How combat should work

[Squirrelloid]

Well, sometimes light/heavy cavalry is used to distinguish lightly armored cavalry from heavily armored infantry, as many western cultures never had any much tradition of mounted missile units - so Hobilars are termed light cavalry as opposed to knights which are heavy cavalry. I'd be fine with renaming the existing unit "Lancer regiment" instead of "Light cavalry" regiment.

I would be fine with the rename.

This is why Estalia has Jinetes as a horsearcher UU in this mod, and Araby has Mounted camel archers. And Kislev has a horsearcher UU. But the Empire, Tilea, Bretonnia, Norsca, Nippon do not and should not IMO. I suspect that Elves, undead, chaos beasts, dwarves, chaos dwarves, amazons, lustrians all shouldn't get horsearchers either.

I'm not saying every faction should have access to every unit type. You'll note in my rewrite of the Druchii unit list I specifically listed which unit types were accessible.

Parthians are central Asian in my book, culturally (ok, western Asia I guess, central is inaccurate). Turks also had a huge tradition of missile cavalry, as did most arab cultures, and polish/balkan lithuanians had javelin cavalry.
So I guess all my point really is is that Italy, Germany, France, Britain, Low countries, Scandanavia, Japan, never really used missile cavalry pre-gunpowder (and even then, mounted rifles were mostly dragoons).

And so shouldn't have access to light cavalry if we want to be strictly accurate to WH canon. Of course, part of the joy of Civ is playing the 'might have been' game. Its a fine line to walk.

Historically, this is true, but in Warhammer, dragoons don't really exist. I see no reason to create an extra unit that doesn't exist in the warhammer world.

Actually, Outriders are Dragoons. Yes, the models don't actually dismount, but the inability to move and fire in the same turn simulates dismounting to fire rather well. And I'm guessing Cathay and maybe Nippon would have real Dragoons as well - there are a lot of factions with very little fluff available that are being included in the mod, they'll feel pretty anemic if we don't start making up some fluff of our own.

Actually, a lot. This system would pretty much mess up all the unit designs for all the designed factions.

And notice how easily I rebuilt the Druchii. I don't see this as an exceptional problem.

Part of the problem with the current system is it does not encourage combined arms at all, and thus the basic system needs to be rebuilt. I've seen little reason to use anything other than heavy cavalry and barrage units, with a few (national) heavy infantry units thrown in when I ran out of national cavalry units to build. That is not combined arms.

As Nippon I've actually been running pure swordsmen with a few catapults and had no problems whatsoever. Part of the problem is that barrage without risk to the siege engines is broken. (Seriously, that needs to go).

Also, fundamentally, WHAT DO WE GAIN FROM SUCH A SYSTEM? Why is it better to have ancient cavalry that gain +1 strength with stirrups, rather than having ancient cavalry that can upgrade to a stronger Lancer Cavalry unit with the stirrups tech?
Why is it better to have separate Iron Swords and Iron Lances promotions rather than just a general Iron Weapons promotion?

I suppose that depends on the tech tree (ie, a lancer unit makes sense if its impossible to get only one of lances/stirrups when you qualify for it). However, stirrups also apply to light cavalry units, so a general upgrade may be preferable there (but the lance is admittedly rather specific and just a unit upgrade could handle that).

I'm also not proposing handling iron separately for swords and lances, but rather the lance as a distinct bonus from metals - this is a case where it may be easier to bundle it into unit definitions though.

What do we gain from doing something more than adding some mild unit category bonuses vs other unit categories?

Historical realism? Game accuracy? (Much of the army building sub-game involves being able to choose unit equipment by paying extra points for various options after all). What's gained by bronze/iron as promotions rather than as unit upgrades?

But seriously, someone has already implemented code to do this type of thing, it shouldn't be too hard to find that code, copy/paste/rename - all you need is a graphic for the promotion icon. (Heck, I might even be able to handle doing art for something that is gold on blue and 2D).

