View Full Version : camel question
which japanese unit do you think could beat camels in a straight and why?
------------------
know yourself and you will never be defeated
smillie.james@btopenworld.com
Spears
------------------
Proud member of Clan Kenchikuka (http://www.kenchi.cjb.net/).
evil is within us... http://terazawa.totalwar.org/emo.gif
Visit my resource site here! (http://terazawa.totalwar.org/)
I think heavy calvary could as well, I mean if you think about it camels have fairly large necks and are easy targets for a rider with a sword in his hand.
However, this would not work with yari cav, for the simple fact that trying to stab a skinny neck with a awkward spear would be quite difficult, and dangerous if you overextended your thrust.
Catiline
02-24-2002, 08:25
OT or MTW, that's the question
MTW I think, thread moved
------------------
Et sceleratis sol oritur
Leet Eriksson
02-24-2002, 16:30
WAIT!!!Camels can spit on their horses giving them a chance to kill the samurai http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/tongue.gif
Catiline
02-24-2002, 17:36
They'd have to spit along way, horses hate camels almost as much as elephants, that's half the point of using them.
------------------
Et sceleratis sol oritur
horses feared camels,maybe its their breath
and by the time a horse and its rider approach a camel the horse would probably run off
Toda Nebuchadnezzar
02-24-2002, 18:29
Quote Originally posted by james:
horses feared camels,maybe its their breath[/QUOTE]
Or its ass and what comes out of it http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif
------------------
Grand Master of
The Knights Templar
"non nobis Domine non nobis sed Nomine tuo da gloriam"
http://www.gifs.net/animate/aniyin.gif
Leet Eriksson
02-25-2002, 03:07
though camels were'nt use in every battle of course they did fill in the role of anti cavalry very well one advantage was height but the biggest disadvantage of camels was their long necks.Ironically the knights never thought of swinging the swords on camels necks(wich explains how we won hehehehe http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/tongue.gif )
Leet Eriksson
02-25-2002, 04:42
we won the crusades thats what we pushed back the invaders and replaced every christian house with a jewish one(cuase they were paying jizya and god would never be pleased if we did'nt fill our role and bring justice to the crusader scum and of course return the jews to their homes).
Quote Originally posted by faisal:
we won the crusades thats what we pushed back the invaders and replaced every christian house with a jewish one(cuase they were paying jizya and god would never be pleased if we did'nt fill our role and bring justice to the crusader scum and of course return the jews to their homes).[/QUOTE]
I like this chap!
Just as I chained my peasants to the rice paddies so they could work permanently to feed my fat army, so too I can see faisal chaining the Jews to their 'new homes' so they would not leave for 'richer lands'...
LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
are u a history dude or somthing?
I'm still waiting for evidence for masses of camal riders. Most Arab cav was on horses. When exactly did the Crusaders encounter lots of camels?
Vlad The Impaler
02-26-2002, 22:42
I agree with Nelson; i never heard about mass camels troups in arabian armies; the arabian horse was awesome so why use camels ? spiting the horses ? LOL who would let his life in the spit of the camels ? http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif
theforce
02-27-2002, 01:25
Camels lol. Well the crusaders could throw some food in front of them and they would start eating :P
------------------
Don't use only honour, use theforce, too.
Quote I agree with Nelson; i never heard about mass camels troups in arabian armies;[/QUOTE]
Ignorance is our fate and this I hate. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif
LOL, Vlad have you never heard about the Legion of Deadly Spitting Camel Riders? http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif
Evidence, evidence, it is a game http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif Interesting or not? Interesting, yes? Then go camels, go!
BTW, to answer james' question: ranged units, esp. x-bowmen.
Quote Originally posted by james:
which japanese unit do you think could beat camels in a straight and why?
