Phalanxes replace Axemen WTF?

[karadoc]

From a historical point of view, requiring steel for cannons might be a bit silly - but I think that one is ok for game balance. Cannons, as they are in the game, just roflstomp anything that comes before them.

If the game was changed to have cannons available with gunpowder, they would need to be weaker. That's not necessarily a bad thing for balance, but it might take away a little bit of the flavour of the castle era. I don't think the game should just be a smooth progression of stronger but equivalent units... I think it's good to have gaps and jumps for flavour - and trebuchets / catapults to cannons is one such jump. (I'm sure there is a some way to make it both historically accurate and good for gameplay. I'm just saying that I don't really mind the way cannons are now.)

 

[username804]

So....

Which competent historical army featured primarily axes?

The Vikings.

Throwing Axes much like the Roman Pilum, Pole Axes to destroy/disable/disarm enemy shields, became the Halbard of the middle ages. Pole axes, were designed to hook shields and either pull them away for a sword attack by a buddy, or get lodged in the shield like a pilum and make it useless, making the defender naked against another blade attack.

History Channel did a show about just such a thing years ago

 

[The_Reckoning]

The way I'd like to see siege weapons and city fighting implemented would be:

- Siege units have one action: Bombard/Lay Siege
- Is just like the bombing mission fighter jets have, but with 1 tile range. It starts by working down the city defence %age before it starts hurting the units.
- Cavalry have a chance to intercept the siege unit and have a fight with it if successful, like patrolling fighter jets. They'd only injure siege units - you'd never lose a full health catapult to a horseman. But you'd have to let it rest or risk losing it if you used it while it were injured.

Then City Raider promotions wouldn't give a +bonus vs. units in cities. It'd just be a promotion to ignore the city's defence %age.

The city defence bonus would be a minimum of 10%, maybe increasing with the Garrison promotion . Siege units would be able to take away the unit Fortify bonus too. There'd also be no city defence bonus for archers or longbowmen.

I think this would give City Raider stacks a really interesting twist. It'd be a choice between stacks of City Raiders who don't have to spend time laying siege to be successful attacking a city, but less efficient in hammers, or stacks of Shock/Cover units who can take on garrisoned units being combined with siege units to take away the defence %age, which would be far more efficient in hammers but take a lot longer.

I like this idea better because it annoys me that:

- Siege weapons are sacrificed to attack a city. ?!?!?
- With the CR promo, units can become more vulnerable by walking into a city.
- Cavalry are useless on the defence.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The Vikings.

Throwing Axes much like the Roman Pilum, Pole Axes to destroy/disable/disarm enemy shields, became the Halbard of the middle ages. Pole axes, were designed to hook shields and either pull them away for a sword attack by a buddy, or get lodged in the shield like a pilum and make it useless, making the defender naked against another blade attack.

History Channel did a show about just such a thing years ago

I'm sure those viking forces did quite well against organized military columns, and surely weren't relying upon surprise attacks in lightly defended areas or against civilians..............

And I didn't ask about POLE axes, which weren't an ancient era (how this game defines it) weapon anyway and are quite different in form and function from an axe.

 

[strijder20]

What would you say about lower city defense bonuses to longbows and archers, lower amount of damage and collateral damage done by any siege weapon and a higher limit of damage (so a catapult can only bring down units to 80% health), giving all units withdrawal chance and giving archery units collateral?
Oh, and the axeman and maceman definitely need to be renamed. Footman and heavy footman perhaps? That would require new art too, of course.

 

[Akbarthegreat]

If the game was changed to have cannons available with gunpowder, they would need to be weaker.

RFC made the cannon to 10 from 12. But I really miss cannons, because I rarely use them. I usually take RParts for the hammer bonuses and lumbermills, so after steel I take rifling then artillery.18 and +50% vs siege is awesome.


And I checked out Kmod, karadoc. It is awesome and is now my default mod. Thanks for the nice mod

 

[em jay]

I'm sure those viking forces did quite well against organized military columns, and surely weren't relying upon surprise attacks in lightly defended areas or against civilians..............

