Caveman 2 Cosmos (ideas/discussions thread)

[pecheneg]

Yes, I agree. But I still want it to be a Civilization *game*, not an accurate representation of history. What matters to me most in C2C is hours of fun game play.

1. How does giving special bonuses to units that actually had penalties instead of them - and not to those who actually had this bonus-make the game more fun? In my opinion, it just makes the game... very strange. At the same time, the real story is much more interesting than the fanasias part of modmakers
2. We are talking in the mod thread, where there are not only knights on bears, but also long-range bombardment with revolutions, very seriously changing the mechanics of the game. And most importantly, there is no greatest game design achievement of all time - soldiers with rifles before replacing trebuchets with cannons. I'm sure many fought like lions against such subversion, but...The darkness won. At the same time, the callous masses did not really feel the pain of loss.
3. There is an example of the most popular combat sema (Total War), and it is moderately difficult. There is a effective armor, the difference between distance and melee damage, etc.That is, something like this level is attractive, and not an oversimplification. At the same time, not a single person is known who is intellectually overextended in the process of mastering such a combat system.
4. I do not think that the opinion of the conservatives should be ignored. I'm thinking of a large combat submod. Those who wish can remain "at their own". But it is unlikely that there will be many of them.

 

[Thunderbrd]

1. Нm. In general, most people who play mods are interested in something different from vanilla

And yet many still don't want it to be so foreign in play that it feels jarring or like a totally different game entirely.

2. Try to interview people not on the forum. The Martian logic of Firaxis has reduced the interest in the game for a lot of people. At the same time, vanilla "balance" is just a typical case of such an irritant.
As an example. Neither the two-handed axeman nor the mace bearer with their powerful strike have a bonus against cavalry (historically, these are just very anti-cavalry units). This reliably destroys the brain by itself, and ... there is also a school program that reliably connects knights, flails, and hussites in the user's head.
At the same time, a mace-bearer with a two-handed inertial weapon has a fantasy bonus when storming. Where does he manage to swing the flail more effectively than in the open field? On the stairs or in the crowd on the walls?

I'm not worried about those not on the forum or not commenting on our discord. I AM worried about the core following we have, including self and missus.
To address your example, we don't have a distinction, nor plan one, between two handed and one handed axemen. Maces are lumped in with other heavy headed weaponry, including flails, which are hardly comparable in some ways but one way they are is that they were good anti-shield weapons. The smaller light mace is generally what I'm thinking of more commonly with that line, a weapon that really has speed, armor puncturing, and close quarters benefits, the flail barely fitting in with that. But where they agree in this is that they would both be very good against swords, where the heavier headed light weapon can really damage a blade in the act of sparring off with one and swords being assumed to be usually shield wearers, and cities need a specialized line of melee defenders so they fit the bill perfectly there as a city defense melee unit that has an anti-melee basis. Why not mounted? Mounted aren't strong city attackers anyhow and the more common representative of the class being a shield wearing light mace wielder until LATE medieval, means the reach of most mounted units would, at least in the field, give the mounted a heavy advantage over them (thus the raw strength benefit of the mount tends to trump them in the field). That said, if entrenched properly, they can negate some of that. And they won't have city attack benefits at all in my newer layout.

Why is there an elephant in a squad set against the javelin throwers?

Because some idiot decides that attacking with elephants against a pack of javelin throwers would be a good idea? It's obviously not - that's the point. That's why throwing units get a benefit against mounted as a whole. That said, elephants don't, unlike faster mounted units, approach faster and thus counter first strikes as the faster horse units do, so your discussion about speed is taken into account there as well, and throwing units are given early withdrawal so are assumed to run out of throwing weapons and at that point are often trying to withdraw while the faster horse units would be able to pursue them effectively - your quotations seem to fit this scenario. Throwing may have a benefit against mounted, but that benefit only makes them a touch stronger when at full strength and when they are trying to get away, mounted becomes a great counter to them, unlike stronger melee units. Elephants don't have this speed advantage at all and don't even have any approach or pursuit value to them whatsoever, agreeing with the points you've made. They may be mounted but they are NOT the hit and run sort of mounted.

What prevents you from giving an anti-cavalery bonus to a two-handed axeman and a clubbearer/flail who actually had it, instead of giving it out to throwers with links to the balance?

There won't be a distinction between two handed axes and one handed axes until equipment mods and I don't see the club/flail as having that great of an advantage against mounted at all when you consider the usual weaponry and speed of a mounted unit barreling down on these melee types, plowing through them quite easily really. Axes can stand against mounted with no direct penalties nor advantages against them, but generally aren't as strong, though they can fortify, where most mounted cannot, making them capable of being a fair fight when on the defense and prepared against the attack.