[/QUOTE]
I think a squadron of Zeroes would do it just fine... http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif
Vlad The Impaler
02-27-2002, 16:28
Cheetah is a HISTORICAL war game http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gifnot a simple war game ;
Leet Eriksson
02-27-2002, 19:10
when did i say"new homes"... http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
Quote Cheetah is a HISTORICAL war game not a simple war game ; [/QUOTE]
A HISTORICAL war game??? http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif I thought that MTW stands for Music TeleWision http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif
BTW, historically there were camels, and even there were camel riders. The only question is the existence of units consisting only of camel riders. Well, I guess that the answer is no, i.e. there were no such units. But one might argue that there was a POTENTIAL for such units to exist. Since MTW is a strategic game as well, why to take away this potential?
Take a paralell example, the inclusion of Panzers on the side of Teutonic knights. Now, this could not be justified since at that time the Teutonic knights had no potential to build tanks.
Finally, as far as I remember there was a similar debate with respect of the japanese units. There was a guy (sorry can't rememver his name) who always argued that there were no such units as nodachi, naginata, etc., samurai armies were mixed units, most of the samurai had katana and yari, few had some other weapons, etc. The counter argument was that there should be a ballance between historiccal accuracy and game play, + people want diverse units.
I think that the same logic applies here as well.
Leet Eriksson
02-28-2002, 00:09
good point their cheetah camels did'nt exist in form of units but were used in battles just see the saladin series on abu dhabi TV channel(heck if any europeans have that channel anyway)tons of camels where involved in killing the crusaders and greusome battles of soldiers getting their head cut off eyes pulled out etc etc.the crusaders were just plain cannon fodder infront of the saracens.
Quote Originally posted by faisal:
good point their cheetah camels did'nt exist in form of units but were used in battles just see the saladin series on abu dhabi TV channel(heck if any europeans have that channel anyway)tons of camels where involved in killing the crusaders and greusome battles of soldiers getting their head cut off eyes pulled out etc etc.the crusaders were just plain cannon fodder infront of the saracens.[/QUOTE]
And if you have any other questions about medeival/ancient history, I might refer you to the Fox TV channel...where you can see Xena and Hercules...you will see that the Romans actually only had about 50 troops in England, and that the Celtic gods were wimps.
http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif
Sir Kuma of The Org
02-28-2002, 04:21
In previews and such, CA has always stated that although they would try to be as historicallly accurate as possible for MTW, gameplay would always come first in the decision making.
Makes sense to me because like STW, this will not be sold as a simulation but a strategic game.
the Count of Flanders
02-28-2002, 04:27
LOL@Jaguara
faisal, that "cannon fodder" established the Kingdom of Jerusalem somehow now didn't they? It lasted about 90 years. And what happened at Acre? Saladin himself was there and couldn't break the siege. How so if the Saracens were so superior to those silly English and French boobs in chain mail? http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif
And it took them 400 yrs to kick them out after all the tiny kingdoms (Antioch etc.) made war with each other.
------------------
"Je vous repondrai par la bouche de mes canons"
-Frontenac
(I will answer you with the blast of my canons)
-Trad. libre
Leet Eriksson
02-28-2002, 15:23
in those 90 years the fatimids were controlling egypt and helped the crusaders against the sunnis now its obvious the saracens were split and fought each other so it was easy for the crusaders to go ahead and capture the holy land if we were united the crusaders would'nt even establish a kingdom of jeruselam.btw yes it did take the saracens 400 years becuase the crusaders were scattered all around you can't go kill them in 1 or 2 days.oh yeah the xena and hercules thing is crap what i meant with the series is not one hero goes busting up 100 soldiers it was 1 army against another army never seen movies with massive battles(ie braveheart)?
note:yes they were cannon fodder becuase they lost the battle very simple what loser does'nt lose a battle with heavy losses?
faisal it is a bit confusing. Where is the end of the first sentence?
