Classical Warfare AEA

[Outis]

18 minutes ago, Emacz said:

Companion cav: armed with the xyston (long thrusting spear).

Sele cataphract: Wielded a kontos, a two‑handed long lance.

If you want to keep lancer template and cataphract mixin, you can mix and match any way you want. A cataphract is heavily armored by definition, that is one difference. What you should not neglect in my opinion is: even though both have strong charging capability i.e. lancers, kontos is a longer weapon with more reach than xyston, so you might want to reflect that in increased range.

[Emacz]

18 minutes ago, Outis said:

I started mine mainly with some artwork. I plan to make it unbalanced by design for single player. I guess it is a relaxing hobby of sorts. But i will surely share any idea from my mod which may contribute . 

Ok that works

 

18 minutes ago, Outis said:

I am a sw project manager, i like to simplify and keep design modular where possible, hence the suggestion. What i like about mixins is: you can keep common/major unit types, so unit types appearing for most civs and are significantly different in templates, and add small differences in mixins. But this is just my preference.

I am fine with that...  and if it's easier for you and we are working together time to time then I can switch it.  Most of the help I get is just telling me how to rebalance things and then I decide if I want to do mixins, more templates etc.

So for cav later today Ill go back to a CS spear cav and a Champ spear cav template.  Then we need a shield mixin, could potentially be the same for both, whether its champ or cs.  The only thing I look at sometimes is the numbers, I'm a little OCD I would rather the repeat time be 1000, 1250, 1500, 1750, 2000 than 1215

We then would need a 2 hand spear mixin? a lancer mixin and a cataphract mixin? How would you break down all the different civs we have?  You can send a pm if its easier, and I/we invite you as a collaborator on the git.

18 minutes ago, Outis said:

 

I hear you. The game should aim to incentivize historically accurate armies, and small changes in top to reward insight. Ideas i have but havent put to test to see the effects:

1) keep citizen soldiers we want to incentivize as they are, and make the citizen soldiers we want to downprioritize another category like allies or dependents, which keep their stats and cost but lose resource gathering. In a sense, they are unprofessional soldiers we recruit only if we need them tactically. This may be a drastic change but i wanted to consider and try.

So we try and do this a little between mixins Hoplites vs regular spearman although they are both CS, just sets apart the equipment they would use, not really their training/professionalism.  Sometimes we use a civ/team bonus to incorporate more of a professional force.

 

18 minutes ago, Outis said:

2) or introduce allies/dependents, keep their resource gathering, but put some kind of limit to their number based on a set ratio between number of allies/dependents allowed per citizen soldier. In fact, such a ratio-based limit can be introduced for mercenaries and champions as well, with some civs having a civ bonuses or techs relaxing the given ratios. For example Carthaginians being allowed more mercenaries than other civs. I know limits are not popular in the game but a Spartan army with no hoplites is a travesty...

We have lots of limits in our version. Sparitates are not one fo them though In fact spartiates and Periokois are what enable you to train more helots   You cant really have 1000 helots and 2 spariates and 4 periokois

18 minutes ago, Outis said:

3) the mildest approach would be to introduce unit-specific generic upgrades, and allow each civ to have only the upgrades of units we want to incentivize. So in your example, a Spartan player will have good hoplites but poor javelineers, so will build javelineers only when they are crucial tactically.

We have done this a little agian through some of the ways mentioend above.

You gotta  a lot of good stuff here! I look forward to working with you more, I personally do better working with at least one other person rather than by myself, keeps me accountable.  But I also could NEVER work for some big corporation/group where I'm just told what to do and have no real voice

[Emacz]

Yes, so "lancers" have +1 range over a regular spear, or 2, id have to check.  But than Cataphracts have an additonal 1 or 2 meters on top of that...

but it sounds like the xyston is a long 1 handed thrusting spear.  Not a lance.. so I may need to change it even more... what would the advantage of a 1 handed thrusting spear be vs a 2 handed lance... the companion cavalry still didnt use shields... they were also still considered schock cavlary, but not quite as damaging as cataphract but also a lot more mobility....  lots to think about!

[Outis]

6 minutes ago, Emacz said:

I am fine with that...  and if it's easier for you and we are working together time to time then I can switch it. 

That was only a suggestion, please bear in mind i have a 6 month old baby . I really dont know the next time i can sit down and do something in my private time. I hope not in 18 years . 

 

10 minutes ago, Emacz said:

I'm a little OCD I would rather the repeat time be 1000, 1250, 1500, 1750, 2000 than 1215

Me too...

15 minutes ago, Emacz said:

We then would need a 2 hand spear mixin? a lancer mixin and a cataphract mixin? How would you break down all the different civs we have?  You can send a pm if its easier, and I/we invite you as a collaborator on the git.

Let me dwell on this a bit.

 

15 minutes ago, Emacz said:

some big corporation/group where I'm just told what to do and have no real voice

Welcome to my world. It is soul-crushing... The only sw i want to handle is 0 A.D.

[Thalatta]

6 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

"Mounted..." to me, indicates they dismount to fight. 

 

Yes, that would be the usual differentiation. Hippobatai were mounted hoplites for example, they just used the horses to travel to the battlefield.

@Emacz, @Outis, it’s really unclear to me about which civs you are both talking about. Greek cavalry did not use shields before the Hellenistic period (at least not in big numbers: https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1524/klio.2009.0017/html). This could be a tech then, maybe your mod could change the appearance of units with techs? And in an accurate way, because if I remember correctly, the base game makes hoplites evolve with experience the opposite way they did historically (which should be from heavier to lighter armor).

For this subject I recommend On Horsemanship, by Xenophon (https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1176/1176-h/1176-h.htm). There’s an interesting part where he says “we would recommend the newly-invented piece of armour called the gauntlet, which protects the shoulder, arm, and elbow, with the hand engaged in holding the reins, being so constructed as to extend and contract; in addition to which it covers the gap left by the corselet under the armpit. The case is different with the right hand, which the horseman must needs raise to discharge a javelin or strike a blow”. Now, many things to disentangle here: 1) neither there not in the rest of the book shields are mentioned, 2) we wouldn’t call that a gauntlet, seems a long shoulder protection, 3) I doubt this was eventually implemented in great numbers by the Greeks, 4) anyway it means is that someone invented such a thing around his time, and apparently it was the Persians (no wonder Xenophon being aware), from this figure shown of an “Achaemenid Dynast of Hellespontine Phrygia” in the center:

 

I found that image striking, because it looks quite similar to the shoulder protection of the samurai, which is not surprising if we understand how samurai armor evolved: Japanese warriors used shields early on, eventually the elite class becomes mounted warriors, archers in particular, and for this, in which both hands are needed, shields must be ditched… or actually, adapted, becoming part of the armor, and migrate to become the iconic squared shoulder protections:

Thus, in the Hellenistic world something similar seems to have developed, just not at the same scale. I have not read much about this, but my guess is that heavier armor made the “gauntlet” somewhat unnecessary, while the Japanese used lighter armor for a variety of reasons.

Edited 2 minutes ago by Thalatta