DESIGN: Possible alterations to movement -- the history discussion

[Locutus]

Edit: this discussion was split off from this thread. The split may lead to some confusing comments and disrupted discussion, but overall should clean both threads up.

Let me think: You ever heard of the silk-street? You ever heard of the Salt-street? You ever heard of the Silver-fleet? You ever heard of Alexander the great (just to remind, he went till India)? You ever heard of the Roman conquests? You ever heard about the Mongols? Just a few questions……….. So this sounds a bit not real

The Silk and Salt routes were traveled by small bands of caravans. Entire armies were never able to travel that far through such inhospitable terrain (it's no coincidence that they didn't). There simply wasn't enough water and food along the way.

Alexander the Great did the impossible and relied largely on local mercenaries and allies rather than Greeks most of the time. The Chinese sent an army out west a few hundred years later, and despite superhuman efforts to provision the army at every step, still 95% of the soldiers died simply from the journey (not counting battle losses).

The Mongols and Huns and the like were nomads, they travelled very light and lived off the lands they passed through. Often they sent out small bands of units as well, rather than huge armies. When they did send out large armies, they were like the Romans and many others: they expanded one territory at a time, never leaving the borders of their own (freshly conquered) empire far behind. And it's no coincidence the Mongol empire fell apart as soon as it did...

Even today few armies are capable of operating far away from home without local support. Very few countries (probably only the US and UK) have the capabilities to do it, but even they will only do so if all other options have been depleted. Remember how much of a fuzz there was about the Americans using bases in Iran/Saudi Arabia/Turkey/Jordan/Pakistan/various ex-USSR republics before the Iraq and Afghanistan wars?

I'm not saying it's an absolute must to implement support or similar in CtP2, but the current system most definitely doesn't reflect real history.

[Gilgamensch]

Originally posted by Locutus


The Silk and Salt routes were traveled by small bands of caravans. Entire armies were never able to travel that far through such inhospitable terrain (it's no coincidence that they didn't). There simply wasn't enough water and food along the way.

For their time, I wouldn't call them small. AFAIR the silk caravan contained around 500 people and it was mainly actually army to protect the cargo. But this is similar to Alexander, they traded with the locals (for food and so on).

The Mongols and the Huns: Yes they wre nomads and what? It is just the way they lived and fought. About the huge armies and espacially the Mongols: Why you think the great wall has been build?

When they did send out large armies, they were like the Romans and many others: they expanded one territory at a time, never leaving the borders of their own (freshly conquered) empire far behind. And it's no coincidence the Mongol empire fell apart as soon as it did...

To compare the Mongols (and similar) with the romans is no match at all. One did plunder the other one conquered. So not really a point. The Mongols never really build an empire.

Even today few armies are capable of operating far away from home without local support. Very few countries (probably only the US and UK) have the capabilities to do it, but even they will only do so if all other options have been depleted. Remember how much of a fuzz there was about the Americans using bases in Iran/Saudi Arabia/Turkey/Jordan/Pakistan/various ex-USSR republics before the Iraq and Afghanistan wars?

This is a logistic problem, nothing else. It is easier to ship prior to combat, nothing else (and to have already a protected area for yourself). But one problem is that army and logistic is kind of incompatible About the logistic: Just take a look into the UN food help programs, they are moving thousands of tons and don't have a problem.

I'm not saying it's an absolute must to implement support or similar in CtP2, but the current system most definitely doesn't reflect real history.

Again it is already implemented with the status of the Army. It is just, we never change it We always leave it on war. Maybe we shall alter it a bit more in this area. I never liked that it takes 10 turns to change from peace to war. We maybe shall say, if attacked, war-ready at the following turn. The change would is (IIRC) 50 percent, so you pay 50% more to maintain your army, which reflects this logistic problem. It is just abstracted. (not perfectly though, why are your home armies consuming much more ).

[Locutus]

Originally posted by Gilgamensch
For their time, I wouldn't call them small. AFAIR the silk caravan contained around 500 people and it was mainly actually army to protect the cargo. But this is similar to Alexander, they traded with the locals (for food and so on).

