Dismounted units - lobbying for increased movement rates!

[quagga]

Hi guys,

The reason for my post is I would like to see if people might agree that dismounted units should get an increase in movement rate on the campaign map.

Back in MTW 1 it was possible to dismount your knights during battle - no more in the M2TW engine - so this was taken care of by using 'dismounted' versions of mounted units.

However the idea behind these units is that they ride to battle and THEN dismount - they can still get around the countryside on horseback!

In SS the mistake of vanilla is replicated - the 'dismounted' units have the same movement points as other infantry, rather than the same movement points of other knights/mounted units.

I think we need to change this so that all dismounted units that 'preferred to fight on foot' have cavalry movement points on the campaign map. A good example would be the dismounted french archers compared with the english longbowmen - while both use longbows, the benefit of the french archers is that they had horses to travel to battle on - meaning they arrived less tired and more quickly.

What does everyone else think? Is it even possible to mod this in, or are all infantry units given the same movement pointsby the game engine?

[Heavy_]

sure

[Chim]

It can be done by editing the descr_campaign_db.xml.
I'm not behind my own PC now, so I can't check what line you'll need to insert.

[Gorrrrrn]

nb

many english longbowmen (TWS (TM)) also had horses.

however on campaign map units stacked together move at the speed of the slowest units and moving dismountable archers on their own could be risky if they get ambushed. (at your own risk then.)

most english heavy infantry also had horses - knights often had several, one for riding between battles, one for battles and a couple for carrying equipment.

militia and levy troops mostly travelled on foot.

[quagga]

Thanks for your input.

I find it interesting what Rozanov says about many soldiers having a mount to ride to battle.

With a view towards making/adding this to a mod - how would you go about classifying which units had mounts for travel, and which did not? I have some historical knowledge of the timeframe, but it is pretty rudimentary.

Also, Chimaeira, how much work would this be - my modding experience is always with pretty focused changes - I've never tried anything so broad before.

[Tambarskjelve]

I think It's a great Idea.
Well, obviously, the one creating the lines would be making the calls.
But an educated guess would be dismounted units, professionals, nobles and so on.
A note in the unit description would make it easier to have "Dragoon" armies.

[Gorrrrrn]

how would you go about classifying which units had mounts for travel, and which did not?

I'd classify militia and levy troops as foot only.

I'd add ordinary longbows / pavise crossbows / light infantry / pikes / skirmishers as foot.

I'd have all professional troops, heavy infantry / yeoman and retinue longbows / guard units as being dismountable - ie travel on horseback but fight on foot.

(not that having horses necessarily made them much quicker - in western cultures you'd need to arrange stabling every night as they were stall fed horses - unlike steppe armies who had grazing fed horses (and who couldn't move in areas where there was no grazing - see what happened to the Mongols in the Middle east)

The reasons for the Ilkhan withdrawal is believed to be either the Chagatai Mongols invading their eastern borders, or the need to retreat to areas where there was better grazing room for the horses. The Mamluks had learned that the availability of pastures was important to the Mongols, and so the Mamluks had taken to burning pastureland so as to remove that resource from the equation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasions_of_Syria

[quagga]

(not that having horses necessarily made them much quicker - in western cultures you'd need to arrange stabling every night as they were stall fed horses - unlike steppe armies who had grazing fed horses (and who couldn't move in areas where there was no grazing - see what happened to the Mongols in the Middle east)

Hmm, good point - this had not occurred to me. What would be a good way to reflect this in game? Is there a way to have the movement points decrease outside of home territories?

Maybe there is a better way do reflect that idea.

Also, there is already some sort of extra upkeep costs implemented for having an army in enemy territory, isn't there?

[Wilhelm von Nassau]

I don't think knights would dismount before battle, their horse was a weapon in itself! Ihardly ever use dismounted knights, they aren't very realistic. Although there are of course unhorsed knights, which is something different. I kinda agree with Rozanov on the longbowmen though.

Another point is the slow movement speed of siege weapons. your stack is as slow as the slowest units and one catapult can cause a lot 'damage' in termso speed. Isn't it more realistic to give them infantry speed? They were pulled by oxes and horses and not by humans, right? (Trebuchets were usually assembled or build on-site.)

[Tambarskjelve]

Then it should appply equally to mounted units.
Which I think is a bad idea.
You need a pronounced difference between the movement rates for it to become tactically efficient.

@Wilhelm Von Nassau:
They would, and did, depending on the circumstance, as have been stated earlier, Knights did not use their destrier (Warhorse) as transportation. They were far too valuable for that.

[Gorrrrrn]

Another point is the slow movement speed of siege weapons. your stack is as slow as the slowest units and one catapult can cause a lot 'damage' in termso speed. Isn't it more realistic to give them infantry speed? They were pulled by oxes and horses and not by humans, right? (Trebuchets were usually assembled or build on-site.)

erm well many wooden siege engines were assembled on site but the engineers building them had to have all their tools and specialist equipment (including any metal parts) hauled along in carts and bombards and cannon were not cast on site. The speed of siege trains was generally slower than the rest of the army, usually the speedier troops would start off a siege and get the place invested and then there'd be a wait whilst the siege engines / cannon etc (plus their escort - don't want your siege equipment en route destroyed do you!) finally turned up.

[squizzerls]

I assume the seige weapons you can build on site (rams, towers, ladders) are hard coded into the game? It would be pretty awesome if we could add catapults/trebuchets/etc as an option when historically realistic.

[Mhydrian]

Well in early days, knights/armored men always rode in on horseback and dismounted, slowly this changed and I guess someone saw some advantages to staying on the horse. But it makes sense why travel on foot if you have a horse? And not all horses are suited for warfare

[Blakdust]

yeah I think most old seige engines were made on site just bringing certain parts with them

as for the thread topic sounds good as long as the dismounted crusaders that "lost there horse in battle" don't get the extra speed