fix civ2's tech tree

[Urban Ranger]

A UN without USSR wouldn't be UN now, would it, considering USSR was one of the biggest and most powerful nations then?

[OrangeSfwr]

A UN without the USSR would be the league of Nations. The Soviets were kicked out after attacking Finland around 1939 (give or take a year) But that's not the point. The UN was not to prevent Communism from spreading, or being formed in East Europe, or from being used in the USSR. The UN didn't deal with Communism. It was made to prevent WWIII, and it just happens to be that the Soviets and Western powers were the most obvious candidates for WWIII, and it just happens to be that the USSR was Communist.

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~
"Oh, they have the Internet on computers now!"

[S. Kroeze]

On the issue of combining Engineering and Richard's Crusade I agree 100% with the Diplomat. There really is no relation whatsoever between them. The Crusade was a sort of Christian jihad(=holy war) and Engineering didn't contribute anything remarkable to the expedition. And the reward of this Wonder, extra shields, has nothing in common with waging war and killing innocent Muslims with their women and children.

This Crusade is a Wonder that in my opinion should be excluded from the game. Killing the 'infidel' and conquering his land doesn't contribute to the happiness of humanity. And in the end all the effort of the Christians was in vain: Jerusalem was conquered in 1099, lost in 1187 to Saladin, who was both a superior statesman and a greater humanitarian; acquired through negotiation in 1229 by the Emperor Friedrich II, and permanently lost in 1244. Acre/Akko, the last Christian stronghold, fell in 1291. King Richard didn't play a significant part; the Third Crusade(1189-1192) didn't accomplish its goal: the recapture of Jerusalem!

[OrangeSfwr]

If anything, tie it in with Crusaders. Like free support for Crusaders + all crusaders start with veteran status + all crusaders have +2 attack/defense. Anything but giving more shields! But I'd rather see it out of the game, it's a pointless wonder.

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~
"Oh, they have the Internet on computers now!"

[Urban Ranger]

I agree. It's silly to have that as a Wonder.

[Spekter]

It's not necessarily silly, but it does show the game's western, christian bias. I think someone said it elsewhere, but all of the Wonders need to be generalized a lot more. They should "borrow" the effects of "real" wonders, but not the names or originating cultures. If you want to put something like the Crusades in, call it the Jihad or better yet, let the player name it when he builds it.

[Marcel I]

Elephants were widely used in the campaigns of Alexander the Great.. They did play a significant role because they were hard to kill in battle and caused a lot of damage to the infantry units of that time.
They were also slower than normal cavalry so I don't think their effect is portrayed very well in Civ2.
When Firaxis puts the unit in Civ3 I think it should get a high defense in field battles (like it is always fortified) and a high attack against fortified units, but only one movement point.
Civ2's picture representing mechanised infantry looks more like armored cars after WW1. In Germany they were used to suppress riots induced by communist and anarchist groups. It's the only feeble link I see with communism and labor union.
The concept of mechanised infantry is logically connected with mobile warfare. The germans in WW2 did hardly use MI in their early victories in Poland and France, but gradually all kinds of halftrack vehicles were used in battle. Other kinds of transport just couldn't keep up with the tanks.

------------------
Adopt, Adapt and Improve

[S. Kroeze]

quote: Originally posted by Marcel I on 06-12-2000 06:08 AM Elephants were widely (?) used in the campaigns of Alexander the Great.. They did play a significant role because they were hard to kill in battle and caused a lot of damage to the infantry units of that time. They were also slower than normal cavalry so I don't think their effect is portrayed very well in Civ2. When Firaxis puts the unit in Civ3 I think it should get a high defense in field battles (like it is always fortified) and a high attack against fortified units, but only one movement point.

Elephant:
According to the 'Times Atlas of Archaeology' in about 600BC the first war elephants were used in India.

'The war elephant was first used in India and was known to the Persians by the 4th century BC. Though they accomplished little subsequently, their presence in Hannibal's army during its transit of the Alps into Italy in 218 BC underscored their perceived utility. The elephant's tactical importance apparently stemmed in large part from its willingness to charge both men and horses and from the panic that it inspired in horses.'
(source: Britannica.com, article 'military technology')
So they weren't very useful; I like their trumpeting though.

Sometimes my encyclopaedic citations can be used in a very practical way. One should be willing and able to read such a citation carefully, though. Unfortunately some people don't have that ability!
To my knowledge Alexander the Great never used elephants. He fought against them in India. For the history buffs just a small citation to show I am not inventing history, but only using knowledge easily accessible.

(In my opinion it would simplify discussions a lot when people wouldn't make unfounded statements about subjects not belonging to their field of knowledge. That's the main reason I use citations: the other party can verify the source of my statements)

'Finally, there were the elephants he met on the Hydaspes in his epic battle with the Indian prince Porus. It has been said his troops were never the same afterward. Yet Alexander was quick to grasp the significance of these warlike pachyderms (untrained horses would not charge them, nor could the phalanx keep them at bay) and arranged for substantial numbers to be returned to the West, where his Successors would eagerly compete for them.'
(source: R.L.O'Connell:'Of Arms and Men',1989)

Andz83 will probably not sleep this night due to indigestion, but I can live with that.

And I agree with Marcel I that the elephant should remain in the game, because it has become part of the Civ-folklore. But the character/game-values of the unit should be brought more to agreement with reality!

