to upgrade cav or not to upgrade cav

[Ironstone]

Originally posted by Killer
An interesting sidenote: it was the english longbowmen - underestimated by everyone and given to little defnce strenght in CivIII - that slaughtered the French Knights. At Crecy AND Poitiers.

Thanks Killer. So they cleaned 'em up at Poiters too eh? Those longbows were pretty awesome weapons it seems.

There's a great page at the beginning of the Strategy guide for Age Of Kings, written as if you are the French commander at Agincourt in 1415.

He smugly notes that the English are hopeless outnumbered, exhausted etc and anticipates crushing them. Then the longbows start firing. The French try to move forward but progress is poor in the muddy conditions and they get cut down by the bowmen.

The last paragraph says:

"Horrified, you realise that this, the battle of Agincourt, will be one of the worst upsets in military history. Your army is going down in defeat. And a single, tragic thought echoes in your mind: 'I should have read the Strategy Guide'". !


Apparently longbows took a fair bit of strength and skill to use. But the English at the time had archery contests that went on in every village and they put great store on bow skills.

I read once that the French took to cutting off the first two fingers of the captured English bowmen so that they couldn't use the bows again (sounds a bit mythical but it makes a nice story). This was said to be the orgin of the English V sign - a rude gesture where you lift your hand with two fingers making a V. The story was that this started with English soldiers taunting the French - "look - I've got my bowstring fingers - you're doomed"".

Who knows - it might even be true, although it sounds a bit iffy to me!

 

[zebomba]

That story about the V sign is interesting, but let's talk about the longbow.

It's good on offense, but a longbowman has little defensive power. Why? They fired simultaneous salvos of arrows over an area instead of aiming a target. It's that type of shot that cuts through plates. And you can't dodge or hide from hundreds of arrows.

Medieval knigths were very agile, despite of their armor. Those people were much more strong than we usually are nowadays.

In fact, what you're talking about is a skill of crossbowmen. A direct shot of a bolt does penetrate armor. Too bad bolts take forever to recharge but yew arrows are fired pretty fast. So those kind of bow types had their own particular use. All in all, longbowmen should have a bombard skill good against units only, not cities or fortress.

As for upgrades, I vote for no. They should make them much more expensive.

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

zebomba: you`re right but please remember that even the strongest actor today can hardly move in plate armour. it just was too much for knights to survive in battles. And yes, bowmen aren`t good at defence but sadly CivIII doesn`t allow you to use the bombard feature for single units. Now imagine going for some bowmen in the open. They`ll shoot quite a few arrows against you before you reach them even when noone else is there to protect them. In CivIII a bowmen alone will not use bombardement but onla when he`s stacked with other units...

but I did what you suggested: I gave bowmen bombard: fight them down from a distance, then go in to kill off the rest...


I still think Civ should have different attack/defence values depending on the opponent: an ironclad can`t defend himself against submarines, it can olny run away. similar thing here: bowmen have to stnd up to fight: gets them slaughtered by Infantry but hardly harms against Cavalery... still if you attack with Infantry and Cavalery Civ makes it roughly the same....


Ironstone: I know that scene it`s a really good one! I think the V-story has some truth to it: I asked a historian and he said he read about the finger cutting in 15th century documents.....

 

[Gruntboy]

Other names used for tanks during the experimental stage: boiler and cistern.

Anti-cistern guided weapons? 3rd Boiler Brigade?

 

[zebomba]

Killer: I don't know if there's evidence about it, but they were incredibly strong for today standards. 10kg swords anyone? And maybe some 5kg shields, or add a 20-30kg armor...
It's said they could perform acrobatics in full armor. There must be some truth about those sayings...
I guess the weakest point of knights were the horse. But not all knights are mounted. And horses can wear armor.

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

zebomba: you`re right but when the other guy can forego the armour and is equally strong....... count it out. Also Knights were "expensive" and there simple weren`t that may - imagine today letting well-equipped university teacher fight soccer fans with pick axes and bows - what would the odds be?