For a caravan, I would say 500 men is large; the size of the largest caravans on the silk route were about 1000 camels large (and I don't know exact numbers, but that probably means about 300-600 men if not less), most were much smaller. And most of those people didn't travel over the entire route: they went from one city to the next and back again, selling their goods to others to take to the next destination.

And even in those times, 500 men was tiny for an army, even in ancient Egypt single divisions were 10 times that size. Comparatively small ancient battles involved thousands of men on each side (e.g. the Battle of Marathon: 10,000 vs 30,000 men). Large battles could involve over well 100,000 men on each side (e.g. at the battle of Plataea about 300,000 Persians squared off against 100,000+ Greeks). Typical for major battles were about 100,000-200,000 combatants total (slightly less in the hopelessly splintered and divided Europe of medieval times). Your 500 men would hardly be noticed there, unless they were top-of-the-line elite troops.

The Mongols and the Huns: Yes they wre nomads and what? It is just the way they lived and fought. About the huge armies and espacially the Mongols: Why you think the great wall has been build?

Nomadic peoples have a different lifestyle compared to the kind of settled people we model in Civ. Even today many children in Central Asia can ride a horse before they can walk! People like that can cover far greater distances than 'ordinary city folk'.

The Great Wall was built because the Mongols lived right outside the Chinese Great Wall. The question should be why was it built in China and not in present-day Russia or Iraq?

To compare the Mongols (and similar) with the romans is no match at all. One did plunder the other one conquered. So not really a point. The Mongols never really build an empire.

I'm not comparing style (though the Mongols weren't nearly as savage as is usually thought, but that's for a different discussion), I'm comparing sizes of empire and distances traveled to battlefields. And you brought them up...

This is a logistic problem, nothing else. It is easier to ship prior to combat, nothing else (and to have already a protected area for yourself). But one problem is that army and logistic is kind of incompatible About the logistic: Just take a look into the UN food help programs, they are moving thousands of tons and don't have a problem.

Yes, and moving an ancient army from Rome to Xi'an creates even bigger logistics problems. That's exactly what to notion of support is all about.

[Gilgamensch]

OK, first thing:

Logistics:

WHY EXTRA logistic if it is already there? I have seen NO reply for the slider of the army status. The whole logistic is hidden behind this status. Why shall the emporer, which we are supposed to be, handle freeking logistics?

Locutus,

500 man for a 'single' caravan you call small? OK, it is small compared to those armies you mentioned, but they were the 'exceptions' not the standard.

Most troops running around were in this size. So a normal force to aquire a small city or similar, only the large scale battles included 10k+ soldiers.

I'm comparing sizes of empire and distances traveled to battlefields. And you brought them up...

Yes I brought them up, but not to compare them, rather about the logistic part. (if you don't believe, re-read )It was to show that support is not necessarily linked to distance.

But before we get further I think most of us agree:

Logistics:

I just want to burn my enemy

[Locutus]

Originally posted by Gilgamensch
WHY EXTRA logistic if it is already there? I have seen NO reply for the slider of the army status. The whole logistic is hidden behind this status. Why shall the emporer, which we are supposed to be, handle freeking logistics?

Because that doesn't BEGIN to approach the real-life support system. How does that system make it harder to send troops halfway across the world rather than to nearby provinces?

500 man for a 'single' caravan you call small?

No, I called it large. Any force much larger than that couldn't travel over large distances in ancient times, while still being far too small to take even a single, let alone conquer empires.

It was to show that support is not necessarily linked to distance.

How isn't it? The Mongols didn't have much in the way of an empire, and the Romans had to devote huge amounts of resources to keep their empire together (just think about their extensive road system and border network). And I'm talking about interior defenses here. The Napeolontic and Nazi campaigns in Russia fell apart because they couldn't maintain their lines of supply over such huge distances.

Logistics:

No, I think most of us strongly disagree with that: J Bytheway's quote is quite accurate: tactics is for amateurs, logistics is the real deal. However, whether or not it has a place in CtP2 is a different issue.

