Had I been chosen for the Conquests beta team, I was going to suggest that the editor be upgraded so that techs could be flagged as either optional or "never reseach" for specific civ's. I have been second guessing some of my modding efforts waiting so see what the Conquest editor will be like.
An Extinct Civilization Manifesto
- Thread starter Ozymandias
- Start date
Ah! A Scholar!
- Which century/period are refering to? -- the Legiones Paltinae were of course the elite field army, but, e.g., ca. 5th century CE, I've (1) heard of the Cataphractarii being refered to as "Clibanarii" (which seems dubious, as AFAIK it refers to a Persian origin ...?) (2) even though the Scholae were reduced to a ceremonial role at this time, weren't the Emperor's personal guard the Candidat (senior to both Scholae and their effective replacements, the Excubitores?) senior to the Seniores Equites, or was one derived from the other or whatnot?
- & no, I'm not an expert in this era and will happily stand being enlightened!
Best,
Oz
Kryten
Smeee heeeeed
Incorrect I'm afraid Xen.
Legiones - Palatina - Seniores- Equites- Cataphractarii, loosely translated means:-
Heavy inf - elite - west empire - horsemen - armoured cavalry.
How can a unit be both heavy infantry and armoured cavalry at the same time?
No such unit appears in my copy of the "Notitia Dignitatum" (which is an authentic offical Roman list of just about EVERY unit existing in the 5th century field armies).
Ozymandias is right. Starting from the top down, we have:-
1) Candidatai = a personal bodyguard of 40 men chosen for their loyalty.
2) Domestici et Protectores = 1 Vexillatio of cavalry & 1 of Auxillaries in the west, and the same in the east.
3) Scholae Vexillationes = 5 guard cavalry units in the west, and 7 in the east (6 of these 12 were light cavalry).
4) the veteran Palatinae of the field army. Originaly 5 Vexillationes Palatinae, 5 Legiones Palatinae, and 10 Auxillia Palatinae, all formed after Constantine disbanded the Praetorians.
5) the Comitatenses or main field army, consisting of Vexillationes Comitatenses, Legions Comitatenses, and many more Auxillia Palatinae.
6) pseudocomitatenses....frontier troops temporarily promoted to the field army.
7) the border troops, called Limitani (or Ripenses if they guarded a riverline). These made up the bulk of the late Roman forces, and consisted of the old Legions and Auxillia.
It was THEY who were "little more than a well armed peasant levy permanently stationed on the frontier territories".
Oh, and the Romans had several mounted units of Equites Sagittarii, Equites Catapractarii, and Equites Clibanarii (copied from the Sassanid Persians).
The Sagittari were light horse archers who shot on the move in open formation.
The Cataphractari were very heavily armoured horsemen on fully armoured horses with lances but no shields.
And the Clibanari were close order troops with lances, shield and bows. Being in close order, they were stationary when shooting, which made them an easy target, so had armour on the front of their horses.
(Sorry for being off-topic, but I thought you might be interested.
)(Later Edit:
In fact, ALL the Cataphractari units on the 'Notitia Dignitatum' are Comitateni. There are NO Palatina Cataphracts mentioned....although there are two Vexillationes Palatinae Equites Clibanarii listed. )
Kryten! 
You the man!
-Yours Truly.
You the man!-Yours Truly.
"legiones" is NOT the name of eastern empire infantry- that is Scutotii (or variation of spelling), as they lacked the wests "legiones":, who were just abunch of smelly germans I think , from a site i visited, the name "legionary" came to be a name of all troops in greek area, similer to how "Cataphract" is greek for a heavilly armoured man, but became the name for a specific units- I also mention the the Notitia Dignitatum only has 1 unit of Cataphracts, ans 1 unit of Clibnarii in the ENTIRE western empire- making me belive that they were a prestigious unit, used as the elites of the west
, from a site i visited, the name "legionary" came to be a name of all troops in greek area, similer to how "Cataphract" is greek for a heavilly armoured man, but became the name for a specific units- I also mention the the Notitia Dignitatum only has 1 unit of Cataphracts, ans 1 unit of Clibnarii in the ENTIRE western empire- making me belive that they were a prestigious unit, used as the elites of the westI wanted to egg you all on - finding a lot of value and interest in the discussion - re: Civ3 - though also re: roma, etc.
This, particularly relevant and of interest to me in the slow construction of a design document for what I feel would be the civ beater. I'm particularly interested in the ideas around less generic civilisations, as I have been considering a more evolutionary model.
This, particularly relevant and of interest to me in the slow construction of a design document for what I feel would be the civ beater. I'm particularly interested in the ideas around less generic civilisations, as I have been considering a more evolutionary model.
Kryten
Smeee heeeeed
Well 10Seven, see if any of this gives you some ideas.
As this is a thread about "extending extinct civs into the modern times", I would just like to talk about stat gaps that could be used for their hypothetical units.
