Mechanos, flavor wise, are one of the coolest civs I've seen, despite some of their text still being missing [or I have a bugged version, one or the other]. But I can NOt win with them no matter what strategy I try. How are they meant to be played? I think my problem is I'm ussually a magic-heavy player when it comes to combat, and their lack of any REAL magic as best I can tell really hinders me... but I'm not sure I completely grasp their concept. What works for others?

[Same thing happens with the Khazad in whichever one of the mods they don't have magic beyond adepts.... I usssually go Luichuirp anyways if I want to play dwarves so I'm not even sure which one it is or if it's all of them. :p]

Well ... I'm playing as them right now, and I don't see any way how to wage a war without plenty of Dragoons + Adeptus with medic3 (for heal spell) + couple of Handgunners for defense
(I'm in mid game)

I haven't played them in .22d, as I'm working out how to play Scions, but in .22c they went as follows:
Obviously dependent on Map, difficulty level etc.

Very early, Copper Warriors are strong enough to take & hold an early barbarian city.

Go for multiple Adeptus(forced healing), Trebuchets & Witchhunters as backbone of SOD(Mobility 1 essential); Mob 1 Trebuchets get a lot of movement so you can move them out of the stack & back.

Taking over the whole world:
Go for Trebuchets promoted to Howitzers & Zeppelins to carry them, your Adeptii & Witchhunters. Nexus to throw in your garrison troops & you can close to take over a Civ @ 1 city per turn. Because Zeppelin carried SOD can pass through territory with no Open Borders agreement, declare War without being kicked out, sit on a Mountain Top whilst your Howitzers Blitz/Barrage enemy garrisons with no damage cap (no garrison can survive 10 Howitzers with 4 barrages each); & just as icing on the cake, Zeppelins can pick up units from the ground that have no movement points left.

Anyway thats how I did it in .22c

Regards

I've never been big on seige. Howitzers have no damage cap? Really? 0.o Sounds OP....

I love it. XD Gonna try all that now.

P.S.

I should have mentioned that until the Ranged Attack Xp Bug is fixed the above method is going to be a bit cheesy, Multiple Level 15 Howitzers ??

With a stack of Ranged Attackers as the health of the target(s) drops the XP the attackers gets goes up, even if no further damage can be done.

Regards

Tried it, and all I can say is? Ooooooh I feel stupid. XD Thought you meant the RANGED damage isn't capped. Still can't kill with ranged apparently, even fully upgraded. But deffensively, my army ROCKED finally. I took on a combined Grigori/Hippus army, each of which had 1/3 of the map, and I only had two cities and the legendary culture [minus bits stolen by enemy cities] around them. Ran conquest since I had no hammers but LOTS of food resources, and could produce a gunner per turn for deffense... and although I couldn't assualt [Don't know why but I got approx .1 percent odds no matter WHAT I did] I held them off long enough for my tiny Svartalfar allies to start taking cities. XD

XD Thought you meant the RANGED damage isn't capped

I did.
Back in 0.22c, a Stack of Trebuchets promoted to Howitzers could wipe out a City Garrison (with Ranged Attack) by themselves. I haven't tried it in 0.22d as I don't want to rely on Ranged Attacks until the XP bug is sorted.

I do know that in 0.22d a Fort Commander, after a few promotions, will occasionally do 100% damage (either outright or incrementally); most annoying when you want your melee unit to get the XP.

Regards

Well I've already brought up in the Questions thread the point that the Mechanos cannot win via a religious or Altar of Lutunar conditions so it makes them hard to play.

Oh, one thing that can help, though, is that the Mechanos howitzer is probably one of the nastiest weapons in the game.

Wierd... I had thirty attacking a mini-stack of four enemy archers and it didn't kill them. Brought them down to 1.1, but didn't kill any of them.. Ironically, my gunners STILL only had like 50% odds against them, highily promoted, because they were on a forested hill. XD Grigori, not an elf either. <.< >.>

Wierd... I had thirty attacking a mini-stack of four enemy archers and it didn't kill them. Brought them down to 1.1, but didn't kill any of them.. Ironically, my gunners STILL only had like 50% odds against them, highily promoted, because they were on a forested hill. XD Grigori, not an elf either. <.< >.>

Well as I pointed out on the Bug thread, there are some odd things going on in FfH/FF/Orbis when it comes to units. My horse archers (depending on the Civ) seem to either be REALLY nasty or not worth building. I complained that the Khazad horseman (!!!) seem to have all had secret Hippus training and could kill entrenched spearmen in cities when my horse archers would get whacked attacking axemen in cities w/their defenses taken down to nothing.

