RFC Classical World

[Ogi123]

Some feedback on otherwise excellent mod:

1). -there are some missing texts in civilopedia
-colossus and pyramids effects show in you cities as TXT .... EFFECT
-some text in civilopedia have text that haven't been cut when coping, for example there are things as (more) and (pictures), probably not deleted links.

2). Cottages are rather meh in their inplementation, to unintuitive. I would prefer treat them as workshops -1food/+2gold, two techs to improve this to +4, no restriction in placement. Don't grow.

3). Some units are werdly balanced, galatian infantry kills both legion and phalangite, peltast is basically anti seleucid and rather uninspiring otherwise, dacian UU murders all melee units.
-Axeman S4 +25% vs melee, cost as spearman, various UU nerfed but cheaper. Until advent of legion Phalanx/heavy spear should be best infantry.
-Phalanx no city attack, +25%vs melee, more expensive.
-Legion needs buff, perhaps S7 1first strike but no melee bonus, cheaper.
-Peltast no heavy spear bonus but +75% vs melee.

4). Specialist also needs some changes.
-laborer is too weak and made obsolete by artisan, perhaps removing gold bonus and incerasing hammers to two will made him better.
-artisan needs to go its simply better laborer and also unlimited.
-priests are too weak, maybe incerase gold by one?

5). Civics are rather unbalanced there is little choice in some columns.
-tyranny happy bonus works weirdly it should give +1happy per unit but its more like 0,5?
-wage labor is rather weak, some production(+10 to 25%) bonus? Stronger workshops/cottages?
-Is anybody ever using theocracy?
-Patronage culture bonus should be applicable for all cities.

6). I really don't like stability penalty for "outliving" historical fall date, it is forcing me to play for UHV and sometimes I want to win by time/syncretism.

I must say that I have lot of fun with this mod, and those suggestions are just personal opinions of mod balance. I will try to post some more feedback but this mod is really large so playing as all civs will take looong time...

 

[srpt]

glad you're enjoying the mod and those are all good points. I will look them over and probably make some changes in the next few days.

edit:

I'm not seeing the Colossus and Pyramid effect buildings

you're right some of the UUs are weird. unit balancing has been challenging in this mod. I'm thinking about it.

I think cottages are ok the way they are

artisans are supposed to obsolete laborers, they require a tech. I've often thought laborers should get 2 hammers, but you have to buff everyone above them as well (tradesmen, engineers) too. still thinking about it.

overall I think the civics are good but they could be adjusted here and there

the Tyranny happiness bonus from units goes like this: 1st happy face takes 1 unit, 2nd happy face takes 2 more, 3rd one 3 more etc. have to fix the text, which is actually bit more than just changing text.

I agree Theocracy is weird since its there for basically 1 civ. do you have a better idea for a 5th government civic?

maybe Wage Labor and Patronage could get a boost.

as for post fall stability, how far did you get and with what civs? what was it that brought you down?

 

[Ogi123]

I collapsed in 300 something AD as egypt, economy killed my empire because combating 123% inflation is really hard, same situation with antigonus but fallen in 270/280. That was one reason for my cottage proposition because currently it is a game of "place as many cottages as possible" and unless economy get total overhaul it's simply unavoidable.
I don't like artisans because they obsolete laborers perhaps eleminate artisan and instead boost laborer when you resarch tech witch normally allows artisans?
About colossolus and pyramids it's when I looking at city in main map checking buildings, I get normal list and text TXT_KEY_BUILDING_ PYRAMIDS_ FUNCTION.
Yeah units balancing is always problematic... hmm perhaps something like that?
Melee line:
-axeman S4 +25%vs melee, 20h, resourceless.
-swordsman S6 +25%vs melee, 40/50h. New unit contemporary to heavy spear. Scale armor tech.
-heavy swordsman, renamed current swordsman.
Spear line
-spearman, as it is.
-heavy spear, same as currently.
-footman S8 +25%vs cav, 70h. New unit, heavy sword counterpart. Blast furnace.
Javelin line:
-javelinman, as it is, gain acess to flanking promotion.
-heavy javelin S5 +50%vs melee, 25% retreat chance, 1first strike, 50h, gain acess to flanking promotion. New unit, around swordsman in tech tree. Steel working.
New unit line collateral dmg field siege units:
-ballista S4, collateral dmg max 50% to 5 units, 40h. Somwhere around catapult in tech tree. Siege engines.
-heavy ballista S6, collateral dmg max 50% to 5 units, 70h. Around trebuchet in tech tree. Enginerring. Heavy catapult moved to fortification.

