1390 map and late campaign

[daraca]

Muscovy was influenced a lot by the Mongols/Tartars and as such had a lot of horse archers. Boyars in Muscovy fought as horse archers and didn't arm themselves with lances

As you said the early Moscovy armies were much more similar to Tartar style with more focus on cavalry and fast movement...

Yes...

"All they do is attack the enemy, pursue or whether he will flee from him, they make a sudden and fast. At first encounter they attack the enemy very bravely, but can not stand long, as if adhering to the rules: Run or we will flee. "- Wrote about the Russian cavalry Herberstein

«Всё, что они делают, нападают ли на врага, преследуют ли его или бегут от него, они совершают внезапно и быстро. При первом столкновении они нападают на врага весьма храбро, но долго не выдерживают, как бы придерживаясь правила: Бегите или побежим мы.» — писал о русской коннице Герберштейн

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Russian soldier equipment middle XVI century. An engraving of the Basle edition Herberstein, 1551.


Тhe Russian weapons and battle tactics were similar to the Eastern/ Asian warriors.

[daraca]

Ichon

I am actually very interested in Safawid rosters... making a 1390 submod for Stainless Steel with Safawids and trying to decide how much gunpowder weapons were incorporated into their armies between 1450-1600.

It may help?...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Heavy horsemen...
Safavid illuminated and illustrated collection 1501 CE.


Safavid illuminated and illustrated copy of the history of Timur (Tamerlane) 1405 CE

Warriors in the turban helmets.

The manuscript of the 16th century, Safavid Iran.


Light and medium...

[Lord Minotaur]

The problem with Trakai is that its so close to Vilnius

Lets say, it isnt

[Ichon]

Interesting- I swear I've seen those before somewhere else identified with Ilkhanate not Safavids but looking online everywhere now seems to identify them as Safavid. The fact of elephant is quite interesting. I hadn't thought to include any but now maybe I'll add to AOR in SE so occasionally there might be a few in either Timurs or Safavids or whoever takes that area.

So going by that and some other illustrations and articles I think the Safavids will get a mix of Turk, Mongol, and Persian units with firearms coming rather late. 1575 or so. The Safavids clearly had some experience against firearms both Portugal and Ottomans used them and probably some places in India as well but Safavids seem to relay more on traditional warfare of the region longer than just about anyone else.

The Safavids by mid 1500s at latest had access to good steel though I've read numerous times that there was continually a shortage of iron in Safavid regions and they constantly sought to import iron from Ottomans and India so I might make iron a bit more precious of a resource seeing as that is the 4th faction I've read that seems to have a shortage of iron and constantly seeking imports. Initial Safavid roster isn't going to be spectacular but neither weak. However starting around 1500 when Safavids in history really started expanding I'll probably have an event with better roster and perhaps some free armies for the AI.

[Caesar Clivus]

Did they use many cannon at as early of a date? When I've read of the battles there is frequent mention of handguns relatively early but very few mentions of cannons until 1600s which is about 100 years later than you read about lots of cannons further west. Also the way they built fortress did not change until a bit later which would reflect slightly later widespread adoption of cannons I'd guess?

Not really. From 1382, cannon are consistently described in the defence of cities. By 1400 there were arsenals of guns all over Russia. In 1475, the first large gun foundry was established. From this point onward, Greek, German, Italian and Scottish gun making experts came to Russia. In 1448, the Russians made a 1000 ton gun (probably more symbolic than useful but it outlines the importance of these new weapons).

As you said the early Moscovy armies were much more similar to Tartar style with more focus on cavalry and fast movement... I just can't see them dragging cannons around in that style.

In 1483, descriptions of the cannons produced make it clear that gun carriages existed.

[Ichon]

Not really. From 1382, cannon are consistently described in the defence of cities. By 1400 there were arsenals of guns all over Russia. In 1475, the first large gun foundry was established. From this point onward, Greek, German, Italian and Scottish gun making experts came to Russia. In 1448, the Russians made a 1000 ton gun (probably more symbolic than useful but it outlines the importance of these new weapons).

In 1483, descriptions of the cannons produced make it clear that gun carriages existed.

Fortress cannons have a much longer period of active use than anything except cannons for sieges. Siege cannons and counter batteries were already common in the 100 years war so even by the start of this campaign in 1390 there will be those type of cannons like bombards but less effective against soldiers(slower rate of fire, movement).

Field artillery as such was later to be developed everywhere compared to cannons for sieges and while cannons with carriages were common before 1500 this was essential just to move the cannon- the carriages were not as sophisticated as you see in use during Napoleonic wars where they could be turned and fired quickly, then limbered and moved to a new position.

