Kushites are too weak

[Sundiata]

11 minutes ago, Nescio said:

However, I disagree with your "without exception". Not giving a specific faction archers should remain possible.

Sure, but regarding the civs we have in-game, I'd say all of them used archery.

Iberians used archery in combat since the Mesolithic (oldest depictions of combat in Europe):

Quote

The oldest depictions of combat, found in Iberian cave art of the Mesolithic, show battles between archers.^[4] A group of three archers encircled by a group of four is found in Cueva del Roure, Morella la Vella, Castellón, Valencia. A depiction of a larger battle (which may, however, date to the early Neolithic), in which eleven archers are attacked by seventeen running archers, is found in Les Dogue, Ares del Maestrat, Castellón, Valencia.^[5] At Val del Charco del Agua Amarga, Alcañiz, Aragon, seven archers with plumes on their heads are fleeing a group of eight archers running in pursuit.^[6]

 

Since the Britons depicted in-game are Celts, I don't see why they wouldn't use archers. Never recorded in high numbers in battle, but I believe present nonetheless...

[Nescio]

2 minutes ago, Sundiata said:

Sure, but regarding the civs we have in-game, I'd say all of them used archery.

There is a difference between "having archery" and "using archers in combat". If it is attested they did, then yes, I agree they should have bowmen in game.

4 minutes ago, Sundiata said:

Iberians used archery in combat since the Mesolithic (oldest depictions of combat in Europe):consists

Be careful, it is perfectly possible the Iberian cave art was not made by Iberians. "Iberian cave art" (dated before 3500 BC) is cave art located on the Iberian peninsula; the "Iberian civilization" is that of people who had Iberian language(s) (dated after 700 BC) as their native tongue.

6 minutes ago, Sundiata said:

Since the Britons depicted in-game are Celts, I don't see why they wouldn't use archers. Never recorded in high numbers in battle, but I believe present nonetheless...

There were Celts and Celts, and there can be huge differences between them. Find me one attestation for the Britons specifically and I'm happy.

[Servo]

I like to play (SP) the Romans because of their very nice and proportionate structures and most especially they have the best looking walls imo of all Civs but what are the walls there for without archers?! Same as the Iberians and the Spartans as well they have walls for skirmisher only?! Even if the MP players won’t use archers they should be on every Civ for SP players! 

Foot archers are really not good to use on a rough and mobile battle that’s why both Carthage and Kushites are being said as weakest. But I don’t understand why they are not faster than foot skirmisher. IMO it will do the game a favor if they are given speed buff especially for Carthage (walk/run speed)and Kushites( more pierce or HP). I remember in RoN if their historians have facts the Nubians have unique units in foot (I guess more strong pierce but slow speed) and Camel archers that can fire while moving like the Mongols.

Siege units don’t make sense at all if you want this game to be distinguished from others. A siege tower that can climb hills and mountains. A ram that can’t  be captured and operate by themselves, the catapults and bolt shooters too. I rather have elephants and a fun MP games where the opposing parties try to subdue each other into submission rather than seeing a players base/CC destroyed by a fantasy siege units alone. Is it nice to have a ram vs ram duel? Did it happen in history that rams even if operated destroyed an empire or even a town with enough manpower defenders?!

I hope some realistic mods come out soon that tailors to SP gamers. And a mod that retains the previous feature in which a captured unit (through wololo for now )from other faction can build that factions structures if it won’t make game errors will be nice. 

 

Edited May 31, 2018 by Servo

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

 I don't want to tediously have to Garrison everything in order to make everything work. The high pop cost already assumes a crew to man the machines

[Sundiata]

1 hour ago, Nescio said:

There is a difference between "having archery" and "using archers in combat". If it is attested they did, then yes, I agree they should have bowmen in game.

True... 

1 hour ago, Nescio said:

Be careful, it is perfectly possible the Iberian cave art was not made by Iberians. "Iberian cave art" (dated before 3500 BC) is cave art located on the Iberian peninsula; the "Iberian civilization" is that of people who had Iberian language(s) (dated after 700 BC) as their native tongue.

Well, yeah, of course, but how likely is it really that cave-people used archery, but their descendants somehow forgot it, only to be rediscovered/re-introduced after the Roman conquest, seems odd to me... Sure archery became less important in the face of swords and metal tipped spears, but I'll never be convinced it disappeared completely (not even from battle)...

