 |
| |
|
|
Youngsun
|
|
Darwin,NT,Australia
Jan 2000
time: 05:12
|
|
what about this?
quote:
Stone axe +3 melee
Hunting spear +2 melee +1 support
Primitive bow +2 support
Bronze spear +4 melee +1 support
Bronze sword +5 melee
Bronze armour +1 armour -1 mobility
Iron spear +5 melee +1 support
Iron sword +6 melee
Iron armour +2 armour -1 mobility
Wooden shield +1 armour
Bronze shield +2 armour -1 mobility
Iron shield +3 armour -1 mobility
Composite bow +3 support
Horse armour +1 armour -1 mobility
Marius's mule allows a unit to fortify -1 mobility
Light Horse +6 mobility(no armour allowed)
Medium Horse +5 mobility(armoured men allowed)
War Horse +4 mobility(Horse armour allowed)
Chariot(arse) +2 mobility
Chariot(horse)+3 mobility
Elephant +2 mobility -2 enemy melee(only cavalty)
Long sword +7 melee
Pike +5 melee X2 melee vs mounted(only inf)
Lance +5 melee X2 melee vs mounted(only cav)
Plate armour +4 armour -2 mobility
Mace +5 melee ignores enemy armour 50% -1 mobility
Longbow +5 support ignores enemy armour 60%(inf only)
Crossbow +3 support ignores enemy armour 80%
Stirrup +2 melee(only mounted)auto upgrade if discovered
If your culture/social system is primitive, then you can only mobilise primitive men
Melee/support/armour/mobility
Primitive men 1/0/0/3
Ancient men 1/0/0/4
Renaissance men 1/0/0/3
Modern men 1/0/0/2
Melee:basic fighting power/close combat ability
Support:when accompanied with melee units add bonus to the melee units
Armour:absorb some of enemy hit including enemy support fire
Mobility: this is not map(strategic) mobility this is battlefield mobility.
1~4 Bf mobility equals 1 map mobilit
4~8 Bf mobility equals 2 map mobility
8~12 Bf mobility equals 3 map mobility
Battlefield mobility affects actual battle as a combined arms effect and map mobility ,as you know, reflect how many square you can move.
|
As you may have noticed the heavier the armour gets the more severe mobility penalty it receives thus leaving you with dilema how you going to put the emphasis for your army. mobility or heavy armour?-for Infantry
With extensive usage of heavy horse you may arm your mounted force with heavy armour without necessarily taking the mobility too much away from it thus shock troops now available in your stock.
Only after the invention of longbow & crossbow, heaviliy armoured cavalry will be properly countered.(those arms are capable of penetrating armour)
All the weapons after Stone Age will require metal resources to be produced. I'm not so sure how detailed the production mechanism should be.
1.Complicated mineral/energy resource(copper,Iron,coal,oil etc.)
2.or just simple metal points represented by number? ie. metal:100pts enegy:50pts.
[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited August 11, 2000).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Adm.Naismith
|
 |
Milano - Italy
Oct 1999
time: 06:12
|
|
I'm sorry to Youngsun, but I share Evil Capitalist fear.
While I agree that some Unit workshop can add a bit more diversification to units without too much harm (if the workshop will be properly developed, that is), I will forever be a pain in the neck remembering we are modelling a Civ (empire management) game, not a wargame. I love wargames, simply they are another genre and required to be modelled taking into account detailed armours&weapons as you write into your interesting list.
Look, also SMAC manual show as a more complex armour model (dividing from armour that can defend against energy weapons, bullet weapons or both) has been discarded into the released game.
I don't know if Firaxis did it because of balancing problem, AI unable to cope with, beta testers feedback or anything else, still it should be an alert to us  .
------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Evil Capitalist
|
 |
Reconstruction commissioner
Jul 2000
time: 05:12
|
|
I just think that the modules idea is based on 20th century thinking. Think about land war from 1492-1914:
Initially pikes, arquebuses, light cavalry, heavy cavalry and culverin style artillery.
