24-03-2004 14:36									#1
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Edit: this discussion was split off from this thread. The split may lead to some confusing comments and disrupted discussion, but overall should clean both threads up.

quote: Let me think: You ever heard of the silk-street? You ever heard of the Salt-street? You ever heard of the Silver-fleet? You ever heard of Alexander the great (just to remind, he went till India)? You ever heard of the Roman conquests? You ever heard about the Mongols? Just a few questions……….. So this sounds a bit not real

The Silk and Salt routes were traveled by small bands of caravans. Entire armies were never able to travel that far through such inhospitable terrain (it's no coincidence that they didn't). There simply wasn't enough water and food along the way.

Alexander the Great did the impossible and relied largely on local mercenaries and allies rather than Greeks most of the time. The Chinese sent an army out west a few hundred years later, and despite superhuman efforts to provision the army at every step, still 95% of the soldiers died simply from the journey (not counting battle losses).

The Mongols and Huns and the like were nomads, they travelled very light and lived off the lands they passed through. Often they sent out small bands of units as well, rather than huge armies. When they did send out large armies, they were like the Romans and many others: they expanded one territory at a time, never leaving the borders of their own (freshly conquered) empire far behind. And it's no coincidence the Mongol empire fell apart as soon as it did...

Even today few armies are capable of operating far away from home without local support. Very few countries (probably only the US and UK) have the capabilities to do it, but even they will only do so if all other options have been depleted. Remember how much of a fuzz there was about the Americans using bases in Iran/Saudi Arabia/Turkey/Jordan/Pakistan/various ex-USSR republics before the Iraq and Afghanistan wars?

I'm not saying it's an absolute must to implement support or similar in CtP2, but the current system most definitely doesn't reflect real history.

	24-03-2004 14:56									#2
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Locutus The Silk and Salt routes were traveled by small bands of caravans. Entire armies were never able to travel that far through such inhospitable terrain (it's no coincidence that they didn't). There simply wasn't enough water and food along the way.

For their time, I wouldn't call them small. AFAIR the silk caravan contained around 500 people and it was mainly actually army to protect the cargo. But this is similar to Alexander, they traded with the locals (for food and so on).

The Mongols and the Huns: Yes they wre nomads and what? It is just the way they lived and fought. About the huge armies and espacially the Mongols: Why you think the great wall has been build?

quote: When they did send out large armies, they were like the Romans and many others: they expanded one territory at a time, never leaving the borders of their own (freshly conquered) empire far behind. And it's no coincidence the Mongol empire fell apart as soon as it did...

To compare the Mongols (and similar) with the romans is no match at all. One did plunder the other one conquered. So not really a point. The Mongols never really build an empire.

quote: Even today few armies are capable of operating far away from home without local support. Very few countries (probably only the US and UK) have the capabilities to do it, but even they will only do so if all other options have been depleted. Remember how much of a fuzz there was about the Americans using bases in Iran/Saudi Arabia/Turkey/Jordan/Pakistan/various ex-USSR republics before the Iraq and Afghanistan wars?

This is a logistic problem, nothing else. It is easier to ship prior to combat, nothing else (and to have already a protected area for yourself). But one problem is that army and logistic is kind of incompatible About the logistic: Just take a look into the UN food help programs, they are moving thousands of tons and don't have a problem.

quote: I'm not saying it's an absolute must to implement support or similar in CtP2, but the current system most definitely doesn't reflect real history.

Again it is already implemented with the status of the Army. It is just, we never change it We always leave it on war. Maybe we shall alter it a bit more in this area. I never liked that it takes 10 turns to change from peace to war. We maybe shall say, if attacked, war-ready at the following turn. The change would is (IIRC) 50 percent, so you pay 50% more to maintain your army, which reflects this logistic problem. It is just abstracted. (not perfectly though, why are your home armies consuming much more ).

	24-03-2004 16:44									#3
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Gilgamensch For their time, I wouldn't call them small. AFAIR the silk caravan contained around 500 people and it was mainly actually army to protect the cargo. But this is similar to Alexander, they traded with the locals (for food and so on).

For a caravan, I would say 500 men is large; the size of the largest caravans on the silk route were about 1000 camels large (and I don't know exact numbers, but that probably means about 300-600 men if not less), most were much smaller. And most of those people didn't travel over the entire route: they went from one city to the next and back again, selling their goods to others to take to the next destination.

And even in those times, 500 men was tiny for an army, even in ancient Egypt single divisions were 10 times that size. Comparatively small ancient battles involved thousands of men on each side (e.g. the Battle of Marathon: 10,000 vs 30,000 men). Large battles could involve over well 100,000 men on each side (e.g. at the battle of Plataea about 300,000 Persians squared off against 100,000+ Greeks). Typical for major battles were about 100,000-200,000 combatants total (slightly less in the hopelessly splintered and divided Europe of medieval times). Your 500 men would hardly be noticed there, unless they were top-of-the-line elite troops.

quote: The Mongols and the Huns: Yes they wre nomads and what? It is just the way they lived and fought. About the huge armies and espacially the Mongols: Why you think the great wall has been build?

Nomadic peoples have a different lifestyle compared to the kind of settled people we model in Civ. Even today many children in Central Asia can ride a horse before they can walk! People like that can cover far greater distances than 'ordinary city folk'.

The Great Wall was built because the Mongols lived right outside the Chinese Great Wall. The question should be why was it built in China and not in present-day Russia or Iraq?

quote: To compare the Mongols (and similar) with the romans is no match at all. One did plunder the other one conquered. So not really a point. The Mongols never really build an empire.

I'm not comparing style (though the Mongols weren't nearly as savage as is usually thought, but that's for a different discussion), I'm comparing sizes of empire and distances traveled to battlefields. And you brought them up...

quote: This is a logistic problem, nothing else. It is easier to ship prior to combat, nothing else (and to have already a protected area for yourself). But one problem is that army and logistic is kind of incompatible About the logistic: Just take a look into the UN food help programs, they are moving thousands of tons and don't have a problem.

Yes, and moving an ancient army from Rome to Xi'an creates even bigger logistics problems. That's exactly what to notion of support is all about.

	24-03-2004 18:04									#4
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

OK, first thing:

Logistics:

WHY EXTRA logistic if it is already there? I have seen NO reply for the slider of the army status. The whole logistic is hidden behind this status. Why shall the emporer, which we are supposed to be, handle freeking logistics?

