Caveman 2 Cosmos (ideas/discussions thread)

Discussion in 'Civ4 - Caveman 2 Cosmos' started by strategyonly, Sep 3, 2010.

  1. pecheneg

    pecheneg Warlord

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2021
    Messages:
    168
    Gender:
    Male
    1. No, even an early archer on a hill with a forest or jungle is stronger than a swordsman: 6/6+ first strike. After full strengthening, another +25%. If they are completely fortified on the treeless hills, they are not an easy opponent for swordsmen 3+75% = 5.25+ first strike against 6. At the same time, there are also Babylonian archers with a bonus against melee.
    2. This is not so important, because longbows are balanced against opponents in a completely different way. This is more than a combat-ready field unit on rough terrain, as it was in reality. The direct heirs of the swordsmen in vanilla are the mace-bearers. Attack on the hill with the archers who just occupied it - 8/9 plus the first strike in favor of the archers without strengthening. The knights ' penalty on the hills gives approximately the same result - 7.5/9. And this is, in general, the right approach.

    In fact, no city can withstand an endless siege , and the economy - constantly ruining the countryside

    In fact, the main striking force in medieval assaults is just dismounted cavalry. At the same time, in the street battles, it too fought. There were also intra-city clashes-in the style of "the urban establishment in the equestrian formation attacks the rebellious masses of the people". How they maneuvered on the streets of that time – I'm afraid to even think. During the Renaissance and later – this is not so obvious in the mass of infantry; hired cavalry, etc., could be strongly opposed. But, in general, the cavalry went to the assaults dismounted and sometimes took the city in proud solitude.
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2021
  2. pecheneg

    pecheneg Warlord

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2021
    Messages:
    168
    Gender:
    Male
    Flails, sickles, scythes, a knife for pruning bushes, a rake, a pitchfork. This is the most obvious thing to start with.

    Do you want me to explain in detail why this opus is a paranientific nonsense? That's quite a long time. For starters, the official reason for Easter's deforestation is drastic climate change.

    What idea? The idea of a universal spear was thought up by all the surrounding barbarians.

    No, I mean the training of Roman aristocrats in military affairs from childhood.

    You said it was impossible. And yes, before him, the status quo was successfully violated by Sulla.

    1. Copper is a rare metal compared to iron.
    2. According to the link in the table– 82.5 thousand tons of iron against 15 thousand tons of copper.

    "Here are some interesting figures that shed light on the first steps of the iron industry in the Eastern Mediterranean[3]. For the XII century, iron weapons account for only 3% of the total number of finds of this kind of products in all countries of the region. For the XI century. it is already 16% and for the tenth century — 54%[4]."
    At the same time, the bronze is preserved much better. And this was before the growth of the quality of iron. Which followed. "Maddin and his colleagues believe that in the course of this study, as early as the 10th century BC, and perhaps even earlier, a method of carbonizing iron was discovered, i.e., the carbonation of iron. artificial increase of the carbon content in the metal, especially in its surface layers[15]. This operation made it possible to slightly increase the hardness of iron products, so that in this respect they were now not only not inferior to bronze products, but also superior to them."

    This is the Russian version of english wiki, sorry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_metallurgy. And yes, you have a built-in translator in your browser.

    Naturally, bronze was better than lead tin with zinc. How does this relate to the question of the great advantages of bronze as a material for edged weapons?

    And if you do not give them, then if there is an urgent need to sell something to the side, they will come up with them themselves. At the same time, the very close tyrant of Syracuse, whose legislation was in effect for a long time after, was a very practical person who was well aware of this.

    1.The treasury is not rubber. Let the subjects pay. And the paws reaching out to the treasury about ideas (is this something from Plato?) chop it off along with the head.
    2. Tyrants change, and in the process of changing, they often do not care about archimedes and the money for mercenaries is gone.
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2021
  3. Thunderbrd

    Thunderbrd C2C War Dog

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2010
    Messages:
    28,650
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    You've kinda made my point by trying so hard to reach for the BEST possible scenario for the archer. ANY less perfect a scenario for the archer and the sword is stronger than the archer. In my workup, a similarly benefiting archer with its hill defense and being on a forested hill will have an even more decisive upper hand against the swordsmen, even if they do get +25% vs Archery units. Most interaction balances in vanilla would be reflective of the final balances in my workup but just get there in a different way and a bit more pronounced.

    I'm not further cracking open the can of worms in this discussion - you like to take any statement and see if you can contradict it as much as possible. Your purpose here is not to refine the system but to argue.
     
