Are the Cumans really worth playing with?

[k/t]

I looked in descr_cultures, but I couldn't make sense of it. Then I looked in export_descr_buildings, and I found this for the ports:

port city requires factions { northern_european, moors, turks, egypt, kwarezm, mongols, eastern_european, greek, southern_european, slave, }

Below that it says that the Cumans can recruit ships from them, but can the Cumans build ports? Are they included under the eastern_european umbrella? After reading this thread I want to start a new campaign as the Cumans, but first I want to make sure that their port building isn't bugged, since the last time I played them I couldn't build ports.

[Bruce the Silver-Tongued]

Volga Bulgaria is what your thinking, they'll be interesting too since they're islamic in the middle of a bunch of Orthodox / Pagans

On the current map, they would start with Bulgar, Kazan and Yelubulga

BC 3.0 is adding them, if BC also gives permission to use their stuff after it's realease I'll work at getting them into the game.

I see what you're talking about. So if you added them in, to either replace or offset the Cumans, what types of units would you give the eastern Bulgars? Serb-type units; more infantry, more armor, but still predominantly steppe HA, etc.? Maybe if BC makes their units available, someone could make a sub-mod for their implementation.

I checked on the Islamic part too... they converted about 100 years before the start date for the 1080 campaign. So... the surrounding provinces would be predominantly pagan or orthodox, their own home prov. would be mostly pagan as well... sounds like it would be an even more steep uphill battle with them, than the Cumans.

[newt]

I looked in descr_cultures, but I couldn't make sense of it. Then I looked in export_descr_buildings, and I found this for the ports:

port city requires factions { northern_european, moors, turks, egypt, kwarezm, mongols, eastern_european, greek, southern_european, slave, }

Below that it says that the Cumans can recruit ships from them, but can the Cumans build ports? Are they included under the eastern_european umbrella? After reading this thread I want to start a new campaign as the Cumans, but first I want to make sure that their port building isn't bugged, since the last time I played them I couldn't build ports.

descr_sm_factions.txt is the file you want, and yes, they're eastern_european. It should be working.

[k/t]

In that file the Cuman culture is listed as middle_eastern. All the other middle_eastern guys (Mongols, Turks, Egypt, Khwarezm) are listed individually, so I'm guessing that's why the Cumans can't build ports. I'm using RR/RC, but I don't think that matters.

[newt]

Which SS are you playing? In early and late campaign descr_sm_factions.txt this is the same. descr_cultures doesn't list any factions by name.

faction cumans
culture eastern_european
religion pagan
symbol models_strat/symbol_aztecs.CAS
rebel_symbol models_strat/symbol_rebels.CAS
primary_colour red 116, green 45, blue 13
secondary_colour red 18, green 189, blue 250
loading_logo loading_screen/symbols/symbol128_aztecs.tga
standard_index 7
logo_index FACTION_LOGO_CUMANS
small_logo_index SMALL_FACTION_LOGO_CUMANS
triumph_value 5
custom_battle_availability yes
can_sap no
prefers_naval_invasions no
can_have_princess no
has_family_tree yes

[k/t]

faction cumans
culture middle_eastern
religion pagan
symbol models_strat/symbol_aztecs.CAS
rebel_symbol models_strat/symbol_rebels.CAS
primary_colour red 116, green 45, blue 13
secondary_colour red 18, green 189, blue 250
loading_logo loading_screen/symbols/symbol128_aztecs.tga
standard_index 7
logo_index FACTION_LOGO_AZTECS
small_logo_index SMALL_FACTION_LOGO_AZTECS
triumph_value 5
intro_movie faction/minor_intro.bik
victory_movie faction/minor_win.bik
defeat_movie faction/minor_lose.bik
death_movie faction/minor_lose.bik
custom_battle_availability yes
can_sap no
prefers_naval_invasions no
can_have_princess no
has_family_tree yes


I have RR/RC with the latest patch. I'm guessing this is PB's doing.

[newt]

So 6.1 or 6.2? (never downloaded RR/RC on it's own)

edit: saw it. it's 6.2

[Bruce the Silver-Tongued]

I want to start a new campaign as the Cumans, but first I want to make sure that their port building isn't bugged, since the last time I played them I couldn't build ports.

