An “Extinct Civilization Manifesto”

[Ozymandias]

... Or, “How to handle 6,000 years of military history if the Babylonians and Romans are the front-runners in the year 2,000 CE”

I think that a fairly small number of UU sets can be devised to account for any Civ’s complete, military history.

Consider the following three points:

1. The convergence of form and function of militaries in the "real world" is the result of specific evolutionary pressures exerted by the wars we have fought. This might sound simplistic, but let's take armored warfare doctrine as an example: everything post-1939 either derives from or evolved in reaction to the blitzkrieg – Continuing with that example: Given that the conditions leading to the development of the blitzkrieg – or, more, precisely, the political-military environment in which it developed – were not inevitable (WW1; the Treaty of Versailles; etc.) then armored doctrine might have followed any number of lines: further evolution of the infantry tank; the British notion of the "cruiser" tank; the "land battleship"; etc. Indeed, all these were in place in 1939 and, in a different timeline, might not have clashed until later -- if ever. A Soviet-British War fought in some hypothetical timeline over Northern India would have been a very different war than that which our own world experienced in that year and the years which followed.

2. Distinctly different styles of military have arisen and flourished over time WHOSE FORM HAS LARGELY BEEN DICTATED BY GEOGRAPHY (forgive the “shouting” but it is a salient point). For example, ancient close-order infantry reached its greatest heights in military systems arising from Greece/Macedon and then Rome – mountainous peninsulas where combat in constricted areas such as passes would be common.

3. I believe 6 kinds of “generic geographic” Civ types (plus one “Maritime Variation”) and THEREBY THEIR MILITARY DEVELOPMENT PATHS can be devised, thereby (a) offering far more “fidelity” than the bland “vanilla” Civ military force structures, and (b) using the many extraordinary UUs our compatriots keep providing to offer significant variety without having to devise a complete UU military tech tree for each and every Civ.

– The types of geographic Civs I’m proposing, along with scanty outlines of the types of forces they would develop and deploy, are as follows – and please bear in mind that these are VERY preliminary ideas ...

(1) Mountainous – or similarly very constricted terrain – Greeks and Romans and the development of close order combat; even though the Companion Cavalry gets the glory in the history books, 'twas Alexander's phalanxes that made a hash of Persia.
Later developments would emphasize specialized infantry (alpine troops; ski troops) and (a) high horsepower-to-ground-pressure AFVs (e.g., light armor), including defensive armor (e.g., Strindsvagen) as well as short range aircraft (b) light armor for scouting and infantry support. Also light howitzers and mortars, probably horse-packed.

(2) Wooded – likewise constricted terrain but very different than (1) above - "loose" order combat formations; de-emphasis of early missile weapons (as in the early Germanic tribes); rapid movement and stealth in forests.
Later developments aren’t really limited (forests gets cleared, etc.) except perhaps for some fine light troops (jaegers, etc.) and the prevalence of medium over long range bombers.
(Note: Both (1) and (2) might maintain cavalry forces well into the modern period; Polish lancers in 1939; the PRC maintaining horse cavalry units in its rough-terrain northwest at least through the 1980s.)

(3) Jungles/Rainforest -- much like Wooded, except more so, ambushes with blowguns and whatnot. No cavalry.
Later developments would include high horsepower-to-ground-pressure AFVs (e.g., light armor).

(4) Plains / Steppe -- cavalry, cavalry, cavalry ... especially horse-archers (side note: the “Composite Bow” should probably be added as a tech ...). Probable "fascination" with both wheeled and light tracked vehicles as cavalry replacements.

(5a) Mixed terrain version “A” - e.g., Western Europe, with short distances from Civ to battle zone: Few limitations on force structure type.

(5b) Mixed terrain version “B” - e.g., U.S., but with longer distances from Civ to battle zone: Few early limitations; later emphases on medium tanks and long range bombers.

(6) Desert. Emphasis on light infantry; camels if available.
Later developments: once again, high horsepower-to-ground-pressure AFVs.

