korn's Civ3 vs. History Challenge!

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Zachriel


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.

Zachriel - I think you misunderstood what I was getting at. I was in no way trying to sugarcoat the Vietnam War. The government lied to its citizens? You don't say (dripping sarcasm here). As a student of history, I am familiar with the insanity that got us involved in Vietnam, and kept us there until, what, 1974?

The U.S. may have won most of the battles, at least from the standpoint U.S. casualties vs. N. Vietnamese casualties, but still lost the war. What I was getting at was not a simple "but we killed more of them than they killed of us" whine. What I was trying to say was that I didn't feel that Vietnam is a good example for this thread - the primary reason being that it was a war, not a battle....we're talking about battles between advanced/superior in some way units and supposedly inferior ones, with unexpected results (Zulu tribesmen beating English riflemen). If we were talking about an individual battle out in the jungle between U.S. Marines w/tanks against a rag tag group of N.V. soldiers (conscript infantry, from a Civ III standpoint), that might qualify... but even then the technology difference isn't all that great - plus the terrain certainly factors in. It's not quite the same as Impi v. riflemen.

To try and wrap up a long, rambling post, I think we should make a distinction between battles and wars. It isn't all that unusual to find WARS that have been won by the side that was outmanned/outgunned/outeverythinged - often it was much like Vietnam, the "weaker" side generally took a pounding, but perservered. Finding battles where the "weaker" side beat the odds is more of a rarity, actually.

-Arrian

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Arrian


Zachriel - I think you misunderstood what I was getting at. . . .
The U.S. may have won most of the battles, at least from the standpoint U.S. casualties vs. N. Vietnamese casualties, but still lost the war. . . .

Finding battles where the "weaker" side beat the odds is more of a rarity, actually.
-Arrian

You are right, of course. There is no doubt that the U.S. won the battles, but lost the war. War weariness is the proper game representation of this situation, whereby the war took much, much longer than advertised. Part of that advertisement was the U.S. technological and economic superiority, though.

Rare is the correct term. It is rare, both in history and in the game. That's what makes these battles memorable. When you win these rare combats, they are glorious victories. When you lose them, they are shameful loses. When you lose them and your entire strategy was depending on them, blame a faulty randomizer (or fate), never the strategy.

[Arrian]

Zachriel - agreed.

The best way to avoid being undone by a wierd combat result in the game is definitely the use of mobile troops (horsemen/knights/cavalry/tanks/modern armor). These rarely die if they lose. That way, you generally aren't going to lose your entire attack force in a failed siege. I've had odd results that annoy me... but that's it, annoyance. The fact that a regular caravel almost sunk a veteran battleship of mine really ticked me off, but the key word is "almost." I've had tanks get beat up - but not killed - by spearmen... once, and the spearmen were on a mountain. The worst result I think I've had was a Tank killed by a musketman (defending a size 2 city, I think). That sucked, but I've been playing Civ III since it came out in the U.S., hours upon hours upon hours of it, and that's the worst I've seen. You just learn to deal with the occasional enemy "UBER SPEARMAN," as I call them.

I get annoyed when it happens, but strange things happen in war. Maybe not a galley sinking my ironclad, which has happened to me in Civ III, but in reality, ironclads have been known to sink all by themselves (those units should NOT be allowed out of coastal squares).

-Arrian

[Spatzimaus]

Originally posted by Willem

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.

I know, but again that's part of my point. If you're in a civilization capable of producing rifles, but you're still asking your soldiers to go into battle with a pike, they're going to defect en masse.

Also, that's why I gave a couple turns. By switching to 100% money for those couple turns, you can always get enough money to pay for the upgrades. So, if any units end up disbanding themselves, it's your own fault.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Spatzimaus

Also, that's why I gave a couple turns. By switching to 100% money for those couple turns, you can always get enough money to pay for the upgrades. So, if any units end up disbanding themselves, it's your own fault.

That would only work though if you had Sun Tzu. Getting your troops to the nearest Barracks in time would be a MAJOR hassle, and leave your cities undefended in the meantime. So if you were at war, you'd have a "damned if you, damned if you don't" situation, with the result that your empire might suffer irrepairable damage.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Zachriel
The more "primitive" form of warfare is referred to as "skirmish warfare."

The bravery of the individual combatants is the issue with skirmish warfare. Battlefield organization is usually quite weak, and battles are not always resolved by everyone jumping into the middle.

Think David and Goliath.

