Pritanoi (and Casse) Generals-Innacurate?

[vartan]

It's times like these that I really miss the original MTW ability of dismounting your units before battle... I still cannot understand why they got rid of that ability...

I didn't know CA had created a game that allowed the dismounting of chariot regiments. They would shock and awe before dismounting as heavy inf. phalanx, at least during the Iron Age in the Near East (early 1st mill. BC). The dismounting feature was during deployment or could it be used real-time?

I can only imagine that CA didn't consider it a particularly common occurence in Antiquity. I can't think of any battles during the EB timerame where cavalry dismounted before battle. (Prove me wrong everyone!).

I can't think of any myself, but chariots (if you want to call them cavalry) did dismount and fight in phalanx (using the term generously here) in the Ancient Near East from the 13th to 7th centuries BC (cavalry a la EB wasn't really a war-player until the Assyrian utilization of horses as war animals). I always wondered if chariot regiments would still dismount and fight together as heavy inf. in the EB timeframe as they did during the Iron Age as I just mentioned. I suppose it wouldn't be as significant since cavalry had by then long replaced the expensive and clumsy chariots.

[mountaingoat]

would take a guess and say that all cavalry based military units would be dismounted during sieges ... though how many times did a cavalry based unit end up on the field during a siege (attacking) back then ? would it be more common that we might believe?

i felt that this was one of the major reasons dismounting was an option in MTW (from a gaming point of view) .. the fact that you could have many mounted knights or cavalry in general during a siege.

and talking about this just makes me want to play MTW XXL .. but this game will not run on with my series 8x nvidia card .. >=(
lol

[Ludens]

The dismounting feature was during deployment or could it be used real-time?

Only during deployment, and then certain cavalry types could only be dismounted for siege battles. This was to indicate that equestrian nobility preferred to fight on horseback, unless circumstances really did not favour cavalry. A pity, since dismounted feudal knights were among the strongest infantry you could get early on.

[WinsingtonIII]

I didn't know CA had created a game that allowed the dismounting of chariot regiments. They would shock and awe before dismounting as heavy inf. phalanx, at least during the Iron Age in the Near East (early 1st mill. BC). The dismounting feature was during deployment or could it be used real-time?

Well, this was Medieval I, so I don't recall any chariots present in that game, but you could dismount regular cavalry. Though, as Ludens said, you were limited by the battle type and only during deployment.

If Empire ever had enough modding tools to change the era, then you could have a mod with the dismounting of cavalry during the actual battle, but I'm not sure if the dismounted cavalry can move around when they are dismounted. I don't remember exactly how dragoons work in that game.

[vartan]

Well, this was Medieval I, so I don't recall any chariots present in that game, but you could dismount regular cavalry. Though, as Ludens said, you were limited by the battle type and only during deployment.

I'm sorry, I meant to say that I hadn't realised that CA had made a game in which cavalry* (or some cavalry) could dismount (excluding Empire and Napoleon).

If Empire ever had enough modding tools to change the era, then you could have a mod with the dismounting of cavalry during the actual battle, but I'm not sure if the dismounted cavalry can move around when they are dismounted. I don't remember exactly how dragoons work in that game.

I was thinking the same thing, having seen the newer games, though admittedly the Empire engine is obsolete now with the release of Napoleon. The performance optimization on the latter seems improved compared to the former (correct me if I'm wrong, it just seems so).

[Password]

If Empire ever had enough modding tools to change the era, then you could have a mod with the dismounting of cavalry during the actual battle, but I'm not sure if the dismounted cavalry can move around when they are dismounted. I don't remember exactly how dragoons work in that game.

I believe you could move the dismounted unit when they were dismounted and use them as regular line infantry however the horses would stand immobile wherever left, though I don't remember if the horses could be killed without riders and what happened if there were more riders/horses when remounting or if you could even remount at all.

[WinsingtonIII]

I believe you could move the dismounted unit when they were dismounted and use them as regular line infantry however the horses would stand immobile wherever left, though I don't remember if the horses could be killed without riders and what happened if there were more riders/horses when remounting or if you could even remount at all.

Well, you can definitely remount, I've done that, but I'm not sure what happens if you lose a horse and the man is still alive. I think I've seen the horses get killed when dismounted, and then had the men remount, and there wasn't a problem, so I'm assuming that when you lose a horse, you lose the man as well.

[SlickNicaG69]

Archaeology is an infant science that has one inherent problem: Not everything lasts forever. If you only accepted that which Archaelogy can prove to you, then you will have a hard time developing any type of history.

For, example, do you deny the Hanging Gardens existed, or for that matter any Ancient Wonder besides The Pyramids because Archaeology proves they never existed?

You cannot use archaeology as your primary source - only as a supplement - if you want to develop a true idea of history, and what better sources to base it upon than the words of Caesar or Tacitus?

[Moros]

You're argument is that when there is no Archeologic knowledge, Archeology can't be used as a primary source? Well noone can categorically deny that. However then to state it can't be generally used as a primary source is rather ridiculous. Perhaps using all sources avaible, evaluating them, comparing them,... and well just sticking to the generally academically accepted basic ideas on methodology of ancient history might not be a bad alternative to what you are suggesting?

