Civ of the week- the critique begins- The Babylonians

[lord of the mark]

This thread is intended to critique the civ specific charecteristics from an historical accuracy point of view - discussions of their strategy implications is being taken up in another thread.

Babylonians -
Religious and scientific
1. Is it accurate? - Yes, they were both intensely devoted to the old Sumerian/Akkadian gods, and the temple establishments were at the core of their culture. And they were scientifically advanced, especially in math and astronomy. and yes they did have cere. burial and bronze in 4000BC.
2. Was it determined in 4000BC? - Since the Bab's, if interpreted to include the Sumerians, actually were around in 4000BC and did have these charecteristics, I will say yes. Now i suppose it could be argued that their retention of these traits for 3500 years was not inevitable, but thats a quibble.

Implementation score so far - very good

Bowmen - Is it accurate? ---- What the ***? what period are they actually talking about? Certainly by late bronze it was chariots that dominated the battlefield, and babylonian chariot archers were no better than others. They must be referring to early bronze, sumerian/akkadian period. I dont know much about this period (in terms of warfare) but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.
Was it inevitable in 4000BC? - Assuming they're talking about Sumerian archers in early bronze, I'll say yes.

So far so good - but they have started with an "early civ" one that actually existed in 4000BC. If they can limit themselves to CSU's and special abilities that existed in 4000BC or shortly thereafter there will be nothing to criticize as far as historical accuracy

I eagerly await the next civ

LOTM

[tniem]

Already a thread begun discussing these points:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24137

Man is it hard to find things here now that Civ3.com has launched...

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by tniem
Already a thread begun discussing these points:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24137

Man is it hard to find things here now that Civ3.com has launched...

That thread seems to be a strategy discussion. I prefer to keep the historical accuracy issue seperate from the strategy/game balance issue, if possible - its likely to get very confusing otherwise.

LOTM

[KrazyHorse]

LOTM, I think you already made your point on this one a few months ago.

Yes, it's pretty much meaningless to assign a specific set of attributes to a civ and assume that these will be operational on a millennial timescale. Yes, you can turn it off. Yes, (for me at least) it'll be fun/ add to gameplay.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
LOTM, I think you already made your point on this one a few months ago.

Yes, it's pretty much meaningless to assign a specific set of attributes to a civ and assume that these will be operational on a millennial timescale. Yes, you can turn it off. Yes, (for me at least) it'll be fun/ add to gameplay.

Yeah, but then it was abstract. Now I get to really have fun And really, its not fair to judge an idea until yousee how it is implemented

On the turning off issue, i may have more to say.

LOTM

[ancient]

i dont think ill be playing as the babylonians for a while, theyre advantages just dont seem to be very good...

religous and scientific does sound like a good combination.. but the +1 move for the archer isnt really usefull at all...

[- Groucho -]

I think the Babylonians will be great to play, just cause their leader looks so smarmy.

[tniem]

Originally posted by ancient
i dont think ill be playing as the babylonians for a while, theyre advantages just dont seem to be very good...

religous and scientific does sound like a good combination.. but the +1 move for the archer isnt really usefull at all...

Religion keeps you from entering anarchy during a government switch. This could be huge. Having problems with your democracy, no fear switch away without loosing production for a turn. Certainly could give you that slight edge.

Same for science. An extra tech every era. Huge! I think the Babylonians could be a very beneficial civ and will be used by many players.

[hetairoi22]

It will also be easier for them to increase their culture rating, because the scientific (library) and religious (temple) structures are the most culture giving.

As mentioned above, the "lack" of anarchy is a huge advantage. You can just play as a democracy/republic, and the next turn wage a full blown war against some intruders.

The +1 movement point can be a huge advantage in the early game. Pursuing enemies, attacking them before they can attack the city, scouting. Well, it also depends, of course, if the horsemen/chariots are are just as fast as the bowman (most sertainly), if attack is higher/lower and their cost.

Just some oppinions.

Oh, by the way, I think I'll start out as the "Babs".

[hetairoi22]

Originally posted by Echinda
I think the Babylonians will be great to play, just cause their leader looks so smarmy.

If you play as them you, most likely, won't se the leader picture.

[Swissy]

Re: Civ of the week- the critique begins- The Babylonians

Originally posted by lord of the mark

Bowmen - Is it accurate? ---- What the ***? what period are they actually talking about? Certainly by late bronze it was chariots that dominated the battlefield, and babylonian chariot archers were no better than others.

Actually the Babylonians in the later period lead middle eastern ancient warfare from chariots to cavalry. The Assyrians completed the transition. The Babylonians also started the trend away from spearmen to bowmen, the best way to break a chariot unit was a rain of arrows. The culmination of this are the Persian armies which were all bowmen and cavalry, and had to buy Greek mercenaries to have any spear/pike armed foot soldiers.

[lord of the mark]

Re: Re: Civ of the week- the critique begins- The Babylonians

Originally posted by Swissy


Actually the Babylonians in the later period lead middle eastern ancient warfare from chariots to cavalry. The Assyrians completed the transition. The Babylonians also started the trend away from spearmen to bowmen, the best way to break a chariot unit was a rain of arrows. The culmination of this are the Persian armies which were all bowmen and cavalry, and had to buy Greek mercenaries to have any spear/pike armed foot soldiers.

a rain of arrows from other chariots, if i read Drews correctly. The dominant infantry weapons at the time that infantry came to dominate (1200-1100 BC) were javelins (which could be launched on the run,against a moving chariot, in contrast to bow and arrow) and swords. Persian army is much later, well after the passing of the chariotries. In fact it was the tmie when the spearman (the hoplite) dominated the battlefield, with archers as auxiliaries, which continued through the Romans. As for no Persian pikemen Ill have to check Herodutus, what were "The Immoratals"? bowmen? In any case Im still not clear what period is in reference for the dominant Bab bowmen. 1200 to 900? 600 to 400? what? Your post included not a single date.

LOTM

[- Groucho -]

Originally posted by hetairoi22


If you play as them you, most likely, won't se the leader picture.

Sure, but the people playing against you will be confronted by a picture of a guy that looks like a used car salesman who just lit a big fattie after getting suited up as an extra in his local opera's production of Aida. It will make it very hard for them to take you seriously as a military threat.

[JMarks]

Babylonians sound pretty good, but their golden age comes way too early for me. Plus, don't archers have a lower attack/defense than before? This new archer is the equivilant to a civ2 horseman, only we don't know any costs. Otherwise it sounds pretty good.

PS, anyone know the British special unit? Dreadnaught? Longbowman?

[Odin]

Double post