Quote note:yes they were cannon fodder becuase they lost the battle very simple what loser does'nt lose a battle with heavy losses?[/QUOTE]
Is it:
Yes, they were cannon fodder becuase they lost the battle. Very simple: what loser does'nt lose a battle with heavy losses?
or:
Yes, they were cannon fodder becuase they lost the battle very simple. What loser does'nt lose a battle with heavy losses?
BTW, everyone is flamming faisal instead of acknowledging the wisdom of my previous comment http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif
No one is flaming faisal. His view of history is just astonishingly myopic.
Cheetah, if you mean your comment about the POTENTIAL for units, I would say that is not enough. POTENTIAL for what? Men on camels with weapons? OK, but how effective would such units have been? If they did not exist as such it would have been for good reasons. You rule out panzers but what about elephants? Elephants were still available were they not? So why not have elephant units? Or chariots? They were POTENTIALLY present also. Even ancient Britons used them. See where POTENTIAL can take us?
Again, if big camel formations existed I am ignorant of them and would like to be enlightened. I am only anti-camel if such units did not in fact exist.
Nelson I see your point but I don't see any danger including elephants, chariots, etc.
1) First, it is a strategic game. Let the players decide what they want and what they don't. If you eliminate the supposedly non-efficient units beforehand then what remains? Monks and guns?
2) History is not always about efficency. Cultural traditions, religions may hinder the spread of the most efficient fighting methods. Just, think of the spread of the x-bow in europe or the composition of mameluk armies in egypt. So, you cannot argue that if a particular unit type or figthing method is missing from a given army of a given period it is missing because it must have been inefficient. There can be other reasons. It true that in general one may expect the most efficent weapon types to spread (x-bow was finally accepted, those who resisted were defeated; mameluks were defeated, etc.) but only in general and only on the long term.
3) There were no big nodachi, naginata, heavy cavalry or naginata cavalry formations yet everyone is very happy with them. That is, there should be a balance (trade-off?) between historical accuracy and gameplay.
4) As far as the particular examples are concerned: I am not sure that elephants were not used because they were inefficient. Most likely they were unavailable for most of the European states. Camel riders might have been very efficient in the desert region and unefficient outside the desert. Let the players decide. We need a unit of them because of the gameplay (see argument #3).
Quote Originally posted by faisal:
oh yeah the xena and hercules thing is crap what i meant with the series is not one hero goes busting up 100 soldiers it was 1 army against another army never seen movies with massive battles(ie braveheart)?[/QUOTE]
Faisal, I did not mean to offend you. My half joking point was merely that any piece of modern filmwork is hardly a good reference for historical research. My example was obviously an extreme one - and that was the joke part.
I find it interesting that you list Braveheart as an example. But even 'Braveheart' is not a good source of historical fact. Speak to some of the English/Scottish history buffs on this board and I am sure they can provide a 10 page long list of issues with that film, some of them are major ones.
If you could find a real historical reference to back up your point, it would give your argument much more credibility.
By the way, I am not disputing your points, only your evidence. I have little knowledge on this particular period.
Once again, I apologize for offending you, it was not my intent.
Jaguara
[This message has been edited by Jaguara (edited 02-28-2002).]
These units gunna have high or low moral http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif
I myself dont know how brave a camel will be in battle?
------------------
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/markuk/t.gif/wolf11.gif
Grey Wolves
FastCub
Leet Eriksson
03-01-2002, 02:59
no you did'nt offend me at all jaguara.I myslef don't mean offense i'm just stating what i know so far i don't mean any offence sorry http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif oh and cheetah i meant the first one sorry i was typing fast becuase i was a bit busy that time.
Cheetah, are you suggesting with #1 that players be allowed to raise charioteers if they want? I'm unclear if you are in favor of elephants or not. I suspect not. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif I never suggested that inefficient units disappear. In any event you misunderstood my effectiveness remark. My point about the effectiveness of masses of camel riders was that IF they did not exist how can we know what combat values to give them? The values would have to be invented which opens the door to all sorts of goofiness.