 

[Ahriman]

Let me explain part of why this would take a lot of design work, and would throw away a lot of the existing design. Look through the existing design threads (most of which haven't been implemented yet).
The Estalian horsearcher UU is Jinetes, which would look pretty silly with an improved bows upgrade.
The Ind Light cavalry and Knight UUs are war elephants knight, which is going to look pretty silly with a lance upgrades and stirrups.
The Araby knight UU rides around on flying carpets, which is going to look pretty silly with a lance or stirrups upgrade (or platemail).
Skaven crossbows are poison wind globadiers, which will look pretty silly with an improved bows upgrade.
Many, many factions have pikemen replacements which aren't pikemen - Chaos warriors for chaos factions, Ironbreakers for dwarves, ushbati for khemri, and many factions don't have a pikeman (by design).

Basically, many/most factions aren't historical medieval armies, they're fantasy armies that don't fit the simple molds so well.

there are a lot of factions with very little fluff available that are being included in the mod, they'll feel pretty anemic if we don't start making up some fluff of our own.

Check the design threads!
I've created design threads for:
Empire, Brettonnia, chaos tribes, Wood Elf, Greenskins
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=292016

Estalia, Tilea, Ind, Cathay, Nippon, Skaven
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=290972

Dwarves
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=291330

Sylvania, Lamia
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=291659

Khemri
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=293441

Kislev
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=292506

Salvation and chaos religions UUs
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=290986&page=3

There are already fairly well fleshed out unit rosters for these factions.
Redoing all these designs to fit a new combat system is a lot of work.

Part of the problem with the current system is it does not encourage combined arms at all, and thus the basic system needs to be rebuilt

This can be done somewhat by giving some different unit classes more in the way of bonuses vs other unit classes. I'm ok with that, as long as the bonuses are mild.

I've seen little reason to use anything other than heavy cavalry and barrage units, with a few (national) heavy infantry units thrown in when I ran out of national cavalry units to build

Then clearly you haven't been playing on a difficulty high enough for the AI to be throwing big stacks of knights and war chariots at you.
Cavalry are weak on defense. Of course, your design where you want to remove attack/defense values for units would make knight-dominance even worse.

Historical realism?

This isn't a realism simulator or a historic earth mod, its a fantasy mod. And I fail to see why keeping ancient cavalry (with ancient cavalry graphics) and adding a lance upgrade to them is more realistic than creating a new lancer unit with higher strength.

(Much of the army building sub-game involves being able to choose unit equipment by paying extra points for various options after all).

What's gained by bronze/iron as promotions rather than as unit upgrades?

Simplicity, and ease of using an existing system. Simple and elegant = good design, and easy for a player new to the mod to understand. I worry your system even if implemented successfully would be too complex for new players to easily understand.

 

[Darkform]

sounds like what he suggests would be good for a Alpha Centari mod if it was modable and a earth type planet could be used for it.

that was a good spinof of Civ that had chasies that could be modifyed there was 1 move chasie and a 2 move chasie and you added offense and defense and special additions to it to make what you wanted to make. but on it you had all choices on all civs after learning all techs and it wouldn't work for a WH mod.

 

[Ahriman]

There is an Alpha Centauri mod called Planetfall that is trying to use a system slightly like this, but it doesn't really work very well yet.

 

[Darkform]

I meant a mod of the Game Alpha Centauri. I think it was made after civ 3 but before civ 4.

sounds like Planetfall is a civ 4 mod trying to feel more like the Alpha Centauri game.

 

[Squirrelloid]

Let me explain part of why this would take a lot of design work, and would throw away a lot of the existing design. Look through the existing design threads (most of which haven't been implemented yet).
The Estalian horsearcher UU is Jinetes, which would look pretty silly with an improved bows upgrade.
The Ind Light cavalry and Knight UUs are war elephants knight, which is going to look pretty silly with a lance upgrades and stirrups.
The Araby knight UU rides around on flying carpets, which is going to look pretty silly with a lance or stirrups upgrade (or platemail).
Skaven crossbows are poison wind globadiers, which will look pretty silly with an improved bows upgrade.
Many, many factions have pikemen replacements which aren't pikemen - Chaos warriors for chaos factions, Ironbreakers for dwarves, ushbati for khemri, and many factions don't have a pikeman (by design).