I have taken the liberty of composing a chart, which only covers the Ancient & Middle Ages units.
Names in italics are units that I hope to one day make or have already been made by other fans.
Slow Foot Units:-
-----------------
1-1-1 Warriors
2-1-1 Archers, Slingers, and Javelinmen.
3-1-1 Dark Ages Shortbowmen
4-1-1 Medieval Crossbowmen, and English Longbowmen.
5-1-1 Renaissance Arquebusier (i.e. a re-named Civ3 Musketman).
1-2-1 Spearmen.
2-2-1 Babylonian Bowmen.
3-2-1 Swordsmen, and Greek & Persian Mercenary Hoplites.
4-2-1 Persian Immortals, and Medieval Infantry (hmmm, would Dismounted Men-at-Arms be a better name?)
5-2-1
6-2-1 Viking Berserkers.
1-3-1 Greek Hoplites, and Medieval Pikemen.
2-3-1 Libyan Mercenary.
3-3-1 Roman Legionaries, and Macedonian/Greek Phalangites (wheeled, so cant enter mountains/forests/jungles).
4-3-1 Spanish Tercio.
5-3-1
6-3-1
1-4-1
2-4-1 Civ3 Musketmen.
3-4-1 Civ3 Musketeers.
4-4-1 Napoleonic Musketmen
5-4-1
6-4-1
1-5-1
2-5-1
3-5-1
4-5-1
5-5-1 British Fusiliers
6-5-1
Fast Moving Foot And Mounted Units:-
---------------------------------------
1-1-2 Chariots, and Aztec Jaguar Warriors.
2-1-2 Egyptian War Chariots, and Horsemen.
3-1-2 Iroquois Mounted warrior, and Macedonian/Greek Companions.
4-1-2 Persian Heavy Four Horsed Scythe Chariot (-1 HP).
5-1-2
6-1-2
1-2-2 Zulu Impi.
2-2-2 Macedonian/Greek Peltasts, and Imperial Roman Auxiliary Infantry.
3-2-2 Gallic Horsemen, Imperial Roman Horsemen, Germanic (Gothic) Horsemen, and Spanish Conquistadors.
4-2-2 Norman & Crusader Knights, Mongolian Keshiks, and Carthaginian Elephants.
5-2-2
6-2-2
1-3-2
2-3-2 American Minutemen (cheap to build, no resources required, all terrain costs 1 move point).
3-3-2 Seleucid/Parthian/Sassanid/Byzantine Cataphracts.
4-3-2 Knights and Indian Elephants.
5-3-2 Renaissance Caracole (i.e. pistol armed heavy cavalry).
6-3-2
7-3-2 Napoleonic Cuirassiers
1-4-2
2-4-2
3-4-2
4-4-2 Japanese Samurai.
5-4-2
6-4-2
Very Fast Mounted Units:-
------------------------
1-1-3
2-1-3 Persian Mounted Javelinmen (with defensive bombardment of 2).
3-1-3
1-2-3
2-2-3
3-2-3 Eastern Horse Archers (with defensive bombardment of 3).
4-2-3 Arab Ansar Warriors.
4-3-3 Chinese Riders.
5-3-3
6-3-3 Cavalry.
7-3-3
8-3-3 Ottoman Sipahi.
6-4-3 Russian Cossacks.
7-4-3 Mounted Infantry (i.e. ACW, Boer War, and WWI mounted troops)
As you can see, there are a lot of empty places still available.
Now, if it was up to me, I would alter some of the existing unit stats....
* Keshiks and Mounted Warriors should have a move of 3 (and defensive bombardment), as they were light bow armed horsemen.
* I would make Immortals 2-2-1 +1 HP, with a defensive bombardment of 2 (the Scythe Chariot has an attack of 4).
* Add defensive bombardment to Javelinmen, Slingers, Archers, Bowmen, Shortbows, Crossbows, and Longbows.
* Make Gallic Swordsmen 3-2-1 costing only 20 (a unique abiliity of being cheap), while the Gallic Horseman has stats of 3-2-2 costing 50.
(the notion that they should strategically move & cost twice a Roman Legionary is laughable!)
* And I would scrap the totally artificial concept of defensive infantry by making Spearmen, Pikemen, 18th/19th century Musket Infantry, Riflemen, WW1 & 2 Infantry, and Mech Infantry both offensive AND defensive with an attack equal to their defence.
A bit more about getting rid of defensive infantry.
What would be the effect of making foot units have the same attack & defence strength?
Well, using CivLackys excellent Combat Calculator, we get the following results of one foot unit attacking a FORTIFIED enemy foot unit, assuming that both have 4 hit points each:-
Attack of 4 versus a fortified defence of 4 = 34% chance of success, 66% chance of failure.
Attack of 6 versus a fortified defence of 6 = 34% chance of success, 66% chance of failure.
Attack of 10 versus a fortified defence of 10 = 34% chance of success, 66% chance of failure.
