Jump to content

Diptangshu

Community Members
  • Content count

    7
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3 Neutral

About Diptangshu

  • Rank
    Tiro
  • Birthday 04/21/1999

Previous Fields

  • First Name
    Diptangshu
  • Last Name
    Pal

Profile Information

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

Recent Profile Visitors

145 profile views
  1. 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.
  2. Diptangshu

    Packing and Unpacking Rams and Siege Towers

    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.
  3. Diptangshu

    Alpha 24 name suggestions

    Firstly, I am keen to know that whether development team is planning to place Han or Shang or Jōmon or any other Asia based civilization in future alpha versions or not. If, they are planning to do so, I have some wonderful names in my mind... Like.... 1. Xi-Wang ( http://www.meaning-of-names.com/chinese-names/xi-wang.asp ) This, name suggests for future hope (as par the meaning) (Xi-Wang in Chinese it means hope and it can be used as a phrase for both feminine and masculine character) 2.Xiang ( https://www.behindthename.com/name/xiang ) This name suggests for a future prosperity and good luck (Xiang in Chinese means 'good omen' or simply good luck). I hope everyone will agree with me. Otherwise my vote goes for Xanthippus.
  4. Diptangshu

    War elephant training...

    Okay, now I understand.... It's still developing... But, do you not think that Archers are to weak in comparison to skirmishers and slingers? But history says another thing.... Especially, Mauryan Elephant Archer, Ptolemic Camel Archer, Persian Chariot Archer, Mauryan Champion Chariot Archer, Selucid Dahae Horse Archer, they seems to be too weak in comparison to regular Cavalry Skirmishers. I mean if there would be any kind of first attack bonus or guerilla attack bonus then, it would be fine for Archery based civilizations.... And thereafter they wouldn't be considered as underdog civilisations....
  5. Diptangshu

    War elephant training...

    And what about multiple damage by an elephant ?
  6. Diptangshu

    War elephant training...

    As we all know, elephant is a kind of large beast, which can cause severe damage. But I would want to remind a topic to the developers, whenever an elephant rushes it is able to do some extra damage because of it's momentum and again elephant would undoubtedly do an extra trample damage to it's surrounding enemy units and sometimes even it's allies/ own units. In the other hand, horses and camels fear it and so a reduction in health or attack would be preferable in case of them.... In case of Mauryans, an Archer elephant unit has been implemented but it has no additional damage with enemy units (I mean trample damage).... So kindly fix these problems for a better developed gameplay....
  7. Diptangshu

    Less OP Mauryans

    Yes, I think so..... Yes, I think so
×