Civ4 battles - wuh?

[Aussie_Lurker]

Just to let you know, though-the English Longbowman could place anywhere between 5-10 arrows in the air every MINUTE!!!! At Agincourt, you had around 5,000 archers firing around 8 arrows a minute. This means that even if a charge took 30 seconds, the knights would be subjected to around 20,000 arrows. Most of these arrows took out the horses uopn whom the arrows fell (bringing their knights down with them), and broke the ranks of the men-at-arms behind them. NEVER underestimate the sheer 'morale-breaking' power of archers/longbowmen.
Oh, and once the surviving knights/men-at-arms got into range, the bowman at Agincourt brought out massive cudgels and mattocks to finish the fight!!!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Commander Bello]

Ahem... I would be very interested to see a group of Longbowmen sending out 5 arrows per minute. Especially I would like to see that for more than the first minute...
First of all, to the best of my knowledge it takes a man of considerable good constitution to draw a longbow. While it shouldn't be that much of a problem to do this once or twice, it will be hard to do it constantly.
Second, bows disappeared from the battlefields, since they had a specific problem: ammunition. After all I know, it was not that easy to produce good arrows - meaning arrows that followed a predictable line. Even worse, when they had to be balanced with heavy metal heads being able to penetrate the knight's armor.
Third, it took years to train the Longbowmen. Most probably, you can compare it with a sniper training. While almost everybody is capable to aim and shoot with a rifle, it is a different thing to hit at a range of 300 mtrs. (And I know, that they shot off volleys in a ballistical manner, I just put this as an example!)

I fear, that this battle of Agincourt is mentioned that often, since it was an absolute exception. Knights ruled the battlefields (at least in Europe) for quite some centuries, and if it would have been "that easy" to take them out, they would have gone after the first generation. But for some strange reason, they didn't.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I can assure you that this account is based on a combination of historical accounts AND battlefield 'forensics' performed just within the last 2 years.
Also Agincourt was NOT the exception, as the Battle of Crecy-around 80 years prior-was also an UTTER distaster for French Knights who were cut down by English arrows. Of course, by the time Agincourt came about, the arrows could no longer penetrate the newest French Armour-so the Longbowmen used their arrows to take out their mounts-and to drive the enemy into disarray. Believe me, Bello, I am NOT one prone to Hyperbole, and prefer to rely on historically accurate accounts of events, and this WAS historically accurate. Lastly, though, we ARE talking knights here, and NOT cavalry.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Commander Bello]

Hello Aussie,

I didn't want to imply anything about your sense of reality, but with your reply you somehow even strengthened my point, although I admit not to have made it very clear.

Even if it was two battles (and most probably, there were even a third and fourth and fifth one), still the knight remained to be a decisive factor on the battle field. Well, at least as far as Crecy is concerned. Agincourt on the other hand was in a time, when chivalry began to sink. As far as I know, almost 100 years later there still was a knight's battle on German soil (somewhere at Lueneburg in what is now called Lower Saxony). But at that time, longbows already were replaced by firearms at a large scale.
Nevertheless, although I admit that at Agincourt the longbow was THE decisive weapon, one cannot say (to the best of what I know about this times) that it was the decisive weapon on any battle field of that time.
It could have been, but too few skilled and well equipped longbowmen were available.

After all: under the assumption that a given unit in Civ always simulates a well-trained and good equipped unit in real life, the longbowman should be at least of comparable costs (in shields or whatever), as the degree of specialisation of men and equipment seems to be comparable.
This is just proven by history: the longbow never was the large-scale weapon, which ruled the continent from the one end to the other.
In any case, it pretty much seems like the longbow was better in defense than in attack. Therefore, it seems to be a good decision not to have seperated attack and defense stats anymore.

 

[stormbind]

I think that's the point.^^^^^^ If the cavalry can get to the point to attack, they are too close for an archer/longbow to aim and fire properly, and will be killed before they get the chance to.
To me the point is, close range will beat long range at close range. If a cavalry is attacking, hence kinda insinuating that they are close enough to attack, they will win. But if archers are attacking, insinuating that they are in thei range to atttack confortably, they have the upper hand.