Rest of the unit lines are ok, and don't need changes. Only unit left is heavy infantry currently it is rather useless, +1S for 30h is bad proposition. I rather build more swords. Remove it it's not big loss anyway.

I will post more about UU, buidings and civics later today.
Edit: tech proposition for new units.

 

[Ogi123]

So UU as promised:
1). Cho ko nu - S4 +25%vs melee and missile cav.
2). Falxman - S4 +50%vs melee.
3). Gallic warrior - S6 +50% vs melee, replaces swordsman (new unit from previous post), copper or iron.
4). Hetairoi - S6, 1 first strike, no mounted bonus.
5). Kishatriya - S4 +25%vs archery and melee units.
6). Legionary - S7 1fist strike +25%vs melee, replaces swordsman (new unit).
7). Macabee - S4 +25%hills/city def, +25% vs melee.
8). Longbowman - S5 +25%city/hills def.
9). Patiyodha - S7 +25%city/hills def, 3-4 first strikes.
10).Peltast - S3, +75% vs melee, 30% retreat chance, no heavy spear bonus.
11).Phalangite - S6, +25% vs melee/mounted.
12).Shenwu guard - S8, +25% vs mounted/missile cav, replaces footman(new unit).
13).Shivatir - S6, 30% retreat chance, costs 40h instead of 55. No melee bonus. Or reduce melee bonus to 25%, but then still cost 55.
14).Surin soldier - S4, +25%vs melee, +25%city def.
15).throwing axe - S9, +25% vs melee, replaces heavy swordsman.
16). Galatian infantry - S5, +25%vs melee.
Remember that axeman should cost only 20h, so various UU based on him need to be nerfed bit. I don't like to big bonuses on units because that encourages spamming only that units instead of building balanced army.
Edit:forgot galatian infantry.

 

[Ogi123]

Now onto dreaded civic propositions...
1).monarchy need boost, currently is rather underpowered if you are large you go empire, small civ go oligarchy. So, remove distance penalty, +1happy in all cities, +2happy from palace. +1 happy from summer palace.+10 Free units, should be flat rate. There now you can use it as small/ medium civ.
2).Theocracy - ugh, as of now it's empire with medium upkeep and some minor penalties (+/- happy from religion, no non state religion spread) only much later. It is difficult to find niche for this civic. Perhaps leave (+/- happy from religion, no non state religion spread) and rework bonuses to -25% distance and -25%number of cities maintenance. Otherwise replace it with something else.
3). Tyranny - remove culture penalty, lack of foregin trade routes hurts enough.
4).Caste system - Unlimited priest, +10% production in all cities, +1hammer from workshop. No XP bonus for units. Or simply unlimited priest and +1 hammer for priests. Or unlimited priest and scholar.
5).Slavery - slaves in cities after leaving civic change to freedmen/ freed slaves -2food/+2hammers. Incerase slaving chance to 25% for normal units and 50% for barbarians.
6).Serfdom - +50%worker speed, +1gold from farm.
7).Wage labour - +2 free specialist in all cities, low upkeep.
8).Agarianism - +1hammer from farms, -1 trade route per city, no cottage penalty (if you don't change cottages as in my proposition).
9).Dynastic cult - +25% gold and hammers in capital, rest at it is.

Specialists:
-laborer/artisan/tradesman should be merged into single specialist, initialy +1 hammer only later with two techs thein gain +1hammer and +1gold (2h/1g). Is this is possible to mod?
-priest 1h/1g/1culture (to boost caste system somewhat) this could grow to 2h/1g/1culture if you choose to implement changes in caste system (option two). Or simply 2g/1culture.

