Combat System 2

[kaigun]

Seeing the first thread was slightly hijacked by Civ{us/csa}fans I decided to add my thoughts in a new thread.COMBAT stinks ....The reason I think is linked to units.The whole history of warfare is simply one of shock and firepower.The units in the game do not reflect this at all.You have bowmen and cannons and many more running around as units They never did!!
Early times was simply Mob warfare the 2 groups ran at each other and generally momentum won out.The early game unit that everyone has reflests this.This was then refined into shock delivered at close quarters by heavy infantry armed with spear and sword.Fire combat was purely secondary OR non existant to harass or disorganize.Combat was undertaken by masses of men in deep columns to generate the greatest physichal mass...leading to the development of the Phlanx....the basic Greek formation this was designed around 8 to 16 {Alexander}foot spear arrayed usually at least 16 deep.In combat the sides rushed at each other..with the intention of dispersing the enemy then killing was easier.Usually both sides survived the initial shock and the front ranks would commence stabbing whoile the rear would pressure literaly.As such most of the unit would or could not know what was going on...hence the importance of morale.Battles such as Leucta where the Spartan Phlanx was 50 deep were won by the sudden catastrophic breaking of morale(with vetran elite etc the game can mirror this).The major drawback of the system was the nearly total lack of mobility.Which led to the Roman manipular Legion the idea was the same shock but organized to give the commander more flexibility.Lacking the mass Legions depended more on speed and disposed of the spear in favor of the short gladius.Firepower in the Legion system was mainly the Legion itself each leginary carried 1 to 3 throwing spears to disrupt attacks.Legions had auxiliary troops but again their role was to harass..As was the calvary designed to scout pillage and attack an alredy demoralized enemy.All major nations developed versions of these systems.So up to 400 AD in game terms we need
1) mob unit
2)Phalanx (600 BC to 100 BC)
3)Legion Manipular+Marian (300 to about 300 AD)
4)Swordsman type (300+)or Man at Arms
Bow men slingers etc no thet were part not seperate.They were used seperatly in Naval combat and large numbers on static defense.Possibly a very slow defense unit but its power should be bombard as it was in reality to disrupt attacks.Again maybe give legions etc a bombard factor to reflect.Calvary of this period should be scout pillage and the ability to attack an already weakened enemy.Same with chariots look at kadesh when the Egyptians tried to storm unbroken spear wall most of the horse refused same problem Ney had 2000 years later at Waterloo.
Cav units should reflect what horses could do in this period.As for seige units again they didnt move around they were constructed in situ as required.siege units may look cute but are not needed.
The next period is the one of horses in the shape of Cataphracts again though armed with bows mainly fire was used to disrupt prior to shock.The cost in training and material meant few could copy this system.Thus along came the Knight supported by spear and bow their was little in the way of tactics Knights fought on a mob/individual basis.Class and belief led to this simply they found the enemy and charged (see Agincourt)
this period was the one of the mongol horde the first group to use massed frepower...but it still couldnt defeat an enemy 40% of Mongol units were traditinal sword and spear..The horse-bow harassesd disrupted then the killing blow.It unclear why mounted warfare lasted so long despite spectacular defeats of mounted units by foot the system persisted.probably it was due to class a knight was expensive noble the idea of arming the masses was not popular..same reason why the samurai persisted for so long in Japan...defeats were overlooked and victories exagerrated.Towards the end of the Middle ages spears made a come back in the forms of Pikes courtesy of the poor Swiss who couldnt afford noblesse oblige...the rest is history as they say mounted warfare quickly diappeared .Firepower was present in this period but its role was no different than in earlier times.What about the longbow well what about it it was expensive took great training ..good on defense useless in attack.
remember despite the spectacular English victories at Crecy and
Agincourt they lost the war{except Calais}..crossbows are more important in that they brought firepower into the picture.
The game has knights can the cataphract from CTP be copied .Again the units should have firepower built into them or a swperate bombard unit with a low low defense.the other unit of this time should be swordsman or a man at arms.
The Era of gunpowder starts really with Spanish Tercio that became the model of all european armie .the Tercio is simply lots of pikes with muskets.With muskets firepower arrived but could not yet dominate a battle it was too slow and had a short range.Tercio was a mix of pikes and muskets muskets did the killing and the pikes prevented cav shock attacks.For most of the 16 and 17 centuries the balance was too pikes.Cav was used for shock but usually against enemy cav supply lines or broken units
Against formed infantry minimal effect.
musket unit should have a high bombard strength and an average attack.Cav low attack.
from 1670 we enter the period of firepower.long lines of infantry line up shoot till one breaks then charge.This is the system for the next 250years with only the rate of fire and the bayonet adding to it.battles were more of mind than body breking the will of a unit to stand fire.Though bayonet charge sounds brave they were rare and usually dint work.it was a question of breaking morale massive firefights.Cannon etc now enter the picture but they are never seperate but part of inf. or cav units.{except on defense at times}.seperate artill units have existed 2 times in WW1 to try to break the trench gridlock and in 1942 Russia were whole corps were formed.But till 1940 linear tactics were used the Maginot line was a logical extension of the infantry line.
The game needs simply Line infantry for this period the equipment and system was constant the effectivness imroved.
But then came the tank shock rentered the picture and here we are today.
i didnt plan to go on for so long simply I think many units should be removed and certain values Bow/cannon changed to intregal bombard.With units removed more unique could be include .For example why Panzer for Germany it wasnt the machine s it was the generals that were better Russian tanks were generally superior German tech played catch up to Russian designs not the other way.More important in the creation of Germ is Prussian Infantry From Frederick on drilled so movement and firepower was su-perior.
Id have 12 Inf units Mob>Phalanx>Legion>swordsman>Pike>Tercio>Line>Infantry>HvyWeaponInf>Mech Inf
Cav 8 units Chariot>horseman>Horde/Cataphrac/Knight>Cavalry>Armored Car>Tank>
Bow Cannon etc ZERO units have bombard
distinct strength differences and levels should take care of strange results.
well I plan to try a mod on these lines I have problems with the Air and sea system as well Perhaps later if anyone is intrested its time for dinner now.

