Are Immortals/Legion Stats Valid?

[Blasphemous]

Okie dokie, here's the initial version of this little mod... It's yet untested, so you use at your own risk, but I doubt there should be any problem, as all I have changed is some costs and stats.
I had to mess around with the stats and prices for Pikes, Muskets, and related UUs. Eventually I will probably mess around with them and with later units along the line a bit further, but right now the mod is mainly meant to improve ancient warfare.
Also note that increased pricing for Spearmen extends the age of Warriors. I will have to see how this pans out, if it's no good I'll add an intermediary (2.1.1@20) between Warrior and Spearman/Swordsman.

Well, enough talking, here it is:

 

[King Alexander]

Hmm, this is certainly going to be an interesting mod. I guess is impossible to make a mod that "reflects" exactly units stats from different eras as well as their moral when their kingdoms were at the peak/downside(that would affect their stats). But, I think, your mod is closer to the reality. Maybe you've said it already but I didn't see it anywhere: For what Civ3 version/pack is this mod for?

 

[Blasphemous]

Originally posted by King Alexander
Hmm, this is certainly going to be an interesting mod. I guess is impossible to make a mod that "reflects" exactly units stats from different eras as well as their moral when their kingdoms were at the peak/downside(that would affect their stats). But, I think, your mod is closer to the reality. Maybe you've said it already but I didn't see it anywhere: For what Civ3 version/pack is this mod for?

The mod's currently only for C3C 1.15b... If anyone wants, I can and will make versions for VC31.29 and/or PTW1.27... But as nobody has even downloaded this version yet, I guess there is no such demand at the moment.
I will continue work on the mod later today. I intend to make the Archer line merge into the Spear line at the Musket stage, because unlike Spears, Muskets were used defensively rather than offensively (I think). My real problem is the Pikes and Longbows... Longbows were mostly used as light artillery, along with their defensive role, but they were always helped by Pikes because a Longbow could not withstand a cavalry charge once it got in melee range... What I may do is make Longbows 1.3.1 (4.1.1) and pikes 1.4.1, so knights have a chance attacking Longbows (which in this case represent Longbows defended by some Pikes), but not so much of a chance against plain Pikes.
This is all rather confusing really. And this is before I even make Longbows the English UU and replace the common unit with Crossbow... =\
Anyway, it looks like I'm threadjacking... I'll open a new thread in C&C to continue this discussion soon.

 

[King Alexander]

Here is what IMHO the longbow was used for: like you said, they were never used for melee combat, right? They were firing their arrows from a safe distance: for me this can be used both for defensive/offensive tactics(maybe a little more for offensive tactis, as from ancient times, they were the first who attacked the enemy from a safe distance). That means, 4.4.1., but it can be done only when longbows are away from the enemy. If the enemy would be in melee distance, then 4.1.1, as it is. As I've said in my previous post, it's impossible to reflect the reality exactly as it was/is. I don't know how that can be done, I'm also a bit confused.

 

[Blasphemous]

It can't be done with the current editor, period. Closest thing is bombard, which is basically an indirect attack...

 

[the mormegil]

I'm thinking about giving longbows either 3.1.1 or 3.2.1 and the a very good defensive bombardment like 3.0.3 or something and Lethal Land Bombardment.

I think this reflects that they were used offensively to pepper the enemy but if directly attacked in hand to hand combat they were very weak. The bombardment I think shows their lethality when being attacked, but before the enemy reaches them in combat. There is a good chance of the enemy being seriously wounded before the combat actually starts (realistic IMO) and a very small chance of even killing a regular unit.

 

[Blasphemous]

mormegil, the whole problem is that Longbows, Crossbows, and Bows were never, ever, used as plain offensive units (such as Swords and Knights that simply march forwards and annihilate) but rather as either defenders who break enemy ranks before the enemy even gets close, or as light artillery support, peppering enemies before attack. Never as the bulk of an offensive.

 

[the mormegil]

I know, but you have to try to work round the game. And since you can only have one unit attacking at once...

But then your idea of 1.3.1 (4.1.1) is unrealistic. When longbows were attcked in melee they were slaughtered. Effectively they were an artillery unit. So on that basis you'd have to give them 1.1.1 and then a decent bombard, but then I don't really like the sound of that personally.

 

[Blasphemous]

Originally posted by the mormegil
I know, but you have to try to work round the game. And since you can only have one unit attacking at once...

But then your idea of 1.3.1 (4.1.1) is unrealistic. When longbows were attcked in melee they were slaughtered. Effectively they were an artillery unit. So on that basis you'd have to give them 1.1.1 and then a decent bombard, but then I don't really like the sound of that personally.

