AU: A MOD for the curiculum

[Dominae]

Knights provided their own equipment, so maybe they should "realistically" not cost so many Shields to produce... In any case, the little Samurai animation isn't riding a horse, because I can hear the pitter-patter of his feet across enemy territory (not to mention that I can't see one between his legs!).

All this to say that don't much care for realism in Civ3; as long as it isn't absurd, I'll suspend my disbelief for anything. That's why I don't think there's any good reason to make the Berzerk less powerful on the attack. This isn't to say that player1's change doesn't make sense, just that it's a matter of preference, nothing more.


Dominae

[Changmai Beagle]

I haven't seen this addressed here since early on (IIRC), but has anyone worked out an optimal increase in research costs? I'd like to get more time out of my units without stalling the game at low techs in the 19th and 20th centuries. I know it was thrown out, but perhaps it would still provide some benefits. (I'm posting this question for Vanilla 1.29f in the main forum as well, but I'm downloading AU now as well.)

[Ozymandias]

[SIZE=1] Samurai for instance would have been slaughtered by any musket regiment, which is why muskets were such an important trade item in Japan (back in the day). Or even their 2 movement points (which we've added to the Musketeer...): it simply wasn't the case that horses were useless in Medieval Japan because Samurai were just so quick. Of course, I'm talking pure realism here (aesthetics, as I put it).

Dominae

Ah, we in the Eurocentric West!

To quote John Keegan's "A History Of Warfare" --

"European drill, when first demonstrated by Takashima, the Japanese military reformer, to some high ranking samurai in 1841, evoked ridicule; the Master of the Ordnance said that the spectacle of 'men raising and manipulating their weapons all at the same time and with the same motion looked as if they were playing some children's game'."

As Keegan goes on to point out, this was the reaction of "hand-to-hand" warriors to a military system they had yet to encounter on the battlefield.

What Civ has more than a little difficulty with (and which I am of course humbly trying to tackle via modding) is the evolution of different military systems.

In Civ terms, Japan, after developing "Musketry", never developed "Regimentation" --

And, if they had never encountered it, possibly never would have, as it arouse in Europe as a result of very specific historical necessities.

Concisely, Civ, by default, binds every military technology development to very specific military formations -- very unrealistic.

-Oz

[Dominae]

Ozymandias (great name, by the way), I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. As far as I know, muskets were an important trade item in Japan at the time of European "invasion". Yes, the Japanese ground troops were not too impressed with the "regimentation" that appeared to be required, but they saw the potential of guns nonetheless. The fact that they were disdainful of European military tactics has nothing to do with how well a force of Samurai would have fared against a regiment of Musketmen (in Civ3 terms). I'm pretty sure Musketmen "defended" a lot more successfully that Samurai did, even if such comparisons have no historical precedent.


Dominae

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by Dominae
As far as I know, muskets were an important trade item in Japan at the time of European "invasion". Yes, the Japanese ground troops were not too impressed with the "regimentation" that appeared to be required, but they saw the potential of guns nonetheless. The fact that they were disdainful of European military tactics has nothing to do with how well a force of Samurai would have fared against a regiment of Musketmen (in Civ3 terms). I'm pretty sure Musketmen "defended" a lot more successfully that Samurai did, even if such things never actually happened historically.

Dominae

Agreed, except for the "European invasion" part, which was strictly a 19th-20th century development. I actually cut myself a bit short as I didn't want to go too-far OT ....

... However, having been so kindly prompted ...

Several points --

I believe that the evolution of military forces mainly comprises four factors --

1. Material constraints (technology and wealth)
2. Communications technology
3. Competition
4. Cultural / political constraints

"Competition" is actually the heart of the matter -- developing better offensive measures to overcome your enemy's defensive measures. Should he survive, he in turn -- generally! -- devises counter-measures to meet that threat, which in turn engender counter-counter-measures, etc. I say "generally" because, as one historian put it, "The French studied the lessons of the First World War and built the Maginot Line. The Germans did the same and devloped the Blitzkrieg."

In bundling all four factors together, the Civ tech tree really just recapitulates Western military development, with a bone thrown here and there to others'.

Never explored are (1) why these military developments happen, to the (and sorry, this is a pet peeve of mine) extreme that "Feudalism" is RIDICULOUSLY required as an "advance", (2) what might have happened instead.

