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?

Quote from: The Rock Doctor on February 13, 2009, 01:50:29 PM
Maybe he's just being pessimistic?

Of corpse he is

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.