Recently I noticed that Clan wolf riders would have odds like 6.0 vs. 8.0 against them yet would win almost every time, usually with little damage to themselves! (good for me, but strange) so I think there is something odd going on.

so I think there is something odd going on.

There must be! I totally agree.... I had 2 spearmen attack 2 horsemen with 98% and 96% chance and they died in a row. I know Im unlucky ... but a 2% and 4% chance in a row? I ended up using a swordsmen with less chance and won.

That's nothing. I lose CONSISTENTLY with a greater then 99.9% chance of victory. EVERY single game I lose any hero I build.. ussually to something STUPID like a scout or a worker or an allready 60% damaged wolf.... Seriously, I lost Auric Ascended on his FIRST ATTACK after being built to a scout. Not even a city'd scout, just a scout out in the ice fields near my empire.

There must be! I totally agree.... I had 2 spearmen attack 2 horsemen with 98% and 96% chance and they died in a row. I know Im unlucky ... but a 2% and 4% chance in a row? I ended up using a swordsmen with less chance and won.

IMO lots do archers' strikes on very start of combat ... it changes odds - and not little

IMO lots do archers' strikes on very start of combat ... it changes odds - and not little

I wish this were the case... Then I would have something rather than bad luck to attribute to the loss. There was only horsemen in the stack and they didn't have many upgrades because it was the first war of the game.

Now that I'm about to start balancing the Mechanos for FF, is there anyway you could tell me what you had in mind while designing them? I've got quite a few ideas, but I don't want to mess with it much until I've got the design goals in mind... I'd like to keep them pretty faithful to the Orbis version. :goodjob:

I remember that, just for fun, I made an army just out of gunpowder units , siege weapons, couple of Techpriests and Adeptus.

What I think is missing is that Mechanos Immortal looks like a Greek...

Mechanos Immortal should look cyborg... Resistance is futile

I'm actually making them Goliath Prototypes in my version. Not immortal, directly buildable, but strong. Like the Scion abominations.

I want them to be cyborgs from the start, just not found a good (or even passable) art yet.
Smaller, unlimited goliaths are good idea, but I would probably add them somewhere else.

Yeah, I've been searching everywhere for art. :lol: Particularly for Goliath... And Immortals are basically the last high-level unit that is not a UU for the Mechanos, unless you want to use the cavalry line. :lol:

*cough* Next War *cough*

That's not steampunk. :lol:

Exactly. No biological engineering, no advanced mechs.
Just steam, electricity and magnetism

And big guns, but I think Howitzers might need another nerf, don't you?

So... someone that looks like http://http://api.ning.com/files/FBPVqMSZ1mBtWLlauyumh8d*CCL8-IwD*jE-O3aWRMox7QcObLTSBzYaZ59pgDBqBfZO19G6OE1BH4LdjcBA0Z zvtmXIfzF8/steampunk.jpg

Or this?

2.bp.blogspot.com/_t9pl9Dh5gGQ/SauRO8156RI/AAAAAAAABck/2qIjHWKjUV8/s400/Steampunk_Abe_Lincoln_2008.jpg

Edit: Dang, this images does not seem to be working!

http://www.lineage2.com/news/images/skills-1_000.jpg

I want them to be cyborgs from the start, just not found a good (or even passable) art yet.
Smaller, unlimited goliaths are good idea, but I would probably add them somewhere else.

what about Kroenen from Hellboy (just without the Nazi flair)
http://www.yourprops.com/norm-45d7891e47fc9-Hellboy+(2004).jpeg

you could probably find someone to make a unit based on that dude.

So... someone that looks like this?

Dang, this images does not seem to be working!

http://www.lineage2.com/news/images/skills-1_000.jpg

I love that image. :lol:

I second that...

I first sawy the image here, wasn't laughing so much then, but then I saw the actuak version and I loled

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDeMdjTmKck

Here's a preview of my version of Goliath... ;)

I merged in Warkirby's Monstrous Creatures module, allowing me to make Goliath the superpowered behemoth he always wanted to be. :p Also made an Immortal UU, tentatively named the Vulture. I've also changed the graphics to that of the Clockwork golem... I don't like reusing graphics, but it's more steampunk than a mech.

