What this is about, including full list.

Though I never believed the Soviet Union to be an unmitigated evil full of Commie robots ready to destroy all that we in the West stood for, it was impossible to grow up in the 1980s and not have a sense that Russia and Russians were weird. The world was getting smaller, but was still large enough for young people to believe that colliding worldviews and great power bombast would push Moscow to sacrifice millions of Russians in the service of the Motherland. TV and movies did nothing to diminish the mystery of the Russian people or their government, and even sitcoms or episodic dramas with defector storylines usually had the defector as a one-off, a free spirit, not like the rest of his/her troupe.

Of course, the old joke was that the only difference between Americans and Russians was that Russians weren’t fool enough to believe their own propaganda. Still, Russia seemed a little bit “off” to me as a child, and as it has moved fitfully from Communism to democracy to kleptocratic capitalism to whatever Putinism is, analysts are eager to resort to national stereotyping about “the Russian way” as if there is something in the Russian soul that makes it immune from the laws of history.

If “national character” as a substitute for knowledge thrives anywhere, it is in professional observers of Russia.

For game designers, the problem isn’t nearly so acute. There are basically two Russias that gamers are interested in, and both have common threads that be drawn on, partly because Russia itself has always embraced and rewritten national myths so readily.

There is Imperial Russia, the empire of the Tsars, especially in the 18th to early 19th century. A land of great size and resources is finally coming into its own as it modernizes, kicks butt and stands on the very frontier of civilized society. And then, there is Soviet Russia from WW2 to the Space Race; again rapidly modernizing, technocratic, a little scary and punching above its weight. These are the periods of Russian history that captivate the imagination because both are about increasing in power, facing down powerful invaders and Russia establishing itself as one of the central players in the world system.

Even though China is the nation we usually associate with large populations, in historical strategy games the Russians are equally often the ones you can count on to pump out hordes of units. In the first Europa Universalis, Russia paid less for its soldiers, so it could amass the large armies it would need to survive sieges in the bitter winters. Age of Empires 3 allowed the Russians to build settlers and infantry in larger groups for lower cost – their unique but craptastic Strelets were therefore great early game units for swarming, but would always lose a near even fight. Empires: Dawn of the Modern World gave Russia a big population cap bonus and a tech that let you churn out conscript infantry at a very rapid pace.

In short, Russia is the land of expendables. This is clearly a reference to the mass infantry tactics employed by an outgunned Soviet army early in World War 2, but is retrofitted to all Russian history. Armies are large, cheap and easily replaced. Empire: Total War captures this Russia almost perfectly; quality wise, Russia can take on the Turks and Poles. But Sweden, Germany and Austria have better men. The Motherland will rely on its ability to just keep the armies full. Every wargame about the Eastern Front in WW2 presents the same classic tactical problem of quantity trying to survive against quality. The Russian Nation has become the epitome “junk army”, with a few elite units to reflect specific strengths in horse (the Cossack) or armor.

Then there’s the winter, which is what I think about when I am facing Russia in a game. Though attrition seems more manageable in the later games in the series, I remember losing thousands of men to the blizzards of the Ukraine in Europa Universalis. Succeeding at War in the East is all about knowing when to stop moving so you are never too far from supplies when the storm hits. And Rise of Nations had the reverse Mongol power; enemy attrition was greater inside your territory, so if you could take out their supply wagons then you could destroy an army many times more powerful than your own. Fortunately, Cossack units made hitting the supply train a pretty safe gamble.

Russia itself, then, becomes a character as much as the Russians. It’s a great insult to call the land of Tolstoy and Shostakovich nothing but an endless wilderness of scattered outposts on the steppe, but that’s the impression you get from facing down Russia in a strategy game. Cities are too far apart, there are too many people around to cause you trouble and all the forests and river valleys pale beside the grand Belorussian plain that sucks you in and then devours you in January.

The combination of a harsh winter and the expendable troops play into the common idea of Russian fatalism, the idea that these are a people that have come to terms with the futility of life, where government and the land are never on your side. Having suffered much, they accept unreason and tyranny because life is cruel, and Russian history is full of these cruelties (and would visit these cruelties on neighbors and minorities within her borders). Remember that Russia was the only major absolutist power at the beginning of the 20th century, as if modernism and the Enlightenment had decided to just skip a hundred million people. So we have a history colored by the image of mass infantry charging inexorably across the snow into the muskets or machine guns of better equipped armies, and all in the service of The Motherland, a personification of Russia and Russians as something familial.

And like all families, it only really makes sense to people on the inside.

Russia is easy to stereotype, but even simplifying Russia doesn’t make the nation any more comprehensible.

Next up, the final nation in the original Civ list, the Zulu.

What this is about, including full list.

Long time readers will know that I extensively covered Roman games in my first ever feature series, one that did not take nine months to write because life was better then and I wrote more quickly and I played more games. The epilogue to that group of essays captured most of my general thoughts on attitudes towards Roman history and why people keep going back to that well.

I won’t repeat much of what I wrote there, since you can find it, I think it is some of my best essay work and really goes into depth on Rome and design. I wrote very little about Civilization and Rise of Nations in that block, since they’re not really ancient themed games, so it’s not like I have no other material to draw from for this piece.