Viking and Saxons at least fought pitched battles, which is where Alfred the Great of England made his name. That said, the vikings did prefer hit and run battles for the easier loot.

 

[georgel123]

Removed, epic fail post

 

[username804]

I'm sure those viking forces did quite well against organized military columns, and surely weren't relying upon surprise attacks in lightly defended areas or against civilians..............

And I didn't ask about POLE axes, which weren't an ancient era (how this game defines it) weapon anyway and are quite different in form and function from an axe.

Nope you asked about WHAT armies used axes. Come to think of it, Japanese Ninjas use axes at the end of a long chain...

And what army have you ever known, including the American Army, that didn't attack unarmed civilians?

The part about the ancient Egyptian axes should have satisfied your "ancient era" quotient.

CIV 4 is just as silly as a Heckle & Jeckle cartoon.

 

[bhavv]

Why didn't Firaxis give Greece a str 6 melee unit at bronze working, instead of Sumeria??? That would fit Greece much better. As for Sumeria...hell, I don't know, they were the very first civilization in Mesopotamia, they pre-dated Babylon, I don't see why their UU can't be a warrior or archer

I like Sumeria the way they are, the most powerful ancient era civ

They are really horribly imbalanced, their early game advantages are far too strong.

TBH, I think that Summeria should have had the equivalent unit to Inca's Quecha (called something else though), Inca should have a Slinger unit - an Archer with an extra couple of first strikes.

 

[username804]

I like Sumeria the way they are, the most powerful ancient era civ

They are really horribly imbalanced, their early game advantages are far too strong.

TBH, I think that Summeria should have had the equivalent unit to Inca's Quecha (called something else though), Inca should have a Slinger unit - an Archer with an extra couple of first strikes.

Didnt someone in Civ 3 have the atl-atl? Atl-Atl being a short spear launched from a lever. Imagine a QB throwing a football but instead of a ball, he has a lever and at the end of the lever is a mini-javelin.

 

[Um the Muse]

Yeah, I believe it was the Mayans, of all people. The unit was able to enslave the defeated military unit and turn them into workers. I miss that.

Still, things like the atlatl were invented and used all over the world. The Australian version, the woomera, the spear-thrower was the fastest weapon in the world until repeating rifles. If you've ever seen a lacrosse game, you know what I'm talking about.

 

[bhavv]

I've been thinking a bit more on my previous post, and think that the units should have been as follows:

Inca Slinger - same stats as Archers but with 2 first strikes and free Drill 1

Sumeria Vulture - Warrior UU with 3 STR and +25% vs Archers

Greek Hoplite - Spearman UU with 5 STR and +50% vs both Melee and Mounted Units. Free Formation promotion (basically a merged axemen and spearman).

 

[TheMeInTeam]

And what army have you ever known, including the American Army, that didn't attack unarmed civilians?

No army. Actually, my feelings about the usage of civilians as hostages and how the army SHOULD handle it would not be popular I bet.

However, the vikings are a bit of a different case from a traditional empire's army in that their express was the plunder...USUALLY. They built around that tactic heavily. Against an unarmed civilian, any weapon is pretty effective. A pitched battle here and there vs saxons is very different from fighting organized, competent melee military that wields spears properly. Yet in civ IV, axes COUNTER spears?! wtf. That doesn't make sense on the historical scale, doesn't make sense on the intuitive scale, really doesn't make sense on any scale.

If I had to pick between a sword, an axe, and a spear to go up against someone I'd rank spear > sword > axe. You want that reach, and the piercing motion is the best against armor and generally for delivering quickly fatal blows too.

 

[2metraninja]

If I had to pick between a sword, an axe, and a spear to go up against someone I'd rank spear > sword > axe. You want that reach, and the piercing motion is the best against armor and generally for delivering quickly fatal blows too.

