The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
And to heck with Agincort! Its about to go on my list with Rorke's Drift and Marc Antony culture flipping as annoying aberrations...
Agincourt and Rorke's Drift weren't anomalies, though; simply the best examples of (respectively) the power of longbows against infantry/cavalry and the power of rifles in the defense of a fortified position...
Originally posted by KrazyHorse
So, we should also count every gunpowder unit as a bombardment unit?
The Civ3 designers obviously weren't using such a broad definition when they designated abilities...
In order to promote the same idea of Archers and Longbowmen, maybe so. But bullets don't have anywhere near the arc and "uncertain destination" of arrows (though some may care to differ with the early muskets... but those were just plain inaccurate), so I could make a case for them not being bombardment units, but I won't. You are correct in that they didn't design bombardment to be anything beyond things going crash boom kabam, so it wouldn't be the best fit. On another note, Musketmen did actually engage each other moreso than Archers or Longbowmen did as well. And besides, making ALL ranged units bombardment units would destroy the balance and playability of the game. I feel that making some early fairly strong and versatile ranged units adds to the fun. Some may disagree, and feel the tradeoffs (already mentioned so I won't repeat) detract too much from the game, but I don't believe so.
I think that only Longbowman should get the bombard flag, since this is how they were used historically - to soften the enemy up before sendng in the pikemen, etc. Musketeers, on the other hand, were regularly depoyed on the front line and would have a direct line of fire. Besides, you couldn't fire a bullet in an arc like a longbow - the bullet simply doesn't have the aerodynamics that an arrow does.
Agincourt and Rorke's Drift weren't anomalies, though; simply the best examples of (respectively) the power of longbows against infantry/cavalry and the power of rifles in the defense of a fortified position...
I think I misspoke here ... I meant the battle the Zulus won, not the attack they lost afterwards ... Isandwana or something. My bad.
I meant they were anomalous in that spearmen attacked and defeated gunpowder guys, and archers defeated attacking knights, not the normal results in either case. (Yes we all know the stories why very well ... they are like pop culture military history )
The Zulu thing is a minor peeve of mine, because it is ALWAYS mentioned in threads about the combat system ... I think it is silly to base something around one extreme example instead of the mass of normal results. (Not that I am unhappy with the combat system, but give the Zulu-example defense a rest!)
Anyway, that was a very small joke at the end of my post, not my main point, which summed up the bombarding archers debate fairly well I think...
The Archers helped demoralize the oncoming knights through the bottleneck. When the English light infantry raced forward and slaughtered them, the rest of the French retreated and everyone behind them ran away also. I'm not advocating every one of the 5,000 French casualties had an arrow through their chest... I was simply stating that the main cause of the English victory was the weather, terrain, and troop types.
Sorry that wasn't directed specifically at you. I agree that the main cause of the French defeat was the weather, terrain and troop types in that order.
Delete the archers from the English order of battle and I think that they still could have won. Delete the forests that the English used to anchor each flank, and force the French to bunch up and I think that they probably lose.
Originally posted by zulu9812
I think that only Longbowman should get the bombard flag, since this is how they were used historically - to soften the enemy up before sendng in the pikemen, etc. Musketeers, on the other hand, were regularly depoyed on the front line and would have a direct line of fire. Besides, you couldn't fire a bullet in an arc like a longbow - the bullet simply doesn't have the aerodynamics that an arrow does.
Originally posted by nato
I meant they were anomalous in that spearmen attacked and defeated gunpowder guys, and archers defeated attacking knights, not the normal results in either case. (Yes we all know the stories why very well ... they are like pop culture military history )
In Civ3, how often does an infantry unit lose to a spearman? At most once a game? Once every other game? Twice in a single game?
In the real world, how often have spearmen beat infantry? Once or twice?
We remember these events because they are unusual, and because they are occassionally decisive.
Originally posted by Austin
Sorry that wasn't directed specifically at you. I agree that the main cause of the French defeat was the weather, terrain and troop types in that order.
Delete the archers from the English order of battle and I think that they still could have won. Delete the forests that the English used to anchor each flank, and force the French to bunch up and I think that they probably lose.
Austin
Ahhh, okay, sorry. It seemed posts were coming in a flurry at me so I replied to everything I saw.
I don't know if the English could have won. Archers made up 4/5 of their entire army. Even with the conditions what they were, the French would have eventually reached, and overwhelmed the English forces, who they would outnumber 10 to 1. The archers were pivotal in demoralizing the troops that charged forward, making them retreat, and subsequently, all the troops behind them followed suit.
Originally posted by Trip This is the point I'm trying to make.