[The Big Mc]

Originally posted by Locutus



How isn't it? The Mongols didn't have much in the way of an empire, and the Romans had to devote huge amounts of resources to keep their empire together (just think about their extensive road system and border network). And I'm talking about interior defenses here. The Napeolontic and Nazi campaigns in Russia fell apart because they couldn't maintain their lines of supply over such huge distances.

Which is one of the reasons the Romans invaded Brittan simply they wanted the gold

The nazi campaigns fell apart because of the whether they could not push on throw the snow which gave the Russians the advantage.

but you are right Hitler expected his troops to "live of the land" but the Russian idea of scorched earth destroyed the crops

[Locutus]

Originally posted by The Big Mc
The nazi campaigns fell apart because of the whether they could not push on throw the snow which gave the Russians the advantage.

It's exactly the snow that made maintaining lines of supply so hard. You can still fight in snow, but towing around large amounts of cargo in the form of food, weapons, clothing, etc is much harder. During spring the situation only grew worse: as the snow melted, the extensively over-used roads turned into huge mudbaths that barely supported individual soldiers, let alone cars, trucks, tanks, etc...

[Gilgamensch]

If we want logistics: This will be a (to say it friendly) major headache. This will end up with, me thinks, unnecessary work. Also were do you want to start/stop, shall we count every arrow used in combat? Shall we count how much everyone can carry? And so on.............

...........let alone conquer empires.

Most empires weren't conquered during the high-times by the way.......Some were conquered with rather small size armies.......

For the slider, we shall make it more important to show a bit more realistic the difference between war and peace. That shall do the job. I mean, I NEVER ever changed it to piece. If we would make it relevant, than you would have the abstracted logistics. Make it like food& PW & Gold and resource dependend.
Food: you march on your stomach
PW: for military roads used for support-purpose (invisible, but could be replaced by normal roads, just the distance from road till army needed)
Gold: Paying locals for support
Resource: For the rest, maintanence/usage/repairs.

No, I called it large..............

re-read your post. Sorry my mistake.

It is a still a sufficent army-size for a lot of jobs. I would compare it with a single 6 stack in CTP2.

How isn't it? The Mongols didn't have much in the way of an empire, and the Romans had to devote huge amounts of resources to keep their empire together (just think about their extensive road system and border network). And I'm talking about interior defenses here. The Napeolontic and Nazi campaigns in Russia fell apart because they couldn't maintain their lines of supply over such huge distances.

The Mongolian 'empire' wasn't any empire. They were more the like the vikings, having their home country and some 'holiday'-places elsewhere, where they were able to have some fun .

The romans used a lot of resources for the road and border network, but compared to what they wasted on other stuff, it wasn't a lot. You heard about the gold-mine in spain? They used (and later on killed) something like 20.000 people to dig in a mountain, Those people digged tunnels and the romans afterwards washed the mountain away to get the rest of the gold. It was done within 10 years (ASAIR). And this is far more than they spend on like the Limes.

And when you already mention the resources of the roman empire: One of the main reason that Rom went down, was that they were running out of gold to pay their armies.

Yes, you can compare Napolean/Nazi/Romans, as they tried to install empires, but not Mongols/Vikings and similar.

Again, the mongols was just to show that if needed you can travel huge distances and are not bound to your home territory.


For the point of Russia: I think BigMC covered this one

No, I think most of us strongly disagree with that: J Bytheway's quote is quite accurate: tactics is for amateurs, logistics is the real deal. However, whether or not it has a place in CtP2 is a different issue.

The quote might be correct, but not your assumption. A lot of people complained about (compared to CIV X): The unhapiness caused by units away from a city. This is also logistics. And actually fairly true one. So long you are winning, nobody complains, but when you start loosing..........
To proof this point: I haven't seen anything in CTP2-source-code asking for it to be back

Logistics on the large scale I don't think anyone will enjoy. Also the AI will not be able to handle it. There are enough games around, which tried to have it and failed. An abstract logistic system shall be better, like the above mentioned.