I don't know where you get these terms from, or the idea that 'pitched' battles were invented by the Greeks. They may have been the first westerners to write the idea down, but they were primitives in the arts of warfare in many ways in comparison to the peoples of Asia, their sole advantage being in having better heavy infantry than their opponents. They most certainly were not the first people to move from ritual warfare to more advanced (read deadly) forms of warfare, this sort of thing follows on the heels of agriculture (with it's increased population density) and increases in ferocity over time and space.

While the Greeks occupy the dawn of western history, they are no where to be found in Egyptian and Mesopotamian history until fairly late, long after some of these patterns have been established in the historical record. They were in fact part of a larger family of peoples who were long familiar with the methods of agriculture, husbandry, warfare and conquest (Indo-Europeans) which made their mark across a huge swath of the civilized world from India to Europe, the Greek inheritence of the Minoan civlization's lands and legacies being only one of many such stories.

By the way, do you realize that the Philistines, and thus Goliath were Greeks?

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Sikander
They may have been the first westerners to write the idea down, but they were primitives in the arts of warfare in many ways in comparison to the peoples of Asia, their sole advantage being in having better heavy infantry than their opponents.

By the way, do you realize that the Philistines, and thus Goliath were Greeks?

The sea-peoples may very well be related to the Greeks, though this is still a controversial subject among scholars. But this was well before the invention of "pitched warfare." Foot infantry is concurrent with agriculture, but pitched warfare came much later.

This philosophy of training is why 1 gladiator may beat 1 legionaire, but 100 legionaires can beat 1000 gladiators. Or why 50,000 of Caesars men could beat 500,000 Celts.

The Egyptian chariots, which predate this innovation, would snipe at their enemies from a distance. When confronted with foot-infantry, they would back off and try again. This is typical of warfare of the period, and is similar to techniques used for corraling and hunting. Even the simple enfilade had not been invented yet, another Greek innovation.

You provided no other specifics.

[Spatzimaus]

Originally posted by Willem
That would only work though if you had Sun Tzu. Getting your troops to the nearest Barracks in time would be a MAJOR hassle, and leave your cities undefended in the meantime. So if you were at war, you'd have a "damned if you, damned if you don't" situation, with the result that your empire might suffer irrepairable damage.

Yes, I'm aware you need Barracks to upgrade. Thing is, if you implemented this sort of rule, the player would know it was coming. It's not like you wouldn't have time to move units around. It'd also force players to make more Barracks; the AI does it, after all, but currently most players can get by with only having them in the core cities.
See, logistical headache aside, it always comes back to the same point: soldiers will not usually go into battle with horribly primitive weapons when they know their leaders are capable of equipping them with far better, and in the few Real World cases where it happened there were mass defections.
The game allows you to make Swordsmen right up until the end of the game, but if the army asked me to fight alongside a tank with a sword I'd refuse; at least if they shot me for deserting I'd get a good chance at medical attention, as opposed to dying on the battlefield. There needs to be a point where certain units become obsolete and disband automatically; it doesn't always have to coincide with development of a more advanced version. For example, the technology that killed the swordsman wasn't the musket (as evidenced by some armies fielding swordsmen whose purpose was to rush the musketeers while they reloaded), it was more the combination of cannons and cavalry.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Spatzimaus


Yes, I'm aware you need Barracks to upgrade. Thing is, if you implemented this sort of rule, the player would know it was coming. It's not like you wouldn't have time to move units around. It'd also force players to make more Barracks; the AI does it, after all, but currently most players can get by with only having them in the core cities.
See, logistical headache aside, it always comes back to the same point: soldiers will not usually go into battle with horribly primitive weapons when they know their leaders are capable of equipping them with far better, and in the few Real World cases where it happened there were mass defections.
The game allows you to make Swordsmen right up until the end of the game, but if the army asked me to fight alongside a tank with a sword I'd refuse; at least if they shot me for deserting I'd get a good chance at medical attention, as opposed to dying on the battlefield. There needs to be a point where certain units become obsolete and disband automatically; it doesn't always have to coincide with development of a more advanced version. For example, the technology that killed the swordsman wasn't the musket (as evidenced by some armies fielding swordsmen whose purpose was to rush the musketeers while they reloaded), it was more the combination of cannons and cavalry.

The problem though is that it's the AI who's not upgrading the units, not the human player. Most people have the sense to upgrade when they can, so it's the human tank against the AI Spearman, not the other way around. With an option like you're suggesting, the AI would be even weaker than it already is. Half of his armed forces might just go up in smoke, and there'd no longer be ANY sort of challenge. Sorry but your idea just wouldn't be practical IMO, I'd much rather have the AI auto-upgrade with no cost.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Zachriel

The sea-peoples may very well be related to the Greeks, though this is still a controversial subject among scholars. But this was well before the invention of "pitched warfare." Foot infantry is concurrent with agriculture, but pitched warfare came much later.

