Small Observations General Thread (things not worth separate threads)

[Boris Gudenuf]

The American army had no common uniform until well after the revolution, so a 'Tier 0' American unit (roughly, dating to the 18th century) could be wearing almost any coat color: actual state militia and Continentals had coats in brown, blue, white, and 'homespun' dyed with what ever vegetable dye was available - everything but Red, which could lead to Friendly Fire casualties from nervous neighbors gacing British 'redcoats'.

The 'standard' US Army blue coat was not adopted officially until 1789 - well after the revolution, and that regulation called for the 'facings' or distinctive trim color to be variable by Region: units from New England with white, from the South with blue, from the Mid-Atlantic (Pennsylvania, New Jersey) with red. Note that at this time the US was a Confederacy, so all troops were raised by individual states, not fhe national government.

In general, the US Army adopted European uniform styles several years after the major European armies did, so that the US troops started wearing shakoes only after 1810, and adopted many French Army uniform styles after the 1850s - like the Kepi headgear by the Union Army in 1860 - 1865 or the Zouave uniforms worn by many militia outfits in the late 1850s. After 1871 the US Army even adopted a metal Prussian-style spiked helmet as headgear with the Dress Uniform, and it was still authorized until after the Spanish-American War at the end of the century!

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

The American army had no common uniform until well after the revolution, so a 'Tier 0' American unit (roughly, dating to the 18th century) could be wearing almost any coat color: actual state militia and Continentals had coats in brown, blue, white, and 'homespun' dyed with what ever vegetable dye was available - everything but Red, which could lead to Friendly Fire casualties from nervous neighbors gacing British 'redcoats'.

The 'standard' US Army blue coat was not adopted officially until 1789 - well after the revolution, and that regulation called for the 'facings' or distinctive trim color to be variable by Region: units from New England with white, from the South with blue, from the Mid-Atlantic (Pennsylvania, New Jersey) with red. Note that at this time the US was a Confederacy, so all troops were raised by individual states, not fhe national government.

In general, the US Army adopted European uniform styles several years after the major European armies did, so that the US troops started wearing shakoes only after 1810, and adopted many French Army uniform styles after the 1850s - like the Kepi headgear by the Union Army in 1860 - 1865 or the Zouave uniforms worn by many militia outfits in the late 1850s. After 1871 the US Army even adopted a metal Prussian-style spiked helmet as headgear with the Dress Uniform, and it was still authorized until after the Spanish-American War at the end of the century!

For how long did the US Army keeps their outdated 18th Century Uniforms including Tricornes and broadbrim hats? What contributes to the late transitions? distances VS 'the fastest communication methods avaiable 'at that time ? or usefulness of broadbrim hats VS shakoes? so US Army kept tricornes longer than anybody else?

Even so Hollywood and Gaming Industry loves to portray Continental Army as 'Uniformed' with famous Royal Prussian Army Blue uniforms.
Did Continental Army at Yorktown wears wild variety of coats like those Minutemen and not the popular 'Patriots' ?

 

[AriochIV]

Uniforms are an industrial concept; clothing was not mass-produced until the advent of machinery, and so prior to that troops were usually not uniformly outfitted, even when gear was provided for them instead of them providing it themselves. In the Revolutionary War era, those units that did have a regular uniform varied greatly by regiment.

Hat Historian has an informative and entertaining video on the tricorn:

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

Uniforms are an industrial concept; clothing was not mass-produced until the advent of machinery, and so prior to that troops were usually not uniformly outfitted, even when gear was provided for them instead of them providing it themselves. In the Revolutionary War era, those units that did have a regular uniform varied greatly by regiment.

Hat Historian has an informative and entertaining video on the tricorn:

And back to Civ6 'Mix and Mismatch' problems.

Is this how 19th Century Rank and File really wears tunics. With collars fold? What i've seen so far .. well at least in many illustrations, is that these men turns their collars up. WITH SHAKO?

Remember Civ6 Redcoats?

