 |
|
PrinceBimz
|
|
I would say the cannons that are on the caravel are not the same as the field cannons. The field cannons are bigger. I imagine when you get caravel researched it automatically comes with whatever cannons were on those historically. It says in the civlopedia discription that they were used mostly as warships but could carry units as well. So if they were used mostly as warships they certainly had some type of cannons on them. In fact I believe they were of the first sailing ships to use cannons back in that time.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MoonWolf
|
|
Some ships used flamethrowers. I think it was mainly used in the Middleeast. It was a kind of bulb or sphere that spewed burning oil out of a "pipe". Also, I think some ships (but that was more galley-like ones...) had some sort of catapults firing balls of fire or archers with fire-arrows
|
|
| |
|
|
|
TacticalGrace
|
 |
Invisible, Silent, Deadly.
Jan 2001
time: 05:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by PrinceBimz
I would say the cannons that are on the caravel are not the same as the field cannons. The field cannons are bigger.
|
Are they? I thought it was the other way round because it's easier to float around with a big gun than to drag it.
quote:
I imagine when you get caravel researched it automatically comes with whatever cannons were on those historically.
|
The trick is getting them to work without gunpowder
quote:
It says in the civlopedia discription that they were used mostly as warships but could carry units as well. So if they were used mostly as warships they certainly had some type of cannons on them. |
The ancient greeks and romans had warships. they certainly didn't have cannons on them.
Gunpowder should appear much earlier on the tech tree allowing bombards. This should allow a Muskateers should not appear at that point though and will have to wait for metallurgy.
I guess that the flavour if of civ is a lot of high level abstraction leading to wierd dependencies like riflemen needing Nationalism rather than something more specific (and logical) like rifled musket or breechloading rifle, and cavalry needing Military Tradition (what kind of technology is that? It isn't even a concept like democracy or monarchy. Even by civ standards this is pushing it)
Last edited by TacticalGrace on 21-01-2003 at 18:47
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CerberusIV
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by TacticalGrace
In fact ancient (and even medieval) warships primarily didn't have much in the way of bombard ability. Naval combat was mainly fought by drawing alonside (or ramming) then sending over infantry. Even by the time cannons were available this still happened. The Mary Rose for example had loads of cannon (which was a major reason that it sunk) but it also had stacks of troops on board and had a "castle" and a "fore-castle". |
AFAIK the defeat of the Spanish Armada by the English in 1588 was the first time warship commanders consciously set out to destroy enemy ships by bombardment and chose not to close in and board. Some of the English captains were not happy about this as they did not think it was 'honourable'.
They didn't have much choice really as the Spanish ships were generally larger and carried more soldiers so trying to board one would have been fairly suicidal.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:25.
Apolyton Time is 00:25. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
20-01-2003 21:46
|
|