New Civ for Alpha 28+?

[Lion.Kanzen]

21 minutes ago, AIEND said:

The direct translation of missile infantry into Chinese is "导弹步兵", that is, infantry using MANPADs.

The translation takes the word missile very literally and modern.

Missile in this case is a throwable projectile.

 

A projectile is an object that is propelled by the application of an external force and then moves freely under the influence of gravity and air resistance.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projectile 

https://zh.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/拋體

拋體（projectile）或稱投射物、射彈、抛射物是指任何被外力推進拋射到空间中飞行的物體。雖然被投扔的球可視為一種拋體，不過在武器弹道学中，拋體更常被提到。在下面可接續看到拋體運動的軌跡方程式。

the exact translation would be:  projectile infantry.

 

 

Edited April 25, 2023 by Lion.Kanzen

[LienRag]

On 25/04/2023 at 12:58 AM, AIEND said:

The very important point is that the positioning of melee units is still unclear. I think we should make sure that spearmen and spear cavalry are the most basic and most backbone units and are irreplaceable. Yes, we can't make swordsmen or axemen better units than spearmen, only units that assist spearmen.
For example swordsmen and axemen shouldn't do more damage than spearmen, shouldn't outperform spearmen in frontal combat, but should be faster than spearmen, especially when marching in groups. And there should be a loose formation specially provided for swordsmen/axemen. In battle, swordsmen and axemen should not be mixed with spearmen, but form a separate team to facilitate their pursuit or outflanking. This way, for civs with swordsmen/axemen, they get a cheap cavalry replacement unit that can better counter enemy range infantry.
Spearmen/Pikemen are responsible for dealing with frontal battles. All civilized spearmen should be given a tight horizontal formation, and buff the spearmen through the formation, which allows the spearmen to last longer in battle , but also reduces mobility. Spearmen in formation will always defeat the same number of swordsman/axemen, but once out of formation, they become weaker and more vulnerable to projectiles. Spearmen/Pikemen don't need to have too high a counterattack against cavalry, but should make the attacks of cavalry weak against spearmen/pikemen in the formation, whether it is melee attack or range attack.

A lot of interesting ideas, but I'm less sure about the cavalry needing to be only spear cavalry.

Note too that roman legionnaires had the pilum but also the gladius, so is the sword infantry completely incapable of making pitched battles ?

The ability of swordsmen and axemen to flank infantry formations is important and shouldn't be dismissed (maybe not against tortuga formations, though).

I'm no specialist but weren't Gauls swordsmen ? Yes Caesar was able to finally destroy them but not without trouble, so maybe your proposal, though very good, may be a bit simplistic and not all swordsmen need to be dismissed (again, I'm no specialist, so if you have good arguments I can change my mind).

I'll also repeat what I wrote elsewhere, the main importance of formations historically was for morale, so as long as we don't have a morale system it's difficult to represent pitched battles accurately.

[Lion.Kanzen]

15 minutes ago, LienRag said:

I'll also repeat what I wrote elsewhere, the main importance of formations historically was for morale, so as long as we don't have a morale system it's difficult to represent pitched battles accurately.

Morale can be considered an abstraction of armor or maximum health.

It is an abstraction, any psychological state is represented by the stats of the units.

Edited April 28, 2023 by Lion.Kanzen

[LienRag]

Possible indeed, but quite lacking though.

Realistic Morale would make battle very different (and more similar to historical ones) that what we have now, which also means that a morale system needs to be carefully balanced against playability and fun.

If it's just "fight until you lose morale, retreat to recover it, lather, rinse and repeat" then it's no good.

If it opens fully new maneuver possibilities, then it's probably worth the cost of implementing it.

[Lion.Kanzen]

1 minute ago, LienRag said:

Realistic Morale would make battle very different (and more similar to historical ones) that what we have now, which also means that a morale system needs to be carefully balanced against playability and fun.

If it's just "fight until you lose morale, retreat to recover it, lather, rinse and repeat" then it's no good.

If it opens fully new maneuver possibilities, then it's probably worth the cost of implementing it.

First we should have a battle system with battalions, well defined, for now there are only locked formations.

[AIEND]

41 分钟前，LienRag 说：

还请注意，罗马军团士兵拥有皮卢姆和短剑，那么剑步兵是否完全无法进行激战？

剑士和斧兵从侧翼包抄步兵编队的能力很重要，不应该被忽视（但也许不能对抗托尔图加编队）。

我不是专家，但不是高卢剑客吗？ 是的，凯撒最终能够摧毁他们，但并非没有麻烦，所以也许你的提议虽然很好，但可能有点简单，并不是所有的剑士都需要被解雇。

The point is that simply wielding a sword does not make a soldier stronger than one wielding a spear.
Gaul's elite warriors will also use spears, and elite spearmen will not be at a disadvantage when confronting elite swordsmen.
In addition, in a country like the Han Dynasty, whether it is an archer, a crossbowman, a swordsman or a spearman, there will be a sword. If the spear in the hand of a spearman is damaged, he will take out the sword to fight. What about you at this time? How about judging his combat effectiveness?
We don't need to cancel the infantry swordsman/axeman, we just need to make him not stronger than the spearman in the process of confronting melee infantry head-on. The swordsman/axeman's DPS can be exactly the same as the spearman's, but Not good at fighting cavalry, better at chasing infantry.
So whether you have more swordsmen/axemen or more spearmen in your army depends on the ratio of cavalry, projectile infantry and melee infantry in your opponent's army.

[alre]

1 hour ago, AIEND said:

The point is that simply wielding a sword does not make a soldier stronger than one wielding a spear.
Gaul's elite warriors will also use spears, and elite spearmen will not be at a disadvantage when confronting elite swordsmen.
In addition, in a country like the Han Dynasty, whether it is an archer, a crossbowman, a swordsman or a spearman, there will be a sword. If the spear in the hand of a spearman is damaged, he will take out the sword to fight. What about you at this time? How about judging his combat effectiveness?
We don't need to cancel the infantry swordsman/axeman, we just need to make him not stronger than the spearman in the process of confronting melee infantry head-on. The swordsman/axeman's DPS can be exactly the same as the spearman's, but Not good at fighting cavalry, better at chasing infantry.
So whether you have more swordsmen/axemen or more spearmen in your army depends on the ratio of cavalry, projectile infantry and melee infantry in your opponent's army.

simply weilding a sword won't make a soldier better at chasing infantry either. it was never about just what weapon they weild.

[AIEND]

32 minutes ago, alre said:

simply weilding a sword won't make a soldier better at chasing infantry either. it was never about just what weapon they weild.

The spear is a weapon that is sensitive to balance, and the posture and pace of a person running with a spear in their right hand can be very restrictive. This has little to do with the weight of the weapon and much to do with the center of gravity of the weapon, while in contrast the sword has much less effect on posture and pace, especially the short swords used by the Greeks and Romans of this period.

[LienRag]

On 11/02/2023 at 10:23 PM, Lion.Kanzen said:

We need more Italic tribes and some Italic Greeks (Magna Greece).

Like Zulus and Thessalians ?

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

1 hour ago, LienRag said:

Like Zulus and Thessalians ?

No? Neither of which are Italic or Magna Grecian.

[LienRag]

I'd say Zulus are quite bold, at least...