Eight New Hoplite units

[Cyclonic]

First off: many thanks for the wicked units!

I'm OT here, but you started it

Kryten wrote:
'I very much doubt that I can persuade anyone to downgrade their favourite ancient Civ3 unit just because it’s more realistic!'

Well, you have persuaded me. But I don't fancy a 2-2-1 upgradeable Immortal at all, and outside of UUs I'd like to keep to the stat distribution, and hence the game balance, of the original; so I'm removing them altogether, except as a flavour graphic - a Saracen Swordsman for Arabic civs perhaps.

But what to do about a Persian UU? My best thought so far is this. A distinguishing feature of a Persian army as opposed to a Greek one was its preponderance of cavalry and relative lack of native (non-mercenary) heavy inf. So I think it's time for an early knight, so to speak

How about:

Saca Cataphract, 3-2-2 UU, requires Horses and Iron, Cost 40, upgrades to Knight. Persian heavy cav fought much like medieval knights, so this unit is an early form of the 4-3-2 Knight. 'Saca' means Scythian: the Saca Cataphracts from the east of the empire around the Jaxartes were present at Gaugamela, where they appear to have fought out an honourable draw with Alex's Companion Cavalry. They can be taken as representative of Persian heavy cav in general (you could just call the unit Heavy Cav if preferred). To keep the uniqueness factor, the freed up 4-2-1 stats would be transferred to the Gallic (costing 40 - 30 was too cheap for such a dangerous unit), and this fits them well enough.

There are problems with this idea. A UU should really be native, but much of the 'Persian' cav was not actually Persian, as the chosen unit suggests. Also, I'm not certain that the Sacas themselves were that heavy: one source I read suggests that at some point they were re-armed with heavier equipment after starting out as a light horse archer type. Further, if Kryten comes out with a Companion Cavalry for the Greeks, I'll have no way to fit it into this scheme without dropping the original stat distribution or changing the Greek UU.

I have some ideas about the Hoplites as well, but that's enough for now. Some of you out there must have grappled with this too - what do you think?

Cyclonic

 

[Kal-el]

My understanding is that the Cataphract didn't really develop until the Byzantine army, when Rome realized that they needed to move away from infantry as the basis for their armies in order to compete with the more mobile armies of the Germanic hordes and the Asian Light Cavalry. In response the Romans developed heavy horse archers who also carried spear and sword. i.e. the Cataphract. But I could be wrong.

 

[horsematrix]

Personally I would like to see more mounted units with better weapons.

 

[Cyclonic]

Kal-El:
You may well be right about that. I took the name from Montgomery's account of Gaugamela in his Concise History of Warfare (p47), and I've seen it in table top OOBs. Cataphract is a Greek word, so not one that the Persians (or Scythians) would have used themselves. I guess it became applied to their heavy cav because most of our sources are Graeco-Roman or Byzantine. To them any heavy cav was a Cataphract because that's what they called their own.

 

[Kal-el]

Its so hard to "know" anything.

 

[Mongoloid Cow]

Cataphracts were used by Thessalian states pre-Alexander the Great, and later by the Diodoch states before being adopted into the Byzantine army. But even then the Byzantines had more Gothic Foederati.

 

[Cyclonic]

Looking at Monty again, I see that he calls them the Saca 'Cataphracts', using quotes, as if he is conscious of repeating an established error. I think the name is OK as long as you know that it may be a bit inaccurate. A better argument against it is how specific it is. Looking at my diagram here, the cavalry includes Scythians, Medians, Bactrians, Cappadocians, Indians, Carians, Armenians and Parthians! And some Horse Guards, who are in the centre in front of Darius himself. If these are actually Persian perhaps they would be a better choice. The original choice has a nice ring to it, though.

 

[Kryten]

What is a Cataphract?
----------------------------

Basically, if the rider and horse are so completely encased in armour that they don't need shields, then it is a cataphract.
(BTW, NO mounted troops used shields until about 300 BC)

So have a look at the Bactrian & Achaemenid Persian in these pictures.....

Does just adding a bit of scale armour to the horse’s chest and the rider’s legs turn cavalry into a cataphractari?
I would say no, not when compared to the full protection of the following images.

'True' cataphracts were first used by the Seleucid Successors of Alexander in about 300 BC.
The Successors were always looking for gimmicks as a way of defeating their rivals pike phalanx, such as Scythe Chariots, War Elephants, and indeed, Cataphracts. None really worked.
It wasn't until the early Middle Ages that sufficiently large horses were bred, and the stirrup wasn't invented until about 700 AD, so Ancient Cataphract horses were always a bit underpowered for all the armour they had to carry.
In fact, you could consider them as a phalanx on horseback....with the same disadvantages (heavy, slow, and vulnerable to disorder. Certainly the Roman Legionaries has no problems defeating Seleucid/Armenian/Pontic cataphractari).

So what should the Persian UU be?

Well, Immortals came into existence after the Persian Empire was already founded, much like Praetorians came into existence after the Roman Empire was fully established.
So what was the unit that allowed Cyrus the Great to build the Persian Empire in the first place?
It was......Persian Horsemen!

(Under construction. I may change the horse for a better one in the final unit)
And here are their mortal enemies, the Macedonian Companion Horseman

(Also under construction. ALMOST finished)

So I would suggest the following:-
2-1-2 Horsemen
2-1-3 Light Horse Archer (with a defensive bombardment of 3)
3-1-3 Persian Horseman (with a defensive bombardment of 2)
4-1-2 Companion Horseman
3-2-2 Heavy Horseman (Bactrian/Roman/Celtic/Germanic/Carthaginian/etc)
3-3-2 Cataphract (Seleucid/Armenian/Cappadocian/Parthian/Sassanid/Byzantine)
3-2-3 Eastern Horse Archer (with a defensive bombardment of 3)
4-2-2 Norman Crusader
4-3-2 Knight

Now you may notice that I am suggesting making the Heavy Horseman a 3-2-2, the same as the PTW Celtic Swordsman.
This is because I HATE the stats for the Celtic Swordsman!