Locutus,

500 man for a 'single' caravan you call small? OK, it is small compared to those armies you mentioned, but they were the 'exceptions' not the standard.

Most troops running around were in this size. So a normal force to aquire a small city or similar, only the large scale battles included 10k+ soldiers.

quote: I'm comparing sizes of empire and distances traveled to battlefields. And you brought them up...

Yes I brought them up, but not to compare them, rather about the logistic part. (if you don't believe, re-read )It was to show that support is not necessarily linked to distance.

But before we get further I think most of us agree:

Logistics:

I just want to burn my enemy

	24-03-2004 18:16									#5
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Gilgamensch WHY EXTRA logistic if it is already there? I have seen NO reply for the slider of the army status. The whole logistic is hidden behind this status. Why shall the emporer, which we are supposed to be, handle freeking logistics?

Because that doesn't BEGIN to approach the real-life support system. How does that system make it harder to send troops halfway across the world rather than to nearby provinces?

quote: 500 man for a 'single' caravan you call small?

No, I called it large. Any force much larger than that couldn't travel over large distances in ancient times, while still being far too small to take even a single, let alone conquer empires.

quote: It was to show that support is not necessarily linked to distance.

How isn't it? The Mongols didn't have much in the way of an empire, and the Romans had to devote huge amounts of resources to keep their empire together (just think about their extensive road system and border network). And I'm talking about interior defenses here. The Napeolontic and Nazi campaigns in Russia fell apart because they couldn't maintain their lines of supply over such huge distances.

quote: Logistics:

No, I think most of us strongly disagree with that: J Bytheway's quote is quite accurate: tactics is for amateurs, logistics is the real deal. However, whether or not it has a place in CtP2 is a different issue.

	24-03-2004 18:26									#6
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Locutus How isn't it? The Mongols didn't have much in the way of an empire, and the Romans had to devote huge amounts of resources to keep their empire together (just think about their extensive road system and border network). And I'm talking about interior defenses here. The Napeolontic and Nazi campaigns in Russia fell apart because they couldn't maintain their lines of supply over such huge distances.

Which is one of the reasons the Romans invaded Brittan simply they wanted the gold

The nazi campaigns fell apart because of the whether they could not push on throw the snow which gave the Russians the advantage.

but you are right Hitler expected his troops to "live of the land" but the Russian idea of scorched earth destroyed the crops

	24-03-2004 18:42									#7
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by The Big Mc The nazi campaigns fell apart because of the whether they could not push on throw the snow which gave the Russians the advantage.

It's exactly the snow that made maintaining lines of supply so hard. You can still fight in snow, but towing around large amounts of cargo in the form of food, weapons, clothing, etc is much harder. During spring the situation only grew worse: as the snow melted, the extensively over-used roads turned into huge mudbaths that barely supported individual soldiers, let alone cars, trucks, tanks, etc...

	24-03-2004 19:11									#8
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

If we want logistics: This will be a (to say it friendly) major headache. This will end up with, me thinks, unnecessary work. Also were do you want to start/stop, shall we count every arrow used in combat? Shall we count how much everyone can carry? And so on.............

quote: ...........let alone conquer empires.

Most empires weren't conquered during the high-times by the way.......Some were conquered with rather small size armies.......

For the slider, we shall make it more important to show a bit more realistic the difference between war and peace. That shall do the job. I mean, I NEVER ever changed it to piece. If we would make it relevant, than you would have the abstracted logistics. Make it like food& PW & Gold and resource dependend.
Food: you march on your stomach
PW: for military roads used for support-purpose (invisible, but could be replaced by normal roads, just the distance from road till army needed)
Gold: Paying locals for support
Resource: For the rest, maintanence/usage/repairs.

quote: No, I called it large..............

re-read your post. Sorry my mistake.

It is a still a sufficent army-size for a lot of jobs. I would compare it with a single 6 stack in CTP2.

quote: How isn't it? The Mongols didn't have much in the way of an empire, and the Romans had to devote huge amounts of resources to keep their empire together (just think about their extensive road system and border network). And I'm talking about interior defenses here. The Napeolontic and Nazi campaigns in Russia fell apart because they couldn't maintain their lines of supply over such huge distances.

The Mongolian 'empire' wasn't any empire. They were more the like the vikings, having their home country and some 'holiday'-places elsewhere, where they were able to have some fun .

The romans used a lot of resources for the road and border network, but compared to what they wasted on other stuff, it wasn't a lot. You heard about the gold-mine in spain? They used (and later on killed) something like 20.000 people to dig in a mountain, Those people digged tunnels and the romans afterwards washed the mountain away to get the rest of the gold. It was done within 10 years (ASAIR). And this is far more than they spend on like the Limes.

And when you already mention the resources of the roman empire: One of the main reason that Rom went down, was that they were running out of gold to pay their armies.

Yes, you can compare Napolean/Nazi/Romans, as they tried to install empires, but not Mongols/Vikings and similar.

Again, the mongols was just to show that if needed you can travel huge distances and are not bound to your home territory.


For the point of Russia: I think BigMC covered this one

quote: No, I think most of us strongly disagree with that: J Bytheway's quote is quite accurate: tactics is for amateurs, logistics is the real deal. However, whether or not it has a place in CtP2 is a different issue.

The quote might be correct, but not your assumption. A lot of people complained about (compared to CIV X): The unhapiness caused by units away from a city. This is also logistics. And actually fairly true one. So long you are winning, nobody complains, but when you start loosing..........
To proof this point: I haven't seen anything in CTP2-source-code asking for it to be back

Logistics on the large scale I don't think anyone will enjoy. Also the AI will not be able to handle it. There are enough games around, which tried to have it and failed. An abstract logistic system shall be better, like the above mentioned.

By the way, there is a game which handles logistics (can't remember the bloody name anymore), there you had to handle 'everything' for your army, from arrows/bows/shoes/whatever/..... Whenever you missed something the unit behind wasn't able to fight or defend or run........It was fun for a few minutes, but me thinks, jts a big nightmare. It might be fun for a few units, but doing it for the whole empire.........thanks no.........

	24-03-2004 19:13									#9
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Locutus It's exactly the snow that made maintaining lines of supply so hard. You can still fight in snow, but towing around large amounts of cargo in the form of food, weapons, clothing, etc is much harder. During spring the situation only grew worse: as the snow melted, the extensively over-used roads turned into huge mudbaths that barely supported individual soldiers, let alone cars, trucks, tanks, etc...

But it was the combination of scorched earth and the winter which caused this problem, not just one.