And this is in the open....WITHOUT extra defence from city size, city walls, terrain, rivers, and defensive bombardment!
I think that American Civil War, WW1, or WW2 infantry only having 1 chance in 3 of defeating their fortified opponents without offensive artillery support sounds about right.
And if they are NOT fortified (i.e. they are caught in the open on the march), then the odds are equal.
(After all, they didnt walk about with trenches in their knapsacks, or have mobile trenches that they could jump into EVERY SINGLE TIME THEY ARE ATTACKED!
So if you want to entrench your troops, then FORTIFY THEM....instead of having trenches automatically-built-into-the-defensive-unit. )
As this is a thread about "extending extinct civs into the modern times", I would just like to talk about stat gaps that could be used for their hypothetical units.
I have taken the liberty of composing a chart, which only covers the Ancient & Middle Ages units.
Names in italics are units that I hope to one day make or have already been made by other fans.
Slow Foot Units:-
-----------------
1-1-1 Warriors
2-1-1 Archers, Slingers, and Javelinmen.
3-1-1 Dark Ages Shortbowmen
4-1-1 Medieval Crossbowmen, and English Longbowmen.
5-1-1 Renaissance Arquebusier (i.e. a re-named Civ3 Musketman).
1-2-1 Spearmen.
2-2-1 Babylonian Bowmen.
3-2-1 Swordsmen, and Greek & Persian Mercenary Hoplites.
4-2-1 Persian Immortals, and Medieval Infantry (hmmm, would Dismounted Men-at-Arms be a better name?)
5-2-1
6-2-1 Viking Berserkers.
1-3-1 Greek Hoplites, and Medieval Pikemen.
2-3-1 Libyan Mercenary.
3-3-1 Roman Legionaries, and Macedonian/Greek Phalangites (wheeled, so cant enter mountains/forests/jungles).
4-3-1 Spanish Tercio.
5-3-1
6-3-1
1-4-1
2-4-1 Civ3 Musketmen.
3-4-1 Civ3 Musketeers.
4-4-1 Napoleonic Musketmen
5-4-1
6-4-1
1-5-1
2-5-1
3-5-1
4-5-1
5-5-1 British Fusiliers
6-5-1
Fast Moving Foot And Mounted Units:-
---------------------------------------
1-1-2 Chariots, and Aztec Jaguar Warriors.
2-1-2 Egyptian War Chariots, and Horsemen.
3-1-2 Iroquois Mounted warrior, and Macedonian/Greek Companions.
4-1-2 Persian Heavy Four Horsed Scythe Chariot (-1 HP).
5-1-2
6-1-2
1-2-2 Zulu Impi.
2-2-2 Macedonian/Greek Peltasts, and Imperial Roman Auxiliary Infantry.
3-2-2 Gallic Horsemen, Imperial Roman Horsemen, Germanic (Gothic) Horsemen, and Spanish Conquistadors.
4-2-2 Norman & Crusader Knights, Mongolian Keshiks, and Carthaginian Elephants.
5-2-2
6-2-2
1-3-2
2-3-2 American Minutemen (cheap to build, no resources required, all terrain costs 1 move point).
3-3-2 Seleucid/Parthian/Sassanid/Byzantine Cataphracts.
4-3-2 Knights and Indian Elephants.
5-3-2 Renaissance Caracole (i.e. pistol armed heavy cavalry).
6-3-2
7-3-2 Napoleonic Cuirassiers
1-4-2
2-4-2
3-4-2
4-4-2 Japanese Samurai.
5-4-2
6-4-2
Very Fast Mounted Units:-
------------------------
1-1-3
2-1-3 Persian Mounted Javelinmen (with defensive bombardment of 2).
3-1-3
1-2-3
2-2-3
3-2-3 Eastern Horse Archers (with defensive bombardment of 3).
4-2-3 Arab Ansar Warriors.
4-3-3 Chinese Riders.
5-3-3
6-3-3 Cavalry.
7-3-3
8-3-3 Ottoman Sipahi.
6-4-3 Russian Cossacks.
7-4-3 Mounted Infantry (i.e. ACW, Boer War, and WWI mounted troops)
As you can see, there are a lot of empty places still available.
Now, if it was up to me, I would alter some of the existing unit stats....
* Keshiks and Mounted Warriors should have a move of 3 (and defensive bombardment), as they were light bow armed horsemen.
* I would make Immortals 2-2-1 +1 HP, with a defensive bombardment of 2 (the Scythe Chariot has an attack of 4).
* Add defensive bombardment to Javelinmen, Slingers, Archers, Bowmen, Shortbows, Crossbows, and Longbows.
* Make Gallic Swordsmen 3-2-1 costing only 20 (a unique abiliity of being cheap), while the Gallic Horseman has stats of 3-2-2 costing 50.
(the notion that they should strategically move & cost twice a Roman Legionary is laughable!)
