Mod: MA al-Nadim - The thousand and one nights 1.01)

[Squirrelloid]

Originally Posted by llamabeast

Tell me squirreloid, does this misuse of the word "light" by dominions bother you?

Yes, yes it does.

Actually, the rampant misuse of the term by fantasy fans in general does.

I'm pretty sure military buffs get it right, because the distinction between light and heavy still exists, its just weirder now than it was pre-1900.

(Light cavalry today is aircraft. Heavy cavalry is tanks. The light/heavy infantry distinction is, iirc, a matter of armament, mostly to correspond to the historical unit vs. unit dominance paradigm. Ie, with equal training HI > HC; LI > (HI,LC); LC > (HI,HC); HC > LI). So infantry with anti-tank weapons is heavy, and other infantry is light, although with typical modern dispersal of weapon types across squads its no longer really a squad-level distinction)

Of course, dominions also suffers from the 'cavalry is awesome just because it is' syndrome, something also typical of fantasy buffs with little actual military knowledge, and generally based on the dominance of the knight in early medieval europe (which happened because the infantry *did not* have equal training or appropriate weaponry) and a fascination with chivalry and the medieval knight. Such people tend to ignore, eg, Bannockburn (Scotts used makeshift pikes to destroy a cavalry charge) or Avignon (entirely infantry English massacre french cavalry). In addition to not just melting against pikemen, cavalry also get a defensive bonus just for being cavalry. Actual military theory suggests the opposite (cavalry is worse at attacking and defending than infantry because they need to control the horse and fight, whereas the infantry can just concentrate on fighting - heavy cavalry's primary use is therefore running down light infantry).

Ok, this was much longer than intended. Lets just sum up by saying I wish people who did games like this were better at doing their homework.

[chrispedersen]

Originally Posted by Squirrelloid

In addition to not just melting against pikemen, cavalry also get a defensive bonus just for being cavalry. Actual military theory suggests the opposite (cavalry is worse at attacking and defending than infantry because they need to control the horse and fight, whereas the infantry can just concentrate on fighting - heavy cavalry's primary use is therefore running down light infantry).

Ok, this was much longer than intended. Lets just sum up by saying I wish people who did games like this were better at doing their homework.

Wow.

I disagree with a lot of this.
Show me a source please that suggests actual military theory suggests that cavalry is worse at attacking and defending than infantry because of the need to control the horse.

Off the top of my head I'd say this ignores:
A: Superior elevation of the cavalry man.
B: Significant training of war horses, to attack, to stand over, to crowd.
C: Ability to cover distance at speed.
D: Shock effect of calvalry ie., momentum.
E. Superior reach of the typical cavalry.
F. The ability of the horse to be cover (ala american indians)
G. The ability to transport goods and or be food.

No military unit is invulnerable. It certainly is a game of rocks, scissors, and paper, that has been played time and time again.


Cavalry get a defensive bonus because the cost of these units were such that it was foolhardy to deploy them without training - whereas it was common to deploy huge masses of levees (infantry) with no training - and sometimes no weapons.

For example, even in WWII, in many companies, the Russians at Leningrad issued 2 guns for every 5 soldiers. The ones that didn't have guns were expected to pick them up off the ones that did.

The 'troops' had no training - and were shot by their officers at the merest hint of disobedience.

Or the us airforce - our airmen are highly highly trained. Those planes are *expensive*. The more expensive the munition, the easier to justify additional training, equipment, care in deployment etc.

[Wrana]

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

For example, even in WWII, in many companies, the Russians at Leningrad issued 2 guns for every 5 soldiers. The ones that didn't have guns were expected to pick them up off the ones that did.
The 'troops' had no training - and were shot by their officers at the merest hint of disobedience.

Sorry, that's just fairy tales. My own grandfather fought as "People's Militia" from Moscow to Konigsberg. So I can say you that they had both weapons (my grandfather having semiauto rifle even though he probably shouldn't according to textbooks) and training enough for his particular division to be awarded a "Guards" status later. Actually, they were first placed in the field to build field fortifications with parallel training. Then they manned these fortifications. Of course, they were worse initially than guys who trained from before war started... but then, you should recall that Soviet Union had quite an effective institute of pre-service training, too (Germany had such, too, and Italy and France iirc). As for Leningrad it was a city with quite a number of plants both military and converted to military production as fighting got closer. They even developed a brand new SMG while under the siege! Of course, artillerists, drivers, scrives and such most often did not had rifles.

Returning to cavalry it always had a mobility advantage against infantry but there were periods when it was definitely weaker in straight-out combat. Fortunately, Middle Ages wasn't such a preiod and most Dominions nations live in this period. Still, your rationalization is quite weak. One reason I say so is that riders in Dominions 3 get Def bonus above and beyond their own training. This was done as far as I see to make cavalry surviable on battlefield which was not always so in Dom2. (At the same time they almost always have a Precision penalty) What this bonus may represent is a combination of greater tactical mobility and a chance that attack will strike horse or part of a harness instead of a rider.
Finally, you have probably mistaken a thread.

[elmokki]

There's the last hero I promised. I guess I might add some new hero later, but unless I get a really good idea for a hero, I guess this is it for heroes for now.

EDIT: Apparently you need to copystats for both insane and heretic, and I don't know of any unit who is both insane and heretic without side effects, so Alhazred will sadly have to do with being just insane.