Which faction(s) need a revamp on unit roster?

[Bruce the Silver-Tongued]

apart from the fact that Galloglaicht were Scottish mercenaries that fought in Ireland, not Scotland, and the Scots Guard was a purely French army unit that was made of Scotsmen - - but not recruited as a unit from Scotland. Galloglaicht belong in Ireland as mercenaries and the Scots Guard should stay a purely French unit.

Do you believe that the Galloglaicht should be an AOR unit in Ireland, for Scotland to recruit via Barracks only? Something like... [...requires faction " scotland " and hidden_resource " ireland "]?

As for the Scots Guard unit... I will say that it is very frustrating playing as Scotland, succeeding in taking all of Britain, but not having a recruitment pool that reflects the advancements such an achievement would make possible. In-game, looking across the Channel at France, loafing around with units supposedly from my faction...
its as if I am manufacturing longbows that are superior, but then not using them at all, and selling them.

[TooMuchTemplar]

I'd say The Crusader States. Most of the faction is obviously left over from when the Knights Templar were their own faction.

From units like the Templar Longbowmen to the ugly looking Templar Heavy Spearmen. And many textures are left overs too, such as the upgraded crossbow militia and the flag-bearer officers.

Maybe it's just me, but more than any other faction the Crusader States really look like it was in the middle of being put together but got shoved into a corner to make way for higher priorities.

Which is too bad, because the CS is a great opportunity to make a really colorful and unique faction with a mix of western and eastern units.

Just my $0.02

[Polycarpe]

Do you believe that the Galloglaicht should be an AOR unit in Ireland, for Scotland to recruit via Barracks only? Something like... [...requires faction " scotland " and hidden_resource " ireland "]?

As for the Scots Guard unit... I will say that it is very frustrating playing as Scotland, succeeding in taking all of Britain, but not having a recruitment pool that reflects the advancements such an achievement would make possible. In-game, looking across the Channel at France, loafing around with units supposedly from my faction...
its as if I am manufacturing longbows that are superior, but then not using them at all, and selling them.

Excellent suggestion Bruce, the next update, Galloglaich will only be recruitable if Scotland own Dublin.

[TheBard]

I agree with DedBludUK. I meant to vote for the Moors, but accidentally voted for Portugal. As Portugal, I've felt like the Moors are quite underpowered. They were supposed to be the preeminent force in Spain for hundreds of years. One problem is that they don't always get (or use?) Grenadine Lancers. When I played as Aragon, the Moors actually defeated me using lots of Grenadine Lancers. But as Portugal, I've never had to face them. Maybe they should always get them, regardless of city?

[Athalwulf]

All Italian states need a revamp.

[Ichon]

All Italian states need a revamp.

What specifically?

I find the fact they are militia oriented ok however they need many more mercenaries available and some of those mercenaries might as well be counted as part of their rosters. Italian states also led advancements in heavy armor but are usually very underpowered in heavy armor units compared to nearest neighbors.

However they are still quite powerful as factions and fairly well balanced without many fantasy units so while they could use work its not as immediate as some other factions.

[RollingWave]

Currently, the rosters BG and I have revamped drastically are...


Moors (almost completely new roster)
Egypt (also very different)
Turks (big changes)
Kwarezm (not as much as the other 3 but also significant)
Norway (totally changed, including infantry generals)
Denmark (see Norway, though they are a bit more like other western faction)
Lithuania (some changes )
Crusaders (changed in some ways)
Cumans (very different roster, makes more sense now)
Scotland (significant changes)

A lot of Catholic factions recieved minor changes as well.

Spain and Portugal gets Vilan Knights
Aragon's Alforrat changes a lot.
Italians roster see some pretty big change, Genoa more so than Venice.
England gets Norman Knights in early era .


I've made some minor adjustments to Hungary / Poland / Russian roster as well, though I am unstatisfied (in that order) . next order of business is those faction and adding in Abbasid.

[ninja51]

Hungary and the Muslim factions NEED to be revamped!!!! Their graphics look like absolute poop and they are a total bore to fight, let alone play

[Ichon]

Did you revamp Hussars at all? So they start out light cavalry and sometime in 1400s become heavier until by the 1500s they are very heavy cavalry?

Hungary and the Muslim factions NEED to be revamped!!!! Their graphics look like absolute poop and they are a total bore to fight, let alone play

Hungary is kinda fun to play... Turks as well but they could both be better with changes. Other Muslim factions I agree with though K-Shah is also interesting roster already it could be better. Moors and Fatimids needed the most changes.

[Abyrvalg]

There's not may info on the Middle Age warfare on Scotland but one thing is sure, they were not poor barbarian peasants as depicted in "Braveheart".

Well, Osprey's Falkirk, Bannockburn and Flodden from Osprey Campaign series give us some information. Anyway it is better than CA's (or Mel Gibson's) creativity.

