came to logical, valid conclusion. Seriously, if there ever comes a debate like this again, we should talk it over like this. Hats off to you, gentlemen (or ladies. I don't know who is which.)

I can still have a Kukri though, right?

Sure. It did exist in ancient times (having been used in the 300's BC).

I am going to make a barbarian nation which, while having a small population, has superior metallurgic abilities due to presence of vanadium in the ores and crucible tech i.e. the wootz process

So Boerd said
I am going to make a barbarian nation which, while having a small population, has superior metallurgic abilities due to presence of vanadium in the ores and crucible tech i.e. the wootz process

So...basically what the yul do, except the barbarians do it.

So Boerd said
I am going to make a barbarian nation which, while having a small population, has superior metallurgic abilities due to presence of vanadium in the ores and crucible tech i.e. the wootz process

Vanadium was first discovered in 1801, and proved difficult to isolate with metallurgical processes until 1830. The metal also has absolutely nothing to do with Wootz Steel at all. Stay in the 5th Century.

Also, we have someone already using Damascus steel in their nation, perhaps you should talk with them about your ideas and hash something out?

Edit: lel, got ninja'd by the person in particular.

Nobody said anything about isolating Vanadium. I merely said it was present in the ores. I can appreciate you doing due diligence but it would do you no harm to take a kinder tone to prevent embarrasing moments like these where you are categorically incorrect when you assume I would do something so silly. It's not like I am building a giant robot or anything.

Would said metallurgy be a core component in your society?

Is said society always on the move, or are they content to stay put and build their industries to the point that the rest of the civilizations have?

When you classify your proposed faction as "barbarians," why do you call them that? What makes them so different than other nations?

How is Vanadium of any use if it cannot be isolated?

Edit: Strike that, apparently it's a good alloy and is rust-resistant. Not sure how true that is. Anyone care to explain?