Kingdom of Jerusalem
Eastern Roman Empire
Kingdom of Armenia
Kingdom of Makuria
Kingdom of Georgia
Imamate of Oman
Sultanate of Ghazni
Malikate of Sindh
i voted for makuria because they are neighboured with the ayyubids and don't have elite units, so in the early game you may have difficult time. BUT the toughest are the khwarezmshahs as in late game you are screwede due to the mongols and the seljuk or abbasid expansion, not to mention the expensive units. in the curent version nevertheless you can ally with the ghurids.
Last edited by zburanuki; December 19, 2012 at 06:13 PM.
- according to me - Kwarezmshah has to be played by player or to be destroying by mongol
Because in fact, Mongols took Baghdad and Damas, and it's very funny to see mongols hordes attacking everybody
learned some interesting stuff here... the mongol connection to christianity for one. I knew they disliked muslims but had no idea some of their royalty were actually christian. Also the conquest of damascus, where he entered the city with a variety of christian allies including bohemund. I also thought that the mameluks defeated him... apparently I was wrong. Hulagu departed with most of his forces after the khan died, the mameluks actually defeated kitabuga and the small amount of soldiers hulagu left behind. Also the crusaders played a large role in this defeat, allowing the mameluks to pass through their territories. They distrusted the mongols more than the mameluks strangely enough... despite hulagus strong pro-christian stance
In fact Kitbuqa son was killed/assassinated by a frank crusader...
Naimans and Keraits were nestorian-christian.
I know I will get flak for this, but I don't care. Rome.
Reason being smaller factions like Oman and Makuria are supposed to be small and weaker. They are probably over powered from a realistic standpoint, but this is a game.
Rome, if they recovered half of Anatolia should have the population to make huge armies and the grassland for a lot of horses, same goes for the Seljuks.
The Ayyubids are the strongest faction, imo and rightly so. Not all factions should be all powerful.
So it's more a question of who was strong but made weaker in the game than they should be, not who is the weakest overall, imo.
Last edited by Mamertine; December 24, 2012 at 02:58 PM.
Not sure if map position is included or strictly roster? If map position then Makuria, if roster then probably Kypchak or Sindh. I don't know why people think Oman, they might not have elite but numerous and cost effective middle tier which is bulk of my armies anyway and the BG are elite enough. Oman map position is pretty strong as well to me and its economy can boom by the time it face much enemies.
Kypchak should have more diverse roster- in history they have men from Kypchak, Cumans, Rus, Scandinavians, Slavs, Poles, Prussian, Bulgars, Greeks, other Turks, Alans, Caucuses hillmen, etc.
Sindh also feel weak- not sure if it is intentional due to economy ability to pump out massive armies so keep them weak for balance or some other reasons. Factions on map edge are difficult to balance especially AI as it has no pressure on multiple fronts.
Last edited by Ichon; December 26, 2012 at 02:30 AM.
STAINLESS STEEL Historical Improvement Project (SSHIP) - v0.8.2 Beta released!
Norway 180 turn SS/BGR AAR- http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...71#post8479471
Lithuania SS/BGR AAR- http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=369607
1390 SS submod WIP
One Unit which is way over strengthen'd imo are the Ayyubbids Thaqlah axe men.
I don't know any history behind this unit but you can out number them, charge them (cavalry), shoot with arrows and they hardly die?
Tabardaryia I'd understand as their Mamluks but don't know why these other guy's are so durable?
I have no idea if this unit is historical but based on its equipment your experience sounds reasonable.
Byzantium had massive manpower problems even when they controlled almost all of Anatolia, that's why they developed the theme system in the 9th century to ensure a good supply of ever-prepared semi-professional soldiers; they were able to field a good number of these in times of need, certainly many more than their opponents could, but their armies were far from massive.Originally Posted by Mamertine
Not quite. The Theme system was put in place a few hundred years prior, late 6th century or early/mid-seventh century, it's debatable. The whole concept of the Theme system was to harness the massive manpower in Anatolia, which was the main population of Rome 60-70% or more, depending on the century and losses in the Balkans, Italy, Syria, etc. Look at the population of modern day Turkey and Greece, it's not a science, but it should give you a good idea of the difference.
The Theme system in the 9th century was it's pinnacle (Basil II), as well as the mid-late 8th century (Nikephoros II and John I Tzimiskes). There's a reason why this was considered the Byzantine golden age.
I have never heard of the Byzantines having manpower issues during the Theme system until the civil wars/battle of Manzikurt and the subsequent loss of Anatolia. This created a huge issue for dealing with cavalry losses, too. Look at a topographic map, Anatolia is a huge plateau in the middle which is ideal for grazing horses. Greece is all arid and mountainous, with the exception of Thessaly. This is why only Thessalian cavalry was popular in Greece going back to the Bronze age; no other Greek polis had the proper land to produce enough horses for effective cavalry.
The loss of Anatolia was the loss of Byzantine's major recruiting ranks. It's no coincidence that the army was mostly mercenaries after losing most of the peninsula.
If Rome regained Anatolia, they should be able to produce huge Thematic armies like they in the golden age, and prior.
565 AD - 150,000 (pre-Theme)
668 AD - 109,000 (Arab Wars)
840 AD - 120,000 (Golden Age)
1025 AD - 250,000 (pre-Mankikurt)
1081 AD - 20,000 (post-Manzikurt)
1453 AD - 1,500 (Fall of the Empire)
Source: Treadgold, Warren T. (1997). A History of the Byzantine State and Society. Stanford University Press.
Conclusion: Rome did not have manpower issues until they lost Anatolia. The Theme system was put into place to harness the huge Anatolian population so Rome could defend it's borders against the ever-encroaching enemies like the Arabs, Turks, Rus, Bulgars, Slavs, Huns, etc.
Last edited by Mamertine; January 11, 2013 at 07:57 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)