korn's Civ3 vs. History Challenge!

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by korn469
Zachriel
do you know which battle Ben Franklin's conversation pertained to?

It was just before the start of the French and Indian War. They were headed to Niagara.
http://www.earlyamerica.com/lives/franklin/chapt1/

The point was that the military "expert" was convinced that he had an insurmountable technological advantage over the "savages." Of course, in the long run, Europeans defeated, indeed decimated, the Native Americans, who were still technologically in the stone age.

[korn469]

Zachriel

ok Franklin was describing General Braddock's defeat, and the most ironic thing about the quote and the account i posted to is this

"These savages may, indeed, be a formidable enemy to your raw American militia, but upon the king's regular and disciplin'd troops, sir, it is impossible they should make any impression."

The officers on their horses were soon picked off by Indian marksmen, and their men went out of control. Braddock arrived and did his best with curses and the flat of his sword to restore order. But his men were broken up into heaving groups, totally without purpose, except for some of the colonials. The few British who tried to take cover, Indian fashion, incurred their leader's wrath.

so it sounds like the one thing he had utter confidence in was his troops disipline, and that was the first thing that went

Of course, in the long run, Europeans defeated, indeed decimated, the Native Americans, who were still technologically in the stone age.

this brings up an interesting point, why did the native americans remain technologically in the stone age? what i'm wondering is why didn't the indians recognize and adapt to the threat quick enough? certainly some of the native americans especially the ones like the Iroquois who first came into contact with the french had a little bit of breathing room and at least a partial agrarian society that would be more adaptable to implementing aspects of European technology than the Sioux for example

what i'm asking here is was it their culture that prevented them from adapting to the threat?

i mean the Japanese who had a feudal system similar to the European one adapted twice first in the mid 16th century when they at least adopted firearms and then with the Meiji Restoration when Japan went from isolationist and backward to industrialized

don't get me wrong here, i'm not saying that any one culture is better than another, what i am saying is this, why was Japan able to maintain its borders from Europeans agression then industrialize while Native Americans weren't able to do this

[Spatzimaus]

I think there are, overall, two failings in the game that we can mostly agree on:

1> In reality, it is far easier to obtain a technology from another civilization, because there will always be some renegade scientist or scholar willing to give you the information for a price. While Civ3 models this in a way, it's far too expensive or unlikely to be practical.
If, for example, you gave every civ (or more specifically, the Palace) a sort of Great Library bonus (gain any tech once 3 or 4 other civs have it) with the Great Library getting a better version (gain any tech once one or two other civs have it), this wouldn't happen as often. No one would be left in the stone age using Spearmen to hold off a Tank invasion.

2> The AI doesn't upgrade enough, preferring to tie up his production making higher units. I've attacked a city that had an Infantry, a Rifleman, a Musketman, a Pikeman, and a Spearman in the SAME CITY.

If we all accept by now that army-on-army victories of these types simply haven't happened in reality, then one of the ways to prevent these sorts of battles is to make sure the AI has upgraded to his latest unit.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by korn469
Zachriel
this brings up an interesting point, why did the native americans remain technologically in the stone age? what i'm wondering is why didn't the indians recognize and adapt to the threat quick enough? certainly some of the native americans especially the ones like the Iroquois who first came into contact with the french had a little bit of breathing room and at least a partial agrarian society that would be more adaptable to implementing aspects of European technology than the Sioux for example

what i'm asking here is was it their culture that prevented them from adapting to the threat?

The Japanese already could smelt iron, even mold iron, plus created very high-grade steel swords. That technology was not in reach of the Native Americans (NA). They didn't even have swords yet. Iron working requires a much higher population density than the NA had achieved.

As a rule, the more isolated a civilization, the slower the technological development. Australia has the same problem, and Africa is separated by desert and the African interior is a plateau not easily accessible by river.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Spatzimaus
I think there are, overall, two failings in the game that we can mostly agree on:

1> In reality, it is far easier to obtain a technology from another civilization, because there will always be some renegade scientist or scholar willing to give you the information for a price. While Civ3 models this in a way, it's far too expensive or unlikely to be practical.

I usually set my science on only 20% and trade for nearly everything I learn. I play Monarch Level and usually keep up handily. When I get religion, I switch to 40% science, with 20% luxuries.