  4. pecheneg

    pecheneg Warlord

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2021
    Messages:
    168
    Gender:
    Male
    This is not true. In C2C, heavy swordsmen ARE ALREADY stronger than long archers on the hills. However, the details.
    The long archer is relatively slightly stronger than the vanilla version in relation to the average swordsman (8/10 vs. 6/8) and much weaker than the heavy one (8/13).The heavy swordsman has a preponderance of as much as 60% against the vanilla 30. I.e., it ALREADY exceeds the protection of the hill.
    With a 25% bonus, there will be a final slaughter on the hills with the forest, which is too harsh even for the 15th century, when archers still played a significant role.
    At the same time, the long archer in the open field hits the medieval axemen and spearmen which in C2C replaced by Renaissance pikemen in 3/4 armor. Which is nonsense. But what does the swordsmen have to do with it?
    And yes, you have banal early archers disproportionately strong in relation to all hand-to-hand fighters, and here personally swordsmen? At the same time, the main problem is not the field-there they are weaker than melee fighters. Further, the early archer still does not hold up against light swordsmen on the hills, the composite-yes, but this is quite historical and normal. From the fact that it can long archers, nothing changes globally.
    The problem is the city, especially with the composite archers. Due to a combination of strength comparable to melee weapons and a vanilla city bonus of 50%. The most basic (but not the best) option is to cut it down to 30-35%.
    The alternative is a skewed balance in the case of long archers and a lack of logic.

    You can also say that the criticism is unfounded.
     
    Last edited: May 22, 2021
  5. tmv

    tmv Emperor

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2015
    Messages:
    1,417
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Germany
    Most of them quickly lose their effectiveness against armor.

    It seems at least both factors played a role: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/brv.12556 But the actual problem is when continue cutting down the trees although it is obvious that before long you will be out of them. So yes, the main problem of these societies was not deforestation, but a complete inability to adapt to changing conditions. Again, there is nothing unique about the Rapanui in this regard, because this was the norm for the longest time. These civilizations still adapted quicker than biological evolution by several orders of magnitude. But compared to (at least partially) dynamic societies like the one we are living they were very slow to respond, and most of the new ideas came around by two people in close proximity being set on different ideas competing with each other, sometimes peacefully, sometimes ... less so.

    In the long run, you can still advance, but you have to be patient. It is a bit like "Never change a running system" taken to eleven. Especially if you think a system is running until the moment it breaks apart and is completely destroyed. Coupled with a reverence towards conformism and punishing anyone stepping out of line unless and until they can benefit the Great Leader this can mean getting a few advances (in the Civ sense of advances) per millennium. On the other hand, you have very stable societies. Just take a look how much a civilization like Ancient Egypt didn't advance in roughly 3000 years, compared with the roughly 300 years we have had since the beginning of the Enlightenment.

    This particular spear was considered a throwing weapon. The Romans had also had a "regular" spear as a polearm, which had been last used by the Triarii before the Marian Reforms.

    That was Sparta. While the military was much more a part of society as it is common today Rome did not have nearly such a strong military focus in their society as Sparta.

    Perhaps I should have said unthinkable, and for most people that term would have fitted literally. Even when it happened (ever so rarely), people did not start thinking "out of the box" themselves, they were much too busy being outraged at the mere idea of going against the norm.

    And we all know how good these translators are. There is a reason people still use professional translators today (and probably for the foreseeable future).

    Bronze can be used rather well to create any object with point symmetry. Spear tips do have that symmetry, swords don't.

    Carrot and stick. You make sure that these inventors want for nothing (as much as possible), and you make sure that they know what you would be doing to them if they gave these secrets away to a potential enemy.

    And sooner or later, these societies crumble. That is nothing new. But as long as they last (and as long as someone who is "reasonably reasonable" is in charge) they try their best to prolong their existence.
     
  6. Thunderbrd

    Thunderbrd C2C War Dog

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2010
    Messages:
    28,650
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    The way that the vanilla scenario reached this conclusion was to have the sword stronger at the base by 6 vs the archer's 3. I have a more equal footing to begin with for strength thanks to C2C's evolutions. This then means that on a hill, the sword and bow have the same strength against each other if the sword is attacking the bowmen. More by a touch actually because you also get the hill's bonus it gives to all units while the bowman's specific hill bonus counters out the swordsman's archery bonus. And let's not forget that first strike.
     
  7. pecheneg

    pecheneg Warlord

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2021
    Messages:
    168
    Gender:
    Male

    Naturally, in Vanilla, the script did not come to anything like this. On a wooded hill, the ratio to the swordsman is 6/6 + first strike even for an early archer. At the same time, after standing there for a couple of moves, it became quite impregnable for a swordsman. Against the flail, the long archer holds even on treeless hills without training.
    Your option assumes 7 +25% = 8, 75 vs 8 in the case of an early archer vs a light swordsman. I.e. the swordsman is guaranteed to kill the bow even on a wooded hill.
    The composite archer holds up against the light swordsman, but not against the "medium" one, the long one takes down the heavy one.
    Nothing to do with sacred vanilla. And what is the rational meaning of this? Turn the archers into a purely urban unit? This spoils the game, reducing the number of possible situations and is extremely unhistorical – even in the 15th century, archers make up the bulk of field armies. Not to mention the" mystical " bonus of swordsmen and the fact that they already resemble terminators.
     
  8. pecheneg

    pecheneg Warlord

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2021
    Messages:
    168
    Gender:
    Male
    Very far from everything, and even vice versa. In any case, what difference does it make – the sacred pattern is terribly broken. Unlike the pilum case.