Goliath:

Melee Unit
300 :hammers:
Requires Alchemy and Mithril Working
28 :strength:
9 Ranged :strength:, 50% ranged damage limit
4 :move:
1 Range
2 First Strikes
No Defense Bonus
Ignores Terrain Movement Cost
Starts with :

Hero
Magic Immune
Mechanical

Refined Mana Affinity


Resident Machine Spirit

20% chance to grant Machine Spirit each turn.

50% chance of wearing off.
+1 :move:
+1 Range
+20% Collateral
+1 :strength:
Suffers 25% less Collateral




Monstrous Creature (From Warkirby's Monstrous Creatures Module)

Flat terrain movement cost (can't use roads, but isn't slowed by forests/hills either)
Ignores terrain defence on attack
Doesn't recieve defensive bonuses
Causes Collateral Damage. Up to 6 targets, with no damage limit. Can kill!
+25% vs Melee
-25% vs Archery units
-50% vs Siege Weapons
+25% City defence
Immune to collateral damage
+1 visibility range
50% poison resistance




Can use the Siege Configuration ability.

3 turn delay
Grants the Siege Configuration promotion.

Changes UnitCombat to Siege
-14 Attack :strength:, -7 Defense :strength:
+7 Ranged :strength:
+50% Ranged Damage Limit, to a total of 100%
+90% Collateral Damage
+5 Collateral Targets
-1 :move:
+1 Range
+50% City Bombard
-2 First Strikes
+5 City Defense when stationed in a city.
Allows Melee Configuration ability.

3 turn delay.
Removes the Siege Configuration promotion.








Vulture (Immortal UU):


Melee Unit
280 :hammers:
Requires Divine Essence
6 Attack :strength:, 9 Defensive :strength:
5 Ranged :strength:, 50% limit
Refined Mana Affinity
2 :move:
1 Range
Starts with Fear, Magic Immune
Not Immortal, directly buildable.



The one in front is actually a clockwork golem... the Vulture is slightly larger.
http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc310/Valkrionn/Civ4ScreenShot0010.jpg

What's with the spider???

Not sure why the spider was there, but it does bring up a good point. Steampunk is filled with lots of animal like machines. In fact, most of the Star Wars vehicles with legs are very steampunk. Perhaps the mechanos need something like the Doviello War Machine but have it with legs kind of like that 'warbot' in that bad "Wild Wild West" movie with Will Smith. Something like this: http://shop.ramshacklegames.co.uk/images/tank_nohatch.jpg

Plus, maybe their Immortals could be something on the order of
http://www.sillof.com/images/Customs/Victorian%20Avengers/v-ironman.jpg

Also, while the steam tank if nice (stolen from Warhammer I see) it looks more like a medieval idea of a steam tank and not a steampunk one. Here are some links to what I think the Mechanos version should look like.

Sure it's made of legos, but you get the idea
http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/ayucow/steam/UK-steam-tank/steam_tank_01.jpg

More legos. Remember what I said about steampunk Starwars? Plus one down from that is kind of what I mean (but bigger and less sci-fi) of a walker.
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2249/2311096259_e4770561f9.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.brothers-brick.com/2008/03/05/horace-cheng-roundup-for-march-5-2008/&usg=__RFL7DcuVZvQi5Mt5Lv0yjZ84R-Y=&h=334&w=500&sz=76&hl=en&start=4&tbnid=4aYv2tzMz-jcWM:&tbnh=87&tbnw=130&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dsteampunk%2Btank%26gbv%3D2%26ndsp%3D2 1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG

Land dreadnaught
http://www.automopedia.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/steam-tank.jpg

For us old time board gamers...if you want to ramp up the steam tank... :rockon:
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.projectrho.com/steamogre.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.projectrho.com/ogre.html&usg=__YJb3bjJJsZItWdmBkwn8GhR8o8U=&h=620&w=775&sz=105&hl=en&start=1&tbnid=dvmJZFFu-gBV8M:&tbnh=114&tbnw=142&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dsteam%2Bogre%26gbv%3D2%26ndsp%3D21%26 hl%3Den%26sa%3DG

For that matter, maybe the Mechanos need a 'divine' unit...say something like this?
http://www.sillof.com/images/Customs/Steampunk%20SW/sp_obi.jpg

Maybe their Beastmaster could look like this! :lol:
http://www.sillof.com/images/Customs/Steampunk%20ROTJ/biker_on_bike.jpg

Sure, I like it. BUT I need model, not just pictures. So no chance to add anything.

