RRnut-
As stated before, what is the difference between a unit with a sword and a spear??? Let me try to form an answer. Minimal as far as the weapon is concerned. The spear dudes have an advantage over cavalry, while IMHO a sword is more useful vs infantry. slightly!
Hmph. I dont really want to get into a history argument, but I guess we will have to!
( I actually
do want to get into a history debate, but dont tell anyone)
RRnut- A disclaimer:
~!~ I wouldn't mind one infantry line both for defense and offense. I just thought that the AI couldn't handle it, and at least for men there were sufficient units to handle it all. ~!~
Disclaimers eh, maybe I should try those some time!
RRnut- [...] were generally reserved for nobility (BC times). During the dark ages and early middle ages(approx ME times), a sword was still a significant investment. [...] It was not until later on in the Middle Ages, in the "Infantry Revolution," where men with spears and pikes were well trained and became a significant fighting force. (scots and swiss)
I would imagine that the expense of swords and spears varied. You could buy a kick-ass sword, or you could get some cheap one. Same thing with spears, of course. There were good ones and bad ones, in the end they were also less durable for their purpose, and often they would need to be replaced after every battle.
The history of swords in combat goes back quite far. In Mycenaean Greece, they have grave-site swords, 2 ½ to 3 1/4 feet in length, were not very durable and used primarily as a thrusting weapon. These swords adapted to become slashing weapons, with a more flattened blade and stronger hilts.
Xenophon recommends that the cavalryman should use a machaira rather than a xiphos, because from his elevated seat he will be able to strike with much more force with a kopis rather than a xiphos. Clearly in this passage Xenophon uses machaira as a synonym for kopis, and contrasts it to the xiphos.
-Nick Sekunda
A Kopis, the chopping sword referred to in the quote above would be more like this:
The word kopis means chopper.
This is a recreation of a xiphos from the above quote. Other accounts seem to imply that it was more like a fencing sword.
Sometimes I question their accuracy, but we can assume that this is somewhat correct, as it corresponds with other quotes on the different weapons.
You can see from these two accounts swords were indeed popular in the ancient ages. Classical historians have written down different techniques, which there are many accounts on from Egypt, the Near East, and the Hellenistic world. I could go further over to China, Korea, and Japan, but weve all seen enough Medieval Japanese movies
. Lets suffice it to say that mainland Asia was just as advanced as Japan in their swords, even if they didnt have the peculiar obsession with them.
Now you say:
Whats your point? This is supposed to be about Dark Age Europe. Not Rome, Greece, and China you fool!
Im getting there. Obviously us Celts werent exactly famous for our definitive historical accounts, yet we can get insight on some of their military techniques from the ceremonial swords found through excavation. There are many celtic swords discovered, which have hilts decorated with sliver, gold, and even amber. While obviously these probably wouldnt be used in combat, they still show how the celts were definitely a sword-friendly culture.
This is from a English translation of Julius Caesars De Bello Gallico:
Disappointed in this hope, the Nervii surround the winter-quarters with a rampart eleven feet high, and a ditch thirteen feet in depth. These military works they had learned from our men in the intercourse of former years, and, having taken some of our army prisoners, were instructed by them: but, as they had no supply of iron tools which are requisite for this service, they were forced to cut the turf with
their swords, and to empty out the earth with their hands and cloaks
I know that the word sword is really not very important right here, but when reading Caesars de Bello Gallico, one gets the impression that swords were indeed commonplace. Caesar talks of many advanced tactics used both by himself and the Celts, when they drew their swords, when they threw their javelins, etc. We shouldnt assume swords were something hard to come by in the ancient ages at all, because they werent
. Sure, the majority of people who owned one were military based, but isnt that what civ3 is all about? We arent giving workers swords here, we are giving specifically war trained units swords. No, I am not going on about nothing here. My point is proving that swords were used in many ways, and existed in many forms, just as spears.
I agree, most infantry as well as cavalry carried a sword or dagger as well as a spear. However in many cases just the sword was used, especially in high medieval times.