Yes, the Celts used a 'wild charge' on the battlefield.
But if you give them a move of 2, then they can strategically move about the map FASTER than trained and drilled Roman Legionaries! This is completely opposite to what the history books tell us.
Also, because of this extra movement, their cost is almost double that of the Legionary!! (I sure that Julius Caesar would have been pleased to note that he was wrong and a game called Civ3 was right, and that he won all his battles in Gaul because the Romans outnumbered the Celts by two-to-one!!! ).

Personally, I think the Celtic Swordsman should be 2-2-1, costing 10, so there are a huge number of these poor quality UU's running about (then the Germanic Franks/Goths/Vandals would be 3-2-1 costing 20, while the Legionary is of course 3-3-1 costing 30).

However, I very much doubt that I can pursued anyone to downgrade their SECOND favourite Ancient Civ3 unit, just because it's more realistic!
("Keep trying Kryten, keep trying!" )

 

[COAtlantis1745]

The Horse Archers of the Byzantine period I believe were known as Clibinarii, if Im not mistaken.

 

[horsematrix]

i was talking mainly about mounted units with guns especially native americans i was wanting to do a old west scenario yet with only one native american unit and only as a rider it is hard and since i'm having trouble figuring out this flicster it's just going to take some time if anyone can help me on flicster please e mail me or pm me thanks.

 

[Kryten]

Actually, the picture above of the Later Sassanid (the one with horse armour at the front only and a small shield) is a 'Clibanarii'.

A quote from "The Armies and Enemies of Imperial Rome" by Phil Barker about the Sassanid Persians:-
"The most important part of their army were the noble cavalry, called Clibanarii. This means 'Baking oven men' in latin, which in that climate might well be appropriate, but originally derives from 'Grive-Pan', which is old Persian for 'Warrior'. Some men were more or less equivalent to the Palmyran, Roman and Parthian cataphract cavalry. Others were rather lighter armoured and had the bow as their primary weapon, although still possessing the Kontos (i.e. lance). Horse armour was normal. An all-round protection of leather or thick felt was at first favoured, but this was later apparently superseded by partial metal armour in front only."

The late Romans also had several units called by this name, as can be seen from the Notitia Dignitatum, which is a list of all the Roman field units dated about 400 AD:-
Equites Sagittarii Clibanarii
Comites Clibanarii
Equites Persae Clibanarii
Equites Secundi Clibanarii Parthi
Equites Promoti Clibanarii
Equites Quarti Clibanarii Parthi
Cuneus Equitum Clibanariorum Palmirenorum
(These are apparently armed and armoured somewhat differently from other horse archer units such as the Equites Sagittarii Seniores, Equites Parthi Sagittarii Seniores, Equites Primo Sagittarii, and so on.
Probably because the Clibanarii were heavy cavalry with lance and bow, while other Sagittarii units were light cavalry horse archers)

To horsematrix,

I don't know if it helps, but have a read of this old thread about using FLICster.....

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?threadid=29026

 

[horsematrix]

Kryten thanks that thread does really help out it appears this is going to take more patience then i first thought thats cool the results will be well worth it thanks again.

 

[Cyclonic]

Interesting stuff Kryten, thanks for all the info.

Agree fully about the movement of the Gallic - my jaw dropped when I first saw their stats. But I'd make them pricy 4-2-1 heavy hitters rather than cheapies. Roman armies were always outnumbered by the Gaulish tribal mass, but a big pile of Spearmen and a few Archers can cover that. The Gallic I take to be the nobility who could afford the equipment and the time to train with it.

Your stat scheme looks good, ideal for ancient Med scenarios. It's not appropriate to a general flavour mod like mine, because it would mean giving advantageous 'pseudo-UUs' to certain civs. For the Persian UU I like both the 3-1-3 light and the 3-2-2 heavy options: one will definitely be my Persian, can't make up my mind which yet. If the latter, I'll drop the Cataphract name, since the usage is obviously confusing.

 

[Nemesis Rex]

Kryten,

Any chance of you making a 'real' Immortal? I have moved them to an upgrade spearman, but the default unit has a sword.

 

[Kryten]

Eventually.

(Once all the Ready-Made Multi-Figure Modpacks are completed first)

Here is a very rough and crude preview of the MF version.....

 

[Kal-el]

You keep teasing me with that Immortal! aaaaargh!!!

 

[horsematrix]

I look forward to seeing the multi figure immortal it looks cool good work kryten.

 

[Nemesis Rex]

Originally posted by Kryten
Eventually.

(Once all the Ready-Made Multi-Figure Modpacks are completed first)

Here is a very rough and crude preview of the MF version.....

So your going to make an MF version first? Don't you need the single unit before you can make the Multi?

Don't mean to be a pest, but do you have any ETA. I am just about done with my High Mobility Mod and wanted to include it.

P.S. Do you mind my including you awesome ancinet units in my MOD when I post it. Namely, the Peltast, Phalangite and evemtually Immortal?

 

[Sneus]

Awesome! Kryten, you make the best units. I have some suggestions if you want.

 

[Kenric af Grashen]

cool units and...


...

Originally posted by Kryten

Thebes (Egypt) (in Egyptian, Weset, or Newt),

Newt is a little further north and known as Nubt or Naqada