Encampment Designs

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

Did you here ever notice that a fully upgraded encampment always left a tent plot?

And who in Firaxis gives a decisions to set the rules that Barracks and Stables are mutually exclusives? (i.e. in an encampment, you may build Barracks but not Stables nor vice versa, yet it didn't preclude you to not train any 'non-supported' units there but no extra initial XPs are awarded)
Did the early designs designated that the 'empty plot' is for the other building? (Barracks and Stables can be built in the same encampment)
And did it reflects any REAL LIFE military base/training center throughout history? are these tent plots represents parade ground or training grounds?

From my experience there maybe bases for either Infantry or Cavalry regimetns but actual military complex may includes bases for BOTH Infantry (Barracks) and Cavalry (Stables). one best example i've saw was a building that's now the Ministry of Defence HQ Office in Thailand

The building used to be an actual base. Back in 1870s by the early days of King Chulalongkorn era. the entirety of modern Royal Siamese Army was packed in one Italian-style compound, where Stables and Kraals (Where horses and elephants are kept. YES, elephants that have gats mounted on its back), an arsenal where small arms and artillery pieces are stored, maintained, and (maybe) manufactured) and training grounds are located on the first floor, the second and the third are an actual barracks with some rooms for officiers. The rapid modernization (and military expansions) of that time means that new bases/training grounds had to be built elsewhere, the 1st Foot Guards got their own barracks in a different quarters just outside The Grand Palace. (and in many years that said regiments were relocated elsewhere, that barracks became,, again a bureau belongs to Ministry of Defence), the 11th Infantry Regiments (also Royal Guards,) were relocated at what's now Bang Khaen (and the said compounds occupied much more ground). with this the very building became an office of Ministry of Defence (by then called Ministry of War) soon after.

Not sure about either classic Europeans or early modern American examples of similar buildings/compounds.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Did you here ever notice that a fully upgraded encampment always left a tent plot?
And who in Firaxis gives a decisions to set the rules that Barracks and Stables are mutually exclusives? (i.e. in an encampment, you may build Barracks but not Stables nor vice versa, yet it didn't preclude you to not train any 'non-supported' units there but no extra initial XPs are awarded)
Did the early designs designated that the 'empty plot' is for the other building? (Barracks and Stables can be built in the same encampment)
And did it reflects any REAL LIFE military base/training center throughout history? are these tent plots represents parade ground or training grounds?

Based on the Graphics, they may have originally intended to allow both Barracks and Stables in the same Encampment: as far as I know, it's never been mentioned by anybody from the Design Team.

On the other hand, historically (for what that's worth!) Cavalry and Infantry did not train in the same areas. Martius described specialized training areas for Roman Cavalry and in Renaissance/Industrial/Modern Era Europe and USA Cavalry and Infantry units were always billeted/housed in separate cantonments, kasernes, or camps. That extends to the present Era, in which, for example, in the US Army Fort Knox, Kentucky is the Armor School and armor units have for 75+ years been stationed at Fort Hood, Texas, while Fort Benning, Georgia is the home of the Infantry School. Likewise, Fort Sill, Oklahoma has been the artillery training center for both the US Army and the US Marines since before WWI. In Germany, Wildflecken and Grafenwohr were the infantry maneuver/training areas while Munster was the panzer/armor center. In Russia/Soviet Union Kubinka and Alabino were the tank training/test centers. Basically, dividing the training establishments is 'standard practice' and has been for a couple of hundred years, at least.

Finally, Parade Ground and Training Ground were identical until the Modern Era. Combat until the rifled firearm was close-order, and drill in close formation was combat training. The original Roman 'Campus Martius' was the "Field of Mars(War)" and was, basically, a large, open parade ground. Those big "Maneuver Areas" like Grafenwohr or Fort Hood that I mentioned earlier were not set up until the late 19th - early 20th century: in Game terms, the Modern Era.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

1. did Firaxis designed Encampment after Roman 'Field of Mars'? (and even so in game terms, mounted units did NOT trained faster in an encampment that has stable than ones that has barracks)
2. Where did US. Cavalry (pre-motorized warfare) gets their training? (particularly since the founding of the U.S. of A. or maybe by the time of Wild West expansions where Cavs play major roles and began to distinct themselves from European noble practices into their own cowboy ways)
3. And do Firaxis have any idea of separate 'Archers & Artillery' training centers like Fort Still you mentioned above?
4. And even is it possible to house or train both Cavalry and Infantry in the same compound that's now Thai's Ministry of Defense HQ? With the case of Thai Ministry of Defense HQ building, by the time it was an actual miltary compound. what are the classifications of such buildings, is there any names of combined garrison buildings that houses EVERY branches of services in the Army of any given formations (maybe regiments or battalions or something akin to Anthony Wayne's Legion)... but what I know is that it does NOT offer much of an actual fort by that contemporary standards (19th century) but was built in 'court' style (buildings that surrounded a flat sqare ground / yard / garden in the center.

