Mojotronica
Dec 27, 2002, 03:42 PM
Thought this discussion was interesting and relevant to the World History forum... Here's a link to the original discussion --
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=39852&pagenumber=1
I've edited it down to a handful of posts that are more focused on the historical aspect of it...
22-Dec-02
redhulkz
Why should a samurai have a same movement rate as mounted units? Samruai run as fast as a horse? com'on
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
22-Dec-02
Kryten
Remember that the speed of a unit depends not so much on the amount of armor they wore (although this can sometimes be a factor), but more upon the type of formation they fought in. For example, mounted troops wearing mail or bronze scale armor and carring a large shield but fighting in a loose open formation would move far more quickly than unarmoured and shieldless horsemen who are trying to stay in a tight formation, kneecap to kneecap. So there have always been two basic types of horsemen; open order light cavalry for speed and close order heavy cavalry for shock.
Well....it's the same with foot soldiers. Most infantry in history fought in tight close formation, and so would move slowly. But some, such as the Hellenistic Peltasts, Roman Auxiliaries, Zulu Impis, Aztec warriors, Napoleonic light infantry, and Samurai, all fought in an open loose formation, thus were able to move faster.
As another example, think of British Cavalry of the 1850's Crimean War period, manoeuvring in straight kneecap-to-kneecap lines, constantly stopping to dress their ranks and reining in their horses to stay level with the man either side of them. Now pit these against a Zulu Impi of the same period, with no internal organisation, no dressing of the ranks, just everyone running as fast as they can. I think you'd agree that giving both these units a move of 2 would be about right.
If someone ever gets round to making a Napoleonic scenario, then I'd fully expect to see Grenadiers & Line Infantry moving 1, Heavy Cavalry & Curirassiers AND Light Infantry moving 2, while Lancers & Hussars move 3.
23-Dec-02
Kryten
I always like to think that foot soldiers in Civ3 move normally at a speed of 2 (but -1 if they are trying to keep in a dense formation, or Napoleonic troops trying to keep in nice straight lines, or WW1 & 2 Infantry crawling on their bellies using all available cover), and horsemen 'normally' move at a speed of 3 (again, -1 if they are Heavy Cavalry trying to maintain a tight formation....kneecap to kneecap, or if they are very heavily armoured, such as Medieval Knights or Late Roman/Byzantine Cataphracts).
23-Dec-02
Pembroke
If you want to get really realistic then mounted troops shouldn't travel faster than foot units. It's actually the other way round. A man on foot will travel faster than a horse over a long period. In the actual battle the horses are faster and more mobile,yes, but not when it comes to the movement over long distances, and as we know in civ even one tile on a world map means "long distance".
Unless you are the Mongol horde or a cavalry regiment operating from a permanent or semi-permanent base with good supply lines your horse warriors will not outpace your foot divisions. Napolean described the situation quite elegantly: men and pigs can run and fight by sheer guts alone but if you try to use your horses the same way the poor creatures will simply drop down and die.
Horses need feed and care. You can't just get up in the morning and ride till night. You will lose time in the mornings to feed and to make them ready to travel. You need constant breaks to rest them. And in the afternoon you need a sizable resting period to allow for grooming, grazing and feeding them.
Also if your horses are to do any strenuos activity, like war for example, you can't expect them to get their energy from just grazing. First, a horse in its natural environment needs to spend almost the entire day at grazing to sustain itself. A war horse, or a farm horse for that matter, simply doesn't have the time for that. This means feeding it oats or other high energy fodder.
Which naturally rises the question: where do you get the hay and oats to feed your mounts? The Mongol solution to take it from the locals is not a long term solution not to mention it makes you vulnerable to a scorched earth tactic.
The only alternative is to carry the fodder with you. This was the usual medieval solution, too as the infrastructure and commercial transportation was what it was. It also meant that an army could have hundreds of supply wagons travelling with it as you needed fodder for the transport animals, too. Wagons were slow, too, and with miserable roads and with uncushioned fixed axles they broke so often that a sizable portion of them was always in repair. And when it rained hard you didn't move because you couldn't.
23-Dec-02
Knight-Dragon
Just some added information here - the Mongols' horses were actually more like ponies. These were hardy animals and they could survive on a lot less than the average European knight's warhorse and also root out surviving forage fr beneath the snow. The Mongols' tactics were dependant on mobility and quick lightning strikes and also horse archery. Which meant they never went for heavy armor, hence they could work on smaller horses.
Also each Mongol horsemen would have 4 horses, as a standard procedure and changed mounts as needed on a long campaign.