2> The AI doesn't upgrade enough, preferring to tie up his production making higher units. I've attacked a city that had an Infantry, a Rifleman, a Musketman, a Pikeman, and a Spearman in the SAME CITY. If we all accept by now that army-on-army victories of these types simply haven't happened in reality, then one of the ways to prevent these sorts of battles is to make sure the AI has upgraded to his latest unit.

Good idea! Probably should upgrade automatically with the age the civilization is in.

[Trifna]

I'm asking again since I got no response:

This kind of historical data base we are doing here should maybe put in annexes of The List. What do you think about it Korn? We would only put the final result (what I'm intending to do with my post). It's the kind of data that can be useful to Firaxis or anyone looking at the combat system.

Maybe it would also be useful (because of Civ III's combat system) to say who attacked who (done it in "a vs b" but it's not always clear).

If we just compilate data for doing nothing with it, it's useless and we would be better doing something else.

[korn469]

Trifna

that sounds good

and maybe could we not only put who attacked who, then a little description of the battle with some stats how about that?

[Trifna]

Originally posted by korn469
Trifna

that sounds good

and maybe could we not only put who attacked who, then a little description of the battle with some stats how about that?

Okay

What you said is actually what I was trying to do. Stats + useful stuff to notice about each battle. I'll simply continue to add battles you wanna put in. I don't have time presently to loom at which should be in and which shouldn't (exam coming).

Here's a copy of what I've already written if you didn't saw the post:

Upgrade of what I found in Britannica encyclopedia. What is not in what I said but would have been interesting simply are things I didn't found in Britannica (such as weapons used). Infos that have an asterisk (*) next to it are from people on the forum.


-Glorious victories through Superior Technology, Training, Organization, or Industrial Base

Thermopylae
August, 480 BC
Greek (300 Spartans, their helots and 1100 Beotians) vs Persians
Greek lost: all
Persians: considerable losses

Notice: Persians won but it was a good resistance for the Greeks. The troops I named here (Greeks) are what was used to let all the others escape.


Salamis
480 BC
Persians (800 galleys) vs Greeks (370 triremes)
Persians lost: 300 galleys
Greek lost: 40 triremes

Notice: Greek lured Persians in the narrow waters of the strait of Salamis where the massed Persians ships had difficulty maneuvering.



-Ruinous defeats in spite of Superior Technology, Training, Organization, or Industrial Base

Isandhdlwana
January 22nd-23rd, 1879
Zulu (20 000 men) vs British (1700 men)
Zulu lost: 3000 to 4000
British lost: 1580

Notice: Zulu advanced unnoticed
My comment: This is partly because they attacked all at the same time (stack unit someone? )


Battle of Adwa
March 1st, 1896
Italy (14 500 men) vs Ethiopia (100 000 men)
Italian lost (killed, wounded or captured): 70%
Ethiopian lost: not said

Notice: Italian columns were disorganized and Italians lack adequates maps of the area. Part of the Italian losts are due to a retreat in difficult terrain, harrassed by hostile population.
My comment: Seems partly due to terrain and number of men all there at same time (almost 1:7 ratio)


Dien Bein Phu
November 20th* to May 7th, 1954
France (15 709 men*) vs VietMinh (socialists Viets) (40 000 men)
France troops*: tanks, artillery and air support
VietMinh troops*: guns (light to heavy), anti-air, mortars
France lost*: 1800 killed, 5000 wounded
VietMinh*: 8 000 to 12 000 killed, 15 000 to 30 000 wounded


Notice: French (fortified) taken by surprise. Roads were cut so troops and supplies could only come by air. VietMinh were popularly supported (dunno if it changes anything). Heavy artillery broke French lines.
My comment: I guess 40 000 men is alot, espescially if they had the jungle advantage where French and American were seriously not trained to.


Little Bighorn
June 25th, 1876
USA vs Amerindians (cleary overwhelming Americans)
American troops: cavalry
American lost: more than 200 (they only talk of Custer's 7th cavalry who was completely vanquished)

Notice: Part of the cavalry was surprised to see some encampment where they weren't thought to be and it caused some problems to the tactic. Unaware about it, the other part of cavalry arrived alone with the group they were supposed to attack. Lost of strtegic edge that they thought they would have (river). Amerindians were alerted of Custer's attack because of other attacks they already had (Custer is the one that was surprised to see some troops where he didn't thaught). Other than Custer's 7th cavalry, the other retreated (they had attacked before him).
My comment: Here again we see a common factor: more troops at the same place. Also terrain advantage/disadvantage that got a place.


