Lonecat Nekophrodite
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2019
- Messages
- 2,593
means that all Artillery class units can 'move and shoot'.
New Civ Game Guide: Mongolia
- Thread starter FXS_Sar
- Start date
-
- Tags
- civ vii game guide
tedhebert
Emperor
Also, we have no clear indication as to WHERE on the map the levied units will appear. people seem to assume it will be at the emplacement the unit is at the moment of the levy, but they could also decide that the levied unit will be sent to your nearest city or town
Boris Gudenuf
Deity
But it did take more time than anything else in the army, so it is still relatively inaccurate: it took 50 men with experienced instructors/leaders almost 3 months to erect a Trebuchet for a siege in Scotland in 1304 CE: nothing else in the army, then or ever, took that long to get ready.
BUT for the sake of simplicity, they could still treat 'siege engines' (Ballistae, Catapults, Trebuchets, Bombards specifically) as separate units. But to reflect their real capabilities and limitations, they should be like the Support Units in Civ VI: have little or no defense factors unless 'stacked' with a regular unit, and little (catapults, ballistae) or no (trebuchets, bombards) attack factors against other units, but massive bonuses against Walls and fortifications.
They were very specialized machines, requiring both special skills to build and use and ony good against a specific 'class' of targets - namely, Immovable Ones.
It's long past time to retire the infinitely capable Siege Machine, which didn't exist until modern artillery took over the task around 1900 CE.
The game already does make siege units uniquely slow in this way - you can't move and shoot in the same turn, so you need to spend a wasted turn within range of the city until your siege unit can fire.
I actually, once more, liked how HK did it for sieges. At the beginning of a siege, you can assign your units to construct siege engines, translating to one or two turns to build one (depending on amount of infantry in the siege iirc). Of course, it has no sense to it if compared to real world years, but hardly anything in HK (or civ) ever has. Yet, trebuchets in HK are doing quite some damage to garrisoned units. But they die instantly when attacked in melee.
Boris Gudenuf
Deity
I confess, the Siege Mechanic in HK was one of the few things about the game that I liked without a mass of reservations. It very nicely showed that a Siege was a special operation, not just a continuation of a field battle with a wall or two tossed in.
The only problem with the Mechanic was in the way they depicted the Siege Machines themselves. For all the early ones, towers, battering rams, catapults and trebuchets, which were built largely on-site for sieges, the mechanic worked nearly perfectly. But for the early gunpowder Bombards the mechanic was utterly inaccurate: Bombards had to be built somewhere else unless you had the time, resources and talent to build a forge and small factory installation as part of the siege and cast a massive cannon on-site - which was done, but not very often. Bombards meant you had to haul an entire Siege Train of cannon, gunpowder by the ton, and big rocks/cast iron projectiles by the ton, along with masses of people and auxiliary equipment to make it all work together. It was an entirely new problem for armies who wanted entrance to a fortified city.
How important it might be to show that 'new problem' in a game is another question. Given the way that a Siege Train reduced the mobility of an army to approximately the speed of a ruptured duck, in Europe it resulted in attackers having to field two armies: a besieging force and a 'covering force' to keep the enemy from interfering in the glacially slow progress of the besiegers and their Train.
All of which, frankly, might be more trouble than it is worth in a game at the Grandest of Strategy scales of Civ, in which the speeds of all the units are vastly reduced compared to the Time Scale.
Guandao
Rajah of Minyue and Langkasuka
Mongolia's theme
Certainly a departure from the usual throat singing.
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2010
- Messages
- 18,547
There is still some throat singing, but definitely less than Civ 6 Mongols
Guandao
Rajah of Minyue and Langkasuka
No more Nature Ganganbaigal alive to help with throat singing. May he rest in peace!
B0RDERL1NE
Firaxian
The standard Settlement Limit for civs in Antiquity is 7. A few civs have more or less than that.
Additional bonus sources of Settlement Limit, such as from Attribute Trees and Xerxes, are allowed to exceed that.
BackseatTyrant
Queer Anarcho-Transhumanist
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2013
- Messages
- 580
"In Italy, for 30 years under the Borgias, they had warfare, terror, murder and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland, they had brotherly love, they had five hundred years of democracy and peace – and what did that produce? The coocoo clock."Dear Firaxis: stop making civs I have no interest in playing have such gorgeous cities. First Persia, now this!