 

[AriochIV]

Not every uniform was the same.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

In general on uniforms. As @Arioch said, a great deal of the 'problem' with pre-industrial uniforms was the lack of uniformity. There were no standards for chroma and hue in dyes, so the color of the uniform, regardless of the 'official' standard, was largely By Guess. AND, also as stated, except in very few countries, there was no such thing as a 'clothing industry' - clothes were made at home, just enough for the family, or by tailors to order for the aristocracy. Placing an order for 3000 coats of the same style and color was generally impssible until as late as the 18th century.

As a specific example, copies of letters survive from governors in Peter's Russia around 1702, when he was forming the first 'regular Russian army' all in uniforms. The letters are from the governors charged with equipping and dressing those regiments to clothing manufacturers in England and Holland, the only countries besides France who actually had anything resembling a clothing industry at the time. Since each governor dealt with a different supplier, the result was that Peter's army was anything but uniform: surviving accounts list coats of blue, light blue, white, green, red, and buff - and that's just among the Moscow regiments!

To achieve a Russian Army in 'uniform' they had to wait almost 20 years, until there was a domestic clothing industry (government-sponsored, because that was the only market for it) that could supply thousands of coats in a semi-uniform color: dark green.

Even the same color might be different. The 'Prussian blue' coats supplied to the Revolutionary American army were, in fact, either really cheaply dyed coats in Prussian Blue, a metallic oxide that produces a dark blue-gray, or Indigo Blue, since Indigo was one of the first cash crops grown in the Carolinas before they switched to tobacco and cotton - making it another cheap dye for 'uniforms', but one that produces a much wider range of 'blue' than the Prussian Blue dye.

Finally, aside from color, the very cut of the uniform could vary. The earliest military national uniforms in Europe appear in the mid-17th century, and were modeled on civilian coats and dress of the time. As civilian fashions changed, so did the uniform details. Especially among quickly-raised regiments, like the 100 'young' regiments the French formed in 1702, the result might be a true 'grab-bag' of coats - all in roughly the same color, France having something resembling a clothing and dye industry already, but in styles ranging from contemporary to 'old-fashioned' depending on how much cash the regiment got to spend on uniforms and how badly they got cheated by the suppliers - another constant problem in every European army.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

In general on uniforms. As @Arioch said, a great deal of the 'problem' with pre-industrial uniforms was the lack of uniformity. There were no standards for chroma and hue in dyes, so the color of the uniform, regardless of the 'official' standard, was largely By Guess. AND, also as stated, except in very few countries, there was no such thing as a 'clothing industry' - clothes were made at home, just enough for the family, or by tailors to order for the aristocracy. Placing an order for 3000 coats of the same style and color was generally impssible until as late as the 18th century.

As a specific example, copies of letters survive from governors in Peter's Russia around 1702, when he was forming the first 'regular Russian army' all in uniforms. The letters are from the governors charged with equipping and dressing those regiments to clothing manufacturers in England and Holland, the only countries besides France who actually had anything resembling a clothing industry at the time. Since each governor dealt with a different supplier, the result was that Peter's army was anything but uniform: surviving accounts list coats of blue, light blue, white, green, red, and buff - and that's just among the Moscow regiments!

To achieve a Russian Army in 'uniform' they had to wait almost 20 years, until there was a domestic clothing industry (government-sponsored, because that was the only market for it) that could supply thousands of coats in a semi-uniform color: dark green.

Even the same color might be different. The 'Prussian blue' coats supplied to the Revolutionary American army were, in fact, either really cheaply dyed coats in Prussian Blue, a metallic oxide that produces a dark blue-gray, or Indigo Blue, since Indigo was one of the first cash crops grown in the Carolinas before they switched to tobacco and cotton - making it another cheap dye for 'uniforms', but one that produces a much wider range of 'blue' than the Prussian Blue dye.

Finally, aside from color, the very cut of the uniform could vary. The earliest military national uniforms in Europe appear in the mid-17th century, and were modeled on civilian coats and dress of the time. As civilian fashions changed, so did the uniform details. Especially among quickly-raised regiments, like the 100 'young' regiments the French formed in 1702, the result might be a true 'grab-bag' of coats - all in roughly the same color, France having something resembling a clothing and dye industry already, but in styles ranging from contemporary to 'old-fashioned' depending on how much cash the regiment got to spend on uniforms and how badly they got cheated by the suppliers - another constant problem in every European army.