With these kinds of basics in place

1. This is tantamount to sliding into an increasingly obvious absurdity. The entire military history of antiquity, the late Middle Ages, and the Renaissance is a classic race of projectile and armor.
2. The mod already has classes not only for armor, and both by type (chain mail, etc.)., and by level from light to heavy. There are classes in a). all four basic shield sizes b). and their material. At the same time, the units are already distributed according to the size of the shield. That is, the most problematic part of the modding has already been completed.

All this can be introduced in the equipment mod so as to then transition into a more 'realistic' interactive environment. NOW we get to consider how a two handed axe differs from a hatchet wielder with a shield. HERE we really look at the flail vs the light mace/club. HERE we look at the puncture vs armor relativities and how THAT interacts. And we get to do it by giving these base units options to swap their equipment sets, which could even back off some base assumptions on class interactions while replacing them with the more gritty realistic advantages. We get to consider that 'only during this many attacks' does a throwing unit have their throwing weapons to utilize. Etc...

Again, C2C, through its options, gives the player the ability to follow through the evolution from CivIV into a more 'realism' driven alternative game.

That's the goal anyhow.

 

[tmv]

So tell me why you persist in thinking the Romans are idiots?

Idiots are those who are behind the rest of the world, not those who do exactly the same thing as any other nation in the world until the Enlightenment.

Mark Antony had pretty much been Caesar's deputy for a long time, of course he would pick something up. But, as I said, patterns were extremely important back then. So important that senators with next to no military experience were able to win entire military campaigns (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cicero#Governorship_of_Cilicia), because they weren't supposed to think up complex tactics in the first place. The Roman soldiers were (often) that good that they still won, and changing an established system that often works is difficult today, back then it would have been impossible.

The Bronze Age ended about a thousand years earlier

In these times, they used both iron and bronze (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_Dark_Ages#End). Especially for weapons, iron was not always the superior metal (at least before steel - see https://www.mining.com/the-metals-of-antiquity-tin/). And even Alexander (after Classical Greece) still considered iron to be a precious metal (http://dtrinkle.matse.illinois.edu/...l_greece_rome/steel_in_ancient_greece_an.html). For cannons bronze was still the metal of choice until the 16th century (https://www.britannica.com/technology/military-technology/The-development-of-artillery#ref57622).

And what prevented him from doing this without "patent" protection? On the contrary, if he is treated worse in Syracuse than the cooks, it would be perfectly logical.

He was not treated worse. All in all they treated him very well. But they certainly would have objected to him giving such secrets away. He can live a life with many luxuries in his home city, or he can get a bit of money for these secrets and live the rest of his life on the run.

 

[pecheneg]

And yet many still don't want it to be so foreign in play that it feels jarring or like a totally different game entirely.

That is, there are already giant changes in C2C, but it is the alien balance from Firaxis that should be the sacred cow?

To address your example, we don't have a distinction, nor plan one, between two handed and one handed axemen

Meanwhile, the tactical difference between them is huge.

But where they agree in this is that they would both be very good against swords,

It is strange that no one in Europe thought of this idea until at least 1470. Probably because trying to hit the head of the mace on the blade of a faster sword is an occupation for Marvel heroes. At the same time, the handles of the vast majority of pins are wooden. You can fence with such a mace with a sword, but for a very short time If only Marvellians can damage the blade with a mace, then it is quite possible to chop off the shaft. The mace-bearers parried sword blows with their shields. The iron handle of European maces appears in the 1470s, and this is clearly an attempt to protect handles from cutting off late swords.
You forget that the mace was historically the first weapon, competing for this place with the spear. But it was the proliferation of swords and axes that drove it into a marginal niche.Its reincarnation not an as ersatz did happen, when became necessary to fight against heavy armor.
Moreover, the great love of the cavalry for it is explained by the need to hit the armored heads of the infantry.
We look at the Bayeux carpet. The main use - poor infantry, priests and ... the rest of them mostly throw, because it is not a pity to lose. Active distribution in Europe since the 14th century, recall in what context?
Note. Two-handed maces and clubs are a separate topic.

That's why throwing units get a benefit against mounted as a whole.

What the cavalry used to do with light throwers, see above. Both of the Almugovars ' victories over the cavalry had taken place in a very short period of time, until the cavalry did not perceive them as a threat at all. At the same time, they were, to put it mildly, not alone . The list of wins is as follows:1. attack first on the standing cavalry, which did not take them seriously, then on the flank of the cavalry, which was bogged down in hand-to-hand combat. 2. classic attack cavalry through the swamp and ditches with water with all the consequences. This was the end of the victory, and the number of Almugovars fell sharply in the 14th century.
That is, without the surprise factor, they could even hold out on the defensive only when the swamp and the heavy cavalry found each other

and I don't see the club/flail as having that great of an advantage against mounted