Buildings:
-alchemist lab, what it is? There is no cost and I can't build it.
- invasion project, also don't know what it is in civpedia it has wall text.
-debtor prison change icon, rename to city watch. Perhaps some icon from RFC Europe?
-monasteries, jewish and zorastian lack additional effects, taoist one don't have science bonus.
- there are two entries for hellenic reliquary, probably inpropely named buddhist one becase there isn't any.
-aqueduct/public baths/ hospital are tech after tech, enginerring - sanitation - medicine. Perhaps remove public baths and incerase hospital bonus to +3health with slight cost raise. Aqueduct don't show on enginerring tech in tech advisor (no icon).
-Artisan quater, cloth/fish/grain/spice markets are rather unnecessary complicated. I would prefer three buildings instead: Luxury market (+5% gold per resource - dye, silk, incense, whale, ivory, pearls, tea, sugar, pepper, cinnamon). Grocer (+1health per resource - citrus, sorghum, dates, apples, olives) and Jeweler (+10% gold per resource - gold, silver, gems). Any city can build those, luxury market and grocer needs market, jeweler needs blacksmith. No need for 3 buildings per one.
-harbour +1health per sea resource (clam,crab, fish).
-tannery, textile factory and tradesman quater are unneeded they give to much production bonus, you have forge and foundry for this already. Change hanbok maker to Seowon as in normal civ4 or +1free scientist.
-new building: port, available at astrolabe, +1golt/water title, cost 90h.

My philosophy is: more is not always better so I tried to cull unnecessary buildings. Other : you should utilise icons from other mods RFC Europe, Fall from Heaven2, Legends of revolution etc.
Well thats is all probably, as always those are only sugestions witch can be didsregarded if you want.

 

[DC123456789]

I disagree with culling buildings; I feel that this mod could actually use a couple more.

 

[Ogi123]

Except this is more buildings, currently specialised markets needs corporation and/or 3 previous buildings (like cathedral). My proposition allows build things in all cities. Any propositions on additional stuff to builid?

 

[Swarbs]

I disagree with some of the changes to the units - historically the Dacian falx and Galatian infantry were some of the most effective against Roman legions, and were only defeated by superior training and modified equipment. Therefore I think it's right that those two UUs should defeat Legions at first - the key for a Roman player is to build barracks and train the units before fighting, and use cavalry as the Romans had to do IRL.

The conquest of Dacia was the only time the legions had to change their equipment in order to deal with the superiority of their foes. Tho' maybe make the Falxmen 5 + 75% vs melee and free shock promotion so they can't get even more powerful vs infantry.

Also disagree with the proposed new Peltast - 3+75% melee will mean they are wiped out by heavy spearmen and thus will be useless. I would argue (and have before) that they should be 4+50% melee in order to given them any chance against promoted heavy spears.

Agree with the need to change some of the civics:
I think Monarchy is ok right now - I use it a fair bit to keep maintenance costs down as a small civ with lots of units. The distance penalty makes next to no difference, as distance maintenance is so small, even for large civs. In fact, I would say Bureaucracy needs a boost, as it's pretty weak right now given the low distance maintenance
Agree with Theocracy - maybe add more happiness from religion, or perhaps slaves from conquered units of other religions? (Ghazis)
Agree with no trade penalty for Tyranny
I think Caste System is fine as it is - it's very specialised for civs like Mauryans and Byzantines who need to generate GPs to become saints. I don't think it should be broadened to do anything else
Serfdom and wage labour definitely need a boost, as right now slavery dominates all the time due to the free hammers and workers
Agree with the changes to Agrarianism and Dynastic cult

I don't think cottages need the change you are making. They are one of the best parts of the mod imo - they prevent the cottage spam that often happens in other mods, and the growth mechanic is good. I think we could add your suggested cottage (-1 food, +2 commerce) as a trading post, which can be built in tiles adjacent to rivers. That would give a bit more variety, and would be historically accurate, given the importance of rivers and trade in classical times.