And what is an explaination of this mismatched outfit? or how it was worn -- Shako and outercoats with fallcollars just like Civ6 Redcoats. this man wearing French Linear Infantry uniform of 1800s ain't supposed to wear his coat this way. he has to get his collars up.

Did soldiers of Napoleonic Wars actually wear his coats folding his collars down? and reasons for it.

French Infantry : Uniforms : Organization : Weapons : Tactics

French infantry of the Napoleonic Wars: Uniforms, Organization, Weapons, Flags, Tactics.

napoleonistyka.atspace.com

This is what he supposed to wear

 

[Vincent_lacruz]

One small question on the mechanisms:

When a building, wonder or improvement has a adjacency bonus toward a certain type of building, does it work for its tile itself? I mean, if the other building on the same tile (since there can be two per tile) has the good type, does it work??

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

And what is an explaination of this mismatched outfit? or how it was worn -- Shako and outercoats with fallcollars just like Civ6 Redcoats. this man wearing French Linear Infantry uniform of 1800s ain't supposed to wear his coat this way. he has to get his collars up.

Did soldiers of Napoleonic Wars actually wear his coats folding his collars down? and reasons for it.

French Infantry : Uniforms : Organization : Weapons : Tactics

French infantry of the Napoleonic Wars: Uniforms, Organization, Weapons, Flags, Tactics.

napoleonistyka.atspace.com

This is what he supposed to wear

As posted, variations in uniforms were plentiful.

In addition to the variations imposed by lack of applicable standards in pre-industrial uniforms, there is another nearly universal set of modifications to uniforms: personal comfort. If the soldier can find a more comfortable way of wearing a garment, he will, and that goes back to at least the Roman Republican Army.

The stiff stand-up collar that was supposedly universal among uniforms of the 1799 - 1815 "Napoleonic" era, when replicated today among re-enactors, is extremely uncomfortable, and the edges of the collar can irritate the skin under the jaw so badly it causes bleeding sores. That was apparently also true of the original design in Napoleon's armies and their opponents. So, troops removed the stiffening in the collar, let it lay flat, and their officers and sergeants looked the other way as long as they kept winning battles.

This phenomena is not limited to 'historical' uniforms. When I was stationed in Germany in the US Army in the 1980s, the British 'woolly-pully' sweater was offered for sail in the American PX stores. It was much more comfortable and warmer than any of the issue uniform items, but of course was not an authorized item of the US Army uniform, so could not be worn as an outer garment. The Army Times newspaper printed a story quoting the official prohibition on wearing the sweater with the official uniform. This did not have any effect, because on the facing page of the newspaper they printed a photograph of a Corps Commander (3-star general) and two of his other Generals - all wearing the British sweater as an outer garment.

Look at any contemporary video or photo of regular troops in the field, either in the Middle East or Ukraine, and you will see almost as many variations from the 'official' uniform as there are troops in any picture. If they had had photography in the 18th century, you would see equal amounts of variations. Look up Bellange, a French 'battle painter' from just after the Napoleonic Wars, who specialized in depicting troops as they actually appeared. Aside from semi-official portraits of troops on parade, he shows variations in the way the uniforms are worn - including collars worn unstiffened - as well as 'non-official' ways of carrying equipment and weapons in the field. Other military artists specializing in individual portraits and depictions from that and earlier periods, like Offenbach, Knotel, Funcken, etc show similar variations in the way the uniforms were actually worn, as opposed to how the high command might have wanted them to be worn.

 

[AriochIV]

When a building, wonder or improvement has a adjacency bonus toward a certain type of building, does it work for its tile itself? I mean, if the other building on the same tile (since there can be two per tile) has the good type, does it work??

We've discussed this before, but I don't think we know the answer.

While it seems logical that adjacency should include the building's own tile, I can imagine that it might not be the case. For example, there are buildings that would trigger their own adjacency bonuses if this were the case.

 

[Vincent_lacruz]

We've discussed this before, but I don't think we know the answer.

While it seems logical that adjacency should include the building's own tile, I can imagine that it might not be the case. For example, there are buildings that would trigger their own adjacency bonuses if this were the case.