So 6.1 or 6.2? (never downloaded RR/RC on it's own)

edit: saw it. it's 6.2

So, if I use RR/RC, and I don't want the Cumans to build Islamic-themed cities on the campaign map, and I also want to build ports, etc. on the Caspian...
Then I would have to alter that one line that has been changed, about culture, in descr_sm_factions?

I am curious, because I too want to use the Cumans for a bit, using RR/RC, but I don't want to try and expand an economic frontier dotted with the islamic-themed campaign map cities, or lacking ports. Thanks in advance fellas.

[newt]

Ask in here, there's more to it than that
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=380774

[Bruce the Silver-Tongued]

Ask in here, there's more to it than that
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=380774

Thanks the Dude.

[k/t]

I think you could just add the Cumans as a faction that can build ports in export_descr_buildings, in the same way that the Turks and Egyptians were listed individually.

[newt]

He wants to get rid of the Islamic buildings and such so he needs to completely change their culture.

[Bruce the Silver-Tongued]

He wants to get rid of the Islamic buildings and such so he needs to completely change their culture.

Basically what he said. To be honest, I just don't like seeing the big Minaretted Jama in the middle of a city on the campaign map. Browsing through the mod notes now...
Pagan faction =/= building a mosque. Everything else is nice going with Cumans though. Unique faction, and a fun scenario to take a break with from the toils of a central European campaign.

[Zenith_Zenith]

So, what do you guys think, would it be nice if the SS team would add a bit more units to the cumans? and, would it be nice if the cumans were (or could become) a bit stronger?

[k/t]

Only if historically realistic.

[RollingWave]

I see what you're talking about. So if you added them in, to either replace or offset the Cumans, what types of units would you give the eastern Bulgars? Serb-type units; more infantry, more armor, but still predominantly steppe HA, etc.? Maybe if BC makes their units available, someone could make a sub-mod for their implementation.

I checked on the Islamic part too... they converted about 100 years before the start date for the 1080 campaign. So... the surrounding provinces would be predominantly pagan or orthodox, their own home prov. would be mostly pagan as well... sounds like it would be an even more steep uphill battle with them, than the Cumans.

This is a ways down the road, since BC 3.0 isn't released yet and doesn't sound like it's that close.

If I add it in, it's definately a early era faction, right now there are 2 free slots anyway and Timurids could be axed in the early campaign, (and if we really need more slot I purpose we could axe Teutonic Order in favor of just script spawn HRE stuff )

Unit wise, not a whole lot is known about them, they're quite a mystrious faction due to location, the only settled civilization that has a lot of contact with them was the Novogorods but Russian Records in this area isn't particularly complete eitehr.

I would guess that they would be a more settled version of Cumans, we know that they had some pretty large cities and thrived on the Volga river trade, but obviously still retained a lot of their nomadic ways as well.

So, what do you guys think, would it be nice if the SS team would add a bit more units to the cumans? and, would it be nice if the cumans were (or could become) a bit stronger?

Historically speaking, Cumans were less diversified in their units than most other people for obvious reasons, they essentially all fought as Horse archers though many of them were also far more adapt at melee than their Turkish counterparts, the real division is basically their relative wealth status, the common tribesmen vs the tribal leaders / nobles who could afford better armour and were usually more skilled etc... though for my upcomming submod part I generally made it much more logical and also opened up a larger portion of units to the AOR in general which should help them out a lot.

[Zenith_Zenith]

Historically speaking, Cumans were less diversified in their units than most other people for obvious reasons, they essentially all fought as Horse archers though many of them were also far more adapt at melee than their Turkish counterparts, the real division is basically their relative wealth status, the common tribesmen vs the tribal leaders / nobles who could afford better armour and were usually more skilled etc... though for my upcomming submod part I generally made it much more logical and also opened up a larger portion of units to the AOR in general which should help them out a lot.