* And I would scrap the totally artificial concept of defensive infantry by making Spearmen, Pikemen, 18th/19th century Musket Infantry, Riflemen, WW1 & 2 Infantry, and Mech Infantry both offensive AND defensive with an attack equal to their defence.
A bit more about getting rid of defensive infantry.
What would be the effect of making foot units have the same attack & defence strength?
Well, using CivLackys excellent Combat Calculator, we get the following results of one foot unit attacking a FORTIFIED enemy foot unit, assuming that both have 4 hit points each:-
Attack of 4 versus a fortified defence of 4 = 34% chance of success, 66% chance of failure.
Attack of 6 versus a fortified defence of 6 = 34% chance of success, 66% chance of failure.
Attack of 10 versus a fortified defence of 10 = 34% chance of success, 66% chance of failure.
And this is in the open....WITHOUT extra defence from city size, city walls, terrain, rivers, and defensive bombardment!
I think that American Civil War, WW1, or WW2 infantry only having 1 chance in 3 of defeating their fortified opponents without offensive artillery support sounds about right.
And if they are NOT fortified (i.e. they are caught in the open on the march), then the odds are equal.
(After all, they didnt walk about with trenches in their knapsacks, or have mobile trenches that they could jump into EVERY SINGLE TIME THEY ARE ATTACKED!
So if you want to entrench your troops, then FORTIFY THEM....instead of having trenches automatically-built-into-the-defensive-unit.
)
@ Kryten -- I like your "stat gaps" approach alot.
Question: given that you reach a movement of "3" with horses, what do you figure with internal combustion engines etc.?
-- I ask this knowing / granting such as (1) a horse is much faster /reliable than a WW1 tank (2) "wheeled" and "ignored terrain penalty" flags can be used as required (3) I've forgotten how many TENS of thousands of horses accompanied the Wehrmacht into the USSR (4) etc. ...
Abraxas,
Oz
Question: given that you reach a movement of "3" with horses, what do you figure with internal combustion engines etc.?
-- I ask this knowing / granting such as (1) a horse is much faster /reliable than a WW1 tank (2) "wheeled" and "ignored terrain penalty" flags can be used as required (3) I've forgotten how many TENS of thousands of horses accompanied the Wehrmacht into the USSR (4) etc. ...
Abraxas,
Oz
Kryten
Smeee heeeeed
Oooo .this is a tricky question.
First, I think we can ignore the Wehrmacht horses. They were all used for towing supplies & artillery. So the Germans had three choices: use vehicles for towing (a move of 2), use horses for towing (a move of 1), or have no towing ability (a move of zero!).
As for the speed of horses verses vehicles ..hmmmm.
Well, it all depends upon what a move actually represents.
Is it just the speed they can dash about on the battlefield (i.e. just within a single tile), or does it represent their STRATEGICAL speed, dashing about the map?
Personally, I think how fast they can move strategically is the more important.
Now a vehicle can obviously travel much faster than a horse .in a straight line, with a road available, ignoring such things like refuelling/feeding/maintenance/grooming/sleeping/etc.
But giving vehicles a speed of 4 may overbalance the game.
So I was thinking along the following lines:-
* Speed 1 = most foot troops and horse-drawn heavy units such as artillery.
* Speed 2 = special fast foot, heavy horses & all chariots, and fast Napoleonic horse artillery.
* Speed 3 = light cavalry and most modern vehicles.
You see, we have to remember what the commanders in the past would have done if they wanted to rush troops from one part of their empire to another in order to contain a threat. Send the cavalry & chariots was their usual response.
But I can assure you that NO commander in history said send the elephants!
Technically, from a strategic point of view, elephants move no faster than infantry. The same goes for heavy Persian Scythe Chariots .yes, these and elephants were faster than foot on a battlefield, but they were NEVER used to rush about strategically.
But no-one is going to like the idea of elephants & heavy scythe chariots only having a move of 1 .even if they did in reality.
So I think that they very very fastest horses, and the common modern vehicles, both having a speed of 3 is about right, once you take into consideration all the time wasted waiting for orders, forming up the column, loading & unloading, mounting & dismounting, sleeping and eating, and so on.
This still leaves open the possiblity of some very fast 'special' modern vechicles, such as jeeps and recon units, haveing a speed of 4.
I'm inclined to agree (1) that MF should represent strategic movement ability and (2) that raising MF above 3 -- for land units, on any significant scale -- would almost certainly work to the AI's disadvantage.
Also, some historical perspective -- IIRC, pre-Desert Storm, the fastest sustained military advance was 60 miles / 100 km per day, by the Soviets, against negligible resistance, in Manchuria in 1945. Given that marching 20 miles / day is about as much as good infantry can sustain, unopposed, and (factoring in logistics, keeping flanks aligned, even light opposition, etc.) and the 1-3 MF sounds about right across the board -- until the RW equivalent of 1990 or so.
Apropos of Kryten's suggestion:
"* Speed 1 = most foot troops and horse-drawn heavy units such as artillery.
