Mod: Brazen Benevolence (Bronze Armors)

[chrispedersen]

I don't know what you mean by 'mass production of steel couldn't be done till the 19th centuries'

But damascene blades, as well as japanese ones were famous as far back as the 1300's as I recall. And they were certainly made in large enough quantitites to support military action.

[JimMorrison]

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

I don't know what you mean by 'mass production of steel couldn't be done till the 19th centuries'

But damascene blades, as well as japanese ones were famous as far back as the 1300's as I recall. And they were certainly made in large enough quantitites to support military action.

The making of steel was known long before then, yes, and well made steel was highly sought after for weaponry. However, it could not economically be made in large (or 'mass') quantities at that time - certainly not enough to outfit entire armies in high quality steel armor. When steel was employed for armor for the rank and file, it would be of an inferior quality (though some nobles, and elite knights, who tended to be nobles, could afford it).

For example, steel was still in such low supply at the advent of the railroad, that the inferior metals used in the rails would wear out every 3-6 weeks in the busiest junctions.

[analytic_kernel]

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

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.

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

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.

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

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.

Sorry, Jim, I'm reading two different things from you. Are you claiming that we should be comparing early bronze to early iron (first quote), or that we should be comparing late bronze to early iron (second and third quotes)? I have been working under the assumption that we are doing the latter and not the former. but Dom 3 has enough anachronism that I could be making a wrong assumption.

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

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).

Well, I would love to be able to tweak the gold cost of armor, but the modding manual gives no indication that we can. One would have to pass on the cost directly to the units equipping it - extra bookkeeping - yuck.

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

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.....).

I'm having trouble agreeing with this. Unless I'm misreading the source you provided earlier, the smelting process to use poorer ores was more involved, but I don't see any direct indication that the quality of the resulting bronze decreased significantly. Yes, the iron content may have been higher, but which way does that affect the bronze hardness and by how much?

[lch]

Originally Posted by analytic_kernel

Well, I would love to be able to tweak the gold cost of armor, but the modding manual gives no indication that we can.

Armors can have gold costs attributed to it? I thought it only raises resource costs.

[JimMorrison]

Originally Posted by analytic_kernel

Sorry, Jim, I'm reading two different things from you. Are you claiming that we should be comparing early bronze to early iron (first quote), or that we should be comparing late bronze to early iron (second and third quotes)? I have been working under the assumption that we are doing the latter and not the former. but Dom 3 has enough anachronism that I could be making a wrong assumption.

Unfortunately, it seems that at a certain point, it really becomes age specific. As a general rule, EA should be early-mid bronze age, MA should be late bronze - early iron, and LA would be late iron age. Of course this opens up all kinds of cans of worms relating to the perpetuity of many units between 2 or even 3 ages, but is the degree of detail that would be required to show the range of difference in actual perfomance from early bronze, to late iron - with a high degree of similarity in armor value where the 2 overlap in the middle.

Originally Posted by analytic_kernel

Well, I would love to be able to tweak the gold cost of armor, but the modding manual gives no indication that we can. One would have to pass on the cost directly to the units equipping it - extra bookkeeping - yuck.

For some reason I assumed that it was so, but if it isn't, then yes, providing that level of realism would require tweaking of the recruitment costs of massive numbers of units.

Originally Posted by analytic_kernel

I'm having trouble agreeing with this. Unless I'm misreading the source you provided earlier, the smelting process to use poorer ores was more involved, but I don't see any direct indication that the quality of the resulting bronze decreased significantly. Yes, the iron content may have been higher, but which way does that affect the bronze hardness and by how much?

Well perhaps not significantly. But it seems to me that the reliability of acquiring good bronze, when it was available, likely declined somewhat, which made sponge iron, and other somewhat poorly performing forms of iron worth using.

I guess it's just that from what I'm finding, good early iron age materials were better than bronze, but that most early iron was not "good", and likely actually inferior to the best bronze available. So whatever the reason, "good" bronze became scarce enough, that people were often willing to settle for "poor" iron, even before "good" iron was commonly available.

[analytic_kernel]

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

Unfortunately, it seems that at a certain point, it really becomes age specific. As a general rule, EA should be early-mid bronze age, MA should be late bronze - early iron, and LA would be late iron age.

Hmmm... My observation is that there is a lot of iron armor in EA. When I went through Edi's DB looking for monsters which equip bronze armors, they seemed to be a minority even within EA. Hence, my temptation to place EA at late bronze and early iron.

