Log in

View Full Version : Arm Race



LadyAnn
10-30-2003, 20:46
The use of military tactics and equipements must always be put on perspective of an arm race. There is a book called "Arms and Armors in Ancient Warfare" which explains the evolution of arms and armors.

At the beginning, stick and stones

Humanity starts the arm race very early. First tools used are "weapons" to crush bones and scrape skins, used for meat scavenging. The same weapons used to gether food also were used to stave off "competitors", be they are other humans or beasts.

So, first weapon is a sort of axe: a stone tied to the end of a short stick.

Examining ancient cause of death, one would see head traumas are number one cause. Smashing heads were the quickest way to make sure the "competitors" never come back.

It is quickly realized that while the right-hand wield the stick, the left-hand is free, and why not have some kind of shield?

And if turtles and snails have shells, why not use various material as body armor?

But the arm race was sorta standing still for quite a long time before humans discovered they can smelter copper.


From stone age to bronze age

Bronze is a wonderful material, an enabling technology for warfare. First, the helmet was invented. The helmets are made of various degree of copper in bronze. The interiors are lined so absorb shocks.The one with a helmet usually wins the argument against the one without.

Bronze is also heavy enough and durable enough to make axes. There is a whole field of anthopology for classifying axes, but the bronze axe brought a cutting-edge to warfare. The argument between axes and helmets was not quite settled and warfare sees some more innovations: bronze shields, bronze breast plate, bronze arm and leg protectors.

Bronze is a heavy material because it is not easy to make thin but not brittle plates. Bronze is also costly. However, bronze-people were able to conquer stick-and-stone people.

Bronze swords appeared, but not wide spread used, because bronze is not yet a good cutting meterial. Bronze-tipped spears appeared.

Arrows started to appear in warfare in bronze age. Throwing stone was a good practice, settle the argument from afar before the other party could speak is always prefered.

Horses also appeared, and chariots made were also used from China to Persia to Egypt. It was hard to stop galloping horses, especially if the chariots also have blades mounted on their wheels. Chariots are used to break infantry standing in loose formation.

Greek Phalange

The Greek brought to warfare several innovations: standardized equipement, compact mass and well trained infantry. The weapon of choice is the spear.

At the battle of Marathon, the Anthenian Greeks only had spear infantry, while the Persians were more "balanced": archers, chariots, axe and sword wielding infantry. The Greeks didn't let the Persians shoot at them, nor the fearful chariots have time to start the charge. The Greeks charged at the Persians and won the day.

Spears used in compact formations have several advantages:
- put in front between the shields, it is hard for the enemy to reach and start speaking. Try to grab the head of a porcupine.
- put up high when standing, the spears could even break arrows volleys.
- compact spear mass could resist chariot charges, the fear of the day.

The disadvantage of the spears are:
- hard to use, required a lot of training;
- difficult to change direction;
- has vulnerability at the side and at the rear.
- If broken formation, long spears are useless weapons to those shorter weapons like axes and swords.

But the Greek Phalange were used effectively and Alexander the Great led the Macedonean Greeks to wide conquests.

Alexander (or actually Philips II, his father) brought an extra innovation on top of the spears: the use of horsemen on the flank (the Greek never adopt chariots). The cavalry main advantage is speed and combined with mass spears, it was the large advantage. Up until Alexander time, horses are used at the center, usually to bring javalins to the front and do some skirmish, but was not able to do real damage against mass infantry.

Roman Legion

Romans learn the formidable weapon of discipline from the Greek. But it couldn't be possible without the discovery of iron. Iron, so far produced only brittle cast-iron, now could be forged to produce thin but sharp blades and thin, but resilient sheets for sheild and armors.

The Romans brought to warfare the following innovations:

- use swords instead of spears, as swords are much more maneuvrable weapon. The steel swords are primarily used like short spears.
- larger shields, made possible by iron technology (older shields are smaller, protecting only the upper body.

Roman legion, although used several other weapons (can throw pila, shoot arrows, ride horses, etc), is still mainly a one-infantry-type mass, a-la-greek.

Parallel iron-age development in China
In China, transition from Bronze-Age to Iron-Age were done over the 800 years of constant warfare. The Chinese actually settled the argument in favor of the iron swords of the Qin at the time of Alexander the Great, while European saw the swords become dominent a few hundred years later.

Chinese followed almost same innovations in warfare as Europeans as described above (and perhaps parallel to warfare in other places). The difference was perhaps the emphasis on chariots and armored vehicles, pulled by horses or ox.

The use of elephants
An offshoot in arm race is the use of those large beasts as weapons to break infantry lines. It was later proven that elephants are feared, but was quite ineffective against mass infantry.

swords dominate warfare

Swords dominate warfare for quite a long time. In term of offensive weaponry, not many other innovations were durable and only rendered obsolete by the firearms. But the arm race is still forging ahead full steam.

Better metalurgical methods and better forging skills produces higher grade and larger quantity iron armors. The armors get heavier and heavier, with head-to-toe protection.

