|
Post by zzZhenon on Sept 5, 2006 16:25:04 GMT -5
Don't get me wrong Mookie. I like Praets, I just think it's lame that an axe under any circumstances would have odds vs one. I don't understand why you continue to assert something that I've shown to be incorrect? An unpromoted Axe does not have odds vs. an unpromoted Praet. A 1 star Axe does not have odds vs. a 1 star Praet. A shock Axe does not have odds vs. a shock Praet. A shock Axe does not have odds vs. a 1 star Praet in a forest. A shock Axe does not have odds vs. a 1 star Praet on a hill. A 1 star Axe in a 20% bonus city does not have odds vs. an attacking City Raider 1 Praet. A shock Axe in a 20% bonus city does not have odds vs. an attcking City Raider 2 Praet. Basically, the only time, under your wording, "any circumstances" occurs is when the Axe is able to get 2 upgrades while the Praet is stuck on just 1. Shock Axes will beat 1 star Praets and and defending Shock Axes will defeat City Raider 1 Praets. I was next to CivBen in an Anon FFA the other day. He was Rome versus my Japan.... Ugh those Praets ripped me a new one. I managed to survive, but was never able to do much against him. He easily went on to win the game. From my experience, the axeman only has odds against praets if he's defending in a city Nerf Praetorians!!! lol jk
|
|
|
Post by rupman on Sept 5, 2006 22:29:10 GMT -5
How about an axe with one combat 1 and the praet with none, or the axe is in a forest and the praet is attacking, or the axe is on a hill and the praet is attacking, or so on and so forth Mookie. There are plenty of circumstances where the axe would have odds over the praet that you did not mention. Alot of things get odds when they are in a forest or on a hill and defending. It is harldly a good comparison. It's not like I'm disagreeing with you mookie I realize full well when Praets have odds. My whole poin is that swordman are worthless and Praets are not a whole lot better when all you need is a melee axe against one. Like I've said already, Legions were probably the most powerful fighting force the word has seen relatively speaking. For roughly 500 years they were un matched in combat. Only Hannibal who is one of the greatest generals of all time was able to match them and even he lost in the end. It wasn't till the Empire was whole corrupt, riped with civil strife, over taxed, under supplied and blew most of it's good legions in civil wars that other armies were able to come in and take the Western Empire. The Eastern Empire still stood for another 1000 years. As far as I'm concerned axeman shouldn't have odds on a Legion/Praet unless the general made a grave tactical error. Legions were the best trained, equipped and supplied units in the world. The Romans made the Legions in that way so that they would have odds and thereby leave less to chance. For any military force to beat them is to beat the odds. Doesn't mean the axe should never win, it just shouldn't have odds.
For Dey if he's interested:
War and society in the ancient and medieval worlds : Asia, the Mediterranean, Europe, and Mesoamerica / edited by Kurt Raaflaub & Nathan Rosenstein Washington, D.C. : Center for Hellenic Studies ; Cambridge, Mass. : Distributed by Harvard University Press, 1999
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on Sept 5, 2006 22:51:03 GMT -5
I may misunderstand the word odd due to my english Well, the only meaning of the word 'odd' that was ok for that context was 'random' and 'odds' had more sense in that context. Besides, with that phrase you replied to a post where tommynt said that other other promotions give a better odds than a first strike promotions. Generally such a reply means that you don't agree with that promotions give a better odds than a first strike promotions. So, of course i read it as 'odds' = chances de succès (i thought it's just your mistake). If you meant something different, then what you wanted to say with that reply to tommynt?
|
|
|
Post by notagoodname on Sept 5, 2006 23:35:50 GMT -5
I like praetorians and will build them if i'm rome, but it's true that ordinary swordsmen in general are pretty weak because you can build the counter (axes) if you can build swordsmen. On the rare occaision the enemy has no metal then spears and swordsmen are preferable to axes and spears though. I also think horse archers are weak too, they cost about twice that of a chariot, only have 2 more stregth, get a -10% penalty attacking cities, require a dead end tech and they have no bonus vs axemen. Mongolian keshiks were used in the middle ages - the 13th century. From both a gameplay perspective and real world perspective they really shoudn't be available so quickly after chariots nor should they be as weak as they are. Last but not least the horse archers bonus vs catapults is pretty damn useless as it does nothing to counter collateral.
|
|
|
Post by venceslas on Sept 6, 2006 1:33:27 GMT -5
Ellestar my initial replay was after a Tommynt post, but I have quoted Rupman in this initial post, and my sentences was an answser to the word that I have quoted.
