Combined Arms Units

[Harry Tuttle]

No, not Marines with Harriers. I'm talking about army configuration in the ancient world.

Most ancient armies employed the use of foot soldiers combined with some sort of mobile force on the battlefield. Alexander the Great employed a strong core of phalanx guarded by a heavy cavalry wing. Successful armies more often than not used cavalry to guide their foes into heavy infantry meat grinders. So, the question is, how can I display such combinations in Civ?

Right now I'm working on a Roman scenario. The problem is that I don't necessarily want to split up my units based on whether they are exclusively foot soldiers or cavalry. I want to combine armies to mirror how most major engagements were fought, that is with both infantry and cavalry. How do I show this?

I thought about using mini units, but I thought that the lack of graphics would detract from the scenario. I love mini units, but I want a player to feel immersed in this foreign time period. Curt's use of mini units is perfect for WWII and other scenarios based around the age of the motion picture since people can more relate, but with an ancient scenario I feel that people need to be introduced to how the ancients dressed and warred.

So my next choice would be to use full size units. Problem is that the unit graphics would look crowded if I placed a Principe next to a Noble Cavalryman. So what should I do? Should I use icons to designate a cavalry contingent with my core legion? Will the use of a Principe graphic for two types of units prove to be redundant?

What's your opinion?

[EZRhino]

It's a good point for historical accuracy... though it would depend largely on the culture and time period. For instance the Parthians wouldn't employ cavalry archers side by side with elephants. The devil's advocate might also say that with cavalry, at least, it might not be a big problem to have separate units. I'm not very knowledgeable about early Roman cavalry tactics but the classical greeks, excepting the Macedonians, used cavalry less for flank and envelopment attacks in pitched-battle (in the Persian fashion), and more for harrying marches or retreats, and harrasing lines of communication....

On the gfx side, though it'd be nice for the art to represent the unity of armies and not individual units, I think it would look too busy and distracting to use multi-units. At least thats my experience playing scenarios in the past that used that technique...

[Harry Tuttle]

I agree with what you said. If I were to represent Scythians I would use cavalry exclusively. Though, as in the case of a Carthaginian army, I might not use the Balearic Slinger unit graphic as a single unit as a Balearic Slinger would almost always be used with a heavy infantry force.

I think I might eliminate the cavalry unit graphic for the Romans as they based a large majority of their tactics around infantry groups. I will probably use an infantry graphic with a cavalry icon to designate a cavalry attachment. Cost and movement of the combined infantry/cavalry force will have to be adjusted, but I think it's a fair compromise.

[techumseh]

Will there be some smaller auxillary units of cavalry etc. as well as large and powerful army units? Exile used this approach in his Crusades scenario.

Why not use a leader unit with a flag or standard to represent larger formations of all arms?

[Harry Tuttle]

There will. Explorates (Scouts) and Speculatores (Spy Scouts) will have a cavalry type graphic. There will be the option for all to build a mercenary/allied cavalry early on that will have a cavalry graphic. Leaders will have a specific horse mounted graphic with the appropriate stats of a large, multi faceted force.

[Jerec]

Originally posted by techumseh
Why not use a leader unit with a flag or standard to represent larger formations of all arms?

Sounds like the best solution. Although, civs like the Parthians, Gauls, and Germans would have no combined forces. Yes, there was cavalry, but like EZRhino pointed out they're for slaughtering retreating forces in a rout or for scouting. Only the Macedonians and Carthaginians used combined armies to a high degree...that is, effectively combined all three groups: ranged, mounted, and foot soldiers. The Romans are excluded because they heavily maximized in high-class foot troops: the legionaries. All the ranged troops or cavalry were local levies. Also, from what I've read the Romans didn't really get into archers or slingers- they usually used javelin volleys from the legionaries. Of course, this wasn't the case in later years where auxiliaries were the majority in the Roman army.

[techumseh]

I've found that stackable terrain works well in ToT, if the period precedes aircraft. Using airbases doesn't affect unit movement the way forts do, and the AI responds well to their use as stackable terrain. This might be a good alternative to all-arms large units. Just a thought.

[Harry Tuttle]

Originally posted by techumseh
I've found that stackable terrain works well in ToT, if the period precedes aircraft. Using airbases doesn't affect unit movement the way forts do, and the AI responds well to their use as stackable terrain. This might be a good alternative to all-arms large units. Just a thought.

Good point, but am I to assume that in order to effect the use of an all-arms army that civ would need to employ multiple units of varying degrees? So, to really field an all-arms army a civ would have to create a large number of units?

Damn I'm getting confused. OK, my assumption is that you're proposing stackable terrain so realistic armies could be made up of a number of different individual units. These units would have to attack one by one to effectively act like an army.

My question, based on my assumption, is how the AI will react. I know that an AI will probably not create a bunch of different units and employ them in a combined attack. This would, because of limited AI ability, create a disadvantage for the AI against a human player as the AI would probably employ units one-by-one. So how does the AI actually react to stackable terrain?

[Jerec]

Originally posted by Harry Tuttle
My question, based on my assumption, is how the AI will react. I know that an AI will probably not create a bunch of different units and employ them in a combined attack. This would, because of limited AI ability, create a disadvantage for the AI against a human player as the AI would probably employ units one-by-one. So how does the AI actually react to stackable terrain?

If airbase, no reaction at all, in my experience. And the AI inability seems to doom this multiple-unit=combined-army idea from the start. That is, unless you can make the perfect balance of unit stats and roles so that the AI will make them all. Not that it can't be done, but it would take a lot of thinking to figure that one out.

[Jerec]

Originally posted by Harry Tuttle
Damn I'm getting confused. OK, my assumption is that you're proposing stackable terrain so realistic armies could be made up of a number of different individual units. These units would have to attack one by one to effectively act like an army.

I don't blame you, and your assumption appears to be correct.

[Harry Tuttle]

Well I for one would not try to get the AI to create a bunch if units with varying abilities. That's basically my idea from the start. The AI will create the most efficiently produced and capable unit it can. I just want to create a unit that combine features.

[Harry Tuttle]

Cross post

[techumseh]

Actually, my experience from Roman Civil Wars and Frederick the Great, is that with airbases as stackable terrain, the AI does stack its units. Not big 8 or 10 unit stacks moving as one unit, but 2-4 unit stacks are common.

@Jerec: with a little trial and error, it's not really hard to get the AI to build a full spectrum of units.

[Harry Tuttle]

Originally posted by techumseh
Actually, my experience from Roman Civil Wars and Frederick the Great, is that with airbases as stackable terrain, the AI does stack its units. Not big 8 or 10 unit stacks moving as one unit, but 2-4 unit stacks are common.

Does the AI fortify across the countryside or will it keep the majority of its units within cities?

[techumseh]

It seems to follow the normal rules - build several units with a role of 1 (defend), which stay in cities, then switch to those with a 0 role (attack), or another role, which move out and attack.

You can get the AI to build limited numbers of units it would not otherwise build by changing their role. You can give land units such roles as air superiority (3), naval superiority (2), or even sea transport (4). I like to use air superiority for leader units, since they tend only to attack when they can win, so they usually last much longer than if I give them a 0 role.

If you use 'reveal map' to look at the build menu in the city of another civ, without switching to that civ as the human player, the build menu will display all the civs the AI will build. It's a quick way to check without having to play a bunch of turns to see what the AI civs produce.