	24-03-2004 20:13									#10
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Gilgamensch Most empires weren't conquered during the high-times by the way.......Some were conquered with rather small size armies.......

Even the smallest armies still consisted of a LOT more than 500 men. Give me one example of an empire that was conquered by an army of less than 5,000 men of comparative technological strength (the Spanish conquering the Aztecs and Maya obviously doesn't compare -- and even then the Spanish had to form lots of alliances with local rivals of those empires to ensure their victories; in fact those allies did most of the fighting).

quote: It is a still a sufficent army-size for a lot of jobs. I would compare it with a single 6 stack in CTP2.

You mean the largest army possible in CtP2 is 1,000 men large? That also implies the Persians brought 600 12-stacks to the battle of Plataea and the Greeks about 230 Sorry, but that's ridiculous.

1 unit = 1,000-10,000 men (depending on age, unit type, map size, etc) is a more realistic scale. That brings the Persian army size at Plataea down to about 3 stacks, which is about the maximum you can practically bring to bare on a single battle front in CtP2 as well, in the early ages.

quote: The Mongolian 'empire' wasn't any empire. They were more the like the vikings, having their home country and some 'holiday'-places elsewhere, where they were able to have some fun .

That's what I said.

quote: The romans used a lot of resources for the road and border network, but compared to what they wasted on other stuff, it wasn't a lot. You heard about the gold-mine in spain? They used (and later on killed) something like 20.000 people to dig in a mountain, Those people digged tunnels and the romans afterwards washed the mountain away to get the rest of the gold. It was done within 10 years (ASAIR). And this is far more than they spend on like the Limes.

So logistics shouldn't be modeled in Civ because the Romans were wasteful on some of their mining operations?

quote: Again, the mongols was just to show that if needed you can travel huge distances and are not bound to your home territory.

Once again I point out the Mongolian armies didn't travel huge distances from their home land. They just kept expanding their homeland as they went along. They didn't attack Russia before they had taken Persia. They didn't attack Persia until they had conquered the Merv and Herat. They didn't attack those two before they had destroyed the Kwarezm. They didn't attack the Kwarezm before they had conquered the Ugyur. Everytime they had conquered a new territory, they made it their new home, which was easy for them to do as they were nomads. The Romans and others did the same, only they needed a little longer before they could regard conquered territories really part of their own empire. Had the Mongols set out for a direct strike on Moscow and Kiev from Karakorum, they would have failed miserably. That is what logistics models.

quote: The quote might be correct, but not your assumption. A lot of people complained about (compared to CIV X): The unhapiness caused by units away from a city. This is also logistics. And actually fairly true one. So long you are winning, nobody complains, but when you start loosing.......... To proof this point: I haven't seen anything in CTP2-source-code asking for it to be back

Uhm, CtP2 has almost the exact same system of War Wariness as Civ... And War Wariness and logistics are two very different concepts, even if the end results are somewhat similar.

quote: Logistics on the large scale I don't think anyone will enjoy. Also the AI will not be able to handle it. There are enough games around, which tried to have it and failed. An abstract logistic system shall be better, like the above mentioned.

Like I've said half a dozen times already, there are numerous objections to implementing logistics and I am certainly not convinced it should be modeled in this game (in great detail). But it's not by definition a bad thing, which is the point you seem to be wanting to make.

And be careful to assume things in other people's place. The discussion of this thread proves numerous people feel supply and logistics are an important potential feature. And probably the most visionairy of all people in the CtP community, WesW (I respect and admire all modmakers but very few have the kind of vision about creating games that Wes has IMO), also gave his opinion about this topic in his FoA with regards to things still missing from existing Civ games: "[...] but morale and supply lines are not addressed at all the civ games, and these things are crucial in actual warfare". So practical limitations aside, I think it's quite clear many peole *do* want to see some form of logistics and supply lines. It's exactly these practical limitations that will have to decide if and how we actually go out and implement it.

quote: By the way, there is a game which handles logistics (can't remember the bloody name anymore), there you had to handle 'everything' for your army, from arrows/bows/shoes/whatever/..... Whenever you missed something the unit behind wasn't able to fight or defend or run........It was fun for a few minutes, but me thinks, jts a big nightmare. It might be fun for a few units, but doing it for the whole empire.........thanks no.........

Different games have modeled it in different ways. Wanting to be too realistic is never good. None of the systems in CtP are even remotely realistic, or else playing this game wouldn't be much fun. There always has to be some level of abstraction. A good way to handle logistics in an abstract way is RoN's system of Supply Wagons, which works quite well IMHO. But that is for RTS though, I doubt it would work well in exactly the same form in TBS.

quote: But it was the combination of scorched earth and the winter which caused this problem, not just one.

Yes, but the point is that they were all problems of logistics, not tactics.

	24-03-2004 21:15									#11
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

This is getting off.............I only threw those questions in to get people thinking about, not to have a historical discussion. Not that I would mind, but...........

quote: Originally posted by Locutus You mean the largest army possible in CtP2 is 1,000 men large? That also implies the Persians brought 600 12-stacks to the battle of Plataea and the Greeks about 230 Sorry, but that's ridiculous. 1 unit = 1,000-10,000 men (depending on age, unit type, map size, etc) is a more realistic scale. That brings the Persian army size at Plataea down to about 3 stacks, which is about the maximum you can practically bring to bare on a single battle front in CtP2 as well, in the early ages.

So in the modern age the stacks would compromise of 1000's of tanks? That is ridiculous. Ripping somebodies option, just how you see it fitting isn't, doing any good I am setting it far lower as those huge numbers were exceptions.

The examples you have given are just the extrem ones, but they were not the standard ones. Most battles never included 50+ soldiers (talking about ancient times;WW 1and 2, were different stories). Even in CTP2 with equal levels of science you need more than 1 stack to conquer a city.

If I take your assumptions as the standard, the ancient empires would have needed modern agriculture technics to support a little struggle over a cornfield.

For historic normal battles: IIRC Alexander started with a rather small army, around 40k. This for me would be like 4 12 stacks.

Talking about ancient greeks: Odysseas and the fall of Troja: It involved 3000 greeks. The ships at this time had ~max 200 people on board. (for transport, not for fighting)

1 Army of the romans was 10K not 100K. And 10k ancient time I see as a 12 stack. It was enough to take a weaker or smaller city. With 500 people

quote: That's what I said.

OK settled.

quote: So logistics shouldn't be modeled in Civ because the Romans were wasteful on some of their mining operations?