(7) “Maritime Variation” – adds an emphasis on marines / light infantry etc. to any of the above (Historical example: in 1066 the Normans were UNIQUE in their knowledge/ability to transport horses, in any quantity, by ship).
Later developments: maritime aircraft; aircraft carriers; etc. Medium tanks (e.g., the Sherman, a compromise between size and sea-transportability)

To illustrate how this schema might work – and concentrating once again on armor – the following breakdown can be used to address the period ca. 1900 – 1940:

(1) Light armor as mainstay: Civ geographic categories (1), (3), (4), (6)

(2) Medium armor as mainstay: category (5b) (USA - WW2)

(3) Defensive (e.g., turretless) armor as mainstay: categories (1)

(4) “No limits” (e.g., experiments with "land battleships" etc.): categories (2), (5a) UNLESS the Civ is also category (7)
So four initial armor categories – four different sets of UUs – (and that’s counting "land battleships"!) covers matters nicely and would, e.g., provide the possibility of 10 different types of force pool clashes while playing with 16 Civs.

– Granted, Civ does a poor job of simulating doctrine (e.g., "NATO" viz-a-viz "Warsaw Pact" style armies – i.e., NATO emphasizing individual commander initiative and Communist nations quite the opposite – but this sort of distinction can be expressed in Civ as "quantity" vs. "quality" units)

Quite obviously this needs much development – Still, any thoughts / reactions / critiques so far?

Yours Mulling Away (and with thanks to Dom Pedro and Hunter for helping prod my thoughts along these lines!)

-Oz

 

[Dom Pedro II]

I liked this very much when I first heard about it from you, and seeing it much more fleshed out just makes me like it even more so!



Actually, I do have a question though... how exactly, other than graphically, will we distinguish between say looser ranks and tighter ranks in game?

What tweaking of the stats do you think would work to represent these variations?

 

[Kryten]

I'm sure that Dom Pedro II has already thought of this, but ozymandias' article above would be a good guideline for the "Flavour Units Project".
We know what type of troops the Aztecs had in the Ancient period, and we know what type of terrain they lived in.....so what would their Industrial & Modern Age military have looked like had they survived longer?

Originally posted by Dom Pedro II
Actually, I do have a question though... how exactly, other than graphically, will we distinguish between say looser ranks and tighter ranks in game?

Well, you could do what I did with that old Hellenistic Peltast that I made some time ago....I gave it slightly less attack but a move of 2, to represent that some medium infantry foot troops could move faster than the slow close formation heavy infantry.
One day I intend to do the same with an Imperial Roman Auxiliary (when I get time. )

First of all, most of you know my feelings about the totally artificial Civ3 concept of 'defensive infantry'.
These NEVER existed.
Spearmen/Pikemen/Musketmen/Riflemen....ALL of them were expected to attack AND defend in reality. And what would they attack with? Why, exactly the same weapons/shields/armour that they used to defend themselves!
Fortunately, this can be achieved in Civ3 by giving heavy infantry both the attack and defend AI strategies.

Throughout history, almost all armies have consisted of the following troop types:-
Heavy Infantry (HI)= good attack, good defence, best for taking or holding cities, but slow moving.
Light Infantry (LI)= weaker attack, almost no defence, armed with some sort of 'defensive bombardment' missile weapons.
Mounted Troops (Mt) = very good attack, terrible defence (unless very heavily armoured), fast moving but restricted by terrain.
Siege Weapons (SW) = obviously meant for taking cities, these later became useful on the battlefield as well.
And that's about it.
(Note: although technically Light Infantry should move faster than Heavy Infantry, they almost NEVER operated on their own; they always had some heavies to fall back on.
This can be represented by having them stacked with heavier troops to protect them while they skirmish with their missiles.
An exception to this is the Medium Infantry, such as Greek Peltasts and Roman Auxiliaries, who should move faster and operate independently, armed with defensive bombardment javelins)

Now there are several exceptions to the above:-
* Horse Archers & Javelin Horseman are mounted troops with defensive bombardment missiles.
* Persian Immortals & Longbowmen were heavy infantry with bows (they didn't skirmish, but stood in dense formations).

