Stainless Steel 6.3 & 6.4 Suggestions

[David93]

Well here is an idea for SS - I don't know if it can be implemented but if it would work it would make a huge difference.

We always see large casualties for the defeated side in battles which isn't very accurate if the attackers didn't pursue the enemy after defeating them.

So I think all generals should be able to acquire a special trait allowing you to pursue the enemy after defeating them. I am speaking about the actual in battle pursue. If you would go into battle without a general with this trait or if the general dies before the battle ends then you would not be able to continue to battle to round up as many prisoners as you can and once all the enemy units are routed the battle would finish.

This trait should be very rare and should be acquired only by the best generals out there with some factions having it naturally [mongols mainly].

Once again I have no idea how this could be implemented but I suspect there might be a way to do it and it would make the whole game way way way more interesting.

Historicly casulties werent that high because if they were captured they were ransomed. Historicly armies ran after people they routed to chase them down. The mongols used this on several occasions to string out pursuers and then round on them and destroy them.

[Caesar Clivus]

Historicly casulties werent that high because if they were captured they were ransomed. Historicly armies ran after people they routed to chase them down.

Only nobles were captured for ransom. The common soldiers were killed. Given that there were many more times the number of common soldiers than nobles in armies, casualties would be quite high if they were pursued.

[RaduAlexandru]

Historicly casulties werent that high because if they were captured they were ransomed. Historicly armies ran after people they routed to chase them down. The mongols used this on several occasions to string out pursuers and then round on them and destroy them.

I don't agree. Casualties for the defeated side depended a lot on how they managed to pull back from the battle which depended on their own capabilities but just as well it depended on how prepared was the victorious side to give pursuit. In general armies needed a body of light cavalry to do this as infantry was unsuited and heavy cavalry in general would be worn out after the battle and anyway too slow over longer distances to give pursuit. In the west major disasters after the battle itself were rare as armies in general managed to pull back without being pursued by the enemy [because western armies didn't have too many contingents of capable light cavalry]. The exact opposite was in the east where armies were more mobile and where a defeat in general would mean huge casualties as many prisoners would be rounded up after the battle.

The vanilla game tried to simulate this aspect but because fatigue was never adapted to reduce movement speed on the battlefield for the units which didn't rout [those which did probably ran without weapons abandoning everything ...] this failed... so what I proposed was an alternative [provided that somebody doesn't find a way to simulate decreased movement speed from fatigue for units that didn't rout] was an alternative.

[David93]

Only nobles were captured for ransom. The common soldiers were killed. Given that there were many more times the number of common soldiers than nobles in armies, casualties would be quite high if they were pursued.

Im not sure about that, i know when Richard battled Saladin he executed loads because saladin wouldn't pay, but i dont know that much about it so if im wrong im wrong. I just that that pretty much everyone was ransomed, my only other knowledge is agincourt were huge amounts of people were executed and that this was seen as incredibly bad (death of chivalry and all that)

@Radu
Im pretty sure movement speed does decrease with fatigue, im like 99% sure. I dont think you would drop your sword when routing, i think it would probably give you a feeling of some safety (im sure you would drop a pike are something) plus its not as if there going to start ripping of armor, as im pretty sure it was very hard to put on and take of, it seems more likely they would just bolt. So i dont think it would be right that routing units would go faster.

[The Source]

have more rpg elements eg. like special swords in dlv that are descended for decades

[Caesar Clivus]

Im not sure about that, i know when Richard battled Saladin he executed loads because saladin wouldn't pay, but i dont know that much about it so if im wrong im wrong. I just that that pretty much everyone was ransomed, my only other knowledge is agincourt were huge amounts of people were executed and that this was seen as incredibly bad (death of chivalry and all that)

Commoners were never (or at least very very rarely ever) ransomed because no-one would ever pay for them. Plus commoners were never considered part of the chivalric system of capturing and ransoming your enemies. That's why there was such an outrage at the use of the longbow as you had lowly peasant scum bringing down knights.

[Polycarpe]

Commoners were never (or at least very very rarely ever) ransomed because no-one would ever pay for them. Plus commoners were never considered part of the chivalric system of capturing and ransoming your enemies. That's why there was such an outrage at the use of the longbow as you had lowly peasant scum bringing down knights.

Indeed, commoners were simply executed, especially the archers and crossbowmen, the knights and commanders hate them foremost and kill them right away. Nobles could have ransom but only them.

[Ishan]

the knights and commanders hate them foremost and kill them right away.

I doubt any commander would do that as in India this wasn't the custom they were captured and enslaved sent to dungeons\mines etc to work there for the kingdom instead. Killing of captured troops is simply foolish unless it was a religious conflict so i doubt Europeans commanders did that.

