Proposals and suggestions wanted :D 8)
Persia 1909/1
Persia 1909/1
Pop. Bp. I.C. Rev
Khorazan 2,5 0 1,0 2,5
Kerman 1,5 0 0,5 0,5
Jazd 4,5 0 2,5 6
Izfahan 3,5 1 4,0 8
Farzistan 3,0 0,5 2,0 4
-------------------------------------------------------------------
15,0 1.5 10,0 21
------------------------------------------------------------------
Military Budget $10,50+ 1,5 Bp
Civilian Budget $10,5
Research 1$
------------------------------------------------
Army
6 Baseline 4/2.0 infantry corps :D
3 Baseline 4/1.0 Cavalry corps ;D
-----------------------------------------------
Navy
1 CDBB
2 Pc
4 Dd
Ports:
Abadan-type 2
Drydock 2: Drydock 1:
Slip 1:
Slip 0:
Bandar Abbas type 1
Drydock 0:
Slip 0:
Bushire Type 1
Slip 0:
Corpses mean dead bodies. The plural of Corps is Corps.
Maybe he's just being pessimistic?
Just B/C nine zombies total (3 of them mounted on cadaver horses) is not what I'd call an effective deterrent.
Well, I think that the undead 'corpses' of Persia would be a very effective deterrent!
1.) You can't kill them; they are dead already. Retooling the armies with flamethrowers, shotguns and exploding bullets for rifles (to decapitate the zombies) would cost their enemies dearly.
2.) The need for a supply chain is nonexistent- just give them some clubs, machetes and perhaps a few farm implements and you don't need to worry.
3.) No more feeding the troops; they just eat the brains of the enemy. They can recruit along the way to replace losses, so no need to worry about straining the population on the homefront.
Come to think of it.... the UNK might be willing to pay some good cash for that tech. ;)
BRAINS-BRAINS-GIVE ME BRAINS ;D ;D ;D ;D
Jamie's got a good point - minimal upkeep for the living dead.
Necromancy . Double time tech.
870BC – reanimated mummies, intense labour for each undead, require simple orders
1405 – Zombies and skeleton, first mass reanimations, no own initiative, obeys orders to the point.
1712 – Improved zombies resistant to ravens, vultures and rot, capable of using simple equipment (such as clubs and swords). Ghouls.
1850 – Zombies capable of using complicated equipment such as a rifle, limited ability to take iniatives. Fully intelligent undeads made of several combined bodies (Frankenstein)
Quote from: Korpen on February 13, 2009, 04:22:23 PM
Necromancy . Double time tech.
870BC – reanimated mummies, intense labour for each undead, require simple orders
1405 – Zombies and skeleton, first mass reanimations, no own initiative, obeys orders to the point.
1712 – Improved zombies resistant to ravens, vultures and rot, capable of using simple equipment (such as clubs and swords). Ghouls.
1850 – Zombies capable of using complicated equipment such as a rifle, limited ability to take iniatives. Fully intelligent undeads made of several combined bodies (Frankenstein)
There's a ring to that, but didn't some overlord field 9 undead kings way before? Couldn't be harmed by mortal man at all
Quote from: Kaiser Kirk on February 13, 2009, 05:05:32 PM
Quote from: Korpen on February 13, 2009, 04:22:23 PM
Necromancy . Double time tech.
870BC – reanimated mummies, intense labour for each undead, require simple orders
1405 – Zombies and skeleton, first mass reanimations, no own initiative, obeys orders to the point.
1712 – Improved zombies resistant to ravens, vultures and rot, capable of using simple equipment (such as clubs and swords). Ghouls.
1850 – Zombies capable of using complicated equipment such as a rifle, limited ability to take iniatives. Fully intelligent undeads made of several combined bodies (Frankenstein)
There's a ring to that, but didn't some overlord field 9 undead kings way before? Couldn't be harmed by mortal man at all
To add this all happened in Nverse (see Kingdom of Rohan mythology).
My only real suggestion is that I rather thought Mughal and Persia would both field some 'tribal' corps. Dated Desert, Cav and Mtn troops. Perhaps not that useful on the front against Europeans, but can control your quiet borders. They are not completely worthless, as within their own specialized areas they may prove more mobile than formal armies and capable of operating against lines of communication.
The Mughals have a good number of "Tribal" light infantry militia corps. They've also got around 10 times the population that Persia has.