A quick word about terrain: mounted troops, be they Chariots, Horsemen, Elephants, Camels, or Tanks, were useless in difficult terrain such as mountains/forests/jungles/swamps.
About the only way to represent this in Civ3 is to make them all 'wheeled' so that they cannot enter these terrain types.
Medium infantry Peltasts and Auxiliaries on the other hand, were ideally suited for difficult terrain (that was what they were designed for), so should move 2 in ALL terrain types.

A quick word about defensive bombardment: I like to give troops with javelins, slings, and Immortals, a defensive bombardment of 2, while specialised skirmishing light infantry with bows (because of their greater range and mobility) have defensive bombardment of 3.
Crossbows were better than bows, so I give them a defensive bombardment of 4.
And Longbows were the best, so they have a defensive bombardment of 5, PLUS a rate-of-fire of 2.
(They could loose off a dozen volleys a minute, compared to the Crossbowman's one or two).
I also like to give all these missile armed troops a 'Zone-Of-Control', so that they can hit any passing columns without loss to themselves.


Soooo.....using the troop types mentioned above, here are some examples of 'typical' armies:-

Ancient Chariot Army = Spearmen (HI), Archers or Bowmen (LI), Chariots (Mt).
(remember, the Spearmen can attack AND defend....not every Ancient army used Swordsmen)

Classical Greeks = Hoplites (HI), Archers (LI), Horsemen (Mt), Catapults (SW).
(remember, the Hoplites can attack AND defend....not every Ancient army used Swordsmen)

Macedonians = Phalangites (HI), Peltasts with javelins (MI), Archers (LI), Companions (Mt), Fire Catapults (SW).
(Phalangites were useless if disordered, so should be 'wheeled')

Republican Romans = Legionaries (HI), Velites with javelins (LI), Horsemen (Mt), Fire Catapults (SW).
(not a balanced army....not very good in difficult terrain)

Imperial Romans = Legionaries (HI), Auxiliary Infantry with javelins (MI), Auxiliary Archers (LI), Imperial Horsemen (Mt), Fire Catapults (SW).
(more balanced.....can fight in difficult terrain)

Late Romans = Mercenary (foederati) Germans (HI), Auxilia Palatina with javelins (MI), Auxiliary Archers (LI), Cataphractari (heavy Mt), Fire Catapults (SW).
(the Legions have been replaced by cheaper Germanic troops....the 'Decline & Fall')
(Auxilia Palatina were elite troops....+1 hit point)

Parthian & Sassanid Persia = Levy Spearmen (HI), Archers (LI), Horse Archers (light Mt), Catapharcts/Clibanari (heavy Mt), Catapults (SW).
(heavy infantry with light missile infanty support....heavy cavalry with light missile cavalry support)

A Medieval Army = Medieval Infantry or Pikemen (HI), Crossbowmen (LI), Knights (heavy Mt), Trebuchet and later Bombards (SW).
(the English used Longbowmen instead of Crossbowmen)
(Crossbows 4-1-1 with defensive missiles, Medieval Inf 4-2-1, Pikemen 3-3-1....each has a role to play)

A Renaissance Army = Pikemen (HI), Firelock Musketmen (HI), Knights (heavy Mt), Caracole (pistol armed Mt), Cannons (SW).
(the Firelocks 5-1-1 do most of the killing, while the Pikemen 3-3-1 protect them)

A Napoleonic Army = Line Infantry in columns (HI), Light Infantry skirmishers (LI), Hussars (light Mt), Cuirassiers (heavy Mt), Cannons (SW).
(the British used Heavy Cavalry instead of Cuirassiers)
(Line Infantry 5-4-1 now have bayonets, so Pikemen are redundant)
(British Infantry fought in lines, not columns, so would be 5-5-1)
(Later Riflemen would be 6-6-1, and WW1 Infantry say 8-10-1)

Just a thought.

 

[Dom Pedro II]

Actually, Kryten, I first learned about Oz's idea at the Discussion Group... so yes, I do think it's a good guideline.

Also, some people may find you too wordy, but I find your passion for the subject rather refreshing.. Bah, it's been one of those days.. don't mind me.