* Speed 2 = special fast foot, heavy horses & all chariots, and fast Napoleonic horse artillery.
* Speed 3 = light cavalry and most modern vehicles."
I'm generally inclined to agree ... with some questions / caveats:
1. We all think of chariots zipping along (mostly around the IIRC Hippodrome in "Ben Hur") -- but is this realistic?? Recall that these were largely flimsy and/or unwieldy contraptions which (i)weren't used en masse for reconnaissance and (ii) whose speed and maneuverability showed on the battlefield -- but probably not to and from the battlefield? -- and (iii) probably provided quite a jarring, unsprung and unseated ride ... All of which makes me wonder if MF=1 and higher AF might actually be more realistic; ditto knights, who would have been tied to extremely cumbersome logistics ... I know it "feels" unrealistic but probably isn't. Another approach might be to give these units MF="2" AND blitz BUT increase the basic terrain movement cost (plains, etc.) = "2". Recall that this movement cost can be redressed by having other / later units utilize the "ignore terrain cost" flag.
2. I would also add the WW1 tanks etc. should be straightforward movement "1".
3. "Light cavalry" = "unarmored cavalry"? So Cossacks and modern wheeled AFVs would have the same movement? -- Methinks I can be convinced, although I'd probably play around as in (1) above so that they would each be able to cover the same ground / move at the same speed -- or perhaps even give certain light horse MF=2 AND "all terrain as roads" -- or equal MF but fast AFVs would wind up with the Blitz advantage ...
Irrespective, I think it important to recall that -- for almost every Civ game / scenario / mod -- each "unit" is going to represent more than, e.g., just knights, and that factoring in their logistical "tail", however it's done, is most definitely for the best.
4. I'm playing around with the Mongols in my attempt to most closely replicate something approximating history and (on a 256 x 256 map); giving them only Kheshiks (flagged A/D/E) with MF=2, blitz, and "all terrain as roads" ... They had literally no logistical tails to worry about; their advances are legendary; and their ability to coordinate strategic maneuver across vast distances was unequalled until the invention of the radio.
-Oz
Also, some historical perspective -- IIRC, pre-Desert Storm, the fastest sustained military advance was 60 miles / 100 km per day, by the Soviets, against negligible resistance, in Manchuria in 1945. Given that marching 20 miles / day is about as much as good infantry can sustain, unopposed, and (factoring in logistics, keeping flanks aligned, even light opposition, etc.) and the 1-3 MF sounds about right across the board -- until the RW equivalent of 1990 or so.
Apropos of Kryten's suggestion:
"* Speed 1 = most foot troops and horse-drawn heavy units such as artillery.
* Speed 2 = special fast foot, heavy horses & all chariots, and fast Napoleonic horse artillery.
* Speed 3 = light cavalry and most modern vehicles."
I'm generally inclined to agree ... with some questions / caveats:
1. We all think of chariots zipping along (mostly around the IIRC Hippodrome in "Ben Hur") -- but is this realistic?? Recall that these were largely flimsy and/or unwieldy contraptions which (i)weren't used en masse for reconnaissance and (ii) whose speed and maneuverability showed on the battlefield -- but probably not to and from the battlefield? -- and (iii) probably provided quite a jarring, unsprung and unseated ride ... All of which makes me wonder if MF=1 and higher AF might actually be more realistic; ditto knights, who would have been tied to extremely cumbersome logistics ... I know it "feels" unrealistic but probably isn't. Another approach might be to give these units MF="2" AND blitz BUT increase the basic terrain movement cost (plains, etc.) = "2". Recall that this movement cost can be redressed by having other / later units utilize the "ignore terrain cost" flag.
2. I would also add the WW1 tanks etc. should be straightforward movement "1".
3. "Light cavalry" = "unarmored cavalry"? So Cossacks and modern wheeled AFVs would have the same movement? -- Methinks I can be convinced, although I'd probably play around as in (1) above so that they would each be able to cover the same ground / move at the same speed -- or perhaps even give certain light horse MF=2 AND "all terrain as roads" -- or equal MF but fast AFVs would wind up with the Blitz advantage ...
Irrespective, I think it important to recall that -- for almost every Civ game / scenario / mod -- each "unit" is going to represent more than, e.g., just knights, and that factoring in their logistical "tail", however it's done, is most definitely for the best.
4. I'm playing around with the Mongols in my attempt to most closely replicate something approximating history and (on a 256 x 256 map); giving them only Kheshiks (flagged A/D/E) with MF=2, blitz, and "all terrain as roads" ... They had literally no logistical tails to worry about; their advances are legendary; and their ability to coordinate strategic maneuver across vast distances was unequalled until the invention of the radio.
-Oz
Kryten
Smeee heeeeed
A few further thoughts.