How do we reflect this? Not everything will be included (or cannot be included).

quote: Once again I point out the Mongolian armies didn't travel huge distances from their home land. They just kept expanding their homeland as they went along. They didn't attack Russia before they had taken Persia. They didn't attack Persia until they had conquered the Merv and Herat. They didn't attack those two before they had destroyed the Kwarezm. They didn't attack the Kwarezm before they had conquered the Ugyur. Everytime they had conquered a new territory, they made it their new home, which was easy for them to do as they were nomads. The Romans and others did the same, only they needed a little longer before they could regard conquered territories really part of their own empire. Had the Mongols set out for a direct strike on Moscow and Kiev from Karakorum, they would have failed miserably. That is what logistics models.

Do we know? No, as they haven't tried, but they travelled and kept a huge area in a short time.

quote: Uhm, CtP2 has almost the exact same system of War Wariness as Civ... And War Wariness and logistics are two very different concepts, even if the end results are somewhat similar.

But not the effect (for logistics). War Wariness is rather easy.

quote: Like I've said half a dozen times already, there are numerous objections to implementing logistics and I am certainly not convinced it should be modeled in this game (in great detail). But it's not by definition a bad thing, which is the point you seem to be wanting to make.

Never said it either. I just opposed certain things and wanted to get people think twice about.

quote: And be careful to assume things in other people's place. The discussion of this thread proves numerous people feel supply and logistics are an important potential feature. And probably the most visionairy of all people in the CtP community, WesW (I respect and admire all modmakers but very few have the kind of vision about creating games that Wes has IMO), also gave his opinion about this topic in his FoA with regards to things still missing from existing Civ games: "[...] but morale and supply lines are not addressed at all the civ games, and these things are crucial in actual warfare". So practical limitations aside, I think it's quite clear many peole *do* want to see some form of logistics and supply lines. It's exactly these practical limitations that will have to decide if and how we actually go out and implement it.

A lot of people want something, but some are never been heard. So the only way to be sure, would be a poll.

quote: Different games have modeled it in different ways. Wanting to be too realistic is never good. None of the systems in CtP are even remotely realistic, or else playing this game wouldn't be much fun. There always has to be some level of abstraction. A good way to handle logistics in an abstract way is RoN's system of Supply Wagons, which works quite well IMHO. But that is for RTS though, I doubt it would work well in exactly the same form in TBS.

I don't know RON, but support wagon principle is rather old one. And can be a pain to manage. which brings me to maq's point:

quote: As for logistics, i wouldnt mind it as long as the AI could use it right and there was more thinking involved than clicking.

I do not see any chance that the AI will handle it accordingly. All the games I have seen with a unit-type supply, the Human has a too huge advantage.

quote: Yes, but the point is that they were all problems of logistics, not tactics.

I think you shall re-read a bit about this time. To say it short: The germans were surprised by an earlier winter and an slower approach, because of the scorched earth pratice. So the logistics had been adapted to a certain extend. But it was bad tactics/planning, which decided it.

For your point about the spanish: The last bit in the capitol, they were on they own. And similar battles have existed in Africa, where a small amount, far less than 1000 people, were able to fight 10k plus.

	24-03-2004 21:53									#12
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

When any of us play CTP2(or civ types), do you get annoyed with the numbers used to represent combat?

Or do you just accept a certain amount of abstraction and see that if the enemy has a stack of units with the number 5 next to it, it seems reasonable that you stand a better chance of defeating it with a stack of 6?
(at the most simplistic example)

Its not a perfect system, but i find it ok - and fine for the kind of abstraction you need in a game that simulates 1000's of years of human civilisation.

So stop fighting [shake hands and agree to differ ]

its just a game, that never will get as real as real-life

	25-03-2004 05:20									#13
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Gilgamensch So in the modern age the stacks would compromise of 1000's of tanks? That is ridiculous. Ripping somebodies option, just how you see it fitting isn't, doing any good I am setting it far lower as those huge numbers were exceptions.

No, I was talking about ancient armies. In modern times your numbers don't make sense either: I don't dare calculate the number of 12-stacks required to meet the demands of the Napoleontic wars or the two World Wars: millions of soldiers fought in them! For modern times, the number of men per unit increases drastically for infantry and decrease for cavalry/artillery/airforce/etc.

quote: The examples you have given are just the extrem ones, but they were not the standard ones. Most battles never included 50+ soldiers (talking about ancient times;WW 1and 2, were different stories). Even in CTP2 with equal levels of science you need more than 1 stack to conquer a city.

50 soldiers for a battle? WTF? Name me some battles which involved so few soldiers! I can provide you with hundreds of examples of battles which involved 10,000+ men, many of them even 100,000+.

The standard unit size of the Roman infantry was a legion, which numbered some 6-7,000 men. The standard size of Mongol units was 10,000 men, the same goes for the Persians. Egyptian used divisions as primary units, each of which counted 5,000 men. The Greeks used phalanx formations which in Alexander's time numbered about 1,500 men. Even in the mediocreness of medieval Europe, people like e.g. the Saxons worked with burwarans, which numbered 900 men each, and the Polish used different kinds of formations which each consisted of several hundred men. The Turkish used ortas of 500 men and the Japanese worked with units of 2,500. And these are standard unit sizes: usually several (or even many) of such units would be deployed in battles of any significance.

quote: If I take your assumptions as the standard, the ancient empires would have needed modern agriculture technics to support a little struggle over a cornfield.

Struggles over cornfields don't qualify as battles, those are local disturbances, for which most nations used some kind of law enforcement and judicial system, just like today. Civ and CtP model real battles, clashes between empires... not neighbourly quarrels.

quote: For historic normal battles: IIRC Alexander started with a rather small army, around 40k. This for me would be like 4 12 stacks.

No, by your estimate of 500 men per 6 units (= 1k per 12-stack), that should be 40 stacks, not 4. But you're right, that's actually comparatively small army: he was met by Persian armies which likely numbered over 100,000, quite possibly even over 200,000 men -- which makes for 100-200 12-stacks using your system of 6 units/500 men.

quote: Talking about ancient greeks: Odysseas and the fall of Troja: It involved 3000 greeks. The ships at this time had ~max 200 people on board. (for transport, not for fighting)

Uhm, the Trojan War is very poorly documented. In fact, it may even be fictional. And if it is real, we have absolutley no idea about troop deployments. But if you want to speculate, the legend speaks of 1,000 ships being launched against Troy. If this is accurate, and we accept your number of 200 men per ship, that would imply that Troy was besieged by an army of 200,000! Not very likely, for a battle that probably took place in ~1300 BC (about 1/10th of that would be more realistic). But I think your 200 men/ship is based on the Trireme, which wasn't invented until some 600 years after the Trojan War, so we can safely assume the number was much lower. But your 3,000 is just wild speculation; it could be anywhere from 1,000 to 50,000, we'll probably never know.

quote: 1 Army of the romans was 10K not 100K. And 10k ancient time I see as a 12 stack. It was enough to take a weaker or smaller city. With 500 people

6 units = 500 men and 12 units = 10,000 men. Somewhere that doesn't quite fit...