[SlickNicaG69]

What is the

methodology of ancient history

?

When you read ancient history you can tell, given our advanced state of knowledge, what is readily acceptable and what is not; thus, the primary use of the source. For example, the statue of Athena in the Parthenon can be accepted because it was possible for people make such large objects even in that day. Just because archaeology doesn't prove it doesn't disprove it. However, if the source states it would stand up and greet every person that came to pay it respect, we can readily say that is untrue and disproven by, once again, noting that such things were impossible during that day. Much the same, just because there existed a statue of Remus and Romulus, doesn't mean they actually existed. There is little need for archaeology in terms of history. To me, archaeology is only useful for discovery, like finding a new dinosaur that existed, not to re-evaluate or find the truth.

[Moros]

First of all you seem to assume that Archeology and Ancient historiography are the sole sources of information? What about papyrology, epigraphy, numismatics,...
Secondly archaeological evidence just like historical evidence isn't just accepted as is. It's subject to internal and external source criticism. Archaeology is one aid to make a reconstruction of the past, which due to the limited amount of historical evidence holds a more important role in ancient history than modern history. However just like with historical and other sources, every single source of information needs to be evaluated before usage. But the again these are some of the basic principles of historical methodology.

What is the historical methodology? Well of course there are some minor different accents and all within the Academic world on the practice of history. But in general the basic modern principles on practising history are the same. For a good basic understanding and introduction to the historical methodology I'll refer you to the excellent History in practice by Jordanova. There's actually a very nice quote in it on Archaeology and Ancient history. Sadly I don't have it at hand now. I'll get you that quote this weekend when at campus.

[SlickNicaG69]

First of all you seem to assume that Archeology and Ancient historiography are the sole sources of information? What about papyrology, epigraphy, numismatics,...
Secondly archaeological evidence just like historical evidence isn't just accepted as is. It's subject to internal and external source criticism. Archaeology is one aid to make a reconstruction of the past, which due to the limited amount of historical evidence holds a more important role in ancient history than modern history. However just like with historical and other sources, every single source of information needs to be evaluated before usage. But the again these are some of the basic principles of historical methodology.

What is the historical methodology? Well of course there are some minor different accents and all within the Academic world on the practice of history. But in general the basic modern principles on practising history are the same. For a good basic understanding and introduction to the historical methodology I'll refer you to the excellent History in practice by Jordanova. There's actually a very nice quote in it on Archaeology and Ancient history. Sadly I don't have it at hand now. I'll get you that quote this weekend when at campus.

Actually I was being sort of sarcastic, because the only "methodology" to writing history is writing about what is happening, is it not Moros?

[Skullheadhq]

Actually I was being sort of sarcastic, because the only "methodology" to writing history is writing about what is happening, is it not Moros?

Propaganda, Romans used that

[SlickNicaG69]

Propaganda, Romans used that

Kinda like the Yellow Journalism of our day right? But even such propaganda can't ever blot out the sun. What did propaganda do for the telling of the Teutoberg Forest? What did it do for the Sacks of Rome? If anything, it "justified" Rome, but it never lied.

[Moros]

Actually I was being sort of sarcastic, because the only "methodology" to writing history is writing about what is happening, is it not Moros?

No, it is not. Writing history is about source evaluation, analysis, synthesis,... to get a reconstruction of the past.

[SlickNicaG69]

No, it is not. Writing history is about source evaluation, analysis, synthesis,... to get a reconstruction of the past.

I disagree Moros. History can only be written by contemporaries. That which is not real is not history and the subsequent deletion of such insertions is just, to continue my allegory, the Sun finally shining through.

[Tellos Athenaios]

There is a distinctive difference in writing what (according to you) is/was happening, and writing history. History does not merely seek to establish what is/has happening, it seeks to establish understanding of what is/was happening (causes, consequences and context).

Your version of history is like a Mathematician observing that prime numbers larger than two are never even, not troubling to prove why this is so.

[Moros]

I disagree Moros. History can only be written by contemporaries. That which is not real is not history and the subsequent deletion of such insertions is just, to continue my allegory, the Sun finally shining through.

History written by contemporaries still is synthesis and analysis and evaluation of sources,... unless you're talking about a diary? And amazingly you're still writing a reconstruction of the past.

You seem to be thinking in very simple, not to call idiotic, ways it seems...

[vartan]

Your version of history is like a Mathematician observing that prime numbers larger than two are never even, not troubling to prove why this is so.

+rep @ Maths analogy. Possibly one of the best ways to imagine your idea!