There are two different problems here. On the one hand, some UUs aren't really of the type they're replacing. On the other, we're talking about different route technologies for the same end result. All of these are soluble problems.

Chaos Warriors should use the Warrior style design, not pikemen. Have it accessed by the same tech as Pikemen, but don't base the unit on Pikemen at all. Prohibit Chaos from getting Pikemen. Simple. They are not Pikemen, and should not be built off a Pikeman base unit.

I have to object to 'magic carpet' riding knights - that sounds like a hero unit. What little we know of Araby in the fluff is that they use cavalry reminiscent of crusader-era muslims. Ie, presumably both light and heavy cavalry, with the heavy cavalry tending towards swords over lances, and with lighter armor than 'european' (empire/brettonian) equivalents. As there's even a tabletop unit of Araby cavalry (from Regiments of Reknown), thats certainly reasonable.

Now, they don't use lances, so you prohibit them that technology entirely (a reason why a lance upgrade might be better), and don't make their Knight UU require Lance to build. Give it some other advantage(s) to compensate.

Elephants should really be a monster unit rather than a cavalry unit, as they don't function like cavalry at all. And most armies which have fielded elephants have also fielded cavalry except in cases where horses weren't available. Thus we make the War Elephant a Monster Tier II UU for Ind.

Similarly, am I the only one who thinks that at least one of the chaos factions should have a Mammoth UU? I mean, there's even a beautiful forgeworld model of one for inspiration.

Handling the javelin cavalry is a little more interesting - do they require archery to build? I mean, if so you're already making some assumptions that gloss over the details about them carrying *javelins* rather than bows. Now, the functional equivalent of a compound bow for javelins is a 'spear thrower' (atlatl), which isn't especially european but fills the proper technological niche. Or we can just gloss over the difference again and let 'compound bows' apply without thinking about it too hard. (Or let Bronze/Iron apply to them instead).

As for Skaven - it sounds like they need to be handled entirely separately anyway. Do you let them get bronze/iron upgrades?

Basically, many/most factions aren't historical medieval armies, they're fantasy armies that don't fit the simple molds so well.

They're fantasy armies based extensively on history, especially for the more human ones. And the non-magical units have mechanics which make them perform much like historical equivalents (admittedly with some balancing done to allow for different styles of play that isn't always historically accurate). I am quite familiar with the mechanics of the table top game, it isn't like that aspect is a mystery to me.

Check the design threads!
I've created design threads for:
Empire, Brettonnia, chaos tribes, Wood Elf, Greenskins
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=292016

Estalia, Tilea, Ind, Cathay, Nippon, Skaven
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=290972

Dwarves
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=291330

Sylvania, Lamia
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=291659

Khemri
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=293441

Kislev
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=292506

Salvation and chaos religions UUs
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=290986&page=3

There are already fairly well fleshed out unit rosters for these factions.
Redoing all these designs to fit a new combat system is a lot of work.

The beauty of a unified unit design theory is it comes down to assigning units to a type and figuring out what modifications they need from there. Ie, realizing that Chaos Warriors are not Pikemen is important. Tech equivalency and type equivalency are very different things.

I'm not proposing rosters change at all - Ultimately the rosters are already set for most factions by their army lists in the game.

This can be done somewhat by giving some different unit classes more in the way of bonuses vs other unit classes. I'm ok with that, as long as the bonuses are mild.

Then clearly you haven't been playing on a difficulty high enough for the AI to be throwing big stacks of knights and war chariots at you.
Cavalry are weak on defense. Of course, your design where you want to remove attack/defense values for units would make knight-dominance even worse.

I'm up to monarch now, we'll see how this goes.

I'll note the game should be balanced at all play levels, with the ideal point preferably somewhere in the 'standard' (Noble-Monarch) range.