I agree with you totally about point number 2. But I would not include units that did not exist regardless of the reason! I'm saying a unit should not exist in the game if it did not exist in the army at the time the game portrays, that's all. Medieval armies were comprised of certain troop types and not others for MANY reasons. It's the accurate composition of these armies that interests me here. Efficient or not, if units were there I want them and if not I’d rather not see them.
As for point 3, not EVERYONE prefers the unit weapon homogeneity of Shogun but I will concede that most RTS players want lots of distinct unit types without regard to history. You seem to believe that less real is more fun in this regard. I couldn’t disagree more. The most accurate aspects of the Total War engine, indeed the very things we accurites had long asked for, are the most popular features. Yet before morale, fatigue, weather, terrain effects and flanking came along in this game most RTS players were shouting these things down as fun killers and impediments to gameplay. Good thing CA didn’t listen to THEM, huh? One day historically accurate armies will be more popular too. And you know what? Gameplay will be great.
Point 4 sounds like point 2. I don't see why we NEED camel units though IF they did not exist. What aspect of gameplay requires them pray tell? Again, do the English need chariots? Or does gameplay not require THEM?
In closing, this is a moot point because we will have camel units no matter what grognards like me think. This game gets closer and closer to what we old wargamers want so I just keep pushing and shoving until it gets there. At least dragons are out! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif
Nelson
Question for you...you mentioned chariots.
Were these ever used in England? If so when did they cease to be in service?
A friend showed me a novel in which they were being used against the Romans in Caledonia. My reaction skeptical, since I had not heard of chariots outside of the mediteranean region. I questioned their usefulness in the Scottish highlands as well.
Do you have any information on this?
Jaguara, check this out:
http://www.gallica.co.uk/celts/chariot.htm
Caesar saw them himself. Neat, huh? I'll bet Cat knows all about them. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif
Thanks Nelson,
I am amazed that the things just held together while being used in the highlands...
Anyway, the description on the site you posted is somewhat like that in the book...except at one point the chariots charged the Roman infantry and it described them as 'wolves among sheep'...at which I scoffed...and this site seems to back that they would not be used in direct contact with infantry.
Thanks for the info...
Cat if you have any other info, please feel free to add it...
hunkypex
03-01-2002, 05:41
As for chariots, there has been some recent evidence concerning the platform that would of been stood on. It may of been suspended with leather straps giving it a springlike quality and even if the chariot was on uneven ground the platform would compensate.
That should would of made them more hard wearing.
[This message has been edited by hunkypex (edited 02-28-2002).]
Nelson,
Quote Cheetah, are you suggesting with #1 that players be allowed to raise charioteers if they want?[/QUOTE]
Hm. Good question. I think that the devil is in the details, i.e. in the unit values. If the unit values are good (for instance, the chariot is clearly as inefficient as it was) then why not let the players experiment with it? I think it is matter of taste whether you want to give a bit room to the players to experiment with (potentially) possible unit types or you want to constraint them to the actually exsisted types.
Quote I'm unclear if you are in favor of elephants or not. I suspect not.[/QUOTE]
See as before. BTW, personally I am in favour of elephants!!! i.e I love them http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
Quote I never suggested that inefficient units disappear. In any event you misunderstood my effectiveness remark. My point about the effectiveness of masses of camel riders was that IF they did not exist how can we know what combat values to give them? The values would have to be invented which opens the door to all sorts of goofiness.[/QUOTE]
I agree 100%, but there is similar problem with other unit types as well. For instance, engish longbowmen and mongol cavalry archers never fought against each other, yet in the game they could do so. So, one have to set the unit values to produce a "realistic", or "historically accurate" result. But how can you tell that what result is "realistic" if they never fought against each other? Should the unit values be transitive? English longbowmen were better than genovesian x-bowmen, who were better than hungarian archers, who were inferior to mongol cavalry archers ... so? Which unit is better? Longbowmen or cavalry archers? The point is that the problem is real, the game developers have to invent these values, however, I think it is not a unique problem with camel riders.