"So, of course i read it as 'odds' = chances de succès (i thought it's just your mistake)"
Yes my mistake.
chris.
|
|
|
Post by rupman on Sept 6, 2006 9:13:54 GMT -5
I'd like to concur with nota. I'll build praets, they're just not that great and like I said I rarely build swordman. Horse archers are a little weak for there cost. Keshiks are slowed. A keshik should be able to to stand a decent chance vs a knight. They weren't as well armored but were far better horsemen.
|
|
|
Post by deyreepher on Sept 6, 2006 11:31:54 GMT -5
Modern day authors tend to have biases against the ingenuity/technical expertise of the ability of ancient people as engineers. A military that refuses to fight you on your terms means you probably can't get your artillery pieces set properly, meaning your ass has a better chance of getting beat.
Artillery....the queen of battle.
|
|
|
Post by tommynt on Sept 6, 2006 13:47:26 GMT -5
to the preat discussion: preats are significant stronger since patch - as their counter the axe got weakened a lot
they are now the only unit being able to counter every other unit - before were axe able to do same - preats mixed with chariots and maybe a catas are damn hard to beat.
and yes pretas defending a spot giving def bonus are basicly unbeatable. also with lot generals around rome can get this +2 exprience building and have shock preats ...
I just have no clue what balancers were thinking when balancing HA - 2 chariots were better as 1 HA before patch for same cost and are now so much more stong.
they should have really given the antiaxebonus to HA not to chariots
|
|
|
Post by rupman on Sept 6, 2006 14:16:03 GMT -5
Dey, Rosenstein isn't just an author, he's a Professor at Ohio State, he's a member of God knows how many societies fellowships etc.. and is one of the foremost experts in his field. If anything he has a deep respect for ancient technology. You just simply saying the reason the legions owned was because of artillery but that was only part of the equasion and the Romans I don't believe started using large scale artillery barrages till the later Empire. Although the opening scene in Gladiator was sweet and accurate it does not reflect the whole span of history that the Empire encompassed. Remember Rome was a power for 1000 years before it fell. They weren't using the same technology in 500 BC that they were using in 200 AD.
As far as I'm concerned the West fell about 1000 years back when Rome fell in terms of advancement. To this day the areas in North Africa have still not achieved the same standard of living that they had under Roman rule.
|
|
|
Post by deyreepher on Sept 6, 2006 19:30:28 GMT -5
Just because a person has been lauded does not mean squat. I would take the word of an ex-military, military historian over a professor anyday, though these types of people do often rely upon the types that you just described.
Argument from Authority is a fallacy. I would never use it. I will check out the book though, my school's library has it I'll be sure to put it on reserve when school starts up again.
Also, if we want to be more specific, it was not the Praetorian which owned, it was the legion as a whole that did. There is always someone/thing that can one up another. Praetorians were no different, however within the larger legion, they weren't too shabby.
|
|
|
Post by tommynt on Sept 7, 2006 2:18:17 GMT -5
eh wasnt main reason why rome collapsed in end just it s overexpending? Wasnt it just too big with too many agressors, attacking constantly from all sides. Legions contained mainly of mercanaries not rome citizens what weakened loyaly and strength. As far as i know it was pure masses overrunning rome in end, not new weapons or tactics.
|
|
|
Post by notagoodname on Sept 7, 2006 4:32:36 GMT -5
Nah the real reason rome collapsed is because they had forums where people spent all day arguing about things that didn't matter instead of working.
|
|
|
Post by churchill1 on Sept 7, 2006 5:08:57 GMT -5
At least they had a +25% great person rate.
|
|
|
Post by rupman on Sept 7, 2006 9:18:28 GMT -5
To Dey: Well Dey most ex-military/military historians of today concentrate on later eras in military history. Ohio State has 3 of those, one is a Vietnam Vet I know for sure, the other guy is kinda old and I'm not sure what when he served and the other guy is in his late 30's early 40's and is a little wacko but none the less knows a nutsload about the Civil War. Anyways unless it involves gunpowder these guys don't really know the specifics about it. They really do have to rely on the scholarly ones because they are the ones that can read anc greek and latin so they are studying the primary sources from the period. Also most ex-military guys tend to have a slightly biased perspective when it comes to certain aspects of war history.
The difference between the Praets and the Legions is that the Praets were the Emperors personal bodyguards/soldiers where as the legions were Rome's Military Force. Praetorians were more like the Secret Service of Rome.