5. and did Euro Medieval castles offer such functions like that too? (is that the place where boys were drafted into 'Page School' or was that a location where Page School actually is, and were squired trained there??) in addition of being a fortifications themselves.

 

[Josephias]

Did you here ever notice that a fully upgraded encampment always left a tent plot?

I'm sorry this could be pouring cold wáter in the theories, but I need to point out most districts have this sort of "empty slot". Some are more visibile than others but you can notice similar "base district building" spots clearly in the entertainment complex, but also noticeable in campus, comercial hub and holy site, and to some extent in theater square.

These spots may have been intentionally left to place the "speciality district" identifying building (that is the case for example of the Street carnaval taking the empty spot in the EC, the lavra doing the same for the Holy site, and the acropolys temple being placed just were the "empty walkway" is in other theater squares. However, this has not been the case for all speciality districts, and the new expansion districts seems to follow the RNDY path, where the base district art is slightly changed. So, as the RNDY provides a Stone-built dock, the ikanda modifies the encampment walls, and the seowon the general look of the campus small buildings (like Hansa does for the IZ), and suguba and cothon seem to follow the same path.

So, unfortunately, maybe this spot was just prepared to hold a specific kind of building before they decided the ikanda concept.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

'Specific Kind of Encampment Building' ? shooting range? or barracks and stables were to be built in the same encampment?

(and isn't Ikanda a Zulu more of 'hill fort' and less of training grounds ?)

 

[Phoenix1595]

I'm sorry this could be pouring cold wáter in the theories, but I need to point out most districts have this sort of "empty slot". Some are more visibile than others but you can notice similar "base district building" spots clearly in the entertainment complex, but also noticeable in campus, comercial hub and holy site, and to some extent in theater square.

These spots may have been intentionally left to place the "speciality district" identifying building (that is the case for example of the Street carnaval taking the empty spot in the EC, the lavra doing the same for the Holy site, and the acropolys temple being placed just were the "empty walkway" is in other theater squares. However, this has not been the case for all speciality districts, and the new expansion districts seems to follow the RNDY path, where the base district art is slightly changed. So, as the RNDY provides a Stone-built dock, the ikanda modifies the encampment walls, and the seowon the general look of the campus small buildings (like Hansa does for the IZ), and suguba and cothon seem to follow the same path.

So, unfortunately, maybe this spot was just prepared to hold a specific kind of building before they decided the ikanda concept.

I am thinking that they may be empty for potential new buildings if the devs decided to ever expand in that direction. I am not saying they will, but rather it was early design decision made before they knew how they would expand the game going forward.

As to the question on whether barrack and stables should be able to built in the same encampment, I think it would be fine so long as, like hubs and harbors, there isn’t double-dipping in ancillary benefits, like the production and housing benefits. It would be overkill otherwise.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

I might ask that question but I also ask whether did 'Barracks & Stables' military compound exists in real life or did anyone else in history or any moments in history that footsloggers and mounted troops are trained or stationed in the same compound, particularly since Middle Ages into the late 19th Century (where the structure that's now an aforemented Ministry of Defense HQ ).

 

[Josephias]

'Specific Kind of Encampment Building' ? shooting range? or barracks and stables were to be built in the same encampment?

(and isn't Ikanda a Zulu more of 'hill fort' and less of training grounds ?)

I mean specific-kind-of-encampment __ building, as in building "that represents an specific kind of encampment district" -> Just like you have a russian monasterie fit in the lavra district (specific holy site), a greek temple in the acropolys disstrict (specific theater square), or parade stands for the Street carnival (specific entertainment district). Let's consider instead of slightly changing the district art, it might had been considered to place a round hut in the empty spot, or maybe it was planned giving the specific encampment to the mongols, setting the ordu tent in the empty spot, while letting them build regular stables or/barracks.

I'm not that knowledeable of South African history to determine if the ikanda was a fort or an encampment (civilopedia entry suggests both, but accuracy may not be the best). What I'm sure is ikanda is an encampment district replacement in-game, which is to what I was refering.

I am thinking that they may be empty for potential new buildings if the devs decided to ever expand in that direction. I am not saying they will, but rather it was early design decision made before they knew how they would expand the game going forward.

That's the point I'm saying I'm afraid it does make sense, because you have filled these spots already in some speciality districts, so any other building you want to put in that spot will clash with what is already there for specific civs (Brasil's parade, Russia's Lavra, Greeces' Temple). Of course, they may change the art for these districts or find different solutions (make optional tier-1,2 or 3 buildings) to expand.

 

[Gloompy]

I dont care about it's historical importance, I just agree that barracks and stables should not be exclusives. I also think aqueducts shouldnt occupy an entire plot of land. It gets real crowded late game, and if these two things were changed it'd make everyone so happy and our wildest dreams would come true. Vote for Pedro.

 

[Ivan Hunger]

So, unfortunately, maybe this spot was just prepared to hold a specific kind of building before they decided the ikanda concept.

Assuming Civ 6 continues to get support, the Zulus might not be the only civ to get a unique encampment. They may yet end up filling that space with something.