Quote I agree with you totally about point number 2. But I would not include units that did not exist regardless of the reason! I'm saying a unit should not exist in the game if it did not exist in the army at the time the game portrays, that's all. Medieval armies were comprised of certain troop types and not others for MANY reasons. It's the accurate composition of these armies that interests me here. Efficient or not, if units were there I want them and if not I’d rather not see them. [/QUOTE]
I think it is a matter of taste. Do you want an accurate history game or a strategic game with a historic flawour?
Quote As for point 3, not EVERYONE prefers the unit weapon homogeneity of Shogun but I will concede that most RTS players want lots of distinct unit types without regard to history. You seem to believe that less real is more fun in this regard.[/QUOTE]
Well, not exactly. I never said that less real is more fun. I never suggested fire breathing dragons, magicians or cave troll units. However, I do think that more diverse unit types give more fun. Of course, each included unit types should have historical bases, but I guess that my requirements are more generous than yours in this respect http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
Quote I couldn’t disagree more. The most accurate aspects of the Total War engine, indeed the very things we accurites had long asked for, are the most popular features. Yet before morale, fatigue, weather, terrain effects and flanking came along in this game most RTS players were shouting these things down as fun killers and impediments to gameplay.[/QUOTE]
Hm. I think that here we have two distinct issues: (a) historical accuracy with respect of unit types; (b) historical accuracy with respect of game engine; i.e. effects of weather, terrain, fatigue, etc. I think that we agree on both points! With regard of the first point you may have a more strickt definition than I, but on the second point we are in a complete agrement. I never proposed the drop of accuracy of the battle engine itself, and I do think as you, that it is the best battle engine so far.
Quote Good thing CA didn’t listen to THEM, huh? One day historically accurate armies will be more popular too. And you know what? Gameplay will be great.[/QUOTE]
see next point, i.e. gameplay
Quote Point 4 sounds like point 2. I don't see why we NEED camel units though IF they did not exist. What aspect of gameplay requires them pray tell? Again, do the English need chariots? Or does gameplay not require THEM? [/QUOTE]
It might not be clear enough (and then it is my fault) but I always talked with the tactical battle in mind when I talked about gameplay. That is, in order to be able to handle several thousands of men on the battle field some simplifications have to be made. That is why we have 16 units, each unit consisting of 60/80/etc. men instead of 960 individual soldier. That is what I meant when I said that "we need units of camel riders" because of the gameplay. You have to organise your camel riders into units in order to be able to handle them during the battle, even if such organistaion is historically inaccurate.
BTW, this exludes historically accurate armies, since these were never organised into nice units, at least not in these period. And I doubt that it would be ever possible (or even desirable) for a single player to manage several thousand individual solders in a real time battle.
Quote In closing, this is a moot point because we will have camel units no matter what grognards like me think. This game gets closer and closer to what we old wargamers want so I just keep pushing and shoving until it gets there. At least dragons are out! [/QUOTE]
We will see ... I am thinking hard ... Hmmm, which nation had the POTENTIAL to build dragons??? http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/tongue.gif
Well Cheetah, I guess we're not on quite the same page regarding the ideal Medieval:Total War. We are in the same book though. I expect I'll actually be fighting some stinking, spitting, humpbacked ships of the desert sometime this summer. I just hope it's not in Northern Europe! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif
Leet Eriksson
03-01-2002, 15:02
this game is getting closer to AOK than shogun i heard buildings like universities and barracks are in the game..btw thos stinking humpback creatures can kick crusaders ass with their spitting.