I don't think specialists need changing - like srpt says, artisans already obsolete labourers, so there's no need to try and force this. And the main power of priests is the ability to make great saints - I think that makes priests and caste system powerful enough as it is. There should be some form of penalty in the form of less productive specialists, imo, for civs which use caste system to rush great saints and gain the religious benefits.

 

[Swarbs]

Btw, srpt, have you had a chance to look at unit maintenance again? I'm still getting no free units as a base amount. Monarchy and vassalage do give free units, but it seems nuts that massive civs like Byzantium and Rome, with huge empires, can't support even one unit for free without civics.

It really hurts tech as well, even for smaller civs until they have access to monarchy and vassalage.

 

[Ogi123]

Civ isn't particulary good at simulating tactical warfare, it alwas ends anyway as stack of doom. But if we change falxman like this then it will be S5 +75% for 20hammers... Perhaps instead is some kind of swordsman replacement?
Also you are ignoring cost calculation, javelin cost 25h to heavy spear 50h. When you add civ mods to this you can build 2-3 javelins for price of single heavy spear, not to mention my proposition of enabling flanking promotion for them.
Ehm, my proposition for tyranny was eliminating culture penalty not trade one.
Maybe moving Bureaucracy to medium upkeep or incerasing bonus to 75%?
If distance penalty for monarchy is so negligible it may be as well removed.
Yeah I proposed some changes to both serfdom and wage labor but I don't know if this is enough to made them attractive choice.
Theocracy is problematic because is so late and only Arabs use it, perhaps some additional gold for any other religion in you cities (jizya)? I'm grasping at straws here because it's really difficult to think about something.
Any opinions about proposed unit changes ie cheaper weaker axe, new sword to counter heavy spear, ballista etc?

 

[Ogi123]

Does production bonus from resources should be cumulative? Because it looks like it is, witch is somewhat overpowered I can easily get +80 to +100% from resources themselves.

 

[Swarbs]

Civ isn't particulary good at simulating tactical warfare, it alwas ends anyway as stack of doom. But if we change falxman like this then it will be S5 +75% for 20hammers... Perhaps instead is some kind of swordsman replacement?

Falxman costs 88 hammers, which is reasonable imo, given that Dacia doesn't have great production, and needs to get iron or copper to build more. I agree that Civ isn't great at tactical warfare, but I've never had any trouble handling Dacia as Rome or any other Civ, which implies the Falx isn't too OP.

Also you are ignoring cost calculation, javelin cost 25h to heavy spear 50h. When you add civ mods to this you can build 2-3 javelins for price of single heavy spear, not to mention my proposition of enabling flanking promotion for them.

Not sure where you get these figures from - on Monarch a peltast is 65h and heavy spearman is 109h. Still cheaper, but not that cheap given that they need to attack to get the extra 50% bonus, and then will usually end up fighting archers instead of the spearmen. And you didn't propose any flanking promotion for them - peltasts already have a 30% withdrawal chance. I'd say either make them 4+50% melee, or 3+100% melee, with no HS bonus.

Ehm, my proposition for tyranny was eliminating culture penalty not trade one.

That works fine too, tho' I'd have said the biggest impact of tyranny was on the culture of a civ, not on its trade. Plenty of tyrannies still traded with their neighbours, and in fact were forced to do so by the tyrant's demand for gold.

Maybe moving Bureaucracy to medium upkeep or incerasing bonus to 75%?
If distance penalty for monarchy is so negligible it may be as well removed.
Yeah I proposed some changes to both serfdom and wage labor but I don't know if this is enough to made them attractive choice.

Those all seem fine - I think the extra gold and free specialists make them good alternatives to slavery in the mid to late game (maybe add gold to workshops for serfdom too?)

Theocracy is problematic because is so late and only Arabs use it, perhaps some additional gold for any other religion in you cities (jizya)? I'm grasping at straws here because it's really difficult to think about something.