I want immortals to look like the one you posted (I can add a ton of simillar images). But that changes nothing - I can't do new models and do not see how to edit existing ones to get a righth effect.

So in short - I have plenty of ideas (though still thanks for posting above ones), but I need models (or even better, a moddeler ;) )

Haha, sorry bout the spider. Archos hero, one of the others affected by the Monstrous Creatures changes... It's there to demonstrate size. :lol:

Yep, it's Mother-the most difficalt to control unit in FF. (It overfows onto every agacent tile)

She's a bit harder now....... just a little larger. :lol:

Exactly. No biological engineering, no advanced mechs.
Just steam, electricity and magnetism

And big guns, but I think Howitzers might need another nerf, don't you?

Yeah they win wars with almost no support currently. They get good promotions so fast as ranged gives xp and with both range 3, mobility for several attacks every turn (maybe remove blitz or mobility or both?) they just lay waste to everthing. I killed all lines of defense from range and walked in with a warrior in endgame haha. Also, about ranged: Can they AI use that to any extent? And if it can, does it understand how to use with range promotion?

Oh man, I love the Vulture idea. I'm a big fan of the Mechanos (they're one of the big reasons I love Orbis), and the ability to make an army of steampunk mechs is highly appealing. ;)

Yeah they win wars with almost no support currently. They get good promotions so fast as ranged gives xp and with both range 3, mobility for several attacks every turn (maybe remove blitz or mobility or both?) they just lay waste to everthing. I killed all lines of defense from range and walked in with a warrior in endgame haha. Also, about ranged: Can they AI use that to any extent? And if it can, does it understand how to use with range promotion?

Definitely. I win every game as Mechanos by spamming Howitzers and Zeppelins and crushing entire stacks (including hero units with no problem) and then moving in one or two handgunners to take and keep the city. Unlimited damage for Howitzer is, frankly, absurd.

Definitely. I win every game as Mechanos by spamming Howitzers and Zeppelins and crushing entire stacks (including hero units with no problem) and then moving in one or two handgunners to take and keep the city. Unlimited damage for Howitzer is, frankly, absurd.

Yes, it is. However, since the Mechanos can't win a lot of the other victory conditions, what else is there but war for them?

Perhaps their Zeppelins/Blimps need to have a really tiny % chance of doing a Hindenburg every turn to compensate for the fact they can often 'hide' over sea ice or mountains where few units can get at them.

The howitzer is way, way overpowered.

I read this thread with interest since I was halfway through my first game as Mechanos. I thought you guys must be overstating things. But I just attacked the other big civ in my game with a stack of a bunch of zeppelins, howitzers, siege tanks, goliath, and then techpriests to invoke machine spirit every turn. Oh, some infantry to stroll into the empty cities as well.

Holy crap. It's like the hand of god is smiting my enemies.

Really, really, really overpowered.

NERF BAT.

No, this does not call for a nerf bat, this calls for the NERFHAMMER.

No, this does not call for a nerf bat, this calls for the NERFHAMMER.

AHHH! Both Seon AND Kael are in my head! You knew what I was going to say-err, type!

actually the Mechanos need that Über 1337ness, the gods are out to get them

Then the gods at least need some kind of effective counter. But a stack of 15 upgraded howitzers with machine spirit hit you with 60 monster artillery blasts every turn from 3 hexes away!

Yes, it is. However, since the Mechanos can't win a lot of the other victory conditions, what else is there but war for them?

Perhaps their Zeppelins/Blimps need to have a really tiny % chance of doing a Hindenburg every turn to compensate for the fact they can often 'hide' over sea ice or mountains where few units can get at them.

The howitzer is way, way overpowered.
No, indeed. I never once complained about a lack of victory conditions for the Mechanos (though, in reflection, it is a sad and boring truth). It does fit their civilization's personality, however.

The problem is not the zeppelins, though. It is definitely the Howitzers. They shouldn't be any more powerful than the Dwarven Cannons which are already fine guns, the reason for this being that they are support weapons, and definitely not intended for frontal assault. Theory aside, it disrupts game balance massively and is, frankly, boring.

I think you nerf the howitzer (just a damage cap will do) and the rest will follow.

What about keeping them as is (überstrong) but having a random chance of mishaps? It is afterall a bit risky to go the all-science way in a world where gods walk the earth and disaprove of everything you stand for.