A single Legion was about 6-7k men, but in most battles the Romans employed far more than a single Legion. We know about 80k troops were deployed in Cannae and Carthage, 45k at Zama and Mons Graupius, 60k at Adrianople and Alesia -- to name but a few examples. Those are fairly representative army sizes for that time, for other civs as well.

quote: Do we know? No, as they haven't tried, but they travelled and kept a huge area in a short time.

Yes, we know. Not from that specific example perhaps but I earlier mentioned the failed Chinese expedition and the failed attempts of Napoleon and Hitler to take Russia. And there were plenty of others. E.g. the Romans unsuccessfully tried launching campaigns against the Arabs and Nubians, the Mongols tried to invade Java, Italy's failed invasion of Ethiopia.

quote: I don't know RON, but support wagon principle is rather old one. And can be a pain to manage. which brings me to maq's point: I do not see any chance that the AI will handle it accordingly. All the games I have seen with a unit-type supply, the Human has a too huge advantage.

I already said Supply Wagons won't work for TBS, but it proves that Supply DOESN'T have to be a pain to manage and the AI CAN handle it -- that's the good thing about RoN.

quote: For your point about the spanish: The last bit in the capitol, they were on they own. And similar battles have existed in Africa, where a small amount, far less than 1000 people, were able to fight 10k plus.

Like I said, equal technological level.

	25-03-2004 14:06									#14
	Suffering from ads?

quote: 50 soldiers for a battle?

Sorry, typo, ment 50k

Should have gotten clear out of the context by the way.

Going back to Troja: Are you just making fun of yourself?

One of many possible links:
in English

And poorly documentated...... So anything which isn't kept on video you disregard? Or what hasn't been written by the Romans (which by the way overstated figures as well)?


And coming back to your complain about the size:

If I take your example:

quote: Typical for major battles were about 100,000-200,000 combatants total

So this would mean for you 2 * 12 stacks, one for each side. And that would mean transfered to CTP2 that ONE army would be bigger than any city you have at this time. (Size 10 city?, without aqueduct and so on?????) Why you think I put the number far smaller? At those times 1 farmer was able to feed (that already is changing quite a lot) around 3 people. OK the 500 = 6 stack was a bit low. Also I see it a bit more exponential. As for bigger armies you always need more support.

I am simplifying now a bit:

So if we take a normal size 6 city (makes ~60k people)

around 40% are female/kids not working.

60k people / 3 = 20k farmers

40k people left, from this we take 60% makes 24k people left.

And again not all are soldiers. If we assume that a max. of 50% of those could be devoted to army services, which by the way is far to high, would be left with 12k soldiers. Which is roughly the figure I have given. I just assumed that a 60k city would only support 25%, which is a better figure anyway.

Now show me how you want to support your figures

If I take your figures, the ancient empires would have had millions of citizens, working with modern/nowadays techniques to support those armies.

For Troja: 200 for transporting purpose of people, you still have to take ships for food/spares and so on. Which you shall have taken into account as well. Their logistics was to have everything with them. They didn't ship afterwards.........Jesus...............

quote: I already said Supply Wagons won't work for TBS, but it proves that Supply DOESN'T have to be a pain to manage and the AI CAN handle it -- that's the good thing about RoN.

So taking one game where it works, proofs it works........

A single Legion was about 6-7k men, but in most battles the Romans employed far more than a single Legion. We know about 80k troops were deployed in Cannae and Carthage, 45k at Zama and Mons Graupius, 60k at Adrianople and Alesia -- to name but a few examples. Those are fairly representative army sizes for that time, for other civs as well.

In most battles? That were just the famous ones. Just to remind you: The reason why they build the Limes in Scottland and against the barbarians, was just involving 10k respectivly 20K 'armies'. Both of them were defeated by far less then 1k enemies. But those battles they hardly ever mentioned.

So again, what is your point? These deployments were also including garisions. Not all of them were fighting.


And now one of your best jokes:

quote: Struggles over cornfields don't qualify as battles, those are local disturbances, for which most nations used some kind of law enforcement and judicial system, just like today. Civ and CtP model real battles, clashes between empires... not neighbourly quarrels.

All battles are about some bullsh*t like this. Even this idiot Hitler wanted to grep the land for food. What the hell you think they fought for? Just for the sake of it? It was always that the leader/king/WTF wanted to have more. And more ment also food, more food, more people, more land, mmore food cycle as many times as you want. What they were hiding the conquest behind (religious/self-defence) doesn't really matter, they just wanted to be bigger and bigger goes only via food.

Get real

	25-03-2004 17:53									#15
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Well it seems you both are saying the same things
Anyway this discussion started about alterations to movement - like if the diagonal cost of movement should be increased

I dont know how you've both ended up talking about hitlers reasons for invading other countries or that 50 soldiers for an army(which kinda looks like typo ) was not right etc etc blah blah

hmm maybe we could settle this using ancient viking law

You have to meet at the same place and under go trials of endurance to prove who is right.

round1: Remove 12 heated rocks from a pot of boiling water with bare hands(you have to walk 50 meters to place them down).

round2: Hold a heated rod of iron in your bare hands for the count of 10.

that should be enough

The person who completes the tasks whilst maintaing silence is proven to be right.

Looking at your last post's - you mostly seem to be agreeing on army size etc, so that just leaves somekind of pure sillyness as the root of these posts


@ the thought of the diferent results for 'keeping' back unused movement points, i rarely use the go-to command, but both ways should work out the same - not using the go-to command seems more tactical(in that you can respond each turn to events), so is it fair to penalise the player for this method?

And i think in some(all?) of the Mods the ability of Mounted units to enter mountains was blocked unless a road had been built, which seems a decent resolution.