Removing attack/defense values for units doesn't make knights dominate if there are harder counters. Your insistence on only weak multipliers means that having the right counter unit is only a little bit helpful rather than important. The harder the counter, the stronger the suggestion that you build multiple unit types.

Under your schema, there is some best defensive unit and some best offensive unit. In the optimal conditions, stacks only contain those two units because nothing else is worth fielding.

Under my schema, there is a metric of class type domination and lacking a particular role makes your defense relatively weaker vs. particular offensive units, which encourages you to build stacks with most, if not all, unit types. Now, there is some possible variation in stack balance - entirely LC/HC is plausible, as is entirely LI/HI, from defensive perspectives. But your attack options may well be better with all four.

Simplicity, and ease of using an existing system. Simple and elegant = good design, and easy for a player new to the mod to understand. I worry your system even if implemented successfully would be too complex for new players to easily understand.

Its the same exact system as the bronze/iron metric currently in play. If the current system is simple and elegant, expanding that system shouldn't change that.

 

[Ahriman]

Chaos Warriors should use the Warrior style design, not pikemen. Have it accessed by the same tech as Pikemen, but don't base the unit on Pikemen at all.

It is much easier to replace units rather than keep building new unit classes all the time. Saves a ton of space and effort in the xml files.

I have to object to 'magic carpet' riding knights - that sounds like a hero unit. What little we know of Araby in the fluff is that they use cavalry reminiscent of crusader-era muslim

Araby is a mixture of crusades-era Mameluks AND Arabian nights genies.
Much of Araby, Cathay and Nippon are based off some fan-created armybooks that PL suggested I reference.

The harder the counter, the stronger the suggestion that you build multiple unit types.

The harder the counter, the more screwed you are by the civ combat system where the strongest defender always defends the stack.
Under your system, an attacker needs truly massive numerical advantage to take down a defensive stack, which makes the AI suffer unduly because it is more likely to launch suicidal charges and get its entire army destroyed.

Under your schema, there is some best defensive unit and some best offensive unit.

Nonsense, I am perfectly happy to have mild bonuses vs unit types. Spearmen are better defenders vs shock cavalry and chariots. Crossbows are better defenders vs melee. Missile units are better city/hill defenders. etc.

Its the same exact system as the bronze/iron metric currently in play.

No, it isn't. The existing system has 2 promotions; bronze weapons, iron weapons. Your system has potentially tons of different promotions, and units can have different combinations of these (eg stirrups AND lances).

 

[Ahriman]

Unit stats:
This increases the soft-counter potential of different unit types.
It also removes some of the truly bizarre first strikes everywhere (I don’t understand the reason for these).
This improves the incentives for combined arms without making counters too hard, or having to design and balance an entire new set of lances/platemail/stirrups.etc etc promotions.

Melee line:

Spoiler :

Axeman warband. Strength 4, can use wartats/bronze/iron weapons. +25% vs melee units.
Spearman warband. Strength 4. Can use wartats/bronze/iron weapons. +50% vs shock cavalry units, +25% vs chariot units.
Militia Swordsman. Strength 5. Can use bronze/iron/steel/meteoric iron weapons. +25% vs melee units.
Militia Spearman. Strength 5. +50% vs shock cavalry units. +25% vs chariot units. Can use bronze/iron/steel/meteoric iron weapons.
Pikemen. Strength 5/7. +25% vs melee units. +25% vs chariot units. +50% vs shock cavalry units. Can use bronze/iron/steel/meteoric iron weapons.
Royal guard. Strength 8. Can use bronze/iron/steel/meteoric iron weapons. Bodyguard. +25% vs melee units. +25% vs mounted units.

Halbardier. Empire UU (replaces pikemen). Strength 6. Can use bronze/iron/steel/meteoric iron weapons. +25% vs melee units. +25% vs chariot units. +25% vs shock cavalry units. Starts with Musician promotion.
Men at arms. Brettonnia UU (replaces pikemen). Strength 5/6. Otherwise identical to pikemen.
Tercio Pikemen. Estalia UU (replaces pikemen). Strength 6/7. Otherwise identical to pikemen.

