Civ4 Realism Mod (Extended Gameplay and tweaks)
- Thread starter jaynus
- Start date
anti_strunt said:
true, but light roman cavalry was often enough tip the balance against the so called barbarian hordes. i suppose the best solution would be to give light cavalry a bonus against certain melee units, say 25%, but allow 'trained' melee unit a promotion to counter it. the heavier mounted units a 50% advantage, but they would only get 25% increase against trained melee (becuase of the promotion). That would probably give a fairer balance.
Simetrical
Chieftain
Would you care to suggest some specific sources? I'm sure there's a lot written about them, and I'm always happy to educate myself, but I can't very well read books' worth of material every time a question comes up.noid said:
Um, sorry, but random websites are not valid historical sources. Who wrote that article? What are his credentials? Let me give you a counterexample. It is not, I concede, a great source; it is, however, much better than an unattributed webpage.ledfan said:
On this page, Kelly DeVries (who a Google search will show is a professor of history at Loyola College in Maryland) is quoted as writing, in her book Medieval Military Technology, "Defensibilty [typo in the copyist's version] with this [plate] armour was impressive; it was capable of withstanding penetration by crossbow bolts, longbow arrows, and handgun shots..."
As I said, it's not great. It is, however, the only freely available source that I've found on the Internet in about forty minutes of searching that quotes a specific, reputable source either way on this issue. (Note: the only one either way. I would be delighted if you could find another one, even if it favored you. Although of course, I'd be even more delighted if it favored me.
)(Well, it's almost the only one. I also found "Head Protection in England before the First World War", published in the medical journal Neurosurgery. Only the abstract is available for free, but the snippet provided with the search I listed earlier includes the sentence "Full plate-armor could be made proof against crossbow bolts,
but it had its disadvantages as well." The reason I don't consider this especially reputable is because the authors' Ph.D.'s are presumably in neurology, not history.)
ledfan said:
Are you quoting computer games as evidence? As it happens, I've played many, many strategy games, mostly set in premodern times. I don't set any store by their developers' interpretations of reality; in fact, I worked for some months (although not very hard, granted) on a mod to make Rome: Total War more realistic, and in fact am still nominally part of such a mod. If you play Rome: Total Realism, you'll find that cavalry are toned down dramatically (way too much, in fact, but that's due to inadequate playtesting).I'm always interested in (authoritative) references. Obviously, if your reference is insufficiently specific—e.g., an entire book—I may not be able to find the time to read it, so brief quotes are preferable.ledfan said:
To the best of my knowledge, the primary role of cavalry in the Roman armies for centuries was to hunt down routers. I'm a bit hazy on Imperial Rome, however—they did eventually adopt cataphracts as support, definitely, at least the Eastern Empire, but such units were always used for support only. As support, of course, cavalry could be a great deal more useful than a monetarily equivalent amount of infantry, but only as support.ledfan said:
It's instructive to note that just about the only all-cavalry armies in history consisted of horse archers; why, if cavalry could defeat infantry that costed the same amount?
Ad Hominem
Warlord
About the cavalry vs infantry thing... I guess I don't need to start giving out Famous Quotes to give credit to the following assertions:
- Formed infantry with big, pointy sticks, if held ranks properly, was invulnerable to cavalry, period. Horses do not charge into big pointy sticks and even if you manage to make them to (with extensive training or by adopting some sort of sight-limer) they'd end up as horse sishkebap, if the infantry would hold ranks. Charging head-on into masses of infantry with big pointy sticks was a no-no even in the late medieval times, when the heavily armoured knight was a dominant force in the battlefield.
- Other kinds of infantry, like those lacking the big pointy sticks and those not drilled (and/or psyched up) enough to maintain ranks and position, were vulnerable to a cavalry charge. It's mostly the fear factor and less the momentum, but in most occassions when heavy cavalry charged into masses of infantry with weapons other than big pointy sticks or disorganized and unable to hold the ranks, the ensued massacre looked like enough proof for the superiority of the cavalry. But when met with big pointy sticks and properly drilled and psyched infantry, cavalry didn't stand a chance head-on.
Just my 5c.
- Formed infantry with big, pointy sticks, if held ranks properly, was invulnerable to cavalry, period. Horses do not charge into big pointy sticks and even if you manage to make them to (with extensive training or by adopting some sort of sight-limer) they'd end up as horse sishkebap, if the infantry would hold ranks. Charging head-on into masses of infantry with big pointy sticks was a no-no even in the late medieval times, when the heavily armoured knight was a dominant force in the battlefield.