    According to the link "In addition, archaeological evidence shows that the Rapanui civilization is resistant to deforestation and remained healthy before contact with Europeans, which contradicts the emergence of cultural collapse."

    1. And how did these "completely unable to adapt societies" populate the entire territory of the Earth, except for Antarctica, including those very islands? Moreover, Oceania from the equatorial islands to New Zealand was colonized quite quickly.
    2. Just at the same time, the undoubtedly progressive European society, where the holy Enlightenment will soon come, instead of" adapting "drowned in the Thirty Years' War. And the same was observed before China..
    3. The entire population of Rapanui at the maximum was 16 thousand.Fewer people - fewer inventors. How many are there on average in a modern residential area? Not engineers who solve typical problems of the cabinet design level, namely Edison, Belov, Diesels, etc.
    4. We take 16 thousand modern office managers led by the author of the article, we land them on an island near Antarctica, we see what a grand leap they will make with a much greater amount of knowledge

    We live in a society that recently fought a nearly thirty-year war over the Great Depression. Which, against the background of that cold snap, looked extremely pale.

    1. Only here it appeared in all the splendor of the pyramids for a comparable period.
    2. Before the current breakthrough, there was a couple of thousand years of stagnation, and before antiquity, when civilization reached a very impressive level, they also were. And before the Pharaohs, too.

    And the pitchfork is an agricultural tool. And yes, show the clause in the Roman army regulations where pilum was not allowed to fight in hand-to-hand combat. Do you seriously believe that the Roman command was inadequate? There was as much difference between the Roman commanders and the average occupant of a modern office as there was between the modern military elite and the same occupants.

    I've already told you that this is not the case. Look at least at the column of Trajan from the school textbook, if you do not believe Flavius and Co.

    Okay, let's not touch the geometry yet. What are you trying to say? That it is impossible to make a sword out of bronze? First of all, this is a very strange statement, and second, what does this have to do with the topic at all?

    And how are the military successes of Sparta? In any case, it's about something else. In your reality, the offspring of the Roman aristocracy were taught military affairs worse than the Spartan cannon fodder?

    And now, if the republic is replaced by a dictatorship, everyone will be happy, right?

    Once again, why should inventors be paid only by the treasury? So that they don't have ideas about intellectual property, without which he can't sell the secret to Rome? Do you seriously think that the lord tyrants perceived this otherwise as an excuse for a long and sophisticated torture of the ideologue of squandering the treasury?

    And? If they need innovation, they should untie their support regardless of the context ("foolproof").»)
     
    Last edited: May 22, 2021
  9. Thunderbrd

    Thunderbrd C2C War Dog

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2010
    Messages:
    28,650
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    Your math is a bit off.

    Obsidian Swordsmen
    UNIT_OBSIDIAN_SWORDSMAN
    iCombat 6
    VS Throwing 25, VS Archer 25
    iCityAttack 25

    Attacking an archer outside the city, 6 + (6*25% = 1.5) = 7.5 str
    Comp to

    War Slingers
    UNIT_WAR_SLINGER
    iCombat 5
    iFirstStrikes 1
    iCityDefense 40
    iHillsDefense 25
    VS Melee 10, VS Animal 25

    On a hill alone, the hill gives another 25% itself - even if the War Slinger is not fortified. More than that if wooded. So we have 10 melee, 25 hill defense, 25 from the hill itself - 5 power + 60% minimum = 5+3 = 8 str while fighting a melee unit attacking while standing on an unforested non-city hill.

    1 First Strike means that if the War Slinger hits on that first free attack, the swordsman will be even weaker in comparison the next round and thus more likely to miss and more likely to be hit and in C2C it does retally every round so the chances of victory keep being even more remote for the swordsman in this case.


    Light Swordsmen
    UNIT_LIGHT_SWORDSMAN
    iCombat 8
    VS Throwing 25, VS Archer 25
    iCityAttack 25

    VS
    8 + (8 * 25%) = 8 + 2 = 10 str when attacking the Bowmen outside the city

    Composite Bowmen
    UNIT_COMPOSITE_BOWMAN
    iCombat 7
    iFirstStrikes 2
    iCityDefense 50
    iHillsDefense 25
    VS Animal 25

    7 + (7 * 50% (hill natural and hill defense additional from the unit)) = 7 + 3.5 = 10.5 + 2 first strikes (free attacks) to start the battle with that have more than a 50% chance of striking each and thus weakening the swords before the battle begins.

    I think you're forgetting to take into account the hill itself that these archers stand on are already going to give a defense modifier that gets added in to the hill modifier they boost that with.

    I could go on...
     
  10. Thunderbrd

    Thunderbrd C2C War Dog

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2010
    Messages:
    28,650
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    Barely, but then again, mace/flail is a different line here and archers would tend to an even fight at that point, though by then the crossbowmen would stomp there.