A random chance (5%?) of dud: nothing happens when you attack; a random chance (5%?) of blocked mechanism: you try to move but you're stuck in place and a random chance (2%?) of major dysfunction: blows up and damage your stack.

This will discourage from having mega stacks - better to spread out. I would rather keep them as is but make them less reliable.

Because then they'll be frustrating and boring to play as. In a game like Civilization there is inevitably the "random" element, but to have it dominate your game so far so that your every move has the chance of ruining any meticulous planning - when everything you do needs a contingency in case of error - when you can no longer depend on anything - when you are afraid to do anything from fear of failure - then you have developed a civilization nobody but the most schizophrenic would want to play as (and there is the Balseraphs for them).

Nerfing the howitzer is still the safest and most efficient way to fix the Mechanos. I can so no reason why "random failure lololol" is more attractive than something which you can reasonably expect and plan for.

what if they were precision weapons, as in: strong, but with little or no collateral damage? sharpshooter artillery, if you will.

what if they were precision weapons, as in: strong, but with little or no collateral damage? sharpshooter artillery, if you will.

Here is a possible idea. Instead of 1 unit, perhaps the Mechanos could have two. I like the idea of a more precision piece of artillery because of who the Mechanos are. As I've written in the Civlopedia entries, because the Mechanos aren't always happy with the answer "It's magic!" their adeptus and scholars went more of the route we did in the 'real' world in going into more of the sciences. Lots of what makes good artillery isn't always the gun but the sights, the mathematics and the theory of air resistance that enables the gunners to more accurately put steel on target as we say in the Army.

Because while Orbis uses the standard [civ4] cannon, chances are at first the Erebus races would probably have bombards which I can see being these big damage weapons but also being very inaccurate. I know it'll never happen, but I do wish there was more 'time' in Orbis so you could at least play out a bit more of the transition from melee/archery into firearms because then it would be easier to show the advantages to races like the Mechanos, the Khazad and the Lanun. Anyway, with improvements in metallurgy and science, I'd expect that the Mechanos would have more of what we think of when of canons. I mean historically there is a big gap (like a century or two) between the early cannons and the sort of Napoleonic/ACW canon that the graphics depict.

Anyway, I was thinking that since the Mechanos are stuck mostly fighting to win and if their howitzer gets nerfed (as it needs to be) then perhaps they also should have access to an Organ Gun. In both the 1634 series and S.M. Stirlings "On The Ocean of Eternity" series this weapon is used because they don't have the tech to build a gatling gun. Pretty much it's a collection of regular rifles bound together and a plate with the ammo is loaded in and so they all fire at once. Fires faster than a canon but is really only a anti-personnel weapon. Good for breaking up blocks of massed infantry and stopping cavalry charges.

I have an idea for them.
link the max damage limit to enemy fortification bonus and city fortification
ex: enemy spends two turns fortifying in a city with a %15 defense bonus (10+15=25)
the howitzer can only damage it 75%.
maybe also make a tiny chance for a direct hit that can go above that limit

My reasoning is that I've always seen the howitzer as using an explosive shell so that given advanced warning and proper fortifications that, in the exception of a direct hit where they are hiding, a howitzer should not be able to kill every member of a squad, just whoever dosen't get behind something that can stop the blast.

Here is a possible idea. Instead of 1 unit, perhaps the Mechanos could have two. I like the idea of a more precision piece of artillery because of who the Mechanos are. As I've written in the Civlopedia entries, because the Mechanos aren't always happy with the answer "It's magic!" their adeptus and scholars went more of the route we did in the 'real' world in going into more of the sciences. Lots of what makes good artillery isn't always the gun but the sights, the mathematics and the theory of air resistance that enables the gunners to more accurately put steel on target as we say in the Army.

Because while Orbis uses the standard [civ4] cannon, chances are at first the Erebus races would probably have bombards which I can see being these big damage weapons but also being very inaccurate. I know it'll never happen, but I do wish there was more 'time' in Orbis so you could at least play out a bit more of the transition from melee/archery into firearms because then it would be easier to show the advantages to races like the Mechanos, the Khazad and the Lanun. Anyway, with improvements in metallurgy and science, I'd expect that the Mechanos would have more of what we think of when of canons. I mean historically there is a big gap (like a century or two) between the early cannons and the sort of Napoleonic/ACW canon that the graphics depict.