- Other kinds of infantry, like those lacking the big pointy sticks and those not drilled (and/or psyched up) enough to maintain ranks and position, were vulnerable to a cavalry charge. It's mostly the fear factor and less the momentum, but in most occassions when heavy cavalry charged into masses of infantry with weapons other than big pointy sticks or disorganized and unable to hold the ranks, the ensued massacre looked like enough proof for the superiority of the cavalry. But when met with big pointy sticks and properly drilled and psyched infantry, cavalry didn't stand a chance head-on.
Just my 5c.
Simetrical said:
You could start with the entry in Wikipedia :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Husaria
Try going through the main battles and examine te figures.. (Kircholm is the best example of what I had in mind)
and here are some other sites concernig the topic of HUSARIA the winged knights and Polish Cavalry tradition:
http://www.wingedhussar.org/husaria.html
http://home.san.rr.com/slawek/Tata/papers/Husaria-eng.html
http://www.cavhooah.com/polish.htm
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=7779
P.S. sorry for the offtopic but since jaynus isnt here we might as well have ourselves a little dispute..
......therefore, melee units without big pointed sticks should have a disadvantage against mounted units.Ad Hominem said:
Simetrical
i know i used a website to prove my point (crossbow vs plate armor), however his reference list is extensive, even if he himself does not have a phd in History. http://www.thebeckoning.com/medieval/crossbow/xbow-resources.html#books
Ad Hominem said:
You might wanna have a look at those links I provided in my previous post..
Husaria had longer "big pointy sticks" and that in conjunction with speed, weight of the armoured horse and knight made them able to breach enemy ranks with great succes. Only the growing power of firearms could stop them, but it wasnt until 18th century that firearms became more powerfull, accurate, and the reload time droped considerably. This made them obsolite on battlefields of that time..
I would support the Husaria as a UU for a Polish Civ perhaps but also in your documentation:
Hussars outside of Poland followed a different line of development. During the early decades of the 17th century Hussars in Hungary ceased to wear metal body armour; and by 1640 most were now light cavalry. It was hussars of this 'light' pattern rather than the Polish heavy hussar that were copied across Europe. These light hussars were ideal for reconnaissance and raiding sources of fodder and provisions in advance of the army. In battle, they were used in such light cavalry roles as harassing enemy skirmishers, overrunning cannon positions, and pursuing fleeing troops.
So you want ALL cavalry to have a bonus based on what a single group was able to do while everyone else did something else? To me that sounds like the very definition of a UU.
Quite simply throughout most of history cavalry was a support unit/line breaker unit and not the main attack force.
Exemptions:
Alexander the Great (maybe). Arguments can easily be made and have been made that his greatest strength was his use of cavalry at exactly the right time. One could still argue that this is still a support role however. Just a victory inducing one. Further most sources on Alexander the great vary widely on the numbers and composition of his forces. This makes it difficult to truly judge the effectiveness of any single component of his army.
Mongols: Horse Archers. No debates here. That is what they used.
Polish: The Husaria. In many battles they were the only polish troops present and still came out victorious. Worth noting: the only European nation to go this route with their cavalry.
Various Native american tribes: Once introduced to the Horse made extremely effective use of it as a main line fighting force. Once again mostly horse archers.
Quite simply most cavalry was not as effective against trained "pointy stick" infantry as you seem to be suggesting based on a single example.
Most Heavy Cavalry of the medieval and earlier periods relied on the levee military. IE: Most powers made up their infantry numbers with poorly trained conscripts. They had large armies but poorly trained. The well trained Heavy Cavalries/Knights that had an ongoing military tradition had a whole mythology behind them and how great they were and this acted to inspire fear and panic in the ranks facing charges from said units.
Even in your own Husaria documents it states that the Husarias greatest most effective weapon was inspiring terror and fear in the enemy forces from their charges until the ranks broke.
In fact any mounted soldier in non-charge melee combat with disciplined trained foot soldiers IS at a disadvantage. First it is next to impossible to fully armor your horse. If the horse takes a blow and goes down it stands a good chance of landing on its rider, big ouch. Next while on the horse you have a weapon in only one hand and due to the nature of the horse it becomes difficult to strike at your opposite side. The infantry man can easily reach around his body and strike at his off hand side (well more easily than the cavalry man).
Cavalry had two advantages and understanding them is the key to understanding their succesful use in a dominating way by a MINORITY of militaries.
First is the shock and awe part. This is the Husaria. Also worth noting is that Husaria initial charges were not all out. They were glancing charges designed to bring confusion and disarray to enemy lines, and only resulting in the traditional all out charge after the lines were sufficiently disarrayed. Once again, read more deeply some of your own sources.
Next is speed. The charging cavalry lost this advantage after the initial charge and relied on the enemy being in a panic after the charge to cut them down and not engaging in effective resistance/combat.
