[freeciv-data] Re: Tech and Ancient Units

["Per I. Mathisen" <Per.Inge.Mathisen@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 21 May 2002, Thanasis Kinias wrote:
> Right from the beginning, I don't see what the connection is between the
> phalanx and bronze working.  What makes a phalanx different from
> warriors is not bronze tips to spears, but the level of organization.
> For a phalanx to work, a supply of free men with military training is
> necessary.  That suggests an association with some level of government,
> either republic or monarchy (or both).  I would suggest the republic.

The phalanx, like most ancient armies, was a non-standing army, notably
unlike the legion. I think more interesting ancient units can be made by
not only tinkering with techs and x-x-x stats, but also upkeep to
represent the fact that these units were only temporary armies.

Also, make governments to match. An "Ancient Republic" for instance,
relies much on the fact that citizens and soldiers are the same people. It
was when citizens and soldiers parted ways that we came to the next
"step", the "Empire". The big difference could be that Empire has lower
upkeep magnifiers and lower trade modifier than Ancient Republic. Legion
could depend on Empire while Phalanx on Ancient Republic.

Then comes the choices of premodern Monarchy versus Liberal Democracy,
where both would allow bigger standing armies (less upkeep magnifiers),
the former have some free units per city, while the latter have trade
magnifier and massive unhappiness to cope with (so you will need to spend
lots of tax income on luxuries like in real life). Knights could depend on
Monarchy.

To pull the above off you probably need another variable in government
ruleset, something for units free of upkeep _per civilization_ (not per
city).

So for governments, I would suggest:
        Despotism (beginning)
        Ancient Republic, Empire (ancient to premodern)
        Monarchy, Liberal Democracy (premodern)
        Dictatorship, Theocracy (modern)

The choices in the modern era don't look too appealing, but then, after
the invention of Liberal Democracy, later government types didn't have
much of a track record, did they... Dictatorship and Theocracy would both
be the ultimate governments in terms of unit upkeep, and Theocracy could
have little science and very little unhappiness, and Fanatics, while
Dictatorship has the spy bonus and is better for overall strategy (no
science penalty).

This way, for each "era" you should have at least two governments to
choose from that should be equally good (depending on your strategy), and
three in the last era. That would give rise to more interesting and varied
strategies.

> Horsemen requiring Horseback Riding is a no-brainer.  From what I know
> of ancient warfare, however, that comes _after_ charioteers, not before.

"Horse Training" (+ Wheel => Chariot) -> "Horseback Riding"?

> And Warrior Code doesn't seem to have any connection to archery.  I
> would suggest that Archery ought to permit Archers.  Warrior Code seems
> to be a dead-end anyway.

I would suggest removing Warrior Code. Never liked it. Where to put
Archers, I don't know.

> The appearance of the Chariot and Horsemen ought to be reversed, as I
> mentioned.  The Horsemen ought to have the same firepower as Warriors,
> but with greater mobility.  The historical cost relationship, BTW, seems
> to be that horse cav costs about 3-4 times what footmen cost to upkeep.

You can't both make horsemen worse _and_ put them later in the tech
tree... then they will be useless.

> The Legion, as mentioned above, is nothing more than a highly-trained,
> professional phalanx with improved tactical and strategic mobility.  The
> tech prerequisite should be Professional Army or something like that.

Or a government capable of fielding a professional army.

> In Freeciv terms, it ought to be nothing more than a Phalanx with better
> stats.

And lower upkeep to represent that it is a standing army.

Well, that's just from the top of my head anyway.

Yours,
Per

"As Israeli forces pursued militants, civilians
continued getting in the way and dying as a
result." -- New York Times, April 21