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 23 hours ago by Thalatta

[Emacz]

55 minutes ago, Thalatta said:

 

 

@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).

We were just talking in general and based on what the game already has set up.  Remember no need to change something in the game just to change it.

Im aware greek cavalry didnt use shileds, even early on.  However, Han swords cav?  Seems like they always did.  So on one hand you have Athens sword cav and the other you have Han, seems like they were quite different.  

With spears, its kinda hard to tell.  It sounds like most cavalry spear units did not use shields.  However, the game depicts a few that do.  So until I find other evidence im not going to change them.  And in a case like Han i've read that they had 1 hand spear cav no shields, 2 hand spear cav no shield, more of a lancer spear cav no shield but on some rare occasions a shorter spear cav unit that carried a shield.

About 1/2 the civs don't really fall into the "Greek" Category correct?
Brit, Gaul, German are more celtic?  Maybe even iber? 

Maury, Han, Kush.... 

Rome seemed to be influenced by greek weapons and ideas early on but they evolved and took on weapons, armorm, styles of a lot of different cultures they fought with and their allies.

 

As far as the way the units evolve, I'm not quite ready to change that for 2 reasons.  1 it would be a lot of work, 2 everyone is so used to it. Forge techs/armor in the game don't always represent actual armor, its not a chance to block or chance to deflect the dmg, its just an absorption of the actual dmg... so armor + hp = survivability to some degree.  It's defintely something I had a hard time grasping, why do ranged infantry have a lot less health than melee infantry.  You would think 2 soldiers have the same "health" and then their armor differs... That would be a whole differnt route to go and could potentially confused people even more.

55 minutes ago, Thalatta said:

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.

 

[Emacz]

@Outis @Thalatta

I made this PDF of all the diffirent cav units/actors in the game... its quite interesting.  Take han for example for the cs and champ spearcav the portriats seems to show a shield but none of the actors do.... in some cases actors start without a shield and then add one as they rank up.  I am not a huge fan of this, unless it is REALLY historically accurate.  If in rare cases some civ had a handful of Jav cav that use shields, but most didnt i would rather just give them all Jav cav that don't have shields.

CWA - Cavalry units by civ.pdf

[Thalatta]

17 hours ago, Emacz said:

As far as the way the units evolve, I'm not quite ready to change that for 2 reasons.  1 it would be a lot of work, 2 everyone is so used to it. Forge techs/armor in the game don't always represent actual armor

 

1) Just to invert ordering?, 2) Well, better to educate on how things actually were, the armor evolution feeds a common misconception. And all this of course not for all techs, but when they represent something that can be seen, as armor.

Unit evolution could be represented with other things that make more sense, like helmet crests or more complete (but coherent) equipment (if there are models around already, otherwise not visually evolving at all would be even more accurate). I've thought that even better would be that some techs, for example linothorax, could unlock new units, after all it coexisted with the previous types of armor, although of course balancing stats to have maybe still some use cases for the older types would take more work, and the new types should be preferable. But this would add some complexity to the game, and maybe just the later trend should be considered.

 

15 hours ago, Emacz said:

in some cases actors start without a shield and then add one as they rank up.  I am not a huge fan of this, unless it is REALLY historically accurate.

Same issue as before.

[Emacz]

58 minutes ago, Thalatta said:

 

1) Just to invert ordering?, 2) Well, better to educate on how things actually were, the armor evolution feeds a common misconception. And all this of course not for all techs, but when they represent something that can be seen, as armor.

Unit evolution could be represented with other things that make more sense, like helmet crests or more complete (but coherent) equipment (if there are models around already, otherwise not visually evolving at all would be even more accurate). I've thought that even better would be that some techs, for example linothorax, could unlock new units, after all it coexisted with the previous types of armor, although of course balancing stats to have maybe still some use cases for the older types would take more work, and the new types should be preferable. But this would add some complexity to the game, and maybe just the later trend should be considered.

 

Same issue as before.

For one, you seem to be pushing this the most and you dont even play the mod   Secondly, as we have discussed via pm the further away from the base game, the less likely people will try it.  Granted very few people try it so far!  But most people aren't interested in the historically accuracy.  Balance is key and Im not sure how this would work balancewise and all the retweaking it would take.

