RFC Europe: Military Redesign

[sedna17]

I wasn't happy with the feel of military combat at various points in our mod, and other people have complained about various aspects as well. After some work, I now have a working version of a thorough overhaul of the military system. This is a special sneak peek. You'll get your chance to beta test this in a new test version of the mod "soon".

While planning this redesign, I realized that I was creating documents which would be very useful for the README which will one day accompany our mod. I cleaned some of this up and threw it into a PDF document which I attach here. In case others outside this mod have any interest in ever finding this thread, I also include the introduction in plain text for search engines.

Redesign Philosophy

This revamping of the units for RFC Europe aims to provide a historically accurate and reasonably balanced set of units from 500-1800. The starting point was the units available in BTS and the Charlemange mod, supplemented by other user-generated art.

The major design change has been to introduce new unit categories, while eliminating the unused categories in BTS (Armor, Helicopter, Aircraft). Melee has been expanded into Light and Heavy Infantry, while Mounted has been expanded into Light and Heavy Cavalry. Light and Heavy refers primarily to the type of degree of armor worn by the unit rather than their tactical role. This allows for proper treatment of armor-piercing weapons and more diversity of upgrade paths.

There are four eras of combat represented, and each has a broad narrative.

1. Early Middle Ages: Lightly armored infantry dominate early, but with technological advances, cavalry come to rule the battlefields.
2. High Middle Ages: The development of crossbows and more advanced pole-arms threaten the superiority of armored cavalry, but with the development of plate armor, knights and men-at-arms regain the upper hand.
3. Late Middle Ages: Gunpowder starts off weak on the battlefield, useful only in siege, but its evolution alongside the longbow and the creation of truly effective pike formations bring to an end the era of cavalry and ushers in the era of infantry dominance.
4. Renaissance: The “pike and shot” era sees the gradual rise of gunpowder in all areas of the battlefield. Cavalry gain effective guns and cannon become tactically useful, leading to the classic mixed armies of the Napoleonic era.

Status:
(1/25/09)
A test version is running in RFC Europe.
Play-testing has thus far been limited to the early middle ages.
I have redesigned some art, but have a few more changes to do.
Strategy and Pedia texts are extremely limited.
Some UUs may want to be reconsidered. We have a lot of heavy cavalry UUs.

Credits:
Borrowed ideas/art mainly from -- Total Realism, The European Middle Ages Mod, the download database at Civfanatics, Whitefire's suggestions.
References: Fighting Techniques of the Early Modern World, Fighting Techniques of the Medieval World, The Worlds of Medieval Europe

 

[st.lucifer]

I wasn't happy with the feel of military combat at various points in our mod, and other people have complained about various aspects as well. After some work, I now have a working version of a thorough overhaul of the military system. This is a special sneak peek. You'll get your chance to beta test this in a new test version of the mod "soon".

While planning this redesign, I realized that I was creating documents which would be very useful for the README which will one day accompany our mod. I cleaned some of this up and threw it into a PDF document which I attach here. In case others outside this mod have any interest in ever finding this thread, I also include the introduction in plain text for search engines.

Redesign Philosophy

This revamping of the units for RFC Europe aims to provide a historically accurate and reasonably balanced set of units from 500-1800. The starting point was the units available in BTS and the Charlemange mod, supplemented by other user-generated art.

The major design change has been to introduce new unit categories, while eliminating the unused categories in BTS (Armor, Helicopter, Aircraft). Melee has been expanded into Light and Heavy Infantry, while Mounted has been expanded into Light and Heavy Cavalry. Light and Heavy refers primarily to the type of degree of armor worn by the unit rather than their tactical role. This allows for proper treatment of armor-piercing weapons and more diversity of upgrade paths.

There are four eras of combat represented, and each has a broad narrative.

1. Early Middle Ages: Lightly armored infantry dominate early, but with technological advances, cavalry come to rule the battlefields.
2. High Middle Ages: The development of crossbows and more advanced pole-arms threaten the superiority of armored cavalry, but with the development of plate armor, knights and men-at-arms regain the upper hand.
3. Late Middle Ages: Gunpowder starts off weak on the battlefield, useful only in siege, but its evolution alongside the longbow and the creation of truly effective pike formations bring to an end the era of cavalry and ushers in the era of infantry dominance.
4. Renaissance: The “pike and shot” era sees the gradual rise of gunpowder in all areas of the battlefield. Cavalry gain effective guns and cannon become tactically useful, leading to the classic mixed armies of the Napoleonic era.

Status:
(1/25/09)
A test version is running in RFC Europe.
Play-testing has thus far been limited to the early middle ages.
I have redesigned some art, but have a few more changes to do.
Strategy and Pedia texts are extremely limited.
Some UUs may want to be reconsidered. We have a lot of heavy cavalry UUs.

