Classical Warfare AEA

[ClassicalWarFareAEA]

Welcome to the official topic for Classical Warfare AEA -

A more in-depth version of 0 A.D., with an emphasis on historical accuracy. New units and technologies, but a similar approach to the game. (In simple words, we think it makes the game better.)

Our original post was deleted when the account was accidently flagged for spamming

Anyway, welcome and we hope you enjoy the mod.  IF you have any suggestions or are fascinated with this part of history and want to contribute don't be shy!  We are hoping to keep it going as long as there is interest from the community, after all it's the community that makes this game and this project so much fun!

Big thanks for all the people along the way that have helped keep this project going. Starting with of course the one and only @TheCJ but also @Genava55 @Atrik (but he seems to mostly be retired now) @Tyrannosaurus @Thalatta @Seleucids (another retired OP soul) @Outis @Stan` and I'm sure many more that I am forgetting.

 

Emacz2/classical-warefare-aea our git hub incase you want to download or check out some of the differences!

you can visit our webiste here! Thanks @Asher for setting it up

[Emacz]

@wowgetoffyourcellphone has also been a big help and great source of expertise when it comes to modding!

 

[Emacz]

Should have been @Thorfinn the Shallow Minded not the dinosaur   But they are welcome to help too!

[Asher]

Hi guys! Glad we have a new forum thingy!

[Emacz]

Thanks to @stevenlauthere is now some footage of me getting my @#$% kicked by him  

Classical Warfare AEA youtube channel!

[Asher]

I played Macedonian, and the cs pikeman costs metal. It is hard having a non-ranged cs unit that costs metal, when there is no alternative, and it was hard for me to protect with only archers. Even if it is historically accurate, it seems like it is too hard, and gives them a disadvantage

[Emacz]

OK thanks, will keep an eye on it and see what other people think.  Keep in mind civilians gather metal faster than soldiers, so sticking a few on metal will definitely help.

[Emacz]

What is different about this mod is a question often asked.  I am going to try and answer that question and give a more in dept description of the mod.

For starters, we collected as much historical data as we could (and still continue to collect and tweak) and redid the ranges, rate of fire and spreads for all land units. (We have yet to really touch naval units.) We used a complex formula thanks to @Thalatta to come up with "game" friendly numbers.  For example, in real life the avg effective range for a javelin was 20-40m (we settled on 30, same as base game) However, Longbow archers (Maury and kush a little less) had an effective range of 110-160m! and some lead bullet slingers had an effective range of 120-220m! And of course, there is siege... well if we just used the avg effective ranges some units would hit targets on the other side of the map which yeah, that wouldn't be great or realistic!  So the formula helped us curve those numbers a little but keep them within a range we felt was game friendly.  We then tried to find as much information on repeat time, or rate of fire.  Unfortunately for some weapons in particular like javelins there isn't really sources that document how often they could be thrown, so some of this is speculation based of sources that tried to recreate the mechanics and designs of the weapons being used.  Once we had our ranges and rate of fire we were able to settle on some "dmg" ranges well as "spreads" we felt were reasonable. So the whole "attack" system has been redone.

here is our thinking process charted out.

here is a chart of base "cs" units

I'll leave it at that for now.  If you found this helpful, please let me know and I can work on it for other aspects of the changes we made.  And again if you are interested in this time period and want to contribute in any form, we would be glad to have you join us!

[Asher]

Didn't barracks house soldiers? What if you added like a 10 population bonus to barracks

[Emacz]

They train soldiers, but again most soldiers, at least citizen soldiers wouldn't live in the barracks I don't think?  But its not completely out of the question.  Would be curious to what people think, and maybe it would be unique to a couple more "agressive" civs.

[Asher]

2 minutes ago, Emacz said:

They train soldiers, but again most soldiers, at least citizen soldiers wouldn't live in the barracks I don't think?

They may only have had a garrison if it was in a fortress or something, maybe fortresses could give a little population?

[Emacz]

I appreciate all your help on the mod, but do you play it?

