Better Babylonian bowmen Date? Source?

[lord of the mark]

Will someone please tell me exactly what period Firaxis is referring to for superior babylonian bowmen? and if there are any sources to this effect?

TIA

Lord of the Mark

[DarkCloud]

Wait. So this means the special units come at a certain date and NOT when a certain advance is discovered?

[Warm Beer]

It looked like the Babylonian bowman will take the place of the regular bowman, at least as far as the Babylonians go.
I suppose that means when the advance that allows bowmen is discovered, the Babylonian bowmen will make thier debut... Probably "Ancient Times"..

[tniem]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
Wait. So this means the special units come at a certain date and NOT when a certain advance is discovered?

No, it is just that LOTM does not believe that the Babylonians had superior bowmen. He thinks that Firaxis is making it all up.

I must admit I really had never heard of their great bowmen, but I would have to believe that Firaxis would have done their homework.

[Buck Birdseed]

http://www.student.utwente.nl/campus...nt_composites/

According to this article the Composite Bow was originally an Assyrian invention at the latest from about 1200 B.C. or so, which would be consistent with their Babylonian nature- the Assyrians held Babylon during the time period in question.

[Warm Beer]

Originally posted by tniem


No, it is just that LOTM does not believe that the Babylonians had superior bowmen. He thinks that Firaxis is making it all up.

Geez I feel like a dope... my excuse is i haven't had enought coffee this morning...

and tnx for the info Snapecase... learning something everyday on this site.

[tniem]

Decided to do some research here is what I found:

From http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Cave.../govrmil.html:

Babylon made extensive use of cavalry, especially mounted bowmen.

From http://www.curtin.edu.au/curtin/dept...andal.html#ass

Assyrian bowmen had leather boots with tongues protecting the top and came to the lower part of the calf.and were fastened with thongs in front

From Jerimiah 4:29:

flee for the noise of the horsemen and bowmen

From http://www.timsvault.com/mac_cheats/aoe.txt

Little is known of the Babylonian military from either the Old or New Empires, although Hammurabi's army of the Old Empire may have made important use of chariots when these were first coming into use.

The New Empire armies probably copied much from the Assyrians. This would suggest that Babylonians made extensive use of cavaly, especially mounted bowmen.

It appears like historians are till unsure of what the Babylonians possessed that made them so great. However, I did find tons of pictures from the Assyrians that showed off their archers. One of which from http://www.worldhistory1a.homestead.com/PERSIA.html is below.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Snapcase
http://www.student.utwente.nl/campus...nt_composites/

According to this article the Composite Bow was originally an Assyrian invention at the latest from about 1200 B.C. or so, which would be consistent with their Babylonian nature- the Assyrians held Babylon during the time period in question.

Its not clear from the article that the Assyrian invention of the composite bow is widely accepted - the article seems to be arguing against the position that the 1200 bc bow found in egypt is actually egyptian. the author of the article may be right - that is not for me to judge. In any case this argues for babylonian superiority in bowmen in 1200 BC, towards the end of the bronze age. Does this seem consistent with the appearance of bowmen?

LOTM

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by tniem
Decided to do some research here is what I found:




From http://www.timsvault.com/mac_cheats/aoe.txt




It appears like historians are till unsure of what the Babylonians possessed that made them so great. However, I did find tons of pictures from the Assyrians that showed off their archers. One of which from http://www.worldhistory1a.homestead.com/PERSIA.html is below.

Age of Empires, whatever one thinks of the game, DOES have a very nice set of historical discussions in its manual. their discussion of the evolution of the sword is terrific. I am still a little, how shall we say, taken aback that AOE is being used as a historical SOURCE. I take it you're not one of those who says "its only a game"

And thanks of course for the other sources.

LOTM

[tniem]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

Age of Empires, whatever one thinks of the game, DOES have a very nice set of historical discussions in its manual. their discussion of the evolution of the sword is terrific. I am still a little, how shall we say, taken aback that AOE is being used as a historical SOURCE. I take it you're not one of those who says "its only a game"

It actually was the best information/read that I could find. I would hope that the people who did AOE have done their work just like the Firaxis team has. I of course would never have used that source if this discussion was in any way important enough to factor into the game. After all Firaxis has already decided, I just wanted to give everyone here some prespective.

And thanks of course for the other sources.

Of course. It actually was a lot of fun. I did not know that much about the subject myself before looking into it.

[Grumbold]

I'm mostly waiting to find out what is so good about a 2-1-2 unit. Sounds like a horseman to me. Unless horses have disappeared from Civ3 or the stats were a misprint it seems a wasted special. Perhaps they can keep up with the cavalry, but at this early stage of the game that means they are going to be only used if you get a leader very quickly, can build an army stack and archery has added effects above and beyond its basic attack and defence stats.

[Buck Birdseed]

Perhaps achers/Bowmen/etc. have some sort of special property eg. bombardment or a special position within an Army.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by tniem


It actually was the best information/read that I could find. I would hope that the people who did AOE have done their work just like the Firaxis team has. I of course would never have used that source if this discussion was in any way important enough to factor into the game. After all Firaxis has already decided, I just wanted to give everyone here some prespective.

