31-03-2004 00:12									#31
	Inflate your Upload Space

yes a translation would be good

Just remember history is written by the victors as such the Romans were glorified in many counters as one of the first truly civilised people.

Big shock for a lot of people when they found Pompeii.

	31-03-2004 12:03									#32
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Big MC,

you want to say you can't read latin either ? The second link shows the 'orginial' documents

You just want this text I posted translated or more?

	31-03-2004 13:03									#33
	Put an end to popups!

Just a translation

can’t read Latin, French, German, English, Russian, Japanese, Chinese

	31-03-2004 14:53									#34
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

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.

In the year 9 A.C. under the lead of the 'ceruksien' (?) royal and roman citizen Arminius several tribes (Cherusker, Bruktere......) annihilated the army under the lead of Varus, containing 3 legions, 3 Alen/mounted unit(kind of cavalry) and 6 Cohorts/Infrantry and the belonging support.

you need more? Then please past which part

	31-03-2004 18:49									#35
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Gigl, Gigl, don't tell me my German is actually better than yours

In the year 9 A.D. an army of 3 Legions, 3 Alae (Cavalry units), 6 Cohorts ([Auxiliary] Infantry Units) and their support troops under the command of [Publius Quinctilius] Varus was destroyed by an alliance of Teutonic tribes (Cherusci, Bructeri, Marsi, Sugambri) led by the Cherusci noble and Roman citizen Armenius.

I apologize for the impossible sentence structure -- it's still German (It's a small miracle the author actually placed the verb at the start of the sentence )

	31-03-2004 19:58									#36
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Locutus, I admit............my German starts to get horrible

But I have one excuse: I did it in a hurry I must also admit, that the German they used there is a bit unusual.........

	31-03-2004 20:10									#37
	Support Apolyton

So is the conclusion to be made that after all that, the present assumed model of 1 unit = 10'000 men is fairly sensible until the invention of firearms?

(And in that case, how many Triremes / Ships of the Line are there in one unit of each? )

	31-03-2004 20:24									#38
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

10k is only for like the roman time.

Early egyptian had actually smaller armies.

And later they were actually getting far bigger (1 & 2 WW).

	31-03-2004 20:53									#39
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Gilgamensch Early egyptian had actually smaller armies.

Like I said, in Pharaoinc times the standard Egyptian unit was 5,000 men.

But generally speaking it's true that the further back you go, the smaller the units get. The standing army of Sumerian city states was some 700 men (though during times of war armies could number in the thousands as well). Sargon of Akkad even had a standing army of 5,500 men around 2300 BC -- but that was pretty exceptional for those days (it had to do with the fact that he was almost constantly at war )

	31-03-2004 20:58									#40
	Tired of ads?

For fleets a different scales should be used. I'm not exactly a navel expert, but intuitively I'd say a single (classical age) naval unit should probably represent some 50 ships (and since a trireme can have about 200 men onboard, that means it represents some 10,000 men as wel).

	31-03-2004 22:59									#41
	Tired of ads?

Ships are bad.

For gun powder aged ships I would say we should have a unit representing three ships .

Columbus had three ships. There’s a few ships on the beginning of the fmv etc.

Same for modern age ships three ships were engaged in the battle of the river plate.

	31-03-2004 23:21									#42
	Get a bigger avatar today!

yes but big mc, columbus was an explorer. He was not part of a military fleet of ships

	01-04-2004 01:51									#43
	Increase Your PM Length

yes he was a scout but what do we want to do with are units now and again

	01-04-2004 12:49									#44
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Locutus For fleets a different scales should be used. I'm not exactly a navel expert, but intuitively I'd say a single (classical age) naval unit should probably represent some 50 ships (and since a trireme can have about 200 men onboard, that means it represents some 10,000 men as wel).

The biggest ship-battle I recall was named "the battle of 1000 ships" and it was involving the greeks (AGAIN.....).
Although somewhere I read that there were some major battles in Asia as well.

Then we had the defeat of the Armada, which also involved a fairly huge amount of ships.

All the rest, AFAIR, consisted of less than 100 ships.

Even like the hunt for the bismark never had more than 10 ships active. There were far more involved, but never active at the same time.

So it could be save to assume that after the invention of ironclad, each icon represents a single ship. (get's a bit problematic for transports though.........)

For the time before: That is really depending on the type of ships

Most known for the caribean see were the spanish galleons and the fleets were somewhere between 1 and 10 strong. AFAIR the biggest battle there involved ~20 war galleons.