I think Theocracy is fine to be a late civic, as the Arabs were arguably the first true theocracy, with the late Byzantines being similar. Like I said before, I would add the ability to enslave foreign units to theocracy, and also perhaps a 25% discount on state religion buildings to make it a decent alternative to empire and oligarchy.

Any opinions about proposed unit changes ie cheaper weaker axe, new sword to counter heavy spear, ballista etc?

I thought some of them were a bit confusing. You said you wanted heavy spearmen to be the strongest unit until the arrival of legions, but then proposed a new swordsman unit which would be better than the heavy spearmen and available at the same time?

In general, I think axemen should remain the same, as they are usually weaker than heavy spears anyway, due to the effect of promotions. I think swordsman should stay as it is (8+25% melee and requires chainmail), as your proposed swordsman would be stronger than a heavy spearman and a legion, and is not historical at all!

I don't agree with the footman unit - historically cavalry became dominant over infantry around the end of this mod, and largely stayed that way until the middle ages, so the footman seems very ahistorical. Same with the heavy javelinman - javelinmen were generally fairly static from a technology point of view from the days of Alexander right up to the Middle Ages. The mod is first and foremost supposed to be historical, so we can't just invent ahistorical units just to try and find some artificial balance.

I agree with the ballista units - we definitely could do with some more varied siege units for use in open battles. Maybe give them a bonus against melee and cavalry as well, as ballistae were devastating against infantry and cavalry formations.

 

[Ogi123]

Not sure where you get these figures from - on Monarch a peltast is 65h and heavy spearman is 109h. Still cheaper, but not that cheap given that they need to attack to get the extra 50% bonus, and then will usually end up fighting archers instead of the spearmen. And you didn't propose any flanking promotion for them - peltasts already have a 30% withdrawal chance. I'd say either make them 4+50% melee, or 3+100% melee, with no HS bonus.

All unit cost are taken from unitinfo.xml, it's base cost so civ you are playing modify it, usally by incerasing cost of units/buildings by some precentage. By enabling flanking promotion I mean that now they can select this promotion as they level up. And they don't need attack to get +50% vs melee it's a combat mod not attack one.

I thought some of them were a bit confusing. You said you wanted heavy spearmen to be the strongest unit until the arrival of legions, but then proposed a new swordsman unit which would be better than the heavy spearmen and available at the same time?

Those are two different propositions, one is only changing some UU based on axe the other is changing unit line up to axe-sword-heavy sword and spear-heavy spear-footman. In both cases I advocate elimination of heavy infantry unit.

In general, I think axemen should remain the same, as they are usually weaker than heavy spears anyway, due to the effect of promotions. I think swordsman should stay as it is (8+25% melee and requires chainmail), as your proposed swordsman would be stronger than a heavy spearman and a legion, and is not historical at all!

New swordsman will be S6 +25% vs melee it's a new unit and requires scale armour tech, old swordsman is simply renamed to heavy swordsman, no ther changes for this unit so still needs chainmail and is S8 +25% vs melee. Legion is changed to S7 +25% vs melee and replaces swordsman(new) instead of heavy spear.

I don't agree with the footman unit - historically cavalry became dominant over infantry around the end of this mod, and largely stayed that way until the middle ages, so the footman seems very ahistorical.

Uh, that not completely true infantry always remained important and only few armies could skip combined arms, besides we already have heavy infranty unit(S9 +25% vs melee,100h, blast furnace) so this is way to get some heavy spear succesor. Main problem is that if you resarch chain and get sword, heavy infantry is only tech later and better, hell you can skip chain and go directly to blast furnace. Besides proposed footman at best can draw with heavy cav (S8 vs S8), not counting promotions. If you fell that this is still to much then perhaps footman could be S9, no mods, 80hammers base price.
EDIT:

Same with the heavy javelinman - javelinmen were generally fairly static from a technology point of view from the days of Alexander right up to the Middle Ages

Well yes, but otherwise javelinman is useless in later stages of game, and there was always progress in material sciencies and tactics.