Spartacus
71 BC
Rome (8 legions=54 000 men*) vs Spartacus (ultimately, Spartacus had at least 90 000 men)
Spartacus lost: erm... alot including 6000 crucified

Notice: They lost this battle (and died), but they also beated 2 consuls in 72 BC it is said. But I'd say they were the ones with more troops, and not the romans. 90 000... Not every consul has 50 000 men, no? Notice that not all slaves are combatants.*


Agincourt
October 25th, 1415
French (20 000 to 30 000 men) vs English (5900 men)
French troops: many of the troops were mounted knights in heavy armor
English troops: 900 men-at-arms and 5000 archers
French lost: 1500 knights and 4500 men-at-arms
English lost: less than 450 men

Notice: French unwisely chose a battlefield with a a narrow frontage of only about 1000 yards of open ground between the two woods, making large maneuvers almost impossible.



Similarity: more troops on the winner's side at the same battle at the same time. (stack unit someone? )
Not surprising, since one strategy is trying to catch the opponent's troops by little parts.

That's what I found. You guys should all look at getting this encyclopedia. Encarta is peanut compared to it. It's marvelous


About Napoleon in Russia, I read about this war and I know that troops were frozen (winter). Many died because they hadn't enough supplies or from frost. All this not helping morale to make things worst. I guess going from France to Russia in winter is a great change of temperature...

[Zachriel]

Thermopylae
August, 480 BC
Greek (300 Spartans, their helots and 1100 Beotians) vs Persians
Greek lost: all
Persians: considerable losses

Notice: Persians won but it was a good resistance for the Greeks. The troops I named here (Greeks) are what was used to let all the others escape.

The Spartans were betrayed by Ephialtes, or they may have held out longer. The battle was strategically significant because it gained enough time for Athens to prepare for war.

[Trifna]

I found some information about Operation Desert Storm, USA vs Irak:

2000 M1 (high-tech tank) vs 3700 tanks (was not said exactly which model)

The M1 won. No idea of the lost. This is from television so I guess it may have been oversimplified, but it stil says tht something interesting is in this Desert Storm. Someone knows EXACTLY what a M1 is? I know they are computerized, have night vision, etc., but it's not enough. It could be our first modern-time exemple.

[Boney]

Wasn't the spanish armada bigger in both numbers and ship size and more technlogically advanced than the british fleet at the time?

I am not an expert on this subject so maybe I am wrong

[korn469]

Trifna

here is a little bit about the tanks used in desert storm

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m1.htm

The Iraqi Army had a considerable array of tanks, mostly purchased from the former Soviet Union. Chief among these were about 500 T-72's. These modern Soviet tanks were armed with an excellent 125mm smoothbore weapon and had many of the same advanced features found on the Abrams. Despite it's advanced design, the T-72 proved to be inferior to the M1A1's deployed during the Gulf War, and compared more closely with the older M60A3 tanks used there by the US Marine Corps. In addition, Iraq had a number of earlier Soviet models: perhaps as many as 1,600 T-62 and about 700 T-54, both of which were developed in the 1960's. These tanks were widely regarded as clearly inferior to the Abrams, but were expected to be highly reliable mechanically. The Gulf War provided military tacticians with an opportunity to evaluate developments in tank design that had not been available since World War II.

In his book "Desert Victory - The War for Kuwait", author Norman Friedman writes that "The U.S. Army in Saudi Arabia probably had about 1,900 M1A1 tanks. Its ability to fire reliably when moving at speed over rough ground (because of the stabilized gun mount) gave it a capability that proved valuable in the Gulf. The Abrams tank also has… vision devices that proved effective not only at night, but also in the dust and smoke of Kuwaiti daytime. On average, an Abrams outranged an Iraqi tank by about 1,000 meters." The actual numbers of Abrams M1 and M1A1 tanks deployed to the Gulf War (according to official DOD sources) are as follows: A total of 1,848 M1A1 and M1A1 "Heavy Armor" (or HA) tanks were deployed between the US Army and Marine Corp (who fielded 16 M1A1's and 60 M1A1(HA) tanks).