[seienchin]

History is just a matter of believe, mirroing your own ideals and today its also part of a scientific market. People need and want to make money and to justify the position of history as a scientific discipline.
It is of cause really hard to see this as persons who are in this circle.
Just one simple fact:
Most people cant even remember, what they ate 2 days ago and every information we store into our brains is altered from reality. Even worse is what happens to a message after communicating it to other people. Even more worse is translating between to languages, which is why most movies get worse after translating and to read ancient textes without any native speakers, who know the feeling and true meaning of words and the way of thinking. Even in written documents in a still spoken tongue (Even in english) people debate over things that were written, because there isnt anything like 100%truth in written or spoken words. So, if there is one document we read about lets say the roman army in latin, the possbility of someone really knowing the thruth afterwards are less than winning in the lottery.
Still, some people claim to know with a high possibility what happend in EB Timeframe? The fact that there are people who claim roman superiority and people who qualify that statemen or openly disagree is further proove that it is a matter of believing.

People, who studied 100years ago thought they knew something for sure. 100years of scientific and philosophical improvements later we know that this is not true.
It is funny, how the archaelogy in anglosaxon countries is so modern in its methods, but still there are so archaelogists, who dont believe or recall that they are only humans and have only evidence. They arent looking for the truth, they are looking for probabilities.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

History is just a matter of believe, mirroing your own ideals and today its also part of a scientific market. People need and want to make money and to justify the position of history as a scientific discipline.
It is of cause really hard to see this as persons who are in this circle.
Just one simple fact:
Most people cant even remember, what they ate 2 days ago and every information we store into our brains is altered from reality. Even worse is what happens to a message after communicating it to other people. Even more worse is translating between to languages, which is why most movies get worse after translating and to read ancient textes without any native speakers, who know the feeling and true meaning of words and the way of thinking. Even in written documents in a still spoken tongue (Even in english) people debate over things that were written, because there isnt anything like 100%truth in written or spoken words. So, if there is one document we read about lets say the roman army in latin, the possbility of someone really knowing the thruth afterwards are less than winning in the lottery.
Still, some people claim to know with a high possibility what happend in EB Timeframe? The fact that there are people who claim roman superiority and people who qualify that statemen or openly disagree is further proove that it is a matter of believing.

People, who studied 100years ago thought they knew something for sure. 100years of scientific and philosophical improvements later we know that this is not true.
It is funny, how the archaelogy in anglosaxon countries is so modern in its methods, but still there are so archaelogists, who dont believe or recall that they are only humans and have only evidence. They arent looking for the truth, they are looking for probabilities.

I think it would be better to say that, while they are looking for the truth, all they have to work with is probabilities....

[Captain Trek]

*Resists urge to weigh in on the pissing-contest*

That raises a good question... I wonder if the Pritanoi infantry bodyguards will have the same movement points as cavalry to reflect that they would ride to battle on chariots.

Another way to do this might be to give all Casse generals an automatic "rides a chariot" trait, which would give them a campaign-map movement bonus that would (assuming no other bonuses or penalties) put them up to the calavry movement rate... How does that sound?

[vartan]

Another way to do this might be to give all Casse generals an automatic "rides a chariot" trait, which would give them a campaign-map movement bonus that would (assuming no other bonuses or penalties) put them up to the calavry movement rate... How does that sound?

Logical.

[Moros]

The only problem with that logic is that'd would speed up the infantry units in their armies as well...

[vartan]

The only problem with that logic is that'd would speed up the infantry units in their armies as well...

Last I checked, in such cases only the general had the long distance abilities. The infantry actually slowed down the total distance possible to move by the whole army. After you've moved your army, if you select your general only, you'll see that he still can move, he has movement points left. But the infantry are depleted.

[bobbin]

Not sure exactly how the system works but yes an army will move at the pace of its slowest unit, I don't know if a generals movement bonus is applied to the other units in the army as well though.

[Moros]

Not sure exactly how the system works but yes an army will move at the pace of its slowest unit, I don't know if a generals movement bonus is applied to the other units in the army as well though.

i believe it is. Ofcourse as in EB I the infantry are still slower because while the bonus was equal, the original speed was lower. For example say a general had 30% increased speed, then the infantry units in the stack would also be 30% faster. But as they infantry and had less moving points, their new and increased speed is obviously still slower than the new increased speed of the general. You don't see any of the EBI foot generals being faster than their own infantry unit either hmmm. Unless you want them to seperate that is. As this way the bonus would only be applicable to the general unit anymore. What use would these traits have anyway if the general would move slower or faster only when he didn't have other units with him...

[oudysseos]

There is little need for archaeology in terms of history. To me, archaeology is only useful for discovery, like finding a new dinosaur that existed, not to re-evaluate or find the truth.

This is one of the most bizarre statements that I have ever seen.

It is becoming increasingly clear that EB2 is not a mod that caters to your (frankly odd) tastes. Well, I suppose we'll just have to live with not having you as a fan.

[bobbin]

This is one of the most bizarre statements that I have ever seen.

Too right! I can't think of many archeologists that go around discovering dinosaurs all the time.

[Blxz]

Too right! I can't think of many archeologists that go around discovering dinosaurs all the time.

I beleive that is paleotology.(sp?)

I get both archeology and paleotology attibuted to me all the time when I say i study geology. People remark how "fun it must be digging up ancient dinosaurs and civilizations everyday". "Actually, no, I just learn how to rip ore from the ground..."