I read somewhere that for the same money you could "rent" 100 soldiers from poor nobles you couldn`t even pay the servants and horses and stuff for 5 Knights for the same time.....

The point is simply using cheap weapons in great numbers against a foe who can`t get the technical advances needed to negate your advantage...... tough luck for the Knights.

To give a modern day example: imagine cheap anti-tank weapons had greater range than tank main guns - how long would tanks last?????

 

[Magnus]

Were not knights the equivalent of tanks in their time?

If a horse cannot upgrade to a wheeled unit, then how can a foot unit be upgraded to a wheeled unit (Infantry - Mech Infantry)?

Some of the UU's upgrade to a unit that loses movement, Jaguar Warrior to swordsman, Impi to Musketman) so there is precedent.

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

Originally posted by Magnus
Were not knights the equivalent of tanks in their time?

yep they were - unbeatable until someone invented the mass prroducable long range anti-tank missile of their time - and got the range way to big for Knights to counter.......


I think updating is fine as it is. Making everything upgradable would make it a who builds military fastest in the beginning wins game....

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Magnus
Were not knights the equivalent of tanks in their time?

If a horse cannot upgrade to a wheeled unit, then how can a foot unit be upgraded to a wheeled unit (Infantry - Mech Infantry)?

It has to do with the institutional memory of the actual combat force. Do the troops upgrade, or are they disbanded and reformed.

From the history of the U.S. Cavalry (the official link I posted above), it is apparent that armor evolved independently. The U.S. Cavalry was not mechanized in 1943, so fought as foot infrantry. The U.S. armor divisions were built from stratch. The U.S. Cavalry eventually evolved into a kind of rapid deployment unit, and does trace its institutional roots to the old West.

The history of the infantry is different. Mechanized units evolved directly from foot infantry. First came the supply trucks, then the jeeps, then the armored vehicles. Here is a link to the 28th Infantry "Keystone" Division (Mechanized). Take note of the picture of troops of the 28th division at the Battle of the Bulge.
http://sites.state.pa.us/PA_Exec/Military_Affairs/28idm.htm

By the way, I didn't know all this until I researched it for this thread.

 

[simwiz2]

History and realism aside, it is good for gameplay that defense units upgrade more than attack units. That way someone wanting to play peacefully can have a rather inexpensive defense, while someone wanting to mount a blitz-like attack will have to devote his production to military.

Besides, wouldn't you be worried if the 50 cavalry your enemy had suddenly turned into tanks for just a bit of gold?

 

[Selous]

but then it was very common for cav to fight on foot when assulting in difficult terrain and/or where a siloute was undesirable (ie wanna keep there heads down because the lead is flyin!) ... same with mech infantry ... is not like they are fighting from there vehicals... they are used as fire support for your infantry and to transport the infantry ... so upgrading from cav to armour is just a matter of buying new equipment ... same as upgrade from muskets to rifles .... and pikes to muskets ....

but .... after what someone said .... im going to leave it as is .... and for my personal mod make it so pikemen cant upgrade to muskets .... because they are such diferent weapons ... but mostly because it will break upgrade chains and become more playable as a game .... i still think more unrealistic ... but better for gameplay and game flow (by pausing the rampaging hordes) ...

 

[WhittyMike]

If we could get Firaxis to add a Light Armored Cav Unit, then we'd have the most historically realistic upgrade unit for Cavalry (and Cossacks).

I'd suggest 16/12/3 with a cost of 100, same prerequisites as Modern Armor.

I don't want to try to add this myself until the REAL scenario editor is released.

In the meantime, I'm going to set Cavalry to be allowed to upgrade to Modern Armor.

While I'm at it, I'll set those other dead-end units (Swordsman, Legion, Immortal, Longbowmen) to allow upgrade to Riflemen. :soldier:

 

[zebomba]

Changing the upgrade chain disrupts the gaming balance, and this is why I avoid it.
Letting defenders upgrade all the way is good, to the people who play peacefully. Wanna fight? Then you gotta build.