By the way, there is a game which handles logistics (can't remember the bloody name anymore), there you had to handle 'everything' for your army, from arrows/bows/shoes/whatever/..... Whenever you missed something the unit behind wasn't able to fight or defend or run........It was fun for a few minutes, but me thinks, jts a big nightmare. It might be fun for a few units, but doing it for the whole empire.........thanks no.........

[Gilgamensch]

Originally posted by Locutus


It's exactly the snow that made maintaining lines of supply so hard. You can still fight in snow, but towing around large amounts of cargo in the form of food, weapons, clothing, etc is much harder. During spring the situation only grew worse: as the snow melted, the extensively over-used roads turned into huge mudbaths that barely supported individual soldiers, let alone cars, trucks, tanks, etc...

But it was the combination of scorched earth and the winter which caused this problem, not just one.

[Locutus]

Originally posted by Gilgamensch
Most empires weren't conquered during the high-times by the way.......Some were conquered with rather small size armies.......

Even the smallest armies still consisted of a LOT more than 500 men. Give me one example of an empire that was conquered by an army of less than 5,000 men of comparative technological strength (the Spanish conquering the Aztecs and Maya obviously doesn't compare -- and even then the Spanish had to form lots of alliances with local rivals of those empires to ensure their victories; in fact those allies did most of the fighting).

It is a still a sufficent army-size for a lot of jobs. I would compare it with a single 6 stack in CTP2.

You mean the largest army possible in CtP2 is 1,000 men large? That also implies the Persians brought 600 12-stacks to the battle of Plataea and the Greeks about 230 Sorry, but that's ridiculous.

1 unit = 1,000-10,000 men (depending on age, unit type, map size, etc) is a more realistic scale. That brings the Persian army size at Plataea down to about 3 stacks, which is about the maximum you can practically bring to bare on a single battle front in CtP2 as well, in the early ages.

The Mongolian 'empire' wasn't any empire. They were more the like the vikings, having their home country and some 'holiday'-places elsewhere, where they were able to have some fun .

That's what I said.

The romans used a lot of resources for the road and border network, but compared to what they wasted on other stuff, it wasn't a lot. You heard about the gold-mine in spain? They used (and later on killed) something like 20.000 people to dig in a mountain, Those people digged tunnels and the romans afterwards washed the mountain away to get the rest of the gold. It was done within 10 years (ASAIR). And this is far more than they spend on like the Limes.

So logistics shouldn't be modeled in Civ because the Romans were wasteful on some of their mining operations?

Again, the mongols was just to show that if needed you can travel huge distances and are not bound to your home territory.

Once again I point out the Mongolian armies didn't travel huge distances from their home land. They just kept expanding their homeland as they went along. They didn't attack Russia before they had taken Persia. They didn't attack Persia until they had conquered the Merv and Herat. They didn't attack those two before they had destroyed the Kwarezm. They didn't attack the Kwarezm before they had conquered the Ugyur. Everytime they had conquered a new territory, they made it their new home, which was easy for them to do as they were nomads. The Romans and others did the same, only they needed a little longer before they could regard conquered territories really part of their own empire. Had the Mongols set out for a direct strike on Moscow and Kiev from Karakorum, they would have failed miserably. That is what logistics models.

The quote might be correct, but not your assumption. A lot of people complained about (compared to CIV X): The unhapiness caused by units away from a city. This is also logistics. And actually fairly true one. So long you are winning, nobody complains, but when you start loosing..........
To proof this point: I haven't seen anything in CTP2-source-code asking for it to be back

Uhm, CtP2 has almost the exact same system of War Wariness as Civ... And War Wariness and logistics are two very different concepts, even if the end results are somewhat similar.

Logistics on the large scale I don't think anyone will enjoy. Also the AI will not be able to handle it. There are enough games around, which tried to have it and failed. An abstract logistic system shall be better, like the above mentioned.