    Plus, Archery units have a distance attack capacity that can basically deliver an early first strike as well - they are more than ever promoted to be part of field armies so as to be there to help soften neighboring forces, particularly just before an attack or before a defense - and with another combat mod, they become absolutely critical to add to your overall stack or you're missing a major component that strengthens the attacker.
     
  11. pecheneg

    pecheneg Warlord

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2021
    Messages:
    168
    Gender:
    Male

    No, in my version, obsidian swordsman 6, light swordsman 7, slingshot 3, short archer 4, composite 5.
    1. So, for some reason, you have strengthened the archers and now you are strengthening the swordsmen to return the original ratio?
    And just to return the archers to the original parameters, something prevents? A one-plus is still better for a swordsman than a dimensionless bonus. Even if we assume that this unit is necessary for "terminators".
    2. At the same time, do I understand correctly that the all the rest of the infantry now in an even greater crisis ? This is not good in itself, but the previous version of the swordsmen also competed in basic strength with the cavalry. Heavy Swordsman / Knight – 13/14.

    Will be curious
     
    Last edited: May 22, 2021
  12. pecheneg

    pecheneg Warlord

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2021
    Messages:
    168
    Gender:
    Male
    This is exactly so, turn on vanilla, editor and put your mace-bearer next to the computer unit on the hill.

    And what does that change? In vanilla archers on the hill, the opponents are inferior and this is correct. And sacred is not my thesis, mind you.

    Exactly. So, both armies have a lot of archers and they have questionable defensive capabilities. The one who attacked first will win banally.
     
  13. tmv

    tmv Emperor

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2015
    Messages:
    1,417
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Germany
    What are you saying here?

    Here are the two sentences directly before your quote:

    I have already said that they were still able to adapt, but on a different timescale. They were, of course, still quicker than biological evolution, which has also been able to "produce" lifeforms able to inhabit all of these territories. And it seems that New Zealand was the last area to be inhabited by humans - this site mentions something like the 1300s: https://www.stuff.co.nz/science/100629585/dna-who-were-the-first-humans-to-reach-aotearoa

    We can all disparage the Enlightenment as much as we want, but when we do it on computers via the Internet, this feels a little strange. Besides, I have not said anything about pre-Enlightenment Europe, which was a different place.

    Belov who?

    What are you talking about?

    Are you confusing the absolute level of civilization with its slope? Ancient Egypt was on a comparatively high level, true, but there was hardly any development.

    Are you serious?

    As I have already said, idiots are those who are behind their contemporaries. I have never said I could have done better in that time, hardly anyone from today could, but we are standing on the shoulders of giants (many of them, in fact). We don't need to be smarter than them to know better, especially with hindsight.

    Where do you see this on the column of Trajan?

    For a sword, Bronze is a far inferior choice compared to iron. For spears, the difference is much smaller. So (if you look back to where I made this statement initially) the fact that the Greeks kept using spears meant that they were less disadvantaged by the fact that they had less iron compared to Italy.

    YES. Of course. If you don't believe me, look at how well the Pompeian side of the civil war fared. Let's take a few quotes from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesar's_Civil_War here:

    Brilliant, simply brilliant. First you move a strong general into an untenable position, then you are surprised when he strikes, and then your blunders cost you the central territory.

    Here, we learn what happens when you have never even heard of the concept of reconnaissance. There are not many cases in modern times that come close to this nonsense, the only one coming to my mind right now is the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ulm

    But of course, with the great Roman aristocrats we then have the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ilerda a very short time later.

    And then, the Greek campaign we have already talked about. Let's see:

    You cannot make this up. It's not as if initiative is a key concept in tactics, is it? And "miscommunication among front cavalry horsemen" is a clear sign of an elite army.

    The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Thapsus seems to contain less blunders, but there is still the fact that the Pompeians clearly had numerical superiority, and 60 elephants. Even in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Munda the Pompeians still had more troops. And then came their last mistake:

    I suppose all the Roman aristocrats with their elite training completely thought this through.

    What difference was their back then between the treasury and the personal coffers of the tyrant?

    Which later happened, but not for a long time. Shoulders of Giants, remember?
     
  14. Thunderbrd

    Thunderbrd C2C War Dog

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2010
    Messages:
    28,650
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    What is your definition of a crisis?


    Cool - you'll see it when it gets put into play.
     