Credits:
Borrowed ideas/art mainly from -- Total Realism, The European Middle Ages Mod, the download database at Civfanatics, Whitefire's suggestions.
References: Fighting Techniques of the Early Modern World, Fighting Techniques of the Medieval World, The Worlds of Medieval Europe

Sounds promising. We could conceivably redefine a few of our heavy cav UUs as light cav - while some are clearly shock troops, others are more ambiguous.

We may also consider different UUs, if things don't really fit as is.

 

[jessiecat]

Good work, sedna. Though I've got a couple of questions and suggestions.

1. The early mtd. units include horse archers, lancers and mtd. infantry. Could we not also have a separate light cav unit that melees with swords? And how would the UUs like the Arab, Bulgarian and Cordoban fit in? Would they remain as they are now?
2. I'm not sure about your suggested timelines for unit upgrades. Shouldn't musketmen upgrade to line infantry a lot later like at least 1700? Same with other units which upgrade to L.I. Line Infantry should come very, very late in the game IMO.
3. I think the upgrading of sword-bearing units is under-powered. Having men-at-arms being obsoleted by swiss pikemen is weak and historically innaccurate. It was suggested by Whitefire that we add a strong melee unit for city attack. I suggest the Champion Swordsman who upgrades from the man-at-arms and is replaced by Line Infantry. That way our mixed arms units could comprise of musketmen, swiss pikemen and heavy swordsmen. Pretty much the standard mix of European foot armies until at least 1700.

BTW There are a lot of files, map revisions and fixes waiting for coding. Along with your revamped units, could you and 3Miro get all this stuff included in the next test version pretty soon?

 

[micbic]

One suggestion: Crossbows have an time period (800-1100) where they are absolutely powerful. Let's see: 50% vs melee units, in a time span the enemy usually has melee units. We could either make them later avaliable, reduce their strength to 6, or give a unit 50% vs archery units.

An other list you may find useful (most important medieval battles)
Battle of Tours, 730 AD (learnt it as battle of Poitiers at school, nevertheless): Arabian cavalry is beaten by French army of melee and archery.
Battle of Hastings, 1066 AD: Norse mixed army mostly melee, but some cavalry and crossbows as well beats Angle melee army.
Battle of Bannockburn, 14th century: English light melee army is beaten to Scottish pikes.
Battle of Crecy, 1347 AD: French knights lose out to English longbows.

Source: www.medieval-castles.org/index.php?cat=65

Any thoughts??

 

[sedna17]

1. The early mtd. units include horse archers, lancers and mtd. infantry. Could we not also have a separate light cav unit that melees with swords? And how would the UUs like the Arab, Bulgarian and Cordoban fit in? Would they remain as they are now?

There's an awfully long period in which Horse Archers are the only light cavalry. What would be an appropriate light cavalry unit with a sword? A squire? Currently I have Arab/Cordoban UUs as Light Cavalry replacing the Lancer (i.e. a heavy unit is replaced by a light one for promotion purposes -- their strength is not lessened) and the Bulgarian konnick still replaces Horse Archer.

2. I'm not sure about your suggested timelines for unit upgrades. Shouldn't musketmen upgrade to line infantry a lot later like at least 1700? Same with other units which upgrade to L.I. Line Infantry should come very, very late in the game IMO.

I agree. The trouble is that from a gameplay perspective a unit which arrives right at the end of the game is useless. That's why I pushed L.I. up.

3. I think the upgrading of sword-bearing units is under-powered. Having men-at-arms being obsoleted by swiss pikemen is weak and historically innaccurate. It was suggested by Whitefire that we add a strong melee unit for city attack. I suggest the Champion Swordsman who upgrades from the man-at-arms and is replaced by Line Infantry. That way our mixed arms units could comprise of musketmen, swiss pikemen and heavy swordsmen. Pretty much the standard mix of European foot armies until at least 1700.

This is a good idea, I'll do it.

BTW There are a lot of files, map revisions and fixes waiting for coding. Along with your revamped units, could you and 3Miro get all this stuff included in the next test version pretty soon?

New units won't be in the next test version just yet. 3Miro is (I think) working on making the colonial projects work -- this is a big job so it might be a while, but it's important to get the last of the UHVs working at all.

 

[sedna17]

One suggestion: Crossbows have an time period (800-1100) where they are absolutely powerful. Let's see: 50% vs melee units, in a time span the enemy usually has melee units. We could either make them later avaliable, reduce their strength to 6, or give a unit 50% vs archery units.

I think I've taken care of this in the document I posted. First generation is 5 + 50% versus heavy (both infantry and cavalry). Second generation is only 6 + 50% versus heavy. In fact I may have weakened the second generation too much -- I'll have to test.