With regards to the topic: I have to admit that I've been somewhat skeptical about such distinction of units like Light Infantry, Heavy Infantry, etc. I've read a good deal about tactics and such, but Civ3 doesn't really represent it very well.

I think that, with this, it would certainly be more interesting, but I'm just not really sure about how much of a difference it would make, or if it might just be too frustrating. Take a game like RoN for example... the differences are quite distinct and have a huge impact on strategy... I'm not saying it can't be done, but I think I'd have to see some more results from tests or at least a much more detailed unit explanation before I'd really be on board 100%.

But also, there is Conquests to keep in mind. The programmers may give us some goodies that may make some difference. If they give us a X2 vs. ________ feature for units, that would be enough for me. And even this Stealth option shows promise for specialization of troops.

 

[Kryten]

Originally posted by Dom Pedro II
Also, some people may find you too wordy, but I find your passion for the subject rather refreshing..

....it cos I ain't very good at expressing meself.
Very well, I'll shut up.

No I won't
All the above is just a simple way of getting a little bit of 'combined arms' tactics into the game.

So Heavy Infantry are the 'general purpose' mainstay of your forces.
Mounted troops are for attacking, but are specialized, requiring flat terrain.
Light Infantry can do things the other two cannot (such as ZOC and using their defensive bombardment to help support other units in their stack, at least in defensive situations).
And Medium Infantry are specialized rough terrain type troops.

("Don't worry Dom Pedro....I'VE shut him up this time!" )

 

[Dom Pedro II]

No, I wasn't being sarcastic though!


Anyway, also I think that the Industrial era cavalry should really become more like scouts and raiders since that's the role they took one in their waning years.. they weren't terribly good in direct combat by that point.

Unless maybe if they fight dismounted, in which case, they then can be mounted infantry.

 

[Ozymandias]

Picking and choosing among Dom Pedro's and Kryten's points --

1. Pre-gunpowder infantry and cavalry can essentially be broken down into a simple matrix -- there are melee and ranged-fire units, and they are either close order or loose order.

They can of course be further subdivided into heavy (or "line") light (scout / skirmisher) etc.

Examples of close order units are:

melee infantry: phalanx; legion
ranged-fire infantry: English/Welsh longbowmen; Genoese crossbowmen
melee cavalry: knights; Alexander's companion cavalry
ranged-fire cavalry: Byzantine cataphracts

Examples of loose (or "open") order types would be:

melee infantry: Germanic tribesmen
ranged-fire infantry: peltasts
melee cavalry: Apache; samurai (i.e., contests in which individual combat was paramount, with the Apache "counting coup" -- touching but not killing your enemy -- being an interesting extreme)
ranged-fire cavalry: generics of composite-bow-armed Asian cavalry

Tying this into my "terrain types" model would yield in this halcyon pre-gunpowder era:

(1) Mountainous – close order
(2) Wooded – open order
(3) Jungles/Rainforest -- open order
(4) Plains / Steppe -- open order
(5a) & (5b) Mixed terrain version -- either, depending upon further details
(6) Desert -- open order
(7) "Maritime Variation" -- open order if the primary focus is raiding and piracy (e.g., Vikings); close order if that is the nature of the rest of the military establishment.

Please bear in mind that, e.g., "close order" armies didn't use "open order" troops for skirmishing, etc.

Basic differences between the "open" and "close" order types can be easily arrived at -- the first are lighter, faster, and more likely to have a ZOC; the latter are heavier, slower -- deadlier close in. Close order unit types might also benefit from an extra hit point (due to unit cohesion).

2. I agree with Kryten's points about infantry entirely. In a "traditional" approach to Civ, this would leave us with, say, 4-4-1 musketeers; 6-6-1 riflemen, etc., ad nauseum.

Breaking up the forces into a handful of types allows significant play amongst all factors -- attack, defense, #hit points, cost, movement ... which is to of course suggest that some serious playtesting is almost certainly in order ...