The Flemings with their two-handed godendag and the Hussites were terribly surprised. The Swiss with their halberds are no less – yes, I mean the axes, too.
The general theory of two-handed weapons and cavalry is as follows

1. Have you ever seen a horse up close? Even a small peasant horse is 250-300 kg . what runs on racetracks is half a ton. At the same time, per kilogram of weight, four-legged animals are about twice as resistant to damage, than human. A vertical stance with almost unprotected organs in the front is problematic.
And, the infantryman must kill the horse quickly. A) there is a well-armed figure sitting on horse, who is strongly against b) a horseman who stopped to fence with an infantryman – this is the most idiotic stamp of Hollywood. If the riders did not break up the formation immediately, they will withdraw for a second strike. If they are destroy formation, they will attack on the slip. There were exceptions, but this is a late and cheap cavalry, attacking in a tight formation and trot.
However, you can only kill a horse out of sheer desperation.

2. If you attack the rider, then he sits high and half of the horse is in front of him. With a short weapon in front, you just can't get it, the horse - see above. Even from the side, leg gifts are very fraught with a miss and even with luck, a retaliatory blow to the mournful head.

3. So, only two-handed clubs, flail, long two-handed axe / sword, halberd. Spears, but in combination with two-handed weapons.

4. At the same time, the club is cheaper and remains effective where the axe can not cope. The impact of the flail is much stronger than the impact of an axe of equal length. Nunchucks and ordinary agricultural flail how do I work in your opinion?

 

[Thunderbrd]

That is, there are already giant changes in C2C, but it is the alien balance from Firaxis that should be the sacred cow?

As this is intended to be able to feel like any number of layers of evolutions from that origin point, yes. It's very important that the original is considered a sacred cow.

I hear Joseph's voice echoing in my skull about he lays awake at night feeling like the C2C development gnomes are hard at work chipping away at the game he loves. I want to be able to provide a 'close to original' experience as well as a 'closer to simulator' experience and a spectrum between the two.

Therefore, numerous distinctions you're suggesting be the most basal of distinctions are blended into just one thing until the equipment mod presents that deeper variation.

2. If you attack the rider, then he sits high and half of the horse is in front of him. With a short weapon in front, you just can't get it, the horse - see above. Even from the side, leg gifts are very fraught with a miss and even with luck, a retaliatory blow to the mournful head.

3. So, only two-handed clubs, flail, long two-handed axe / sword, halberd. Spears, but in combination with two-handed weapons.

That difficulty to reach the rider is exactly why throwing gets a bonus in combat - that said, throwing are generally weaker and again are not as fast as many mounted and thus mounted do have some bonuses against most of them, ways to counter the first strike and early withdrawal that is the hallmark unique power of the throwing unit.

I get that heavier weapons if timed just right, can break a charge by taking out the mounts and long flails can reach the rider like many other weapons can't. Again, to me, that's a more advanced equipment mod specification.

You ask about nunchuk and flail and I say those are largely shield and parry counters. It's almost impossible to block such weapons if the wielders know what they're doing with them.

Spears are only good against horses in combination with two handed weapons? Spears are by design great at setting against charge and for reaching the riders, unless very very short and even then can be set and braced against a charging horse line effectively.

As far as maces being used to destroy swords, meh, not the point. The point is that metal clubs are pretty good against blades as a general rule and they therefore seem to fit in pretty well as a half-city defense, half anti-melee (they are also good at using shields to deflect spears so they can get in past the superior reach and they are a bit faster than your usual axe wielder, though axes still tear apart any footman's armor when they do hit thus the axes are full anti-melee still - hitting far harder than swords, chopping off spear and many other melee weapon heads.)

There's tons of ways to argue why these things should be different and you can circularly argue with yourself to the point of insanity. It doesn't matter what you establish counters what, there's reason to look at it from another angle. Truth is the skill with the weapon mattered more than what weapon was against what weapon. And that, being promotions, levels, combat quality etc, is a whole 'nother factor.

 

[pecheneg]

As this is intended to be able to feel like any number of layers of evolutions from that origin point, yes. It's very important that the original is considered a sacred cow.

I hear Joseph's voice echoing in my skull about he lays awake at night feeling like the C2C development gnomes are hard at work chipping away at the game he loves.

Have you forgotten that a week ago you had a plan to revise the sacred balance?

Swords are anti-archery units (though right NOW aren't specifically declared as such as they are mostly just a touch stronger than concurrent archery units and are given city attack, which is expected to be against archers and often archery units gain actual strength base from buildings when they are in a city ) as are throwing units and there's currently a gap in throwing units in Medieval that will also be solved. In the new review layout, swords WILL be specifically anti-archery units, which will help to directly counter them in the field and so on.

Practically, even you don't care about it. (thoughtfully) And whether a complete revision of the balance in Realism caused at least a couple of posts on the forum...