Knights were equivalent to tanks, but the longbow wasn't available everywhere. Some "knights" were fought against using another ones, like Japanese samurai.

Knights' drawback must've been their price. They were expensive like the hell! The church tought about forbidding crossbows bc they could kill a knight, and didn't require a lot of skill.

And longbowmen weren't always effective. If they kept out of range, you could always use longbows or scatter the knights' charge.

 

[Akka]

Just wanting to kill a false cliché about the medieval fights. It's not that people in these times were supermen and able to carry tons of stuff while we're actually weak. Training were of course part of the ability to wear armor and weapons weighting several kilograms, but it's not the real explanation. The thing is, armors made in these times were result of centuries of experience by blacksmiths, and were made for war. They were supposed to not hamper movements, nor be impossible to carry. While it's true that they were weigting often 30 Kg (full plate armor), the weight was well balanced, and rested more on the waist than on the shoulders. It's perfectly true that kinghts could do acrobatics in their armors. It's equally true that people with full chain mails were able to swim on short distances.
On the subject of fighting with 10-12 Kg swords, it's still not that they could handle them like you do with a rapier. Considering the resistance of the armors of these times (even a simple chainmail is awfully solid, though the Hollywood movies does not reflect it), weapons had to have a very high impact strengh. A sword was not about slicing or puncturing, you just can't cut iron like that. Swords were not sharp at all, and were used more as bludgeonning weapons trying to break the armor. So fight was quite slow, with large circular movements whose purpose were accumulating as much cinetical energy as possible. So they were not fighting with these sword like in modern escrime, but rather like axes.

All of this, of course, only apply to the middle-age Europe, as Renaissance fights and Japanese warfare were completely different.

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

Akka: I don`t concur with the slow circular movements you describe for the entire Middla Ages. It really depends on the exact time and place. In one castle in France I was shown a sword at an archaeological dig that had been wrapped in oildrenched parchment and cloth since roughly 1450 or so. They found it just 2 years ago and were able to cut rough cloth with it..... So i guess it depended on the armour type common and the technical knowledge in the specific region and epoch. Or take the Saxon Knob-Sword - used to pirece Roman chain mail. It`s very long, thin and weighted with a heavy knob at the base but extremely well-balanced. They have a nice exhibition going in Ulm right now (or maybe it`s over by now?) where they had a duplicate that you were allowed to swing round. If you are strong enough to keep your wrist from wobbling it all over the place it actually doesn`t feel heavy and you can use it as some kind of long range dagger extremely well. The knob gives it the right punch when you stab with it - as long as you move it in a straight line.....

Actually I`d like to try all that stuff out like thoses crazies from round here who marched to Rome on Roman leginaires uniforms. They found out a lot of interesting stuff - mainly that the old text were right and later interpretations simply were too negative. "They can`t have been able to.... That was way to heavyly built to... " etc. I see the same thing in my job (vertebrate paleontologist) - until you actually try something people will always be too negative because they have too little imagination....

 

[Daaraa]

I say no to the upgrade from cav to armour.

My current game I'm just entering the modern age and I still want a few cavalry. Here's why.

I'm invading a huge continent where there is still tons of jungle. My panzers cannot enter or attack the jungle-occupied-squares. The Zulu are keeping off the roads and moving through jungles as are the Russians. I can only attack with cavalry or infantry. Infantry only move at one so they are limited in a blitz-style war. I go in with panzers to attack the cities and anything not on jungles and the cavalry takes care of the jungles. Infantry brings up the rear after I have control of the roads. The infantry hold the cities and get rid of resistors. Artillery is just too slow. And my navy can only reach so far inland.

If it weren't for cavalry, my tatics would be vastly altered.

The Zulu have even taken a couple of cities back were they were in the jungle next to the city and I couln't get cavalry there in time.

I need to get to mechanized infantry....