Sweden was one of the first to show effective use of cannons offensively in the field- previously they had mostly been used in fixed defensive positions. So I am reluctant to give any factions very efficient field artillery before 1550s. And while I agree saying 1600s seems too late I don't know if I'll go pre-1500 for large regular units of Moscovy field artillery. I don't know what the max number of cannons per unit is in MTW2- I should probably look that up soon! But at least right now I'm inclined to make the field artillery units that Moscovy has slightly smaller and with a bit slower replenishment than in the west.

I agree that Moscovy had placed large cannons for fortress defense in most forts and castles by 1500. Reading more I am still not sure field cannons were in widespread use at any point in 1400s but I think saying 1600 is definitely too late. Sometime between 1520s to 1550s field cannons became part of most Moscovite armies which is probably only 30-40 years later than in more western armies not a full century.



"In 1550 Ivan IV organized a standing force of arquebusiers called strel'tsy, the first permanent Russian infantry. Originally, 3,000 men were organized into six detachments of 500 men each. A gentry officer headed each unit of 500, which was further subdivided into units of 100, commanded by a sotnik, and tens. The average soldier received four to seven rubles a year, 12 chetverti* of rye and oats, shot, cloth, and a small garden plot. To supplement their salary, the strel'tsy engaged in handicrafts in garrison towns and sold produce from their plots. The strel'tsy commander was given a pomestie estate similar to his cavalry counterparts. Subcommanders were given 30-60 rubles a year and 300-500 chetverti of pomestie land. Sotniki received 12-20 rubles.The strel'tsy were armed with muskets, sabers, and a half-moon axe called a berdysh, which was distinctive to dismounted troops because it required both hands to wield. It was also equipped with a pointed metal end for sticking into the ground, a valuable adjunct to the unwieldy musket. Fletcher was not overly impressed with the strel'tsy armaments. "The strel'tsy or footman hath nothing but his piece in his hand, his striking hatchet at his back, and his sword by his side. The stock of his piece is not made cleaver-wise, but with a plain and straight stock, somewhat like a fowling piece; the barrel is rudely and unartifically made, very heavy, yet shooteth but a very small bullet." The musket's effectiveness was also hampered by the excessive time it took to reload and the difficulty in firing quickly in succession. Foreigners' accounts estimated that in battle the strel'tsy would average only 12-16 shots apiece.The strel'tsy were unique in that they were uniformly armed, uniformly clothed, and uniformly trained. They did not fight in open spaces, but were used to defend or attack fortified places. Their assault on the fortress of Kazan is regarded as the decisive factor responsible for the final Russian conquest two years after their founding. They were generally garrisoned in border fortresses in units ranging from 1,000 in Kazan, Smolensk, and Pskov, to units of 100 in a myriad of small forts such as Gdov, Izborsk, and Iaransk. A small number of select strel'tsy were formed into a special cavalry unit, called the stremiannye strel'tsy, whose function was to protect the tsar.The strel'tsy were more similar to the Turkish Janissaries than western style arquebusiers in that they were recruited for life and their sons followed them into service. The strel'tsy were founded because the gentry cavalry had proven unsuccessful against Polish and Swedish infantry, but tactically they were employed with the cavalry because the Russians never developed the corps of pikemen to protect the infantry from enemy cavalry, as in the West.A small number of infantry forces was provided by dismounted Cossack units organized along the lines of the strel'tsy.So called fortress Cossacks were generally infantry, although some were cavalry forces serving along the border areas in exchange for pomestie estates. They were used almost exclusively for reconnaissance duties. About 4,000 foreign mercenaries also served as infantry during Ivan's reign. The third component of the Muscovite army was the artillery (nariad). Russian artillery was divided into fortress cannon and field artillery. Fortress cannon had a 25 cm caliber, a range of up to three kilometers, and could be fired two to eight times a day. By the end of the 16th century 3,000 to 3,500 such guns existed. Field artillery were lighter weight with a caliber of nine to ten cm and a maximum range of 600 meters. Artillery shells included solid (stone and iron), explosive (jugs filled with gunpowder), incendiary (stone shot covered with a combustible substance) and luminous."

From- http://www.xenophon-mil.org/rushisto...es/muscov1.htm

[Caesar Clivus]

Sweden was one of the first to show effective use of cannons offensively in the field- previously they had mostly been used in fixed defensive positions. So I am reluctant to give any factions very efficient field artillery before 1550s. And while I agree saying 1600s seems too late I don't know if I'll go pre-1500 for large regular units of Moscovy field artillery.