Horse breeding produces taller and stronger horses, able to carry heavier armor (and the horse was also well protected).

Medieval time

In medieval time, it was slowly realized that the cavalry was the way to beat swords infantry.A cavalry charge usually sent swords infantry running.

That's why spears were still around. Regular infantry also used spears in defensive formation to break cavalry charge. Pole arms were invented to stave off both cavalry and countered heavily armored spears.

Mongols

Mongols show a totally different facet of warfare. As the Huns preceeded them, the Mongols combined several weapons on horse back:
- They can shoot from afar;
- they can charge on this side, then run to the other side, making usual spear defense tactics ineffective;
- and thy can fight with swords and spears as well (also on horse back).

Thus speed and versatility made Mongols hard to stop.

brent_james
10-30-2003, 22:39
thanks, that was a nice read

Funky Phantom
10-31-2003, 00:02
Quote[/b] (LadyAnn @ Oct. 30 2003,13:46)]- They can shoot from afar;
- they can charge on this side, then run to the other side, making usual spear defense tactics ineffective;


Thus speed and versatility made Mongols hard to stop.
However this does not come across in the game since HA's have to stand and shoot at opposing units. This takes away the very essence of HA tactics in reality i.e. they relied on their ability to move rapidly during battle to avoid being shot down due to their lack of armour and their size as targets for enemy arrows.

Their inability to shoot while moving makes them a lot less effective than they wouldve been in reality because they simply cant deal with other units of infantry archers in a straight fight as they are usually better armoured and have superior numbers.

I really hope they address this in RTW...

I made this point in a previous thread but it was quickly buried under a ton of other posts and largely ignored :/

The_Emperor
10-31-2003, 00:09
Great stuff Annie, I see you have a superb grasp of history.

I also agree that the inability for Horse Archers to shoot while moving did spoil it for me as well.

From what i have heard RTW will include horse archer units that can move and shoot.

King John II
10-31-2003, 12:24
Nice post. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Taking the story on into modern times the theme which seems to me, in the end, to dominate is the steadily increasing reach of the weapons used.

And this has brought with it the unfortunate consequence that surrender becomes impossible.

In a teeth and claw fight - or a hand to hand fight between men - the animal/man who begins to lose can signify surrender and there is no particular reason for the victor then to kill.

But you can't really surrender to an enemy who is defeating you with rifle fire from a mile away. The side with the upper hand gets no chance to see the white flag. Still less can you surrender to an intercontinental ballistic missile.

Orda Khan
10-31-2003, 17:21
I've also heard Horse Archers will be able to shoot on the move....tremendous, it's just what many of us who love the unit want to see. It will be interesting, however, to see exactly how commands will be implimented. Firing while skirmishing would be no problem, they would just fire as they were retreating but how will they target a unit? At the moment they attack a selected unit by getting in range, stopping and firing. If we would like to see them skirting enemy lines and loosing arrows as they went, what method of command will be used for that?
One thing for sure....I can't wait to try them http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

.......Orda

The Wizard
10-31-2003, 19:24
If that is true, maybe we'll see "no horse archer" games, instead of "no elephant" games http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[DnC]
10-31-2003, 19:42
Great read Annie


Quote[/b] ]I've also heard Horse Archers will be able to shoot on the move....tremendous, it's just what many of us who love the unit want to see. It will be interesting, however, to see exactly how commands will be implimented. Firing while skirmishing would be no problem, they would just fire as they were retreating but how will they target a unit? At the moment they attack a selected unit by getting in range, stopping and firing. If we would like to see them skirting enemy lines and loosing arrows as they went, what method of command will be used for that?
One thing for sure....I can't wait to try them http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

.......Orda

You can click anywhere on the field to move your unit. When clicking on a unit (/selecting an enemy unit) to engage it with archery fire, it will keep firing at it while you still can click anywhere on the field to move your horse archer unit around. Your horse archer unit will track the selected unit and fire on it untill it's out of arrows or out of range. And when another unit needs to be targeted, just click on that unit.

I think this would be a good idea?
Maybe it's already implemented this way.

Puzz3D
10-31-2003, 19:59
Well something should be done about the inability of archers to hit moving targets in this game. Archers don't lead their targets in the game.

Kraxis
11-01-2003, 00:10
Quote[/b] (Puzz3D @ Oct. 31 2003,12:59)]Well something should be done about the inability of archers to hit moving targets in this game. Archers don't lead their targets in the game.
Indeed...

Naturally when leading fast moving horse archers that accuracy should be lower, some archers are bound to overcompensate and others undercompensate and the faster the unit the more pronounced it will be.
At the same time moving horse archers should have lower accuracy as well, but the point is really, that while you have lower accuracy when moving, it is still better at hitting big groups of men than standing archers are at hitting spreadout fast moving groups of horse archers.

