Civ VII and Ships (and the water the sail in)

[Andrew Johnson [FXS]]

And your opinions on a roman lamp found in a vicinity of Kanchanaburi Province?

I think it's really cool! And again shows the mobility of objects - they move in and out of contexts and meanings. The lamp was early Byzantine, if I remember right, and found in a temple. So basically here is something unusual put on display, whether or not people thought it had some sort of sacred quality, or was seen as a kind of curiosity (like a museum), or just admired as odd or beautiful I don't think we quite know. But it tells us that the goods had moved out of their original context into a new kind of context. The trade network is a web, and links Dvaravati (a Mon-speaking kingdom in what is now Thailand) and Rome (via India, of course), and things can travel all the way across that web in really cool ways. For example, I have a jar of coins in my car where I empty my pockets. Sometimes I'll use these if I have to pay something or one of the window washer kids comes over. I try to only give US coins, but I know there are Hong Kong, Singapore, Danish, Euro and Thai coins in there. Say I give it to a kid thinking it's a handful of quarters, who, after he's angry with me, gives it to his friend, who takes it with him when he moves across the country. Etc. That randomness is what's cool here. With regards to the votive figures in Vietnam and the lamp in Thailand, I wonder what people made of them; what gods they ascribed to them. I published an article once on the sale of Thai magical objects in Singapore, and how the meaning changes when they move out of their original contexts.

Finally, it's also important to separate goods and people. So the Roman lamp doesn't mean Romans were physically there. It's not time yet to imagine a trireme sailing up the Chao Phraya.

But that's also a good point to remember that, from the vantage point of archaeology, most of the time goods are how people are identified. Especially in Southeast Asia before colonialism, lifestyle, not blood, can determine how someone identifies - one lives in the mountains, is animist, and grows root crops one year, and then when things are prosperous one can move down, become Buddhist, and grow rice. In the first year, one is Kachin, in the second, one is Shan. And one can go back, if things turn sour in the lowlands. Archaeologists usually only see objects, and so when we identify "a culture" based on objects we're really talking about those objects, their production and distribution and maybe their use. To put it very simply, if I show you a new way of making pottery, we become indistinguishable in the archaeological record even if we consider ourselves different (unless we get complicated records, cities, writing, burials, you get it).

So... that's what I think. The Roman lamp there shows the scope and scale of trade, and the importance of India as a trade corridor, and how little things can trickle through the system.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

One of the biggest changes in archeology since the invention of the dental pick is now going on, and it's the application of DNA identification to archeology - 'forensic archeology' which is constantly improving, but has now reached the point where they can extract testable DNA from fragments of teeth and bone where it was previously impossible. At last count, there are several thousand individuals(last hard number I saw was 4000, but that was several years ago, so is doubtless out of date) that have been identified from archeological sites, so that now, in addition to Objects, People can be identified. This, in some cases, is radically changing the 'traditional' view of who was where and how they got there.

We still have to keep in mind, though, that the fact that the same people lived in the same place for a thousand years doesn't mean that they necessarily were still speaking the same language or living in the same culture: people adapt in wildly different ways to changes in their environment, and when the changes are cultural they may or may not show up in the surviving identifiable artifacts. And they don't always necessarily require a massive influx of new people, either.

That Roman lamp goes right into the old data base along with the Venetian beads, the Oregonian obsidian found in the eastern Great Lakes, and the Greek sailors accurately describing primates (we're still not sure if they were baboons or lowland gorillas) from central Africa and North Sea fogs - both well outside of anyplace the Greeks were supposed to be sailing at the time (5th - 4th centuries BCE)

 

[Zaarin]

the Greek sailors accurately describing primates (we're still not sure if they were baboons or lowland gorillas) from central Africa

If I'm not mistaken, isn't that from translations of the account of Hanno the Navigator? The Phoenicians are known to have sailed around the Gold Coast and possibly as far as the Cape of Good Hope, though the latter is disputed. (And in the other direction we know they also sailed as far as the Baltic and out into the Atlantic as far as the Canary Islands.)

We still have to keep in mind, though, that the fact that the same people lived in the same place for a thousand years doesn't mean that they necessarily were still speaking the same language or living in the same culture: people adapt in wildly different ways to changes in their environment, and when the changes are cultural they may or may not show up in the surviving identifiable artifacts. And they don't always necessarily require a massive influx of new people, either.