The horse archer used speed to great effect because they never actually engaged the enemy lines and would just sweep past without making contact and launch a volley of arrows. The arrow did all the work. This took great skill and timing and was thus only effectively used in great amounts by two groups, the mongols and the native american tribes.
PS: For the vulnerability of cavalry just look at medieval/chinese/japanese weapons and look at the nicknames of some of them from the age.
AKA Horse killing sword, leg breaker (in refrence to horse legs not human) and you will see that alot of effort went into making effective weapons specifically for killing and stopping horses. When wielded by trained infantry (which was admittedly a commodity in short supply during those times) it was very formidable against any cavalry opponent that got in range.
Hussars outside of Poland followed a different line of development. During the early decades of the 17th century Hussars in Hungary ceased to wear metal body armour; and by 1640 most were now light cavalry. It was hussars of this 'light' pattern rather than the Polish heavy hussar that were copied across Europe. These light hussars were ideal for reconnaissance and raiding sources of fodder and provisions in advance of the army. In battle, they were used in such light cavalry roles as harassing enemy skirmishers, overrunning cannon positions, and pursuing fleeing troops.
So you want ALL cavalry to have a bonus based on what a single group was able to do while everyone else did something else? To me that sounds like the very definition of a UU.
Quite simply throughout most of history cavalry was a support unit/line breaker unit and not the main attack force.
Exemptions:
Alexander the Great (maybe). Arguments can easily be made and have been made that his greatest strength was his use of cavalry at exactly the right time. One could still argue that this is still a support role however. Just a victory inducing one. Further most sources on Alexander the great vary widely on the numbers and composition of his forces. This makes it difficult to truly judge the effectiveness of any single component of his army.
Mongols: Horse Archers. No debates here. That is what they used.
Polish: The Husaria. In many battles they were the only polish troops present and still came out victorious. Worth noting: the only European nation to go this route with their cavalry.
Various Native american tribes: Once introduced to the Horse made extremely effective use of it as a main line fighting force. Once again mostly horse archers.
Quite simply most cavalry was not as effective against trained "pointy stick" infantry as you seem to be suggesting based on a single example.
Most Heavy Cavalry of the medieval and earlier periods relied on the levee military. IE: Most powers made up their infantry numbers with poorly trained conscripts. They had large armies but poorly trained. The well trained Heavy Cavalries/Knights that had an ongoing military tradition had a whole mythology behind them and how great they were and this acted to inspire fear and panic in the ranks facing charges from said units.
Even in your own Husaria documents it states that the Husarias greatest most effective weapon was inspiring terror and fear in the enemy forces from their charges until the ranks broke.
In fact any mounted soldier in non-charge melee combat with disciplined trained foot soldiers IS at a disadvantage. First it is next to impossible to fully armor your horse. If the horse takes a blow and goes down it stands a good chance of landing on its rider, big ouch. Next while on the horse you have a weapon in only one hand and due to the nature of the horse it becomes difficult to strike at your opposite side. The infantry man can easily reach around his body and strike at his off hand side (well more easily than the cavalry man).
Cavalry had two advantages and understanding them is the key to understanding their succesful use in a dominating way by a MINORITY of militaries.
First is the shock and awe part. This is the Husaria. Also worth noting is that Husaria initial charges were not all out. They were glancing charges designed to bring confusion and disarray to enemy lines, and only resulting in the traditional all out charge after the lines were sufficiently disarrayed. Once again, read more deeply some of your own sources.
Next is speed. The charging cavalry lost this advantage after the initial charge and relied on the enemy being in a panic after the charge to cut them down and not engaging in effective resistance/combat.
The horse archer used speed to great effect because they never actually engaged the enemy lines and would just sweep past without making contact and launch a volley of arrows. The arrow did all the work. This took great skill and timing and was thus only effectively used in great amounts by two groups, the mongols and the native american tribes.
PS: For the vulnerability of cavalry just look at medieval/chinese/japanese weapons and look at the nicknames of some of them from the age.
AKA Horse killing sword, leg breaker (in refrence to horse legs not human) and you will see that alot of effort went into making effective weapons specifically for killing and stopping horses. When wielded by trained infantry (which was admittedly a commodity in short supply during those times) it was very formidable against any cavalry opponent that got in range.
The first two US ICBM's (Atals I and Titan I) used Liquid Oxygen and Kerosene (RP-1) as a propellant, but all subsequent ICBM's have either been solids or used storable propellants (Hydrazine and Nitrogen Tetroxide).
So requiring oil to build ICBM's is just silly.
So requiring oil to build ICBM's is just silly.
Cytadc said:
1. Not all melee units were armed with "big pointy sticks", so why not give mounted units a bonus against them, and a penelty if they are armed with some kind of "pikes"
2. I disagree with your statment that a mounted soldier is handicaped vs. a foot soldier (i know it all depends on skill but i cant disagree more that a footman is more likely to win combat with a mounted knight, while ridding a horse you have the "higher ground"..)