[Solver]

What you are posting is just true, in terms of history, but generally, I don't think that's approporiate for Civ. This has been discussed over and over, and Civ is not a history simulation...

[kaigun]

Build an Empire conquer nations research technologies that give you better weapons, build buildings to keep the people happy and reduce war weariness,get wonders that improve your military,have unique units that improve your farming? NO ..your production? NO improve your standing ? NO improve your army? YES YES YEs and so on get real what do you think its a Sim of ITS a SIM of Development and that is War I dont think it should be true to world history but it should be true to the systems its supposrdly built to reflect

[Solver]

Remember, then war was also an interesting thing for people, many actually wanted to be warriors.

BTW, are you really located in Hiroshima?

[kaigun]

Actually Kure in Hiroshima prefecture
Civ is the history of war people may not like it buts its true
humans breed breeding means more resources are needed and more land ---thus exploration another part of the civ game.Eventually groups compete for the same area and resources in the real world Europe and Mid East result War/Conquest and the need for better ways to kill... spurs science...The military race and the science race have always been entwined...Science may keep us from each others throats for now..but if populations keep rising there only so much land food etc..and large parts of the western world think population control is evil ..well the future will reflect the past..And the game if its called Civ should reflect the reality of social dynamics and how they operate.

[The Andy-Man]

Civ should reflect the reality of social dynamics and how they operate

i would lov this, but i dont think the civ game lasts long enough for that to happen. like, i never research knights, i just rush straight to calvalry, and if i do get knightsi dont build them cos they dont upgrade (or do they?)

many other things like this to, i just dont bother cos i will get smething better sooner or later. this is not fun or realistic

[Skanky Burns]

Knights upgrade to cavalry.
As of the newest patch (1.17f) the unique knight-replacements upgrade to cavalry, and the Russian knights upgrade to the Rider too.