RRnut-
That is where the advantage of knights came over dark age warbands. [...] Warbands with little organization couldn't stand up to the shock of a line of knights charging.
Hence:
Our offensive units cost significantly more, representing the greater overall resources required to build them. Avoid naming them swordsmen or things based on the weapon.
Sounds like a plan to me. Cavalry had more uses than cutting through rabble, although earlier on it was popularly used as harassing the enemy, and flanking them.
RRnut-
Our defensive infantry will be generally cheaper. spear graphics could be used frequently, but I wouldn't make a distinction. [...] A few notable exceptions might come by civ, where that civ had a defensive outlook for a significant time.
Well, I think we are looking at it differently, but am confident we will find common ground. I look as the units as part of an army, as I said earlier the phalanxes, for instance were just a part of ancient Greek military. The Greeks would commonly position their troops on the right side, as the shields were carried in the left hand. The object would then be for the two armies to collide, and see which armies phalanx would bust through the others armies left flank. The Spartans were pretty good at that, Im told.
There for I would base the spearman units from this position, as opposed to the levies\militia route.
Lets face it, rarely armies would just contain one unit so to speak. I highly doubt there were battles of just swordsmen versus spearmen.
RRnut-
One other note for offensive infantry regarding their defensive value. raise this to the level or almost the level of the defense infantry for civs that had well trained units and lower it for civs (easterlings, etc.) that had a reputation of "scattering for spoils" after breaking the enemy line. [...]
This sounds ok, but lets work out the generic mannish lines first, and we can test these new custom mannish unit lines later. Weve had a lot of ideas for the different factions bonuses, after all.
RRnut-
As far as archers: not really sure. Know that they were mostly defensive units. think that their defensive bombard should be quite high -- a bombard 1 less than attack power will probably get about 50% of shots on cavalry attacking. my guess. perhaps just give them an attack value and defense value slightly lower than it.
I wouldnt say that at all. Generally, you have a 75% chance of making a unit loose 1 hp when attacking a place where the 0 range bombard would go into effect. I am also guessing here, but this is my experience with current civ3. Course, difficulty level might have something to do with it. Not sure what you meant with get about 50% of shots on cavalry attacking though. Are you saying its different with the more amount of moves a unit has?
RRnut-
As far as 3 moves. I think that is just such a significant advantage, part of what makes civ cavalry such an uber unit. [...] I thought that it would be favorable to just limit this to Rohan. If you want to give all civilizations 3 move cavalry, then give the rider 4 mps. flavor.
I think your still overreacting.
Ive played MEM probably more than anyone besides its old creator himself. I can safely say that while using the 2 move road technique, 3 movement cavalry was not a really large issue. Times change, we should show that with the movement of growing cavalry techniques, and we should utilize more diversity in these lines. A jump from 2 move cavalry in the third or fourth era is the natural way things should go.
Cavalry in civ3 is uber because it just happens to have 2 more attack than a musketman, the common defender when its first introduced. When rifle men come along, it is not such a great unit at all, and by the time infantry comes Cavalry is truly obsolete. Our cavalry line will be in-between rifleman and infantry. It will come along with less attack than the best defender of that age, and at best have equal stats to the previous defender.
A better comparison would be the Chinese Rider to the Musketman.
RRnut-
Now, regarding time limits and lacking sufficient time to attack if we limit cavalry to 2 moves except regarding Rohan -- who wanted to lower movement along roads to 2 moves? I thought this an unwise move at the time and promised to bring it up again. [...]
Heh
. Nah, I still want 2 movement roads. Again, more ground shaking stuff has done before, this is nothing big, and admittedly fits into ME more. I wish that Breakaway Games listened to our cries on rail-road adjustable movement. Rohan could benefit from cavalry defense units, as Mr. TN suggested.
RRnut-
[...] Basically what I was trying to say is this. Let the human use the cavalry for attacking wounded troops (disorganized) or low defense value troops ( fundamentally disorganized ).
Seems like I do a lot of things, I dont intend on doing
! Dont sweat my excessive use of the single quote, its a bad habit I cant seems to shake.