Chariots
---------
It is universally accepted amongst the table-top wargame community that that chariots should move about the same as heavy cavalry, but never as fast as light cavalry. This reflects the fact that the early horses were not quite large enough to carry a man, and because chariots were more cumbersome.
Should they (and Knights) move strategically faster than foot troops?
I think they should.
Details from the old Chariot Era Warfare period are hard to come by, but they do seem have been used just like later ridden horses....rapid long distance movement and raiding, as well as dominating the battlefield with their speed.
It could be argued that young Ramses II dashed ahead of his slower foot troops in 1294BC at the battle of Kadesh for example.
(Persian Heavy Scythe Chariots are an exception; they were one-shot-weapons, like Cruise Missiles, and were not used for raiding or rapid movement, but to smash into enemy infantry .which, if successful, usually resulted in the destruction of both the chariot and their target.)
In reality, horses effectively have two speeds: usually they walk along with the rest of the army (not galloping all over the place all the time like in Hollywood movies!), but they were also the unit of choice if rapid strategic movement was required.
All-in-all, Id say leave heavy horse units such as Knights/Cataphracts/Chariots/Napoleonic Cuirassiers/etc with a move of 2.
(Anyway, if we took into consideration logistics & supplies, then ALL the units would have a move of 1 until WW2!
)
WW1 Tanks
------------
Good point! Yes, these should have a speed of 1.
It could even be argued that certain WW2 tanks such as the British Matilda & French Char B should also have a speed of 1.
Certainly the very heavy German tanks like the Tiger Is & IIs should be limited to a speed of 2.
And although technically the Russian T34 was a fast tank, when you consider the slow ponderous tactics of the Soviet forces (half the tanks didnt even have radios!), then giving these a move of 2 also seems about right.
In fact, Id say that apart from general Patton, who understood what Blitzkrieg was all about, none of the allies in WW2 should move of 3, while the Germans in 1939-1942 (with Pz IIs, IIIs & IVs) certainly should.
Now for a bit of a Kryten rant Im afraid......
Why I HATE The all terrain as roads Ability
----------------------------------------------
This is an old leftover from the early civ versions, and (fortunately) is no longer necessary since PTW.
Think of the distortions this creates:-
* A move of 1 with all terrain = a unit can travel 3 tiles a turn (as fast as light cavalry across country), in any terrain, but cannot retreat from combat, nor move any faster along a road.
Useful for scouts & explorers....but thats about all.
* A move of 2 with all terrain = it now moves SIX tiles a turn (twice as fast as light cavalry or modern vehicles), over mountains, through forests & jungles, anywhere it likes.
The only thing in the whole of history I can think of being able to do this is FLYING UNITS, such as helicopters.
Sooo....you could, if you really, really wanted to, have Guerrillas with a move 1 and all terrain as roads....but they can never retreat, and why are these men running on foot as fast as light cavalry?.
And if you give it to light cavalry.... they also couldnt retreat from infantry, and they will ALWAYS move 3, even though heavy cavalry can move 6 on a road.
As for a move of 2 and all terrain as roads....well, the idea of light cavalry moving twice as fast as modern vehicles across country, and through forests, and through jungles, and up mountains.....
(You know my views about ANY units being able to enter mountains, let alone mounted units!
Good grief, Edmund Hillary should have taken Mongol ponies with him when he conquered Everest instead of Sherpa Tenzing....he could have ridden to the top! )
Personally, I think that a better way of representing Mongol Keshik Horsemen would be to give them a speed of 3, allow them to cross hills at a speed of 1, and give them the blitz ability, as well as defensive bombardment and ZOC.
This might explain why the Mongols didnt invade India from the jungles of Malaysia in the east or the mountainous plateau of Tibet in the north, but had to go around these difficult terrains to invade India from the west.
Just a thought.
Chariots
---------
It is universally accepted amongst the table-top wargame community that that chariots should move about the same as heavy cavalry, but never as fast as light cavalry. This reflects the fact that the early horses were not quite large enough to carry a man, and because chariots were more cumbersome.
Should they (and Knights) move strategically faster than foot troops?
I think they should.
Details from the old Chariot Era Warfare period are hard to come by, but they do seem have been used just like later ridden horses....rapid long distance movement and raiding, as well as dominating the battlefield with their speed.
It could be argued that young Ramses II dashed ahead of his slower foot troops in 1294BC at the battle of Kadesh for example.
(Persian Heavy Scythe Chariots are an exception; they were one-shot-weapons, like Cruise Missiles, and were not used for raiding or rapid movement, but to smash into enemy infantry .which, if successful, usually resulted in the destruction of both the chariot and their target.)
In reality, horses effectively have two speeds: usually they walk along with the rest of the army (not galloping all over the place all the time like in Hollywood movies!), but they were also the unit of choice if rapid strategic movement was required.
All-in-all, Id say leave heavy horse units such as Knights/Cataphracts/Chariots/Napoleonic Cuirassiers/etc with a move of 2.
(Anyway, if we took into consideration logistics & supplies, then ALL the units would have a move of 1 until WW2!