So I suspect that Persia might have some similar units, but probably not all that many. For one thing, I suspect that Persia at this point is largely friendly with those on it's borders. After all, they are all Muslim states, and the Ottomans and Mughals both have bigger foes to worry about. Of course, there is always that whole Sunni/Shiite thing to worry about I suppose.
So, at least in my mind, the Persian army is likely structured with a primary goal of controlling any internal trouble, and with a secondary goal of dealing with out of the blue aggression from others. So to me it seems likely that it would be relatively small, but professional. It seems a relatively trivial matter to raise a couple of corps of 2/0 reserve tribal light infantry though.
For the Persians to raise some 2/0 tribal forces would be about as difficult as for the CSA to raise the same kind of units in Arizona and New Mexico- basically just have the sheriff or equivalent visit every house and have all the men between 16 and 60 grab a weapon and assemble on the town square.
That part of the world- Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan,etc- has a long tradition of people being fighters first and a civilian profession second.
Tribal forces are good idea, but should be limited to cavalry - infantry as it is unsuitable for tribal warfare, and I don't think of any good historical example of it.
Make say two corps at most, at active status. That means half-strength with reservists called up in war.
The Mughal tribal forces should also be limited to cavalry.
The Mughal are creating a bunch of Tribal Militia's but they are being armed with the effective cast offs from the real army. As that army advances in technology so does the Tribal Militia.
By 1915/1916 I see the Mughal Empire having a bunch of these usnit being a mix of Cavalry, Mountain and Desert Infantry all being either 3/.5 or 4/1. Making them very well armed Militia with some light artillary :)
Charles
A Persia, or Mughal I won't give artillery to non-army troops. Tribal militias have somewhat split loyalties, and might give them some wrong ideas (like raiding across the borders, or even within).
If they are integrated in the army they are not really tribal anymore.
I think your under the mistaken impression that Tribal loyalites dont already cross the Army/Tribal Militia boundry. Army Commanders and whole Units would turn on the central if that Government moved to attack there local tribal area's. As for raiding within the country Im sure it will happen but if a clan starts a clan war with its neighbors It realizes the harsh reaility that while the central government may have provided the units with some light artillary It didnt supply them with unlimited Ammo :) And the central government will provided it to the people fighting the raiding clan.
Basically you dont want to raid the next clan over using heavy weapons because they will do the same back to you and probably do so with the support of your othe neighbors and the Central Government. Raiding will remain the small scale actions of stealing cattle, sheep, goats, and horses it always was. Raids across the borders into other countries are governed by the same restrictions lack of ammo except for times of war. But it might be a bit more prelevant then inter clan war and blood feuds those are bad for buisness. ;)
It might even be more prelevant if say your neighbors take up killing muslim merchants and relatives of the clan that live or work across the border ;)
Quote from: P3D on February 13, 2009, 11:35:51 PM
Tribal forces are good idea, but should be limited to cavalry - infantry as it is unsuitable for tribal warfare, and I don't think of any good historical example of it.
Make say two corps at most, at active status. That means half-strength with reservists called up in war.
The Mughal tribal forces should also be limited to cavalry.
What I was thinking was that there is a fair amount of desert environment in Persia, and in SW Mughal. The indigenous tribes there might ride horses, but what truly would set them apart from an opposing force would be their ability to survive and fight in harsh arid conditions- they should be Desert even is some happen to ride horses.
Then there are the northern mountains of both countries. The Afghanis are well known for their horsemen, but folks are also quite capable of dismounted action in extremely rugged terrain. Those likewise would be distinguished in capabilities as Mountain regardless of their means of transport.
The Mughals were know for their Cav, and might indeed field some straight non-professional cav from their upper classes.
In both cases the central govt. would be providing the C&C, probably professionals for light artillery/wire, as well as the basic logistical train for what is basically skilled militia.
Quote from: Kaiser Kirk on February 14, 2009, 10:33:13 AMWhat I was thinking was that there is a fair amount of desert environment in Persia, and in SW Mughal. The indigenous tribes there might ride horses, but what truly would set them apart from an opposing force would be their ability to survive and fight in harsh arid conditions- they should be Desert even is some happen to ride horses.
Or you could have them riding camels. ;D
but they are to big to ride a cigarette...
I think arab/persian desert nomads and I think of horsemen. The funny horses with the deformed spines would likely work also.