Wheelock Musket replaces arquebus, cavalry get pistols, line tactics evolve, firelock replaces wheelock, and is replaced by flintlock, cannon get better barrels.
Bayonet replaces pike, premeasured cartridge introduced. Cannon gets more mobile.
Do you notice something there? You never go back to older weaponry. Napoleon's marshalls never thought of using a regiment of matchlocks, it would be stupid.
The best system I've seen is that of Imperialism II- designated catagories which can be upgraded and have similar abilities. You get the variety, but don't have the absurdity of unrealistic combinations. The only uses I can see for a workshop are the following:
1)Special abilities: e.g. police training. These only come in later, so make it not so important. You could just train it in to an existing unit.
2)Level of weaponry: the number of guns on warships is important to its strength, but only is a real issue c.1648-1865.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Youngsun
|
|
Darwin,NT,Australia
Jan 2000
time: 05:12
|
|
Evil Capitalist
Sure it looks like but not the same as others which you might think of.
When you disband your units in CivII, you throw away men and weapons altogether. My suggestion corrects this and you can arm your men with better weapons.
Civ is not wargame and it's like a combination of running an empire,managing economy and raging a war things so we need to incorporate the military aspect of the game with others. Heavy conscription should create social and economical burden to your civ but you can still prepare total war without significantly damaging your economy by producing and stockpiling weapons.
Those weapons I showed are not that civ specific(no gladius or sarissa there)and its rather highly generalised and categorised with Ages(Stone->Bronze->Iron->etc) so makes it applicable to all civs in the world.
Furthermore CivI and CivII are already stat based as far as military units are concerned.
Att/Def/Fp/Hit
With present military stat, archers can roam around without heavy inf escort(Archer 3/2/1/1) because CivII does not differenciate melee & support concept. My suggestion encourage combined arms effect and balanced unit stack(Heavies,Skirmishers,Support and Shock troops). This also can be extended to modern warfare(Inf,Recon,Artillery and Armour) and this 4 major military branches need arms for themselves and that was what I listed above.
Right resource allocation of war production is the key for victory and we all know Hitler ruined it so lost the war and you shoud examine your social and economical situation of your empire first for where to concentrate your war effort.
[will be continued.... now I have to go somewhere]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Youngsun
|
|
Darwin,NT,Australia
Jan 2000
time: 05:12
|
|
[I'm back and little bit drunk too  ]
quote:
Initially pikes, arquebuses, light cavalry, heavy cavalry and culverin style artillery. Wheelock Musket replaces arquebus, cavalry get pistols, line tactics evolve, firelock replaces wheelock, and is replaced by flintlock, cannon get better barrels. Bayonet replaces pike, premeasured cartridge introduced. Cannon gets more mobile.
|
Doesn't have to be that specific
Musket(arquebus with rest)
Musket(Napoleonic one with bayonet)
Rifle(Napoleonic one/pre WWI)
Rifle(WWI)
Rifle(WWII)
Rifle(post WWII)
Rifle(Modern)
would be enough I reckon.
quote:
You never go back to older weaponry
|
That's the point Evil capitalist so we can sell those inferior arms to less developed civs as today's USA does.
quote:
You get the variety, but don't have the absurdity of unrealistic combinations.
|
Anything bizzare you see from my suggestion? triple convexed composite bow or flaming sword?(just kidding) Anything combined from the suggestion above will end up as one of the 4 major branches(heavies,skirmishers,support and shock troops).
When I say unit workshop please don't imagine SMAC style one because I don't like SMAC style workshop too.(Admiral knows  ) Actually if there is any way to make an unit with consripts and stockpiled weapons I don't think we need a unit workshop.(Colonisation style perhaps?) Also you can restrict the number of designed models like MOO/MOOII so you don't have to hassle with too many similar unit models.
DarkCloud
I surely share your enthusiasm but things like archer phalanx are too weird to me and it is historically incorrect. Archers are archers nothing more/nothing less and the same goes to Phalanx too. Also using germs for siege warfare thing shouldn't be part of unit characteristics but kind of auto upgrade for every unit when you discover proper tech thus we don't have design a unit for that.