)WW1 Tanks
------------
Good point! Yes, these should have a speed of 1.
It could even be argued that certain WW2 tanks such as the British Matilda & French Char B should also have a speed of 1.
Certainly the very heavy German tanks like the Tiger Is & IIs should be limited to a speed of 2.
And although technically the Russian T34 was a fast tank, when you consider the slow ponderous tactics of the Soviet forces (half the tanks didnt even have radios!), then giving these a move of 2 also seems about right.
In fact, Id say that apart from general Patton, who understood what Blitzkrieg was all about, none of the allies in WW2 should move of 3, while the Germans in 1939-1942 (with Pz IIs, IIIs & IVs) certainly should.
Now for a bit of a Kryten rant Im afraid......
Why I HATE The all terrain as roads Ability
----------------------------------------------
This is an old leftover from the early civ versions, and (fortunately) is no longer necessary since PTW.
Think of the distortions this creates:-
* A move of 1 with all terrain = a unit can travel 3 tiles a turn (as fast as light cavalry across country), in any terrain, but cannot retreat from combat, nor move any faster along a road.
Useful for scouts & explorers....but thats about all.
* A move of 2 with all terrain = it now moves SIX tiles a turn (twice as fast as light cavalry or modern vehicles), over mountains, through forests & jungles, anywhere it likes.
The only thing in the whole of history I can think of being able to do this is FLYING UNITS, such as helicopters.
Sooo....you could, if you really, really wanted to, have Guerrillas with a move 1 and all terrain as roads....but they can never retreat, and why are these men running on foot as fast as light cavalry?.
And if you give it to light cavalry.... they also couldnt retreat from infantry, and they will ALWAYS move 3, even though heavy cavalry can move 6 on a road.
As for a move of 2 and all terrain as roads....well, the idea of light cavalry moving twice as fast as modern vehicles across country, and through forests, and through jungles, and up mountains.....
(You know my views about ANY units being able to enter mountains, let alone mounted units!
Good grief, Edmund Hillary should have taken Mongol ponies with him when he conquered Everest instead of Sherpa Tenzing....he could have ridden to the top!
)Personally, I think that a better way of representing Mongol Keshik Horsemen would be to give them a speed of 3, allow them to cross hills at a speed of 1, and give them the blitz ability, as well as defensive bombardment and ZOC.
This might explain why the Mongols didnt invade India from the jungles of Malaysia in the east or the mountainous plateau of Tibet in the north, but had to go around these difficult terrains to invade India from the west.
Just a thought.
Originally posted by Kryten
Now for a bit of a Kryten rant Im afraid......
Why I HATE The all terrain as roads Ability
----------------------------------------------
This is an old leftover from the early civ versions, and (fortunately) is no longer necessary since PTW.
Think of the distortions this creates:-
* A move of 1 with all terrain = a unit can travel 3 tiles a turn (as fast as light cavalry across country), in any terrain, but cannot retreat from combat, nor move any faster along a road.
Useful for scouts & explorers....but thats about all.
* A move of 2 with all terrain = it now moves SIX tiles a turn (twice as fast as light cavalry or modern vehicles), over mountains, through forests & jungles, anywhere it likes.
The only thing in the whole of history I can think of being able to do this is FLYING UNITS, such as helicopters.
Sooo....you could, if you really, really wanted to, have Guerrillas with a move 1 and all terrain as roads....but they can never retreat, and why are these men running on foot as fast as light cavalry?.
And if you give it to light cavalry.... they also couldnt retreat from infantry, and they will ALWAYS move 3, even though heavy cavalry can move 6 on a road.
As for a move of 2 and all terrain as roads....well, the idea of light cavalry moving twice as fast as modern vehicles across country, and through forests, and through jungles, and up mountains.....
(You know my views about ANY units being able to enter mountains, let alone mounted units!
Good grief, Edmund Hillary should have taken Mongol ponies with him when he conquered Everest instead of Sherpa Tenzing....he could have ridden to the top!
Personally, I think that a better way of representing Mongol Keshik Horsemen would be to give them a speed of 3, allow them to cross hills at a speed of 1, and give them the blitz ability, as well as defensive bombardment and ZOC.
This might explain why the Mongols didnt invade India from the jungles of Malaysia in the east or the mountainous plateau of Tibet in the north, but had to go around these difficult terrains to invade India from the west.
Just a thought.
OK, I'm convinced -- For the record, I agree with you entirely up to the Mongols
Re: the Mongols --
(1) I agree with you re: Mountains -- I play with them as impassable.
(2) I'm trying to model the Mongols as a "Barbarian Civ" -- (i) for the first era or two (literally!) they are not allowed to build ANYTHING besides Kheshiks, which are flagged O/D/E. Obviously, until a city or more is conquered, this limits them to one unit per turn production. (ii) They are not meant to be played by a human, only the AI; on a 256 x 256 Earth map, giving them MF="2" w/ATAR means that they can find other Civs to pillage faster, and the MF of "2" with the Blitz ability means they can both pull off some fancy footwork (hoofwork?) in the course of a turn and manage an attack. I'm trying to see if even approximating their ruinous attacks in approximately the same "historical" timeframes is possible.