  15. pecheneg

    pecheneg Warlord

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2021
    Messages:
    168
    Gender:
    Male
    The humor is that in my version
    1. all melee weapons before the Middle Ages, except for the subject of your concerns ( swordsmen), are much weaker relative to shooters than in vanilla. As a result, until the late Middle Ages, archers defeat them in the woods and on the hills. In the original, let me remind you, no.
    But as soon as the Middle Ages comes, the archers begin
    That is, in relation to the holy vanilla, everything is completely the opposite.
    The problem is that this is just the beginning.
    2. The antidote to early archers is ... throwers. Which destroy them a) better than melee fighters, b) Than other archers. Which is strange in itself.
    The problem is that the
    Early thrower, who appears simultaneously with the spearman and the mace, is stronger than them due to the first strike. But still inferior to spearmen in opposition to cavalry, although not particularly strong, and axes in hand-to-hand combat.
    The Late Thrower is an absolute Wunderwaffe against composite archers - stronger than them even on wooded hills (12/10) and much stronger when storming. There is also an assault bonus of 15% Result (13.2/7.5). That is, formally, there is no problem with early archers, worse, there is a bias towards anti-archers and too successful assaults..
    What is worse, he is a) stronger than the pikeman who opens with him with the same technology and is almost equal to him in the fight against the cavalrymen. 10 + 0-2 first strikes/ 10.5. What makes a pikeman meaningless and very strange.
    b) Stronger than light Swordsman and Mace Bearer. Which is fine historically, but not in terms of holy vanilla and balance.
    That is, the anti-archers successfully beat the already weakened melee fighters compared to vanilla.
    4. After that, the Middle Ages begins quite quickly and at its beginning – standard swordsmen and flail appear. Who just as well do without spearmen in the fight against cavalry and defeat composite archers. The swordsman is almost equal to the axe against melee fighters, the flail - stronger, 12,5/10. Axe finally loses its meaning. IN THE EARLY MIDDLE AGES.
    5. Even further away, longbows appear, and almost immediately later swordsmen, pikemen, and axemen.
    At the same time
    a) The flail is completely useless. IN THE LATE MIDDLE AGES
    b) The Heavy Pikeman retains the tradition of being unclaimed. 15 against cavalry is very little better than 13 against swordsmen and axes.
    C) longbows are still inferior to throwers when storming and are destroyed by swordsmen and axemen everywhere except for wooded hills.
    7. Then arquebusiers appear and cancel all melee attacks at once. Because they are stronger than them and at the same time resist the cavalry no worse than the pikemen. That simplifies the awp to the point of ugliness is anti-historical. The 16th and 17th centuries are well-known peaks and valleys.
    Conclusions:
    Spearmen in C2C are very weakly superior to competitors as anti-cavalry (even swordsmen, except for light ones) and are still inferior in everything else.
    Holy vanilla, history and balance are back in the red. At the same time, in vanilla, spearmen are useful at least in a bizarre way.
    3. Axes are generally weakened and completely useless in the first half of the Middle Ages.
    4. Strange things happen to the mace-bearers in general.
    8. That is, there is nothing left of the sacred vanilla for a long time. No one, for example, expects throwers to be superweapons against archers. It takes a long time to understand the twists and turns of the system.
    Historicity? It's gone.
    Balance? Periodically, absolutely useless units pop up.


    So far, I see that you 1 have strengthened archers and, in parallel, swordsmen, giving them the strangest bonuses. 2. You keep the bonuses of throwers against archers.
    As a result, the bias towards the eradication of spearmen and PICKNERS only intensifies.
    2. You are trying to solve the intensified problem of clubs in an equally strange way.
    At the same time, the entry threshold for the player increases due to the strange bonuses of swordsmen and flails.
    3. The next step will naturally turn out that now spearmen are not needed at all and you will have to come up with a bonus for them. As always, the most anti-historical and illogical / requiring guessing - because the real one is already busy.
    Details.
    BUT). The slinger, appearing simultaneously with the wooden spearmen, is corny stronger than them in the open field (?). And very slightly weaker than stone 3.75 / 4
    IN). All obsidian weapons, except for the sword in my version 5, short archer, quickly (on the C2C scale) appearing after them - 4.
    The standard spearman in Vanilla appears before the archer, actually in place of the obsidian ones, and is somewhat stronger (4/3); at the same time, in Vanilla, after the archer, an ax immediately appears, which kills him even in the forest and on the hills.
    FROM). In C2C, the Axeman unlocks one tech with a Composite Archer shortly after the Copper Lance. At the same time, the composite is almost one and a half times less inferior to spearmen than in vanilla 2. Axemen are still worse. In Vanilla, archers competing with the ax are weaker by 66% (3/5), in C2C by 40 (5/7).
     
    Last edited: May 24, 2021
  16. pecheneg

    pecheneg Warlord

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2021
    Messages:
    168
    Gender:
    Male
    The fact that the working peasantry simply used anything as a weapon. Not at all embarrassed by the absence of clowns Volteire-style. At the same time, using the pilum as a striking spear requires an order of magnitude less mental eff

    Which indicate that the story about the aborigines who independently brought the forests under the root is a myth. At the same time, the forests were reduced regardless of the actions of the aborigines, including the reduction of deforestation. How were they supposed to establish the relationship?
    There is a much simpler version of the relationship – epidemic = mortality.
    At the same time, the number of characters who sabotaged the fight with covid does not lead you to any thoughts? In Sweden and Brazil, not enough time has passed since Voltaire and Co.?

    That is, when they landed on an island with different climatic conditions, they began to "adapt for a long time"? They would be trivially extinct. I do not even ask how the colonization of Iceland, Greenland, Siberia and other interesting places took place, where slow adaptation did not give any chance of survival at all. Your theory is very... Germanic.

    And what?