Archery line:

Spoiler :

Archer warband. Strength 3/5. Can use wartats, quality bows. +25% city defence. +25% hill defense. 1 First Strike. +25% vs missile cavalry.
Militia archers. Strength 5/6. Can use wartats/quality bows 1-2 First strikes. +40% city defense. +20% hills defense. +25% vs missile cavalry.
Crossbowmen. Strength 7. Can use meteoric iron/quality bows. 1 First strike. +25% city defense. +25% hills defence. +50% vs melee units.
Longbowmen. Strength 6/8. Can use meteoric iron/quality bows. 1-2 First strikes. +25% city defense. +25% hills defense. Can bombard range 1. +25% vs missile cavalry.
Handgunners: Strength 8/9. Can use meteoric iron. 1-2 first strikes. +25% vs melee units, +25% hills defense. +25% vs missile cavalry.

Shock cavalry line:

Spoiler :

Ancient cavalry. Strength 4, 2 moves. Can use bronze/iron weapons. Can withdraw from combat 15%. -25% forest/ancientforest/jungle/deepjungle/wetland/marsh attack, -25% forest/ancientforest/jungle/deepjungle/wetland/marsh defense, does not get defensive bonuses. +25% vs chariots, +25% vs archers, +25% vs missile cavalry.

Lancers. Strength 6/4, 3 moves. Can use bronze/iron/steel/meteoric iron weapons. Can withdraw from combat 25%. -25% forest/ancientforest/jungle/deepjungle/wetland attack, -25% forest/ancientforest/jungle/deepjungle/wetland defense, cannot enter marsh, does not get defensive bonuses. +25% vs archers, +25% vs chariots, +50% vs siege units, flank attack vs siege units.

Knights. Strength 10/7. 2 moves. Can use bronze/iron/steel/meteoric iron weapons. Can withdraw from combat 15%. -25% forest/ancientforest/jungle/deepjungle/wetland attack, -25% forest/ancientforest/jungle/deepjungle/wetland defense, cannot enter marsh, does not get defensive bonuses. -25% city attack, +25% vs archers. Flank attack vs siege units.

Chariots:

Spoiler :

Chariot Strength 5/3, 2 moves. Can get bronze/iron/steel/meteoric iron weapons. Can withdraw from combat (25% chance). Cannot enter marsh, jungle. -25% wetland attack/wetland defense. -50% forest/ancientforest/deepjungle attack, -50% forest/ancientforest/jungle/deepjungle defense. +25% vs melee units.

Warchariot. 10/4, 2 moves. Can get bronze/iron/steel/meteoric iron weapons. Can withdraw from combat (25% chance). Cannot enter marsh, jungle. -25% wetland attack/wetland defense. -50% forest/ancientforest/deepjungle attack, -50% forest/ancientforest/jungle/deepjungle defense. +25% vs melee units.

Missile cavalry line:

Spoiler :

Horsearchers. Strength 7, 3 moves. Can use quality bows, meteoric iron. Cannot enter marsh. Does not get defensive bonuses. Immune to first strikes. Can withdraw from combat 25%. +25% vs melee units. -25% forest/ancientforest/jungle/deepjungle/wetland attack, -25% forest/ancientforest/jungle/deepjungle/wetland defense

Cavalry. Strength 10/8. Can use meteoric iron. -25% forest/ancientforest/jungle/deepjungle/wetland attack, -25% forest/ancientforest/jungle/deepjungle/wetland defense. Cannot enter marsh. Does not get defensive bonuses. +25% vs melee units. Can withdraw from combat 25%.