The AI will use cavalry if it is useful when introduced. All we need to do is make it so the cavalry line is remotely appealing to the AI, even if its just for a little bit.
RRnut-
Re: the AI use of cav assigned these values. IMHO the AI puts a high price on 2 or more moves. given a choice the AI tends to build horsemen and knights over swordsmen and MIs. (my experience). [...]
Basically, whatever we do I'm of the opinion that the AI will still mess it up. I wouldn't worry to much therefore about wether or not the AI can use it -- it can't!!
Well, I will have to ask embryodead again, but we seem to be both of the opinion that the AI does not use units when they have a higher attack unit available.
RRnut-
As far as everything else regarding units, I hate trying to organize my thoughts to reply to everything in this format. Don't know how you handle it.
How do I handle it?
Cheetos. In fact I believe many of the answers of the universe are contained within these bite-size pieces of artificially flavored corn meal.
The .BIQ is on the bottom.
Mithadan-
Okay, no speculative linguistics! [...] I too prefer "Castamir" over "Herumor" or "Fuinur," because we at least sort-of-know that Castamir ruled something (i.e., Gondor) for a while, and sort-of-know that his decendants or followers became the Corsairs. Mind you, both Herumor and Fuinir (so I gather) became lords amoung the Haradrim. Maybe GLs?
What do you think of Sanghyando? He sounds more Haradian to me, at least. I want a more African influenced dude\dudette for the leader of the Harad. Didnt someone mention a queen a couple threads back?
Mithadan-
Tar-Minastir was the one who helped Eregion against Sauron immediately after the forging of the One Ring. Elendil was the guy who helped Gil-Galad in the Last Alliance, but that was after the sinking of Numenor already.
I thought he was the one who sent his son over to Middle-earth, to help
after Eregion was overrun, and that Gil-Galad had sent Elrond to try and help the ring maker out, thus pointing to the creation of Rivendell.
Mithadan-
[...] -what with being called upon by Eregion in its time of need, and ousting Sauron from Eriador.
I agree with you. I liked Aldarion not very much, and Erendis even less.
Mithadan-
I know, my colloquial vocabulary is very up-to-date and superduper. I'm very proud of myself.
Were all proud of you
. I always thought the word colloquial was a bad one for its subject. What is more un-colloquial than the word colloquial itself?
Mithadan-
Okay, cool. (Too bad about the girl factor, though.) For my part, put "Mithadan" in as the last Great Leader in the Arnor list... I don't know how we'll manage to put a Pacific Coast Highway, an Ant[Wimp], a Rail-Road Nut or a Southern Californian into the mod though!
Its not Ant[Wimp], its [Ant]Wimp! Two to five letter acronyms are popular in the online gaming world for clans. Clans are groups of friends who usually compete as a team, against other teams\clans. Sort of like:
[LOTM]Mithadan ;-).
Well have to choose something that is important to that specific person, such as a name or family history or something. I was thinking of including Durham as the last city for Arnor as my reference. Either that or it will be Archimedes as a scientific leader
.
Im wonder how we are going to include embryodead, perhaps the name of the band is more fitting. The Last Conformist will be a problem too, Mrtn will be easy enough though.
Mithadan-
Maybe we ought to use Galadriel just cuz of graphics? No biggie, though. What would be cool would be a double-leaderhead...Ahhh, good. Both Hyarmendacils sound good, each kicking Southron butt and all.
What Galadiel? Are you are talking about embryodeads wood-elven leaderhead? You do know she has wings, right?
Ciryaher Hyarmendacil in the first, my good man.
(sorry about editing the quotes, I needed to shorten my post)
http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads7/lotm_altered_biq.zip
), even though neither Celeborn or Galadriel were dark elves. Ossiriand and Thranduil's realm aren't really golden age contenders, although they are significant presences. I suggest Galadrial over Celeborn simply because she's a more recognizable name, and a female (girls add flavour 
, eh?)
I don't know how we'll manage to put a Pacific Coast Highway, an Ant[Wimp], a Rail-Road Nut or a Southern Californian into the mod though! 