	01-04-2004 19:02									#45
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

When the Persians attacked greece, this involved MUCH more than 100 ships, i would say its closer to 1000
So theres a second example for ya.

	01-04-2004 19:54									#46
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by SMIFFGIG When the Persians attacked greece, this involved MUCH more than 100 ships, i would say its closer to 1000 So theres a second example for ya.

That is what I was referring to:

The biggest ship-battle I recall was named "the battle of 1000 ships" and it was involving the greeks (AGAIN.....).

	01-04-2004 20:12									#47
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Don't have time for discussion now, but here are two interesting links for ship numbers: http://www.abc.se/~m10354/uwa/nav-batt.htm and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_naval_battles

	01-04-2004 23:59									#48
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Gilgamensch,

Another good example to indicate the scale of things is the Battle of Lepanto in 1571 had the Christians with about 200 ships and 30,000 fighting men and the Ottomans having about the same. The Turks suffered about 50% casualties, and the Christian forces about 25%.

So that meant about 150 sailors and troops per galley. And it is intersting that they were still using galleys for combat. Oars were still the preferred method of movement since the weather was not consistent or predictable enough. The other interesting point is that these warships spent most of their lives in dry dock undergoing repairs as the timber would deform if left too long in the water, and then potentially sink.

So this leads me to think we need a city improvement that would be needed to keep a fleet in repair: the shipyard. Each might be able to maintain so many ship units in an abstract logistics scheme.

Getting into some of the details about movement in historical times, I still think that land units need a range just like an air or naval unit to reflect their initial provisioning. In ancient times, units would be much better at living off the land. Game would be more plentiful since there wouldn't be so many people paving over the farmland to build strip malls, suburbs, and big-box stores.

Medieval units were more dependant on supplies from their base since they were usually much larger. With a good baggage train and footware, they should be able to move a little faster than the ancient units. Units going out of supply would usually starve to death.

Land units up to the evolution of the mechanized units, were still primarily moving around by marching. Again the primary think is their ability to carry supplies and have the logistics tail support them. So they are able to move fast and far when in supply, but would be severly limited if they were out of supply, they would be bled down until almost nothing.

Modern units have an additional needs: fuel and ammunition. Units can cover huge distances, but as soon as the fuel runs out, they are stuck.

What this leads to is the need for some additional unit parameters:
Range of Insupply movement
Movement Rate when in supply
Movement Rate when out of supply
Foraging Rate when out of supply

Getting into much more detail than that would require a large amount of details added to the terrain features which would impact the rate at which supplies can move from a depot, and the distance from the supply point. I think if would suffice to simply be able to trace a supply line back to your nearest supply point.

One good side effect of basing movement on supply status is that when the AI decides to send units deep into your territory, they will eventually starve to death when they get 15-20 squares away from their supply point. Makes the AI need to use scouts or explorer units that could be supply independant, but have no combat ability.

Anyways, there's my two cents on how movement should work.


D.

	09-04-2004 11:58									#49
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Just a quicklink for some historic stuff:

quite interresting:

Human-cat

	09-04-2004 16:11									#50
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Where do you dig up this stuff

	25-06-2004 12:51									#51
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Maybe the number of men in the units should vary in time. At the battle of Kadesh Ramses II had 4 divisions of 5,000 men each at few hours of march each.
Warriors could have 500-1,000 men, phalanx 1,000-2,000, legion 2,000-5,000. A stack of 12 legions of 5,000 men means an army of 60,000. There are just a few times when Rome had that many solders on the same battlefield.
Real times battles with hundred of thousand of solders can be simulated by battles of multiple stacks. Some of the big battles lasted more than a day.

	25-06-2004 13:23									#52
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Actually even in ancient times battles lasted always more than one day. The only quick ones wre done by a huge advantage of one side. (little bit generalised)

Any siege was taking already like 2 days to build up the siege weapons. IIRC it was only later with the introduction of the cannon that this time was significantly reduced. Just that people get an idea why:

The materials for the catapults were being transported by mules/horses/cows/whatever to the destination and being (re-)constructed there. Before people are surprised why: At this time there weren't any real roads available

No source in the moment, but like the siege of castles it took around one week to damage the outside wall enough to allow the 'infantry' to enter the castle.

	28-06-2004 18:39									#53
	Inflate your Upload Space

Well, sometimes the siege weapons were constructed on the spot if wood was avaible.
But what do you think about my idea. A 12 stack of warriors would represent a 6 - 12,000 army, phalanx 12 - 24,000 etc. The numbers can be changed to balance - even a multiple of 500 would be easy to folow.