You kinda missed my and Hickman's point. Equipment might not be what defines unit; a badly trained firearms unit with commanders using dated strategems can well be represented as Xbowmen or Pikemen, just like non-graded Archers in Hickman's example can represent local milita, undermanned garrison unit or police, armed with modern weapons but absolutely incapable at resisting actual modern enemy troops. I do not claim that it is the right interpretation, only share my point of view: the unit represents overall combat abilities of the, uh, unit, rather than just equipment.
I understand that you are sharing your point of view. I am attempting to communicate that I don't find it compelling. It must be your translator once again.
Вы немного не поняли мою точку зрения и точку зрения Хикмана. Возможно, снаряжение не определяет подразделение; плохо обученное огнестрельное подразделение с командирами, использующими устаревшие стратегические материалы, вполне может быть представлено как арбалетчики или пикинеры, точно так же, как неклассифицированные лучники в примере Хикмана могут представлять местное ополчение, недоукомплектованное гарнизонное подразделение или полицию, вооруженное современным оружием, но абсолютно неспособное противостоять настоящим современным войскам противника. Я не утверждаю, что это правильная интерпретация, просто разделяю свою точку зрения: подразделение представляет общие боевые возможности, э-э, подразделения, а не только снаряжение.
I understand that you are sharing your point of view. I am attempting to communicate that I don't find it compelling. It must be your translator once again.
My translator? I don't use a translator, you must have mistaken me for TwoF or the guy above. I think my English is mangled AND eloquent enough to betray it's written by a non-native speaker rather than a machine.
Then i don't understand why you make an argument using different narrative to communicate with another narrative. Like, how do Indonesians having soldiers trained at using firearms (it would be a lot more weird if they had firearms but no trained shooters) change the fact that you either judge the unit purely by equipment or by overall combat power? I kinda directly refered to this in the last message: it's my point of view, and it's pointless to discuss if either you or mine or somebody's elses is right because the game never clarifies it. I just find overall combat power approach as more realistic and less bizzare (after all, classical Civ moment of having archers and spearmen that guard your safer cities in modern times makes no sense if we go with WYSIWYG, equipment-based approach).
The Javanese polities had been fragmented since the mid 1700s largely due to the activity of the Dutch East India Company, but to use Yogyakarta as an example (as the preeminent sultanate at the time), before they were largely forced to dissolve their standing armies during British occupation in 1811, their trained armies had both cannons, and infantry and cavalry equipped with rifles, according to an article I am unable to access bc of a paywall but I believe is referencing Raffles' The History of Java.
I am not making any game play proposals and I think whatever works best for balance and fun should be implemented, but I don't want us to fall into the idea of thinking that only European colonial powers had modern weaponry and trained armies at this time in history, it's easy to think this way if we only skim history in a relatively shallow way, but nowadays it is easy to get a generally solid overview of almost any historical information in minutes on wikipedia if you check the pages' sources, and for the early modern period, secondary sources are often available in-browser online.
I don't think I am particularly trying to make a point other than that it can be very empowering and satisfying to gain a deeper understanding of a particular place or time in history, and I can think of many times when an element of DoC has led me to question something in history and research it more closely for myself, so I guess I wanted to personally recommend doing so as a rewarding approach to engaging with the mod.
they were largely forced to dissolve their standing armies during British occupation in 1811, their trained armies had both cannons, and infantry and cavalry equipped with rifles, according to an article I am unable to access bc of a paywall but I believe is referencing Raffles' The History of Java.
I wonder why such an advanced armies couldn't prevent them from being occupied. As Napoleon once said, success is the most convincing talker in the world.
While Europocentrism is obviously a bias, anti-Europocentrism is hardly a better sort of bias. It's also pointless to deny that most breakthroughs in military thought in XVIII-XIX happened in Europe, where constant big wars (or smaller scale overseas colonial wars, of which Europeans had nearly unique experience) with massive usage of modern arms led to a much faster development of military theories. It goes without saying that on average a Prussian, an English or a Dutch officer had more experience and better military education than Yogyakartian. As with arms, i've directly mentioned that weapons are by far the easiest thing to get when it comes to forming a modern armed force; hell, even Zulus had their own gunpowder "units" before Anglo-Zulu war.
I wonder why such an advanced armies couldn't prevent them from being occupied. As Napoleon once said, success is the most convincing talker in the world.
While Europocentrism is obviously a bias, anti-Europocentrism is hardly a better sort of bias. It's also pointless to deny that most breakthroughs in military thought in XVIII-XIX happened in Europe, where constant big wars (or smaller scale overseas colonial wars, of which Europeans had nearly unique experience) with massive usage of modern arms led to a much faster development of military theories. It goes without saying that on average a Prussian, an English or a Dutch officer had more experience and better military education than Yogyakartian. As with arms, i've directly mentioned that weapons are by far the easiest thing to get when it comes to forming a modern armed force; hell, even Zulus had their own gunpowder "units" before Anglo-Zulu war.
I'm not sure, what England should get all Mughal cites, if they collapse while England conquer event.
Despite huge OE they get - it doesn't look right after all.
I just did the English UHV, and in a sense that happened to me. The Mughals were the 2nd most advanced civ with the 2nd largest army, so I had to quickly peace them out just before the deadline for UHV1 after just barely grabbing 3 cities from the conqueror event. However, after I spent awhile building up my army in India to eventually attack them again, they collapsed. All of a sudden, that huge Mughal army became 2 Arquebuisers per city, which to a colonial army means no resistance whatsoever. Within 3 or 4 turns I conquered the entirety of India.
