samurai

[redhulkz]

samurai 4/4/2 is too power.

i mod it to 4/4/1 thats nice.

why shld a samurai have a same movement rate as moounted units? samruai run as fast as a horse? com'on

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

if zou search tyhe old posts on that topic zou will find that Samurai as you know them (and all the west does from movies) are NOT the only form of noble warriors in Japan, but there were mounted Samurai, too.

Also, they are not tooo strong. Compare them with the unit they replace, a Knight: 4/3/2!

 

[Kryten]

Originally posted by redhulkz
Why should a samurai have a same movement rate as mounted units? Samruai run as fast as a horse? com'on

Remember that the speed of a unit depends not so much on the amount of armor they wore (although this can sometimes be a factor), but more upon the type of formation they fought in. For example, mounted troops wearing mail or bronze scale armor and carring a large shield but fighting in a loose open formation would move far more quickly than unarmoured and shieldless horsemen who are trying to stay in a tight formation, kneecap to kneecap. So there have always been two basic types of horsemen; open order light cavalry for speed and close order heavy cavalry for shock.

Well....it's the same with foot soldiers. Most infantry in history fought in tight close formation, and so would move slowly. But some, such as the Hellenistic Peltasts, Roman Auxiliaries, Zulu Impis, Aztec warriors, Napoleonic light infantry, and Samurai, all fought in an open loose formation, thus were able to move faster.

As another example, think of British Cavalry of the 1850's Crimean War period, manoeuvring in straight kneecap-to-kneecap lines, constantly stopping to dress their ranks and reining in their horses to stay level with the man either side of them. Now pit these against a Zulu Impi of the same period, with no internal organisation, no dressing of the ranks, just everyone running as fast as they can. I think you'd agree that giving both these units a move of 2 would be about right.

If someone ever gets round to making a Napoleonic scenario, then I'd fully expect to see Grenadiers & Line Infantry moving 1, Heavy Cavalry & Curirassiers AND Light Infantry moving 2, while Lancers & Hussars move 3.

(Anyway, if you've ever seen a Samurai film....and "The Severn Samurai" is the best....then you always see them running about at full pelt! )

 

[Willem]

Originally posted by redhulkz
samurai 4/4/2 is too power.

i mod it to 4/4/1 thats nice.

why shld a samurai have a same movement rate as moounted units? samruai run as fast as a horse? com'on

I asked that question as well, which is why my horse units now all travel 3 squares. It works out well for me since I play very large maps, 256 x 256. I also gave my Longbowman 2 squares, that makes them much more useful.

 

[Tweedledum]

The thing that has always bugged me about Samurai is not the extra movement (which seems reasonable) but their ability to retreat.

I suspect that the Bushido code would require anyone who ran away to ritually disembowel themselves...

 

[Yoda Power]

Originally posted by Kryten


Remember that the speed of a unit depends not so much on the amount of armor they wore (although this can sometimes be a factor), but more upon the type of formation they fought in. For example, mounted troops wearing mail or bronze scale armor and carring a large shield but fighting in a loose open formation would move far more quickly than unarmoured and shieldless horsemen who are trying to stay in a tight formation, kneecap to kneecap. So there have always been two basic types of horsemen; open order light cavalry for speed and close order heavy cavalry for shock.

Well....it's the same with foot soldiers. Most infantry in history fought in tight close formation, and so would move slowly. But some, such as the Hellenistic Peltasts, Roman Auxiliaries, Zulu Impis, Aztec warriors, Napoleonic light infantry, and Samurai, all fought in an open loose formation, thus were able to move faster.

As another example, think of British Cavalry of the 1850's Crimean War period, manoeuvring in straight kneecap-to-kneecap lines, constantly stopping to dress their ranks and reining in their horses to stay level with the man either side of them. Now pit these against a Zulu Impi of the same period, with no internal organisation, no dressing of the ranks, just everyone running as fast as they can. I think you'd agree that giving both these units a move of 2 would be about right.

If someone ever gets round to making a Napoleonic scenario, then I'd fully expect to see Grenadiers & Line Infantry moving 1, Heavy Cavalry & Curirassiers AND Light Infantry moving 2, while Lancers & Hussars move 3.

(Anyway, if you've ever seen a Samurai film....and "The Severn Samurai" is the best....then you always see them running about at full pelt! )

I have never seen you post in the History Forum, why?

 

[Reboot]

Originally posted by Tweedledum
The thing that has always bugged me about Samurai is not the extra movement (which seems reasonable) but their ability to retreat.

I suspect that the Bushido code would require anyone who ran away to ritually disembowel themselves...

And again I will ask... what if their lord orders a retreat (and it may even be part of the overall strategy to win the war)?

 

[Minmaster]

just watch the movie Ran...they ride horses

 

[Chieftess]

I saw another Japanese movie (in Japanese), and atleast the shogun were on horses.