Catiline
03-01-2002, 20:20
Having been reduced to playing AOK the last few days I recognise the problems with that game. The big difference is that units aren't based in the battlefield which is the rubbish thing about most RTS games. So universities andbarracks don't worry e if they're implemented in such a way that they do something. You can still go for numbers over quality if you want, though you're probably going to lose, and provided the aspect of cost in maintaining huge armies remains I don't think we have to be too worried about AOK syndrome.
As to chariots...
British chariots did strike a certain fear into the Romans, but they weren't terribly effective. The only way to use them against organised units is to crash them into them, with the inherent problems in training the horse to do it. This is the way the Seleucids used their heavy chariots in the East.
Caesar had serious problems in Britain in 55 BC but this was largely due to an opposed landing in bad conditions.
i've seen a reconstruction were the whole thing was bound together with rawhide. rather than nailed. THis seems to fit with an apparent lack of metal nails and so forth in the finds, plus the fact it's very easy to make any horse drawn vehicle very heavy very quicly by using irom. The thing seemed to run wel over rough gruond, the fact it was tied giving more flexibity to the frame. The floor was also suspended to provided basic suspension, though the evidence for this is only conjecture based on the interpretation of images on Roman coins.
------------------
Et sceleratis sol oritur
Leet Eriksson
03-02-2002, 00:41
i think universities make our faction more advanced so the pope anounces his backup to this certain faction one thing how come a pope anounces backup to mohads or turks??maybe a Moufti or Imam??
Quote Originally posted by faisal:
i think universities make our faction more advanced so the pope anounces his backup to this certain faction one thing how come a pope anounces backup to mohads or turks??maybe a Moufti or Imam??[/QUOTE]
I would doubt it. I imagine that the University is a simple tech-tree requirement...not unlike a "tranquil garden". Perhaps it will be needed for advanced siege engines or alchemy such as greek fire.
Why would you think that the pope's backing would be based on anything other than religion?
Leet Eriksson
03-02-2002, 16:51
the pope acts like the emperor in the game i guess so he could backup a certain faction if they achieved a certain thing or maybe if they conquered the place were the pope resides.yeah i guess universities open up some more technologies and adavnced seige engines but i was wondering how many buildings will be available in those 400 years?probably a lot.
Sir Kuma of The Org
03-02-2002, 22:13
I think the pope will have a greater role than the Emperor in STW ( who just sided witth what ever clan got countrol of his province).
He has the power to excomunication over the leaders of "catholic" factions, can anyone say Heresy and revolts. That will be a pain for sure.
Excommunication and interdiction were fearsome threats to the medieval Christian. Regardless of a leaders opinion of the pope, he could not ignore the effect His Holiness could have on the people. Religion was very powerful. God was real, Satan was real, Hell was real and sending someone there was something everyone believed the pope could do.
Leet Eriksson
03-03-2002, 17:55
i doubt the pope can back up the muslims since he called for a crusade what will happen if he really did back em up?
something very nauty would have happened!lol
holy cow!!theres supposed to be more than 100 different unit types in mtw.camel killers,legions,stone throwers anyone know any of these new units (by the way not the made up ones ive put down!!
Sir Kuma of The Org
03-03-2002, 22:52
The pope can't back or influence any of the games factions that are not Catholic Christians, because he has no moral power over them.
So this will only add to the replayability to the game, adding something different, depending what faction you play.
Leet Eriksson
03-04-2002, 16:41
so that means russians,almohad,turks and poland will not be backed by the pope considering 2 factions are orthodox and 2 are muslim.who will back them up??
Sir Kuma of The Org
03-05-2002, 04:39
In fact i think that the pope won't help, make anything easier for the catholic factions by meddling. The muslim, orthodox etc... factions will have an advantage in that regard.
Leet Eriksson
03-05-2002, 17:42
i got an idea the muslims can ransom the pope and the orthodox can make the pope orthodox and announce that all europeans should be orthodox or he will excommunicate them!but realy should'nt there be mullahs or orthodox popes(dunno i may remember the orthodox had a patriarch or something)maybe...
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.