Because i assume this point of view is right, and unless explicitly proven otherwise, i see no reason to back down. I'm relatively apathetic to both Indonesia and European powers that conquered it, if you think i'm some kind of indonesiophobe (is that even a word?)
The reason why i assume it's right is simple and it was formulated by Napoleon better than i ever could, and the total conquest of Indonesia by nowhere close to the full might of Portugese and/or Dutch proves my point better than any amount of words. Of course it was a slow process of divide and conquer approach.
In short, I would recommend weaker troops in Indonesia in 1700, but tbh it's fairly minor tweak and not something i deeply care about, nor do i play as Europeans and/or SEA nations any often.
If there's any independents needing a nerf, it's the 600AD Persians.
7 Crossbowmen with 13+ strength while the region should have been conquered by the Arabs under 8 epic turns.
But idk, maybe they are needed for gameplay purpose? I'm fine with that reason too.
It's impossible to replicate the historical Rashidun-Umayyad expansion in the mod anyway.
Saying things like this only proves that you have no idea what you are talking about, considering that we are talking about the 1700 AD starting situation and Portugal never came close to conquering all of Indonesia and the Netherlands only achieved this very late in the 19th century with entirely different military equipment than what we are discussing here.
It's fine to have only a limited / pop historical understanding of the history of an admittedly undercovered part of the world. I can even understand making false claims, considering this lack of knowledge. The degree of confidence all of that is presented with makes it rather grating though. Maybe you stop dunning krugering your way forward and spare us more of that.
The idea of the Dutch or any European power "conquering" Indonesia in the 18th century is already a video game short-hand considering that it followed the earlier model of colonialism with limited presence, puppet leaders, and a largely indigenous social structure and culture that a colonial apparatus has glued itself to the top of to extract wealth from. Like Leoreth said, effective direct control is late 19th century. European powers did not have the resources or manpower to "conquer" Asia in 1700, and even much of the "conquests" historically achieved were again about relations of control than direct military strategy or might. That only really shifts with new policies surrounding colonialism and many many other nineteenth century factors (at least IMO) which again is separate from 1700 arquebuses.
"If" a solution is needed for gameplay reasons (I haven't messed around in the 1700 scenario much yet myself) I'm inclined to think the no promotions, or some boosts for the Dutch, would be the way to go rather than a shorthand limitation on the military capabilities of non-Europeans, which if even well argued or explained, has some heavy connotations.
That is a good point also. The way this game works it is impossible to represent colonial control of isolated cities with small hinterlands while the majority of the territory is left to local rulers, even though that is the dominant form of European colonialism outside of the New World basically until the British really get the conquest of India going. If your interest is controlling trade and funnelling certain resources to Europe, that is really all you need. But in game terms these cities need to control their surrounding territory to be worth anything.
I don't even want to contest the question of whether a European power could have invaded and conquered all of Indonesia militarily in 1700 because it is almost an alt-hist question. They didn't do it because it was not in their economic interest, and also because they did not have the logistical capacity to deploy large armies in that part of the world nor the state capacity to administer it. I have no doubt that if you magically teleport a Dutch army and the army of an Indonesian polity from that time onto a battlefield that the Dutch army would win - Europe really developed its military in the wars of the 17th century while Indonesian state capacity is on the decline.
But if you return to the original request that the Netherlands should be able to conquer Indonesia with just their colonial garrisons the answer can only be no. Neither would it be a historically accurate outcome nor would such a military strength be accurate for rather lightly garrisoned colonies at the time. The whole suggestion that Indonesians should be treated like "natives" that only use crude melee weapons is even more absurd. If it is to facilitate an outcome, it is wrong because the outcome would be wrong. If it is to represent their actual military technology, it is wrong because firearms have been present in the region for centuries and have been used effectively. There is no reason not to give them access to the weakest and most basic gunpowder unit.
Does that mean the game flattens the discrepancy of military capability between the Dutch and random Indonesian states in 1700? Sure. The way that Civ4 only lets unit types upgrade once per era has that effect sometimes. This isn't EU4. But also it is just a snapshot. The Netherlands can make their way to Cannons and Musketeers easily before the historical conquest of Indonesia, and it can easily transport troops there from elsewhere to accelerate the conquest. It's not an issue at all.
UHVs which states that you should "Control" certain areas have become much harder (and in some cases impossible) with the new larger map.
It is not the conquering part that much harder, it is the amount of cities you need to own yourself to control the area.
Having that many cities which are required will cripple your economy, making other science based goals impossible in combination.
Here are some proposals which can make these goals easier. I know some of these proposals are controversial with the parts of the community here, but atleast pick one!
Rework AI to settle cities further apart. Also pre-built cities needs to the further apart.
Modify the cost of having many cities so that is scales slower with the amount.
Change the UHVs to allow vassals to be part of controlling the area.
City raze penalty is very sensible one and already depends on city's culture. Remember, a city, even on a larger map, still represents the entire region, equivalent of a small country. Razing it should not be taken lightly.
You're absolutely right to point this out. City maintenance being too high is a known issue that I will address eventually and that should hopefully solve this problem.
I am currently fixing on direct bugs ahead of balance issues, so this has to wait for a bit.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