I respect your opinions, but for me the real issue is respecting history. Cavalry hold a specialist role.

Case Study: Chariot, the oldest cavalry.

Not very succesful. Despite being armoured, chariots were infrequently used because they were highly succeptible to ranged weapons.

Case Study: Modern Armour, the newest cavalry.

The ranged weapon oposing MA are anti-armour aircraft (i.e. A-10, Apache, &c.)When was the last battle in which MA were actually used against an equally advanced ranged unit?

 

[stormbind]

I agree with the Longbow being a defensive weapon. The archer holds his ground, be it on a hill, or behind fort walls. The archer does not charge

If anyone wants to know about early warfare then read the book by Elizabethan hero, George Silver. It is available online as a webpage.

The arrow is a lot like a pike. Once an enemy has past the tip of a pike, it can no longer hurt him and the pikeman has to draw a sword. Once an enemy has past the hail of arrows, they can no longer hurt him and the archer has to draw a sword.

George Silver would probably describe the Arrow as superior to the Pike, because it strikes first. Maybe Civilisation should take emphasis off the combat stats, and put emphasis onto which unit strikes first!

 

[Kosez]

As I remember, archers were used in most of medieval battles. But they were not allways so successful as in Agincourt and Crecy. When armies stood head by head, archers were dispatched in a vicinity of infantry to shoot couple of rounds of arrows. Then they had to quickly hide themselves behind their own infantry or knights, now, they could'nt have done it if they were to attack cavalry, cavalry of any kind was to quick.
Situation was completely different when opponent's cavalry or infantry was attacking. Archers then stood ground behind infantry.
And this was only way for archers to be really effective. As long as they were protected from close combat, they had a big advantage.
But advantage was gone when enemy reached first lines, archers couldn't shoot no more.
In either Agincourt or Crecy or both there was heavy rain, so knights didn't reached English lines so fast, plus French couldn't dispatch their crossbowmen, beacuse their weapons have gotten all wet.

But hey, that is just may opinion.

 

[sir_schwick]

Knights would be classified has heavy cavalry, which has always had an odd and somewhat limited tactical role. No one should use heavy cavalry to take out ranged units, they should be using them to eploit weaknesses in the enemy formation. Otherwise you are wasting an expensive unit which will get to the ranged units at a slower pace. That is what light and medium cavalry can do best, take out the enemy ranged support without too heavy losses in getting there.

Archers cannot charge into melee, but they certainly are useful offensive weapons. I use my Genoese Sailors to press the attack often in MTW. It often takes the enemy by suprise and forces them to move out of a more favorable formation.

From my understanding, much of the prominence of the knight had to do with knights and FMAA being of the gentry. Also, I did not think regular armies were common if existant at that time in Western Europe. Until later centuries, forces consisted of noble units with some peasant levies. England may have been different, because they did have an awful lot of archers. Also, archery was a major part of English culture, meaning there were thousands of candidates for longbow training. I thought at maximum rate, a longbowmen could shoot 30 arrows in 3 to 4 minutes without a rest. That was based on 4 to 6 seconds to draw arrow, draw bow, fire.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Actually, from what I have heard, one of the primary reasons for Henry V having SO many archers was-because they were CHEAP!!!! He was trying to wage a campaign on a very tight budget, and archers gave more 'bang for the buck'-you could get roughly 7 yeoman archers for the price of a single swordsman. So economics ruled the day. Not to say that they weren't brilliant on the field of battle-incredibly agile, swift and-when the enemy was close enough-very brutal and unforgiving.
According to 'battlefield forensic' studies done recently, one of the major problems the French had on the field of Agincourt was that as knights, most of them were looking for enemy nobles to capture for ransom. Yet having all of those yeomen at the front of the English ranks made this difficult-as they had no official RANK, and this threw the enemy into confusion. Also, Yeomen knew little-and cared less-about the 'rules of war', and were intent on making kills, not capturing enemies for ransom. So aside from the Longbow, the other critical factor in Englands victory was the VERY different types of tactics used by each side, and the confusion it caused for French aristocrats.
Bit off topic I know, but thought you might be interested !