That being said I'm willing to "compromise" and play around with it a little via "Pre Alexander" Greek Factions (Sparta, Athens, and Thebans)  Hoplite tradition p2 already gives a speed bonus, and it does make some since to reduce armor a little for that.  I will also create "Greek" techs for those 3 civs to replace the ones other civs use.
first Hack/Pierce resistance will only give 0.5 of the armor but 3% faster movent second one will not add armor, but instead add 3% more mobility and the last one will remove -0.5 but add 4% so while other civs can gain 3-4 of each resitance greek civs can gain 10% mobility but with no armor gain.
Question is should p1 hopelites start with more or less armor than successor state pikeman, and same question for mobility.  I dont want to throw things out of wack too much.

[Thalatta]

13 minutes ago, Emacz said:

the further away from the base game, the less likely people will try it.  Granted very few people try it so far!  But most people aren't interested in the historically accuracy.  Balance is key and Im not sure how this would work balancewise and all the retweaking it would take.

First, by "further away" I mean keeping changing stats to the point that no one knows what is going on anymore, more so when it's not explained anywhere. Last week I checked, the description of the mod is just one and a half lines. Personally, I'm just not interested in playing anything like that, no matter how much you keep constantly pushing for it. When I said I was willing to help you when you contacted me, it didn’t mean you can tell me how I should use my time, please learn this for once and any further comments on this I'll only accept and address through PM. Second, changing how units look has absolutely nothing to do with balance, my other ideas were just beyond secondary.

 

13 minutes ago, Emacz said:

Question is should p1 hopelites start with more or less armor than successor state pikeman, and same question for mobility.  I dont want to throw things out of wack too much.

I don’t know what will be best to do, because mobility is not just about attack and movement speed bonuses, it is also related to resistance, since things that are not really considered by the game are part of it, like visibility, blocking, parrying, dodging, agility, etc (and I'm assuming there are no probabilities involved). Maybe for now it’s kind of ok to leave all together just under the “resistance” label, unless some fundamental changes are eventually implemented (like adding probabilities).

[Emacz]

10 minutes ago, Thalatta said:

 

I don’t know what will be best to do, because mobility is not just about attack and movement speed bonuses, it is also related to resistance, since things that are not really considered by the game are part of it, like visibility, blocking, parrying, dodging, agility, etc (and I'm assuming there are no probabilities involved). Maybe for now it’s kind of ok to leave all together just under the “resistance” label, unless some fundamental changes are eventually implemented (like adding probabilities).

Very true.... I guess the problem with changing the actors/artwork is it's a lot of cut/copy/paste.  And how many people really zoom in enough to really study their equipment.  I feel it is best represented in the "tool tips" and "history" so people gain some understanding of what is going on.  Maybe once I've finally cleaned that all up, Ill go back and look at the actors.  

According to AI which I know a lot of people don't like, but again when I'm changing so much, I usually start there.... archaic period hoplites had between 25-32 kg of equipment while successor state pikeman only had 15-20kg.  It was the pike and formation that made them so slow.
In case you aren't aware,  and this is my understanding at least, anything we dont change in the mod defaults to what the base game has.  So if I don't download the actor templates and change them and add them to the mod, our mod stays a smaller size and just defaults to what the base game uses. I could be wrong on this.

[Emacz]

So currently it looks a little like this:

Hoplites start with +2 Crush resistance and +1.5 Hack/Pierce but 5% slower walk speed.

P1 Techs

Hack resistance: "Soldiers +0.5 hack and +0.5 crush resistance and 1% faster walk speed.",

Pierce resistance:  "Soldiers +0.5 pierce and +0.5 crush resistance and 1% faster walk speed.",

P2 Techs

Hoplite tradition: Hoplites -1 of reach resitance but −20% training time, −30% promotion experience, and 5% faster walk/run speed. Citizen hoplites 10% less food/wood cost. While Champion +25 Health.

Hack resistance: " Champions and Heroes +1 Hack and +0.5 Crush resistance, all soldiers 2% faster walk speed."

Pierce resistance:  " Champions and Heroes +1 Pierce and +0.5 Crush resistance, all soldiers 2% faster walk speed. "

P3 Techs

Hack resistance:  Citizen Soldiers -0.5 hack resistance, all soldiers 2% faster walk speed.  

Pierce resistance: Citizen Soldiers -0.5 pierce resistance, all soldiers 2% faster walk speed.  

So basically, they non hoplites lose out on 4H/P resitsance and 2 crush resistance for 10% movement speed... this could be rough. Hoplites only miss out on 3/3/2 I think if my math is right

Edited 1 hour ago by Emacz