 

1 hour ago, Nescio said:

There were Celts and Celts, and there can be huge differences between them. Find me one attestation for the Britons specifically and I'm happy.

It is indeed incredibly difficult to find a decent reference. But even here we have Neolithic examples from Somerset, which do indeed seem to fall out of use in later times, and were then re-introduced... ?? I personally think they never disappeared... The very idea that they "disappeared" sounds silly to me, but without a reliable reference for archers among British Celts, I won't advocate for archers for the Britons.

Either way, don't Britons and Iberians both have slingers, kind of negating the archery issue in their case?

So no archers for Britons and Iberians, who have slingers, but archers for everybody else (even if they also have slingers, should just become available in different phases) ?

[av93]

A radical idea would be merging slinger and archer class, and the difference between them be purely cosmetical, for a easier balance.

I know that a stone have a very different kind of damage that a arrow....

[Nescio]

10 hours ago, Sundiata said:

Well, yeah, of course, but how likely is it really that cave-people used archery, but their descendants somehow forgot it, only to be rediscovered/re-introduced after the Roman conquest, seems odd to me...

You're assuming the 7th C BC Iberians are the descendants of the 7th M BC "cave-people". That's a big if. History is not static. People can migrate and a lot can happen in thousands of years. I don't know about Spain specifically, but in most of Europe the "original" populations have been replaced more than once over the past five thousand years.

10 hours ago, Sundiata said:

It is indeed incredibly difficult to find a decent reference. But even here we have Neolithic examples from Somerset, which do indeed seem to fall out of use in later times, and were then re-introduced... ?? I personally think they never disappeared... The very idea that they "disappeared" sounds silly to me, but without a reliable reference for archers among British Celts, I won't advocate for archers for the Britons.

Again, same problem. The Britons were Celts and Celts only started to migrate to the British islands gradually after 800 BC. What others did in Neolithic times is irrelevant here.

10 hours ago, Sundiata said:

Either way, don't Britons and Iberians both have slingers, kind of negating the archery issue in their case?

Yes, they do. Slingers are different from archers, but they can counter them.

10 hours ago, Sundiata said:

So no archers for Britons and Iberians, who have slingers, but archers for everybody else

To clarify, I'm not opposed to Briton and Iberian archers per se, but I'd like to see a reference first. Failing that, I agree it's better they don't have archers until then.

9 hours ago, av93 said:

A radical idea would be merging slinger and archer class, and the difference between them be purely cosmetical, for a easier balance.

I vehemently disagree with your radical idea. Archers and slingers were quite different units. Archers were typically massed and thus quite effective vs massed targets (including cavalry) but also vulnerable themselves to projectiles. Greek sources repeatedly state slingers easily outranged archers and that slingers were loosely organized (they needed space for swinging their slings); they were effective vs archers but vulnerable to cavalry.

9 hours ago, av93 said:

I know that a stone have a very different kind of damage that a arrow....

Slingers could sling anything from large stones of over 500 g (high impact, shorter range) to lead bullets of less than 5 g (too small and fast to see or dodge, highly penetrative, very hard to extract) and everything in between.

[LordGood]

lead slingers could outrange archers in the right conditions (up to 300 yards), but only lead slingers. Lead slingers can be reserved for mercenary/champion roles. Stone slingers may have a shorter range (60-80 yards), but they would fill the role quite fine as 'light archers'

[Sundiata]

Ok, so why not indeed, for the sake of gameplay, give slingers and archers the same unit-roles, with the same damage in terms of stats. Slingers would just have a slightly higher range/lower accuracy and archers a slightly lower range/higher accuracy. I think that's intuitive enough, no?

@Nescio It's not that I disagree with no archers for Iberians and Britons. I'm fine with slingers... I just disagree with overly absolute statements, and the idea that the bow disappeared from Iberia and Britain when their neighbors were using it and its use was widespread in the Mesolithic, Neolithic, Antiquity and the Middle Ages. It didn't just disappear in the Bronze Age. My theory is: The Neolithic bows were found in peat bogs if I recall correctly, which means they may have been offered (as the most advanced weapons of their time). During the bronze age, bronze weapons become a sign of status and wealth, and become preferred over the inferior bow for offerings, which is why there are no finds of bows from this period. The bows just decayed like everything else... 

6 hours ago, Nescio said:

Again, same problem. The Britons were Celts and Celts only started to migrate to the British islands gradually after 800 BC. What others did in Neolithic times is irrelevant here.