 

[Ajidica]

Is it possible that the reason combined arms doesnt really work are the few number of cavalry units compared to infantry? becasue you have more infantry upgrade options, you can keep them competative at the time. Ancient Cavalry are sort of useless until the mid-game. There is a large period in which ancient cavalry are outdated but infantry are still modern. Becaue of this infantry offers a better investment for hammers. They may be weaker late game, but they are more competative for most of the game. Also, since cavalry are expensive to build, infantry will always be first build in a crisis or if planning a war because you can make them faster. In addition, you are also allowed more infantry than cavalry, further weakening the atractivness of cavalry. In my games, as much as I love cavalry (reason why I play as the Byzantines in WArhammer Ancient Battles) I never find them effective enough to invest massivly in.

 

[Ahriman]

Is it possible that the reason combined arms doesnt really work are the few number of cavalry units compared to infantry?

Not really... in the midgame, there are horsearchers, light cavalry (->lancers) and cavalry.

ancient Cavalry are sort of useless until the mid-game.

Ancient cavalry are obsoleted by lancers in the same way that spearmen warband is obsoleted by spearmen, or axemen warband by militia swordsman.

There is a large period in which ancient cavalry are outdated but infantry are still modern.

I don't understand this, since you can get stirrups before you get militia spearmen/swordsmen if you choose.

In addition, you are also allowed more infantry than cavalry, further weakening the atractivness of cavalry.

Ancient cavalry and light cavalry have no unit cap, so I really don't understand this.

Also historically, almost without exception, cavalry were massively outnumbered by infantry in armies.

 

[Ajidica]

Basicly what I am trying to say is that with the current system, infantry are more useful and for most of the game more powerful that cavalry. Sorry for the slightly lucid post, I really shouldnt comment on game mechanics while writing an essay.

 

[Squirrelloid]

Also historically, almost without exception, cavalry were massively outnumbered by infantry in armies.

[quibble]That depends on which culture you're talking about. The Parthians/Huns/Mongols fielded armies entirely of cavalry, and many Turk armies were also entirely cavalry (the Golden Horde anyone?).

Even outside of such cultures, the French force at Agincourt was predominantly cavalry by a large margin. And during the crusades many of the muslim armies were entirely mounted. (Its not that the muslim forces overall didn't include foot troops, but they weren't necessarily used in given campaigns or battles).

Looking at 'professional soldiers' (as conscripting peasants isn't exactly available in civ), most non-crusader western european armies were entirely or predominantly cavalry until the swiss pikemen proved the viability of foot soldiers. English forces were a rare exception to this rule.[/quibble]

 

[Ahriman]

The Parthians/Huns/Mongols fielded armies entirely of cavalry, and many Turk armies were also entirely cavalry (the Golden Horde anyone?

Mongol-style Asian armies are basically the sole exception I'm talking about, they're drawn from nomadic societies, and horses were the only way they could travel the vast differences that they did. I wouldn't call the Golden Horde turkish, they're still basically mongol.
Non-nomadic armies (ie anything in Europe) were almost never drawn entirely from horsemen, if only because most soldiers couldn't afford a horse and didn't know how to ride.

While an expeditionary column might be cavalry, most of the Turkish/Ottoman armies were foot troops (particularly later once they evolved from raider/mercenaries into an empire).

On Agincourt; Wikipedia at least disagrees (as has every other source I've seen).
"French army:
Between 20,000 and 30,000 (but see Modern re-assessment). About half dismounted men-at-arms, with about 1,200 mounted men-at-arms and the rest mostly crossbowmen and archers."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Agincourt

I've also never seen sources arguing that even crusader/mameluk armies were composed primarily of horsemen.

Looking at 'professional soldiers' (as conscripting peasants isn't exactly available in civ), most non-crusader western european armies were entirely or predominantly cavalry until the swiss pikemen proved the viability of foot soldiers. English forces were a rare exception to this rule.

Medieval armies in civ of course still represent levied troops. As does everything in this mod really before Standing Army civic.
I have no idea what pre-renaissance professional armies you are talking about historically. These simply didn't exist (post Rome-which is of course nearly all infantry), almost without exception. There are some professional companies of longbowmen fielded by England through the 100 years war, and a handful of merecenary companies, but not much else. Medieval armies were almost entirely peasant levies of infantry and archers/crossbowmen. The Agincourt ratios (10:1 infantry to cavalry) are pretty representative.