Like I've said half a dozen times already, there are numerous objections to implementing logistics and I am certainly not convinced it should be modeled in this game (in great detail). But it's not by definition a bad thing, which is the point you seem to be wanting to make.

And be careful to assume things in other people's place. The discussion of this thread proves numerous people feel supply and logistics are an important potential feature. And probably the most visionairy of all people in the CtP community, WesW (I respect and admire all modmakers but very few have the kind of vision about creating games that Wes has IMO), also gave his opinion about this topic in his FoA with regards to things still missing from existing Civ games: "[...] but morale and supply lines are not addressed at all the civ games, and these things are crucial in actual warfare". So practical limitations aside, I think it's quite clear many peole *do* want to see some form of logistics and supply lines. It's exactly these practical limitations that will have to decide if and how we actually go out and implement it.

By the way, there is a game which handles logistics (can't remember the bloody name anymore), there you had to handle 'everything' for your army, from arrows/bows/shoes/whatever/..... Whenever you missed something the unit behind wasn't able to fight or defend or run........It was fun for a few minutes, but me thinks, jts a big nightmare. It might be fun for a few units, but doing it for the whole empire.........thanks no.........

Different games have modeled it in different ways. Wanting to be too realistic is never good. None of the systems in CtP are even remotely realistic, or else playing this game wouldn't be much fun. There always has to be some level of abstraction. A good way to handle logistics in an abstract way is RoN's system of Supply Wagons, which works quite well IMHO. But that is for RTS though, I doubt it would work well in exactly the same form in TBS.

But it was the combination of scorched earth and the winter which caused this problem, not just one.

Yes, but the point is that they were all problems of logistics, not tactics.

[Gilgamensch]

This is getting off.............I only threw those questions in to get people thinking about, not to have a historical discussion. Not that I would mind, but...........

Originally posted by Locutus

You mean the largest army possible in CtP2 is 1,000 men large? That also implies the Persians brought 600 12-stacks to the battle of Plataea and the Greeks about 230 Sorry, but that's ridiculous.

1 unit = 1,000-10,000 men (depending on age, unit type, map size, etc) is a more realistic scale. That brings the Persian army size at Plataea down to about 3 stacks, which is about the maximum you can practically bring to bare on a single battle front in CtP2 as well, in the early ages.

So in the modern age the stacks would compromise of 1000's of tanks? That is ridiculous. Ripping somebodies option, just how you see it fitting isn't, doing any good I am setting it far lower as those huge numbers were exceptions.

The examples you have given are just the extrem ones, but they were not the standard ones. Most battles never included 50+ soldiers (talking about ancient times;WW 1and 2, were different stories). Even in CTP2 with equal levels of science you need more than 1 stack to conquer a city.

If I take your assumptions as the standard, the ancient empires would have needed modern agriculture technics to support a little struggle over a cornfield.

For historic normal battles: IIRC Alexander started with a rather small army, around 40k. This for me would be like 4 12 stacks.

Talking about ancient greeks: Odysseas and the fall of Troja: It involved 3000 greeks. The ships at this time had ~max 200 people on board. (for transport, not for fighting)

1 Army of the romans was 10K not 100K. And 10k ancient time I see as a 12 stack. It was enough to take a weaker or smaller city. With 500 people

That's what I said.

OK settled.

So logistics shouldn't be modeled in Civ because the Romans were wasteful on some of their mining operations?

How do we reflect this? Not everything will be included (or cannot be included).

Once again I point out the Mongolian armies didn't travel huge distances from their home land. They just kept expanding their homeland as they went along. They didn't attack Russia before they had taken Persia. They didn't attack Persia until they had conquered the Merv and Herat. They didn't attack those two before they had destroyed the Kwarezm. They didn't attack the Kwarezm before they had conquered the Ugyur. Everytime they had conquered a new territory, they made it their new home, which was easy for them to do as they were nomads. The Romans and others did the same, only they needed a little longer before they could regard conquered territories really part of their own empire. Had the Mongols set out for a direct strike on Moscow and Kiev from Karakorum, they would have failed miserably. That is what logistics models.