An other list you may find useful (most important medieval battles)
Battle of Tours, 730 AD (learnt it as battle of Poitiers at school, nevertheless): Arabian cavalry is beaten by French army of melee and archery.
Battle of Hastings, 1066 AD: Norse mixed army mostly melee, but some cavalry and crossbows as well beats Angle melee army.
Battle of Bannockburn, 14th century: English light melee army is beaten to Scottish pikes.
Battle of Crecy, 1347 AD: French knights lose out to English longbows.

A useful list.
Tours: In our mode, if the Franks were to fight the Cordobans at this time, the Franks would have plenty of cheap spear-men (str 4 + 50% vs cavalry) and archers and the Cordobans would have their berber-cavalry. It would be a pretty even match. Although the infantry won, the Franks increased their cavalry force significantly after this battle, perhaps they were impressed?
Hastings: The Norman cavalry played a critical role here. Their feigned retreat (a difficult tactical maneuver) broke open the English shield line and probably won the battle. At this stage in our game, it would be Armored Lancers (appropriate according to the Bayeux Tapestry) still fighting the light infantry troops, and the Lancers would win.
Bannockburn: Not well captured in our mod are the pre-Swiss pikemen (though note the Scots were badly beaten at Falkirk shortly before with similar units)
Crecy: The Longbow is now a very powerful unit against armor, but also insanely expensive (reflecting the long training required). The English Longbow UU will probably cost less.

 

[kravixon]

Sounds great!

I'd be glad to test it all once it gets to the beta stage.

 

[micbic]

@sedna: Checked the file. Very good job. That's a ''there is no unbeaten unit for any long period'' situation. The Crossbow second gen could indeed be stronger as to counter knights, since the first unit to have the upper hand vs Knights appears a bit late.

 

[Ajidica]

Sounds better than the previous system, but out of curiosity, are spearmen in the early-high period getting +100% boosts vs knights and heavy cavalry? If that is true, please change it slighty because the average infantry formation at the time couldnt stand up to a real heavy cavalry charge. In addition, cavalry long spears (kontos) were longer than the average infantry spear. Spearmen should be more of a 'catch all' unit, excellent vs nothing, average vs everything. Lastly, cavalry should almost always win in a battle. Most of the battle accounts that are well known are only well known because they either had political importance or knightly cavalry didnt suceed. In almost every other battle, it was heavy cavalry that ruled the battlefield. Infantry should be useful in storming cities or to make up the numbers, but the prefered unit in most situations should be knightly cavalry.
Spearmen shouldnt get a bonus vs horse archers, horse archers were a mainly anti-heavy infantry unit as most other troops would beat them. (Heavy cavalry too, but that is already represented in withdrawal bonus's.)

 

[sedna17]

Sounds better than the previous system, but out of curiosity, are spearmen in the early-high period getting +100% boosts vs knights and heavy cavalry? ... Spearmen should be more of a 'catch all' unit, excellent vs nothing, average vs everything. Lastly, cavalry should almost always win in a battle...
Spearmen shouldnt get a bonus vs horse archers, horse archers were a mainly anti-heavy infantry unit as most other troops would beat them. (Heavy cavalry too, but that is already represented in withdrawal bonus's.)

Spearmen in the high middle ages are represented by a guy with a hooked pole-arm (I call it a guisarme, but don't actually have a great art model for that specific weapon). They get only a +50% versus cavalry -- so not as much of a hard counter as in the regular game to preserve the dominance of heavy cavalry. Currently early spearmen are light infantry rather than heavy -- the guisarmier could definitely lose the bonus versus the horse archer.

 

[st.lucifer]

There's an awfully long period in which Horse Archers are the only light cavalry. What would be an appropriate light cavalry unit with a sword? A squire? Currently I have Arab/Cordoban UUs as Light Cavalry replacing the Lancer (i.e. a heavy unit is replaced by a light one for promotion purposes -- their strength is not lessened) and the Bulgarian konnick still replaces Horse Archer.

What about 'skirmisher' or 'raider'? Both of those terms suggest a light unit that's meant more as a weak, quick strike, flanking variety of cavalry rather than one designed for heavy combat.

I agree. The trouble is that from a gameplay perspective a unit which arrives right at the end of the game is useless. That's why I pushed L.I. up.

What about breaking infantry into an early line infantry unit, and then a Napoleonic Infantry unit at the end of the game (sort of the modern armor of our mod)? We could also consider renaming line infantry as 'Regular Infantry' or 'Regimented Infantry', as a potential distinction between early and late.



As far as jessiecat's Champion Swordsman idea goes - I agree that a unit with that role is necessary, and am fully in support of the idea. The name strikes me as kind of awkward, though.

What we're basically describing is a knight on foot, right? We can describe this unit one of two ways, as I see it - either as 'Foot Knight', which sounds kind of silly, or simply as 'Knight', renaming our current heavy cavalry, shock troop 'knight' as 'Mounted Knight'. This potentially creates some confusion in that most people will see 'knight' on the menu and think they're getting the mounted version, but if they both become available with the same tech, that problem is averted somewhat.