I've thought of the 1.1.1 idea, but I came to the conclusion it makes most sense to just assume Longbows represent a large group of Longbows surrounded by a defesive perimiter of Pikes. I mean, no general was ever daft enough to send out Longbows unprotected.

 

[Xen]

Originally posted by Longasc
Companion Infantry and Cavalry were alo known (the Greek ones) to fight in pairs of two, companions, hence the name.

They were also said to have been lovers, too. So they did not only cover each other in battle, but their tender parts probably, too, in their spare time.

There were also historians that claimed that the asses of a Spartan army were as wide as open barns.

This could be an example for modern armies, if it would have caused less raping and cruelties, but... ugh, getting way off-topic.

your confusing the theban sacred band, which was made up of either 300 couples, or 300 indviduals (probabley th elatter) of homosexual men, with the macedonian companion corps of the armies, who were not the companios of eachother, but companions of the king.

 

[Kiech]

Hmm, with archers being 2(2).1.1 now with C3C, doesn't that make up for the defencive side they lacked before? Archers aren't really all that great unless someone else is backing them up(unless you are an elf I guess...), and this is now reflected.

 

[Blasphemous]

Originally posted by Kiech
Hmm, with archers being 2(2).1.1 now with C3C, doesn't that make up for the defencive side they lacked before? Archers aren't really all that great unless someone else is backing them up(unless you are an elf I guess...), and this is now reflected.

In real world history, groups mainly consisting of archers were never, and I mean never used offensively. Just like you said, they weren't much good without backup. You may have a group of archers integrated in an offensive force that peppers the enemy before combat, but all in all archers are more effective on the defense.

 

[the mormegil]

There were a lot of skirmishers that used bows that were used offensively.

 

[Blasphemous]

Originally posted by the mormegil
There were a lot of skirmishers that used bows that were used offensively.

Skirmishers. Not archers. =\

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

I agree with many of you who say that many units in Civ3 aren't historically realistic. The only way that you could get them more realistic, and still preserve play balance, is to have meaningful tactics as part of battles. Civ3 doesn't really use tactics much. Instead, you just strategically position some units and either hold your ground or attack. There's also a bombard feature but it's not much for tactics.

If you truely had tactics, you'd be able to move several units en masse to a position, have a little window open up and be able to direct your units to do various actions throughout the battle, while the opponent does the same. This way, you could direct your ranged attackers to fire on enemy positions, your shock troops attack directly all at the same time. This allows each battle to have its own strategy so that no single unit will always win, but that some tactic can be devised to defeat everyone. It also allows for retreat for all units rather than just the "fast moving" units. This way, you can give your units any stats you want and it won't affect play balance. Perhaps this feature will appear in Civ4.

Talking about historical accuracy, the Roman legions being 3/3 while the Hoplites being 1/3 isn't very realistic. The Romans totally trounced Greek Hoplites in nearly every battle. In fact, the Romans actually used to use the hoplite in their own army, but did away with it due to their poor performance.

 

[barron of ideas]

A set of ancient miniature rules called DBA for de bellis antiqutatus treats the romans as "blades" with a factor of 5 versus foot (and 3 versus mounted) whicle it gives spears a factor of 4 versus both. And pikes are 3, but with a second rank of pike add 3 so are 6 versus foot troops.

I think the 4-2-1 immortal is a very fair representation of the Persian advantage, but isn't better than 3-3-1 for Rome. If they go to war, would you rather attack at 4 to 3 (consider terrain bonuses, say 50% in cities it is 4 to 4.5) or 3 to 2 (3 to 3 in citis with 150% bonus). I think if you are on offense the Romans have an advantage. Not a big advantage, but if you want a big one, be-line to cavalry, or tanks before your neighbors.

Perisa's real advantage is industious/scientific so they have quick improvements (roads, mines, irrigation) and reaonable culture (libaraies, universities) with research bonuses. Many prefer the Ottomans with the same industrious/scientific attrigutes but the uber Cavalry Spahi at 8-3-3.

 

[Lord Parkin]

Interesting discussion. It's true, the Immortals just kept on coming - they never dropped below 10,000 in numbers. However, from a civ3 point of view, giving them an extra hit point wouldn't be fair, unless they were dropped back to 3.2.1. And as for the Legionary, 3.3.1 seems absolutely fine to me from a gaming point of view. After all, if the whole of civ3 had to abide by history, it'd make for one boring (and unbalanced) game. Think about it, 4.3.1 makes a Legionary as powerful as a Knight, which is more than a little ridiculous.

Just some thoughts from the new guy.

 

[the mormegil]

Welcome to CFC Lord Parkin!

The Knight has a big advantage in that it can move 2 spaces and the only time the Legionary would be made 4.3.1 would be if it's cost was raised.