Not all the inhabitants of the British isles were Celts though, so what "other" did in Neolithic times is definitely very relevant here, because there's no evidence that they simply disappeared, and they would have influenced the British Celts, which explains some of the differences between them and mainland Celts (like roundhouses)... 

"Near-total population replacement" (of the Mesolithic people) is not the same as total. There is always some form of continuity, even if its minimal, but this can sometimes have significant implications. Modern Europeans are at least partially descended from their Mesolithic and Neolithic forbearers, even if it's just percentages we're talking about. 

Edited June 1, 2018 by Sundiata

[Nescio]

1 hour ago, Sundiata said:

Ok, so why not indeed, for the sake of gameplay, give slingers and archers the same unit-roles, with the same damage in terms of stats. Slingers would just have a slightly higher range/lower accuracy and archers a slightly lower range/higher accuracy. I think that's intuitive enough, no?

Right now we have two distinct unit types, archers and slingers, in game and it works. So why is there a need to merge them? We might as well merge horse archers and cavalry javelinists or bolt shooters and stone throwers.

1 hour ago, Sundiata said:

It's not that I disagree with no archers for Iberians and Britons. I'm fine with slingers... I just disagree with overly absolute statements, and the idea that the bow disappeared from Iberia and Britain when their neighbors were using it and its use was widespread in the Mesolithic, Neolithic, Antiquity and the Middle Ages. It didn't just disappear in the Bronze Age.

I'm not saying archery completely disappeared, I'm merely questioning whether it was still being used on the battlefield, and asking for a tiny bit of evidence.

1 hour ago, Sundiata said:

Not all the inhabitants of the British isles were Celts though, so what "other" did in Neolithic times is definitely very relevant here, because there's no evidence that they simply disappeared, and they would have influenced the British Celts, which explains some of the differences between them and mainland Celts (like roundhouses)... 

Let's exaggarate it a bit for the sake of argument: there is no evidence the Britons did not have quinqueremes or war elephants, some of their contemporary trading partners did, so they might have had them as well, we don't know, therefore give the Britons quinqueremes and war elephants in game.

1 hour ago, Sundiata said:

"Near-total population replacement" (of the Mesolithic people) is not the same as total. There is always some form of continuity, even if its minimal, but this can sometimes have significant implications. Modern Europeans are at least partially descended from their Mesolithic and Neolithic forbearers, even if it's just percentages we're talking about. 

True, but the resulting society and culture is very different from what it used to be before the population influx.

[Sundiata]

3 minutes ago, Nescio said:

I'm not saying archery completely disappeared, I'm merely questioning whether it was still being used on the battlefield, and asking for a tiny bit of evidence.

But I'm not arguing anymore for them to have recruitable archers (that was only in my first post on this topic). I'm just saying there's no reason to believe they fell out of use at any time. Bows were predominantly made of wood... There are no remains of 2000+ year old bows in Britain apart from the Neolithic ones in the peat bog, which were only preserved because of the peat. The British isles were pre-literate before the Romans. There are no British written records that I'm aware of... 

Spoiler

But as you said, the Britons depicted in-game are Celts, and the Celts of mainland Europe employed a lot of archers according to Julius Caesar:

"...and orders all the archers, of whom there was a very great number in Gaul, to be collected and sent to him [Vercingetorix]."

"Nor did he [Vercingetorix] allow almost any day to pass without testing in a cavalry action, the archers being intermixed, what spirit and valor there was in each of his own men."

"The Gauls had scattered archers and light-armed infantry here and there, among their cavalry, to give relief to their retreating troops, and sustain the impetuosity of our cavalry." 

Since Celtic culture in Britain came from mainland Europe (including Gauls and Belgae actually settling in Britain), and the general similarity in material culture, and the fact that bows were used before and after this period, including by the pre-Celtic people who weren't extinct during our time-frame, its just weird to think that bows would not have been used (even in combat), that's all I'm saying. I'm not offering hard evidence for the bow in combat in the British Isles during the Celtic period, because I have none. But if you were familiar with the state of conservation of 2000+ year old organic materials (which I'm sure you are), you'd know why... 

Even if they didn't produce bows themselves, your telling me they had no problem importing Italian wine, but bows from Gaul was too much effort? 