Anyway General suggestion section needs energetic person like you. Keep the heat pal as long as you can.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Evil Capitalist
|
|
Reconstruction commissioner
Jul 2000
time: 05:12
|
|
I'm not too sure on the cannons, but tanks:
Basic tanks- 1917-1940: From MkI to Matilda. Mk I male version has guns and machine guns, female just machine guns. between world wars swivel turret appears, and side turrets disappear. Early engines go up to about 4 mph, by WW2 they can do c.20 (I think).
Heavy Tanks- 1920s-1950s: Conquorors, JS3s, etc. Heavy gun, slow movement, thick armour. Lose popularity when good, all round tanks appear.
'Blitzkrieg' tanks- 1935-1970s: Wider tracks, heavier guns than early tanks, but move considerably faster. Later ones include sloped armour, etc. examples: Tiger tanks, Shermans, T34s. Phased out in most armies by the 70s, but still in use in some areas.
MBTs (Main Battle Tanks)- 1945- : Tanks like the centurion, T55, M48 etc. faster, better armoured and better armed than WW2 tanks. Important step up in armourment for western tanks with the introduction of the L7 105mm gun. Many still in service today, forming the backbone of the majority of poorer nations' armoured divisions.
Modern tanks- 1970s- : The next generation of tanks, including M1s, Challengers, Leopard IIs. Make use of bigger guns (usually 120mm), better engines (usually capable of about 50mph), better ammunition (eg APFSDS- armour piercing fin stablisized discarding sabot) and advanced armour,, notably chobham (layers metals, ceramics and plastics designed to defeat APDS rounds).
I'd go into light tanks and APCs but I'm not too sure about them. There's a good site for various modern tanks at http://battletanks.com
[This message has been edited by Evil Capitalist (edited August 13, 2000).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SWPIGWANG The Second
|
|
DarkCloud
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
YOU'VE GOT IT ALL WRONG.
1st of all...You the concept of anyone trying to put all the weapon (most of it anyway) is a unit design work shop is INSANE due to the fact that it is going to do nothing more then giving players headacres.
Besides, thats THE most unrealistic and ahistorical idea ever. Allow me to explan.
The whole problem here is that you are thinking that weapons, armour and other short of this stuff can be used to emulate real life units. DEAD WRONG. The orginalization of a army is no less, if not more, then the lenght of a sword or the size of a anti-tank gun. Besides, almost ALL armies, modern or long vanished, is a result of combined arms. Of course people didn't specialize before the concept of combined arms, but instead each men carried more then one weapon. As a result, no army in the world have only used ONE kind of weapon as the system would allow.
The archer at the battle of Agincourt for example, brought double pointed wooden stakes to build a fence-like structure to stop Cavalry, a Long Bow with 25 shots and a melee weapon of one's choice. Now do you build a unit with 3 weapons? And the fact that the reason the british archers uses the longbow and their french counter part don't is caused more by culture then technology.
Lets not get into modern day armour divisions or infantry battlions each with its own AA-Guns and Artillery support and so on. Even wellindon's squares at waterloo used some pikemen to stop a cavalry charge.
With your system a Roman legion would be exactly the same as a man at arms. Of course the way they fight is different but the equipment is about the same. How about a samerie and a crusader, both ware chain armor and uses a long sword. Yet sll of then are VERY different.
Besides, your system is no fun for me. When I want a phalanx I don't want bronze ancient spear man.
I'd support a system witch specially ability can be added to predesigned units....EARYLY ON IN THE GAME
|
|
| |
|
|
|
S. Kroeze
|
 |
the Hague, the Netherlands, Old Europe
Dec 1999
time: 05:12
|
|
What is a phalanx?
It seems to me some posters here use the word in a rather unconventional way.
quote:
'Phalanx' is a Greek word, meaning 'battle array', nothing more!