That difficulty to reach the rider is exactly why throwing gets a bonus in combat

Compared to the fantasy one-handed swordsmen/macemen/axemen - of course.

You ask about nunchuk and flail and I say those are largely shield and parry counters. It's almost impossible to block such weapons if the wielders know what they're doing with them.

I meant the agricultural flail. So, why don't they just hit the sheaf with a stick? By the way, the flail began to spread when the shields abruptly decreased. And yes, how many people are walking the streets with shields now?

Spears are by design great at setting against charge and for reaching the riders,

And how, with such an effective spear, did the cavalry manage to brazenly dominate the Middle Ages until the invention of the pike? Is everyone lying about using two-handed weapons against cavalry?
And now the ugly reality.
1. Take a small knife
2. tie to the handle from the shovel
3. Approach the horse
4... Think about how quickly you will kill her with this, if she is against it. At the same time, if you think that the horse will over-successfully commit suicide on a spear resting on the ground, then you are mistaken.

Even if the spear is 2.5 m long, the tip will be slightly larger than a meter the ground level at an angle of installation... 45 degrees. The problem is that you won't have it. Even wild boars are hunted with this. ="Boar spear "Saufeder" - a type of spear used for hunting wild boars: a short and heavy spear with a wide tip and a crossbar, transverse to the shaft. Boar spears are mainly known in Germany and Scandinavia.=
Everything else is 1. Will not cause anything lethal 2. just break down. And even if the horse dies, there will be a hole in the formation, and the infantryman is very depressed – for the inertia is also in the dead horse. The Greek phalanx was a terrible force ... against the ponies.

unless very very short

They are just very short. The 12th century and surrounding area is a standard spear about the height of a man. Moreover, shortening and thickening occurred with the development of cavalry. But the rider had no such restrictions.

and even then can be set and braced against a charging horse line effectively.

Again. Even if the spear is 2.5 m long, the tip will be slightly more than a meter from the ground at an angle of installation... 45 degrees. But in reality, the spear is much shorter.
1. The efficiency will be appropriate.
2. The horses turned out badly , you need to kill the rider. And then it turns out that the "boar" spear is all right with power, but with armor penetration is bad.
Therefore, we take citizens with two-handed clubs and an axe. And crossbowmen.
Meanwhile, the horse was rapidly turning into a tank.
As a result, they had to increase number of sticks stuck in the horse and a much more correct angle of installation. A side effect was the ability to get the rider. In general, there was a peak.
However, the very long shaft of the standard pike had a very small tip. There was a "Moorish" pike with a tip up to half a meter – but this is a highly specialized anti-cavalry monster. So.... We take halberdiers, citizens with two-handed swords and flails. We invent a crossbow with a collar and an arquebus. And finally, by 1500 – a musket capable of killing a horse with a single shot with great probability. And only then do we sigh with relief. Despite the fact that we had effective spears before the domestication of the horse.

As far as maces being used to destroy swords, meh, not the point. The point is that metal clubs are pretty good against blades

Again, they appeared in Europe in the 1470s. Haven't they thought of "pretty good" and much cheaper clubs than a sword in a few thousand years?
No, it's just that they are inferior to swords in almost all combat respects, except for armor-piercing characteristics. Because the "baton" is 1. Slower due to the specific balance 2. Shorter, because with the sword length it will yield in maneuverability quite radically 3. It is not able to deliver stabbing blows, which is fatal in dogfight. 4 is only dangerous when hit hard. Unlike the sword.
Therefore, after the appearance of minimally decent blades and before the appearance of heavy armor or the need to beat on infantry helmets, the mace is an ersatz
The axeman in the battle will also lose miserably to the swordsman in everything but impact forces and armor-piercing. Up to a certain limit - then stabbing and stunning blows will be the only effective ones for one-handed weapons

and they therefore seem to fit in pretty well as a half-city defense,

And even this is not. 1. For "take the enemy down the stairs" they fit weakly All the advantages are only too armored even for axes targets.2. In a dump on the walls not with an over-armored opponent, the piercing blow is especially important. The mace-bearer will be simply slaughtered.

and you can circularly argue with yourself to the point of insanity.

Most of what I'm telling you is a platitude and an unquestionable axiom.

Truth is the skill with the weapon mattered more than what weapon was against what weapon.

1. You need to watch less action movies. And, from the history textbook, it is easy to find out who won whom at the Marathon, for example.

2. Yes, the experience in the game is already taken into account

 

[Thunderbrd]

Have you forgotten that a week ago you had a plan to revise the sacred balance?

We're talking about a revision that doesn't involve restructuring what those classes are and more cleanly refines their individual roles as well as solidifies the need for all of the core units to be put to use so that none may be ignored. Largely, this is as little disruptive a revision as possible while achieving those goals. Right now, some unit types can go without use. Further, some gaps are being filled in rational upgrade pathing, some interaction bugs will be squashed, some systems will be improved in how they function and so on.