	25-03-2004 18:12									#16
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Hi CoT,

I think we started off when I made some comments about the maintenance cost. I just threw in some comments to make people re-think or think the position of logistics (no offense ment) and suddenly Locutus and me were in this discussion.

Funny enough E and me (who original posted the idea for support) 'agreed' to make changes just to the cost and using the slider

Hey, that's life sometimes

And your idea of the viking way of settling:

Sounds cool, you have some more? Maybe we shall pass them into laws for our politicians !!!!!!!! Me thinks would settle a lot of disputes quick...........

For the mounted units: I think that is even in the original version (patch)

	25-03-2004 18:49									#17
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Gilgamensch Sorry, typo, ment 50k Should have gotten clear out of the context by the way.

Now that makes a lot more sense. No, it was not clear at all from the context, you were painting the picture of a few farmers fighting over an apple tree, a la Asterix & Obelix...

quote: Going back to Troja: Are you just making fun of yourself? One of many possible links: in English And poorly documentated...... So anything which isn't kept on video you disregard? Or what hasn't been written by the Romans (which by the way overstated figures as well)?

We know the city of Troy existed, that's (more lor less) a historical fact. But that doesn't mean that everything else Homer claimed regarding the city and the Trojan War was even remotely accurate. The stories of Troy were passed down orally from generation to generation and contain a lot of exaggerated and fictional things: cyclopses, giants, witches, sirens, the underworld, etc. Why would any of the information about the war itself be more accurate? Especially considering the Greek were renowned for exaggerating: they claimed the Persians had an army of 3 million(!) at Plataea and Alexander the Great fought armies of 2 million men or more as well. The only source about the Trojan War we have is Homer's work (and we don't even know for sure if Homer even existed!), we cannot draw any conclusions solely based on that. Much of it may have been true, much may not have, we simply don't know.

If you can show me any real evidence that 3,000 (or any other number of) men fought at Troy, I'd love to see it 'cause that would be news for me (and I love learning new stuff). But to the best of my knowledge, we don't even know with 100% certainty if there was ever a Trojan War at all, much less how many people were involved in it.

quote: So this would mean for you 2 * 12 stacks, one for each side. And that would mean transfered to CTP2 that ONE army would be bigger than any city you have at this time. (Size 10 city?, without aqueduct and so on?????)

That just depends on game balance. The numbers for cities as they stand don't make any sense: the largest cities in the ancient world (Athens, Rome, Carthage, Antioch, Ephesus, Constantinople, Alexandria, etc) had populations ranging from some 200,000 to 1,000,000 citizens. In CtP terms, that means cities of 20-100 in size. Considering the max-size of cities in the unmodded game is 60 and you normally can't reach that number before the modern age, that doesn't make sense. Modern age cities of the real world number into the millions: that would mean a city like present-day Paris (2,1 million inhabitants) would have to be size 210 or so in CtP2!

But still your suggestion doesn't sound too far off: a decent sized imperial army in Classical times was somewhere between 40k and 100k men large, which is also the size of the larger cities of those times. As I said the really large cities could easily have populations in the hundreds of thousands, but ordinary cities had populations of maybe 10-30k in Europe and up to 50k in Asia.

quote: Now show me how you want to support your figures

It's not possible to do this in CtP: the city population model is way off as I noted. Also, CtP only models city population, where the land was actually being worked by the rural population, which isn't modeled at all in the game. Also, your assumptions that 40% of the population doesn't contribute to the work force at all is non-sense. In post-industrial Europe perhaps, but especially on the countryside, women and older children were an important part of the work force in most cultures (and still are today). These kinds of calculations are purely based on fantasy. I would rather look at what real armies looked like in the past than at what a city in CtP2 could theoretically support.

quote: If I take your figures, the ancient empires would have had millions of citizens, working with modern/nowadays techniques to support those armies.

The Roman empire had some 60 million inhabitants in 300 AD and a total size of their army was around this time some 60 legions: at 6-7k per legion that's some 400k soldiers. That's not counting auxiliaries and the like and non-combat support troops, so their total army size was likely some 600,000 men (rough estimate), or 1% of the total population.

quote: For Troja: 200 for transporting purpose of people, you still have to take ships for food/spares and so on. Which you shall have taken into account as well. Their logistics was to have everything with them. They didn't ship afterwards.........Jesus...............

How do you know any of this? Where are the accounts that say they only traveled once? Surely if the siege lasted 10 years as the story tells us, they would have needed reinforcements and supplies at some point? Even with a 1,000 ships you can't bring 10 years worth of supplies for a whole army (no matter what size) with you -- and that's assuming you know in advance the war will take that long. What historical or archeological sources do you have to back any of those claims up?

quote: So taking one game where it works, proofs it works........

It proves it CAN work, it's not by defintion doomed to fail.

quote: In most battles? That were just the famous ones.

You want me to list some less famous battles? How about Cunaxa: 40k vs 50k, Tigranocerta: 23k vs 260k? (exact number may be propaganda, but the Romans were fastly outnumbered), Raphia: 62k vs 70k, Chaeronea: 30k vs 22k, Hydapses: 30k vs 35k, Mons Graupius: 30k vs 30k. I could go on for a long time...

quote: Just to remind you: The reason why they build the Limes in Scottland and against the barbarians, was just involving 10k respectivly 20K 'armies'. Both of them were defeated by far less then 1k enemies. But those battles they hardly ever mentioned.

20,000 men defeated by 'far less than 1k' -- that means 100-200 men at most. Which battles were those exactly (place, year), if I may ask? Victory ratios of 10:1 were not unknown, but usually with bigger absolute number and usually it involved battle-hardened veterans fighting armed peasants. From the top of my head I know of one example in Britain: the defeat of Boudicca at the battle of Verulamium (61 AD), where an uknown number of Britons (probably at least 100k) was defeated by a some 10-15k of Roman legionaires. The number of Romans was fairly low here, but they were so superior they simply didn't need more, as as is obvious by the outcome (80k Britons dead, less than 1k Romans casualties). But even then, that's still 10,000 Roman soldiers, not 500 or even less.

quote: So again, what is your point?

My point is that armies are sizeable units of thousands of men, if not tens or even hundreds of thousands. Far too many to move halfway across the planet and still maintain reliable lines of supply.

quote: And now one of your best jokes

My remark was about the scale of the battles, not their purpose. You were suggestion (due to typos or otherwise) that CtP battles were minor quarrels of a few dozen men fighting over a piece of meat or an apple tree. Had that indeed been your intention, you you're the one to get real... otherwise there was just a mix up and no harm's done

	25-03-2004 19:03									#18
	Put an end to popups!

