[freeciv-data] Re: Tech and Ancient Units

scripsit Bobby D. Bryant:
> 
> On 2002.05.21 23:57:10 -0600 Thanasis Kinias wrote:
> > 
> > Starting with the ancient land units, we have:
> > 
> > Warriors (1/1/1) $10
> > Phalanx  (1/2/1) $20, req. Bronze Working
> > Horsemen (2/1/2) $20, req. Horseback Riding
> > Archers  (3/2/1) $30, req. Warrior Code
> > 
> > Right from the beginning, I don't see what the connection is between
> > the
> > phalanx and bronze working.  What makes a phalanx different from
> > warriors is not bronze tips to spears, but the level of organization.
> > For a phalanx to work, a supply of free men with military training is
> > necessary.  That suggests an association with some level of
> > government,
> > either republic or monarchy (or both).  I would suggest the republic.
> 
> Forgive my nit-picking, but you have touched on a subject dear to my 
> heart.

That's something I like to hear!  No forgiveness necessary :)

> The phalanx apparently represents the Greek phalanx sensu strictu, and 
> while it did involve a certain degree of social order and military 
> discipline, the heavy bronze armor was in fact a part of what made the 
> thing work.  These guys were human tanks.  IIRC the full kit ran 
> something like 60 lbs of bronze.

OK, the origin of the association makes sense now -- not that I agree,
but I can see where it came from.

[snip] 
> However, in a more generalized meaning of 'phalanx' your argument for 
> social organization (or perhaps tactical innovation instead) would 
> work.

As with all things Freeciv, there is no such thing as `sensu strictu',
really.  There is no separate unit type for Zulu warriors (`impi' I
think the formation was called) or any other primitive but organized
army, so Phalanx stands for all.

> > The point at which the phalanx becomes a legion is the point at
> > which it becomes a professional army, as opposed to a body of
> > citizen-warriors.  Again, it has nothing to do with ironworking.
> 
> Similarly, the legion apparently represents the Roman legion sensu 
> strictu, and the legion was as incredible a war machine when it was a 
> levy under the middle Republic as it was after it became a body of 
> full-time professionals under the late Republic and early Empire.  And 
> it was basically their discipline, unit organization, and innovative 
> tactics that let them smash (almost) anyone they went up against.  
> Agreed that the ironworking is irrelevant; I would use a social 
> organization such as Republic or else some sort of tactical tech as the 
> prereq -- preferably *both*.

When did the Marius reforms occur?  I had thought that was around the
time the Roman armies were professionalized, but my Roman history is
spotty.

Logically, you can't really campaign the way the Romans did with a
part-time army of citizen-soldiers.  Yes, the early/middle republic had
successes, but I was under the (mis?)apprehention that the standing,
professional army made the great conquests of the late republic/early
empire possible.

> >  Warrior Code seems  to be a dead-end anyway.
> 
> I don't know about Warrior Code per se, but at some point a tech tree 
> is going to have to have some dead-end and/or 'filler' techs for the 
> simple purpose of keeping players from getting too many goodies too 
> soon.

I'm opposed to `filler' techs in principal, but I recognize how they
might be necessary.  My dead-end remark was simply a note that Warrior
Code can be removed without any ripples down the tree, because nothing
depends on it, not a suggestion that all such dead ends ought to be
removed.

-- 
Thanasis Kinias
Web Developer, Information Technology
Graduate Student, Department of History
Arizona State University
Tempe, Arizona, U.S.A.

Ash nazg durbatulûk, ash nazg gimbatul,
Ash nazg thrakatulûk agh burzum-ishi krimpatul