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

[0N3]

Well, if you are fixing the rosters the number one priority should be muslim factions for obvious reasons. They should have the same standard as the catholic factions and hopefully we will see something completely different from vanilla. Other then that i would look at the norse factions... the viking age is over but they are still using outdated viking-era armor?

[Caesar Clivus]

Other then that i would look at the norse factions... the viking age is over but they are still using outdated viking-era armor?

There was a technology/tactics lag in Scandinavia. Equipment considered outdated was still used in Scandinavian armies. That being said, their rosters do need some work.

[RollingWave]

Well, if you are fixing the rosters the number one priority should be muslim factions for obvious reasons. They should have the same standard as the catholic factions and hopefully we will see something completely different from vanilla. Other then that i would look at the norse factions... the viking age is over but they are still using outdated viking-era armor?

What CC said, and that armour uses is also influenced highly by relative enviornment and strategical issues, Norway didn't adopt cavalry till very late because... well... it's really damn hard to raise war horses in Norway and the usefulness of it on their terrain was limited anyway.

Another aspect is that if your using Viking warfare, aka relying a lot on boats, then the whole putting on armour part becomes a much bigger problem, several recorded Scots / Norway battles in the early middle ages clearly noted that the Norwiegian army had armours but choose not to wear them or because they were in such a hurry to get off the boats didn't get to put them on in time etc...

[0N3]

Sure, Norway was far behind, but there still was development from the viking age, and for Denmark even more so. The weapons remained mostly the same, but they didn't use the same armor. It's like having a world war 1 army in a call of duty game. There shouldn't be so many round shields or spectable helmets, also you should rename the huscarl unit because calling it "huscarl" is rather outdated, massive beards on the hirdmenn unit is unhistoric etc. Once again, the viking age is over and armies were mostly made up of peasant levys armed with heather shields, some kite shields and more modern helmets like kettle hats, but nasal helmets are fine. Low-tier troops wouldn't have proper armor and those who do should have chainmailshirts, other then that spears, axes and a few swords. Just suggestions for making it more historical, but i understand that your number one priority is fun and not accuracy and that's all good.

[Caesar Clivus]

Rounds shields were still quite common in early medieval Scandinavia, as were "spectacle" helmets. It was only later on that kite and heater shields and more up to date helmets came into use up north.

[Abyrvalg]

Sure, Norway was far behind, but there still was development from the viking age, and for Denmark even more so. The weapons remained mostly the same, but they didn't use the same armor. It's like having a world war 1 army in a call of duty game. There shouldn't be so many round shields or spectable helmets,

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

And about armor - vikings used mail, and scandinavian armies of 11-12th centuries used mail.
Almost everyone then in Europe used mail, and some used lamellar. Just like vikings few hundreds year earlier.
You don't want them to switch to plate in this period, I presume.

[Lanier]

What standard are faction's rosters updated on? Is the decision to update or revamp a roster based on trying to make it more balanced or more historically accurate? The reason I ask is because probably the single best/most professional total war mod that war mod that I have seen (Europa barbarorum) focuses entirely on historical accuracy in making unit rosters, and it translates pretty well into effective balance, however, I'v seen a lot of posts here asking for roster revamps on the basis of balance. Therefore, I really would be curious to know if priority in unit roster updates go to the most historically inaccurate or the unbalanced factions?

[newt]

Depends on who is doing the revamping. Every modder has his own ideas about what he wants.

[PaleBlueDot]

Norway and Denmark: Historical records shows that archery was a very important part of their warfare. The vikings fought with bows from their ship decks, as well as in land battles. In fact, several kings in the period were killed by arrows - the most famous being Hċkon the Good and Harald bluetooth. It was not even unsual for the kings themselves to fight with bow and arrow, such as Olav Trygvasson, also a very famous king. These are not isolated examples. Numerous sagas from the middle ages mention great deeds by scandinavian archers. In these sagas, arrows piercing shields and killing their holder are frequent. Plenty of arrowheads are found in viking graves.
Longbow remains have been found in viking settlements such as Hedeby, and it is ridiculous to believe that these kings fought and were slain by the weak "norse archers" of SS.
Also, javelins were used by the vikings.
Seriously, for the sake of historical accuracy and fun, include some good archers in the Norwegian and Danish armies!

[Lord Minotaur]

Norway and Denmark: Historical records shows that archery was a very important part of their warfare. The vikings fought with bows from their ship decks, as well as in land battles. In fact, several kings in the period were killed by arrows - the most famous being Hċkon the Good and Harald bluetooth. It was not even unsual for the kings themselves to fight with bow and arrow, such as Olav Trygvasson, also a very famous king. These are not isolated examples. Numerous sagas from the middle ages mention great deeds by scandinavian archers. In these sagas, arrows piercing shields and killing their holder are frequent. Plenty of arrowheads are found in viking graves.
Longbow remains have been found in viking settlements such as Hedeby, and it is ridiculous to believe that these kings fought and were slain by the weak "norse archers" of SS.
Also, javelins were used by the vikings.
Seriously, for the sake of historical accuracy and fun, include some good archers in the Norwegian and Danish armies!

doesnt mean that if they had a lot of archers they must be good.

[PaleBlueDot]

doesnt mean that if they had a lot of archers they must be good.