 

[Swarbs]

All unit cost are taken from unitinfo.xml, it's base cost so civ you are playing modify it, usally by incerasing cost of units/buildings by some precentage. By enabling flanking promotion I mean that now they can select this promotion as they level up. And they don't need attack to get +50% vs melee it's a combat mod not attack one.

They need to attack to get the extra 50% vs heavy spearmen. Which is not very valuable, because it means they usually end up attacking a different unit instead.

Those are two different propositions, one is only changing some UU based on axe the other is changing unit line up to axe-sword-heavy sword and spear-heavy spear-footman. In both cases I advocate elimination of heavy infantry unit.

New swordsman will be S6 +25% vs melee it's a new unit and requires scale armour tech, old swordsman is simply renamed to heavy swordsman, no ther changes for this unit so still needs chainmail and is S8 +25% vs melee. Legion is changed to S7 +25% vs melee and replaces swordsman(new) instead of heavy spear.

I don't see any problem with eliminating the heavy infantry - in general infantry tactics didn't change much from the development of heavy spearmen and swordsmen until the medieval period, so I don't think the heavy infantry is particularly appropriate for this mod.

But I still disagree with the new swordsman unit and other changes - there is no historical precedent for well equipped swordsmen who could defeat heavy spearmen in this period, apart from the Roman legions. I think the current roster of axemen, heavy spearmen, legions and swordsmen who emerge with chainmail is absolutely fine.

Uh, that not completely true infantry always remained important and only few armies could skip combined arms, besides we already have heavy infranty unit(S9 +25% vs melee,100h, blast furnace) so this is way to get some heavy spear succesor. Main problem is that if you resarch chain and get sword, heavy infantry is only tech later and better, hell you can skip chain and go directly to blast furnace. Besides proposed footman at best can draw with heavy cav (S8 vs S8), not counting promotions. If you fell that this is still to much then perhaps footman could be S9, no mods, 80hammers base price.

Infantry remained important, but mainly because they were cheaper to arm and train, and could usually be levied. Heavy lancers and cavalry would defeat infantry 90% of the time, and the only way for the infantry to win was to be so numerous as to wear down the cavalry, usually taking huge losses and using their own bodies to slow any cavalry charge. This was the case right up to the development of pikemen, which are out of the historical scope of this mod. So there is no reason, imo, to have a unit which can draw with heavy cavalry, as single infantry units could generally not 'draw' with heavy cavalry units around that period.

And we are proposing to remove heavy infantry, so there is no need to implement a heavy spear successor when the swordsman successor isn't there.

Well yes, but otherwise javelinman is useless in later stages of game, and there was always progress in material sciencies and tactics.

Javelinmen were largely useless in the later period of the classical era. The development of better bows (marksmanship in this mod) generally meant that dedicated skirmishers used bows rather than javelins, with javelins usually only used by the infantry, in a similar way to the Roman legions. The mod should show changing technology and weapons over time, and javelins were far less important at the end of the classical period than they were at the beginning.

 

[Ogi123]

Hmm, I see that you arguments are mainly historical accuracy of the mod. I can respect that but was more interested in better gameplay myself honestly. Less build only cav units more combined arms approach.

 

[Swarbs]

Hmm, I see that you arguments are mainly historical accuracy of the mod. I can respect that but was more interested in better gameplay myself honestly. Less build only cav units more combined arms approach.

Well the whole point of this mod, and RFC in general, is to have historically accurate gameplay, rather than just standard civ gameplay. Promoting an artificial combined arms approach just means you end up playing every civ the same, rather than actually playing to their strengths, like the Parthians with their horse archer hordes and Romans with legions and mercenaries.

And balance is already achieved through the cost of the different units - cavalry are the strongest units but also the most expensive to build. You can built two heavy spearmen for the cost of one lancer, which is essentially how the classical era worked. I can't say I've ever had balance problems with armies of only cavalry units, and generally armies are only cavalry based for the civs which traditionally relied on their cavalry to a great extent.