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[stormbind]

Longbowmen took many years to "build" because training started from a very young age. It is not something a grown man can fully accomplish.

In Civilization turn-based strategy, building Longbowmen would take a fair amount of time. Respecting the technology, they could never be bought with gold.

Henry V had the biggest ships of his time. They were tinker-built. I think he called the flagship La'Glorie or something like that. They were like floating castles, but could only carry a small number of troops, so Longbowmen were the perfect match.

Longbows were invented by Welsh (of Celtic decent), put to best effect by the English (of Celtic decent) and eventually used by the French (of Celtic decent) to push the English away.

 

[sir_schwick]

short bows were quite common and easy to train relative to the Welsh warbow. However firearms and crossbows were even easier to train men on, although trained archers would win a ranged duel. later on some crossbow units used pavisses to help in ranged duels.

 

[sengfossil]

There is probably an excellent simulation available: AoW2
They have all types of units, and fighting results depends on ground-type and ground level (high) too. Indeed the results looking realistic,

I. So how I use archers in that game?
1. Best role they have as defenders behind city walls. : They are save from melee and ranged attacks and get an advantage because they penetrate the enemies from higher location.
2. In fild fights I attack first the enemie mounted units, because they will reach me as first. When they are close, my archers have to be protected by melee units or have to run. It can be difficult to hit enemies which have my melee units in the shoot line.

II. How do I use mounted units?
1. In field, I try to take out archers first. In the second turn I get them with probably low losses on my side.
2. In attacking cities (with wall) two of the havy armored try to knock out the door, the others waiting cose to the door behind trees or houses, if possible. If I have flying units, I try to take out archers first.

 

[bkwrm79]

Archers were 'cheap' - didn't have to be paid as much - but they were hard to get. The English banned card-playing at some points so people would have nothing to do for fun besides archery.

Turkish seapower was destroyed by losing too many archers. After Lepanto they could replace the ships they lost, but training new archers takes a generation. Pretty similar to the Japanese, who couldn't replace their experienced pilots (or their ships either, but they ran out of pilots even before they ran out of ships).

 

[GoodGame]

The main thing I think about with archers in war is volley (volume) fire, not precise aimed fire (it's not the same as Robin Hood or hunting); Meaning archers aren't at their optimum at an aimed or 'pistol' range, but like an organic artillery piece when they can all shoot about the same trajectory together in volley.
So relatively speaking, a fast cavalry troop will minimize it's exposure to the volley versus a marching infantry (either they're armored and march slow or relatively fast and lightly armored---vulnerable).

And a horse is like 3x or more faster than a man running. Big difference, and probably not exactly an easy area target.

Well-aimed rifles, and similar machine guns, on the other hand, killed the original cavalry concept in WW1.

Man archers vs. horse archers (Parthian shot!), I'd bet on the horse archers, or horse skirmishers. The only foot vs. archers I'd rate high would be a phalanx in tight shield wall.

 

[Sandman2003]

Without needing to get into the specifics of a particular type of unit versus another particular type of unit, it is easy to see that there is some validity in this concept of fast units vs ranged units getting a bonus. Certainly, the concept is clearly designed for game play purposes.

Anyway, if the ranged units were truly as all powerfull as suggested by some here, then presumably that has been factored into the unit strength factor, ie much of the strength of the unit is attributable to the fact that the unit has the advantage of range. So if you look at the dynamics of battles with these units vs other units, it is obvious that a slow moving unit will be likely to be more exposed to the effects of being at range, than a fast moving unit - the faster unit would be able to cover the exposed area faster, or move into a flanking position more easily etc.

So relative to the slow unit, the fast unit should have a bonus against a range unit. I think this is the intent of the developers.