Caravels can cannon

TacticalGrace · January 20, 2003, 12:46

When my caravel gets into a battle I swear that thing is firing off cannon. But I can't build cannnons yet so where do those caravels get them from?

dojoboy · January 20, 2003, 13:16

Well, its technically a range-firing feature - just imagine it being done w/ out gunpowder --- maybe archers.

TacticalGrace · January 20, 2003, 13:18

Quote:

Originally posted by dojoboy
Well, its technically a range-firing feature - just imagine it being done w/ out gunpowder --- maybe archers.

nah... you'd never get them down the barrel of the cannon.

PrinceBimz · January 20, 2003, 13:55

I would say the cannons that are on the caravel are not the same as the field cannons. The field cannons are bigger. I imagine when you get caravel researched it automatically comes with whatever cannons were on those historically. It says in the civlopedia discription that they were used mostly as warships but could carry units as well. So if they were used mostly as warships they certainly had some type of cannons on them. In fact I believe they were of the first sailing ships to use cannons back in that time.

FNBrown · January 20, 2003, 14:02

What's inconsistent about this is that it is entirely possible to have Caravels without having researched gunpowder. I'd say it's something of a plot hole... Perhaps the tech tree should be modified so that chemistry is a prerequisite for astronomy...

player1 · January 20, 2003, 17:34

Still better then Civ2, in which you could get Frigates before Gunpowder (to eailsy take out enemy Pikes).

SanPellegrino · January 20, 2003, 19:46

In civ1 you could get Railroad w/o the wheel

MoonWolf · January 21, 2003, 07:51

Some ships used flamethrowers. I think it was mainly used in the Middleeast. It was a kind of bulb or sphere that spewed burning oil out of a "pipe". Also, I think some ships (but that was more galley-like ones...) had some sort of catapults firing balls of fire or archers with fire-arrows

TacticalGrace · January 21, 2003, 08:06

Quote:

Originally posted by PrinceBimz
I would say the cannons that are on the caravel are not the same as the field cannons. The field cannons are bigger.

Are they? I thought it was the other way round because it's easier to float around with a big gun than to drag it.

Quote:

I imagine when you get caravel researched it automatically comes with whatever cannons were on those historically.

The trick is getting them to work without gunpowder

Quote:

It says in the civlopedia discription that they were used mostly as warships but could carry units as well. So if they were used mostly as warships they certainly had some type of cannons on them.

The ancient greeks and romans had warships. they certainly didn't have cannons on them.

Gunpowder should appear much earlier on the tech tree allowing bombards. This should allow a Muskateers should not appear at that point though and will have to wait for metallurgy.

I guess that the flavour if of civ is a lot of high level abstraction leading to wierd dependencies like riflemen needing Nationalism rather than something more specific (and logical) like rifled musket or breechloading rifle, and cavalry needing Military Tradition (what kind of technology is that? It isn't even a concept like democracy or monarchy. Even by civ standards this is pushing it)

bongo · January 21, 2003, 09:32

Ancient warship didn't have cannons but they had other forms of artillery. Different kinds of catapults and large crossbows. They fired both arrows and 'greek fire'(ancient napalm)

Master Zen · January 21, 2003, 15:08

I always thought they were shooting arrows. It even sounds like arrows.

TacticalGrace · January 22, 2003, 06:27

Quote:

Originally posted by raguil_79
I always thought they were shooting arrows. It even sounds like arrows.

You're thinking of the galley.

Dis · January 22, 2003, 07:08

Too many tech holes. I do hate complication, but perhaps smac was a better way of doing the tech tree. they could have done something similar.

TacticalGrace · January 22, 2003, 12:25

Quote:

Originally posted by bongo
Ancient warship didn't have cannons but they had other forms of artillery. Different kinds of catapults and large crossbows. They fired both arrows and 'greek fire'(ancient napalm)

In fact ancient (and even medieval) warships primarily didn't have much in the way of bombard ability. Naval combat was mainly fought by drawing alonside (or ramming) then sending over infantry. Even by the time cannons were available this still happened. The Mary Rose for example had loads of cannon (which was a major reason that it sunk) but it also had stacks of troops on board and had a "castle" and a "fore-castle".

Kingof the Apes · January 22, 2003, 21:06

TacticalGrace: wasn't boarding ships a Roman innovation? I thought that before the Punic wars ship combat consisted of shooting arrows and ramming each other.

TacticalGrace · January 23, 2003, 06:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Kingof the Apes
TacticalGrace: wasn't boarding ships a Roman innovation? I thought that before the Punic wars ship combat consisted of shooting arrows and ramming each other.

Yes, I'm glad you asked that question. The Romans were great at infantry tactics. On the land they were undefeatable. But they didn't have expertise in naval combat and instead just rammed them and then soldiers rushed on board and then they could use the land tactics that they knew and loved.

as for shooting arrows, romans were never really renounded for their archery. However, Roman triremes are sometimes depicted as having towers from which archers could fire at enemy ships.

CerberusIV · January 23, 2003, 07:20

Quote:

Originally posted by TacticalGrace

In fact ancient (and even medieval) warships primarily didn't have much in the way of bombard ability. Naval combat was mainly fought by drawing alonside (or ramming) then sending over infantry. Even by the time cannons were available this still happened. The Mary Rose for example had loads of cannon (which was a major reason that it sunk) but it also had stacks of troops on board and had a "castle" and a "fore-castle".

AFAIK the defeat of the Spanish Armada by the English in 1588 was the first time warship commanders consciously set out to destroy enemy ships by bombardment and chose not to close in and board. Some of the English captains were not happy about this as they did not think it was 'honourable'.

They didn't have much choice really as the Spanish ships were generally larger and carried more soldiers so trying to board one would have been fairly suicidal.

redhat · January 25, 2003, 09:18

IMHO, I would recommend that one play with the .flc and the sound files to customize the caravel to what you think it should be!