Mod: Brazen Benevolence (Bronze Armors)

[analytic_kernel]

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

Rather than decrease the encumbrance, I suggest you unset the metal flag.

Not perfect, but it would allow such spells as ironbane, and rusting mist etc, *not* to affect the unit.

Very interesting thought, Chris. I had not considered this.
To be honest, I didn't even know there was a #metal (sp?) flag. I don't see it in the modding manual, but it would make sense to have - for the reason you give.

Thanks for the neat idea.

[Endoperez]

I don't think it's moddable. It would be a great idea, though.

[chrispedersen]

Well its there in edi's db. And you're right, you can't directly attack the problem - but you can get around it.

If you manually create a new armor called bronze plate etc - set the encumbrance et. al- presumably you wouldn't get the metal flag set. It is quite the pain, because then you have to manually equip your troops with the new armor.

On the flip side - it could be an advantage as well - only give the troops the new armor...

Edit: You know I wonder if any armor that has a value > x has that flag set?

[Gregstrom]

To add to Scarlioni/analytic_kernel:

Arsenic is certainly found near tin - I couldn't say if it's found near copper. It is IIRC easier to refine from ores than tin, which might help explain why it was used first.

Also, IIRC bronze is harder to recycle than iron. I have heard that recasting bronze has a bad effect on its quality, making it harder and more brittle - not a terribly good thing for armaments. Damaged iron items may be readily reforged though.

[whiplashomega]

I know cast iron is incredibly heavy, even compared to other irons, does cast bronze have a similar comparative increase in weight?

[analytic_kernel]

Chris, I'm guessing that metallicity is probably just flagged by a bit. I guess we could request a new modding command to twiddle that bit, if someone hasn't already done so.

Greg, interesting about the recycling aspect. Probably the oxides formed on the surface of the bronze add impurities. But, I'm no metallurgist.... I do remember reading that recasting was sometimes needed to repair bronze in cases where an iron implement could simply be brought back to a forge and hammered out.

Whiplash, I don't how much greater the density of cast iron is over wrought iron. I suppose the crystalline structure could be different due to the different process (and small amounts of other elements), but that's speculation. However, my understanding is that cast iron is inferior to wrought iron when it comes to armoring. So, we are probably comparing bronze to wrought iron. The densities for those are about 8.5 to 8.7 g/cc and 7.9 g/cc, respectively.

[JimMorrison]

Originally Posted by Encyclopedia Brittanica

As the weathered copper ores in given localities were worked out, the harder sulfide ores beneath were mined and smelted. The minerals involved, such as chalcopyrite, a copper-iron sulfide, needed an oxidizing roast to remove sulfur as sulfur dioxide and yield copper oxide. This not only required greater metallurgical skill but also oxidized the intimately associated iron, which, combined with the use of iron oxide fluxes and the stronger reducing conditions produced by improved smelting furnaces, led to higher iron contents in the bronze.

It seems that there was a convergence between the declining availability and quality of copper/bronze, and the gradually increasing knowledge of iron working, that led to the change. It is just conjecture, but from what I'm finding, it sounds like bronze would not have been supplanted by iron until later in history, had supplies of higher quality ore been stable - this is highlighted by the fact that Egypt continued to use bronze almost exclusively for centuries after iron became more prevalent in other regions of the world.

I think with a little effort, some hard numbers could be found as far as the relative mass/volume between late bronze and early iron, as well as tensile strength etc between the commonly found alloys.

[Gregstrom]

The other reason Egypt might have carried on using bronze is that it was a bit of a technological backwater over most of its history. Ironworking was a high-tech military secret for a surprisingly long while.

[analytic_kernel]

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

It seems that there was a convergence between the declining availability and quality of copper/bronze, and the gradually increasing knowledge of iron working, that led to the change. It is just conjecture, but from what I'm finding, it sounds like bronze would not have been supplanted by iron until later in history, had supplies of higher quality ore been stable - this is highlighted by the fact that Egypt continued to use bronze almost exclusively for centuries after iron became more prevalent in other regions of the world.

This is consistent with the mineral availability argument. The gradual change is interesting, though not entirely surprising. However, in some cases, cataclysmic events may have precipitated the change by disrupting trade. Both the fall of the Hittite Empire and the dark period before the emergence of Doric Greece are roughly contemporaneous with the beginning of the Iron Age.

As far as good numbers go, Jim, I think the bronze density is pretty accurate - it reflects a composition of about 12% tin. The number I gave for iron is for pure iron, I think, and not cast iron or meteoritic iron. I don't how many impurities from ores may have been left in the iron from the smelting processes of the Early Iron Age, but if we are willing to assume relatively few, then the density for pure iron may also be quite reasonable.

[JimMorrison]

Originally Posted by analytic_kernel

As far as good numbers go, Jim, I think the bronze density is pretty accurate - it reflects a composition of about 12% tin. The number I gave for iron is for pure iron, I think, and not cast iron or meteoritic iron. I don't how many impurities from ores may have been left in the iron from the smelting processes of the Early Iron Age, but if we are willing to assume relatively few, then the density for pure iron may also be quite reasonable.

Well that's the thing, from what research I did, it is believed that the quality and composition of both bronze as well as iron was very unreliable early in their use. At the onset of the iron age, however, even though knowledge of bronze had reached a point that very high quality metal could be reliably smelted, the lesser quality ores required smelting temperatures nearing what was needed for iron to begin with. However, the actual justification for the transition is slim at this point, because understanding of the iron ore was very low, and smelting iron was wholly unreliable. Levels of adulteration in the metal varied wildly, and there were no effective methods of dealing with poor ore - it would be smelted, and cast, and then beat with a hammer - if it shattered, you just started over again from scratch. This says to me that yes, only once the ease of procurement shifted dramatically in favor of iron, did it become favorable to focus primarily on its forging.

That is to say, as much as decent quality early iron age iron was better than decent quality early iron age bronze, it was not enough of a difference to justify the change - it required further economic pressure, and supply chain problems.

So what I wondered at this point, was how the bronze of the time, measured up to the typical iron of the time, in application. Also, it makes me wonder if perhaps as far as cost goes, in the game, that it would make sense for bronze to have a slightly higher gold cost (to illustrate the importation of raw materials) while iron would have a slightly higher resource cost (to simulate the fact that not all iron is even usable once smelted). Beyond that, I'd guess that in game it would be fair to give iron +10% prot over bronze, generally speaking, while really I doubt actual encumbrance would shift until maybe steel would get a reduction of 1 (ironically, "steel" could not be created in large quantities for mass production until the 19th century.....).