Field artillery was used at the Battle of the Ugra River in 1480 against the Tartars. Given how effective it was against the Tartars, it can be surmised that from this point on it started becoming more commonly used in Muscovite armies

[Ichon]

Field artillery was used at the Battle of the Ugra River in 1480 against the Tartars. Given how effective it was against the Tartars, it can be surmised that from this point on it started becoming more commonly used in Muscovite armies

Wiki talks about tyufyaks but I am not finding much reference to them anywhere else. Are you sure it was field cannons at Ugra? All the sources I've read talk about cannon from the defensive fortifications around the area being turned on the Tartars and handguns but not anything about field cannon. 1480 would be extremely early use of much field cannon. I am not disputing it couldn't have happened but that it wasn't a normal event to include regular units in the rosters until later. I'd rather have limited availability of mercenary cannons before 1500 in most factions aside from bombards.

In phase 2 I might look into cannons much more closely and try to make short range anti personal cannon used for city defense or field battles but of the available cannon in SS right now is all that is available for phase 1 and putting super effective field artillery before 1600s seems wrong. Even the lightest examples of Burgundian "field" cannons and Italian cannons still required 6-12 horses to pull and were very slow. Once setup they could fire 1 shot every 5-10 minutes but in a large battle in a good position were still quite dangerous.

[Caesar Clivus]

Wiki talks about tyufyaks but I am not finding much reference to them anywhere else. Are you sure it was field cannons at Ugra? All the sources I've read talk about cannon from the defensive fortifications around the area being turned on the Tartars and handguns but not anything about field cannon. 1480 would be extremely early use of much field cannon. I am not disputing it couldn't have happened but that it wasn't a normal event to include regular units in the rosters until later. I'd rather have limited availability of mercenary cannons before 1500 in most factions aside from bombards.

Both Osprey's Russian Armies and Heath's Armies of the Middle Ages say that artillery was used at Ugra, Heath even saying that it was certainly used in that battle. He does say though that principally they were used in defense of cities etc. so yes it was used in the field but yeah it was rare for the time. Heath also says that the evolution of gunpowder artillery in Muscovy basically followed that of western europe

On transport of artillery, he says that Russia's complex system of rivers was used. So hauling them over long distances wasn't as much trouble as you'd first think

[Ichon]

Both Osprey's Russian Armies and Heath's Armies of the Middle Ages say that artillery was used at Ugra, Heath even saying that it was certainly used in that battle. He does say though that principally they were used in defense of cities etc. so yes it was used in the field but yeah it was rare for the time. Heath also says that the evolution of gunpowder artillery in Muscovy basically followed that of western europe

On transport of artillery, he says that Russia's complex system of rivers was used. So hauling them over long distances wasn't as much trouble as you'd first think

How do we replicate movement of artillery along rivers? I agree otherwise though that rivers were prime transport roads. I just don't want to give fast movement bonus that works along rivers and equally well in the deep steppes or desert. I think I'll keep campaign map movement slightly reduced for cannons in an army until late 1500s when logistics improved in most armies and the size and weight of the cannons decreased so they weren't more of a burden than a normal supply wagon.

Battle map movement though will be greatly reduced. If there was a way to add a team of horses in front pulling the cannon that would be cool but for phase 1 the cannons will be as they currently are- pushed by men. Although I don't agree that all the cannoneers will be weak low defense guys. Typically they were well paid and had personal defense weapons in this era to protect their cannons which after the enemy general were probably the highest priority targets in most battles.

Bombards will be available nearly everywhere but tweaked to be mostly useful for breaking walls- not useful against men. Long range- slow reload, high wall attack, low accuracy and attack against men. Culverins I'll try to make anti personel but I am not sure how successful I'll be doing that just by modding stats. Later cannons will become slightly faster reload and battle map movement and more accurate and have more types of shot.

I'll probably have later version of cannons available as mercs 50 years before appearing in the roster of factions since prototype styles take awhile to be adopted to widespread use.

[Caesar Clivus]

How do we replicate movement of artillery along rivers?

We can't but I wish we could, along with about 500 other things *sigh*

[Ichon]

Looking over EDU I think I'll be able to cut between 100-150 units fairly easily as they are obsolete by 1390. After that is gets harder. Also- with more eastern factions included in 1390 there aren't enough units to share from within SS unless a few factions share multiple units so I will have to go out to other mods to borrow- does anyone know which mods are fairly open to borrowing with proper credit given? Of course BC is the mod with the best eastern units currently but are there any others I should know about?