I know - I was lending my support
I don't think archers should get bombard either - they didn't have the range until longbows came along. This makes the longbowman a more strategicly important unit - akin to rifleman.
I know some military stuff, but I'm not as hard-core as most of you all seem.
What do you call the type of archer that fires arrows using their feet and hands? They lie on the ground, brace their bows against their feet, pull back with their hands, and fire the arrow off. If any archer could be considered bombard, shouldn't these?
Engineering is one of my backgrounds, and it seems to me that this is a particularly effective way of extending the range and reducing the muscular effort required (since leg muscles are substantially stronger than arm muscles). The only thing is that it might be harder to aim - though at that range, you never really were aiming at anything in particular.
(*You can see this type of archer in action in the movie "the Mission".)
Proud Citizen of the Civ 3 Demo Game
Retired Justice of the Court, Staff member of the War Academy, Staff member of the Machiavelli Institute Join the Civ 3 Demo Game $Mini-Game! ~ Play the Civ 3 Demo Game $Mini-Game! Voici mon secret. Il est très simple: on ne voit bien qu'avec le coeur. L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux.
Originally posted by zulu9812
One of the overriding factors in archery is the tension in the bow - sheer muscle only gets you so far.
right, but the more tension in the bow, the more force required to draw the bowstring back. thus, it is easier to draw back a high tension bow with your legs and arms, than arms alone - and you can draw it further back. the further the bowstring is drawn back, the more tension. Or more importantly, the more stored elastic potential energy (EPE) which converts to the kinetic energy(KE) of the arrow's motion and the potential gravitational energy (PGE, the arc height). using projectile motion analysis, we see that 45 degrees is the optimal angle for maximum range (disregarding air resistance which is generally minor, unless there is a substantial wind), but in any case, PGE and KE roughly sum to EPE so the more EPE, the further the arrow travels or the more speed (and thus penetrating power) it has.
or did you mean something else?
you don't happen to know the name of the unit, do you?
Proud Citizen of the Civ 3 Demo Game
Retired Justice of the Court, Staff member of the War Academy, Staff member of the Machiavelli Institute Join the Civ 3 Demo Game $Mini-Game! ~ Play the Civ 3 Demo Game $Mini-Game! Voici mon secret. Il est très simple: on ne voit bien qu'avec le coeur. L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux.
My point is this - lots of muscle behind a low-tension bow compared with lots of muscle behind a high-tension bow. Which gives the longer range? Larger bows exert more force on the bowstring, creating more tension and thus forcing the firer to use more strength, whereas he wouldn't necessarily do that if he didn't have to. I've handled a longbow - you need to be pretty strong to fire it, but it has one hell of a range and power.
Originally posted by zulu9812
My point is this - lots of muscle behind a low-tension bow compared with lots of muscle behind a high-tension bow. Which gives the longer range? Larger bows exert more force on the bowstring, creating more tension and thus forcing the firer to use more strength, whereas he wouldn't necessarily do that if he didn't have to. I've handled a longbow - you need to be pretty strong to fire it, but it has one hell of a range and power.
ok, I see your point. I guess I was assuming the "leg powered" bows were of equal or higher tension than longbows. Since you could develop more force, you could then use higher tension bows. (You just weren't very mobile lying there with your back on the ground. but hopefully no one got that close anyway) But maybe they weren't very high tension, I don't know. Perhaps at the time, the type of wood was the deciding factor for tension and only England had that particular type of wood? I imagine now that synthetics and composite materials are available, this is no longer the case. I think bows would only be used nowadays for silent attack, and long range isn't a priority. Long range weapons would use chemical propellants (replaces muscular power with chemical power). I bet firing a thousand arrows would be way more exhausting than firing a thousand bullets.
Proud Citizen of the Civ 3 Demo Game
Retired Justice of the Court, Staff member of the War Academy, Staff member of the Machiavelli Institute Join the Civ 3 Demo Game $Mini-Game! ~ Play the Civ 3 Demo Game $Mini-Game! Voici mon secret. Il est très simple: on ne voit bien qu'avec le coeur. L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux.
) 
This is the point I'm trying to make. 
but hopefully no one got that close anyway) But maybe they weren't very high tension, I don't know. Perhaps at the time, the type of wood was the deciding factor for tension and only England had that particular type of wood? I imagine now that synthetics and composite materials are available, this is no longer the case. I think bows would only be used nowadays for silent attack, and long range isn't a priority. Long range weapons would use chemical propellants (replaces muscular power with chemical power). I bet firing a thousand arrows would be way more exhausting than firing a thousand bullets.
Tweet
Comment