This is an important point. Genetic studies have shown us that the population of the British Isles has been very stable for thousands of years--but over the course of those thousands of years they've gone from speaking any number of pre-Indo-European languages to several Celtic languages to Anglo-Saxon to Norman-influenced English with a few Celtic languages clinging to life on the periphery--all without any major change in population (even in the case of the Anglo-Saxon invasion).

 

[chrisgatt7]

Embarkation and DEBARKATION can only be conducted on a Harbor district tile. Add Naval infantry back into the game allowing for units to conduct amphibious landing. Not only will stratigic importance of harbors will become valuable but the access to a powerful navy. Also using the air lift mechanic. Thoughts ?

 

[Zaarin]

Embarkation and DEBARKATION can only be conducted on a Harbor district tile. Add Naval infantry back into the game allowing for units to conduct amphibious landing. Not only will stratigic importance of harbors will become valuable but the access to a powerful navy. Also using the air lift mechanic. Thoughts ?

Harbors are already valuable for quick embarkation/debarkation. I don't see any reason to limit embarkation/debarkation to Harbors.

 

[chrisgatt7]

Harbors are already valuable for quick embarkation/debarkation. I don't see any reason to limit embarkation/debarkation to Harbors.

Other then its realistic ? You dont see large cargo containers disembarking at the local beach.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

If I'm not mistaken, isn't that from translations of the account of Hanno the Navigator? The Phoenicians are known to have sailed around the Gold Coast and possibly as far as the Cape of Good Hope, though the latter is disputed. (And in the other direction we know they also sailed as far as the Baltic and out into the Atlantic as far as the Canary Islands.)

This is what I get for not going back to my sources before posting - I conflated the account from 'Hanno' with Herodotus' account of the expedition sent out by 'Necho' from Egypt about a century earlier. The Greek translation of the Hanno Phoenician account described 'gorillai', or 'hairy men' but the surviving description is so vague that it could refer to any primate larger than a monkey. Herodotus' account of the earlier expedition having the sun on the opposite side of the ships after a certain point, which he thought proved they were lying, in fact proves that they crossed the equator into the southern hemisphere, which also proves that the later expedition under "Hanno" could have also gotten that far - int real 'gorilla' country.

This is an important point. Genetic studies have shown us that the population of the British Isles has been very stable for thousands of years--but over the course of those thousands of years they've gone from speaking any number of pre-Indo-European languages to several Celtic languages to Anglo-Saxon to Norman-influenced English with a few Celtic languages clinging to life on the periphery--all without any major change in population (even in the case of the Anglo-Saxon invasion).

I was specifically thinking of the recent DNA evidence from the British Isles, which I suspect, once more archeological DNA samples are obtained from east, south, and southeast Asia which are now very lightly represented in the databases, will prove to be not unique. Also, a similar situation obtained in, of all places, Constantinople, which remained a predominently Greek-speaking city for centuries after the Ottoman conquest. It was not until the 19th century, as the 'nation-state' movement strengthened in Greece and a Greek State appeared for the first time since Byzantine times, that Constantinople began to be more Turk than Greek, and it was still the largest Greek-speaking city in the world until after the establishment of the modern Turkish state in the 1920s - an indication of cultural/linguistic continuity completely independent of major political changes.

Embarkation and DEBARKATION can only be conducted on a Harbor district tile. Add Naval infantry back into the game allowing for units to conduct amphibious landing. Not only will stratigic importance of harbors will become valuable but the access to a powerful navy. Also using the air lift mechanic. Thoughts ?

This, unfortunately, would be inaccurate and too restrictive until the late Medieval Era, at least: Classical and Ancient galleys and most Norse long and round ships were perfectly capable of embarking or debarking men and cargo from any beach. In fact, it was normal for classical galleys to beach themselves every night since there was no room on the ships themselves fo the men to stretch out and sleep or cook a hot meal.

Keepng the current Free Embark/Debark in Harbors and perhaps increasing the movement cost to Embark/Debark from non-Harbor tiles after you get Steamships would be a better solution, I think.

I would also like to see Civ follow the lead of Humankind and make the coast more differentiated: in that game, you cannot embark or debark at all from coastal Cliffs, which makes some coastal terrain very unfriendly to early land or naval units.

 

[Zaarin]

Other then its realistic ? You dont see large cargo containers disembarking at the local beach.

I don't recall there being a Harbor on the beaches of Normandy. Whether from a gameplay or a historic perspective, there's no reason to limit embarkment to Harbors.