This philosophy of training is why 1 gladiator may beat 1 legionaire, but 100 legionaires can beat 1000 gladiators. Or why 50,000 of Caesars men could beat 500,000 Celts.

The Egyptian chariots, which predate this innovation, would snipe at their enemies from a distance. When confronted with foot-infantry, they would back off and try again. This is typical of warfare of the period, and is similar to techniques used for corraling and hunting. Even the simple enfilade had not been invented yet, another Greek innovation.

You provided no other specifics.

We seem to be talking about two different things, which explains our differences. Your use of the term 'pitched warfare' seems to describe the use of formations and other forms of coordination in battle. In my original post I was talking about the move from more to less ritualized forms of warfare, where the stakes in battle increase from the possibility that some will be killed in a battle (like in battles between groups of hunter gatherers over hunting grounds) to battles where the object is to destroy the enemy force's ability to wage war, most often best done by destroying the enemy force itself. This change begins well before the historical period, and picks up steam throughout the historical period right up to today's weapons of mass destruction etc. The use of professional and or trained soldiers is a part of this trend.

As for training, the Greeks certainly did not invent that. Chariot troops were well trained professionals. Like all cavalry, their doctrine made use of coordination less effective / important than that of infantry, just as their being light (ie missle) troops tended toward the same extreme. That being said, they were still very useful in open terrain before the mixed (and coordinated) use of heavy and light infantry made them obsolete. They were nonetheless replaced with a more effective version of light cavalry (javelin and bow armed horsemen) which survived for thousands of years (light cavalry that is), indeed right up to the present time where shock (ie hand to hand) combat is all but a memory.

Indeed in many instances, especially early on, the Greeks were less professional than the Persians they faced in combat. This was due in large part to geographic and economic realities of their respective spheres. The Persians had a much larger population base, and thus could afford to spare a relatively small portion of it for professional military employment. Much of their territory was unusually open terrain, which increased the value of cavalry and light weapons. Cities in this open terrain were usually well-fortified (the only means of keeping them from being siezed rapidly by an enemy with local superiority). Well-fortified cities lead to very effective siege warfare techniques, which were not equalled elsewhere for many years. The Greeks had relatively poorer land, and less of it, which meant that they had a much smaller population base to draw upon for military forces, and little pasture land to raise horses. Thus they relied primarily on militia infantry, which allowed the dual-use of personnel for military and economic concerns. They were well-trained for militia, but they were no match for the numbers and the professionalism of their Asian neighbors in a straight up fight. Fortunately for them they did not have to fight their enemies in this fashion, they only had to defend their home turf, where several advantages accrued to them. (For a good example of how a very good heavy infantry dominated force can be wiped out by heavy and light cavalry note the example of Crassus vs. the Parthians in Mesopotamia)

Firstly, they could rely on all of their troops being available to them, while their enemies had to deal with logistical concerns, and were only able to send expeditionary forces rather than the whole of their armies. Secondly, their mountainous home terrain was not conducive to the sorts of troops their enemies excelled in, namely cavalry and light troops. Finally, their heavy infantry doctrine was unknown in Asia at the time, which meant that their enemies wasted several opportunities to vanquish the Greeks while they were coming to grips with a weapon system that was alien to them. Both sides learned from one another, but and it was not uncommon for the Greeks first truly professional troops, mercenary companies, to be important components of Asiatic armies.

It was not until relatively late (Alexander) that Greek superiority showed itself resoundingly. In the intervening time the Greeks (and Macedonians) had added quite a few weapons systems and techniques to their arsenal, improving the phalanx and the light infantry, adding both heavy and light cavalry, and vastly improving their logistics, siege tactics and naval forces, and the regular use of a subtracted reserve.

As for the Greeks inventing the enfilade, I find this highly doubtful. Enfilade is basically a light (ie missle) version of a flanking attack, and it's advantages are several. Firstly by attacking from two (or more) angles at once, it tends to deprive the enemy of cover (whether from obstacles or shields) in at least one direction of attack. An enemy in linear formation is doubly damned because the weak end of their line cannot respond as effectively by counterattacking (with a charge for heavy troops, or with counter-missle fire for light troops). Finally, there is an inherent morale loss when facing attacks from multiple directions, as one cannot dodge what one cannot see. Enfilade seems an obvious innovation, and since it is effective against troops arrayed in a mob as well as a linear formation I seriously doubt that it was invented / discovered in the historical era at all. It is important to remember that although coordinated maneuver was a relatively new invention in mass battles for the Greeks, it is not to say that troops were not deployed before battle in ways which would provide opportunities for tactics such as enfilade fire to be used.