    Why? The acceleration of progress in Modern times began long before the gentlemen of the humanities in the lagging countries deigned to react to it. In the 17th century, monarchs were already designing gun carriages. A hundred years later, the bourgeois of deeply agrarian countries are read by Rousseau and other characters who talk about the improvement of morals as the main mechanism of progress.

    I mean, to others? And the enlighteners are turned on by the dampness, like bedbugs?

    Bell.

    1914-45.
    And how did it get to this level? The same pyramids grew gradually for several thousand years?

    Absolutely. Nothing could prevent the peasants of yesterday from using the pilum as optimally as possible at the moment. Except for the order with mass executions for disobedience. Where is it?

    And the contemporaries were so stupid that they did not understand that a stick with a tip can be used in different ways?

    Sorry. The trophy of Trajan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropaeum_Traiani

    There was no place to take iron to the legionary horde.

    Do not pass off want as virtue. They tried to copy the Roman armament. Carthage, by the way, too.

    In this case, blunders are your wild imagination. Pompey trivially did not have the troops to face at least one legion of VETERANS. In Italy were 4 thousand.

    1.Domitius is actually a plebeian. Moreover, this family is inherently bad military leaders.
    2. On what basis did he think he was superior to Caesar, if not on the basis of intelligence?

    Such "aristocrats"? "Lucius Afranius belonged to an obscure plebeian family, which before him was not marked by any merit. His father, who bore the praenomen Aulus, was of the lowest descent[1]; Marcus Tullius Cicero most often refers to Lucius in his letters as simply the son of Aulus[2], and this may have been a mockery due to Lucius ' lack of distinguished ancestors."
    Under Illerd, both Pompeian generals were plebeians. And unlike Domitius even without the background
    It is noteworthy that the entire meaningful part of the"compromat" refers just to upstarts, but not to the traditional nobility.

    You didn't understand that. Pompey's Cavalry is actually a conglomerate of multilingual characters gathered from all over the East.

    Roman aristocrats maintained the republican system for almost 500 years and 80 years after the transformation of the army into a professional one.

    ?

    You have no proof, of course.
     
    Last edited: May 24, 2021
  17. Thunderbrd

    Thunderbrd C2C War Dog

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2010
    Messages:
    28,650
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    I don't see that you've pointed out any real problems. Perhaps the axe-thrower might be a point too strong and thus intruding on the anti-mounted role of spears a touch more than it should be and with their withdrawal skills, they'd still be just fine a pt less in str.

    There's no 'spearmen aren't needed at all' point because they're always strongest against mounted. Which I may remind is all they were really ever good for in vanilla. Also the earliest versions are admittedly fairly useless against any other human unit - they are now too - but they are the BEST unit against strong animals that can outweigh the hunters.

    I might be able to get a bit more of a proper sense of things by reversing the Warhammer and Flail. And yeah there's a brief period where swords are naturally stronger than the axemen but only the most upgraded ones and swords probably wouldn't be given anti-melee promos to support their strengths like the axes.

    And therein lies something I think you're not considering enough - the differences in special purposes that would cause one to promote to support those special purposes. Even a slight edge over other units says, build that unit for this role then promote to support its strengths.

    In vanilla, for a time you'd train archers to guard some plots in the field. But they were never the best at that unless you're talking hills.

    Reality might say that spears were generally a good unit, but in core CivIV they've always sucked against anything that wasn't mounted. Axes were always anti-melee of all forms. Swords were for attacking, mostly in cities, and could be useful for defenses in a pinch if they had the right plots to hold and depending on what they were fighting. Mounted were for attacking, mostly in the field, but also for hit and run softening tactics. Archers were for defending cities and hills and were usually slaughtered by anything if they stood anywhere else. Yeah there's a few more units in the mix here and it's a touch more complicated. The next evolution. Then with further options, you get more complicated still.

    With this workup,
    * Axes are good for defending against melee attacks and attacking when melee is all the defenders can offer. Equally in the field and city, though unrivaled at this in the field.
    * Swords are good for attacking, mostly against cities and archers - whether in city or field - and while they are a touch stronger than spears, not enough that any defensive bonus to the spears at all wouldn't put them in the advantage.
    * Spears are great for wiping out indominable animal problems and then advance to being your front line defense against mounted units of most kinds. In city or field they are simply a good cross stack defense to ensure you can't get just pwnd by mounted units entirely, but mostly they are critical to have in the field to try to keep your stacks from being decimated by mounted forces.
    * Mace/Flail/Hammer line is good for melee city defense mostly though IF archers aren't present, they do become very good at attacking cities that are left with mere melee defenders.
    * Throwing units are quite good but don't usually carry through the full attack. Thus, like some mounted, they can be good at softening the defenses. They are good against archery because they can race to take defended positions, scatter, come back together, and approach with unpredictable tactics. They MIGHT get as many or more first strikes and they might get none. To defend against them, swords are great because shields work pretty good against throwing weapons too, and the sword is almost as maneuverable.
    * Archers, if alone in defending the city, are easily taken out by sword invasion. However, when defended by swords (against throwing), spears (against mounted), maces and/or axes (against melee), any attack that would be specialized to take THOSE down, the archer would instead defend against and easily wipe out. This is the bias towards defense when you have a proper cross stack to defend a city that can even be a little difficult for breakdown, siege, and then softening hit and run, to overcome entirely. In the field, they can do well defending hills and are mostly along to range attack to soften other forces either before you attack or get hit.
    * Crossbowmen add a dimension that makes it even harder to attack any plot in general with some anti-melee and anti-throwing, among some other special benefits you might not notice at first such as to soften the lead defenders rather than just the mass of defenders in the rear with their distance attacks - that works best when the rear defenders are already softened so you don't just keep having new unharmed rear defenders taking point after the front ones get hurt. Not great against mounted because they are the slowest to reload.