Anyway, I was thinking that since the Mechanos are stuck mostly fighting to win and if their howitzer gets nerfed (as it needs to be) then perhaps they also should have access to an Organ Gun. In both the 1634 series and S.M. Stirlings "On The Ocean of Eternity" series this weapon is used because they don't have the tech to build a gatling gun. Pretty much it's a collection of regular rifles bound together and a plate with the ammo is loaded in and so they all fire at once. Fires faster than a canon but is really only a anti-personnel weapon. Good for breaking up blocks of massed infantry and stopping cavalry charges.

First off I love the Oceans of Eternity series... Stirling is an amazing author.

As for an organ gun, there's actually a very good model I used in my version instead of trebuchets.

I mean historically there is a big gap (like a century or two) between the early cannons and the sort of Napoleonic/ACW canon that the graphics depict.
Make that four. Cannons were much earlier than muskets and were used inearly XV century.
Anyway, I was thinking that since the Mechanos are stuck mostly fighting to win and if their howitzer gets nerfed (as it needs to be) then perhaps they also should have access to an Organ Gun.
A nice idea. I like trebuchets and think they fit mechanos, so not much space for bombard, but making howitzer good in destroying forts and individual units, while organ gun is great at collateral. It would both nerf the howitzer and strengthen Mechanos siege flavour.
I have an idea for them.
link the max damage limit to enemy fortification bonus and city fortification
ex: enemy spends two turns fortifying in a city with a %15 defense bonus (10+15=25)
the howitzer can only damage it 75%.
maybe also make a tiny chance for a direct hit that can go above that limit
I understand your reasoning, but it woulb be hard to code. Also, city and tile defenses are already considered in deciding ranged damage. It excludes building defences as all cannons ignore them. Maybe I should restrict the ignoring only to khazad mortar and mechanos howitzer? But it would still be different to what you propose.

To all:
Thanks for the feedback and keep it comming!
I know it takes long wait to get the fixes but I want to do it right this time - to make it balanced while keeping the flavour.

Yeah, I know that cannons were used in Hundred Year War or something. it was also apparently the only war where the mythical French Army won, which was led by a young girl aged 14

Rule#1 of warfare: French army wins only when they are led by a non-Frenchman

Yeah, I know that cannons were used in Hundred Year War or something. it was also apparently the only war where the mythical French Army won, which was led by a young girl aged 14

Rule#1 of warfare: French army wins only when they are led by a non-Frenchman

Funny, while they may have lost in the end, the French did take over most of Europe, invaded England successfully back in 1066 as well as did rather well in the 3 Indian wars in North America considering the fact they couldn't supply their troops as well as the English due to the Royal Navy.

The difference is the French were mostly successful through Diplomacy and getting others to fight for them. Plus, you can't knock the French for WW I since every major European country was in the same boat and in WW II pretty much everyone thought the way the French did. In the US, except for Patton and a few others, the tank was seen in the exact same light as the French and British did: a infantry support weapon. Actually the French had MORE tanks than the Germans but since they were spread out with the infantry, they couldn't mass as quick as the German High Command feared. Good thing too since then Guderian and Rommel would have taken the Brits at Dunkirk which didn't happen because they Germans High Command was worried about a French counter-strike that wasn't coming or wouldn't be strong enough.

So many people like to rag on the French, but I tell you, over in Afghanistan when I was there, they had a better handle on what we should have been doing. They constantly harped on the fact that we (The US) was doing a bang-up job training the ANA (Afghan National Army) but no one was really training the police or even having anyone train the Afghans in the principles of government we all in the West take for granted. Plus, I was amazed that the French did a lot better than the Brits in a counter-insurgency role. I guess they still remember all the lessons from Algiers or something. :twitch:

Funny, while they may have lost in the end, the French did take over most of Europe, invaded England successfully back in 1066 as well as did rather well in the 3 Indian wars in North America considering the fact they couldn't supply their troops as well as the English due to the Royal Navy.

Obviously the quote does not apply to all of military history but the French in taking over Europe were led by Napoleon, an Italian by any standards and it is an accident of history that he was a French citizen.

As for 1066 (and all that) the invasion there was led by a Norman, not a Frank. There is a colossal difference there.

As for the Indian Wars, come on, dude, the Indians had inferior technology and military organization. The spanish killed all of the Aztecs severely outnumbered with zero supply.