And yet, the real history proved the sword far more efficient than the spear. Even the most elite and trained spearmans - the phalanxes. Romans with their short stabbing swords and mobile formations annihilated the whole idea of phalanxes.

Also, in the middle ages those who can afford sword, fought with swords. Spears were the weapon of the poor - any sharpened long thick stick could be used as spear. As I see it, the sword required far more training to be that deadly effective, while the spear requires less training or skills to be used somewhat.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

^ Depends on a lot of factors, including armor. Also, the fall of the greek army and rise of the romans wasn't quite so simple. Depending where you were in battle a spear could easily still be more useful. I don't know the old melee techniques of course, but no melee weapon will ever get through a decent shield, and no slashing motion by any sword will even beat crappy armor, let alone decent armor. That's part of the reason the roman gladius was short and intended for stabbing. I'm willing to bet that roman military gladius applications were very, very different from the modern martial arts forms we see showcased these days.

Comparing these things alongside their shields isn't really fair anyway, considering that the shields were as important if not more so than the weapons in organized combat. IIRC, the greeks carried swords along with the spears and the romans had spears too. The same soldier might even wield both depending.

We're getting away from my point though. Both of these weapons lose horribly to axes in civ IV, and yet in reality both would have a substantial edge in both single and organized combat, because the axes would not bust through even crummy metal armor and therefore would be largely blunt trauma items only in any real combat (I don't see how you can stab someone with an axe...pole axes intended for dismounting are another story but I digress).

Organized combat is what civ models too.

If you were betting your life against some kinds of armor, you might even pick a mace. Kind of silly that they come so late in the game, considering what they are XD. Can't be harder to make a mace than an axe, sword, or spear! You put a ball of metal on the end of a stick!

 

[username804]

And yet, the real history proved the sword far more efficient than the spear. Even the most elite and trained spearmans - the phalanxes. Romans with their short stabbing swords and mobile formations annihilated the whole idea of phalanxes.

Also, in the middle ages those who can afford sword, fought with swords. Spears were the weapon of the poor - any sharpened long thick stick could be used as spear. As I see it, the sword required far more training to be that deadly effective, while the spear requires less training or skills to be used somewhat.

Actually... the Roman formation is entirely based on the Greek formation.

What most people dont know is the first line of Hoplites had shorter spears than the last row, and sometimes did have bronze short swords. the rear kept poking with the longer spears, and if the guy in front broke his spear, he had his stabbing sword. Remember the Persians had wicker "armor" and that's why all the immortals died at thermopyle. The Spartans had bronze armor. the Persian arrows bounced off.

Iron changed things.

By the Roman era, the men could be rotated, and spears became pilum, throwing spears. but it was the same tactics for 1000 years. Even the redcoats lined up in rank and file to fire muskets. The Americans taught them that they could hide behind trees and fire rifles. Ah, the English and love of traditions...

 

[2metraninja]

Actually... the Roman formation is entirely based on the Greek formation.

Not even close, as far as I know:

Greek phalanx


Roman formation:

What most people dont know is the first line of Hoplites had shorter spears than the last row

I think the first 6 or so rows had different size spears, which put together make a wall of spears in front of the phalanx, while the rest of the hoplite had as the longest spears, which they held rise to hold them easily (5-6 meters of wood) and to help protect the back rows from enemy arrows.



But yeah, the axes were not near the weapons to defeat ultimately spears and swords.

 

[Higher Game]

Mace > Axe > Sword. Armor forces men to go back to caveman weapons. Spears stop cavalry stop archers stop spears, on a battlefield; the other weapons are for individual combat.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Arrows are pretty poor at beating armor too. The very powerful crossbows could get through badly designed armor (like chain mail), but not through plate or lamellar (assuming metal pieces) varieties. Arrows to limbs would obviously be problematic but in a rain of arrows only a small % will do meaningful damage to an armored, helmeted soldier with a shield intended to guard them. Better than nothing I suppose and many military forces weren't equipped well or intelligently anyway making them far more effective.