Phalanx:
'in military science, tactical formation consisting of a block of heavily armed infantry standing shoulder to shoulder in files several ranks deep. Fully developed by the ancient Greeks, it survived in modified form into the gunpowder era and is viewed today as the beginning of European military development.
The ancient Sumerian army fielded a standard six-man-deep phalanx; the first line went into battle carrying large, rectangular shields, and the troops bore heavy pikes and battle axes. During the 7th century BC the Greek city-states adopted a phalanx eight men deep. The Greek hoplite, the heavy-armed infantryman who manned the phalanx, was equipped with a round shield, a heavy corselet of leather and metal, greaves (shin armour), an 8-foot pike for thrusting, and a 2-foot double-edged sword. Since the phalanx held in solid ranks and was divided only into the centre and wings, there was generally little need for an officer corps; the whole line advanced in step to the sound of the flute. Such a formation encouraged cohesion among advancing troops and presented a frightening spectacle to the enemy, but it was difficult to maneuver and, if penetrated by enemy formations, became little more than a mob.
For a millennium after the fall of Rome, massed infantry was swept from the field by heavy cavalry, but in the 15th century, Swiss burghers and peasants, fighting for their freedom in Alpine valleys where cavalry had little room to maneuver, brought about a return of the phalanx. This consisted of one-fifth missile weapons (chiefly the crossbow), one-fifth spears, and three-fifths halberds (eight-foot shafts with the blade of an ax, the point of a spear, and a hook for pulling a rider out of the saddle). Discarding all armour except for the helmet and cuirass, the Swiss were able to march 30 miles a day and attack with a celerity and discipline that were disconcerting to their adversaries.'
(source: Britannica.com, article 'phalanx')
|
'Between 675 and 650BC, however, a new type of fighting appeared. Massed heavy infantry, known as hoplites and armed primarily with spears, overturned the cavalry, which without stirrups could not hope to generate the power to attack even small formations of food soldiers so long as they stuck together.
It is generally assumed that hoplite armament (shield, or hoplon; torso armor, at first a "bell" cuirass and later a metal-reinforced corslet; helmet; greaves; short iron sword; and a six-foot thrusting spear) and phalanx tactics are logically inseparable. This is not the case. They were discrete phenomena- simultaneous, perhaps, but seperate.
For one thing, the heavy panoply of the hoplite was not necessary for spear-based, close-formation tactics. The consistent success of both the later version of the Macedonin grand phalanx and the Swiss pike formations, neither of which used much body armor, proved this. Moreover, there is a tendency to label hoplite equipment as something new and revolutionary when in fact it was a close approximation of the accoutrements of the Iliad.'
(source: R.L. O'Connell:'Of Arms and Men',1989)
So my conclusion is that the phalanx is first of all a tactical formation, and its use closely related to the social and political conditions in a given society. In fact the Greek phalanx was nothing new at all! Another argument for some sort of recruitment system related to domestic politics.
So a group consisting exclusevely of archers and yet fighting in close-formation using shock power doesn't make sense!
I know CivII by linking the Phalanx to Bronze Working is partly to blame for this confusion.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
SWPIGWANG The Second
|
|
I think I'd like a system where there is a basic unit and players get to pick minor differences of type. For example for a Tank unit a player would get to pick wether the tank would be Trench/Infantry Tank, Light Tank(?), Medium (Bliz) or Heavy Tank. Then the player would get to pick speical abilities, like Amphibious assult (attack off ships)
Damn...I rememeber seeing pikes in a printing for waterloo.....
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Youngsun
|
|
Darwin,NT,Australia
Jan 2000
time: 05:12
|
|
I reduced Inf tank's firepower because it's primary roles are "breakthrough mission" or "absorbing enemy hits" to protect following infantry not necessarily wiping out enemy troops. By same token Infantry of that age get higher firepower thus encouraging inf-armour combination. We all know early failures of proper armour use due to lack of inf escort.
When Infantry and Armours move at similar pace(1~4 mobility=1 map mobility)there is no need for APC but as armour speed get faster and faster Infantry need APC to catch up with the advancing armours.