Which was why the Mongols were such formidable horsemen and they did invade Russia during the winter.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=39852&pagenumber=1
I've edited it down to a handful of posts that are more focused on the historical aspect of it...
22-Dec-02
redhulkz
Why should a samurai have a same movement rate as mounted units? Samruai run as fast as a horse? com'on
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
22-Dec-02
Kryten
Remember that the speed of a unit depends not so much on the amount of armor they wore (although this can sometimes be a factor), but more upon the type of formation they fought in. For example, mounted troops wearing mail or bronze scale armor and carring a large shield but fighting in a loose open formation would move far more quickly than unarmoured and shieldless horsemen who are trying to stay in a tight formation, kneecap to kneecap. So there have always been two basic types of horsemen; open order light cavalry for speed and close order heavy cavalry for shock.
Well....it's the same with foot soldiers. Most infantry in history fought in tight close formation, and so would move slowly. But some, such as the Hellenistic Peltasts, Roman Auxiliaries, Zulu Impis, Aztec warriors, Napoleonic light infantry, and Samurai, all fought in an open loose formation, thus were able to move faster.
As another example, think of British Cavalry of the 1850's Crimean War period, manoeuvring in straight kneecap-to-kneecap lines, constantly stopping to dress their ranks and reining in their horses to stay level with the man either side of them. Now pit these against a Zulu Impi of the same period, with no internal organisation, no dressing of the ranks, just everyone running as fast as they can. I think you'd agree that giving both these units a move of 2 would be about right.
If someone ever gets round to making a Napoleonic scenario, then I'd fully expect to see Grenadiers & Line Infantry moving 1, Heavy Cavalry & Curirassiers AND Light Infantry moving 2, while Lancers & Hussars move 3.
23-Dec-02
Kryten
I always like to think that foot soldiers in Civ3 move normally at a speed of 2 (but -1 if they are trying to keep in a dense formation, or Napoleonic troops trying to keep in nice straight lines, or WW1 & 2 Infantry crawling on their bellies using all available cover), and horsemen 'normally' move at a speed of 3 (again, -1 if they are Heavy Cavalry trying to maintain a tight formation....kneecap to kneecap, or if they are very heavily armoured, such as Medieval Knights or Late Roman/Byzantine Cataphracts).
23-Dec-02
Pembroke
If you want to get really realistic then mounted troops shouldn't travel faster than foot units. It's actually the other way round. A man on foot will travel faster than a horse over a long period. In the actual battle the horses are faster and more mobile,yes, but not when it comes to the movement over long distances, and as we know in civ even one tile on a world map means "long distance".
Unless you are the Mongol horde or a cavalry regiment operating from a permanent or semi-permanent base with good supply lines your horse warriors will not outpace your foot divisions. Napolean described the situation quite elegantly: men and pigs can run and fight by sheer guts alone but if you try to use your horses the same way the poor creatures will simply drop down and die.
Horses need feed and care. You can't just get up in the morning and ride till night. You will lose time in the mornings to feed and to make them ready to travel. You need constant breaks to rest them. And in the afternoon you need a sizable resting period to allow for grooming, grazing and feeding them.
Also if your horses are to do any strenuos activity, like war for example, you can't expect them to get their energy from just grazing. First, a horse in its natural environment needs to spend almost the entire day at grazing to sustain itself. A war horse, or a farm horse for that matter, simply doesn't have the time for that. This means feeding it oats or other high energy fodder.
Which naturally rises the question: where do you get the hay and oats to feed your mounts? The Mongol solution to take it from the locals is not a long term solution not to mention it makes you vulnerable to a scorched earth tactic.
The only alternative is to carry the fodder with you. This was the usual medieval solution, too as the infrastructure and commercial transportation was what it was. It also meant that an army could have hundreds of supply wagons travelling with it as you needed fodder for the transport animals, too. Wagons were slow, too, and with miserable roads and with uncushioned fixed axles they broke so often that a sizable portion of them was always in repair. And when it rained hard you didn't move because you couldn't.
23-Dec-02
Knight-Dragon
Just some added information here - the Mongols' horses were actually more like ponies. These were hardy animals and they could survive on a lot less than the average European knight's warhorse and also root out surviving forage fr beneath the snow. The Mongols' tactics were dependant on mobility and quick lightning strikes and also horse archery. Which meant they never went for heavy armor, hence they could work on smaller horses.
Also each Mongol horsemen would have 4 horses, as a standard procedure and changed mounts as needed on a long campaign.
Which was why the Mongols were such formidable horsemen and they did invade Russia during the winter.