– Orson Welles, The Third Man
Boris Gudenuf
Deity
No disrespect to Welles who, after all, was writing fiction.
But before that 500 years, the Swiss Cantons produced the most murderously efficient military machine in Europe, smashed the Burgundian Kingdom and killed its king, massacred Austrian knights and forced most of western Europe to adopt their methods or get slaughtered by them. And during the first 2/3 of those 500 years, Swiss troops provided the most efficient foreign mercenaries to the French kings and one of their two infantry Guard regiments.
Just depends on which dates you choose . . .
BackseatTyrant
Queer Anarcho-Transhumanist
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2013
- Messages
- 580
The Swiss have also been kind to remind Orson that the coocoo clock is in fact, German
Boris Gudenuf
Deity
Specifically, first described in 1629 in a Cabinet of Curiousities in Dresden, the capital of Saxony. Since the 19th century it has been usually associated with the Black Forest region, but in fact no one knows exactly where and when the first one was made: Germany simply has the earliest evidence.
Lonecat Nekophrodite
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2019
- Messages
- 2,593
1. When did the first big seagoing vessels shown up in China? are lugsails their thinkings or imported elsewhere? did they begin with simple square sails and what are their ship hull builds? caravels or clinkers?
2. Are Huns and Xiong Nu one and same?
Some scholars think so, based chiefly on the similarity of their names and their common origins on the Eurasian steppe, but there's no proof and no consensus.
Boris Gudenuf
Deity
1. An illustration from the Warring States period (ended 221 BCE) shows a two decked Chinese warship with rowers on rhe lower deck and a fighting deck above them with men armed with halberds and short swords. T his looks very much like a rowed version of the medieval fighting Cog, designed to close with and board the enemy. However, the evidence available indicates most of these ships were river craft, not sea-going. By the Sui Dynasty (584 CE) 5-decked "tower ships" are being built, but again, there is only record of them used as river and lake craft, not oceanic.
Absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence, as they say. While the Chinese were building ships as big as anything actually used in battle in the Mediterranean by at least the end of the Han Dynasty, we simply do not have direct evidence they were fighting with them in the ocean. I think it is highly likely, simply because by the end of the Han (200 CE) Chinese traders were sailing at least as far as the Mekong in Southeast Asia, where they met with Roman ambassadors, and traders need protection.
2. As @Zaarin posted, it has been suggested that the Hsiong-Nu and Huns were the same people, but since we don't have any DNA evidence (yet) or linguistic evidence to link them, the connection has to be listed as speculation only.
One thing that confuses the question is that numerous steppe people migrated west out of the Altai either voluntarily or involuntarily (pushed), ranging from the Yuezhi to various later Turkic groups and possibly including Hsiong-Nu factions and the Huns, but they are nearly impossible to tell apart from archeological finds alone: everybody used the same horse tack, weapons, wore similar clothing and were composed of groups with multi-ethnic composition, so horse or human skeletons and burial goods aren't usually enough to identify any individual or group for certain.
- Joined
- May 5, 2005
- Messages
- 9,595
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junk_rig
The junk rig, also known as the Chinese lugsail, Chinese balanced lug sail, or sampan rig, is a type of sail rig in which rigid members, called battens, span the full width of the sail and extend the sail forward of the mast.
The origin of the junk sailing rig is not directly recorded. The Chinese adopted the sail design from other cultures, although the Chinese made their own improvements over time. Paul Johnstone attribute the invention of this type of sail to Austronesian peoples from Indonesia. They were originally made from woven mats reinforced with bamboo, dating back to at least several hundred years BCE. They may have been adopted by the Chinese after contact with Southeast Asian traders (K'un-lun po) by the time of the Han dynasty (206 BCE to 220 CE). However, Chinese vessels during this era were mostly fluvial (riverine) while others were made to cross shorter distances over the seas (littoral zones); China did not build true ocean-going fleets until the 10th century Song dynasty. The Chinese were using square sails during the Han dynasty; only in the 12th century did the Chinese adopt the Austronesian junk sail.