Anyone can provide a list for Artillery,APC,Navy,Airforce and missiles?(deeply appreciated)
[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited August 14, 2000).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Youngsun
|
|
Darwin,NT,Australia
Jan 2000
time: 05:12
|
|
Artillery(firepower support)
Captapult/trebuchet +1 siege support can break city wall
Medieval bombard +1 FP support can break city wall
Breechloading/leather cannon & Mortar/Howitzer(Napoleonic) +2 FP support +2 mobility ignore city wall(applied to all artillery after these)
Mortar/Field Howitzer(Modern) +3 FP support +3 mobility
SPA/mobile Rocket launcher +4 FP suppport +5 mobility
Misc. support weaponry(AT & AA)
Flak gun/AA gun/Vulcan/SAM +2 FP support X3 vs Air target
AT rifle/AT gun/ATGM +2 FP support X3 vs hard target
Note: Maxim/Gatling gun,Rail gun, SPAA,Mobile SAM,RPG,AGL,Mobile ATGM were excluded.
Perhaps I generalised Misc. weaponry too much anyone think that way please let me know.
[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited August 15, 2000).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Youngsun
|
|
Darwin,NT,Australia
Jan 2000
time: 05:12
|
|
OK Evil Capitalist
Siege support
Captapult/trebuchet +1 siege support can break city wall
Medieval bombard +2 siege support can break city wall
Mortar/Howitzer(Napoleonic) +3 siege support ignore city wall(applied to all artillery after these)
Mortar/Siege gun/Railgun(World war) +4 siege support
Field firepower support
Cannon(Napoleonic) +1 Firepower support
Breechloading cannon +2 FP support
Field Howitzer(world war) +3 FP support
SPA/Mobile rocket launcher(WWII) +3 FP support +5 mobility
SPA/MLRS(Modern) +4 FP support +6 mobility
Misc. support
Flak gun +4 firepower X3 vs Air target X2 hard target
SAM +16 firepower air target only
AT gun +2 firepower X4 hard target
ATGM +16 firepower hard target only
Note:Field guns can be horse-drawn by combining horses and guns. Other type of transport can be used for that function such as trucks.
Evil capitalist could you provide a list for Navy,Airforce and missiles?
[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited August 15, 2000).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Evil Capitalist
|
|
Reconstruction commissioner
Jul 2000
time: 05:12
|
|
I'll deal with the Navy for now
I'd like to point out that I think the naval side of the game would benifit from an overhaul. Two ships cannot blockade the English Channel, and naval batteries can have a major effect. This is also the one theatre where I think the workshop is needed.
I will use the terms rough seas and calm seas- rough seas are the north seas etc. of the world, calm seas are like the mediteranean or tropical islands. A calm seas unit may only operate safely in calm water, otherwise it runs a risk of damage, which is very high if it leaves the coast. A rough seas unit doesn't worry about that.
I may also use some jargon, so here it is
AA- anti aircraft
ASW- Anti submarine warfare
Early vessels:
Outrigger: Used by the polynesians to colonise loads of islands. Calm seas, must stay by coast, always a risk of loss.
Early merchant vessel: The boats you get sailing the mediteranean before the first proper navies develop. Calm seas.
Tririeme: A coverall term I'll use to cover all the multiple oar ships (they go to quinrieme). Developed by the greeks and Tyre to beat the small vessels (like the merchant ships) that threatened them. Powered by slaves or criminals, and good in most weathers. They relied apon ramming and boarding for their damage, and carried marines for the purpose. Calm seas.
Special ability: Greek fire. Increases Greek fire was a napalm like substance that was sprayed onto ships. This was vital in Byzantium's naval defense. The secret of its composition was jealously guarded and now lost. Increases firepower.
Longboat: The shallow bottomed vessels that carried raiders to foreign shores. I can't think of any engagement involving these, but they need to be included. Equipped with sails and oars the Viking longboat is a purpose built landing craft. These sailed to Newfoundland, the Black sea and the Levant. They could travel up rivers, and few places near the coast were safe from them. Rough seas.
