An idea to make Units and Armies more unique.

[mavregade]

If you re-read my earlier post (and perhaps earlier posts on other threads) then maybe you'll realise what I was saying.

But, Roman hastati, principes and triarii, liby-phoenician spearmen, phalangites and hoplites are all heavy infantry. However many of these take no more iron to equip than Iberian scutarii or thureophoroi and they are not.

It's about fighting methods, formation, drill. Like I wrote most armour wasn't iron.

Instead abstraction based on the military systems and populations. With potential for reform of those systems.

I’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest that better access to trade and resources - and the higher smithing and production expertise that accompanied this access - led to the difference in emphasis. So higher iron resource access implies higher levels of resource development (smithies, innovative smithies) etc.

 

[Tisifoni12]

@mavregade
You propose basing access to heavy infantry on better quality craftsmanship?

I invite you to do some research on armies of the period.

Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars: Duncan Head
Greece and Rome at War: Peter Connolly
The Seleucid Army: Bar Kochva

Horses will, from what I've seen, be a resource; access to a province with horses = unlimited cavalry, no access = no cavalry.

Actually availability of cavalry would be based on a) the number of 'nobles' with the Land and wealth to equip themselves with a horse and b) contro l of / access to territory with a 'military tradition' or 'military cultural practice' of light cavalry.

 

[KittyYuln]

I thoroughly enjoy this idea, especially units tied to their pops of origin. This unit of heavy cavalry is from Thessalia and is stronger because of that, while my Roman cavalry is weaker, that's cool. It really gives you the sense that you're building a multi-ethnic army, like they would be historically.

 

[mavregade]

@mavregade
You propose basing access to heavy infantry on better quality craftsmanship?

I invite you to do some research on armies of the period.

Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars: Duncan Head
Greece and Rome at War: Peter Connolly
The Seleucid Army: Bar Kochva

Horses will, from what I've seen, be a resource; access to a province with horses = unlimited cavalry, no access = no cavalry.

Actually availability of cavalry would be based on a) the number of 'nobles' with the Land and wealth to equip themselves with a horse and b) contro l of / access to territory with a 'military tradition' or 'military cultural practice' of light cavalry.

Yes I do propose that, which is why Hannibal equipped his elite Africans with Roman gwar after Cannae because it was better.

 

[Efimer]

So what's the issue with abstracting it into iron?

iron =/= heavy infantry

 

[mavregade]

iron =/= heavy infantry

I’m aware of this. But you have to represent it someway that is an abstraction.

Do you have a better alternative?

Iron doesn’t just represent the resource, it represents skill with the resource - metallurgy, capacity to mass produce with it, etc.

 

[mavregade]

iron =/= heavy infantry

Unless you think the people of the relatively resource-less Balearic Islands became known for slingers instead of hoplites because they thought it was boring to produce heavy infantry.

 

[Tisifoni12]

Yes I do propose that, which is why Hannibal equipped his elite Africans with Roman gwar after Cannae because it was better.

In what way was it 'better' is a question worth asking ?

Hannibal's Elite Africans by the time they got to Italy were only around 8,000 men. By Cannae that number must have been reduced to some extent. His veterans however might by then have included some worthy individuals from among certainly the Iberians, perhaps even some of the Gauls. If he was re-equipping that relatively small core force with the best armour, shields and weapons stripped from the Romans, from the Triarii and the wealthier among the principes and hastate then that isn't necessarily all about 'the quality of the smithing' of nation C as opposed to nation R, but the quality of the best kit from nation R, combined perhaps with the best remnants of kit that had been in use all the way from Spain.

I would point out that I see no provision in this game for 're-equipping units'. Hannibal's African spearmen are not dissimilarly equipped to Greek Hoplites originally (shorter spears), or indeed Roman Hastati or Triarii. Were Hannibal's African Spearmen to start out as not heavy infantry, he might under this system have to scrap those units and build new heavy infantry units, and only if he has access to 'fresh' sources of iron. As I've pointed out, Iron is recyclable, so is Bronze . . .

As for the technology of ring-mail, well that was a Celtic innovation, which the Romans adopted, but their military-political system allowed them to 'roll it out' eventually to all the legionary infantry and the heavy cavalry, something the Gauls could not do.

 

[Denkt]

Unless you think the people of the relatively resource-less Balearic Islands became known for slingers instead of hoplites because they thought it was boring to produce heavy infantry.

Maybe a skilled slinger is more valuable than a Heavy infantryman given the time it may take to develop the skills a slinger need. Also the Equipment is much cheaper so it is more attainable by poor people.

 

[mavregade]

In what way was it 'better' is a question worth asking ?