3. Kryten's military force-type examples could be categorized as follows:

Ancient Chariot Army = open order, Civ type (4) army (and most chariot-era armies hardly used Swordsmen at all - they were too expensive and impractical, as this would be the Bronze Age)

Classical Greeks, Macedonians and both Republican and Imperial Romans = close order, Civ type (1)

Late Romans (I presume Byzantine) = close order, type 5A ... open order units would be mixed in depending upon time / place / circumstances (e.g., the Imperial Guard at Constantinople were Varangians -- Vikings who fought with axes in loose order formation; this type of force was routed by Roger the Norman's cavalry -- close order, Civ type (5a) )

Parthian & Sassanid Persia = open order (with the exception of, e.g., Greek mercenary phalanxes -- and I'm certainly not suggesting that there are/will be exceptions!) Civ type (4)

A Medieval Army = either open or close order, depending upon which army (e.g., during the 100 Years War, French are mostly open order; English are closed order) Civ type (5a)

European Renaissance Army = close order, Civ type (5a)

A Napoleonic Army = close order, Civ type (5a)

-- Note that in these examples we see the outlines of the beginnings of a Civ type (5a) army and its evolution over time!

-- All for the moment,

Oz

 

[Dom Pedro II]

And then once we get to WWI-II, all hell breaks loose!

Sooo do you think that graphically-speaking, the effort should be to make different unit graphics to differentiate closed vs. open order, or rather to go with a munit design where the figures may look the same but their organization is quite different?

Also, your thoughts on the Stealth option in Conquests... another good way to make say Light Cavalry worth building? Or maybe this would be better for something else?

 

[Kryten]

Originally posted by Dom Pedro II
....or rather to go with a munit design where the figures may look the same but their organization is quite different?

Although 'multi-figure' units would be ideal for showing the differences between close & loose formation troops, say 6 figures for close and maybe 4 figures for loose, I must admit that not everybody likes the idea of multi-figure units (philistines!).
So it might be better to stick with single figure units, and have multi-figure as a 'deluxe add-on pack' for those that want them (i.e. ME! ).

As ozymandias has agreed with some of my points, I would like to take this opportunity to agree with him.

I would just like to emphasize the role of the 'defensive bombardment support troops' a little more.
Just about every army in history had troops of this sort.
In game terms, these have ZOC and the ability to hit the enemy as they advance to attack, hopefully causing a few casualties and disrupting their cohesion before the melee starts.
Think of it in modern terms: 'combined arms close mutual support'.

Some historical (eurocentric) examples from ozymandias' Civ type (5a) army:-

Ancient Skirmishers =
Archers & Bowmen (all eastern civs), Javelinmen (all Italians such as Romans/Etruscans/Samnites, as well as Germanic armies), Slingers (Carthage, Spain, Gaul, and Celtic Briton).

Medieval Armies =
Crossbowmen and Catapults/Trebuchets/Bombards.
(Longbows are an exception: they are close formation troops with defensive support bombardment)

Renaissance Armies =
'Forlorn-hope' skirmishing Musket armed troops, and Cannons.

18th & Early 19th Century Armies =
Light Infantry regiments & battalions, and Cannons.

World War One Armies =
Machine-Gunners and Artillery.

World War Two Armies =
Mortars, Heavy Machineguns, and Artillery.

All these troops can support others in their stack either because of their longer range (bows, slings, crossbows, longbows, machine-guns, mortars, etc), or because the skirmishers can increase their effective range by simply running up close to the enemy (javelinmen and musket armed troops).
So although Napoleonic Line & Light Infantry are both armed with the same muskets, the Light Infantry, not being in any kind of formation, can increase their range by moving rapidly forward (using their open formation and any cover to minimise their loses)....and back again to their supporting lines as the enemy advances.

 

[davbenbak]

Are you talking about making terrain types a requirement for making certain units just like resources or a system of bonuses for units fighting in certain kinds of favorable terrain.?

 

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by davbenbak
Are you talking about making terrain types a requirement for making certain units just like resources or a system of bonuses for units fighting in certain kinds of favorable terrain.?