 

10 minutes ago, Nescio said:

Let's exaggarate it a bit for the sake of argument: there is no evidence the Britons did not have quinqueremes or war elephants, some of their contemporary trading partners did, so they might have had them as well, we don't know, therefore give the Britons quinqueremes and war elephants in game.

That makes no sense whatsoever...

Just to entertain you: if there was evidence for the use of quinqueremes and war elephants in Mesolithic and Neolithic Britain (which there obviously isn't), then you could argue that they may have used them in the bronze age, but seriously, what kind of comparison is that? Comparing a simple and ancient bow (which was definitely in use in Neolithic Britain) to the incredibly complicated quinquereme or war elephants (which definitely didn't exist in Neolithic Britain)...

[Nescio]

57 minutes ago, Sundiata said:

But I'm not arguing anymore for them to have recruitable archers (that was only in my first post on this topic).

Yes, I'm aware; we've already established Britons shouldn't have archers (and Gauls should).

59 minutes ago, Sundiata said:

But as you said, the Britons depicted in-game are Celts, and the Celts of mainland Europe employed a lot of archers according to Julius Caesar:

Caesars frequently mentions the Gauls using archers. However, he also invaded Britain (end of book IV, start of book V) and describes several battles there; he repeatedly states the Britons use chariotry and cavalry, spears and javelins, but he never mentions they had archers, bows, or arrows.

1 hour ago, Sundiata said:

That makes no sense whatsoever...

Just to entertain you: if there was evidence for the use of quinqueremes and war elephants in Mesolithic and Neolithic Britain (which there obviously isn't), then you could argue that they may have used them in the bronze age, but seriously, what kind of comparison is that? Comparing a simple and ancient bow (which was definitely in use in Neolithic Britain) to the incredibly complicated quinquereme or war elephants (which definitely didn't exist in Neolithic Britain)...

It's not a fair comparison, it's an exaggaration My intention was to show why I prefer "there is evidence they had", instead of "there is no evidence they had not".

[Sundiata]

47 minutes ago, Nescio said:

Caesars frequently mentions the Gauls using archers. However, he also invaded Britain (end of book IV, start of book V) and describes several battles there; he repeatedly states the Britons use chariotry and cavalry, spears and javelins, but he never mentions they had archers, bows, or arrows.

Caesar spent years campaigning all over Gaul (about 8 years, I think), as opposed to spending probably no more than 6 months in Britain (both campaigns combined), barely going inland at all. His descriptions of Britain including the specifics about the war are far less expansive and detailed. If anything, he says that there is little difference between the British Celts on the coast and the Gallic Celts (except for chariots for example).

 

57 minutes ago, Nescio said:

it's an exaggaration

And a logical fallacy. I wasn't arguing that Britains used the bow because Carthaginians, Ptolemies, Seleucids, Mauryans or Romans, used the bow. I was arguing that they used the bow because their immediate predecessors (yes, partly ancestors), used them, as well as their culturally very similar contemporary neighbors, the Gallic Celts. 

 

1 hour ago, Nescio said:

I prefer "there is evidence they had", instead of "there is no evidence they had not".

Yes, of course, but expecting tangible evidence in the form of organic remains from more than 2000 years ago, or written records from a pre-literate society is kind of silly, isn't it? Interpretation of circumstantial evidence becomes necessary in this scenario, and I believe that a "lack of archery among British Celts" is the wrong interpretation.

Archery being present, but probably not playing a big role in warfare seems like a much more tenable and nuanced position, than a lack of archery altogether.

[causative]

Ancient war bows were about the same range as slings (150 meters).  I think the difference is more in the amount of training required and the amount of damage dealt by projectiles.  An arrow is heavier and sharper than a sling bullet so the arrow should do more damage.  Bows are also more accurate than slings.  Bows require more training, a good military archer needs to train from childhood to be able to draw and shoot a heavy bow, so I think they should be limited to civilizations with a strong archery tradition.  Also an archer can't carry as much ammunition as a slinger.

I'd also expect the bow fire rate to be superior to a sling, though I don't recall reading this.  It's a simpler, shorter motion to nock and shoot an arrow than to load a sling bullet and whirl it around.

Edited June 1, 2018 by causative

[fatherbushido]

On 5/31/2018 at 8:57 PM, Grugnas said:

perhaps siege towers could just have a capture rate equal to a multiplicator multiplied by the number of soldiers garrisoned into it with the only role to capture buildings in safety and efficiently.

doable