[Par4]

An elephant never forgets! I seriously doubt Hannibal would have gotten as far as he did in Italy without his elephants. They broke up Roman legions which allowed the better trained and veteran Carthaginians to defeat the romans 1 on 1. They also scared some roman horses and could act as platforms for archers to get a good shot at unprotected infantry. I have a great book on the 2nd punic war that has a chapter that talks all about how elephants won the war, well almost. Also Scipio's use of columns to divert elephants was very very important to victory over hannibal in Zama. Elephants must stay because an elephant never forgets.

Yay elephants, aaaahhhhh a mouse, squish!

------------------
I use this email
(stupid cant use hotmail)
gamma_par4@hotmail.com
Don't ask for golf tips
Your game will get worse
HappyLand

[Hasdrubal]

Elephants and Hannibal: Hannibal took several dozens of elephants with him when he started his famous campaign across the Alps and into Italy in 218 b.c. Most elephants perished already while crossing the Alps, the remainder were lost in the very first battle. Save for one, which he used for himself. This last unfortunate animal died the year after, in 217 b.c. The remaining 16 years of the second Punic War were fought without elephants.
The actual use of war elephants is very limited. They are clumsy, tough to train and enormously expensive to feed. They can't compete with the speed of a horse or the strength of a chariot. Not to mention that they are as likely to trample your own troops as well as your opponents to death. The best use of elephants is in scaring the enemy away. Here is were the link with polytheism becomes clear. Imagine those poor, unsuspecting and superstitious Celtic tribes when they first saw Hannibal riding and commanding this huge, imposing, never-before-seen beast that seemed to come directly out of another world. The world of the Gods...
My proposal for it's use in the game would be to lower it's speed, and give it a special bonus, like taking away the veteran status of your opponent, or lowering the defensive power by one, by reason of the fear that an onrushing elephant causes.

------------------
Ceterum censeo Romanem esse delendam.
[This message has been edited by Hasdrubal (edited June 12, 2000).]

[OrangeSfwr]

I agree with the fact the elephants should be in the game, but I disagree with making them a separate unit. How about taking the Elephant and Horses and making them additions to a unit.

Example - Warrior (1/1/1) + Horse = Horsemen (2/1/2)
Archer (3/2/1) + Horse = Mounted Archers (better name!) (4/2/2)
Warrior (1/1/1) + Elephant = Elephant Warrior (better name!) (3/2/2 + 50% attack versus horsemen)
Archer (3/2/1) + Elephant = Elephant Archer (better name!) = (5/3/2)
Legion (4/2/1) + Horse = (5/2/2) Dragoons?

etc...

This could tie in with the Unit workshop. I don't know if anyone sees room for expansion on this idea, but basically I see it as horse adding 1 movement + 1 attack; Elephant adding 2 attack, 1 defense, 1 movement and so on...


------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~
"Oh, they have the Internet on computers now!"
[This message has been edited by OrangeSfwr (edited June 12, 2000).]

[Par4]

Oh well guess I was wrong, but that's all I've ever heard

Stupid wrong book with crappy wrong info.

*kicks book*

------------------
I use this email
(stupid cant use hotmail)
gamma_par4@hotmail.com
Don't ask for golf tips
Your game will get worse
HappyLand
There is no spoon,
But there is a knife

[Par4]

OOOOHHHH Orange man you got Prince status
*looks up way way up*
Elephant archer=magic thunder bear that shoots sticks
I agree they should just be additions to units or armies. Who fights with just elephants anyway. And an elephant never forgets. More like shock troops.

------------------
I use this email
(stupid cant use hotmail)
gamma_par4@hotmail.com
Don't ask for golf tips
Your game will get worse
HappyLand
There is no spoon,
But there is a knife

[Hasdrubal]

quote: Oh well guess I was wrong, but that's all I've ever heard Stupid wrong book with crappy wrong info. *kicks book*

At least you read your books all the way through. I went back to my book about the Punic wars. I found this hidden chapter that is about the final stage of the war, in Africa following Hannibal's retreat from Italy, one that wasn't obliged reading material at university, one that I therefore shamefully never bothered to read, and which is titled: 'Par4 is right, Hasdrubal not'. After returning to Africa, Hannibal aquired eigthy elephants, which he used at the battle of Zama and were indeed diverted by Scipio's clever use of columns, as you stated. Oh well, guess it still proves the uselesness of war elephants.

*Kicks himself*


------------------
Ceterum censeo Romanem esse delendam.

[Adm.Naismith]

OrangeSfwr, I agree with your idea of build units by workshop (I suggested the same on my "workshop" thread).

May be we can think that the elephant, horses, camels, are different "chassis" in the SMAC sense.
Or simply different name/variant of the same "animal, four legs" if you decide to add some personalization for every Civ.

So mounted troops in Asiatic Civ will be on Elephants, in Egypt will be on Camels, others will have Horses.

Hmmm, may be not. Horses are quite common worldwide to limit them to some Civ use. Never mind.

Back to workshop, that's how things worked in real life. In the past someone developed the Horseriding, then put soldiers on horses, developed proper tactics, chosed a name for the new unit. Well, almost

Ok, I know it worked with planes. First military use as artillery observers (in place of ballons), then first attack with hand guns (for dogfight) and hand grenade (for bombing), then developing of proper, specialized weapons.

As in SMAC we simply must have some limits on compatibility between weapons and chassis:
Cannons mounted on elephants? Nah!
Cannons with horses? Yes, they are used to move cannons in place (faster movement).

Then, fixing/expanding the tech tree, we can make available some combos between chassis, weapons and "specials" to make more powerful units.

------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant