Jump to content


Community Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

13 Good

About Diptangshu

  • Rank

Previous Fields

  • First Name
  • Last Name

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Chinsurah, West Bengal, India
  • Interests
    Especially in real-time strategy games and Archery tradition and various siege weapons.

Recent Profile Visitors

530 profile views
  1. Yeah, what to do being a Ubuntu user? I can't find a way to upgrade 0ad!
  2. But, atleast include Han, if Kushites can make then I think it will not be a problem for Han to be included. If, anyone think minutely, there isn't a single civ for Sino-Tibetan people. They have a rich culture and rich history (and it's also profusely mentioned in the mod---Rise of The East, and now in Terra Magna) but the authority haven't minded to include it in game. So, it's my earnest request to include Han in A24 if possible for the authority. Thanking you...
  3. As, Sundiata earlier suggested Xinognu is a good name, I also appreciate the name Xšayaṛša, as it highlights something more than the Greek-Roman antiquity. But, I would prefer any Eastern Asian names from Han, Xinognu or any other Asian civs... It would be better for both the future prospect and also for the newly come contributer from Asia to contribute more in this game... And, perhaps Nescio was right about the decision. He suggested that we should not add any American or Oceanian civs because there were probably no interaction with rest of the world (I mean Eurasian continentum). So, I prefer any kind of Non-group non-roman names and also prefer for the developers decision to add new Asian civs (like Han, Xinognu, Yayoi or something like that)... Thanking everyone...
  4. But, what about the endings of some civilizations like Carthaginian or Persians or Greek civilizations which ended in bloody battles. There will not be a glorious end. So, how is it possible to put an end to a civilization. Actually I want to say that no empire lasted forever. It should faced a deadly end. So, how the final campaign match would be possible?
  5. Yes, you're right... It's not so much advantageous for Carthaginians, may be it wouldn't be a problem if we add a feature that counts the number of Civic Centers and according to it gives the player an opportunity to have more than 2 embassies. Like, if the anonymous player has 2 Civic Center then he can build 1 or 2 more additional embassies.(i.e. for each 1 or 2 Civic Centers he/she can build 1 additional embassy). I also consider the same thing for Kushites, as they also have embassy. On the other hand, according to the link---https://historum.com/threads/military-equipment-and-the-organization-of-the-army-in-mauryan-india.40710/ It also clearly states that after defeating Seleucus I Nicator, Mauryan army also start hiring Thracian petlast and superior Dravidian mercenary warriors. In fact, Herodotus also mistook Dravidians as Eastern Ethiopians (or probably described it in his own way). And at last, they also recruit tribals in exchange of gold or land as mercenary skrimisher. So, it is obvious that skrimishers are not forbidden class in Mauryan warfare. “The division of the army into the four arms, Kautilya also divides the army into five different categories, not based on troop type, but on the nature of the warriors serving in the respective category. These categories are as follows: hereditary army, hired army, guild army, allied army, and the army of wild tribes (Arth. 7.7). The hereditary army was probably those that belonged to the Kshatriya caste, i.e. warriors (Rapson 1955), and would probably have constituted the majority of the Mauryan army, while hired troops are, obviously, mercenaries. The guild army is somewhat more complicated to analyse. Different authors have different interpretations of these, and while some argue that they were members of various trade guilds and corporations, who were bound to serve in times of need (Majumdar 1955), others suggest that there may have been warrior-guilds made up of professional soldiers who were contracted by the state to fight in campaigns (Rapson 1955). The latter alternative seems rather too similar to the mercenaries to have been considered a distinct type of warrior by Kautilya, but it is still a possibility. Allied armies constitute forces that allied kings and vassals supply. These forces would often be lent by allied kings, who found it in their interest to help fight a common enemy, but also forces that local Rajas would send to the Maharajadhiraja. They would also consist of Kshatriyas, just like ordinary hereditary forces (Rapson 1955). Finally, we have the wild forest tribes. These would most likely have acted as skirmishers that screened the main army in battle (Rapson 155). These forces consisted of wild tribes that lived in forests and mountains within the kingdom’s domains. What the equipment of such warriors would have been is not known, but an idea of what it might have been like can perhaps be derived from Herodotos. The so called “Eastern Ethiopians”, that Herodotos lists among the different peoples of Ḫšayāršā's army have sometimes been interpreted as being native Indian Dravidan warriors (Rawlinson 1971). This theory is further supported by the fact that in ancient times, India and Ethiopia were often believed to be one coherent landmass, and that Herodotos mentions that the Eastern Ethiopians were placed next to the Indians in the battle array. They are described as being dressed and equipped similarly to the Indians, but they wore the hide from a horse’s head as a helmet, and used shields made out of the hide of a crane. These, then, are the various forces that, according to Kautilya, an army could be made out of. Regarding the organisation, this has already been discussed, so I will just go through this very briefly. The army would often be commanded by the emperor, but the administration was overseen by an official of ministerial dignity, called the Senapati. According to Megasthenes, the Senapati had below him a war office consisting of six boards that each had a certain area of responsibility (Majumdar 1955). The first was for the navy, the second for logistics, and the following four for each of the four arms of the army: infantry, cavalry, chariots and elephants. Thus, the Mauryan Empire had an efficient administrative system for their armed forces, which enabled them to keep armies of unusually large sizes whilst being able to manage and command them efficiently.” Primary sources: (Unfortunately, the amount of Indian primary sources is cetainly lacking when taken to that of Greeks so more Greeks sources were included). Aelian: De Natura Animalium Arrianos: Anabasis Alexandri. Arrianos: Indika. Herodotos: Historiai. Kautilya: Arthashastra Megasthenes: Indika (fragments). Strabon: Geographia Secondary sources: Bhardwaj, H.C. (1978). Aspects of Ancient Indian technology. Boesche, R. (2003). The First Great Political Realist. Majumdar, B.K. (1955). The Military System in Ancient India. Rapson, E. (ed). (1955). Cambridge History of India(CHI). Singh, S.D. (1965). Ancient Indian Warfare with Special Reference to the Vedic Age. Keay, J. (2000). India – A History. Egerton, W.E. (2002). Indian and Oriental Arms and Armour. Chakrabarti, D.K. (1976). “Rajagriha: An Early Historic Site in East India”, World Archeaology, 7(3). From Europa Barbarorum. (It's a off topic discussion, so please allow me at least that much space for such a broad discussion, as it comes into my mind after seeing another site about influences of Mauryan heroes)
  6. Again, there is more... Chandragupta Maurya--- He has practically no aura Again, Elephant based heroes has no need to give them inspired technology aura for garrisoned buildings. It's really seems to be a misnomer or a fake aura for such units. As per my knowledge, only Mauryans, Kushites, Persians have access to elephant stables (in which Mauryans are the only implemented civilization for alpha23). Again, Carthaginian heroes lack a proper useful aura. Only Maharbal has a cavalry attack based aura whereas Roman heroes are quite helpful and give a lot of advantages to the player. As I know, during the journey of Hannibal to Rome, he recruited a lot of mercenary units against Rome that nearly doubled his army. So, the allied attack based aura should be changed to an aura based on less cost for mercenary units (like 15% or 20% less cost for all or atleast some kind of mercenaries). It would be better for the game, history and equality for civ choices.
  7. Okay, it's true but elephants still need some kind of modifications. Again, unfortunately it costs 400 wood and 250 stone to construct a catapult but a battering ram can be constructed at a much cheaper resources. So, it always seems that in battle, who ever has rams , has the mere advantage (i.e. face to face open battlefield). So, I think catapults should cost equal amount of resources like the rams(may be in the amount of woods).
  8. But, it's true that elephants can run at a speed of 40-50 kmph when they are agitated but a battering ram can only move at a speed of 4-5 kmph(maximum). Again, it also can't change direction so easily (may be a special bonus of speed for each unit garrisoned inside the ram). So, how the speed of a ram and a elephant are equal?
  9. Yes, it's a genuine problem for organic siege based civilizations. In fact, I know that whenever a elephant rushes, no one can stop it forcefully but in game, it always take a turn in response to a obstruction. Again, elephants can also cause a trample damage for nearby units (even the allies or own units), but this feature haven't been still implemented. So, it always seems to be disadvantageous to use Carthaginians, Kushites, Mauryans, Ptolemies, Seleucids. As, they have only Elephants for close sieging... Again, as the main topic of this discussion suggest that the excessive speed of a ram also make them more utilisable (probably more than the real history), so there should be a reduction in speed (at least, it should be less than the speed of a war elephant). On the other hand, a ram can't cause a momentum induced damage but an elephant can cause it. It will be better if the authority put such kind of modifications in their future releases.
  10. I see; in spite of so many suggestions the game had not undergone much modifications because of such regulations. Okay, thanks for your precious time.
  11. No, no I don't underestimating. I only says if the DE can then why the public mod is still old-fashioned?