I meant the agricultural flail. So, why don't they just hit the sheaf with a stick? By the way, the flail began to spread when the shields abruptly decreased. And yes, how many people are walking the streets with shields now?

Played a role more in the orient than in the west and was a great weapon in the hands of a master martial artist and pretty much just a swinging club with a touch more inertial force to anyone else - still largely for getting around parrying and for disarming. Against the more metallic armors of the west it was not quite as effective a weapon in general. Most people you see trying to use them hurt themselves as often as a foe. I don't consider it much of a category of its own except perhaps I'd put it in the mace/flail class in the equipment mod.

And how, with such an effective spear, did the cavalry manage to brazenly dominate the Middle Ages until the invention of the pike? Is everyone lying about using two-handed weapons against cavalry?

There's a few reasons. Until heavier cavalry, horses were more commonly used in hit and run tactics... speed in speed out, never let them pin you down - and regimented organized fighting in formation, even with spears, wasn't as dominant. Cavalry didn't actually dominate the middle ages nor before that so much as they dominated combat in the field. And this will be well reflected in the layout planned. It would be costly for the strong heavy cavalry to break spear formations, but they were quite capable of it.

Horses probably don't enjoy charging spear lines any more than anyone else, but when they do it, they barrel through rather than stopping and hacking the weapons facing them to bits, as axemen would. Horses are more likely to survive and kill whatever has impaled and likely doomed them in the process because yes, they have inertia, but it's a fair bit more likely they will have been taken down by a spear that needs not be concerned with trying to time it's strike just right before you are trampled than an axe wielder trying to stand down a horse charge.

And how, with such an effective spear, did the cavalry manage to brazenly dominate the Middle Ages until the invention of the pike? Is everyone lying about using two-handed weapons against cavalry?
And now the ugly reality.
1. Take a small knife
2. tie to the handle from the shovel
3. Approach the horse
4... Think about how quickly you will kill her with this, if she is against it. At the same time, if you think that the horse will over-successfully commit suicide on a spear resting on the ground, then you are mistaken.

Even if the spear is 2.5 m long, the tip will be slightly larger than a meter the ground level at an angle of installation... 45 degrees. The problem is that you won't have it. Even wild boars are hunted with this. ="Boar spear "Saufeder" - a type of spear used for hunting wild boars: a short and heavy spear with a wide tip and a crossbar, transverse to the shaft. Boar spears are mainly known in Germany and Scandinavia.=
Everything else is 1. Will not cause anything lethal 2. just break down. And even if the horse dies, there will be a hole in the formation, and the infantryman is very depressed – for the inertia is also in the dead horse. The Greek phalanx was a terrible force ... against the ponies.

So you're advocating a total rewrite that abandons the idea that spears are an anti-mounted unit. Yeah, no.

Therefore, after the appearance of minimally decent blades and before the appearance of heavy armor or the need to beat on infantry helmets, the mace is an ersatz

You're arguing for far too much granularity in the reality of the approach in which you deliver units such that there is no upgrade path that would even make sense for keeping the same benefits on the same sorts of weaponry. I suppose you're of the camp I've been hearing from lately that argues that we shouldn't HAVE units upgrade at all? And again, you're arguing to go directly for it all being a matter of armor and piercing and so on and again this is a later consideration to be made. In essence, beyond that, you're suggesting that the mace line shouldn't even be a line since it has no superiority in any manner really - which is somewhat a reality, but so that swords are represented as less common weapons, as you've argued in the past, the city defense melee weapon specialist is being assigned to the mace line.

The axeman in the battle will also lose miserably to the swordsman in everything but impact forces and armor-piercing. Up to a certain limit - then stabbing and stunning blows will be the only effective ones for one-handed weapons

This observation, while true, is the kind of overcomplication that would make it impossible to keep things to a simple rock/paper/scissors style approach, which I am entirely against abandoning.

Most of what I'm telling you is a platitude and an unquestionable axiom.

I'm sure that's true in your mind.

 

[tmv]

 

[Thunderbrd]

I wanted to say so much of this but didn't want to overcommit to that perspective. lol

 

[strategyonly]

what did u do with the "Cultures" on the Custom Civ module, it was the only place where the starting of the Nomad tribes were, and to be tested by someone, just nobody is trying to do it is all (for now i hope)??

 

[raxo2222]

what did u do with the "Cultures" on the Custom Civ module, it was the only place where the starting of the Nomad tribes were, and to be tested by someone, just nobody is trying to do it is all (for now i hope)??

This stuff was completely unrelated to NomadDemo module you are referencing.

It was removed - it had modders as leaders.
Continental culture civs and stuff will be easy to recreate, if someone wants to develop nomadic start.