 

[Ogi123]

Except gameplay isn't that historical and it shouldn't be, because what we are doing is playing alternate history.
From realistic tactical perspective there should be only light/heavy infantry and light/heavy cavalry, but since civ4 engine is what is is we must deal with lot of abstractions. I don't see how my proposed changes are more abstract that what we currently have in game.
I stated it berfore that for me gameplay>historical reasons, you mileage of course may wary...

 

[Swarbs]

Except gameplay isn't that historical and it shouldn't be, because what we are doing is playing alternate history.
From realistic tactical perspective there should be only light/heavy infantry and light/heavy cavalry, but since civ4 engine is what is is we must deal with lot of abstractions. I don't see how my proposed changes are more abstract that what we currently have in game.
I stated it berfore that for me gameplay>historical reasons, you mileage of course may wary...

But this is a historical mod. The whole point of RFC is to make gameplay that is more historically accurate than standard civ gameplay. There are many mods out there which are designed to give balanced gameplay with minimal concern for historical realism, but this is not one of them. Your proposed changes are not more 'abstract', they are just wrong from a historical point of view. It would kill the gameplay of this mod if it just became a mod of vanilla civ because we were trying to seek a perfect balance between all units, rather than actually show that some units were realistically stronger and weaker than others.

This mod is also not really 'alternate history', but the player's chance to participate in a close mirror of actual history. The mod shows all the actual civs starting at their historical times and in a historical setting. Vanilla civ is alternate history, with all civs being equal and starting at the same time.

 

[Ogi123]

This mod is alternate history no doubts about it. Starting situation mirrors real history but later it's varies greatly - fallen roman empire before 0AD, surviving Egypt in 200AD etc.
And why my changes are wrong from historical POV? Macedonian and sucessor phalanx was effective, widely copied and proved itself failure against legion, who in turn get numerous copies itself. Not to mention celtic warriors, so there you have swordsman unit.
Other thing is how you classify something like heavy spearman? It can represent various units with various arms/armour/tactical doctrine/morale/composition etc.
I think however that this is something that we will must simply agree to disagree. I feel that some level of abstraction is good for gameplay, you obviously feel different.

 

[Swarbs]

This mod is alternate history no doubts about it. Starting situation mirrors real history but later it's varies greatly - fallen roman empire before 0AD, surviving Egypt in 200AD etc.
And why my changes are wrong from historical POV? Macedonian and sucessor phalanx was effective, widely copied and proved itself failure against legion, who in turn get numerous copies itself. Not to mention celtic warriors, so there you have swordsman unit.
Other thing is how you classify something like heavy spearman? It can represent various units with various arms/armour/tactical doctrine/morale/composition etc.
I think however that this is something that we will must simply agree to disagree. I feel that some level of abstraction is good for gameplay, you obviously feel different.

No, I agree that some level of abstraction is good for gameplay. We just have different views on what constitutes good gameplay.

Your view is that the army composition should remain near identical throughout the entire mod. Under your proposals, playing the Seleucids, with heavy spears, swordsmen, javelins, and horsemen would be no different from playing the Arabs, with footmen, heavy swordsmen, heavy javelins, and ghazis. The balance would be identical and so there would be little variety. Unique units would also be less valuable - with your early swordsman unit, the Roman legions would just become a slightly stronger swordsman, rather than the revolutionary and dominant technology they actually were.

In my opinion, that represents very poor gameplay for a mod which is based on real history. The Seleucids should be reliant on heavy spears, which beat all infantry until the legions come along, whereas the Arabs should be more reliant on Ghazis, which beat all infantry of the time in a straight battle and dominated until their rivals developed similar cavalry forces. The balance should be different for different periods of history, rather than just the same right the way through, with every unit being upgraded and no technology becoming obsolete.

This is why your changes are wrong from a historical point of view. The Macedonian phalanx was effective, and widely copied, but not substantially improved upon over a period of hundreds of years. The Byzantine Empire in the 10th century were still using spearmen which were no more technically advanced than the phalanx, which is why they struggled against the more advanced cavalry and mobile forces of the Arabs and Seljuks. Technology changed throughout history, and not in a balanced way.