If they were bad, they obviously would not be so important to them. If even kings were slain by arrows, certainly large parts of the armies were as well.

In SS they are so bad that you can hardly use them as archers. Historical records indicate that they were a very important and deadly weapon, how does it make sense to assume that English longbows were more than twice as powerful and had much longer range?

[k/t]

Well, back then high-ranking figures fought together with the regular soldiers, so it wouldn't have been that hard for them to get killed.

[Lanier]

Depends on who is doing the revamping. Every modder has his own ideas about what he wants.

Ah, alright. I guess I was under the impression that this poll was for a core SS team that worked on units. Thanks for clearing that up.

[newt]

Well, back then high-ranking figures fought together with the regular soldiers, so it wouldn't have been that hard for them to get killed.

Yeah, lots of the French nobility died at Crecy.

[PaleBlueDot]

Well, back then high-ranking figures fought together with the regular soldiers, so it wouldn't have been that hard for them to get killed.

It is pretty hard for any soldiers at all to be killed by archers, if they are as weak as the norse archers. By the time your enemy reach your line, very few soldiers in each company will be dead. If archers were that weak, only using spearmen would be far more effective, and you certainly would not have many kings slain by arrows. I'm not saying that it would be harder for a king hit in the head to die from an arrow than a regular soldier, except from him probably having top quality armor. What I mean is that if even kings were slain, then certainly many common soldiers were.

I don't understand why there is so much resistance against archers here? Even in vanilla most archers are far stronger. In reality they could fire many arrows per minute, could actually kill people and were decisive in battles. In SS, certainly for norse factions they have little if any importance at all.

I certainly don't see why norse archers are so much weaker than the English ones. The few bows we have left, from Jutland and Hedeby are very similar to English longbow, similar proportions, some made of yew, over six feet long. The best preserved of them had estimated draw weight of around 100 pound.

[RollingWave]

It is pretty hard for any soldiers at all to be killed by archers, if they are as weak as the norse archers. By the time your enemy reach your line, very few soldiers in each company will be dead. If archers were that weak, only using spearmen would be far more effective, and you certainly would not have many kings slain by arrows. I'm not saying that it would be harder for a king hit in the head to die from an arrow than a regular soldier, except from him probably having top quality armor. What I mean is that if even kings were slain, then certainly many common soldiers were.

I don't understand why there is so much resistance against archers here? Even in vanilla most archers are far stronger. In reality they could fire many arrows per minute, could actually kill people and were decisive in battles. In SS, certainly for norse factions they have little if any importance at all.

I certainly don't see why norse archers are so much weaker than the English ones. The few bows we have left, from Jutland and Hedeby are very similar to English longbow, similar proportions, some made of yew, over six feet long. The best preserved of them had estimated draw weight of around 100 pound.

The general problem of course, is that how many of them were there? for archers to be effective in war, quantity factor is basically just as (if not more ) important than quality, the real thing that made longbowmans special was not really the longbow, despite what the common press might say, it's the fact that they had a very large pool of guys who could actually use it competently.

As i've pointed out before, the real issue with archers in the early medieval era historically was not really the lack of existing men who are skilled with the bows, it's the lack of organization to actually put enough of them together to make it relavant on the field of battle.


I'm upping the damage quality of the Scandavian archers (Veiomann) for my submod though, but they'll also lose the absurd armour / shield as well. essentially above average hunters.

[PaleBlueDot]

The general problem of course, is that how many of them were there? for archers to be effective in war, quantity factor is basically just as (if not more ) important than quality, the real thing that made longbowmans special was not really the longbow, despite what the common press might say, it's the fact that they had a very large pool of guys who could actually use it competently.

As i've pointed out before, the real issue with archers in the early medieval era historically was not really the lack of existing men who are skilled with the bows, it's the lack of organization to actually put enough of them together to make it relavant on the field of battle.


I'm upping the damage quality of the Scandavian archers (Veiomann) for my submod though, but they'll also lose the absurd armour / shield as well. essentially above average hunters.

Fantastic!

Anyway, yeah but in relative terms the Scandinavian archers were probably pretty numerous. Of course armies in Northern europe were not huge compared to more populated areas. But evidence shows they were a substantial part of the army. During the siege of Paris, the franks remarked on how the Norsemen rained heavy archery fire upon them. And according to Heimskringla, one of the most important source of information from scandinavian middle ages, during a battle between Denmark and Norway around 1000 AD the rain of arrows and javelins was "as thick as the snow drifts".

By the way, the arrowhead found in viking settlements were particularly wide and heavy, probably very powerful. If these weapons sucked, the king himself probably would not have used it. And again, the sagas are full of references to arrows or stories about snipers shooting accurately from long distances.

[Polycarpe]

I did change the norse archer, they are more like "hunter" type, more better at archery. They have around 4-5 ATK if I remember correctly and a new skin model

[PaleBlueDot]

I did change the norse archer, they are more like "hunter" type, more better at archery. They have around 4-5 ATK if I remember correctly and a new skin model

Great!
Sorry, has any version of your mod been released yet or are you still working on it? When will you be done? I'm very excited to see the new faction units.

[newt]

Great!
Sorry, has any version of your mod been released yet or are you still working on it? When will you be done? I'm very excited to see the new faction units.

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=418057