This tendency for infantry to massively outnumber cavalry continues into 17th-19th century armies when we have better data on numbers. Eg: Cromwell's new model army = 14400 infantry, 6600 cavalry. And this is a very high-cavalry army.

Napoleon's Grande Armee
"By decree of the Emperor himself, cavalry typically comprised between a fifth and a sixth of the Grande Armée."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grande_Armée

 

[Squirrelloid]

Mongol-style Asian armies are basically the sole exception I'm talking about, they're drawn from nomadic societies, and horses were the only way they could travel the vast differences that they did. I wouldn't call the Golden Horde turkish, they're still basically mongol.
Non-nomadic armies (ie anything in Europe) were almost never drawn entirely from horsemen, if only because most soldiers couldn't afford a horse and didn't know how to ride.

While an expeditionary column might be cavalry, most of the Turkish/Ottoman armies were foot troops (particularly later once they evolved from raider/mercenaries into an empire).

The golden horde is a turkish army from the 17th century - there hadn't been mongols for over a century.

I've also never seen sources arguing that even crusader/mameluk armies were composed primarily of horsemen.

Crusader armies certainly weren't (And actually featured relatively well-trained foot soldiers at least in part). The 1st and 2nd crusades certainly encountered armies entirely composed of cavalry, at least by the definition of army as 'the forces engaged in a particular battle'. (I don't know what the camp manifest would have looked like). Tactics used during the 1st crusades would have failed utterly with non-mounted troops present at the battles. (Effectively, bait the crusader cavalry into charging, run away, tire them out, and then surround and destroy them).

Medieval armies in civ of course still represent levied troops. As does everything in this mod really before Standing Army civic.

So, I obviously can't speak for the mod (although the troops are far too good for levied troops), but basic CivIV has to represent everything from China to Europe - while continental Europe used extensive levied troops for infantry, England had already converted to a mostly professional army by the end of the 14th century (and was well on its way to doing so before then - using its peasant conscripts as light infantry and using trained troops as heavy infantry). And China had professional infantry at all periods. Representing this diversity with the same quality of troops is absurd. I can only assume that units are meant to represent trained troops, especially since you spend time 'training' (building) them. Levied troops should be poor quality, hastily recruitable, and be deconscripted after a while.

Similarly, mounted units in medieval europe were not levied - they were nobles or men paid for by nobles whose job was to be professional soldiers.

I have no idea what pre-renaissance professional armies you are talking about historically. These simply didn't exist (post Rome-which is of course nearly all infantry), almost without exception. There are some professional companies of longbowmen fielded by England through the 100 years war, and a handful of merecenary companies, but not much else. Medieval armies were almost entirely peasant levies of infantry and archers/crossbowmen. The Agincourt ratios (10:1 infantry to cavalry) are pretty representative.

The Renaissance is a poor era demarkation because it starts in different places at different times. While we date some artists from 1330 Italy as Renaissance, the Renaissance doesn't reach France or England until the middle of the 16th century, well after the first appearance of cannons.

So the Swiss pikemen are pre-renaissance by swiss standards (and the standards of many of the cultures they fought for). Similarly the Teutonic Knights (who had their own kingdom), not to mention many german armies included some professional infantry. Really, the romanticized notion of medieval history is based mostly on French practice, who couldn't accept chivalry was dead and almost lost the 100 years war because of it (saved by a schizophrenic peasant girl, of all things).

Napoleon's Grande Armee
"By decree of the Emperor himself, cavalry typically comprised between a fifth and a sixth of the Grande Armée."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grande_Armée

Certainly not going to disagree with that - Napoleon's infantry doctrines made Cavalry all but obsolete for military purposes. They retained a use as a scouting and supply line raiding force only.

 

[Ahriman]

The golden horde is a turkish army from the 17th century - there hadn't been mongols for over a century.