Other than units the main thing I want to accomplish is making wars much more expensive. Probably accomplished at least 2 different ways- raising costs of unit upkeep- especially non levied units, and increasing portion of income from cities that trade contributes. So with a war breaking out with your largest trading partners your income might decline more than it does now where you barely notice. Also fewer units will have free upkeep. Buildings that contribute alot economically will also have their costs raised but not build times so much. Hopefully this will make it still worthwhile to spend money upgrading trade structures as they will pay back the investment over time- but they earn the most when at peace with neighbors. I haven't decided yet whether to make family members have an upkeep cost. If there is a way to make some have an upkeep cost and others not I'll probably go that direction. So for example- Teutonic Order, the Italian Republics, Swiss, a few others will have family members with upkeep to represent the state paying for the administrators upkeep. I will probably make a special building only for these factions that increases law a high amount so they are more likely to have far off colonies and more productive areas away from the capitol. So as long as you expand carefully as a player you should be able to balance the costs. On the other hand- the monarchies will have an increased kings purse and free upkeep for family members but the promotion system will be tied more to the FL and Heir and building up core areas of the kingdom around capitol will be much more important to afford expansion than capturing rich trade cities.

For the eastern factions... I don't think any silk road bonus is appropriate in this era. Some larger bonus for controlling religious sites neither seems appropriate. Probably simply I'll try to give the benefits of a high overall ranking a bit more important. IE- the glory of the faction that appears to be doing the best will get some slight bonuses. So no special buildings to reduce corruption or larger kings purses but a small global law bonus for the eastern faction with highest ranking to make controlling widespread regions a bit easier by not only reducing corruption and public order but increasing income a bit from that same reduction in corruption. I think that can be done at least.

I don't think I'll add upkeep costs to buildings in phase 1- I like the idea but its too ambitious for me for phase 1 when already trying to change economy a bit.

I've searched awhile and there does not seem to be a way to make fleets in port have free upkeep so I think I'll leave ships pretty much alone aside from changing stats a bit.

Compensating for raised costs I intend to reduce corruption modifier and tweak diplomacy. If you are playing as Spain and capture the low countries then those cities shouldn't contribute half what they would if your capitol was a bit closer. Some reduction for sure but a rich city should still be a prize. Also for less penalties for factions like Crown of Aragon and Golden Horde which are very spread out. I still want corruption to have some effect so the reduction will probably just be an increase in distance from capitol. However as previously mentioned the Republics and the Teutonic Order will get a special law building (probably only available in T5 and above cities) to make far off colonies more realistic.


The only tweaks to diplomacy I intend if possible is to increase diplomatic gains from trade treaty and reduce somewhat the penalties for recapturing a settlement previously given away to seal a diplomatic agreement. There will still be a penalty but recapturing a single region 10 turns after having given it to seal a peace treaty with AI shouldn't wreck your diplomatic standing. Doing it repeatedly however...

Goals by January: Complete Phase 1-

1. Port available units from SS
2. Fill rosters as much as possible to give fun playing experience by borrowing units or reusing earlier units but units won't always graphically match upgrades or the look of the era
3. Make wars more expensive
4. Differentiate Republics, Monarchies, Sultanate/Khanates
5. Tweak diplomacy

Phase 2:

Complete rosters and make units graphically consistent
Completely change religions- +Shia +Protestants -Pagans, perhaps Heretics remain.
Protestant Reformation events
Joan of Arc, Hussite rebellions, etc
Redo traits for most factions to make more unique

If I can make an event that allows Protestantism to blossom and Catholic nations to convert away from Catholicism to Protestantism then one of the benefits of that conversion will probably be a similar law building to the Republics just with reduced impact. Since the benefits of remaining Catholic are missions and events and being able to participate in Crusades. Although I really don't like the Crusade mechanic as you can't change frequency. Maybe if its possible to raise really high the requirements for calling a Crusade though it will be ok. Nearly perfect relations with Pope for example. Jihads I hope I can raise the imam skill higher as well for calling one. This will need to be reserved for phase 2 though since there are too many things I'm not sure about yet and I'd really like to make sure phase 1 gets finished and not sidetracked doing too much.

[daraca]

I've read numerous times that there was continually a shortage of iron in Safavid regions and they constantly sought to import iron from Ottomans and India...

Yes ... agree



But as I know Iran was the legislator's military fashion in the Middle Ages.
Here are some of the known example:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Plated mail (sometimes called plated chainmail)


1. Bagdad 1465 2. Tebriz mid. XV c. 3. Herat XV c. 4. Herat 1495 5-7. Tebriz 1524



2. Helmet late 14th and early 15th century- very well-known.

So going by that and some other illustrations and articles I think the Safavids will get a mix of Turk, Mongol, and Persian units with firearms coming rather late. 1575 or so.