This unused module was deleted few SVNs earlier.
Thunderbrd said its fine to axe it out.

 

[pecheneg]

We're talking about a revision that doesn't involve restructuring what those classes are and more cleanly refines their individual roles

The role of the swordsmen in Vanilla was to exterminate the archers outside the city? More details, please.

as well as solidifies the need for all of the core units to be put to use so that none may be ignored. Largely, this is as little disruptive a revision as possible while achieving those goals. Right now, some unit types can go without use.

This can be done either in a realistic (aka historical) way, or in a completely fantastic and counterintuitive way. And I see stubbornness rather than rational motives.

Further, some gaps are being filled in rational upgrade pathing, some interaction bugs will be squashed, some systems will be improved in how they function and so on.

However, so far everything looks like something exactly the opposite.

Played a role more in the orient than in the west

Far West
.

In military terms, it is enough to recall the reference Hussites, where the main weapons are used, and the Germans.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/86/Lützelburger_Hohlbein_Kämpfende_Bauern.jpg/612px-Lützelburger_Hohlbein_Kämpfende_Bauern.jpg

was a great weapon in the hands of a master martial artist and pretty much just a swinging club with a touch more inertial force

Open the physics textbook for the 7th grade, the lever and the "golden rule of mechanics". Now school geometry. Strike from a vertical position to shoulder level, move the handle 90 degrees. The path that passes the end of the stick with a length of 2 meters = 1/4 of the circumference = 3.14 m. Dividing the stick into two connected by meter, we get a path of 1.57 m for the handle... .Impact part, moves on 3/4 of the circle, 4.71 m.

still largely for getting around parrying and for disarming.

You need to drastically reduce the viewing of Chinese action movies.1. The tactic of " wrapping the blade with a chain "does not imply a massive spiked pommel. It prevents this.2. The classic agricultural-type chain is not suitable for this even in theory. 3 This technique is not applicable in real combat. While you unravel the chain that so successfully disarmed the enemy and yourself, you will be killed.

Against the more metallic armors of the west it was not quite as effective a weapon in general.

1. The problem is that, the Hussites did not fight with the Chinese, but mainly with the knight's cavalry. 2. There are enough medieval illustrations where 15th-century knights in full armor fight with flails.


Perhaps the fact is that no armor did not save from a concussion

Until heavier cavalry, horses were more commonly used in hit and run tactics.

And looking at the Greek horses, it is clear why.
https://bigenc.ru/media/2016/10/27/1237295726/25946.jpg
https://itexts.net/files/online_html/260018/i_035.jpg
And these are clearly not the worst or even typical samples

Horses probably don't enjoy charging spear lines any more than anyone else,

Who told you that the Greeks tried to kill at least the ponies of that time with standard spears? They are trying to kill the riders, and again it is clear why.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EQrETL5UcAUJBFx.jpg
https://topwar.ru/uploads/posts/2018-08/1534838921_amazonkтa.jpg
And there are many such images. With a blow to the horse, they simply do not exist.

, but it's a fair bit more likely they will have been taken down by a spear that needs not be concerned with trying to time it's strike just right before you are trampled than an axe wielder trying to stand down a horse charge.

One more time. Classic infantry spears are not even suitable for fighting pigs. Their only advantage over the rest of the antique weapons is the long length that allows you to reach the rider. And the problem of the then riders – 1. Standard for cavalry. The inability to form a tight formation either at the front or in depth. For every cavalry spear, there are MANY infantry spears . 2. The absence of all the other advantages of the later cavalry, which more than made up for it. A) a powerful blow from acceleration and from above B) the ability to effectively ram a horse C) heavier weapons than an infantryman.
At the same time, after the appearance of more powerful cavalry, even in late Rome, they began to use two-handed clubs.Iit is precisely against the cavalry.

Cavalry didn't actually dominate the middle ages nor before that so much as they dominated combat in the field.

So you're saying that the Middle Ages were dominated by infantry?

strong heavy cavalry to break spear formations, but they were quite capable of it.

And the pikemen appeared for what reasons? It was expensive for a strong heavy cavalry to break the formation of the Pikemen. Reinforced by halberdiers and crossbowmen/arquebusiers.

So you're advocating a total rewrite that abandons the idea that spears are an anti-mounted unit. Yeah, no.

You didn't understand what they were writing to you? The effectiveness of a particular type of spear can vary from quite decent (Hoplite spear against pony cavalry) to negative values due to the relatively low armor penetration.

You're arguing for far too much granularity in the reality of the approach in which you deliver units such that there is no upgrade path that would even make sense for keeping the same benefits on the same sorts of weaponry

You just didn't understand what I was writing to you. The same batons act as cheap infantry until the late Middle Ages. Then they give an additional branch.