The difference is the French were mostly successful through Diplomacy and getting others to fight for them. Plus, you can't knock the French for WW I since every major European country was in the same boat and in WW II pretty much everyone thought the way the French did. In the US, except for Patton and a few others, the tank was seen in the exact same light as the French and British did: a infantry support weapon. Actually the French had MORE tanks than the Germans but since they were spread out with the infantry, they couldn't mass as quick as the German High Command feared. Good thing too since then Guderian and Rommel would have taken the Brits at Dunkirk which didn't happen because they Germans High Command was worried about a French counter-strike that wasn't coming or wouldn't be strong enough.

Building a lot of tanks has nothing to do with actual strategy or military ability. The French were steamrolled quite simply by a more prepared, more efficient, and altogether better fighting force than their own. But you are correct in the assumption that they make up the difference in diplomacy (which isn't equal to military strategy either but whatever): they kowtowed to the Germans very easily. Vichy, anyone?

So many people like to rag on the French, but I tell you, over in Afghanistan when I was there, they had a better handle on what we should have been doing. They constantly harped on the fact that we (The US) was doing a bang-up job training the ANA (Afghan National Army) but no one was really training the police or even having anyone train the Afghans in the principles of government we all in the West take for granted. Plus, I was amazed that the French did a lot better than the Brits in a counter-insurgency role. I guess they still remember all the lessons from Algiers or something. :twitch:

And it only took them 1000 years.

You should know I'm not a Francophobe - quite the contrary, in fact. But French apologists or historical revisionism doesn't serve anybody.

You should know I'm not a Francophobe - quite the contrary, in fact. But French apologists or historical revisionism doesn't serve anybody.

I have you know I've been studying military history since I was in the first grade and I have 17.5 years of military intelligence work behind me. It isn't a question of apologizing for anything or having to revise history. It's looking at the broad picture and knowing what went down.

Look at it this way, the British were caught just as flat-footed as the French and only the English channel saved them. At the time, the US army practically didn't exist (as was our general pattern till the Cold War) and we had pretty much the same attitude toward tanks as the British and French did. If we were part of the Continent, I'm sure the Germans would have invaded us too.

If Hitler had listened to Goering and not stopped bombing the RAF to attack cities, the planned invasion of England would have gone off and with the RAF destroyed, the Luftwaffe would have bounded the Royal Army into hamburger, so why is it only the French that get the 'loser' tag?

After watching what was going on in the Atlantic (and seeing what they did in WW I) the US still didn't adopt the convoy system til many a merchant marine went down to Davy Jone's locker without needing to. As for WW I, you'd think that after the Boer War the British would have seen first hand changes that smokeless powder and the power of machines could do. So why is it that the British simply had mostly one tactic? You know, "Once more into the breech?" Yet even though the Brits and their 'vassals' the Australians and Zealanders lost a good chunk of a generation of men, it's only the French who were losers?

For that matter, with the Enigma engine, the Allies often had the marching orders of the Germans in WW II often as soon as the Wehrmacht did and even with air superiority, the Germans put in quite a good lick. Funny how movies like Patton often forget that he got a lot of his forces ambushed a few times by the Germans.

As for the Vichy, when one considers the history of France and realizes that area was brutalized due to religious persecutions in horrible ways 2 or 3 times in their history, is it any wonder they revolted? One might also look at the Soviets as the Ukrainians were happy to be liberated by the Germans and if they had been nice to them instead of treating them like crap and sicking the SS on them, they probably would have gone along with the Germans.

For that matter, lets look at the US when a good chunk of our own country was perfectly willing to buck world opinion at the time, continue their 'peculiar institution' that kept millions of their fellow man in bondage and tried to break away to continue to do so. THEN many of the folks living in that area today have the GALL in one breath to point fingers at some of us and denounce or so called lack of patriotism because we have legitimate concerns on how our countries wars are being won and in another breath threaten to secede AGAIN because a recent election went against them. Boo-. .. .. .. .ing-hoo.

So ragging on the French is ignoring the fact that most countries step on their genitalia quite often. As an analyst I have to point out if you were a French analyst and had to look at possible future threats to France, regardless of any current ties, the biggest threat would be by the U.S. - that and perhaps the French...like you know, normal people, don't like being bossed around by other people. Seeing lots of the press releases we in the US have churned out, if I was French, I'd be tempted to tell us to go to Hell as well.

I stopped reading after the first paragraph when it became obvious that you were going to back up your arguments with not facts but credentials.