As the Gulf War shifted pace from Operation Desert Shield to Operation Desert Storm, and the preparatory bombardment lifted, U.S. Abrams tanks spearheaded the attack on Iraqi fortifications and engaged enemy tanks whenever and wherever possible. Just as they had done in the Iran-Iraq War, the Iraqi Army used it's tanks as fixed anti-tank and artillery pieces, digging them into the ground to reduce target signature. However, this also prevented their quick movement and Allied air power smashed nearly 50% of Iraq's tank threat before Allied armor had moved across the border. After that the Abrams tanks quickly destroyed a number of Iraqi tanks that did manage to go mobile.

The Abrams' thermal sights were unhampered by the clouds of thick black smoke over the battlefield that were the result of burning Kuwaiti oil wells. In fact many Gunners relied on their "night" sights in full daylight. Such was not the case with the sights in the Iraqi tanks, which were being hit from units they could not even see. Concerns about the M1A1's range were eliminated by a massive resupply operation that will be studied for years as a model of tactical efficiency.

During the Gulf War only 18 Abrams tanks were taken out of service due to battle damage: nine were permanent losses, and another nine suffered repairable damage, mostly from mines. Not a single Abrams crewman was lost in the conflict. There were few reports of mechanical failure. US armor commanders maintained an unprecedented 90% operational readiness for their Abrams Main Battle Tanks.

here is another link and it says that Iraq lost 4,000 out of 4,230
http://www.desert-storm.com/War/

clearly this is an example of a technological superiority allowing one side to completely destroy the other, there is probably a greater technological gap between the US and Iraqi forces in desert storm than there was in virtually all of the Indians wars in America, where if native american forces had firearms then they were about as advanced as the americans

[Akka]

Originally posted by Boney
Wasn't the spanish armada bigger in both numbers and ship size and more technlogically advanced than the british fleet at the time?

I am not an expert on this subject so maybe I am wrong

The spanish fleet was much larger than english one, but the Englishs had more nimble ships, better crews, and more than all, had guns with longer range.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Boney
Wasn't the spanish armada bigger in both numbers and ship size and more technlogically advanced than the british fleet at the time?

I am not an expert on this subject so maybe I am wrong

With today's historical perspective, we know that the agility of the English fleet was decisive. However at the time everyone, including the English, thought differently. The Spanish had more ships, and each ship had more firepower. In calm waters, the English may have been in trouble. Fortunately for them, it was stormy.

[Zachriel]

The Spanish armada post brings up an interesting point. Our view of technological advantage is quite different than the original combatants.

The British officer in the Ben Franklin story is an example. He didn't believe the Native Americans were a match for his trained troops. They were "savages."

The Spanish believed their fleet was invincible, and you would have been hard-pressed to find anyone in that time who would have disagreed with that.

The Romans didn't believe the German Tribes were a match for Roman Legions. But a ruse brought destruction to those Legions.

Custer didn't believe the Native Americans were a match for his troops, so he didn't prepare adequately for a counterattack. (It's easy to say now that the Indians were a cavalry force, but that was not the opinion of the time, nor accurate even today. Prerequisites of Cavalry include the training and discipline of "pitched warfare," a technology not available to Native Americans.)

The Greeks spent 10 years trying to breach the impregnable walls of Troy. Only a subterfuge got them inside.

[Trifna]

I started naming our sources for if we intend to keep it for something, after. I'll gradually update all this.

And about the USA having an important superiority with tanks, well I guess it's based on the fact that we are talking of ranged weapons. Look at archers. They could eliminat casualties alot if it took 1 minute for the eney to get to them. Well now it takes alot more than one minute, quite enough to be killed many times. What can you really do against an enemy that you're not able to see and is out of range for quite some time whereas you are under his range?

[Trifna]

Upgrade of what I found in Britannica encyclopedia. What is not in what I said but would have been interesting simply are things I didn't found in Britannica (such as weapons used). Infos that have an asterisk (*) next to it are from people on the forum.


-Glorious victories through Superior Technology, Training, Organization, or Industrial Base

Thermopylae
August, 480 BC
Greek (300 Spartans, their helots and 1100 Beotians) vs Persians
Greek lost: all
Persians: considerable losses

Notice: Persians won but it was a good resistance for the Greeks. The troops I named here (Greeks) are what was used to let all the others escape.