Finally, the origins of the Sea Peoples are a matter of some debate it is true, but most opinions I have read indicate that at least some of them were Greek. The Philistines were probably Sea Peoples, and the names that have come down to us through the Bible certainly indicate that they are indeed Greek, whether they meet any particular scholar's definition of being Sea People or not.

[Dev]

No the bomber just had mechanical problems. But it was lost in combat just the same. The boat was just a boat filled with explosives which they acquired from us, but the Cole was destroyed just the same

Ironically you could say that Cole was taken out by a privateer which in game is ridiculously weak

/dev

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Dev
Ironically you could say that Cole was taken out by a privateer which in game is ridiculously weak

/dev

I have used the Civ3 privateer. You would be better off hoping that the Cole had a mechanical breakdown.

By the way, subs have problems sometimes, too. The Kursk was sunk while fighting -- no one. And they didn't even accidentally leave the hatch open.

[Spatzimaus]

Originally posted by Willem
The problem though is that it's the AI who's not upgrading the units, not the human player. Most people have the sense to upgrade when they can, so it's the human tank against the AI Spearman, not the other way around.

There's a big difference. The AI has the Barracks in his cities (I know, because my Bombers and Cannons keep destroying them first), he just isn't spending the money to upgrade. This is completely different than the problem mentioned before, where someone noted that not every city would have a Barracks.
I would assume, first of all, that if the game were changed to allow units to become obsolete, that the AI would choose to upgrade rather than lose the units (right now, there's not much of a drawback to not upgrading; add a drawback, and an AI is much more likely to make the right choice)
It'd also be nice if there were a way to upgrade anywhere without a Barracks/Harbor/Airport but at a higher cost. Maybe a new Small Wonder? On a huge map, I had a Galleon out exploring still while my Battleships and Carriers were in service, and that's just not right.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Sikander
We seem to be talking about two different things, which explains our differences.

That is often the case. The current "buzz" in history circles is the published research of John Keegan in History of Warfare. His basic assertions have made a big splash among researchers and have already been largely accepted by the majority of historians. The way he defines "pitched battle" is pretty standard, but specific.

"Pitched battle" is the concept that a battle will be determined in one single conflict, what Keegan terms a "day of decision."
In the story of David and Goliath, when the two armies meet, they send out their champions. Then maybe they'll do it the next day, or maybe one force will withdraw.

The Greeks of Alexander's time would stand their ground, and not yield. We would say "do or die."

[Zachriel]

Of course, I could be wrong.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Spatzimaus

I would assume, first of all, that if the game were changed to allow units to become obsolete, that the AI would choose to upgrade rather than lose the units (right now, there's not much of a drawback to not upgrading; add a drawback, and an AI is much more likely to make the right choice)

This would probably require a reprogramming of the AI. Then there'd be the problem of whether the AI has enoough money to upgrade. From what I've seen so far, none of them ever do. The simplest solution therefor would be to just let the AI have free upgrades.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Zachriel

That is often the case. The current "buzz" in history circles is the published research of John Keegan in History of Warfare. His basic assertions have made a big splash among researchers and have already been largely accepted by the majority of historians. The way he defines "pitched battle" is pretty standard, but specific.

"Pitched battle" is the concept that a battle will be determined in one single conflict, what Keegan terms a "day of decision."
In the story of David and Goliath, when the two armies meet, they send out their champions. Then maybe they'll do it the next day, or maybe one force will withdraw.

The Greeks of Alexander's time would stand their ground, and not yield. We would say "do or die."

Given this description of a pitched battle, I understand what you mean. It is actually a ritual based upon the Greeks having the same force limitations as one another, (ie militia who had better things to do than siege, or fight a drawn out war of maneuver). While the Greeks tended to regularly fight each other this way, to the extent of more or less agreeing to meet at a given place to decide the matter, this was by no means universally adopted elsewhere. Fortified cities are a testament to this fact.

In most cases absent an agreement to fight a battle, it was almost impossible to force one on an unwilling opponent, because given equivalent mobility it is faster to run away than it is to form for battle and pursue. Throughout most of military history battles have been fought by agreement (often when both forces were suffering from supply difficulties), or by one side forcing the other into a battle by trapping the other force (rare) or by threatening something of a great enough value that the enemy force felt it worth risking a battle.