 

[gugalpm]

Samurai were the equivalent of western knights... in all ways...

 

[WillJ]

Like gugal said, Samurai replace Knights. Why? Because, like knights, they were warriors who provided military service in exchange for land. And because they replace knights, and they're a UU so they have to be better than knights, not worse, they keep their 2 movement. And as has been said before, they were fast anyway (and maybe replacing knights has nothing to do with it; I don't know).

EDIT: And I don't think they're too powerful.

 

[Kryten]

Originally posted by Yoda Power
I have never seen you post in the History Forum, why?

Oh I do occasionally Yoda.....when something takes my interest....
(Forgive me for being off topic everyone. The following links have nothing to do with Samurai or unit movement. I was just answering Yoda Power's question)

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21290 (longbows)

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=20678 (Christianity)

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=39193 (worst job)

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33769 (worst film)

....plus many others.

 

[Yoda Power]

ok ok but you should post there some more.

 

[Kryten]

What, you mean instead of creating new ancient units?

Very well....I promise.....I will.

Getting back on topic, I always like to think that foot soldiers in Civ3 move normally at a speed of 2 (but -1 if they are trying to keep in a dense formation, or Napoleonic troops trying to keep in nice straight lines, or WW1 & 2 Infantry crawling on their bellies using all available cover), and horsemen 'normally' move at a speed of 3 (again, -1 if they are Heavy Cavalry trying to maintain a tight formation....kneecap to kneecap, or if they are very heavily armoured, such as Medieval Knights or Late Roman/Byzantine Cataphracts).

 

[superunknown]

Actually, the samurai issue has already been discussed:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=36189&highlight=Samurai+should+not+retreat

 

[Pembroke]

If you want to get really realistic then mounted troops shouldn't travel faster than foot units. It's actually the other way round. A man on foot will travel faster than a horse over a long period. In the actual battle the horses are faster and more mobile,yes, but not when it comes to the movement over long distances, and as we know in civ even one tile on a world map means "long distance".

Unless you are the Mongol horde or a cavalry regiment operating from a permanent or semi-permanent base with good supply lines your horse warriors will not outpace your foot divisions. Napolean described the situation quite elegantly: men and pigs can run and fight by sheer guts alone but if you try to use your horses the same way the poor creatures will simply drop down and die.

Horses need feed and care. You can't just get up in the morning and ride till night. You will lose time in the mornings to feed and to make them ready to travel. You need constant breaks to rest them. And in the afternoon you need a sizable resting period to allow for grooming, grazing and feeding them.

Also if your horses are to do any strenuos activity, like war for example, you can't expect them to get their energy from just grazing. First, a horse in its natural environment needs to spend almost the entire day at grazing to sustain itself. A war horse, or a farm horse for that matter, simply doesn't have the time for that. This means feeding it oats or other high energy fodder.

Which naturally rises the question: where do you get the hay and oats to feed your mounts? The Mongol solution to take it from the locals is not a long term solution not to mention it makes you vulnerable to a scorched earth tactic.

The only alternative is to carry the fodder with you. This was the usual medieval solution, too as the infrastructure and commercial transportation was what it was. It also meant that an army could have hundreds of supply wagons travelling with it as you needed fodder for the transport animals, too. Wagons were slow, too, and with miserable roads and with uncushioned fixed axles they broke so often that a sizable portion of them was always in repair. And when it rained hard you didn't move because you couldn't.

 

[Yoda Power]

Originally posted by Kryten
What, you mean instead of creating new ancient units?

Cant you do both, oh now i know stop eating then you will have more time, oh wait then you would die damn this is a hard one..

 

[Willem]

Originally posted by WillJ


EDIT: And I don't think they're too powerful.

Until you get on the receiving end of one of their attacks. I still shudder when I think of my first encounter with them, it was brutal I tell ya, just brutal.

 

[WillJ]

Originally posted by Willem
Until you get on the receiving end of one of their attacks. I still shudder when I think of my first encounter with them, it was brutal I tell ya, just brutal.

I guess I didn't think of this since the only time I played against the Japanese was in my first game (on cheiftain), and I was the Chinese, and I fairly easily killed the Japs and their Samurai with my Riders.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Originally posted by Pembroke
Which naturally rises the question: where do you get the hay and oats to feed your mounts? The Mongol solution to take it from the locals is not a long term solution not to mention it makes you vulnerable to a scorched earth tactic.

Just some added information here - the Mongols' horses were actually more like ponies. These were hardy animals and they could survive on a lot less than the average European knight's warhorse and also root out surviving forage fr beneath the snow. The Mongols' tactics were dependant on mobility and quick lightning strikes and also horse archery. Which meant they never went for heavy armor, hence they could work on smaller horses.

Also each Mongol horsemen would have 4 horses, as a standard procedure and changed mounts as needed on a long campaign.

Which was why the Mongols were such formidable horsemen and they did invade Russia during the winter.