Personally, I'm talking about arriving at a combination of --

1. Separate tech tree paths, dependent upon "Era=None" Civ type attributes

2. UUs

3. More units tied to geographically-limited strtegic resources, e.g., bamboo for Hwacha and Junks.

-Oz

 

[god_money]

I'm in the process of restructuring my mod, civ-by-civ, and am
finding this quite helpful, as I did Kryten's Greek unit tree - I've
made a similiar chart for each Civ as I've gotten to it.

Just posting to say thanks and keep going,... the more unique
each civ is, the better.

 

[Dom Pedro II]

Well, I've been working on my own tech trees to try to provide a social edge for each civilization for my Age of Man mod, and that seems to be going fairly well so far... this would be a nice addition to that.


The only problem I have foreseen with these tech trees (including my own) is that it greatly lessens the trading between Civs. In some cases, this is good, but in others, I think something is lost from this... *shrugs*

But I suppose also that the tech trees will stay the same in some instances but that who can build what from said techs will be different?

 

[god_money]

That's sort of what I did, Dom, without adding any techs...

For instance, I have religeous civs units upgrade with polytheism, monotheism, theology, etc.

 

[Dom Pedro II]

And you found it worked well?

 

[god_money]

Not really a question of working well or not,... it simply adds an
importance of researching different techs for different civs,... so
I'd say it works,... differently.

 

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by Dom Pedro II
We
The only problem I have foreseen with these tech trees (including my own) is that it greatly lessens the trading between Civs. In some cases, this is good, but in others, I think something is lost from this... *shrugs*

But I suppose also that the tech trees will stay the same in some instances but that who can build what from said techs will be different?

Personally, I'm not planning on the tech trees being that different -- overall, there'll be more techs; again, in the case I used above, 4 distinct types of armored forces adding three additional techs at each level of armor upgrade, and some of this can be ameliorated by UUs (BTW, sometime over the next few days I'll post a few "trial runs" of this approach, trying to use real world Civs matched to my Civ types etc.) So the only thing you wouldn't be able to trade would be, say a Merkava tank for a T-70 -- very different units again for very different purposes.

To further explain: I tend to block out many strictly military techs anyway -- in the "standard" mod I'm hoping to post here one of these decades, there are techs like "Aircraft Carriers" and "Strategic Bombing" which are strictly optional. So from my POV it's no big deal to have an optional ca. 1930s "Land Battleship" tech that the Japanese and the English could never research or trade for -- that IS the point of all this after all

Later,

Oz

 

[davbenbak]

"ameliorate" what an excellent word!!!! My only problem with optional techs is that my computer controled adversaries waste time researching them when they are part of a common tech tree.

 

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by davbenbak
My only problem with optional techs is that my computer controled adversaries waste time researching them when they are part of a common tech tree.

Indeed, that's part of the genesis of this project, at least from my POV, to have optional techs (else no era advance ...) which require Era=None techs such as "Civ Terrain Type 2" or "Maritime Option" --

As a "real world example", Civs like England and Japan and the US would start with the Era=None "Maritime" option; only they would be allowed to research and build Fleet Carriers as opposed to Light and/or Jump Ramp CVs. As I play 95% of my games on "real world" maps, I also ignore the intended use of the "Expansionist" Civ flag and use it for Maritime purposes, increasing the chance of Wonders like "Circumnavigation" being built by these Civs and starting Golden Ages, etc.

Note that one of the new Civ attributes coming out in Conquests is indeed "Maritime" or some such ... If I didn't think I/we could do as good or (likely) better a job of modding it now, I'd wait -- but I'm not!

Best,

Oz

 

[Xen]

Originally posted by Kryten



Late Romans = Mercenary (foederati) Germans (HI), Auxilia Palatina with javelins (MI), Auxiliary Archers (LI), Cataphractari (heavy Mt), Fire Catapults (SW).
(the Legions have been replaced by cheaper Germanic troops....the 'Decline & Fall')
(Auxilia Palatina were elite troops....+1 hit point)

It was the Legiones Palatina Seniores Equites Cataphractarii who were the elites of the army, the Auxilla were little more then well armed peasent levies permsationed in a territory