Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: March 2002:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: [PATCH] Fixing Warriors (PR#1351)

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: [PATCH] Fixing Warriors (PR#1351)

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: Raahul Kumar <raahul_da_man@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Daniel L Speyer <dspeyer@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <bugs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: [PATCH] Fixing Warriors (PR#1351)
From: Mark Metson <markm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 05:08:00 -0400 (AST)

On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, Raahul Kumar wrote:

> --- Daniel L Speyer <dspeyer@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> <snip>
> > >

> > This seems rather historically inappropriate -- there is no logical reason
> > for warrior code to require bronze working, and many cultures (think
> > native Americans) developed them in the opposite order.

I am suspecting that the crux is what is it that binds individual units 
together into corporate units that act in unison. Ellen Cannn Reed's 
"Eight of Swords" for example which depicts four men with two swords each. 
But her swords are fire, wands air (as in actual ritual) rather than the 
more usual swords=air, wands=fire of merely communicatory, depictional or 
divinatory decks.

If pikemen are mercenary, then currency would seem logical. If on the 
other hand they dont care about money and are fighting for king and 
country, feudalism would seem to be implicated. If defending their own 
land (which sounds more like petit sergeants in systems such as "Chivalry 
and Sorcery") then having their own land (or mate, or children...) to 
defend would seem a reasonable expectation. (Hence the "if you come back 
with shields you get to impregnate someone's womb" and "the wombs are part 
of the booty" ?)

> I'm not with you old chap. I have no idea what warrior code is supposed to be
> in
> the game, but it allows you to build archers. I have never heard of archers
> with
> pre-bronze tech. Maybe they exist but all of the archers I have ever head of
> all used iron tipped arrows.

The bow incorporates leverage, as does the catapult. The bow in symbology 
seems more usually to hint at accuracy than at force. It may represent 
making the point rather than trying to make the point (fighting or funding 
or organising or using proofs to get others to build a catapult for you 
because building it takes more than two hands...)

What seems to be emerging is the latency of the reward. Troops with 
limited attention/loyalty spans require closer-to-instant gratification 
(videogame mode with fast turns limit?) troops with longer 
attention/loyalty spans may be content to leave reward until after the 
game is over. (Pay them when we REACH Alpha Centuri, until then lets keep 
working on how to get there).

Farsightedness is also sometimes associated with or assigned to 
archer/saggittarius. So I would think that at least for symbology purposes 
we have a distinction between melee and missile troops and between 
mobs/warriors and militia/legions. The term warrior is not obsolete, 
warriors today tend to be "spiritual warriors". It may be mere hype of 
course if spirituality is just a marketing ploy or con game rather than 
mass hypnosis or hypgnosis or gnosis etc.

Bronze is an alloy of intellect (Hod/Mercury) and Mercy (Chesed/Jupiter).

> The kind of feudalism with knights clearly involves iron working. Iron working
> is *always* preceded by bronze working. Is this clear? No one goes from stone
> weapons and clubs to pikemen without discovering bronze working in between.

Iron is not an alloy, it is Severity (Geburah/Mars). Back to individuals 
(elements) versus organised (internally a despotism???) groups.

Is a Phalanx meant to mean naked warriors with big phallic objects and 
heavy shields triumphing by being the most macho men on the tile, or does 
it represent organised ranks of spears. Peasants using boar-spears would 
work well against knights, possibly better than pikemen because the 
boar-spear has a cross-bar for parrying the lance.

Most miniatures-based wargames find that "morale" is important, often, 
maybe even usually, more important than actual weaponry. Automatons 
utilising the same organic and inorganic contruction and peripherals would 
destroy things more efficiently or effectively in many instances than 
would real people or even animals. The more mechanical the unit the more 
the battle moves into controlling unit and how to influence the controller 
than into combating the unit itself directly.

> > Maybe iron working should be a requirenment for feudalism.  This is
> > historically reasonable, makes some sense, and makes legions come before
> > knights.

Iron working may also symbolise the Smith (is it coincidence that Smith's 
is the commercial wonder?)

The actual coiner of the currency as opposed to the forging or forger?
Or merely the forge and forger rather than the authority that renders the 
token meaningful?