I was specifically thinking of the recent DNA evidence from the British Isles, which I suspect, once more archeological DNA samples are obtained from east, south, and southeast Asia which are now very lightly represented in the databases, will prove to be not unique. Also, a similar situation obtained in, of all places, Constantinople, which remained a predominently Greek-speaking city for centuries after the Ottoman conquest. It was not until the 19th century, as the 'nation-state' movement strengthened in Greece and a Greek State appeared for the first time since Byzantine times, that Constantinople began to be more Turk than Greek, and it was still the largest Greek-speaking city in the world until after the establishment of the modern Turkish state in the 1920s - an indication of cultural/linguistic continuity completely independent of major political changes.

Yes, the circumstances in the British Isles are certainly not unique. Studies of Egypt, the veritable crossroads of history, have also shown a very stable population, with modern Egyptians (especially Copts but also "Arab Egyptians") being clearly the direct descendants of the Ancient Egyptians with very little influx of genes either from Asia, Europe, or other parts of Africa.

 

[chrisgatt7]

I don't recall there being a Harbor on the beaches of Normandy. Whether from a gameplay or a historic perspective, there's no reason to limit embarkment to Harbors.


Yes, the circumstances in the British Isles are certainly not unique. Studies of Egypt, the veritable crossroads of history, have also shown a very stable population, with modern Egyptians (especially Copts but also "Arab Egyptians") being clearly the direct descendants of the Ancient Egyptians with very little influx of genes either from Asia, Europe, or other parts of Africa.

Bro, you taking about the English channel ? Not like these forces travelled hundreds of miles, not to mention these ranger units acted as marines during this operation. Fun fact English Channel only around 20 miles wide.

 

[Zaarin]

Bro, you taking about the English channel ? Not like these forces travelled hundreds of miles, not to mention these ranger units acted as marines during this operation. Fun fact English Channel only around 20 miles wide.

Not a particularly relevant argument. I threw out an example, and could easily throw out many more: there were no Harbors on Hispaniola, Roanoke, Jamestown, Plymouth Rock, etc. The Norwegians found no Harbors on Iceland--or Greenland--or Vinland. If a ship cannot itself land on a beach it will carry smaller boats that can. The point stands: there is no historical reason to require a Harbor to embark/disembark, and there are very good game play reasons not to do so.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Other then its realistic ? You dont see large cargo containers disembarking at the local beach.

Trader units are different than other combat units, which I wouldn't mind them having that rule if they are in the water.

The point stands: there is no historical reason to require a Harbor to embark/disembark, and there are very good game play reasons not to do so.

Not to mention we do at least have cliffs that can stop units from embarking/disembarking.

 

[chrisgatt7]

Find me a time since after WW2 a regiment/brigade size force has landed on a beach for combat operations ?

 

[Zaarin]

Find me a time since after WW2 a regiment/brigade size force has landed on a beach for combat operations ?

Why is that relevant? 1940 onward is a minute fraction of the game--a fraction of the game unlikely to involve much combat, at that. I don't want to see the game balanced around modern combat at the expense of the bulk of the periods the game covers. Why should a Renaissance Scout be unable to embark/disembark without a Harbor simply because an Aircraft Carrier couldn't do it?

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Find me a time since after WW2 a regiment/brigade size force has landed on a beach for combat operations ?

Battle of Incheon, or Incheon Landings, 15 - 19 September 1950: initial landings on 3 beaches by 2 regiments of US Marines, a battalion of South Korean Marines, and elements of a US tank battalion.

Now at the other end of the game, 490 BCE: Marathon, where the Persians put over 10,000 men ashore on a beach. Unfortunately for them, the follow-up battle didn't go as well as the initial unopposed landing . . .

 

[Falrinn]

Battle of Incheon, or Incheon Landings, 15 - 19 September 1950: initial landings on 3 beaches by 2 regiments of US Marines, a battalion of South Korean Marines, and elements of a US tank battalion.

Now at the other end of the game, 490 BCE: Marathon, where the Persians put over 10,000 men ashore on a beach. Unfortunately for them, the follow-up battle didn't go as well as the initial unopposed landing . . .

And honestly the only reason we haven't had any more recently then Incheon is that there hasn't really been many conflicts in recent-ish history where a major beach landing made strategic sense. It's not a technical limitation, just a happenstance of the sort of conflicts we tend to have in modern times.

 

[chrisgatt7]

And honestly the only reason we haven't had any more recently then Incheon is that there hasn't really been many conflicts in recent-ish history where a major beach landing made strategic sense. It's not a technical limitation, just a happenstance of the sort of conflicts we tend to have in modern times.