The moving horse archers does present a problem for us when we control them. The natural way to use them has been presented. Attack then move and the attack will continue. But if I was to wish for the unit to stop firing I would need to stop the unit (backspace) and then move again. Not really perfect. A 'clear target' option should be possible. At the same time the horse archers should like all other archers have the ability to target the closest enemy, even when moving.

All in all horse archers should become much more interesting to use, and warrent their heavy cost. But I doubt they will become overpowered, most likely they won't kill a lot of enemies when moving and their melee abilities would leave a lot to wish for. And further, at this time it still hadn't entered the commanders mind to arm heavy cavalry with bows and create units like the Boyars in MTW (which could make them overpowered).

Funky Phantom
11-01-2003, 02:53
I agree about the HA's having an accuracy penalty when moving, but maybe it should be less pronounced for factions\types of units that were historically well known for their skills as HA's e.g. the Mongol HA's

Kadagar_AV
11-01-2003, 03:48
Good post http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

1. speed
2. firepower /strength in arms
3. intelligence
4. range

dicipline and motivation aside, these are the 4 factors that decides who wins.

In MTW, this means a unit consisting of cavalery, that is able to both fire arrows, and fight decently in HTH, played by a good player, is the über unit.

and it is.

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Funky Phantom
11-01-2003, 04:07
For me the above unit would be Szeleky, i have an odd fetish for them http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

While not as tough as say Steppe Heavies theyre faster than or equal to any other cavalry and any other cavalry that is the same speed as them is not as strong as them, therefore they are the ultimate unit when used in groups of around 3 http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

I tend to have 2 groups of 3 in my army, one on either flank and i use them to draw out and then crush the enemy archers and lighter infantry. They can play havoc in armies where the infantry are large in numbers but crap in quality and can also be used to lead tough units on a wild goose chase while you demolish the main body of the army.

However they require a fair bit of micro-management and i tend to lose at least 1 full unit per battle due to my forgetting to tell a unit to keep running from the Kata's its luring away :/

Orda Khan
11-02-2003, 18:06
I don't see the need to penalise moving Horse Archers, it was their function and they were very good at it

.....Orda

Alrowan
11-03-2003, 13:02
just a note on alexander, and king philip, it was the macedonian sarissa that led to the decline of the hoplite, these were spears much longer than those in use by the greeks, so it enabled the macedonians to take less armour, move faster, and break open enemy formations easier, enabling the flanking cav. So here you get a situation of spears beat spears http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

The Wizard
11-03-2003, 15:43
Correction - pikes beat spears http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Kraxis
11-03-2003, 17:41
Quote[/b] (Orda Khan @ Nov. 02 2003,11:06)]I don't see the need to penalise moving Horse Archers, it was their function and they were very good at it
Yes, but the Mamlukes beat the best moving horse archers ever, by using stationary horse archers.

That has me going, that stationary is better than moving.

The Wizard
11-03-2003, 18:48
Eh? Whatchoo talkin' 'boot boy?

econ21
11-04-2003, 13:36
I'm not sure about swords being better than spears, Lady Ann - but I'd like to read the book you cite.

My impression is that the spear is by far the more common infantry weapon throughout history (living on with the bayonet). I have struggled to find primarily sword armed infantry in the medieval period (or even Ancient). The legions are clearly the most important example of primarily sword armed infantry - but do seem something of a one-off, albeit a successful one.

I don't believe the prevalence of the spear is because of its undoubted lower cost or even superior anti-cav ability. Often better equipped warriors - eg men-at-arms had both sword and spear (or polearm), but the latter was the primary weapon. If the spear was adopted because it was anti-cav, why did spear-armed units not put aside the spear when getting into a melee with other infantry (as lancers often did in cavalry scrummages)? From reading what some re-enactors say, my understanding is that the spear is formiddable in a close formation, has a non-trivial advantage in reach and has suprisingly lethal penetration if thrust with two hands. I suspect swords have prestige value that was not really justified by performance on the battle.

However, this is just my impression from casual reading and CA obviously agree with you not me, as swords do seem to trump spears in the game. But in my opinion the whole class of "sword-armed" infantry - Byzantines, AUMs and men-at-arms - are ahistorical and constitute the greatest inaccuracy in MTW as a historical wargame (I know it is not marketed primarily as such, but in almost every other regard it is a superlative one).

el_slapper
11-04-2003, 16:48
take one swordsman vs one pikeman. The swordsman avoids the pike, laughs, advances, & slaughters the pikeman.

take 1000 swordsmen vs 1000 pikemen. The swordsmen, being in rank, can't dodge the pikes. The pikemen laugh, advance, & slaughter the swordsmen.

Sword was prestigious because it's really worthy in 1 on 1, or few vs few. So, nobles fighting each other had to rely on swords. Though, the massive manpower groups were much more efficient with spears/pikes, especially pikes.

hellenes
11-04-2003, 17:32
Quote[/b] (LadyAnn @ Oct. 30 2003,19:46)](the Greek never adopt chariots)
Actually they did http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif in the mycenean period it was used very widely. The link: http://www.dbaol.com/armies/army_10_figure_1.htm

Hellenes