I do not have full information about the Persian firearms, but I can give you some information/sources.

Wars between the Persians and Georgians XV-XVII c...

“And then the summer of 1490 ... the Persians came to Orbeti, nothing could hurt and went to the fortress Kojori and began firing arquebus.”

Data of 1554

“Fortress surrounded kyzylbash army (Persian army), but inside there were Georgians. The battle began, and many qizilbash were killed. To take the fortress was very difficult, because there was impossible ride fascines, was impossible make mines, there also impossible to approach the guns/cannons. “

Early 17th century

“Alikuli Khan reported: "The King Teimuraz told to tell you, that tomorrow will come with a sword in his hand." Khan ordered "All prepare of horses and weapons. Everywhere on the river crossings put shooters(arquebusiers) and try to not left you. "
Here it means mounted arquebusiers.


Battle of Marabda 1625

“Troops formations on the right and left flanks and put in front of shooters(arquebusiers)... Twelve thousand shooters(arquebusiers) showered them with bullets...”

According to other sources: At the Marabda, the Iranians were in front of field guns/ cannons and the back few thousand arquebusiers in four rows.
The first two rows of foot arquebusiers , a third row of mounted arquebusiers and fourth arquebusiers row on camels.

Continuation of the war with Timur here:

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...7#post10335777

[Ichon]

1490 Persians having arquebuses? That is interesting- cannons I can see but most reports talk about Persians being defeated by Portuguese and Ottomans gunpowder weapons without equal weapons. Perhaps that is wrong info. By 1550s I think I can believe the Persians have some guns but its still relatively rare but getting more common.

[daraca]

1490 Persians having arquebuses?

The source said about the first arquebus/ handgonnes- with serpentine or old socketed style of handgonne.



Look Like this /version with serpentine/

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

...Perhaps that is wrong info...

In the 15th century it was a new weapon and its mention probably true. This is not common at that time, use of these weapons then was rare and its use well remembered and a fixed sources.

Another question is how many they had these weapons and what quality? The answer probably very little to affect the war weather... I mean war with countries like Otoman... But with small countries... who knows...

[Ichon]

Yeah- I think I will usually put low replenish mercenaries in regions that might have a few guns about 50 years- or 100 turns on 2tpy- before including gun units in roster. Also I intend to remove the morale shock of all guns after handguns- although I might include something for final versions of cannons as cannon fire does lower morale a bit and should help make up for loss of flaming arrows. It is just more difficult to put cannons behind enemy lines which is appropriate and with a strong commander cannons are unlikely to break enemy as plenty of battles have men marching in close formation almost right up to the front of the cannons before wavering.

[Ichon]

I intend to change a bit how guns are displayed in SS along with cannons.

Probably the early handguns should have morale shock but not be as widely available as currently where its quite easy to recruit multiple units soon after the event. Also the early handguns were widely varying in accuracy and strength so probably should not be AP and have very low accuracy and range.

By the time more advanced guns come along though guns would be fairly well known and wouldn't be more scary than a heavy cavalry charge or boiling oil poured during a siege assault so the morale shock of guns would be removed.

Later guns are more advanced and have decent range so 2nd era of guns could be called arquebus and have AP. Arquebus would be relatively accurate (less than bows) but fire slowly and be quite heavy so units would move more slowly(carrying tripods etc to hold the heavy guns up when aiming).

Muskets could be the 3rd tier and have a much higher rate of fire retaining AP but have lower range and less accuracy while also being somewhat less powerful but the muskets are much lighter and the units would move relatively fast. With higher rate of fire but less accuracy later muskets would be designed more to shoot at unarmored pikemen and such units while being slightly less effective against heavily armored units having to fire at closer range and while retaining AP would be firing less powerful shots.

The first handguns would probably fire something like 1/4 slower than militia crossbows while arquebus would fire 50% slower while the last handguns could fire 1/5 faster than crossbow.

All handguns would be less accurate than bows and crossbows with arquebus coming the closest. Range of arquebus would be less than longbow and recurve but more than most other bows. Muskets would be accurate to slightly less range than current militia crossbows but have greater attack, AP, and faster rate of fire. Also lower upkeep cost and recruitment cost compared to crossbows. The first 2 kinds of handguns would be more expensive than crossbows while I think most crossbowmen should actually have their costs raised to reflect cost of equipment and training.

[Serbian Hussar]

Excellent idea.

[Ichon]

Forgot to add this part of the map...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[777-300ER]

Was Palma really that important in the 1400's ? Could it be left out to give way for other area slot ?

In my campaigns I really don't give a rats ass about Palma unless its a factions last stronghold. Rhodes, Crete and Cyprus should stay though.