  12. I do not mean Delenda Est. The default public mod should have Libyan Skrimishers in place of Mauritian Archer, as the former one is more common. As per the source--Carthaginian Military Composition--- it definitely supports my argument. Again, similarly Delenda Est also lacks default Numidian Skrimisher Cavalry. So, my suggestion is to construct a compact package of units to make the game more realistic.
  13. I have also found some other interesting data about Carthaginian army, although it seems that it's not a new concept.... These skirmishers are recruited from the Libyan villages on north Africa that are under Carthaginian rule. Libyan Skrimisher In ancient period Libyan are presented in classical records as mercenaries, and one of the leaders of the Great Mercenary Mutiny was a Libyan, Zarza. But after the end of the revolt, tamed by Hamilcar Barca in 238 B.C., Libyans gradually became part of the social tissue of Carthage (even if the lowest, and always a peripheral one), and gradually their troops became a levy. Silius Italicus in the Punica wrote about Libyan light troops wearing red robes and carrying light "parmae" shields. The presence of coloured men is attested by iconography, but they aren’t actually coming from defined ethnic groups, but it’s highly more probable that “Libyan” communities had a mixed ethnic composition. Remember that actually “Libya” wasn’t a term used in modern acception by Greeks and Romans, but actually was a quite generic term that initially defined all Saharian and costal Africa (With the exception of Egypt). In our period however, “Libyans” was used more or less to define North African people most of all of berber stock and some coloured presence that were under direct Carthaginian rule.
  14. Recently, I have found some interesting data. After seeing that, I wonder that Carthaginian military is less self than more non-self. But still it would hasn't some units which are historically accurate. Again, some of the important embassies are also missing. i.e. About the part of the Carthaginian army composed of proper carthaginian troops -not mercenaries- the argument is very complexEven if Carthage always relied heavily on mercenaries, Carthaginans, Lybo-Phoenicians and Lybians always played a part in the military structure of the army.If Lybians in the ancient period are mercenaries like Spaniards and Celts, with the expansion of Carthage in the African hinterland, gradually became a part of the Carthaginian society, and the term "Lybo-Phoenician" itself became something more variegated, inteded to define both carthaginian citizen or meteci of mixed heritage and Lybians fully influenced by carthaginian culture At the battle of Crimissus (341 B.C.), within various groups of mercenaries, was deployed a force of "ten thousand hoplites with white shields, and for the splendour of their weapons, the measured and disciplined way of marching, were identified as Carthaginians" (Plutarch, Parallel Lives, Timoleon - 27).Writing about the same battle, Diodorus named a particular unit of 2500 men, all from noble carthaginian families, that formed a "Sacred Battalion" or "Sacred Band" (X, 20, 6 and XVI, 80, 4), that have been connected with the theban hoplite battallion with the same name.More or less one century afterward, the situation appeared not so different: even if finding the necessity to rely on the military counsel of the spartan Xantippus, it appears that him gave a better organization to the army, but didn't change basically its approach to the battle: at the Battle of Tunis, the Carthaginians were deployed in a phalanx formation, in the center of the army, distincted from the mercenaries units that were deployed on the right wing (Polybius, Histories, I, 33).Obviously we can't be sure that the phalanx employed at the Battle of Tunis was a hellenistic phalanx or an hoplite phalanx, but the little carthaginian iconography we have for the period depicts a panoply that seems quite hoplitic.However, even at the time of the First Punic War probably Carthaginian soldiers weren't only hoplites: at the battle of Adys, Carthaginian infantry was deployed on rough terrain where, Polybius states, other carthaginian corps, elephants and cavalry, would have been of no use, implying however that Carthaginian infantry was able to operate on rough terrain (Polyb. I, 30, 6-7).That probably implies that at last some "thyreos-bearers" were already in use in the Carthaginian army in that period.In any case, the real twist in the Carthaginian army probably occured during Hamilcar's occupation of Spain. The iberian areas intersted by Carthaginian influence started to present an increasing number of thyreos shields, that in the Iberian and Turdetanian contest is heavily frequent, even over the local kind of shield, the round caetra.A possibility is that in the necessity to enable his army to confront the Iberian hit-and-run warriors in their harsh context, in a specular and parallel manner of wich occurred to the Roman army during the occupation of the harsh Samnium, Hamilcar reform is army in more versatile and maneuverable ways.As a matter of fact, when defining the tactical groups of the African veterans in barcids army, Appian and Polybius will use the word speirai, the same word that is used to describe roman maniples, or in general a maneuverable formation, in opposition to syntagma, that is used to define tactical groups of a phalanx.Moreover, Polybius states that the gaulish king Braneus, helped Hannibal's men during the expedition toward the Alps, and "replaced all their old or worn weapons with new ones" (Pol. III, 49, 11), and also the Libyans and the Lybo-Phoenicians, according to both Polybius and Livy (Polyb. 