There is a lot to say about Rome the culture, of course. As a Mediterranean civilization, they have a reputation as builders second only to Egypt with the difference that their reputation is for building things people actually used. Roads, aqueducts, theatres, and forums scattered the inland sea and proved to be greater in importance, if less impressive to people like Antipater of Sidon, than Pyramids, mastabas, obelisks and temple complexes.

But apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us? In movies, the Romans are almost always the villains with the high class British accents, all orgies and gladiator battles and keeping the Apostles, Gauls, Britons, Slaves, freedom fighters, and women down. In games, as I’ve written before, they are a glamorous panoply of shiny marble and polished iron, but because this is a nation on the rise.

Because for Rome, it all comes down to the sword. Like the Egyptian chariot or the Mongol horseman, the Roman legion is more than iconic. For five hundred years, despite variations in training and equipment, the Roman swordsman was a member of the most powerful fighting force the world had seen. Equipped with a heavy javelin, a short stabbing sword and a big ass shield, the classic legionnaire of the Punic Wars and Wars of the Late Republic and Early Empire built roads, forts and bridges while bring new kingdoms into the protection of the Senate or Emperor.

In the classic ancient/medieval rock/paper/scissors model, ceteris paribus sword beats spear which beats horse which beats archer which beats sword. This is obviously intended as a rough reflection of the rise of the Roman legionnaire over the Greek pike phalanx model. Historically, of course, it’s not that swords are obviously better than spears or pikes as much as that once you have trained swordsmen to work together in a unit, they prove to be more tactically flexible than a group of spears that must be more tightly co-ordinated in their movement. The swordsman is integral to the evolution of ancient society, and, as Bruce Shelley notes, once you see a swordsman you know what his job is with a minimal amount of historical background.

But you have to make the Roman swords special, and Age of Empires: Rise of Rome did this by making theirs fight faster than other swords. Add on the logistics tech that was added in this expansion (half cost in population points) and you could overwhelm your enemies with a combine harvester of death. Rise of Nations made Roman Heavy Infantry stronger, cheaper, and faster plus made Roman forts super powerful (cheaper, greater border influence, free upgrades) to reflect this part of the Roman expansion. Empire Earth Roman heavy infantry cause 25% more damage and come from a cheaper barracks.

The most controversial demonstration of Roman footpower, though, has to be the Roman Praetorian in Civilization IV.

If every nation gets a unique unit, there will be debates over which are overpowered and which need to be improved. The consensus in Civ 4, I think, was that if your unit was made obsolete too early (a warrior unit, for example) or would not arrive until the game was mostly over (any American unique unit or building) then it was not really worth having. The Roman Praetorian was in a sweet spot; it was a late ancient unit and so was good for an early rush if you had iron working and iron, but most importantly was able to stand against early medieval units.

Ordinary swords had a combat value of 6 and cost 40 hammers to build.
Praetorians had a combat value of 8 and cost 45 hammers to build.
Macemen had a combat value of 8 and cost 70 hammers to build.

Two archers, by the way, cost 35 hammers, longbows cost 50 and crossbows cost 60. You would lose a lot of guys in the middle ages with the city defense bonuses, but Praetorians were a helluva deal. And arguably overpowered. If supported by a siege train, they would make short work of any nearby empire. If they had an extra movement point or could build roads (like the legions in Civ V) then you might as well quit.

Knowing that the Roman Praetorian will stomp you meant it was even more important to see to it that a neighboring Roman player didn’t have access to iron. Playing as the Romans would almost certainly mean a rapid and early expansion unless you were surrounded by Babylonian Bowmen, Chinese Cho-ko-nu and Malian Skirmishers.

Some Civ players would defend the overpowered unit with the appeal to history, in general a weak argument against balance. The thinking was that Rome was special. Rome was different and huge. A modestly better swordsmen wouldn’t make the Romans the Romans. They need something big and amazing, appropriate for their empire. Where no Civilization game really tried to fit a faction to an historical model in any true sense, for many Civ 4 players, there was an expectation that if anyone should have an overpowered unit, it’s Rome.

Another example? Look at the classic board game History of the World. If you’re not familiar with it, you play through history in different epochs, scoring points for what you control and taking over new empires in new epochs. When the Romans come along in Epoch 3, they start with 25 strength. Next strongest in that turn is Macedonia with 15. Only the Mongols (Epoch 5) and the British (Epoch 7, the final turn) even get to 20 strength. Rome’s inevitable triumph over her neighbors is written in the rule set, though, of course, Rome cannot last the entire game.

One more? In Slitherine’s Spartan, Rome plays the part that the Mongols do in Crusader Kings. They will show up on the west coast of Greece and just start inexorably marching and conquering. Rome is not all powerful, but like the medieval Mongols, is expected to cause trouble for anyone nearby. Rome is expansionist and unstoppable. They come bearing cement.

This isn’t constant, of course. Civilization 5 lets legions build roads and forts, but their all conquering prowess has been reduced a lot. (13 strength versus 11 for swords and 16 for longswords.) But including the Romans as a faction in any game with a pretense to historicity has to face the challenge of showing that something as big, long lasting and well managed as the Roman Empire can be built and more often than not will give the Romans the tools to build it.

Next up, an enigma wrapped in a riddle wrapped in a mystery – Russia.