[Polycarpe]

I doubt any commander would do that as in India this wasn't the custom they were captured and enslaved sent to dungeons\mines etc to work there for the kingdom instead. Killing of captured troops is simply foolish unless it was a religious conflict so i doubt Europeans commanders did that.

There's three ways European deal with captured archers

• The will put them in dungeons, making them slaves and work for the capturers, as you point out.
• They will execute them, archery is more efficient than crossbow, being able to shoot volleys faster than crossbow but archery needs training and lot of practice, therefore more valuable.
• Ransom but if they did that, they will ask a huge sum for them, as explained before, archers are well trained but I doubt they will ask ransom for archers, they are too valuable to the enemy and ranged warfare were considered not chivalric. France was executing longbowmen right away, hating them, particularly the nobility, it will be foolish to ask ransom, return experimented men to the enemy and being shot again.

So basically, if I were a general and have captured archers, I'll execute them to not face them again and lose more men.

Speaking of ransom, the money value of a unit is hardcoded or we can change it? Increasing the value for archers looks logical imo.

[Caesar Clivus]

Speaking of ransom, the money value of a unit is hardcoded or we can change it? Increasing the value for archers looks logical imo.

I think it might be linked to how much a unit costs to recruit (but dont quote me).

Archer ransom shouldn't be increased. The french used to cut off the two fingers used to draw back the bowstring. No-one would pay to get an archer back who couldn't fire a bow anymore

[Polycarpe]

I think it might be linked to how much a unit costs to recruit (but dont quote me).

Archer ransom shouldn't be increased. The french used to cut off the two fingers used to draw back the bowstring. No-one would pay to get an archer back who couldn't fire a bow anymore

Meaning, they will be executed

[Gorrrrrn]

Archer ransom shouldn't be increased. The french used to cut off the two fingers used to draw back the bowstring. No-one would pay to get an archer back who couldn't fire a bow anymore

another medieval warfare myth. http://bshistorian.wordpress.com/tag/archers-salute/

[Polycarpe]

another medieval warfare myth. http://bshistorian.wordpress.com/tag/archers-salute/

Interesting reading, I'll be so pissed if I lose the three fingers used for archery.

[Caesar15]

Hey i have suggestion for late ara campaign, constantinople and a lot of byzantine lands are rebel bc of 4th crusade u know, but they should belong to the Latin Empire which controllled the 4th crusades land, there 2 left on the faction limit, an dif there a unit limit too or whateve rlimit just add them to venice bc they were the one whoo took it anyway

[Gorrrrrn]

We need to nerf the peasant archer unit armour upgrades.
Currently they have armour upgrade: 0,1,4 which translates to none, leather, light brigandine.
Means they can have light brigandine as soon as blacksmith is built (soon after game starts in 1100)
This is far too much armour for these guys.

Suggest we limit them to either none and leather, or change the light brigandine to padded.
Anything more is excessive and beyond the means of this class of warrior to own or use.

[Point Blank]

Agreed, I've done the same in EDU I'm working on, all peasant/peasant militia upgrades much more limited.

[TMSKILZ]

What can be done to address the issue of AI leaving settlements poorly defended w/ virtually no units, making it easy to siege & obtain settlements.

Playing through a early campaign w/ Sicily, is getting a bit frustrating, see countless settlements throughout the campaign map defenseless & left for easy pickings, making campaign dull.

One suggestion I have is based on a previous Mod (DLV) I used to play, where they scripted if an AI settlement is siege, it would spawn units in that settlement to provide better defense & challenge. Something to consider.

[Vince Noir]

Hi Guys, are these suggestions being made going to be implemented into 6.5?

I'm not sure if its been already suggested. But overpowered heretics have sabotaged more than one game of mine now, and are actually felling AI empires. They're just running riot. It takes such an awful long time to get rid of only one. Could this side of the game be toned down?

Also, I have a general question to all and any member, that's not really worth starting a thread about. I've been considering starting an England game on very hard, very hard. Will it be a challenge and/or more realistic that vanilla SS? I have not been England since vanilla because they are just such a ridiculously easy faction to play, it gets boring. So far I've only been testing this mod on normal, as I've heard the difficulty has been bumped. Any feedback on England?

Cheers

[The Turk]

Ya I was wondering that to, SS 6.5 being worked on right now?

[Epzilon]

Indeed, commoners were simply executed, especially the archers and crossbowmen, the knights and commanders hate them foremost and kill them right away. Nobles could have ransom but only them.

Not to mention that they killed peasants to ruin the other sides resources as they got food from farms.