Geburah (Iron/Mars/Red), Severity, (Din,War,etc) represents purification 
by fire, cutting away of inessentials. Sounds more like the archer 
(especially the zen archer?) the loner, than the cloner. Find one 
individual who can do it instead of deploying billions of borg with 
billions of typewriters...  ;-)

> I agree that iron working and monarchy make much more sense as pre-reqs for
> feudalism. Ours not to question why, merely to do or die. That still does not
> solve the problem of making warriors obsolete.

Feudalism is *supposed* to be personal loyalty, fealty, ties that bind, 
such as blood bonds. Loyalty to a specific individual (a "leader", 
hence need for "leadership" for monarchs if the monarchy is not to 
degenerate due to losing people's loyalty to folk who do have 
leadership skills?) The quote you cite is, rather, from an impersonal 
period or system. Note the use of the plural, "ours" rather than "mine".
Implies communism or tribe or family, some kind of "bonding" (alloying?)

> I've never found a use for warriors in any situation ever. I have to point out
> that this patch is only for the default ruleset. The Civ 2 ruleset still 
> allows
> you the joy of building warriors/phalanxes till the pikemen come. Kapeesh?

Militia and Warrior are very very different terms, at least nowadays. 
Militia is drafted, warriors volunteer. Militia are often not even 
conscientious objectors, if everyone was a warrior the draft would be 
almost impossible, nearly everyone would either volunteer or object. 

> > Since making phalanxes obsolete warriors does make sense, what would
> > people think about allowing units which are only obsolete by one?  It
> > seems realistic enough: not everyone abandoned muskets the instant rifles
> > were invented.  By the time mech. inf. came around, they basically
> > had.  It seems to me that learning leadership shouldn't be a military
> > disadvantage because it makes horse units more expensive, when they just
> > take ironclad-blasted cities anyway -- but that's how it is.

Having something to ride on may be like having legs to stand on. 
Supporters. Others. Coordinated use of others. Main diff seems to be 
that it has domesticated part of the unit. The meaning of domestication 
may be that despite being seemingly a despotism the despot has so 
thoroughly programmed the population that it does not itself regard it as 
despotism. It would maybe even vote for it if given democracy (Helsinki 
syndrome if done by force, hypnotism/magick if done by positive feedback / 
operant conditioning / mercenary / monetary means?)

> > > dragoons -> cavalry -> tanks
> > > musketeers -> riflemen -> mechanised infantry

Dragoons sound like pirates and buckaneers and cavaliers in that the words 
seem associated with acting in a cavalier manner possibly without regard 
for the rights of folk who are less well armed or well heeled etc etc.
Whereas cavalry may be as in "the cavalry is coming" (the Eagles are 
coming?) they are disciplined troops rather than flamboyant mercenaries, 
they are meant to be united by leadership or loyalty or patriotism rather 
than the lure of loot or the joy of excersising their capabilities.

> > Side note: do mech. inf. obsolete riflemen?  I thought not. 

Mech = cyber, rifle=pointmaker/analyst/aimer (archer symbology) ?

Rifled barrel allows better aim compared to brute force attempt 
represented by blunderbuss/musket ? BUT notice that musketteers ammunition 
tends to be in a form that permits them some idea of how the heck it 
works. By the time of Riflemen the heirarchy above them may well be trying 
to keep them in the dark, would maybe prefer they have no idea what 
ammunition is where it comes from how to make it themself at home in their 
own spare time and maybe also doesnt even want them to have any spare time 

> Hardly the point. The point is that you cannot build mech inf without
> developing
> the tech for riflemen. Contrast this to the pikemen/phalanx situation. 

Which comes first, points or pointmakers?

> I'll fix that next if people actually care. It's just never been a huge 
> problem
> for me. This warrior/pikemen/phalanx issue has annoyed me ever since Civ 2 
> came
> out. People still have a use for frigates even if they can build destroyers.
> They might not have transports yet, so this situation is hardly the same.

Large sail-powered cargo vessels may yet obsolete brute-force 
environmentally destructive transports. Heck if we could make 
uninflammable hydrogen dirigibles may come back yet....?


[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]