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

Of course this opens up all kinds of cans of worms relating to the perpetuity of many units between 2 or even 3 ages, but is the degree of detail that would be required to show the range of difference in actual perfomance from early bronze, to late iron - with a high degree of similarity in armor value where the 2 overlap in the middle.

If we follow your notion that early bronze factors into EA, and that the entire spectrum of both bronze and iron ages need to be considered, then Dom 3 really doesn't provide enough different armors (or perhaps even a wide enough mundane armor protection scale: 0 to 20) to model this.

The periods classifications which I had assumed were:

1. EA: Late Bronze - Early Iron
2. MA: Middle Iron (mostly iron and some early steel)
3. LA: Late Iron (iron and decent steel)

These seem to fit the historical models from which the nations and units come - at least in my mind.

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

Well perhaps not significantly. But it seems to me that the reliability of acquiring good bronze, when it was available, likely declined somewhat, which made sponge iron, and other somewhat poorly performing forms of iron worth using.

I don't think anyone in this thread disputes that. But, I have read nothing to indicate that poorer bronze started being used alongside or against the poor iron. Hence the contention that bronze in EA may well be superior to iron in EA.

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

I guess it's just that from what I'm finding, good early iron age materials were better than bronze, but that most early iron was not "good", and likely actually inferior to the best bronze available. So whatever the reason, "good" bronze became scarce enough, that people were often willing to settle for "poor" iron, even before "good" iron was commonly available.

That is an interesting thought and could well be the case. And, I think you then agree that it is fair to compare good bronze to poor iron within the same period.

[JimMorrison]

At this point, I'm mostly in agreement with you. Really after all of the digging, and the mulling, it started to feel like (considering 3 distinct and disparate ages) that too high a level of realism isn't achievable without huge overhauls in the recruitables, including creating many new types of armor, tweaking gold costs, blah blah, tons of stuff way beyond the intended scope of the mod.

So to sum up - It really seems like ultimately the actual Encumbrance difference between Bronze and Iron is minimal, and too small to simulate in Dominions terms (Bronze won't be 33% or 50% more Encumbering), and because of the small numbers, probably wouldn't be noticeable until Steel armors, if at all. Likewise, differences in Protective ability were not overly profound, other than if we say that all Bronze is cost, and all Iron is wrought (for sake of game), in which case the wrought items have greater density, and then of course there is a very noticeable jump again, to Steel.

Then it's just a matter of looking at the various armors, and trying to determine "does the actual design of a Hoplite Breastplate differ significantly enough in design properties from an Iron Breastplate to justify a change in values". I guess at a certain point, you allow some things to have higher or lower numbers just because they have a different name, and the intent is to have different capabilities of the units.

Grrr, I'm glad I joined into this conversation, but I am also sad. I'd imagine you feel the same way, by now.

[Gregstrom]

One thing strikes me:

As bronze items have to be cast and can't be meaningfully adjusted after the casting process, they aren't likely to fit the wearer as well as iron armour. This would presumably affect their encumbrance value.

[Redeyes]

Would only affect the bronze cuirass, all other kinds of bronze armor in game are explicitly made as scale or mail armour.

[analytic_kernel]

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

it started to feel like (considering 3 distinct and disparate ages) that too high a level of realism isn't achievable without huge overhauls in the recruitables, including creating many new types of armor, tweaking gold costs, blah blah, tons of stuff way beyond the intended scope of the mod.

AFAIK, the prot ranges for mundane armors could be expanded, but then all of the magic armor prots would also have to be bumped up and weapon damages would have to be changed as well. A Dom 3 rescaling project might be neat - but, yeah, definitely beyond the scope of this mod.

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

Then it's just a matter of looking at the various armors, and trying to determine "does the actual design of a Hoplite Breastplate differ significantly enough in design properties from an Iron Breastplate to justify a change in values". I guess at a certain point, you allow some things to have higher or lower numbers just because they have a different name, and the intent is to have different capabilities of the units.

Actually, I have no problem with two functionally equivalent things having the same name. I think it is kind of stylish, actually. (I did that with the Bronze Scale and iron Scale Mail armors, but another poster seemed uncomfortable with that.) Probably a matter of differing tastes....

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

Grrr, I'm glad I joined into this conversation, but I am also sad. I'd imagine you feel the same way, by now.

Hey, glad you dropped by. You challenged a hidden assumption or two, and that is usually a good thing.