You know, it would be nice if there would be other cuman horse-archers and cuman foot archers as well, not only the militia and the bekh-s. For instance, as far as I know, Yasi horse-archers are not cumans. About pechengs I know clearly that they are not cumans. So, shouldn't there be some cuman units between the "cuman horse militia" and "bekh druzhina" and some between "dismounted cuman militia" and "dismounted bekh druzhina"? It would also be nice just to know that, if you get into central Europe, for instance, you won't lack in horse-archers or foot archers because of the AoR (Yasi, Pechengs, etc.). Also, in central Europe, for instance, you can't recruit "Tartar Lancers", so you'd pretty lack melee cavalry as well...

[Lord Minotaur]

cumans are not worth playing.... why? because they have a little unit roster and theyre units are basicaly weak.

[Point Blank]

Small unit roster has next to no negative effect on total available units that can be recruited. Smaller rosters can recruit more of each type of unit, larger rosters less of each type - total available for recruitment is fairly constant at any tier.

[Forever Steadfast]

I haven't taken the Cumans into the Late Campaign, mind you. However, I am currently using the Cumans in the Early Campaign. A few have complained about the lack of infantry, along with the small roster. What I've found is that the Cumans have the makings of a very balanced army, if one gets creative (if you don't prefer to HA spam everything, that is.). The Tartar Foot Lancers are an excellent source of infantry, while your Steppe Alans provide your light archers. Use the Foot Lancers to pin your enemy in place and then make use of the Cuman's strongest asset: their bows. Flanking the enemy with horse archers will allow you to shower arrows into their backs, while the enemy is caught up within your ranks of spears. Your spearmen are merely there as anchors in this case; not battle winners. Your light archers can also add to the mess of arrows engulfing your enemy. Either use them in flanking salvos as well, or to saturate enemy archers with fire - effectively knocking them out of the battle. If your enemy brings cavalry, split duties between your horse archers or use Tartar Lancers wisely (seeing as they're only light cavalry). Use either horse archers or Lancers to distract the enemy cavalry and some to maintain your flanking/shower of arrows tactic. And remember, your battle strategy has to cover both maps. Use those spies, people. Plan your attack or defense. If the enemy has four units of cavalry, plus infantry, make sure to have enough horse archers to not only tie that cavalry up, but also assist your spearmen. Think tactics. One of the primary reasons why I prefer armies, such as the Cumans, is that they require you to think. Unless, as I said before, you prefer to HA spam and forgo using your light archers and Tartar Foot Lancers.

Sieges were covered in this topic as well. Once again, Tartar Foot Lancers. Can't take the walls with them? Skip the walls; your enemy will eventually abandon them as you make progress within their settlement. This gets even easier when you can batter the walls down with siege engines. Just make sure to take those straggling enemy units into account and use your spearmen to counter such move. Say, keep two of your companies back from the main battle; use them to attack the enemy as they exit the walls. Its cheap, funneling them like that out of the walled doorways, but it works.

I don't ever suggest using your horse archers inside of a city's walls. Talk about historically inaccurate. I'm not saying its impossible to succeed, but there are easier methods of taking a city.

Now, let me re-iterate, I'm playing the Cumans during the Early Campaign. I haven't expanded into Central Europe, in fact I've only taken Rebel settlements and have avoided war with Kiev and Novgorod. The Kwarezmians tried besieging Embi once, and were thrown back at the walls. I know that some players prefer to be super aggressive and snatch up any territory within grasp, but you have to think logistics here too. If you need to take time in building up armies of Tartar Foot Lancers, Alans and various horse archers - do so. Take a breather; build infrastructure and military buildings.

You have a wonderful starting position. If you set your watchtowers wisely, you can spot an enemy stack at your very borders. Given the vast expanses of land between settlements, it'll generally take them at least two turns to reach a city/castle - giving you two full turns to recruit additional units or send reinforcements (if they can make it in time - prepare to send a counter-attacking army instead if they can't).

All in all - while the Cumans aren't really a powerhouse; they're far from desperate, weak or useless. And just because a unit roster supports a primary way of warfare (horse archers), that doesn't mean you can't change up history a bit and get creative, right? I mean, isn't that the point of us "leading" these ancient empires? To re-write history in our own image of how it should have went down?