Salamis
480 BC
Persians (800 galleys) vs Greeks (370 triremes)
Persians lost: 300 galleys
Greek lost: 40 triremes

Notice: Greek lured Persians in the narrow waters of the strait of Salamis where the massed Persians ships had difficulty maneuvering.


Operation Desert Storm (Iraq)*
1990-1991
USA (1848 tanks + air power) vs Iraq (4230 tanks)
USA troops: Abrams M1, M1A1 and M1A1(HA)
Iraq troops: 50 T-72, 1600 T-62, 700 T-54 (Soviet tanks)
USA lost: 9 permanent lost, 9 had to be repaired, no casualty within crewmen
Iraqi lost: 4000 tanks

Notice: USA losts are mostly due to mines. On average, an Abram outranged an Iraqi tank by about 1000 meters.
My comment: Informations are not complete. Anti-air, others? What's about air power?
Sources:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m1.htm
http://www.desert-storm.com/War/



-Ruinous defeats in spite of Superior Technology, Training, Organization, or Industrial Base

Isandhdlwana
January 22nd-23rd, 1879
Zulu (20 000 men) vs British (1700 men)
Zulu lost: 3000 to 4000
British lost: 1580

Notice: Zulu advanced unnoticed
My comment: This is partly because they attacked all at the same time (stack unit someone? )


Battle of Adwa
March 1st, 1896
Italy (14 500 men) vs Ethiopia (100 000 men)
Italian lost (killed, wounded or captured): 70%
Ethiopian lost: not said

Notice: Italian columns were disorganized and Italians lack adequates maps of the area. Part of the Italian losts are due to a retreat in difficult terrain, harrassed by hostile population.
My comment: Seems partly due to terrain and number of men all there at same time (almost 1:7 ratio)


Dien Bein Phu
November 20th* to May 7th, 1954
France (15 709 men*) vs VietMinh (socialists Viets) (40 000 men)
France troops*: tanks, artillery and air support
VietMinh troops*: guns (light to heavy), anti-air, mortars
France lost*: 1800 killed, 5000 wounded
VietMinh*: 8 000 to 12 000 killed, 15 000 to 30 000 wounded


Notice: French (fortified) taken by surprise. Roads were cut so troops and supplies could only come by air. VietMinh were popularly supported (dunno if it changes anything). Heavy artillery broke French lines.
My comment: I guess 40 000 men is alot, espescially if they had the jungle advantage where French and American were seriously not trained to.


Little Bighorn
June 25th, 1876
USA vs Amerindians (cleary overwhelming Americans)
American troops: cavalry
American lost: more than 200 (they only talk of Custer's 7th cavalry who was completely vanquished)

Notice: Part of the cavalry was surprised to see some encampment where they weren't thought to be and it caused some problems to the tactic. Unaware about it, the other part of cavalry arrived alone with the group they were supposed to attack. Lost of strtegic edge that they thought they would have (river). Amerindians were alerted of Custer's attack because of other attacks they already had (Custer is the one that was surprised to see some troops where he didn't thaught). Other than Custer's 7th cavalry, the other retreated (they had attacked before him).
My comment: Here again we see a common factor: more troops at the same place. Also terrain advantage/disadvantage that got a place.


Spartacus
71 BC
Rome (8 legions=54 000 men*) vs Spartacus (ultimately, Spartacus had at least 90 000 men)
Spartacus lost: erm... alot including the 6000 crucified

Notice: They lost this battle (and died), but they also beated 2 consuls in 72 BC it is said. But I'd say they were the ones with more troops, and not the romans. 90 000... Not every consul has 50 000 men, no? Notice that not all slaves are combatants.*


Agincourt
October 25th, 1415
French (20 000 to 30 000 men) vs English (5900 men)
French troops: many of the troops were mounted knights in heavy armor
English troops: 900 men-at-arms and 5000 archers
French lost: 1500 knights and 4500 men-at-arms
English lost: less than 450 men

Notice: French unwisely chose a battlefield with a a narrow frontage of only about 1000 yards of open ground between the two woods, making large maneuvers almost impossible.



Similarity: more troops on the winner's side at the same battle at the same time. (stack unit someone? )
Not surprising, since one strategy is trying to catch the opponent's troops by little parts.

That's what I found. You guys should all look at getting this encyclopedia. Encarta is peanut compared to it. It's marvelous


About Napoleon in Russia, I read about this war and I know that troops were frozen (winter). Many died because they hadn't enough supplies or from frost. All this not helping morale to make things worst. I guess going from France to Russia in winter is a great change of temperature...