Let's take Alexander for example. Darius had just put down a major rebellion and didn't want to concentrate all of his forces (and leave his empire without garrisons to keep the lid on) to take on Alexander in Anatolia. His general in Anatolia suggested using a scorched earth policy in Anatolia, but Darius felt that the region would revolt if it was put through such destruction. So he had the local commanders fight with what they had in the hopes that a victory would allow him to remain in political control of the rest of the empire. Alexander outmaneuvered and outfought the troops in Anatolia, and rapidly overran it.

At this point Darius became alarmed and rushed a large army to meet Alexander in battle. He didn't want to leave his empire bare, and he didn't want to let Alexander just walk over some of his richest provinces, so he decided to risk a battle in order to free up his army quickly so that it could return to protecting his own political viability. He got his battle, and he lost it. At this point Alexander does not pursue because he doesn't have a secure line of supply due to the superior Persian fleet. Darius fled to the East to build a new army, while Alexander took every Persian port in the Eastern Mediterranean one after the other, which basically eliminated the Persian fleet and his supply problems. This took the better part of a year IIRC.

While Alexander was conquering the Lebanese coast and Egypt Darius built himself a new army, one which was designed to defeat the tactics he had observed Alexander using. There followed a fairly long war of maneuver, where Darius was looking to offer battle in a position where he could take his best shot at eliminating Alexander. He succeeded in outmaneuvering Alexander, and forcing him to fight in a position of Darius' choosing. If Alexander had not been trapped, he certainly would have refused battle and chosen better ground to meet Darius. He still won the battle btw.

Note that the reasons for the pitched battles in these instances have nothing to do with it being the style of the Greeks. In every case one or both sides desired a battle for a strategic reason. Darius seriously considered devestating the regions around Alexander and forcing him to retreat or starve, but decided that he would rather risk battle. Alexander's bag was battles, which he could win by his genius, and he was keen to take most opporunities to do so, the exception being when his supply situation was too precarious to pursue or when he was offered a battle where the enemy was in a particularly strong position. Both sides knew well the full nature of warfare, that it involves both maneuver and battle, with maneuver being by far the larger share. Both sides maneuvered and fought battles with great skill, which is why this campaign has been studied for two millenia.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Sikander
Given this description of a pitched battle, I understand what you mean. . . . Both sides maneuvered and fought battles with great skill, which is why this campaign has been studied for two millenia.

And your analysis plays right into the topic of the thread. These are issues that every good Civ3 players must deal with. Whether or not to leaves garrisons, whether or not to raze cities, whether the people will stay loyal or bolt to the other side. In this case, Egypt welcomed Alexander as a god and deserving ruler. They flipped.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Sikander
Given this description of a pitched battle, I understand what you mean. . . . Both sides maneuvered and fought battles with great skill, which is why this campaign has been studied for two millenia.

And your analysis leads right back into the topic of the thread. These are issues that every good Civ3 players must deal with. Whether or not to leaves garrisons, whether or not to raze cities, whether the people will stay loyal or bolt to the other side. In this case, Egypt welcomed Alexander as a god and deserving ruler. They flipped.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Zachriel


And your analysis leads right back into the topic of the thread. These are issues that every good Civ3 players must deal with. Whether or not to leaves garrisons, whether or not to raze cities, whether the people will stay loyal or bolt to the other side. In this case, Egypt welcomed Alexander as a god and deserving ruler. They flipped.

Never a good sign when you start repeating yourself. To many late night sessions with Civ 3?

[Arrian]

Keegan. I remember him from college. Good stuff, the ritual vs. pitched warfare you're discussing.

IIRC, the real advantage the Macedonians, and the Romans after them, had was excellent organization (more tactical in Macedonians case, both tactical and strategic in Rome's case). That, and determination. Throw in a phenomenon like Alexander, and you start to understand what happened to the Persian Empire.

One thing that impressed me about Alexander was a battle he fought near the Indus, against a local group that had war elephants (I recall it from the Life of Alexander I read, written by a Roman historian of Greek descent named, oddly enough, Arrian). IIRC, the elephants initially gave Alex some problems, but he learned - quickly - and beat them. Many commanders, upon encountering a weapon or tactic they are unfamiliar with, would lose. The only thing that eventually stopped Alexander was the mutiny of his own men. The man would have kept marching eastward, and probably would have ended up in China...and then started building ships.

The reason European armies tended to thrash native opponents during the colonial era wasn't just technology. A lot of times, the natives acquired guns. The difference was their approach to warfare. Organization & discipline - a professional army.

-Arrian