Hungary ... NEED to be revamped!!!!

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=583
Btw I wish all good roster mods had same policy for using their units in other mods.
Imagine all work you did to be taken just to screw up with laughable faction names for generals, agents etc.

[RollingWave]

I don't think there is logical explanation for this.
I mean, look at all those mod created by people who interested in history. All those mods are created for free.
While CA charge money for some ahistorical fictional things.
Well, at least we can be thankful for game engine to run all those mods.

Mostly because they're on a budget / time limit and they're generally more programmers than historical ethuisit, this part i really don't care much anymore as long as the engine's moddability is still there concerning that.

The most ridiculas CA units in RTW / M2TW though, is by far the war hounds in RTW, Spartans? Legionaries? Cataphracts? no problem for the mighty doggies! I see what Xerex done wrong in 300! he didn't have the mighty war doggies!

If archers were so effective why did they not dominate the battlefield? What point of having lots of low armor guys with spears? Archers were of course effective as it was one of the only ways of projecting power beyond physical range of a man but very rarely did they control outcome of battles. Agincourt was a shock to French because it was a huge defeat and they had to blame something... the longbowmen were deadly but so was any man with a weapon and if you study the battles the actual arrows the longbowmen shot weren't the decisive reason for the outcome.

Mongols killed many with their bows but even then many reports from the battles indicate it was when Mongols closed to melee that most battles were actually won. The Mongols didn't just stand off and shoot the entire battle. They were so successful because not just the nice bows they had which were probably more powerful than many in Europe but more that they were very well organized and moved much more quickly than any Western armies. If 10,000 Mongols were fighting they could use their bows to keep Western Knights from approaching except in force and then rapidly retreat and concentrate nearly their full 10,000 on another part of the battlefield, then in a coordinated way move off and repeat. So even if a western army had 30,000 men often the Mongols could still fight 10,000 vs 5,000 at any single part of the battlefield or often not even waited for the full army to gather and using better scouts attack while their enemies were unprepared.

The battles where Mongols fought prepared armies in entrenched positions usually ended with Mongol victory but often with extremely high losses. The battles in China and against Mameluks also indicate that only armies that were either well positioned and forced Mongols to attack or were very well coordinated stood a chance. In China the Jin were so numerous they could often close in on Mongols despite slower speed from many directions or force Mongols to attack well defended fortresses one by one vastly slowing the speed of their advance.

The general issue with bows is that skill effect outcome a lot more than crossbow. in early medieval era the general problem is that there might be a decent amount of guys who are competent archers, but there's no real system of organizing them into units and the pool isn't big enough that they'd be running everywhere.


As for relative effectiveness, maile's effectiveness against arrows in general is ehhhh... it relies a lot more on the under padding than the maile itself, and thats one of the reasons why early knights mostly carried much larger shields.

Still, bows dominated the battle field much more in places like Asia and Russia and the Mid east, where nomadic people adapt at using bows from childhood exist in large number. and also thus forcing their opponents to more seriously organize such units in kind.

[HellBojus]

I cant vote, but I give my vote for Lithuania.

[mattgoby]

Can you elaborate? Remove all longbowmen except mercs?

I really want englands best and interesting units to be removed.

[newt]

You mean the units that make England unique? Yeah, get rid of them. Then they'll have decent infantry and crap cavalry and turn into the worst faction.

few if any longbowmen made their entire / full-time living from being a longbowman.

By this rationale, you would have to remove almost every unit from every faction, because most people weren't full time soldiers.

[Diversus]

Well cumans needs remake mostly, since Cuman diplomat said :"if allah is willing we could reach more agreements"..

[k/t]

That's because there's no voice pack for them so a Muslim voice pack was used.

[Bruce the Silver-Tongued]

You mean the units that make England unique? Yeah, get rid of them. Then they'll have decent infantry and crap cavalry and turn into the worst faction.

By this rationale, you would have to remove almost every unit from every faction, because most people weren't full time soldiers.

I can see it now. All your units would be farmers.

We could call it FTW: Farming Total War. Kneel before the plow!

[Hatch]

The thing about the long bow is that it requires Yew wood, which was only found in abundance in England. Once you control enough of England you ought to be able to create longbowmen, or at least advance your archery units to use them.

[chris7ian]

I voted for the HRE. I just want them to have the Saxon Huscarls to be a regular unit instead of a merc unit. And maybe the same for Swabian Swordsmen. I would even settle for them being an AOR unit for Hamburg/Madgeburg and Staufen respectively. Also it seems like the TO have a wide variety of unit types compared to the HRE shouldn't they share some more???

[newt]

The thing about the long bow is that it requires Yew wood, which was only found in abundance in England. Once you control enough of England you ought to be able to create longbowmen, or at least advance your archery units to use them.

All factions can recruit Longbows if they can control certain English settlements.

Also England used up it's yew trees and had to import them from other places.