(3) Veering even further into the depths of "Modding Theory", it strikes me that yet another of the Great Unspoken Challenges of modding Civ is that we are trying -- if we're doing the 6,000 year bit -- to model AT LEAST three different military systems (pre-gunpowder, gunpowder, internal combustion engine) in the course of one game; of course we're all familiar with the occasional vexing stand at Thermopylae where the Greeks have Pikemen and the Persians have Panthers ... That having been said, I'm curious to see if -- using the tech tree and the eras -- these might truly be teased apart, so the Kheshiks wouldn't be having their abilities compared to panzers -- they'd be compared to knights et. al., bearing in mind that the Mongols were able to orchestrate, e.g., simultaneous crossings of the Urals at three widely separated points to descend upon Europe, wreak havoc; etc.
-- So, re: the Mongols, in theory I agree with you -- but to borrow yet another ancient engineering maxim, "In theory there is no difference between theory and practice; in practice, there is."
-- Yeesh, I just realized my point (3) might not be quite as articulate as I'd ideally like -- I'm writing this after the post on Tests 2-4 in the "AI Build" thread and it's rather late ...
Anyway, it's a point I'll be elaborating on whenever I get around to finishing / posting my "1071 - 2050 CE" Mod ... Stay tuned ...
Abraxas,
Oz
Blue Monkey
Archon Without Portfolio
This thread deserves a bump. Designing interesting & playable unit lines & UUs that "never were" takes a lot of brain power. There are so many of us working on alternate history / "what if" type mods that this useful discourse shouldn't be buried.
Maybe there should be a stickied thread that has links to the "conceptual" work of people like Oz. I would never have come across it if i was digging around, trying to find =>
Anyway, it's a point I'll be elaborating on whenever I get around to finishing / posting my "1071 - 2050 CE" Mod ... Stay tuned ...
A thread with Dom Pedro II and Kryten, who got me started on the munit version of SBB, and then it leads to tools for civIII, my game, and now the new editor... That was the nostalgy minute with credits to Kryten. He probably doesn't know it, but the civ community owns him a lot
Anyway, that is thread-necromancy!
However, when my editor is done, I may start a new thread to discuss some concepts I want to put in my mod...
Anyway, that is thread-necromancy!
However, when my editor is done, I may start a new thread to discuss some concepts I want to put in my mod...
I actually dont remember reading this thread, I was enjoying reading the first post, then I saw the first replies, whoa, these guys are back! Then I saw the date, lol!
Must read the rest when I have some more time tomorrow, excelent bump!
Must read the rest when I have some more time tomorrow, excelent bump!
I'm delighted to see this thread revived, as I believe it does offer a rational basis for devising UUs and unit lines.
I would offer the examples of Japan and Great Britain in WW2. Both had and continued to develop sizeable navies (whereas, say, Russia did not); both put an otherwise unusual emphasis on the development of light AFVs (quickly unfashionable elsewhere, whereas the Kha-go and Bren Carriers were present at war's end); both quickly embraced carrier-based aviation.
Note also that (the Tortoise excepted) only land powers with adjacent or nearby enemies developed super-heavy tanks.
Extrapolating, I would suggest that the Incas would probably have developed the phalanx (and for similar reasons to the Greeks). Had the Maya survived their Late Classical period into the 20th century, it's not a stretch to see them building a "Maginot Line" against the Aztecs, and for the same reasons (manpower discrepancy; not understanding the power of AFVs).
I could, and perhaps shall, go on - breaking Civs into the types I've identified here, and proposing unit lines accordingly - & of course invite anyone else to do so too.
With Thanks To Blue Monkey For The Bump,
Oz
I would offer the examples of Japan and Great Britain in WW2. Both had and continued to develop sizeable navies (whereas, say, Russia did not); both put an otherwise unusual emphasis on the development of light AFVs (quickly unfashionable elsewhere, whereas the Kha-go and Bren Carriers were present at war's end); both quickly embraced carrier-based aviation.
Note also that (the Tortoise excepted) only land powers with adjacent or nearby enemies developed super-heavy tanks.
Extrapolating, I would suggest that the Incas would probably have developed the phalanx (and for similar reasons to the Greeks). Had the Maya survived their Late Classical period into the 20th century, it's not a stretch to see them building a "Maginot Line" against the Aztecs, and for the same reasons (manpower discrepancy; not understanding the power of AFVs).
I could, and perhaps shall, go on - breaking Civs into the types I've identified here, and proposing unit lines accordingly - & of course invite anyone else to do so too.
With Thanks To Blue Monkey For The Bump,
Oz
Similar threads