[Trifna]

Maybe Kosovo would be a good example for air bombardment? It's definetely an example of net superiority over the opponent... In this case, we would have to name the infrastructures that were destroyed, roughly. If we take Kosovo, then we have to to enlarge this thread to include combats in general, since it's not an army vs army, since Kosovo had no planes and almost anything against USA. It's more air vs infrastructures. Any idea how we should do to categorize all this? Should we? It needs to be clear and concise to be useful. We could group battles that are interesting when making a Civ combat system.

I aso see that modern battles aren't "group A vs group B" since they are more distanced. This is probably due to the range of modern weapons, communications and to try to get the more cover over the troops. It's not like legions where men were altogether attacking annother similar group. So this makes that modern battles normally aren't at a given date but covers many days/weeks/months.

[Trifna]

Korn and others that are participating:

This thread will fall and we wont bump it 10 times per day, it would be ridiculous. So, are some of you interested to FINISH this? Or do we ask to put this thread topped (I'd say it's not of general interest). But if you guys are serious about finish this database, well I'll follow. Just need to find a way to continue.

So?

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by Boney
Wasn't the spanish armada bigger in both numbers and ship size and more technlogically advanced than the british fleet at the time?

I am not an expert on this subject so maybe I am wrong

From a recent documentary about the subject this is a complete misunderstanding. The Spanish fleet was large but in a few key ways technologically inferior. The English also had the "weather guage" so were able to sail up behind the Spanish, fire their main gun (at the time these were bow and stern mounted) turn to fire their stern gun and retire to reload. Because their guns were designed to be reloaded at sea and the Spanish guns designed for land use (someone literally had do climb along the gun barrel outside the ship to reload it), they could reload far faster. Even so the amount of damage done from days of harrassment as the fleet sailed up the channel was trivial. The Spanish commander did not want to seek a naval battle because his orders were to meet and embark the invasion force. He actually hung one of his subcommanders who sought to break out of formation and engage the English.

Of more consequence were the fire ships sent into port when the Spanish docked in the low countries to await the troops that were supposed to board for the invasion. When that plan collapsed the fleet sailed out of port in good order, all the way up the east coast of England, round Scotland and down through the Irish Sea. It was only then that the "Protestant Wind" drove many Spanish ships, perhaps damaged by weeks of English harrassment, onto the rocks. The English remained terrified because although some 1/3 of the Spanish ships had been lost it proved that if the Spanish wanted to try again and didn't mess up then there was literally nothing that could stop them landing an army on English soil and the Spanish army was far superior to theirs.

Trifna

I thought I'd given enough reasons to discount the battle of Adwa, but I haven't read the whole thread to discover if someone subsequently defended its inclusion.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Trifna
I started naming our sources for if we intend to keep it for something, after. I'll gradually update all this.

And about the USA having an important superiority with tanks, well I guess it's based on the fact that we are talking of ranged weapons. Look at archers. They could eliminat casualties alot if it took 1 minute for the eney to get to them. Well now it takes alot more than one minute, quite enough to be killed many times. What can you really do against an enemy that you're not able to see and is out of range for quite some time whereas you are under his range?

Create confusion, and hope they make a mistake (friendly fire or a falling into a trap).

[knott]

Everyone here forget that the americans forces in Vietnam maybey lost 55 000 and the north vieatnamese troops over a milion but US allies, the souht vietnamese army lost 400 000.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by knott
Everyone here forget that the americans forces in Vietnam maybey lost 55 000 and the north vieatnamese troops over a milion but US allies, the souht vietnamese army lost 400 000.

Good point. The end result, instead of the promised easy win, was a loss.

[Arrian]

Despite Gaikokujin's opinion on the matter, the USA didn't lose the Vietnam War because it was beaten on the battlefield. The voting public would no longer accept significant casualties in a war many perceived to be unjust, or at the least unecessary... and oh so far away. There were battlefield defeats, but overall the U.S. forces were doing a lot more damage than they were taking from the N. Vietnamese army, even if you throw in the losses by the S. Vietamese (who, it seems, weren't really trying very hard anyway). The North won because they were willing to accept their 1 million or so casualties and we weren't willing to accept our 66 thousand. Add in the TV footage of a nasty, dirty little undeclared war, and you get the U.S. retreat. That just doesn't fit with the theme of this thread, which is about supposedly inferior forces winning battles they "shouldn't have won." The N. Vietnamese won a WAR they "shouldn't have won," despite losing most of the battles.