The most logical system would be not to take into account the building itself, but any other building/wonder/amenagement on the same tile or any of the 6 tiles around. I guess we will have to wait 39 days to know for sure (but who is counting )...

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

As posted, variations in uniforms were plentiful.

In addition to the variations imposed by lack of applicable standards in pre-industrial uniforms, there is another nearly universal set of modifications to uniforms: personal comfort. If the soldier can find a more comfortable way of wearing a garment, he will, and that goes back to at least the Roman Republican Army.

The stiff stand-up collar that was supposedly universal among uniforms of the 1799 - 1815 "Napoleonic" era, when replicated today among re-enactors, is extremely uncomfortable, and the edges of the collar can irritate the skin under the jaw so badly it causes bleeding sores. That was apparently also true of the original design in Napoleon's armies and their opponents. So, troops removed the stiffening in the collar, let it lay flat, and their officers and sergeants looked the other way as long as they kept winning battles.

This phenomena is not limited to 'historical' uniforms. When I was stationed in Germany in the US Army in the 1980s, the British 'woolly-pully' sweater was offered for sail in the American PX stores. It was much more comfortable and warmer than any of the issue uniform items, but of course was not an authorized item of the US Army uniform, so could not be worn as an outer garment. The Army Times newspaper printed a story quoting the official prohibition on wearing the sweater with the official uniform. This did not have any effect, because on the facing page of the newspaper they printed a photograph of a Corps Commander (3-star general) and two of his other Generals - all wearing the British sweater as an outer garment.

Look at any contemporary video or photo of regular troops in the field, either in the Middle East or Ukraine, and you will see almost as many variations from the 'official' uniform as there are troops in any picture. If they had had photography in the 18th century, you would see equal amounts of variations. Look up Bellange, a French 'battle painter' from just after the Napoleonic Wars, who specialized in depicting troops as they actually appeared. Aside from semi-official portraits of troops on parade, he shows variations in the way the uniforms are worn - including collars worn unstiffened - as well as 'non-official' ways of carrying equipment and weapons in the field. Other military artists specializing in individual portraits and depictions from that and earlier periods, like Offenbach, Knotel, Funcken, etc show similar variations in the way the uniforms were actually worn, as opposed to how the high command might have wanted them to be worn.

1. Which Bellange? Hippolyte Bellange or who else? and so far I don't see that pics of any soldiers wearing uniforms with collars fall or folded yet. but are you sure that either Napoleon's goons, Redcoats of that time, and even Americans of 1812 did all the same 'infractions'?
And Napoleonic era uniforms were made with collars come with stiffening cores? what are materials for it and are these cores removables or replaceables? or is it simple foldings or flippings that keeps colars up?
2. And no long collar inner garments or cravats anymore?
3. Is this contributed to mid century design modifications that has shorter collars (so its edge won't reach chins and irritate wearers anymore) or creased collars? or is it Indian or Arabian ideals? or whose?

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

. I guess we will have to wait 39 days to know for sure (but who is counting )...

I was about to ask about how many specialists could be in a city but I bet it's the same answer. Mahajapit abilities say there is a limit per city.

 

[gdr_willter]

I was about to ask about how many specialists could be in a city but I bet it's the same answer. Mahajapit abilities say there is a limit per city.

They told there is a limit per district.

 

[Krikkit1]

They told there is a limit per district.

But they are only allowed in cities (hence city specialist limits)

 

[gdr_willter]

But they are only allowed in cities (hence city specialist limits)

There is a critical difference between "per city" and "per district in cities", especially for the unique ability of Majapahit.

 

[Krikkit1]

There is a critical difference between "per city" and "per district in cities", especially for the unique ability of Majapahit.

Which fortunately a Firaxian confirmed it was per district

 

[gdr_willter]

Which fortunately a Firaxian confirmed it was per district

Yes, that's what I said.

 

[Krikkit1]

Yes, that's what I said.

Yeah , the name was potentially misleading so they clarified….it might have been better if it was District Specialist Limit (with the understanding that only Urban Districts in Cities have Specialists)

 

[Vincent_lacruz]

Apparently specialists slots are unlocked through some technologies/masteries. So the limit will increase as you play. I think remembering that you can have two per districs by the end of the antiquity age.