I suppose you're of the camp I've been hearing from lately that argues that we shouldn't HAVE units upgrade at all?

I'm from a camp that offers to increase the upgrade opportunities. If it is really difficult for a club user to mutate into a swordsman, then there is no problem for the reverse.

In essence, beyond that, you're suggesting that the mace line shouldn't even be a line since it has no superiority in any manner really

If we take the booking and the economic factor out of the brackets in an absurd way.

as you've argued in the past, the city defense melee weapon specialist is being assigned to the mace line.

That is, where in reality it was the least effective before the appearance of super-heavy armor.

And again, you're arguing to go directly for it all being a matter of armor and piercing and so on and again this is a later consideration to be made.

That is, it is more difficult for you to simply distribute the units according to the existing armor classes than to adjust the balance in an absolutely fantasy way?

This observation, while true, is the kind of overcomplication that would make it impossible to keep things to a simple rock/paper/scissors style approach, which I am entirely against abandoning.

That's what he is. The axeman is better at hitting heavy units, but he himself is beaten by swordsmen who are inferior to them. That is, the principle also applies to field battles, unlike vanilla.

I'm sure that's true in your mind.

Half of what I write to you is contained in school textbooks on history and physics. The other half is in any book on pre-industrial wars, including the extremely popular ones in the spirit of Osprey. And in the hundreds of tons of more specialized literature written since the 19th century, when edged weapons of all classes could be seen in the colonial wars.

 

[raxo2222]

@pecheneg

Then you will find this thread a truly glorious entertainment
https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/political-philosophy-discussion.637751/


Abandon reality, all ye who enter there

 

[pecheneg]

Abandon reality, all ye who enter there

Yes, I already like it. Supporters of universal recipes for all occasions, as always, are impressive. By the way, I agree. The system must adapt, not only to the current situation, but also to the country's place in the division of labor. For example, you can't have a low-duty foreign trade without having your own competitive industry. But you should urgently retrain as a supporter of the invisible hand on the world market, if you have on

 

[pecheneg]

If you WERE WATCHING the video, instead of listening to the idiots chatter next to a clearly smarter dummy, you would see the following. 1. How a mannequin is first cut in the face with nunchucks 2. How when struck, shreds appear next to the neck. That is, a high-velocity blow spends part of the energy to destroy the dummy... or someone's head. A much weaker low-speed can't destroy anything and just knocks the dummy down. This is an invaluable option for weapons. If a drug addict got to him.

 

[pecheneg]

Idiots are those who are behind the rest of the world, not those who do exactly the same thing as any other nation in the world until the Enlightenment.

Every other nation before the Enlightenment used as a hand-to-hand weapon even that which was not a weapon at all.
And the non-core use of weapons such as blows with the sword handle is generally sacred.
Do not confuse the clever ancient peasants, from whom legionnaires were recruited, with modern office workers, where every second person has a template mindset.

Mark Antony had pretty much been Caesar's deputy for a long time, of course he would pick something up.

Now you've added Mark Antony to the list of people stupider than yourself? You're probably Einstein?

But, as I said, patterns were extremely important back then.

The multi-thousand-year-old pattern then consisted precisely in the use of universal copies: both for throwing and for hitting. Purely percussive variants are relatively later and "civilized". As a result they were used by both auxiliary units and hostile barbarians

So important that senators with next to no military experience were able to win entire military campaigns (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cicero#Governorship_of_Cilicia), because

They had an excellent military education. Cicero is a Roman aristocrat, which is equivalent to the Academy of the General Staff in our time

The Roman soldiers were (often) that good that they still won, and changing an established system that often works is difficult today, back then it would have been impossible.

And what did Antony and Caesar do then?
The problem is that the system that categorically forbade the use of pilums in hand-to-hand combat exists only in your rich imagination.

In these times, they used both iron and bronze (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_Dark_Ages#End).

What does the Dark Ages of Greece (1100-750 BC) have to do with the situation in 536 years? At the same time, copper was even more deficient than iron on average.

Especially for weapons, iron was not always the superior metal (at least before steel

And this situation ended just along with the dark ages

nd even Alexander (after Classical Greece) still considered iron to be a precious metal (http://dtrinkle.matse.illinois.edu/...l_greece_rome/steel_in_ancient_greece_an.html).

I will just quote this stream of consciousness.
« In this period, iron was considered a precious metal by Alexander. During his world tour of conquest Alexander gave his generals instructions to seize any iron found. Strangely it was not for its merits in weaponry that it received the status of precious, but instead for its application to lapidary work. The polishing of facets on precious stones, especially diamonds, is facilitated by holding the precious stone to the flat surface of a rotating metal disk».

