Environmental bonuses and weaknesses for troops

[unmerged(7905)]

One idea that struck me now is that troops should have bonuses and weaknesses in different kinds of weathers, climatezones, environments etc, depending on their culture or kind. A central african regiment shouldn't survive long in wintery weather, or fight efficiently. European soldiers should die like flies in tropical zones. And to spin this further, maybe Lappish or other subarctic cultures regiments could have bonuses for fighting in winter, arabs could be more efficient in deserts, rebels in their homeland might be better and so on.

These features could easily be in game and add both historicy and improve gameplay. Perhaps this is already in the game, but I can't recall that i've seen anything about this here yet. Anyways, is this idea worth having in EU3?

 

[HolisticGod]

Pulver,

I don't think so. Climate probably had some impact on morale, but far less than other factors. And it didn't work that way.

The Europeans struggled so much in the tropics due to tropical diseases to which they had no immunity and against which their bodies were simply unsuited. (this is still the case, incidentally) However, those diseases impacted the locals as well as Europeans. Malaria kills five thousand a day, even now. Meanwhile, a Central African's only real problem fighting in a Northern European climate, provided he came materially prepared, would probably be vitamin D defficiency. And even still, Angolans fought at bitter Valley Forge and Europeans conquered not only equatorial Africa but equatorial America as well.

Arabs weren't more efficient fighting in deserts, either. Just their own deserts. Ditto Russians and Scandinavians. A defender always knows the forging grounds, roads, paths, villages, farms, terrain and so forth better than the attacker, and the effect is multiplied by extreme climates, such as the Russian winter. Arabs and Turks still managed to fight in the mountains of Central Europe and Spain, and Scottish crusaders in Palestine. Napoleon still bulldozed the Mamluks in Egypt and the Tartars still burned Moscow to the ground.

Wherever they're born, human beings are still human beings, and their tolerance for weather and terrain fall within the same general range.

 

[unmerged(57561)]

I would disagree that certain countries did not have distinct advantages in certain types of terrain. While humans may be highly adaptable and pretty interchangeable pack animals and cavalry mounts were not. Different countries had different types of breeds that required different food and functioned better in different climates.

 

[LordGazer]

This might be a bit hard to apply. Maybe some kind of initial penalty to attrition that fades away after some time when armies have adapted. It's a good idea, but propably too hard to implement and would require that the game remembers all the different enviroments you have already encountered.

 

[King of Men]

I think this is basically abstracted into the military tradition. Which is a high-level abstraction, I admit, but then it's a grand-strategic level game. This kind of detail doesn't fit.

 

[HolisticGod]

Jackalope,

As I said, it's pretty marginal compared to many, many other factors. Horses are still horses, too. The Mongols, perhaps the most cavalry dependent of any civilization in human history, won decisively and overwhelmingly with their home stock in the Steppes as well as China, in Russia as well as Arabia. Frankish Knights brought their horses to Palestine. Etc., etc.

I just don't think there's a way to realistically capture any generic climate bonus in a game like this. And generally, such bonuses didn't exist in the sense the original poster claimed.

 

[vertinox]

I would disagree that certain countries did not have distinct advantages in certain types of terrain. While humans may be highly adaptable and pretty interchangeable pack animals and cavalry mounts were not. Different countries had different types of breeds that required different food and functioned better in different climates.

He said cultures... Not countries.

I would however agree with him that some cultures would be more suited for certain territories than others.

That said, humans back then didn't have technology or knowledge to be that adapative. A few exceptional explorers did manage to go sailing across the world and survive very hostile environments, but to take a 20,000 man army from Sweeden and have them crawl the jungles of south america would cause a great deal of attrition.

That said... An Aztec army moving around Russia in the dead of winter would suffer heavy attrition as well.

Think of this like the HoI2 bonuses the Finnish and Russians get during the wintertime and the Japanese bonuses in the Jungle.

However, I would agree with you that technology levels should help with this kind of attrition though.

I would say a British regiment of technology levels of 1750's of red coats and muskets would fair better than its 1450 counter part romping around in horses, swords and armor.

On the flip side if you recruit locals from that culture that have those bonuses, those units would be useful in those environment.

 

[unmerged(57561)]

Jackalope,

As I said, it's pretty marginal compared to many, many other factors. Horses are still horses, too. The Mongols, perhaps the most cavalry dependent of any civilization in human history, won decisively and overwhelmingly with their home stock in the Steppes as well as China, in Russia as well as Arabia. Frankish Knights brought their horses to Palestine. Etc., etc.

I just don't think there's a way to realistically capture any generic climate bonus in a game like this. And generally, such bonuses didn't exist in the sense the original poster claimed.

Actually the Mongols never took India because they were faced against cavalry with bigger faster horses and their horses were not adapted to warm weather or the grazing they could find in Northern India. As a result they weren't able to bring significant numbers to bear.

If there really are a couple thousand possible military units then it wouldn't really be that hard to have several of them be specialized adaptation troops for the climate they are built in. You could do a modifier in a couple ways.

1. Specific troop type- that is designated as the specific type of unit the province builds.
2. National Ideals- Gives lower attrition or combat modifiers in specific climates/regions/terrain.
3. Military Minister- same as National ideal

 

[HolisticGod]

Jackalope,

That depends upon your definition of "India." Historically, it was the region in immediate proximity to the Indus river, excluding much of the Gangetic Plain and all of modern peninsular India. Most of what was considered "India" or "Indian" by the ancients, and certainly in the era of the Mongol invasions, is now Pakistan and was, indeed, annexed to the Mongol Empire (Chagati Khanate, I believe).

But even further east, Mongol armies were highly active simultaneous to the first stage of the Russian campaign and, under Genghis Kahn personally, laid waste to much of the north. While Mongol rule was not extended to Delhi (during this period of invasions), at no stage in this campaign did an Indian army defeat a Mongolian. Indeed, the incursion destabilized the subcontinent for centuries.

The reason Genghis Kahn did not occupy India was one of geography, not tactical disadvantage. From the then-centers of Mongol power, the Gangetic Plain is enormously difficult to reach and supply. And putting this aside, Mongolian successor states did eventually destroy north Indian civilization (Timur) and later annexed the Delhi Sultanate (Babur).