Immortals had SWORDS?? Oh, really.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by gormtheold
To be historically accurate, probably the defensive units should be equal in attack and defense

Actually, gunpowder is much better on defensive than on attack. (Think Pickett's charge to get an idea.) It is easier to lay on the ground or behind something and shoot, than it is to cross open ground into enemy fire.

Cavalry is not inherently "stronger" than infantry. It is just more mobile, so it can pick and choose its battles, or retreat from a losing position.

 

[Ghengis Brom]

Didn't Civ III win some honor or award for being an "educational" game because of it's historical "accuracy"? I wonder if the same people will give me an honary PhD in history cause got an A+ on my citizenship test in high school?:crazyeyes

 

[gormtheold]

But, even in a mismatch like Pickett's charge, it was the elevation and field intrenchment of the defenders (bonuses the game gives in addition to the defense bonus) that made the difference. On level ground with neither side dug in, it was equal (like the Iron Brigade's first fight the eve of second Bull Run, when the two sides stood some impossibly small distance apart (seventy-five yards? I don't remember) and shot each other to a draw.

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by gormtheold
But, even in a mismatch like Pickett's charge, it was the elevation and field intrenchment of the defenders (bonuses the game gives in addition to the defense bonus) that made the difference. On level ground with neither side dug in, it was equal (like the Iron Brigade's first fight the eve of second Bull Run, when the two sides stood some impossibly small distance apart (seventy-five yards? I don't remember) and shot each other to a draw.

No Picketts Charge is the more instructive analogy. The more powerful the weapons got, the more defense had the upper hand. The one trying to advance has the disadvantage. If there is anything to hide behind, it is still worse on the advancing force. Indeed, a very few brave men held off the full force of the Union army for weeks in the trenches around Richmond. Only the lack of food and powder drove them out in a mad dash to resupply, before being stopped at Appomattox.

Interestingly, those trenches were build by at the beginning of the war when few on either side thought the war would last more than a few weeks, and certainly wouldn't be fought by men hiding in trenches. The men called the General who built those trenches "Granny Lee".

A great book on the subject is "Killer Angels", which won the Pulitzer. Longstreet wanted to pull back towards Washington, cutting the Union army off from the capitol, then encamp at Great Falls, a natural defensive position. The Union army would be "forced" to attack at a severe disadvantage. History proved that Longstreet's theory of defensive gunpowder combat was the correct one. Lee was the last of the "gallant" generals.

 

[Zouave]

Hey Ghenghis Brom,

Compared to what the average dolt and dummy on the street knows, Civ III is very educational.

Watch Jay Leno's "Jaywalking" segments (which he stole from Steve Allen) to see how stupid the average person is about politics, history, and everything. To them, the Colossus of Rhodes was a porno star.

Public schools remain an abject failure.

 

[gormtheold]

But every example about how civil war armies were better on defense is about intrenched defenders (even if only field intrenchments). The weaponry was more deadly than it had ever been before (hence, generals steeped in Napoleonic tradition, didn't get it) but the firearms were still not that reliable or accurate. That is how Pickett's charge was even as successful as it was. Very few were falling except to artillery until after they crossed the road. Grant caught hell for not intrenching at Shiloh when he was almost driven into the river. The Killer Angels was a wonderful book but I have seen others that are skeptical about whether Longstreet was all that prescient. When he was in charge, in Tennessee, he did much the same thing Lee did (with much the same result). Perhaps the defense should also get a bonus when the attacker is coming from an open space (plains or grassland). When you walk the field at Gettysburg, the impressive thing is not how high the hill is (the slope is actually less than the triangular field by the Devil's Den) but how open it is. That the Confederates even tried to attack Little Round Top is largely because the Union hadn't occupied the place long enough to build breastworks. My only point is that the power of the defense is in the fortification (and other modifiers, like elevation). And from about 1600 to 1917 (and often enough after that), the attacking force was ALWAYS infantry--and sometimes, particularly against an unintrenched enemy, they won. But, in the context of the game, of course, it doesn't make any difference, because if you want to attack in those times you use cavalry even though nobody in the real world ever did (er, except my mistake, half a league, half a league, half a league onward!)

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by gormtheold
And from about 1600 to 1917 (and often enough after that), the attacking force was ALWAYS infantry

General military doctrine suggests a minimum of 3-1 against infantry, 10-1 if they are fortified. There are sound reasons for these numbers. Usually, with infantry, it is much easier to hold a position than to take it.

Click for Zachriel's treatise on Civ3 infantry:
http://www.crowncity.net/civ3/Infantry.htm

 

[tetley]

Hi all, this is an interesting thread.

I think Russian military doctrine calls for a 12:1 advantage. Basically apply very high pressure at a weak point. But I think U.S. doctrine has more to do with outflanking the enemy rather than having a numerical advantage, and I think they're right. With automatic weapons and combined arms, numerical advantage starts to become less relevant, except inasmuch as it gives you more manpower to outflank with. We saw this happen in Iraq--U.S. very clearly had the numerical advantage, yet they outflanked them.

Quite honestly, I'm thankful to Sadaam for providing the U.S. with Iraqi volunteers to serve as targets for their live training exercises.

 

[Moulton]

Well, my Marine friends used to tell me (in a previous life) that they wanted 5 to 1 odds before hitting a beach.

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Moulton
Well, my Marine friends used to tell me (in a previous life) that they wanted 5 to 1 odds before hitting a beach.

That's right. But you only need 5-1 in the immediate area. So concentrate your forces.

In modern days, infantry includes special forces, which are used to mitigate the infantry defense advantage. Of course, combined arms are used for the same reason. Basic concept: use infantry to protect your attacking units, such as artillery and armor; strike out with artillery and armor, blasting a temporary hole in the enemy lines; fill the gap with infantry. As infantry is adept at holding ground, you have succeeded in creating a bulge in the enemy lines, which they will be hard put to repair; move your artillery into the breach and blast away from a point inside the enemy line.

Repeat as necessary.

 

[Libertarian]

I was a tank crewman in the US Army, and I could go on and on about the inaccuracies of mechanized ground forces and other modern units in Civ3, but I cut them some slack because this isn't a tactical simulation.

Well, yeah. But if tanks had wings in Civ3, wouldn't you take up a bit of that slack?

 

[gormtheold]

Okay, okay, I give up, maybe there is an intrinsic advantage to the defense (but since defending units in the real world are almost always intrenched in some way it would be hard to find a test case of them not being intrenched. The lesson of the Civil War (unlearned by the generals of WWI) is never, never, attack intrenched infantry with infantry. As we who play Civilization are hopefully smarter than WWI generals (damn scant praise, that) or at least have their example, the game has created a mythical attack unit (cavalry that charges intrenched infantry with more than a snow ball's chance), so as to enable offensive warfare during the age when it was inherently insane. And that's O.K. It's a game. Every problem should have a solution (a dictum that does not apply to the real world). In Civ I and Civ II, bombers stayed in the air for two years (in the same place for one year so fighters could come shoot them down). Getting back to the immortals (remember Alice? this is a thread about Alice), there really isn't an appropriate Persian special unit (cataphracts? knights earlier than feudalism?) so they had to invent one. This is like the attacking cavalry--something needed in the game and, therefore, acceptable.