However, a brilliant illustration of the evergreen iron deficiency in the Hellenistic east. That's what it's all about.
Precious iron, of course, was not, but most pre-industrial civilizations existed in the mode of its austerity. So in the Hellenistic zone, the situation was worse than average. A calculated data on the Roman Empire https://ru.xcv.wiki/wiki/Roman_metallurgy#Output
They show the production of iron, twice as much as in France at the end of the 18th century (46 thousand tons before the revolution). "With the Romans came the concept of mass production ; this is perhaps the most important aspect of Roman influence in the study of metallurgy." This is the imperial period, but the main meallurgical region was already under Roman control at the beginning of the wars in the East, Etruria they captured even earlier.The main means of mechanization - the water wheel has already been used. Hardly already in Spain, but the level of meallurgical production there was high even before Roman "industrialization".

For cannons bronze was still the metal of choice until the 16th century (https://www.britannica.com/technology/military-technology/The-development-of-artillery#ref57622).

In comparison with cast iron. Steel then did not pour at all.

He was not treated worse. All in all they treated him very well. But they certainly would have objected to him giving such secrets away. He can live a life with many luxuries in his home city, or he can get a bit of money for these secrets and live the rest of his life on the run.

I repeat. What does the giving out secrets to anyone have to do with their conditional "patent" protection within their hometown?

 

[Thunderbrd]

Thunderbrd said its fine to axe it out.

I didn't say it was fine to remove the modders as leaders but y'all did it anyhow. I then felt like it would be egotistical to complain.

 

[raxo2222]

I didn't say it was fine to remove the modders as leaders but y'all did it anyhow. I then felt like it would be egotistical to complain.

Eh then it was someone else...

It was disabled for decade.

It can be remade with new set of modders as leaders of continental civilizations with complex traits defined.

 

[Thunderbrd]

The role of the swordsmen in Vanilla was to exterminate the archers outside the city? More details, please.

It was in vanilla, in that swords were given the generic strength to take down archers anywhere archers were in the way and still ended up being the best unit to use against them even in the field, unless you had mounted to do it with greater agility, but not much more if at all strength. Swords, if you recall were stronger than other melee units in vanilla, which is how they trumped spears but were beat by axes that had a % bonus against melee. Archers were a little weak but had a good city defense and hill defense modifier set. When attacking archers on hills it would've been tougher for the swords, which this outlook retains, but archers could never attack swords and get away with it. Swords could fortify - mounted could not, which made mounted a little better option when attacking and swords one of the stronger defenses you could set.

I'm not saying I'm keeping ALL of it - but it boils out much the same in terms of the interactions, just a bit more complex in how it gets there. (with the revised base design layout)

So you're saying that the Middle Ages were dominated by infantry?

I'm saying combat in the field wasn't all there was. Cavalry kinda sucks in a city.

 

[tmv]

Every other nation before the Enlightenment used as a hand-to-hand weapon even that which was not a weapon at all.

Would you mind telling me what you mean by that?

Do not confuse the clever ancient peasants, from whom legionnaires were recruited, with modern office workers, where every second person has a template mindset.

The "template mindset" of some modern office workers is nothing next to the mindset that was more than common in static societies as described in https://www.lombardodier.com/conten...october/why-theres-no-sustainability-w-1.html - there is a reason there was so little advance throughout the centuries.

Now you've added Mark Antony to the list of people stupider than yourself? You're probably Einstein?

OK, when I said that Caesar was quite unique in this I meant he was unique in coming up with this idea. There is nothing unique in adapting an idea that was already established (and proven to work) by someone else, and considering that Mark Antony was somewhat of an associate of Caesar it stands to reason that he picked up this idea here. So yes, I did not mention every instance this tactic was used, but I think it is safe to assume that this idea was not developed independently by two strategists who were not only contemporaries but close enough to each other that for some time Mark Antony became pretty much the leader of the Caesarians after Caesar's death.

They had an excellent military education. Cicero is a Roman aristocrat, which is equivalent to the Academy of the General Staff in our time

Do you mean the position of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribunus_laticlavius ? The position of legate was established simply so that these guys could be removed from a position of actual command.

And what did Antony and Caesar do then?

This was not the only time Caesar challenged the status quo, you know.

At the same time, copper was even more deficient than iron on average.

[citation needed]

And this situation ended just along with the dark ages

[citation needed]

A calculated data on the Roman Empire https://ru.xcv.wiki/wiki/Roman_metallurgy#Output

Sorry, I cannot read that, an English translation is not given and the German translation is a disaster.

In comparison with cast iron. Steel then did not pour at all.

The point is that Bronze was used for cannons. Being better than one alternative is not enough for that.

I repeat. What does the giving out secrets to anyone have to do with their conditional "patent" protection within their hometown?

It is about giving peole ideas. You can (as a tyrant of an Ancient Greek city) of course give such a master a lot of gold for his achievements, but you really don't want him to get used to the idea that these inventions are his to do with as he sees fit.