3. Comming back to the subject of Husaria, i was just trying to point out that stating that charging on a well organised and trained infatry formations with "big pointy stick" wasn't a no-no during late medival times and even later on..
4. Stating that fear and shock tactics were their main "weapons" is incomplete, theye were feared because they were so effective and not even Gustaw Adolfs 30 year war hardend vetrans could stand ground..
Cytadc said:
Husars = polish unit, good against all melee units
However, all I'm saying is most mounted units should have an advantage over axemen, swordsmen and other melee units not trained to specifically counter cavalry charges (e.g. phalanx and pikemen). As I said before, a promotion would be a good way to balance this, where axemen etc gain a promotion that cancels out all or most of the mounted units advantage; a promotion being similar to training. This would also simulate the point that mounted units, like knights, were generally professional units with years of training and quite a lot of melee units were thrown into battle without much training, as they wern't part of a standing army.
Simetrical
Chieftain
Granted, but not against disciplined forces such as the Romans. Cytadc summarizes the weakness of cavalry in hand-to-hand combat quite nicely.Ad Hominem said:
Okay. Battle of Orsha: 30,000 Polish cavalry versus an unknown number of Lithuanian infantry. No help there. Kircholm, yes, seems to have been decided by cavalry, according to the accounts giventhe article doesn't mention sources, so I don't know whether the info is reliable. Likewise for Klushino, Khotyn, Lwów. How am I supposed to know that these articles weren't written by Polish nationalists or something?noid said:
Nevertheless, I don't deny that at least some non-missile cavalry could prove to be a powerful force against an army not equipped to resist it. I wasn't aware of any successful military forces composed primarily of non-missile cavalry; you have taught me something, even if with unreliable sources. This doesn't change the point that almost all successful pre-gunpowder militaries were composed primarily of either infantry or horse archers.
Fair enough. At this juncture, probably the best thing to do would be to just e-mail the people in question for their sources. Not necessarily highly specific, but maybe give an example of a battle where reliable accounts mention casualties or lack of casualties of fully-armored knights from crossbows.ledfan said:
Yup, that's alwaysnoid said:
a way to beat out the pikes.
Many steppe peoples prior to the Mongols used horse archers to devastating effect. The Scythians, Sarmatians, Sauromatians, Persians, Parthians, etc. all relied heavily on horse archers, and various other Eastern nations used them as well.Cytadc said:
What does higher ground help if your horse gets stabbed or you get outflanked by superior numbers? If the infantry doesn't break when you charge, you have a problem.noid said:
Hi, thanks for what is a very fun mod.
One thing I thought of the first time I played it through was that if anything the discovery date for uranium should be well before the vanilla version. Uranium has been known for almost 2000 years (although known commonly for about 150). Physics is a fine time to reveal uranium.
One thing I thought of the first time I played it through was that if anything the discovery date for uranium should be well before the vanilla version. Uranium has been known for almost 2000 years (although known commonly for about 150). Physics is a fine time to reveal uranium.
Ad Hominem
Warlord
Simetrical said:
And it all boils down to this. Even not pike/phalanx/spear infantry could hold its ground against heavy cavalry if they could withstand the devastating initial charge. If that was the case, the horsies were doomed...
Nigel Stutt
Chieftain
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 31
siroxo said:
Its only a game and theres no point in uranium being shown so early - just likely to confuse things to me.
http://www.hyw.com/books/history/Medi0000.htm
http://www.roman-empire.net/army/army.html
Again, the sources and references these websites used need to be checked, but both state that even the roman professional army lost out to heavy cavalry used in the battlefields by german tribes. The second one says that the roman army was compleatly reformed after one decisive battle (a reformation that was needed before hand, but the romans hadn't got round to it!)
http://www.roman-empire.net/army/army.html
Again, the sources and references these websites used need to be checked, but both state that even the roman professional army lost out to heavy cavalry used in the battlefields by german tribes. The second one says that the roman army was compleatly reformed after one decisive battle (a reformation that was needed before hand, but the romans hadn't got round to it!)
Gav
Chieftain
Napoliean said:
how hard is it to unzip to your mods folder? you'll have to find it anyway in a SEZip because not everyone has it installed in the same place.
Instant_Cereal
Warlord
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2005
- Messages
- 264
I was thinking... Wouldn't it be realistic if Rome's legions have 2 moves to represent Rome's superior logistics and discipline and a city attack bonus to represent their engineering skills?
whyisciv4sobugg
Chieftain
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2005
- Messages
- 12
No oil needed to make ICBMs? Don't ICBMs contain plastic and other petroleum derived parts?
Similar threads