    So I'm really not seeing where any unit wouldn't have a primary role here, nor where any become unnecessary. Beyond all this, one can point to this cultural unit type being superior in one way or this cultural unit type being superior in another and yeah, alright, so what? You're blending the discussion of cultural units in as if those units were core. You're balking at some of the 'strangeness' of various benefits because it doesn't suit your assumptions.
     
  18. pecheneg

    pecheneg Warlord

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2021
    Messages:
    168
    Gender:
    Male
    In your reality, the pikeman outperforms the nearest competitor appearing strictly simultaneously by... 5%. 10/10, 5 Inferior in all other respects.
    Heavy pikeman – however, by "as much as" 15%. But there are two comparable specialists in anti-cavalry, plus one slightly worse.

    1. In vanilla, spearmen and pikemen outperform the competition by 80 and 50%, respectively. 5/8 and 8/12. This is not counting the fact that axes are very effective eliminated by chariots.
    2. In reality, the swordsman in vanilla is exactly in the middle between the spearman and the pikeman, the second one is equal to (6/6). Swordsman is the weakest anti-spear unit, much weaker than maces and axes.
    So why do you need an anti-cavalry bonus for thrower ? For the sake of realism? You said it was unimportant, the main thing is balance. At the same time, in reality, throwers fight with cavalry poorly - except that they are better than fantasy figures with one-handed weapons, who have lost a spear somewhere.

    There is one problem – the flail is much weaker than the axe in all but a small assault bonus.

    As a result, we still have competition in one niche instead of specialization. But we can return – as terrible as it sounds-to a reality where axes and maces have more basic power, but lose to the sword due to greater inertia. As a result, the heavy-armed have an advantage against the spearmen and cavalry, but are inferior to the swordsmen. If the spearmen are stronger than the swordsmen, and the swordsmen are useless against the cavalry (penalty for "shortness"), then the classic rock / paper / scissors will turn out. But alas, this will undermine your system completely.
    And yes, you need armor..

    Yes, the gap increases with promotions. But 1. the base is negligible. 2. Calculations for a bright future at the cost of actually reducing the current strength of the army will always be a dubious approach in terms of effectiveness.

    Again, throwers in C2C driving archers off the hills for almost the entire duration of the archers ' existence, and in the late classical period and the first half of the Middle Ages generally from anywhere outside the city.

    Naturally not, crossbowmen are stronger than Heavy against melee-21 and 13 for axes against crossbowmen. You didn't understand, in vanilla, the continuation of the axe line is a crossbowman, oddly enough.

    That is, they duplicate the throwers. At the same time
    1. In vanilla, the sword is even weaker in the field than the longbow, from which it is technologically no further away than from the short archer..
    2. You have four types of units in the late Middle Ages that squeeze archers out of the hills (crossbowmen too, yes). The question is why.

    5-15%.
    Yes, another mystical bonus.

    At a base strength of 10?

    And why should they retreat with their own parameters?

    In fakt die heroically in a shootout with archers. Which have many times more range and especially ammunition.

    Аnother mystical bonus, already against the throwers?
    So what is the advantage in the maneuverability of the sword in front of a spearman and a one-handed axe? By the way, one-handed supports were worn in cases.

    In their current form, they are destroyed by everything.

    Then the enemy simply brings a set of similar units to the city, kills a quarter of the narrow specialists and cuts out the garrison. Because one garrison unit out of four is adequately capable of fighting.
    At the same time, a garrison of less than three units is basically incapacitated.
    With respect to the four theory, because the spearmen are strictly decorative, but the general principle is clear.

    5% this is important, yes.
    Naturally, we are talking about the default line of units. What does "cultural units"have to do with it?

    No, it doesn't fit the banal reality laid out in boring books many, many times.
     
