korn's Civ3 vs. History Challenge!

[Willem]

Originally posted by Spatzimaus

I would assume, first of all, that if the game were changed to allow units to become obsolete, that the AI would choose to upgrade rather than lose the units (right now, there's not much of a drawback to not upgrading; add a drawback, and an AI is much more likely to make the right choice)

This would probably require a reprogramming of the AI. Then there'd be the problem of whether the AI has enoough money to upgrade. From what I've seen so far, none of them ever do. The simplest solution therefor would be to just let the AI have free upgrades.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Zachriel

That is often the case. The current "buzz" in history circles is the published research of John Keegan in History of Warfare. His basic assertions have made a big splash among researchers and have already been largely accepted by the majority of historians. The way he defines "pitched battle" is pretty standard, but specific.

"Pitched battle" is the concept that a battle will be determined in one single conflict, what Keegan terms a "day of decision."
In the story of David and Goliath, when the two armies meet, they send out their champions. Then maybe they'll do it the next day, or maybe one force will withdraw.

The Greeks of Alexander's time would stand their ground, and not yield. We would say "do or die."

Given this description of a pitched battle, I understand what you mean. It is actually a ritual based upon the Greeks having the same force limitations as one another, (ie militia who had better things to do than siege, or fight a drawn out war of maneuver). While the Greeks tended to regularly fight each other this way, to the extent of more or less agreeing to meet at a given place to decide the matter, this was by no means universally adopted elsewhere. Fortified cities are a testament to this fact.

In most cases absent an agreement to fight a battle, it was almost impossible to force one on an unwilling opponent, because given equivalent mobility it is faster to run away than it is to form for battle and pursue. Throughout most of military history battles have been fought by agreement (often when both forces were suffering from supply difficulties), or by one side forcing the other into a battle by trapping the other force (rare) or by threatening something of a great enough value that the enemy force felt it worth risking a battle.

Let's take Alexander for example. Darius had just put down a major rebellion and didn't want to concentrate all of his forces (and leave his empire without garrisons to keep the lid on) to take on Alexander in Anatolia. His general in Anatolia suggested using a scorched earth policy in Anatolia, but Darius felt that the region would revolt if it was put through such destruction. So he had the local commanders fight with what they had in the hopes that a victory would allow him to remain in political control of the rest of the empire. Alexander outmaneuvered and outfought the troops in Anatolia, and rapidly overran it.

At this point Darius became alarmed and rushed a large army to meet Alexander in battle. He didn't want to leave his empire bare, and he didn't want to let Alexander just walk over some of his richest provinces, so he decided to risk a battle in order to free up his army quickly so that it could return to protecting his own political viability. He got his battle, and he lost it. At this point Alexander does not pursue because he doesn't have a secure line of supply due to the superior Persian fleet. Darius fled to the East to build a new army, while Alexander took every Persian port in the Eastern Mediterranean one after the other, which basically eliminated the Persian fleet and his supply problems. This took the better part of a year IIRC.

While Alexander was conquering the Lebanese coast and Egypt Darius built himself a new army, one which was designed to defeat the tactics he had observed Alexander using. There followed a fairly long war of maneuver, where Darius was looking to offer battle in a position where he could take his best shot at eliminating Alexander. He succeeded in outmaneuvering Alexander, and forcing him to fight in a position of Darius' choosing. If Alexander had not been trapped, he certainly would have refused battle and chosen better ground to meet Darius. He still won the battle btw.

Note that the reasons for the pitched battles in these instances have nothing to do with it being the style of the Greeks. In every case one or both sides desired a battle for a strategic reason. Darius seriously considered devestating the regions around Alexander and forcing him to retreat or starve, but decided that he would rather risk battle. Alexander's bag was battles, which he could win by his genius, and he was keen to take most opporunities to do so, the exception being when his supply situation was too precarious to pursue or when he was offered a battle where the enemy was in a particularly strong position. Both sides knew well the full nature of warfare, that it involves both maneuver and battle, with maneuver being by far the larger share. Both sides maneuvered and fought battles with great skill, which is why this campaign has been studied for two millenia.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Sikander
Given this description of a pitched battle, I understand what you mean. . . . Both sides maneuvered and fought battles with great skill, which is why this campaign has been studied for two millenia.

And your analysis plays right into the topic of the thread. These are issues that every good Civ3 players must deal with. Whether or not to leaves garrisons, whether or not to raze cities, whether the people will stay loyal or bolt to the other side. In this case, Egypt welcomed Alexander as a god and deserving ruler. They flipped.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Sikander
Given this description of a pitched battle, I understand what you mean. . . . Both sides maneuvered and fought battles with great skill, which is why this campaign has been studied for two millenia.

And your analysis leads right back into the topic of the thread. These are issues that every good Civ3 players must deal with. Whether or not to leaves garrisons, whether or not to raze cities, whether the people will stay loyal or bolt to the other side. In this case, Egypt welcomed Alexander as a god and deserving ruler. They flipped.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Zachriel


And your analysis leads right back into the topic of the thread. These are issues that every good Civ3 players must deal with. Whether or not to leaves garrisons, whether or not to raze cities, whether the people will stay loyal or bolt to the other side. In this case, Egypt welcomed Alexander as a god and deserving ruler. They flipped.

Never a good sign when you start repeating yourself. To many late night sessions with Civ 3?

[Arrian]

Keegan. I remember him from college. Good stuff, the ritual vs. pitched warfare you're discussing.

IIRC, the real advantage the Macedonians, and the Romans after them, had was excellent organization (more tactical in Macedonians case, both tactical and strategic in Rome's case). That, and determination. Throw in a phenomenon like Alexander, and you start to understand what happened to the Persian Empire.

One thing that impressed me about Alexander was a battle he fought near the Indus, against a local group that had war elephants (I recall it from the Life of Alexander I read, written by a Roman historian of Greek descent named, oddly enough, Arrian). IIRC, the elephants initially gave Alex some problems, but he learned - quickly - and beat them. Many commanders, upon encountering a weapon or tactic they are unfamiliar with, would lose. The only thing that eventually stopped Alexander was the mutiny of his own men. The man would have kept marching eastward, and probably would have ended up in China...and then started building ships.

The reason European armies tended to thrash native opponents during the colonial era wasn't just technology. A lot of times, the natives acquired guns. The difference was their approach to warfare. Organization & discipline - a professional army.

-Arrian