Do we know? No, as they haven't tried, but they travelled and kept a huge area in a short time.

Uhm, CtP2 has almost the exact same system of War Wariness as Civ... And War Wariness and logistics are two very different concepts, even if the end results are somewhat similar.

But not the effect (for logistics). War Wariness is rather easy.

Like I've said half a dozen times already, there are numerous objections to implementing logistics and I am certainly not convinced it should be modeled in this game (in great detail). But it's not by definition a bad thing, which is the point you seem to be wanting to make.

Never said it either. I just opposed certain things and wanted to get people think twice about.

And be careful to assume things in other people's place. The discussion of this thread proves numerous people feel supply and logistics are an important potential feature. And probably the most visionairy of all people in the CtP community, WesW (I respect and admire all modmakers but very few have the kind of vision about creating games that Wes has IMO), also gave his opinion about this topic in his FoA with regards to things still missing from existing Civ games: "[...] but morale and supply lines are not addressed at all the civ games, and these things are crucial in actual warfare". So practical limitations aside, I think it's quite clear many peole *do* want to see some form of logistics and supply lines. It's exactly these practical limitations that will have to decide if and how we actually go out and implement it.

A lot of people want something, but some are never been heard. So the only way to be sure, would be a poll.

Different games have modeled it in different ways. Wanting to be too realistic is never good. None of the systems in CtP are even remotely realistic, or else playing this game wouldn't be much fun. There always has to be some level of abstraction. A good way to handle logistics in an abstract way is RoN's system of Supply Wagons, which works quite well IMHO. But that is for RTS though, I doubt it would work well in exactly the same form in TBS.

I don't know RON, but support wagon principle is rather old one. And can be a pain to manage. which brings me to maq's point:

As for logistics, i wouldnt mind it as long as the AI could use it right and there was more thinking involved than clicking.

I do not see any chance that the AI will handle it accordingly. All the games I have seen with a unit-type supply, the Human has a too huge advantage.

Yes, but the point is that they were all problems of logistics, not tactics.

I think you shall re-read a bit about this time. To say it short: The germans were surprised by an earlier winter and an slower approach, because of the scorched earth pratice. So the logistics had been adapted to a certain extend. But it was bad tactics/planning, which decided it.

For your point about the spanish: The last bit in the capitol, they were on they own. And similar battles have existed in Africa, where a small amount, far less than 1000 people, were able to fight 10k plus.

[child of Thor]

When any of us play CTP2(or civ types), do you get annoyed with the numbers used to represent combat?

Or do you just accept a certain amount of abstraction and see that if the enemy has a stack of units with the number 5 next to it, it seems reasonable that you stand a better chance of defeating it with a stack of 6?
(at the most simplistic example)

Its not a perfect system, but i find it ok - and fine for the kind of abstraction you need in a game that simulates 1000's of years of human civilisation.

So stop fighting [shake hands and agree to differ ]

its just a game, that never will get as real as real-life

[Locutus]

Originally posted by Gilgamensch
So in the modern age the stacks would compromise of 1000's of tanks? That is ridiculous. Ripping somebodies option, just how you see it fitting isn't, doing any good I am setting it far lower as those huge numbers were exceptions.

No, I was talking about ancient armies. In modern times your numbers don't make sense either: I don't dare calculate the number of 12-stacks required to meet the demands of the Napoleontic wars or the two World Wars: millions of soldiers fought in them! For modern times, the number of men per unit increases drastically for infantry and decrease for cavalry/artillery/airforce/etc.

The examples you have given are just the extrem ones, but they were not the standard ones. Most battles never included 50+ soldiers (talking about ancient times;WW 1and 2, were different stories). Even in CTP2 with equal levels of science you need more than 1 stack to conquer a city.

50 soldiers for a battle? WTF? Name me some battles which involved so few soldiers! I can provide you with hundreds of examples of battles which involved 10,000+ men, many of them even 100,000+.