I would also advise against making nebulous, sweeping rants against people who you think are disagreeing with you but really are pointing out three things you actually did get terribly wrong. Having 17 or whatever (and a half) years of military intelligence work doesn't count for much if you still can't tell a Norman from a Frank.

So yeah, maybe the French get kind of a bum rap, but that's just the way the cookie crumbles. So England was saved by the Channel, we came in late, and the Russians were saved by thousands and thousands of square kilometers of empty, muddy plains; this does not make the French by proxy an army of brilliance. Because you know what? You still have all of their other military failures to account for. And, at the end of the day, Napoleon is still Italian.

What have I done? :(

I would also advise against making nebulous, sweeping rants against people who you think are disagreeing with you but really are pointing out three things you actually did get terribly wrong. Having 17 or whatever (and a half) years of military intelligence work doesn't count for much if you still can't tell a Norman from a Frank.

I know very well the difference between the Franks and the Normans...as well as the Burgundians and Bretons. However, if you want to quibble about that, one could say the US Army didn't defeat the British in the War of Independence because we weren't really 'Americans' then. Considering that the Normans had assimilated enough that they were speaking French and had adopted most of the Continental ways makes them "Frankish" enough in my book. Many Americans forget that the France as we know it was made up of many different types. It's just they unified much earlier than the Germans.

As for their military failures, so what? Show me a country that hasn't failed? We certainly have. My point is why do you seem wedded to restating a tired old stereotype that causes real problems for people in real situations. I've worked with the French and I've had to deal with soldiers who would practically call these soldiers 'surrender monkeys' to their face. Considering that the modern French soldier is just as good as our soldiers (maybe better considering most of them can speak at least one other language) it's down-right rude. Considering that many of the French soldiers understand the concept of having to work with the locals instead of just dictating to them, you might understand why I get peeved when I hear that tired old joke. Sure the French have issues, problems and have stepped on their dicks in the past; we all have so why rag on them? You do their soldiers in the field, out there backstopping a lot of other countries soldiers, no service.

Actually, in 1066 the Normans had not assimilated, considering the fact that it was slightly more than a century earlier that those Viking raiders sailed up the Seine and demanded the concession of territory (911). By 980, when the Normans were instrumental in putting the first Capet on the throne (and received as a reward the ability to operate, practically, completely independent of the French throne), they had developed a set of unique institutions and culture that set them apart from the surrounding French culture and was reminiscent of early Scandinavia, England under the Danelaw and, of course, Iceland. The Norsemen, for all practical purposes, invented the feudal system, and Duke William was able to leverage that system to great effect to conquer England in 1066. You display a glaring lack of understanding of this specific period in history to assert that "France" conquered England. It was a very unique set of circumstances, derived largely from Viking forebears, that enabled the conquest of England. (Even a thousand years later, this conquest is still known as the "Norman" conquest, not the "French" conquest.)

One could go on to argue that the Norman conquest (oops, sorry, I mean the "French" conquest) of England provided the English with a framework to utilize their own military capability to best advantage. But then I would have to bring up Henry V and the outmoded and unimaginative French army he faced almost 500 years later at Agincourt and I'm sure we all agree that is a chapter the French regard as best closed and preferably unmentioned.

I feel like I being a jerk nitpicking this but I can't help it: Is 349 years really "almost 500"?

Sorry.

And I feel it has to stop. Please guys, it is going nowhere, it is obvious that no side will convice the other, plus this thread is for matters that are not even related to your discussion.

Thus said, I think we should not generalize on such topics. There are many things that you can say on any army. Like telling that Polish army liked horses too much to be succesfull, our cavalry charged on tanks and we liked to fight wars that had no chance to be won from the start. So yes, it did but it served it quite well for a long time, and no, we never charged the german tanks. We used anti-armor cannons pulled by horses. And well, we won a few wars, long ago. And 10% of our uprisings turned things better, not worse.

So yes, Napoleon was an Italian. But his army was French (Columbus was too, but his discoveries were for Spain). And Napoleon was not the only successfull French general.

No, indeed, but my point was and always has been that the French army's stereotype of "incompetence" isn't, as my honorable opponent asserted, unfounded. I believe I made my point. However, with respect to the thread creator I will stop.

Oh no, don't stop on my account. :satan:

But it really is off topic I suppose. Whether I agree with one side or the other notwithstanding.. <.< >.>