CoT,

Yes, it may seem like pointless bickering to most, but historical arguments are educational and fun! I love doing it, I used to hang out in the Civ3 forums even though I hated the game, solely to discuss history with the history buffs there. We need more of those in this forum as well Especially since Markos doesn't allow a seperate History forum like on CFC

	25-03-2004 19:16									#19
	Inflate your Upload Space

well as long as you can both share a beer at the end of it

It was getting a bit rabid i think - we are a smallish(compared to Civ2/3) bunch of guys that love CTP2, so i just dont like to see us getting like the OT forum , we usually behave better than that

thats all

maybe i'm just not used to seeing it over here.....(ref: the F***ing kinda thing etc).

But Historical discussion is - I guess its got to go somewhere?

	25-03-2004 19:30									#20
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Let's start with the easy one:

quote: My remark was about the scale of the battles, not their purpose. You were suggestion (due to typos or otherwise) that CtP battles were minor quarrels of a few dozen men fighting over a piece of meat or an apple tree. Had that indeed been your intention, you you're the one to get real... otherwise there was just a mix up and no harm's done

OK, peace.. looks like misunderstanding....

The reason for the limes were because they lost 10k/20k in those battles against ~900/~700 people (which is still far less than 1k ). The first one was against the picts(sp?) meaning the scotts and the second the battle in the teutonian forest, described both by roman writers. One of the biggest punishments after those was to go on patrol in this areas, as it meant death. The romans were so afraid off those two 'countries' that they invested a sh*tload of resources in building the limes. Actually the scottish one is around (IIRC) 900 miles long the 'german' (there was no germany at this time, just the 'barbarians') one around 2000 km.

quote: Now that makes a lot more sense. No, it was not clear at all from the context, you were painting the picture of a few farmers fighting over an apple tree, a la Asterix & Obelix...

Again: Sorry for the typo.....let's rest this one ;-)

quote: Also, your assumptions that 40% of the population doesn't contribute to the work force at all is non-sense.

re-read what I posted, I used 1/3 of the WHOLE population for farming use, meaning INCLUDING woman and small kids!!!!!!!

Only afterwards for the rest I excluded them.

quote: What historical or archeological sources do you have to back any of those claims up?

Follow some of the links of the link I provided, there you can find some information (which is including some speculation) about it. I do agree that a lot might be pure speculation, but one reason why homer is being seen more serious nowadays is, that they found troja, so it existed where he placed it, which really doesn't match a fary-tale, or?

For the shipping, for sure they had afterwards supplies going on, but not large scale. Again this is for you maybe just speculation, but at those time they didn't record everything, which means that a lot has to be 'calculated' using other figures to compare. Also a lot of stuff has been accederated(sp?, being a bit tired) by any of the writers.

Battles: interresting that you use again (or only) figures of roman battles. As I said before, a lot of those numbers are also not so trust-worthy. But suddenly the figures are far below 100k. And that are figures which I can trust more.

Coming back to the numbers:
For me a 100k army shall not be compared to one 12 stack, it is already more like 10 * 12 stacks. Reason: Then we wouldn't have anything to compare a single unit to. It is hard to find the equivilant but me thinks you put the numbers to high. And I think that's the only point were we really disagree

One thing I never liked with the roman figures: They never included or specified the number of support included in there. In only a few cases it has been done. So me thinks, there was also some 'propaganda' involved at this time. Another thing I never liked: As the winner is writing the history, were those armies really armies or not just some peasants armed with clubs and similar..........

for city sizes: IIRC in CTP they were 'exponential', or? Which would make far more sense, as you kind of described with a 210-size city.

Actually like for Egypt, or better to say the beginning of Egypt, the figures being given for the army sizes (complete!!!!) were around 10k max. The struggle of joining what was later Egypt, when there were just city-states.

	25-03-2004 19:31									#21
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Gilgamensch And your idea of the viking way of settling: Sounds cool, you have some more? Maybe we shall pass them into laws for our politicians !!!!!!!! Me thinks would settle a lot of disputes quick...........

Ok well heres another useful tip - this one for women

In the 'olden' days a women couldn't easily get a divorce, but being reasonable people(scandinavians) there was one get out clause for the distressed wife.

If she made her husband a tunic/jumper that had a really low neckline - so that his nipples could be seen, then she would manouvre her husband into having to divorce her - for the embarassment she had caused him in front of his contemparies.

	25-03-2004 19:40									#22
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: In the 'olden' days a women couldn't easily get a divorce, but being reasonable people(scandinavians) there was one get out clause for the distressed wife. If she made her husband a tunic/jumper that had a really low neckline - so that his nipples could be seen, then she would manouvre her husband into having to divorce her - for the embarassment she had caused him in front of his contemparies.

I had to reread it twice, first I read that her nibbles would be seen Or is just my fantasy

But hwat if he still didn't want to get divorced, she made the neckline even lower Could have caused a lot of distress for a possible new wife.............

	25-03-2004 20:10									#23
	Inflate your Upload Space

Well its been a while since i studies viking law(like 1000 years!), but i think she only had to make it low enough to expose her husbands nipples.

He was then honour bound(and that was when honour meant something) to divorce her(I guess even if he liked showing his nipples to his freinds!?). I dont think i read an account of it having to get lower.

It always made me laugh this one - it was a weird way fo getting around all the social constrictions of the time, and provided a nicely women respectful loop hole.

It was used mostly by women to get out of abusive marrages. But there was the odd account of lustfull women using it when they got bored of their husbands!!

Still it was a rare occurance - the stigma attached to it was quite real and both parties would come under some heavy unwelcome scruitiny within their community(I can imagine the gossip!).

	25-03-2004 21:16									#24
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Locutus CoT, Yes, it may seem like pointless bickering to most, but historical arguments are educational and fun! I love doing it, I used to hang out in the Civ3 forums even though I hated the game, solely to discuss history with the history buffs there. We need more of those in this forum as well Especially since Markos doesn't allow a seperate History forum like on CFC

Just saw this reply, slipped through the review.........

And yes I like it as well But maybe we shall move it into a new thread?