 

[Akka]

Very insightful post, Killer
You were perfectly right saying that "It really depends on the exact time and place", and I showed lack of precision in my own post. The time I talked about were around the 13th and 14th century, and part of the 15 th, at the peak of the development of armors.
In the previous ages, armors were not so powerful, and weapons were completely different (ie : the large and heavy swords were developped nearly only to pierce armors, and you can note that romans and greeks only used short swords or glaive because they needed more swiftness in fight to touch their ennemy than large punch to get through their protections).
The evolution of armors saw, very roughly and basically, an improvement of the size and interconnection in the rings of chain mail (rings becoming smaller and interconnected with a greater number of rings) and the apparition of rigid plates (first only in the most vulnerable parts, and progressively covering all the body).
Weapons adaptated, and while the sharpened sword were used at first to slice throught flesh, leather and thin mails, the additionnal robustness of these armors required greater lenght and weight to improve impact. Large bludgeonning weapons (flail, maces) came specifically to wound someone who was wearing chain mail (these armors were virtually impossible to penetrate by anything short of a crossbow or a longbow by the end of middle-age, considering that they used up to 80 000 rings while the most ancient only used 5-6 000 rings, so you had to hurt the person rather by crushing him using the flexibility of chain than by slicing or piercing him).
It's true too that even very big swords were not that hard to use. A well balanced sword has most of its weight close to the guard, allowing to get back quickly in attacking position once a hit was blown. Circular movements allow to wield swords fast and to use the own weight of the weapon to accelerate the moves.

The thing is, we often forgot that people spend centuries to improve their blacksmith skills, in a time where war was the ultimate honor and goal. They developped techs that we have lost by now (with all our mathematical knowledge, we still can't build trebuchet as effective as their) and were able to build things that could look heavy and impracticable, but were in fact quite less hampering than we could imagine. War was an art in these times, and armies were very small (often 20-30 for a castle, some hundred for an attacking army, some thousands for the king's army). It required a highly proficiency to become a warrior, and so the weapons and armor were supposed to be handled by pro, not by inexperienced conscripts.

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Daaraa
I say no to the upgrade from cav to armour.
. . .
My panzers cannot enter or attack the jungle-occupied-squares.

Brilliant use of an "obsolete" technology.

Horse were actually quite useful in the recent operation in Afghanistan. There are some places even 4-wheel drive can't go. In any case, due to this superior mobility, horsemen can reach many places faster than even tanks. They do not need to stop for gas, and they do not need to travel roads. This explains their apparent speed advantage over early armored units.

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

Akka: Thanx for your long reply! it`s really interesting stuff, I think, especially since it once again shows that the socalled "Dark Age" wasn`t that dark after all (only it`s end was). Can you produce the medieval dark blue glass? I guess they knew a lot more than the church liked people outside the curch to know - one reason why so much was "forgotten".
have you ever been to ST. Peters in Rome? there`s an interesting grave of some guy there - I don`t remeber whose - which is from around 1500 to 1505 best as we can today date it without full access to Vatican archives. Amosngst lots of other decoration it figueres death (as a skeleton with a sicle) with one foot on earth - i. e. death controls all the earth. And now there`s the points: earth is a ball, with quite a good map of Europe, Northern Africa, the Near East and a nicelooking coastline for Middle America.

A non-flat earth in the central church of Christianity?????


As for the swords: I remember reading somewhere that they used to have trouble to achieve the sufficient temperatures for forging non-brittle sharp swords in some places e. g. northern Germany due to lack of good charcaol which differs hugely in quality depending on the wood you use so most people there had to do with clublike swords while the nobles could afford the excellent imported weapons.....

 

[zebomba]

Ah, this forum provides more than Civ tactics .
I've just read these days how the Dark Ages weren't dark at all, and not only bc there were advanced civs like the arabs.
The european knew a lot of things as well. The lack of written evidence made historians call it dark ages, and people took it literally.

You mean the Venetian blue glass?

I never knew we can't build good trebuchets... but I do know we can't reproduce the fine steel the Franks made or the steel that was once made in Toledo. Space Age steel is good, but it's different.

The fact is, most of us think tanks and satellites can kill anything. It isn't so. Bin Laden is probably riding a horse to runaway, but nevertheless...