    Last edited: May 24, 2021
  19. Thunderbrd

    Thunderbrd C2C War Dog

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2010
    Messages:
    28,650
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    I suppose that it would make more balance sense to remove the mounted bonus on throwing. I see what you mean by it diminishing the role of the spear. I'd still never train throwing as an anti-mounted plothold unit because they're likely to withdraw halfway during the battle but that's only if you're playing with early withdrawal.
    Represents running out of weapons and being generally better at hit and run as a strategy.
    Archers tend to fire more regimentedly on a particular zone rather than picking a target and shooting at it, at least in warfare. Such zones are more easily evaded by approaching fleet of foot units.
    I think you're thinking ultra unit specific rather than as a line and what the benefits of the line need to be, and the fact that pikes are nothing more than just even longer spears with slightly tougher design.
    By 'outperform the competition' you're not calling out who the competition is nor in what combat context.
    Yes, but that's just because it was staggered in the tech tree, and had nothing to do with the line in comparison in general. The staggering in the tech tree actually makes it a lot more difficult to determine an honest counterbalance structure. Not that it's not valuable just to throw a monkey wrench into things randomly as vanilla did.
    What does that have to do with anything? The flail does not replace the axe.
    If you're dumb enough to start training swords as anti-melee units just because there's a small period of time where they're stronger against axes without the promos, then you'll be punished for it as soon as axes get their upgrade not long after.
    This makes no sense to anything I can think you might mean here.
    Yes and no - Axes couldn't upgrade to crossbowmen so they weren't the continuation of the line. They were the irritating replacement of it. Actually interestingly enough, the plan does have axes promote to the heavy crossbowmen at the end of it. Of course, until then, Axes are still superior in a raw fight against any melee unit.
    No... throwers are better to start with and swords are better to finish with. Throwers have a hard time doing more than hit and run since they tend to exit the battle early. When the defenses in general have been weakened enough, primarily the maces, then the swords can make a breakthrough and start punching through.
    Still thinking too in terms of the specific units and not enough about the line as a whole. Yes, ESPECIALLY at that point because this is a period where the flailmen have a fairly uncontested edge at that base strength, for a moment, a moment that is then also rapidly caught up to when it gets its next upgrade soon thereafter.
    In a city with a hill? 75% total combat modifier? If you're saying in the field 'SOMETHING' can always take them, yes, that's the downside of being the unit that can hit you without attacking from a space away.
    You do realize that the strongest defender against whatever attacker you bring is what's chosen to make the stand against an incoming attack, right? I'm sure you realize this. There is no perfect 'generic' attacker if you have a good cross-defended stack and if you double that up, you can take out a hell of a lot of units that attack per unit that's there to defend because every attacking unit is at a major disadvantage having to go against the type of unit that counters it. When the promotions are wisely chosen, which after some AI adjustments coming up here they will be, this gets even harder for the attacker.
    Most of your initial arguments were about how this cultural unit historically did this or that cultural unit historically did that and didn't even apply to a discussion of interactions between these base types.
    Most of which are doing analysis of how cultural units fought in key battles.

    I'm sure I've missed some of your points here, some because it's already been said what the logic was - whether you agreed or not wasn't really the issue. You tend to just take any points made and say 'the opposite is true' for whatever arguments you want to make about it.
     
  20. tmv

    tmv Emperor

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2015
    Messages:
    1,417
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Germany
    I'm quoting from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_scythe which describes one of the most important "agricultural tools" used as a weapon:

    Sorry, I'm not familiar with what you are saying here.

    I'm quoting again, this time with added emphasis by me:

    Different climatic conditions - from what? Other Polynesian islands?

    And when do you think the other places you mention were colonized first? If it was during the Ice Age, these places would not be so different from the other places those people were coming from. And the Vikings were already coming from rather harsh conditions, and they could have left these islands if they really had to.

    I'm not so sure what you mean by "Germanic theory".

    Could you give me an example?

    At some point, the previously slow development hits a certain point and is accelerated from there. This has happened several times already, like the Agricultural Revolution. Some people think that the Technological Singularity might be another accelerator in the future.

    WHAT? OK, first of all, the Great Depression only started in 1929, so I think they would not have started fighting 15 years earlier. Second, you do realize that the First World War ended 1918/19, don't you? The Second World War started 1939 at least for Germany, Poland, UK and France and for USA and USSR it started in 1941. Even if you include the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Sino-Japanese_War it only started in 1937, so I don't think you can speak of 30 years of continuous warfare.

    Slow does not mean continuous. There are still noticeable changes at certain points, but these points are apart. The diagram would look more like stairs than a ramp.

    What country / system does that reasoning remind me of, I wonder?

    You do realize that the armies of antiquity depended - strongly - on all people in a formation doing the same thing, don't you? There is very little room for creativity.

    That is still inconclusive at most. There is exactly one picture that might show the use of spears as polearms by Romans, but this formation is not engaged with the enemy at this point, so there is no way to tell.

    I cannot understand what you are saying here.

    Where do you get those numbers? Let me quote from the same site again:

    He was actually a senator: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucius_Domitius_Ahenobarbus_(consul_54_BC) - and his father was already consul.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Petreius was a senator (although probably the first in his family), and had already served in several positions, including Praetor (no later than 64 BC). There should have been more than enough time to remedy any disadvantages.

    Which is only an accomplishment if there is pressure against it.

    You will note that I only refuted your claims if I could offer counter evidence. There are quite a few claims of yours where you didn't bother offering any kind of proof.
     

Share This Page