I guess my point is that people look at a historical game and assume that what is there is well-researched and they take this with them as truth (like people do with movies, etc) Im not afraid a profesional publisher of books, games, etc will use a game as a source - im saying that ordinary folk "learn" from games, and that inaccuracies MATTER.

LOTM

[tniem]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
I guess my point is that people look at a historical game and assume that what is there is well-researched and they take this with them as truth (like people do with movies, etc) Im not afraid a profesional publisher of books, games, etc will use a game as a source - im saying that ordinary folk "learn" from games, and that inaccuracies MATTER.

But what I am trying to say is that if two games have both made the Babylonians have an increased strength archer than their probably is some truth in it. Sure there might be some inaccuracies, but they both wouldn't just make up a new unit for a civ now, would they?

And judging from the pics I have seen from clay tablets and what not, archers on chariots and stuff were very important to the Assyrian and Babylonian armies. So it makes sense that the Babylonians special unit would be an improved archer that has one extra movement point because he is riding on a chariot.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Snapcase
Perhaps achers/Bowmen/etc. have some sort of special property eg. bombardment or a special position within an Army.

I should hope that it's not bombardment.

It's hard to say with out knowing how the combat system works, but I think a first strike, or something similiar would be likely.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by tniem


But what I am trying to say is that if two games have both made the Babylonians have an increased strength archer than their probably is some truth in it. Sure there might be some inaccuracies, but they both wouldn't just make up a new unit for a civ now, would they?

Well.... that happens with alot of fictional material, you'll find alot of consistancies between different SCI-FI books/TV shows/movies Another thing that comes to mind are aliens, specificly 'the greys', which are featured in just about everything relating to aliens that has ever existed. (though, that is an unkown subject, so probably not a great example.)

Not to say that is always the case, though.

[korn469]

Originally posted by Grumbold
I'm mostly waiting to find out what is so good about a 2-1-2 unit. Sounds like a horseman to me. Unless horses have disappeared from Civ3 or the stats were a misprint it seems a wasted special. Perhaps they can keep up with the cavalry, but at this early stage of the game that means they are going to be only used if you get a leader very quickly, can build an army stack and archery has added effects above and beyond its basic attack and defence stats.

Originally posted by Snapcase
Perhaps achers/Bowmen/etc. have some sort of special property eg. bombardment or a special position within an Army.

ok here is my take on what makes a bowman so special...first firaxis has said that most units require a special resource before you can build them, however the first group of units in civ3, the spearman, chariot, and archer may be exempt from this...however if they are not, then archers may require iron while chariots require horses...since horsemen have been moved up in the tech tree they are most likely 4-1-2, and chariots are most likely 2-1-2...since archers are 2-1-1 i would assume that they are cheaper

we will probably find out the stats on a chariot soon, but if i had to make a prediction here is what i'd go for the ancient age

spearman 1-2-1 (20) {impi 1-2-2} {hoplite 2-2-1}
chariot 2-1-2 (20 horses) {egyptian 3-1-2}
archer 2-1-1 (20) {bowman 2-1-2}
swordman 3-2-1 (30 iron) {legion 4-2-1}
catapult 6-1-1 (40 ?) [bombards]
trireme 1-1-3 (40 ?) [transport 2 ground units]
horsemen 4-1-2 (30 horses)

also firaxis made no mention of hit points or firepower, are they still in?

also if the most recent tech tree is right, then only chariots (possibly), horsemen, and knights will uses horses as a special resource...making it probably a very poor special resource, because it would become completely outdated by the end of the industrial age (motorized transport), and there are no gunpowder horse units...knights are the last thing...i hope we haven't seen it all...

also another point to bring up is armies...how exactly will they work? could a large enough army of warriors defend against a tank? if you had a legion and it attacked four warriors in an army who would win? so maybe having enough units stacked together would make even obsolete units unstoppable...from what i've read it seems that 3 chariots and 3 phalanxes from civ2 (150 shields) would be more cost efficient than 5 archers (150 shields)

[tniem]

Well, chariot stats have now been revealed at 1-1-2. That means the entire stats of the game are being overhauled.

I am not entirely clear on what this means, other than a chariot is next to useless. Their will be no warmongering early on. So apparently a 2-1-2 archer is going to be better to have than a chariot. Hmmm....

Well, maybe a 2 attack will almost always win against a 1 defense fortified but as soon as you put Spearman in the game at a 2 (?) defense than attacking seems to be over for a while.

I think Firaxis is going to force you to build your civ for a while, which is probably a good idea.

[KrazyHorse]

The 2-1-2 archer is the Bab special unit. Regular archer is 2-1-1. You trade off attack strength for mobility with chariot vs. archer.

[Grumbold]

Interestingly though the stats totally bugger up the supposed reason why Babylonians would have needed better archers seeing as ordinary archers are already better units than chariots which aren't worth attacking with