  <Population>
    <Bonus>25</Bonus>
    </Population>

that is in the fortress template, they do give a pop bonus, 25

 

[Asher]

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh  I don't always look for stuff like that  I sometimes play it, but not so much recently 

[Emacz]

Even though it doesn't seem to be helping much I thought I add a little more detail regarding the Classical Warfare AEA project. Another thing that separates it a little from the base game is more diversity within units.   For example, there were at least 3 common types of bows from 500 BCE to 0/100 CE.  You had the simple bow.  Cheaper, easier to make, but not as strong/accurate as (Composite/Longbows.)  Most of the Greeks were not known for their archery, the mainly used the simple bow.  Then there is the composite bow, almost twice the range as the simple bow, popular among the Steppe people, used by the Achaemenid Empire (Persians) Sele and Ptoles. Then you had the more powerful, bigger long bows of the Maurya and Kushites.  These bows often matched the range or exceeded that of the composite bow. But do it its size had a slower rate of fire and was not ideal for very mobile units. 

There were also different types of ammunition used with slings, most commonly stone or lead when available.  Again trained slingers with lead ammunition could often out shoot archers as far as distance.  The Balearic and Rhodians in particular were highly sought after for their slinging skills.

Please correct me if I'm wrong   But yes we are trying to make an effort to represent some of the important differences from the time period which made certain archers better than others, while some infantry stronger than others etc.

 

[Thalatta]

7 hours ago, Emacz said:

Then you had the more powerful, bigger long bows of the Maurya and Kushites.  These bows often matched the range or exceeded that of the composite bow. But do it its size had a slower rate of fire

As I’ve already explained to you some time ago (and quoting from The Great Warbow, from Hastings to the Mary Rose, by M. Strickland and R. Hardy, which, although in a Medieval setting, is illustrative for each weapon):

-Longbows weren’t necessarily more powerful than composite bows. Actually, the latter were more efficient, delivering more energy for a given draw weight. Usually, composite bows have lower draw weight (the thumb draw being a factor, apparently giving a bit more accuracy), but their power was comparable across a broad range: “a composite bow with a draw-weight of 59.5lb shot the same arrow as fast as a replica medieval yew longbow with a draw of about 74lb” (both of these numbers are below average for their respective warbows, but the comparison stands given a proportional scaling). A different thing is the power of the arrows, for which the longbows would have an edge, given their arrows were heavier, making them usually more armor piercing: “In the same decade in which Gerald of Wales was writing of the formidable penetrative power of the Welsh elm longbows in Gwent, Saladin’s close aide and confidant Beha ad-Din remarked on the effectiveness of the Frankish infantry’s armour against the Turkish bows during the Third Crusade”.

-Longbows didn’t necessarily exceed the range of composite bows. Actually, the latter had greater maximum range, as expected from similar bow power but lighter arrows: “Western chroniclers were particularly struck by the range of the Saracen bows”, but both had comparable effective range, taking the previous point into account (although what is effective would depend on the actual units being targeted).

-Longbows didn’t so clearly have a slower rate of “fire” than composite bows. Mainly, that has absolutely nothing to do with weapon size, but with variables like length draw and weight draw. For example, “the longbowman could shoot ten a minute and more, though Stanley says that with the heaviest bows he does not like to try for more than six a minute”. Thus, what could be done with a longbow is comparable to what was done with a composite bow, although if longbowmen sacrificed accuracy, and they wouldn’t be able to sustain that for long (all because of the higher weight draw), which wouldn't be much of an issue since they’d run out of arrows quite fast, as I’ve discussed before. In any case, this point is not as incorrect as the other two (given also that it’s much harder to properly source, and if one also considers much better trained composite bow users), but would depend more on the archer's training and technique, and, as with the previous points, on particular bows and tactics.

Their advantages and disadvantages relate to other things I’ve also already told you (simplified in simple bows having lower performance, longbows lower mobility, and composite bows lower affordability, besides what I’ve just mentioned). If you keep asking AI of course you’ll get the wrong answers, because it uses misconceptions from other games.

Redoubling on something I told you: many civ characteristics should be determined by not having all Storehouse techs. One of the reasons some would make composite bows is not having a lot of appropriate wood (this is connected with that they would also be horse cultures, more viable on treeless landscapes). Thus, they should not have all wood techs, and their bows should cost less wood, but more food (sinew, horn, animal glue) and metal (manufacturing cost), and more training time if that also considers manufacturing time.