The standard unit size of the Roman infantry was a legion, which numbered some 6-7,000 men. The standard size of Mongol units was 10,000 men, the same goes for the Persians. Egyptian used divisions as primary units, each of which counted 5,000 men. The Greeks used phalanx formations which in Alexander's time numbered about 1,500 men. Even in the mediocreness of medieval Europe, people like e.g. the Saxons worked with burwarans, which numbered 900 men each, and the Polish used different kinds of formations which each consisted of several hundred men. The Turkish used ortas of 500 men and the Japanese worked with units of 2,500. And these are standard unit sizes: usually several (or even many) of such units would be deployed in battles of any significance.

If I take your assumptions as the standard, the ancient empires would have needed modern agriculture technics to support a little struggle over a cornfield.

Struggles over cornfields don't qualify as battles, those are local disturbances, for which most nations used some kind of law enforcement and judicial system, just like today. Civ and CtP model real battles, clashes between empires... not neighbourly quarrels.

For historic normal battles: IIRC Alexander started with a rather small army, around 40k. This for me would be like 4 12 stacks.

No, by your estimate of 500 men per 6 units (= 1k per 12-stack), that should be 40 stacks, not 4. But you're right, that's actually comparatively small army: he was met by Persian armies which likely numbered over 100,000, quite possibly even over 200,000 men -- which makes for 100-200 12-stacks using your system of 6 units/500 men.

Talking about ancient greeks: Odysseas and the fall of Troja: It involved 3000 greeks. The ships at this time had ~max 200 people on board. (for transport, not for fighting)

Uhm, the Trojan War is very poorly documented. In fact, it may even be fictional. And if it is real, we have absolutley no idea about troop deployments. But if you want to speculate, the legend speaks of 1,000 ships being launched against Troy. If this is accurate, and we accept your number of 200 men per ship, that would imply that Troy was besieged by an army of 200,000! Not very likely, for a battle that probably took place in ~1300 BC (about 1/10th of that would be more realistic). But I think your 200 men/ship is based on the Trireme, which wasn't invented until some 600 years after the Trojan War, so we can safely assume the number was much lower. But your 3,000 is just wild speculation; it could be anywhere from 1,000 to 50,000, we'll probably never know.

1 Army of the romans was 10K not 100K. And 10k ancient time I see as a 12 stack. It was enough to take a weaker or smaller city. With 500 people

6 units = 500 men and 12 units = 10,000 men. Somewhere that doesn't quite fit...

A single Legion was about 6-7k men, but in most battles the Romans employed far more than a single Legion. We know about 80k troops were deployed in Cannae and Carthage, 45k at Zama and Mons Graupius, 60k at Adrianople and Alesia -- to name but a few examples. Those are fairly representative army sizes for that time, for other civs as well.

Do we know? No, as they haven't tried, but they travelled and kept a huge area in a short time.

Yes, we know. Not from that specific example perhaps but I earlier mentioned the failed Chinese expedition and the failed attempts of Napoleon and Hitler to take Russia. And there were plenty of others. E.g. the Romans unsuccessfully tried launching campaigns against the Arabs and Nubians, the Mongols tried to invade Java, Italy's failed invasion of Ethiopia.

I don't know RON, but support wagon principle is rather old one. And can be a pain to manage. which brings me to maq's point:

I do not see any chance that the AI will handle it accordingly. All the games I have seen with a unit-type supply, the Human has a too huge advantage.

I already said Supply Wagons won't work for TBS, but it proves that Supply DOESN'T have to be a pain to manage and the AI CAN handle it -- that's the good thing about RoN.

For your point about the spanish: The last bit in the capitol, they were on they own. And similar battles have existed in Africa, where a small amount, far less than 1000 people, were able to fight 10k plus.

Like I said, equal technological level.

[Gilgamensch]

50 soldiers for a battle?

Sorry, typo, ment 50k

Should have gotten clear out of the context by the way.

Going back to Troja: Are you just making fun of yourself?

One of many possible links:
in English

And poorly documentated...... So anything which isn't kept on video you disregard? Or what hasn't been written by the Romans (which by the way overstated figures as well)?