Hannibal's Elite Africans by the time they got to Italy were only around 8,000 men. By Cannae that number must have been reduced to some extent. His veterans however might by then have included some worthy individuals from among certainly the Iberians, perhaps even some of the Gauls. If he was re-equipping that relatively small core force with the best armour, shields and weapons stripped from the Romans, from the Triarii and the wealthier among the principes and hastate then that isn't necessarily all about 'the quality of the smithing' of nation C as opposed to nation R, but the quality of the best kit from nation R, combined perhaps with the best remnants of kit that had been in use all the way from Spain.

I would point out that I see no provision in this game for 're-equipping units'. Hannibal's African spearmen are not dissimilarly equipped to Greek Hoplites originally (shorter spears), or indeed Roman Hastati or Triarii. Were Hannibal's African Spearmen to start out as not heavy infantry, he might under this system have to scrap those units and build new heavy infantry units, and only if he has access to 'fresh' sources of iron. As I've pointed out, Iron is recyclable, so is Bronze . . .

As for the technology of ring-mail, well that was a Celtic innovation, which the Romans adopted, but their military-political system allowed them to 'roll it out' eventually to all the legionary infantry and the heavy cavalry, something the Gauls could not do.

I’m not disputing any of that. I’m disputing whether you understand how video games work in portraying these systems.

 

[mavregade]

Maybe a skilled slinger is more valuable than a Heavy infantryman given the time it may take to develop the skills a slinger need. Also the Equipment is much cheaper so it is more attainable by poor people.

That’s exactly my point. Thanks for making it for me. It’s not just the availability of a resource it’s whether you can appropriately exploit it. The baleareans could have bought iron but wouldn’t have been able to employ to as effective a use as other nations.

 

[Tisifoni12]

• Base the range of troops on battlefield role and training rather than on access to resources.
• Have limits on proportions of troops that can be raised so that armies reflect the composition of armies of the period. With some provision for reforms or for charismatic / intelligent leaders to experiment.
• Access to specialist troops for some specialist roles (usually light skirmishers, but also for example the Galatians serving the Ptolemies

Clearly PDX want or need to keep it simple, so there's not going to be a lot of classes; phalangites, spearmen, legionaries, Scutarii/peltasts, sling/bow/javelin armed skirmishers, irregular warband, and whatever.

But you could have regular trained formed armoured troops as one class (hastati, principes, triarii, African spearmen, phalangites, hoplites)
Regular troops that fight in a looser formation or irregular warriors (Scutarii, Gauls, Thracian peltasts)
Light skirmishers (Cretan archers, Numidian infantry, Velites, Iberian Caetrati, Balearic slingers)

 

[Denkt]

• Base the range of troops on battlefield role and training rather than on access to resources.
• Have limits on proportions of troops that can be raised so that armies reflect the composition of armies of the period. With some provision for reforms or for charismatic / intelligent leaders to experiment.
• Access to specialist troops for some specialist roles (usually light skirmishers, but also for example the Galatians serving the Ptolemies

Clearly PDX want or need to keep it simple, so there's not going to be a lot of classes; phalangites, spearmen, legionaries, Scutarii/peltasts, sling/bow/javelin armed skirmishers, irregular warband, and whatever.

But you could have regular trained formed armoured troops as one class (hastati, principes, triarii, African spearmen, phalangites, hoplites)
Regular troops that fight in a looser formation or irregular warriors (Scutarii, Gauls, Thracian peltasts)
Light skirmishers (Cretan archers, Numidian infantry, Velites, Iberian Caetrati, Balearic slingers)

Would not be pratical for what the game wants to be. Just too detalied.

 

[Tisifoni12]

I’m not disputing any of that. I’m disputing whether you understand how video games work in portraying these systems.

Well I was so appalled by EU:Rome that it drove me back to tabletop wargaming with 15mm figures . . .
I can see the limitations of computer games, but I can also see that a different approach could give a game with much more period flavour while still giving players an opportunity to do history differently. Without dismissing African infantry as second rate because they don't have iron mail, or making players field Roman armies with no cavalry at all because they don't have access to a province that trades horses. The Romans had few cavalry, but the equites class were called equites because they served as the cavalry with the horses they provided. Also at Trebbia had some Gallic allies. We don't know how many or how equipped, but I suspect they'd have valued some additional cavalry more than some gallic warband.

 

[Tisifoni12]

Would not be pratical for what the game wants to be. Just too detalied.

It could be less detailed.

The 1,000 strong 'cohort' system lifted from EU and the resource based system will not facilitate players producing armies resembling those of this period. PDX's loyal players deserve better.