Granted, this second "theoretical" point is difficult to model -- yet ignoring it to the extent Civ does sacrifices much realism, and leads to an end-game of uniformly constructed armies which I think many of us find rather, well, boring.

In the Japanese smaurai / musketman case --

Almost 300 years BEFORE the anecdote I cite, Oda Nobunaga embraced gunpowder, taught musketeers to fire volleys in ranks, and thereby decisively won at Nagashino in 1575 CE.

-- Yet, because the ensuing shoguns faced no other competing military organizations, the shogun Hideyoshi in 1587 was able to end this line of military development by decreeing that all non-samurai surrender their weapons to the government. Again quoting Keegan, "In Japan, where justice was savage and peremptory, it was achieved at once." -- My point again being that military organizations neither arise nor are sustained in a vacuum, i.e., without competition.

Except for UUs, Civ also ignores different military systems clashing and not emulating one another -- armored knight vs. Saracen horse archer; "People's Army" vs. "Hi-Tech" Army, etc.

Along these same lines --

(1) Why would any power evolve the M1 tank if their next most sophisticated opponents had the equivalent of WW1 tanks?

(2) Why did WW2 Germany develop "super-heavy" tanks while America stuck by and large to the Sherman?

(3) Why would anyone devlop regimentation if their cultural style of warfare was individualistic, and they were locally successful, and thereby had no impetus to think up more "advanced" weapons and methods?

Summing up (you've read this far? ), I would suggest that the "realism" in Civ would be tech trees and units interacting to see if different military models can evolve "organically" in reaction to actual military necessity as opposed to a single, simplistic template.

-- Can it be done? Stay tuned ...

Abraxas,

Oz

[Dominae]

Ozymandias, your discussion is very very interesting. I knew I was going to cause a stir with the word "invasion", but I think you know which pre-nineteenth century period I'm referring to.

However, we're talking about two completely different things. Regardless of factors involved in the "creation" of Samurai and Musketmen, a line of the latter would most often decimate the former. Thus my comment about the unrealistic fact that Samurai and Musketmen have the same Defense value in Civ3. In Samurai on Samurai battles (impossible in Civ3, but bear with me), or Musketmen on Musketmen battles, both of which you're implying make more historical sense, Attack and Defense values do not really matter, you agree?

Basically you're talking about the tech tree, and I'm talking about units. I await your efforts on adding some realism into Civ3 (but remember: in a game, realism should never be at the expense of fun).


Dominae

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by Dominae

Basically you're talking about the tech tree, and I'm talking about units. I await your efforts on adding some realism into Civ3 (but remember: in a game, realism should never be at the expense of fun).


Dominae

Very true -- keep a watch out for my "1050CE" mod -- I'm hoping to have the first cut of the tech tree and accompanying notes up in 1-2weeks.

FYI that project "cheats" -- I start in the 2nd half of the 11th century so that (1) much groundwork -- without inevitable outcomes! -- has already been laid for the modern world viz. socio-political and military systems (2) PTW allows us to change turn-lengths so my 1000 years of "history" will have about as many turns as a regular Civ game and (3) as I've come to joke -- just how many times do you want to discovery Pottery anyway?

I expect getting that effort developed to my satisfaction will take some time -- then I anticipate the next will be an attempt at the grand 6000 year sweep of things ...

As for realism vis-a-vis fun, I'm with you 100% -- I just think that Civ can be a lot more realistic while being a lot more fun due to the endgame being so much less predictable.

All the Best,

Oz

[Changmai Beagle]

I know I should know this, but how do I install this mod? Do I just replace the Civ3Mod.bic with the 1.06.bic?

[ducki]

Changmai - I usually just do Load Scenario, IIRC.

[Changmai Beagle]

I think I just figured it out. I put the bic file in the wrong place. I'll try it out when I get home tonight.

[Sockittio]

I cant get this file to load.
When it's unzipped its a .bix file not a .bic file.
I tried renaming the file from au1.16.bix to au1.16.bic but then i just get a corrupted file message?
i also tried this with au1.17.bix with same result.
why am i getting bix instead of bic and why wont my civIII 1.29f recognise these files?

[alexman]

au1.16 and 1.17 are PTW files with a bix extensions, so of course you can't load them from vanilla Civ3. Where did you get them though? There is another thread for the PTW version.

This thread deals with the vanilla civ3 version of the mod, which is version 1.06 and has a bic extension. I just tried and I get the correct file from the first post.