And coming back to your complain about the size:

If I take your example:

Typical for major battles were about 100,000-200,000 combatants total

So this would mean for you 2 * 12 stacks, one for each side. And that would mean transfered to CTP2 that ONE army would be bigger than any city you have at this time. (Size 10 city?, without aqueduct and so on?????) Why you think I put the number far smaller? At those times 1 farmer was able to feed (that already is changing quite a lot) around 3 people. OK the 500 = 6 stack was a bit low. Also I see it a bit more exponential. As for bigger armies you always need more support.

I am simplifying now a bit:

So if we take a normal size 6 city (makes ~60k people)

around 40% are female/kids not working.

60k people / 3 = 20k farmers

40k people left, from this we take 60% makes 24k people left.

And again not all are soldiers. If we assume that a max. of 50% of those could be devoted to army services, which by the way is far to high, would be left with 12k soldiers. Which is roughly the figure I have given. I just assumed that a 60k city would only support 25%, which is a better figure anyway.

Now show me how you want to support your figures

If I take your figures, the ancient empires would have had millions of citizens, working with modern/nowadays techniques to support those armies.

For Troja: 200 for transporting purpose of people, you still have to take ships for food/spares and so on. Which you shall have taken into account as well. Their logistics was to have everything with them. They didn't ship afterwards.........Jesus...............

I already said Supply Wagons won't work for TBS, but it proves that Supply DOESN'T have to be a pain to manage and the AI CAN handle it -- that's the good thing about RoN.

So taking one game where it works, proofs it works........

A single Legion was about 6-7k men, but in most battles the Romans employed far more than a single Legion. We know about 80k troops were deployed in Cannae and Carthage, 45k at Zama and Mons Graupius, 60k at Adrianople and Alesia -- to name but a few examples. Those are fairly representative army sizes for that time, for other civs as well.

In most battles? That were just the famous ones. Just to remind you: The reason why they build the Limes in Scottland and against the barbarians, was just involving 10k respectivly 20K 'armies'. Both of them were defeated by far less then 1k enemies. But those battles they hardly ever mentioned.

So again, what is your point? These deployments were also including garisions. Not all of them were fighting.


And now one of your best jokes:

Struggles over cornfields don't qualify as battles, those are local disturbances, for which most nations used some kind of law enforcement and judicial system, just like today. Civ and CtP model real battles, clashes between empires... not neighbourly quarrels.

All battles are about some bullsh*t like this. Even this idiot Hitler wanted to grep the land for food. What the hell you think they fought for? Just for the sake of it? It was always that the leader/king/WTF wanted to have more. And more ment also food, more food, more people, more land, mmore food cycle as many times as you want. What they were hiding the conquest behind (religious/self-defence) doesn't really matter, they just wanted to be bigger and bigger goes only via food.

Get real

[child of Thor]

Well it seems you both are saying the same things
Anyway this discussion started about alterations to movement - like if the diagonal cost of movement should be increased

I dont know how you've both ended up talking about hitlers reasons for invading other countries or that 50 soldiers for an army(which kinda looks like typo ) was not right etc etc blah blah

hmm maybe we could settle this using ancient viking law

You have to meet at the same place and under go trials of endurance to prove who is right.

round1: Remove 12 heated rocks from a pot of boiling water with bare hands(you have to walk 50 meters to place them down).

round2: Hold a heated rod of iron in your bare hands for the count of 10.

that should be enough

The person who completes the tasks whilst maintaing silence is proven to be right.

Looking at your last post's - you mostly seem to be agreeing on army size etc, so that just leaves somekind of pure sillyness as the root of these posts


@ the thought of the diferent results for 'keeping' back unused movement points, i rarely use the go-to command, but both ways should work out the same - not using the go-to command seems more tactical(in that you can respond each turn to events), so is it fair to penalise the player for this method?

And i think in some(all?) of the Mods the ability of Mounted units to enter mountains was blocked unless a road had been built, which seems a decent resolution.