To Tommy: It's wasn't so much that Rome overexpanded. They could contain the empire up till about 200 A.D. but the rampant corruption and constant civil as well as external conflicts weakened the legions to the point where they could not effectively defend the borders. By this time they were also largely a merc force that is true and these mercs didn't give a nuts. As opposed to the time of the Punic Wars where it was almost entirely Roman.
|
|
|
Post by Bantams on Sept 7, 2006 9:29:40 GMT -5
since this thread is the hot topic thread
please dont forget too look at EBDs EPIC post
Thanks
Bantams
|
|
nicoya1
Warrior
Tourney Director
C4PTD
Posts: 253
|
Post by nicoya1 on Sept 7, 2006 12:06:41 GMT -5
lol bantams dont forgot other hot threads
|
|
|
Post by deyreepher on Sept 7, 2006 12:43:43 GMT -5
There is a huge difference between Praetorians and Legions. You could think of Legions as a bigger military unit, like a military division/regiment. Within a division there are different types of military units, infantry, artillery, signal. Praetorians are more of a specialized force, say like Green Berets, Navy Seals.
However, though the Praetorians were supposed to elite, the mofos were just undisciplined. I mean, they assassinated their emperors. If you want any type of bonus from Praetorians in the game, you should have to incur even more maintenance costs for each Praetorian that you build.
And though more modern military conflicts are closely studied, especially to understand what went right/wrong to modify tomorrow's practices. Don't underestimate the amount of classical/ancient military history that is employed as propaganda by our military officers. If you go to an Artillery unit, they'll be spouting out crap like how they have a long lineage/history that goes back to ancient times. I mean there is a reason why they declare themselves the King of Battle and Infantry as the Queen of Battle.
As to what caused the end of the Roman empire, that is still debated. That's why I think academia can just eat a thingy. If you can back up your argument with supporting "facts", then you are right. However, that can always be turned around.
|
|
|
Post by rupman on Sept 7, 2006 14:19:50 GMT -5
Well some of the Emperors deserved it, like Caligula. Some of them were just plain nuts.
Um the key word in that Paragraph Dey is "Propaganda" which is just a fancy word for BS.
Well of course a lot of history is debated. If it wasn't, then half the professors would be out of a job. Of course seeing as I was and ancient history major at OSU and studied this stuff, I think my opinion should account for something. Although there are plenty who would disagree with me. You can point to like a dozen reason why the Empire fell and none of them are really wrong. They are likely all reasons why Rome fell. Empires like Rome never fall for just one singular reason. I could back everything I say up with quotes and cites but I'm to lazy. I will point you in the direction of books that are decent reads though.
BTW Dey another good book is Victor Davis Hanson's Carnage & Culture. Although his premise for the book is completely wrong and I did back that up with facts in an exam that I got a perfect score on. It none the less gives great accounts of battles through out history. I'll talk to you about on TS later if your on.
|
|
|
Post by deyreepher on Sept 7, 2006 19:24:05 GMT -5
What's wrong with propaganda? It inspires and motivates, maybe not for the right reasons, but it works sometimes.
Again, argument from authority. If you haven't figured it out yet, I really dislike professors and school. It's probably best if you just cut and paste an old paper on the subject. If I hadn't of lost my flash drive, I would do it, though on another civilization. All I know is, whoever found my flash drive could take the whole series of Korean history classes at the UW and get an easy 45 credits of 4.0s.....
|
|
|
Post by MMV on Sept 7, 2006 19:59:40 GMT -5
praets are clearly the wrong term for the roman swordsman that's been portrayed on civ.
ancient rome's ability to adapt through engineering is what made them a dominating force in the world.
that and their "concrete" roads (the first to invent it).
a roman short-swordsman with shield was deadly in close combat (probably hence their firaxis advance city attack) in conjunction with constant training; veteran status - and good pay PROBABLY made them what firaxis has done to india. (note: imagine firaxis making a "camp-girl" unit to increas the swordsman's happiness....)
cats (in this game) should be like machinegunners - must be made in a city and can only defend.
troops didn't "take cats" out with them in the battle-field - they build them their with local timber and ropes they brought with them.
in order to build an "attacking cat" - I think it should require a great person (engineer - available to anybody who has the correct tech/science/industry) and the engineer must be used to build cats ON THE BATTLE FIELD (and yes, like a great general, it has a shot of getting killed) - while the correct tech/construction allows you to build a more expensive, less powerful cat in a city that can only defend.
|
|