EDIT: I had already had some discussion with Locutus via ICQ which if you would see them would see 'bitter', but it isn't meant like this

	25-03-2004 21:23									#25
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Gilgamensch The reason for the limes were because they lost 10k/20k in those battles against ~900/~700 people (which is still far less than 1k ). The first one was against the picts(sp?) meaning the scotts

No, the Romans never lost any major battles against the Picts. In fact, there were two major battles between the Romans and the Caledonians (as the Romans called all people who lived in Scotland, both Picts and others) and the Romans won both battles decisively. The reason for building the wall was that the Romans realized they could never pacify the Caledonians and have them accept the Roman way of life. They only way to keep them in check would be by violent oppression, and that was not what they wanted. They knew they'd always have to surpress revolt after revolt, which would consume huge amounts of resources and menpower.

So they just built the wall to form a barrier between those Britons that were receptive to the Roman way of life and those who weren't. They didn't build it to protect their own armies, who were not the least bit threatened by the locals (as the later rebellion of Boudicca proved), but to keep the peace and allow for the peace and stability in the rest of Britain (which was far more profitable than constant war and rebellion).

quote: and the second the battle in the teutonian forest

Accusing me of picking exceptional battles and then doing the same thing yourself?

That was a very exceptional event, the biggest humiliation and defeat in the history of Rome -- it was never repeated. One can only respect the cunningness of Arminius (leader the Germans), but it was a unique event that stands on its own, it's not representative for battles of that time.

BTW, I'm curious where you got the number of 700-900 men? (Which is NOT far less than 1k, just a few less ) I've never seen reliable numbers on how many Germans were involved, to the best of my knowledge that's not known. Tacitus doesn't seem to mention it, unless I missed it, and he's the only Roman to describe the battle AFAIK.

quote: Follow some of the links of the link I provided, there you can find some information (which is including some speculation) about it.

I could find some info on the city of Troy itself on that site, but nothing regarding the war. If I'm missing anything, please post a more specific link.

quote: but at those time they didn't record everything

In fact, they recorded nothing. There was only the oral story, which wasn't recorded in writing until centuries later. Any information we have that's even remotely reliable will have to come from archeological research.

quote: Battles: interresting that you use again (or only) figures of roman battles.

No, I thought you might think that. The battle of Tigranocerta was the only one of two battles in that list involving Romans and I picked it because it was one of the most obscure Roman campaigns: the one against the Armenians. The other 'Roman' battle is Mons Graupius, where Roman allies and auxiliaries (not even the Romans themselves) defeated the Picts you mentioned earlier.

The remaining battles are Persians vs Persians, Syrians vs Egyptians, Macedonians vs Greeks and Greeks vs Indians. I considered adding a Chinese battle or two but those tended to involve huge numbers of troops, which I knew would only get you upset again about the 'unreliable and exceptional' numbers

quote: As I said before, a lot of those numbers are also not so trust-worthy. But suddenly the figures are far below 100k. And that are figures which I can trust more.

I deliberately picked battles with smaller numbers not to upset you too much But you'll note that the total number of combatants still ranges from 60k to 300k+, high numbers compared to what you've been proposing as 'normal'.

quote: For me a 100k army shall not be compared to one 12 stack, it is already more like 10 * 12 stacks.

That would mean that the equivalent of the Roman empire in 300 AD in CtP2 would have a total military size of some 60 12-stacks or 720 units. That's a bit much!

My proposal was and is that a single unit represents between 1-10k men. That comes down 60-120 units or 10-20 full stacks total for the total size of a large ancient age empire in CtP2, which may even be a tad high (but realistic if you realize this includes city garrisons and militias and the like as part of the army).

But you are right, it's hard to really translate as the CtP model simply isn't realistic enough and there are far too many factors that play a part.

quote: One thing I never liked with the roman figures: They never included or specified the number of support included in there. In only a few cases it has been done. So me thinks, there was also some 'propaganda' involved at this time.

The composition of Roman armies is well known and documented. Modern sources for Roman army sizes (the kind of numbers I'm listing here) are usually compensated for any kind of propaganda.

quote: Another thing I never liked: As the winner is writing the history, were those armies really armies or not just some peasants armed with clubs and similar..........

Yes, the winner writes the history and that leads to some unreliable numbers but as I noted before, the numbers I posted here are all conservative estimates, the minimum amounts so to speak. And if anything, the Romans and Greeks downplayed the quality of their enemies rather than exaggerated them, to show the 'home audience' how barbaric they were. Only their numbers were exagerrated.

quote: for city sizes: IIRC in CTP they were 'exponential', or?

In Civ they were, in CtP1 I don't know but in CtP2 they are not. Which is exactly why I feel that system is broken.

quote: Actually like for Egypt, or better to say the beginning of Egypt, the figures being given for the army sizes (complete!!!!) were around 10k max. The struggle of joining what was later Egypt, when there were just city-states.

When you're talking pre-dynastic Egypt, you're probably right (probably the numbers were even lower), but we're talking about villages fighting villages there. In pharaoic Egypt -- the Egypt we model in Civ -- the army was usually some 4 divisions large as I mentioned earlier: some 20k men (not counting allies and auxiliaries).

	26-03-2004 13:40									#26
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Locutus No, the Romans .....................

I haven't got so much time today and on the weekend I hardly be online, driving you know where

If you don't mind we continue next week and maybe we shall open a new threat for it?

Get's a bit in the way of the other discussion

	30-03-2004 13:25									#27
	Support Apolyton

This discussion was split off from this thread. The split may lead to some confusing comments and disrupted discussion, but overall should clean both threads up.

	30-03-2004 19:06									#28
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Vor the battle of Varus:

In the moment I only found some German webpages:

extract for the roman side:
Im Jahre 9 n.Chr. vernichteten unter der Führung des cheruskischen Adeligen und römischen Bürgers Arminius rheinwesergermanische Stammesverbände (Cherusker, Brukterer, Marser, Chatten) das unter dem Oberbefehl des Varus stehende Heer von insgesamt 3 Legionen, 3 Alen/Reitereinheiten und 6 Kohorten/Infanterieeinheiten sowie den zugehörigen Troß.

link

this link is containing the sources. I'll try to dig up more.

If anyone needs a translation, please let me know and I try to translate.

	30-03-2004 19:24									#29
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Yes, what Roman troops were involved is well documented (the 3 legions were Legions XVII, XVIII and XIX IIRC), it's the Germanic troops I'd be interested in. Aside from a few tribe names (which are indeed mentioned here as well), I've never seen anything concrete about them.

	30-03-2004 20:13									#30
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Locutus,

be patient..............I am trying to find them.............I know I read it somewhere.........but long time ago..........

Don't forget it also included
3 Alen/Reitereinheiten und 6 Kohorten/Infanterieeinheiten plus support