Its because modern countries lack capabilities

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

And honestly the only reason we haven't had any more recently then Incheon is that there hasn't really been many conflicts in recent-ish history where a major beach landing made strategic sense. It's not a technical limitation, just a happenstance of the sort of conflicts we tend to have in modern times.

Very true. The US Navy and Marines maintain the ability to land on beaches. They now have ships with wet wells that can dispatch a small fleet of landing craft from within their own bellies while simultaneously launching helicopters to support them. They even have hovercraft that can land platoons and light vehicles very quickly. They also have ships that are specialized in disgorging tanks and other heavy equipment directly onto the beach through a large door in the bow. The only reason they haven't put this into practice in decades is that there hasn't been a need to. Every conflict since Korea the US has had access to a port (which is, admittedly, easier than beach landings), a land route, or the target has been landlocked.

A port restriction is really only applicable to large, modern commercial vessels, which, as Traders, already embark/disembark exclusively though Harbors/coast cities when traversing water tiles. The current embark/disembark model is as accurate as it needs to be.

Additionally, I'm not super keen on water needing diverse terrain to mirror the land for tactical reason. I think the openness of the seas allows naval combat to contrast land combat nicely.

I agree that the melee naval line needed an additional unit between the Galley and the Caravel. I think the Naval Raider class needs to begin earlier, and needs to be melee combat. I would also shuffle the roles a bit:
Naval Melee: exclusively used against other naval units, cannot attack cities, this will include submarines which are hidden unless adjacent
Naval Ranged: used to range attack land and sea units and cities
Naval Raider: melee style, can board and seize enemy vessels, can attack enemy city centers, and pillage coastal land tiles. In Industrial and later eras, these units should be represented as amphibious assault ships.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphibious_assault_ship

 

[chrisgatt7]

Very true. The US Navy and Marines maintain the ability to land on beaches. They now have ships with wet wells that can dispatch a small fleet of landing craft from within their own bellies while simultaneously launching helicopters to support them. They even have hovercraft that can land platoons and light vehicles very quickly. They also have ships that are specialized in disgorging tanks and other heavy equipment directly onto the beach through a large door in the bow. The only reason they haven't put this into practice in decades is that there hasn't been a need to. Every conflict since Korea the US has had access to a port (which is, admittedly, easier than beach landings), a land route, or the target has been landlocked.

A port restriction is really only applicable to large, modern commercial vessels, which, as Traders, already embark/disembark exclusively though Harbors/coast cities when traversing water tiles. The current embark/disembark model is as accurate as it needs to be.

Additionally, I'm not super keen on water needing diverse terrain to mirror the land for tactical reason. I think the openness of the seas allows naval combat to contrast land combat nicely.

I agree that the melee naval line needed an additional unit between the Galley and the Caravel. I think the Naval Raider class needs to begin earlier, and needs to be melee combat. I would also shuffle the roles a bit:
Naval Melee: exclusively used against other naval units, cannot attack cities, this will include submarines which are hidden unless adjacent
Naval Ranged: used to range attack land and sea units and cities
Naval Raider: melee style, can board and seize enemy vessels, can attack enemy city centers, and pillage coastal land tiles. In Industrial and later eras, these units should be represented as amphibious assault ships.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphibious_assault_ship

Yal missing the point current naval capabilities allow for a couple battalions of marines, in civ we talking armies and divisions. Aint know one have the naval infrastructure for that.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Yeah, I would still disagree. 156,000 troops landed on D-Day. That's a hell of a lot more than a couple battalions (approx 300-1000 soldiers each). 150,000 landed on Sicily. 70,000 landed on Iwo Jima. 65,000 landed in Casablanca to kick the Germans out of North Africa. 60,000 at Okinawa. The Germans intended to use 88,000 troops in the initial amphibious landing for their canceled invasion of the UK.

The US Navy, in its current "at peace" capacity, can land 20,000+ soldiers and their equipment. That would double if they un-retired the ships in their mothball fleet, and increase again if a war necessitated the construction of additional ships.

 

[Zaarin]

Yal missing the point current naval capabilities allow for a couple battalions of marines, in civ we talking armies and divisions. Aint know one have the naval infrastructure for that.

No, the point is that you're wrong. It was an interesting idea, but it doesn't hold up either to historical scrutiny or to the simply metric of what makes for fun game play.