As for the USA being a decaying "empire" ... who knows? All nations rise and fall, it seems, and the bigger they are, the harder they fall. Still, only time will tell. Some historian of the future may write a book about it... or about the amazing continued dominance of American power... wouldn't that just piss you off?

-Arrian

[Spatzimaus]

Originally posted by Zachriel
Probably should upgrade automatically with the age the civilization is in.

I thought of a better way, because Era-dependent requirements are a problem.

There are several "lines" of units. The most common is the Defensive line:
Spearman upgrades to Pikeman upgrades to Musketman upgrades to Rifleman upgrades to Infantry upgrades to Mechanized Infantry

So, that's 6 generations of development.

What I'd like to see is this: when you gain the technology to use the next generation of units, the player is notified that the previous generation is now listed as "Outdated", with any previously "Outdated" units now listed as "Obsolete". At that point, they have a limited time frame (1 or 2 turns) to upgrade any Obsolete units, or else these units will be automatically disbanded.
This would not happen, however, if they were incapable (through lack of resources) from producing the newest generation in ANY city. But, cities can never build an "Obsolete" unit under any circumstances (which removes some of the junk from the build list).
Also, any unit more than one Era old (Swordsmen in the Industrial era, or Cavalry in the Modern) automatically disband. Same situation.

So, for example, I've got Spearmen in my cities. I never bothered making them Pikemen because the upgrade wasn't worth the cost (I wasn't at war). Now I get Gunpowder, and I have a few turns to upgrade my Spearmen before they disband.

People will accept somewhat out-of-date units due to nostalgia, economy, etc., but they won't tolerate units so out of date that they would obviously get slaughtered. What soldier would go into battle with a spear, knowing that his commanders COULD have paid for him to have a musket, or a musket when he could have a machine gun? (Religious fanatics and conscripts with a gun to their heads, maybe) More importantly, by having the AI use this sort of logic, it keeps their defensive strength up. More upgrading, less building new units.

Might be hard to program, though.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Spatzimaus


I thought of a better way, because Era-dependent requirements are a problem.

There are several "lines" of units. The most common is the Defensive line:
Spearman upgrades to Pikeman upgrades to Musketman upgrades to Rifleman upgrades to Infantry upgrades to Mechanized Infantry

So, that's 6 generations of development.

What I'd like to see is this: when you gain the technology to use the next generation of units, the player is notified that the previous generation is now listed as "Outdated", with any previously "Outdated" units now listed as "Obsolete". At that point, they have a limited time frame (1 or 2 turns) to upgrade any Obsolete units, or else these units will be automatically disbanded.
This would not happen, however, if they were incapable (through lack of resources) from producing the newest generation in ANY city. But, cities can never build an "Obsolete" unit under any circumstances (which removes some of the junk from the build list).
Also, any unit more than one Era old (Swordsmen in the Industrial era, or Cavalry in the Modern) automatically disband. Same situation.

So, for example, I've got Spearmen in my cities. I never bothered making them Pikemen because the upgrade wasn't worth the cost (I wasn't at war). Now I get Gunpowder, and I have a few turns to upgrade my Spearmen before they disband.

People will accept somewhat out-of-date units due to nostalgia, economy, etc., but they won't tolerate units so out of date that they would obviously get slaughtered. What soldier would go into battle with a spear, knowing that his commanders COULD have paid for him to have a musket, or a musket when he could have a machine gun? (Religious fanatics and conscripts with a gun to their heads, maybe) More importantly, by having the AI use this sort of logic, it keeps their defensive strength up. More upgrading, less building new units.

Might be hard to program, though.

The problem with this approach is that if you don't happen to have enough money in your treasury, or you were busy at the time, you may suddenly find yourself with no defensive units in half your cities. And you'd suddenly find yourself at war, if you weren't already, since the other Civs would consider you weak and attack.

An approach I'm trying is to make the Spearman and the Rifleman a basic defence unit, with the Spearman upgrading to the Rifleman instead of Pikeman. The Rifleman has no resource requirements so as soon as they're available, the Spearman no longer shows up. The usual line Pikeman>Musketman etc., I use only as an "elite" defensive unit that I use for my frontlines, or vulnerable cities. I haven't seen yet how the AI takes to it, but I'm guessing I'll have a lot less Spearmen running around.