Galley: This was the vessel that appeared from the dark ages. Like a tririeme, but with more emphasis on the oars. Galleys formed the centre of the power of Venice and Genoa. Galleys saw battle as late as the Napoleonic war, and were only got rid of when steam allowed vessels to sail without wind. Although crewed by free men in Venice, they later became floating prisons with appauling conditions. Calm seas.
Cog: While merchant vessels in the mediteranean were light and fast, trade in the North sea required strong ships with wide beams and deep drafts. The cog provided that and because of their large cargo space soon replaced their mediteranean equivalents. They also required piers, leading to harbours being built. Rough seas, coastal.
Junk: The chinese merchant vessel was well designed and better than most western ships for centuries The sails were well configured for maneuvrability. Rough seas. Coastal
Dhow: The arab trade vessel. The sils were efficient, but the ship could not be turned without taking down the sail, requiring large crews or a straight course. Calm seas.
Battleship: This term is used for all large ships in the middle ages, but I don't know any other name so I'll use this. The very biggest vessels in medieval navies were called battleships, and were a symbol of a king's power. They usually had 'castles' at the front and back- forecastles and aftercastles. These would be packed with archers or occasionally a cannon. These ships would carry troops to a foreign shore, but would also provide an escort for smaller ships. Rough seas. Coastal.
Age of Discovery vessels. (all assumed to be rough seas and, unless stated otherwise, capable of sailing away from the coast)
Caravel: A trading vessel with improved sails over the longboat. This ship can sail in difficult situations. Caravels were used to explore by Henry the Navigator, Christopher Columbus, Vasco de Gama and Ferdinand Magellan.
Carrack: A development of the caravel with three or four masts. Used square sails like the caravel and usually had a high fore- and aftercastles where artillery was mounted. Carracks were most famously used by the English to defeat the Spanish armada, being faster and more maneuverable. The carrack later developed into the frigate.
Galleon. Developed in 1570 by Sir John Hawkins by removing the forecastle from a carrack to improve handling. The name galleon was given to it by the Spanish, and it was used in the armada. The Galleon developed into the ship of the line.
Fluyte: Developed by the Dutch with a rounder hull to accommadate more cargo. This ship formed the backbone of trading fleets until the indiaman came along. The fluyte halped the dutch to secure the spice trade and become one of the greatest trading powers in world history.
Sloop: A small ship with about 20 guns. Sloops would be good pirateand anti pirate vessels if they are to be included in the game.
Frigate: Ships which had less guns than a ship of the line, but were more maneuvrable. Frigates were used for patrols and exploration, and were the fast ships in any squadron. Also like any other warship the frigate would be used in landings, and British frigates did well when they raided the French coast towards the end of the Napoleonic war.
Ship of the line: Varying from between around 70 guns to around 130 these were the backbone of fleets from their development (gradual but around 1680s if I had to commit myself to a date) to the 1860s. With the guns on three or more decks the ship of the line was usually employed in squadrons, although sometimes they operated on their own. To give an idea of the numbers in service the royal navy could boast over 150 dat the time of Nelson's death (the USN has only 110 submarines today, their most numerous vessel). The ship had several masts and vast sails (don't ask me for the names). Later they were equipped with steam engines and paddles, but retained the sails. It was only with the realisation of the strength of the ironclad that the SOL fell out of favour.
Special abilities: Heated cannon shot: Invented in the 1840s by a Frenchman the heated shot could cause a wooden ship to catch fire rapidly. Increased damage to wooden ships. Steam engine: Increased speed
Indiaman: This merchantman replaced the fluyte and became the dominant trader during the commercial revoltion. The size varied, but the ship serviced the east india companes well. Many a fortune was made when the indiaman someone had invested in arrived in port (hence "when my ship comes in")
I'll do ironclads and onwards later.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:12.
Apolyton Time is 00:12. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-08-2000 01:16
|