3.87.3, 114.1; Liv. 22.46.4) at some point of the invasion of Italy were armed with the best Roman equipment looted from the battles of the Trebia and Trasimene, and this clearly states that they were accustomed to use a thyreos-like shield, and all that follows: being accustomed to a shock-and -charge tactic with heavy missile weapons followed by hand-to-hand combat with swords. Looking onward, during the Third Punic War, when Carthage starts to rearm, they produced "Thyreos, Xyphos, Saunion (socketed-pilumlike javelin) and Longche" (Appian, Punike, 93), and in the list of the weapons that Carthage surrended to the Romans, are cited only throwing spears and javelin. There is no reference at all about oplon or doru, and obviously no mention of sarissa pikes at allThe misconception of a Carthaginian army with an "African Hellenistic Pikemen Phalanx" is due to an infamous wrong traduction of Loeb, adopted also by Connely, of the term "Lonchophoroi" in Polybius, that was misinterpreted for a synonym of "sarissophoroi" and so translated like "pikemen".The "longche" used by the Lybian and Lybo-Phoenician wasn't at all a sarissa, but a relatively short spear, with a broad head, used both for stabbing and as a throwing weapon, (Strabo, XVII.3.7), and moreover the the Lonchophoroi in specific weren't the African Veteran line infantry, but light, skirmish troops, paired with Balearic slingers and used in the rough terrain during the Trasimene ambush:"Hannibal, coasting the lake and passing through the defile occupied himself the hill in front, encamping on it with his Spainards and Africans; his slingers and LONCHOPHOROI he brought round to the front by a detour and stationed them in an extended line under the hills to the left, he placed them in a continous line under the hills to the right of the defile, and similarly taking his cavalry and the Celts round the hills on the left, he placed them in a continuous line under these hills, so that the last of them were just at the entrance to the defile, lying between the hillside and the lake."And more:"When the Roman cavalry fell back and left the flanks of the infantry exposed, the Carthaginian LONCHOPHOROI and the Numidians in a body, dashing past their own troops that were in front of them, fell on the Romans from both flanks, damaging them severely and preventing them from dealing with the enemy in their front." (Polybius III, 73, 7)The fact that Polybius use the term "Lonchophoroi" (lett. "spear-bearer") instead of "Akontistai" or "Psiloi", normally used in Greek to define skirmishers, is probably due to the huge versatility of Hannibal's light infantry, probably a mix of caetrati, Celtiberians and Lusitanians (Livy, Ab Urbe Condita, XXI, 57) and Lybians (the warrior depicted on Smirat's Relief in Tunisia, with round shield and spears/javelins, desc), equipped not only with missiles like falaricae(all of them) and soliferrea (the Spaniards), but even with a spear that could be used both for throwing and as a thrusting weapon (cfr. J. Lazenby, "Hannibal's War"), maybe te same "small broad-bladed longchai" that Strabo linked to some Lybian light troops (XVII.3.7). ____________________________________________Base Troops:Libyan Javelinemen (MERC for the first period)Libyan Thyreophoroi Spearmen (MERC for the first period) Libyan Levy Hoplitai (MERC for the first period) Blastophoenician MilitiaCarthaginian Citizen Levy HoplitaiCarthaginian MarinersCarthaginian Citizen CavalryLibophoenician CavalryOscan Mistophoroi (MERC)Apuani Warriors (MERC)Celtic Swordsmen (MERC)Celtic Skirmish Cavalry (MERC)Numidian Skirmish Cavalry (MERC)Iberian Caetrati (MERC)Sardi Pellitti Militia (MERC)Balearic Slingers (MERC)Mauri Archers (MERC)Hamilcar Reform Troops: Libophoenician ThyreophoroiLibophoenician ThorakitaiCeltiberian Cavalry (MERC)Turdetani Scutarii (MERC)Edetani Scutarii Spearmen (MERC) Hannibalic Reform Troops: African Veterans Lonchophoroi (MERC) Ilergete Scutarii (MERC) Celtiberian Scutarii (MERC) Cantabri Axemen (MERC) Lusitanian Caetrati (MERC) Oretani Warriors (MERC) So, my suggestion is to make two new embassies, and add Libyan Javelinemen as Citizen unit and Carthaginian Mariners as Champion units.
  15. Yeah, I agree with you Macemen are really effective against building, but we may restrict their attack for buildings only by giving them a penalty against swordsman specially (because, heavy maces are always slower than furious swords). As, according to my knowledge they're one of most expensive units of Mauryan dynasty (besides chariots and war elephants). But, in later period, they are replaced by axemen (Indian single sided axe and three pointed Trishula). And I also want to mention that other Gothic tribes also use axemen which are equally effective against structures especially wooden ones.
  • Create New...