As for the AI upgrading, it seems that's part of the problem. It doesn't seem to bother with it, especially since it seems to be short of cash most of the time. Someone suggested that the AI get free upgrades, which I think would work. Along with a new algorithm that's makes upgrading a priority, right up there with building new cities. It would give the AI a big advantage, but at least it wouldn't have these obsolete units in it's forces.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Arrian
Despite Gaikokujin's opinion on the matter, the USA didn't lose the Vietnam War because it was beaten on the battlefield. As for the USA being a decaying "empire" ... who knows? All nations rise and fall, it seems, and the bigger they are, the harder they fall. Still, only time will tell. Some historian of the future may write a book about it... or about the amazing continued dominance of American power... wouldn't that just piss you off?

-Arrian

The U.S. government lied to its citizens about the nature of the conflict, as documented in the Pentagon Papers.

It is interesting how you brought up the "body count." Both Democratic and Republican administrations would point to the body count and then claim we were winning. They were wrong, of course. You don't necessarily win by killing. You win by destroying the ability or will of the enemy to wage war.

Some people, especially in the 1930's, thought that democracy had run its course and that the liberal democratic societies were rotting from the inside. They wouldn't and couldn't fight. Those people made a serious misjudgment.

[Trifna]

Originally posted by Zachriel


Create confusion, and hope they make a mistake (friendly fire or a falling into a trap).

I wasn't talking of exceptional cases. I was talking in general.

[Trifna]

Originally posted by Grumbold


From a recent documentary about the subject this is a complete misunderstanding. The Spanish fleet was large but in a few key ways technologically inferior. The English also had the "weather guage" so were able to sail up behind the Spanish, fire their main gun (at the time these were bow and stern mounted) turn to fire their stern gun and retire to reload. Because their guns were designed to be reloaded at sea and the Spanish guns designed for land use (someone literally had do climb along the gun barrel outside the ship to reload it), they could reload far faster. Even so the amount of damage done from days of harrassment as the fleet sailed up the channel was trivial. The Spanish commander did not want to seek a naval battle because his orders were to meet and embark the invasion force. He actually hung one of his subcommanders who sought to break out of formation and engage the English.

Of more consequence were the fire ships sent into port when the Spanish docked in the low countries to await the troops that were supposed to board for the invasion. When that plan collapsed the fleet sailed out of port in good order, all the way up the east coast of England, round Scotland and down through the Irish Sea. It was only then that the "Protestant Wind" drove many Spanish ships, perhaps damaged by weeks of English harrassment, onto the rocks. The English remained terrified because although some 1/3 of the Spanish ships had been lost it proved that if the Spanish wanted to try again and didn't mess up then there was literally nothing that could stop them landing an army on English soil and the Spanish army was far superior to theirs.




I thought I'd given enough reasons to discount the battle of Adwa, but I haven't read the whole thread to discover if someone subsequently defended its inclusion.

I have no time to decide which battle is in and which is out (personal life). I just made a compilation of what was on korn's list. The critter, as far as I know, is that the battle should include important enough technological differences to see at which point technology is mking results fluctuate in its advantage.

[Dan Baker]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil


The spanish fleet was much larger than english one, but the Englishs had more nimble ships, better crews, and more than all, had guns with longer range.

Not Entirly correct. The English did actually have more ships. It's been a while since I studied this, but I seam to remember the following:

1)The English numbered about 200 vessels, the spanish 120. The English ship were generally smaller and faster.

2) A good number of the spanish vessells were not originally combat vessells, and were converted merchant ships. This meant they were slower and the ballast was incorrect. Additionally, the rest of the fleet was slowed down by them.

3) You are correct about the range. The English ships had vastly superior range then their Spanish counterparts.

4) The spanish saw their ships as floating forts - and so most of them had a considerable amount of infantary. Their idea was to board other ships (and mount an invasion of England)

5) During a recovery of ships in the channel, it was found that many of the spanish Guns were bored incorrectly or poorly.


Basically, the Spanish fleet was probally techinically inferior to the English. More importantly, their tactics were vastly inferioir. BTW, many of these same things happened when the Japanese engaged the Russian fleet. Mybe the russians should have studied history a bit better.