"The Golden Horde (Mongolian: Алтан Орд Altan Ord; Tatar: Altın Urda; Russian: Золотая Орда, Zolotaya Orda; Turkish: Altın Ordu) is a Russian designation for the Mongol[1][2][3]—later Turkicized[4]—Muslim[5] khanate established in the western part of the Mongol Empire after the Mongol invasion of Rus in the 1240s: present-day Russia, Ukraine, Moldova, Kazakhstan, and the Caucasus. At its peak, the Golden Horde's territory included most of Eastern Europe from the Urals to the right banks of the Dnieper River, extending east deep into Siberia. On the south, the Golden Horde's lands bordered on the Black Sea, the Caucasus Mountains, and the territories of the Mongol dynasty known as the Ilkhanate.[4]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_horde

They're the descendants of the mongol tribes, and were culturally still basically mongol-style states (though agreed absolutely that they were no long controlled by anyone in Mongolia or nearby). They had nothing to do with the 17th century turkish ottoman empire.

England had already converted to a mostly professional army by the end of the 14th century (and was well on its way to doing so before then - using its peasant conscripts as light infantry and using trained troops as heavy infantry). And China had professional infantry at all periods. Representing this diversity with the same quality of troops is absurd. I can only assume that units are meant to represent

So, your argument that there were professional armies made up primarily of cavalry are citing 15th century England and China? Seriously?

Similarly, mounted units in medieval europe were not levied - they were nobles or men paid for by nobles whose job was to be professional soldiers.

Precisely. This is why most armies were NOT mounted units; because most troops were levied, and you can't really levy mounted units.

But we're wandering off topic. Take a look at the unit stats proposals. Do you see that slight changes to the existing model can be used to increase the degree to which units are counters for other types of units? I really think this is the way to go, rather than trying to adopt all kinds of different technological innovation promotions.

 

[Humakty]

I plainly support ahriman : we're not going to rebuild all the military tech tree in the sake of realism, 'cause it's a fantasy mod. And also because it's long, and I have yet to understand what it would bring to the mod. Would it be better ? Not sure at all. And surely not worth the trouble to get sure.

 

[Masada]

Not to blow anyone's bubble, all of them actually, this is purely speculative, combined arms is end result we are after.

But the tech tree is what PL is going to work on next (provided work does not kill me, I’ll be helping, and I’ll try and rope a friend of mine in). So continue to argue, proof of concept is important, and keep this in mind, because the tech tree is likely to change quite heavily, unit changes are likely going to be needed regardless.

So argue the philosophical points, then come up with the details of the units, and when we have a nicely shaven tech tree which is working nicely in the early game before we get canon levels, then we can work on the mid-late part of the game mechanics.

Don’t forget that most ideas start as merely a lot of extra coding work…

We also probably need a brain dump thread... just a suggestion to keep track of all the various "in progress" forums.

 

[Ahriman]

Not to blow anyone's bubble, all of them actually, this is purely speculative, combined arms is end result we are after.

My design does encourage combined arms, and would work well with the tech tree design I proposed.
We should have a semi-finalised design for both core units (though not necessarily every faction list) and the techtree before we start wasting coders time implementing them.

 

[Psychic_Llamas]

We should have a semi-finalised design for both core units (though not necessarily every faction list) and the techtree before we start wasting coders time implementing them.

But the tech tree is what PL is going to work on next (provided work does not kill me, I’ll be helping, and I’ll try and rope a friend of mine in). So continue to argue, proof of concept is important, and keep this in mind, because the tech tree is likely to change quite heavily, unit changes are likely going to be needed regardless.

yep and yep. the tech tree shouldnt be too hard to rearrange im very short on time lately though because of uni assignments work and exams comming up, so ill push to get 1.5 release then ill have to wait untill i have free time to mod in the techs.

 

[Ahriman]

yep and yep. the tech tree shouldnt be too hard to rearrange im very short on time lately though because of uni assignments work and exams comming up, so ill push to get 1.5 release then ill have to wait untill i have free time to mod in the techs.

What are your thoughts on the tech tree I proposed?

*Edit* If you like it, I can go through and add beaker costs to various techs.