What do people think?

 

[kravixon]

I'd just keep it as Champion. It eliminates both confusions entirely and there isn't much need for another name.

Sedna, I'd say your system looks pretty good on paper. If I were you, I'd make well sure that it worked before attempting to add more things to it. Keep it simple; Champion swordsmen, maybe, but fix values after play testing rather than making the task more daunting for yourself while planning.

Best of luck

 

[sedna17]

Good advice, kravixon.

Another possibility for naming (this is not purely semantic, it influences our artwork somewhat) is to go by the name of the sword type. Problem is, these are some clumsy names to transform in the Civ standard (which is name-describing the guy carrying the weapon: spearman, crossbowman, etc.):

Early: Spatha-descended sword. Short with no hilt. Viking sword? Shortsword?
--> The Charlemange light sword carries something like this.
Middle: "Arming sword" or "Knight's Sword"? Neither term is elegant.
--> The heavy swordsman in Charlemange carries one of these one-handed swords and a shield.
Late: Longsword or Broadsword. Either is a fine name and sounds good.
--> There's a find two-handed "foot knight" in plate that will fit for the art

 

[jessiecat]

Good advice, kravixon.

Another possibility for naming (this is not purely semantic, it influences our artwork somewhat) is to go by the name of the sword type. Problem is, these are some clumsy names to transform in the Civ standard (which is name-describing the guy carrying the weapon: spearman, crossbowman, etc.):

Early: Spatha-descended sword. Short with no hilt. Viking sword? Shortsword?
--> The Charlemange light sword carries something like this.
Middle: "Arming sword" or "Knight's Sword"? Neither term is elegant.
--> The heavy swordsman in Charlemange carries one of these one-handed swords and a shield.
Late: Longsword or Broadsword. Either is a fine name and sounds good.
--> There's a find two-handed "foot knight" in plate that will fit for the art

I agree with kravixon as well. Your system is fine as you propose though I'd tend to keep the present strengths of our units as they are. In fact I'd be OK with not having another light cavalry unit as that function is pretty much covered by the mtd. infantry anyway. Either way is OK with me.
As far as the sword units go, lets keep it as simple as we can. Swordsman >>> Light Swordsman >>>Heavy Sworsman is fine with me and we do have the art for all three. If we want alternative art for the heavy swordsman we could use the Hospitaller art that we are using for the Portugese UU.
Or how about using the Explorer art which depicts a 16th.C swordsman in helmet and breastplate. Much like the Spanish Rodeleros who accompanied Tercio units. Most of Cortez's army in Mexico was comprised of these. We'd only have to add a target shield, up its strength to 8 or more and restrict its movement to 1. But I think it would look pretty good.

EDIT This Norman swordsman is another possibility.

 

[micbic]

What about 'skirmisher' or 'raider'? Both of those terms suggest a light unit that's meant more as a weak, quick strike, flanking variety of cavalry rather than one designed for heavy combat.

Very good idea IMO. I don't know though, in what extent is the raider unit in Crossroads of World mod suitable.

 

[jessiecat]

Very good idea IMO. I don't know though, in what extent is the raider unit in Crossroads of World mod suitable.

I agree with that, but the raider unit from the Crossroads mod may not be suitable. We need some light cavalry unit that melees with a sword. Maybe something like this one on the lower right of the picture.

 

[3Miro]

sedna: it sound good and a lot of work. When you have a more complete version of it you may want to post the next test version yourself. I will post just a .dll file that fixes some of the Papal issues. The XML schema would take me some time, it is harder than to just code a new tag (as I did in the Hungarian UB).

PS: make sure const.py is in sync especially with the Prosecutor unit and unit class. Also starting units in Rhyes and Fall.py

 

[sedna17]

@3Miro. Sounds like a plan, I didn't want to produce two parallel branches. I will have a testable version of this ready to go by the end of the day. Is your new .dll close to finished?

 

[Ajidica]

Sounds good, i would stay away from calling a unit 'Champion'. It makes it sound too much like FfH and fantasy. foot or dismounted knight works fine.

EDIT: Its most likely my personal pet peeve, but I dont like it when unit upgrades go light->heavy. Most of the units represented here were the more upper class warriors who would wear armour. If anything they might wear more armour because in the dark ages there was a greater emphasis on single combat.

 

[st.lucifer]

Sounds good, i would stay away from calling a unit 'Champion'. It makes it sound too much like FfH and fantasy. foot or dismounted knight works fine.

This was essentially my thinking. I realize it's a semantic distinction, but I think it's an important one. I can understand the argument against changing the current horse unit to 'mounted knight', but I don't think that 'champion swordsman' accurately describes that unit. The name just makes me think "exceptionally talented guy with a sword", rather than "heavier swordsman".