The most redundant/useless units in SS

[flyingcat]

But isn't there ghulam already in SS6.4?
Ghulam Cav and Ghulam.Khwarezm could recruit it from the start of the late campaign.
I remember that Turkey could also recruit them later.

[King of the Ring]

nope , look 'ere



this is the Emir's Ghulam Warriors from BC , i added it in my SS , changed it totally
those behind them are the ME Heavy Spearmen with the green turkish color

this is the Christian Guard,i added the armor effective attribute and reskinned it,Moors have 1 armor effective unit which is pathetic really
the dismounted version is exactly the same but without a horse


this is the arab cavalry;same: i modified it and reskinned it, dismounted ones are now light infantry



i worked over more units but it takes too long to upload the screens

[napoleonic]

^ IIRC, in HURB, that Mutatawiia and Christian Guard models applied as Iq'tadar (mounted and dismounted)...

so now we have different people assigning the same skins to different units in different mods... amusing...

make me wonder, who is the correct one? I mean in reality, who do these guys with that appearance called as?

[Andytheplatypus]

nope , look 'ere



this is the Emir's Ghulam Warriors from BC , i added it in my SS , changed it totally
those behind them are the ME Heavy Spearmen with the green turkish color

this is the Christian Guard,i added the armor effective attribute and reskinned it,Moors have 1 armor effective unit which is pathetic really
the dismounted version is exactly the same but without a horse


this is the arab cavalry;same: i modified it and reskinned it, dismounted ones are now light infantry



i worked over more units but it takes too long to upload the screens

your horses look terrible

[King of the Ring]

^ IIRC, in HURB, that Mutatawiia and Christian Guard models applied as Iq'tadar (mounted and dismounted)...

so now we have different people assigning the same skins to different units in different mods... amusing...

make me wonder, who is the correct one? I mean in reality, who do these guys with that appearance called as?

wtf? why applying 2 different models as the same mounted and dismounted unit?

at least dismounted christians and mounted ones are the same model in my ss



oh, where we were? at moorish sucking at roster;i wonder how many players played this faction till now

[napoleonic]

wtf? why applying 2 different models as the same mounted and dismounted unit?

you misunderstand... I mean, see you assigned that unit skin as mutatawwia warrior, while BC team use them as ghulam warriors, then Rolling Wave use them as dismounted Iq'tadar, 3 people/group assigning the same unit skin to 3 different units... confusing and amusing.

Moors? you have to try HURB's Moors, they have unique units (for example, spear throwing general bodyguard) and rather a very contrast faction compared to the Iberian Catholics.

[ChiliNoMore]

i guess what you're all talking about here has another name... which might be "diversity".
yes, some of those units can be considered useless but they can also be extremely useful at some situations.

the more the better.

[Kaidonni]

i guess what you're all talking about here has another name... which might be "diversity".
yes, some of those units can be considered useless but they can also be extremely useful at some situations.

the more the better.

Nope, not the more the better - the more logical and thought-out the unit rosters, the better. More isn't always better at all, and in my modding experience, there are plenty of units that really do not add anything to the game, rather they compromise on the quality of already neglected factions (such as the Muslim factions).

[Ichon]

I don't mind using same models for units named different things- especially if slightly re-worked or from only a small difference in era. The uniformity of units required in TW mechanics is highly artificial anyway so unit names can be somewhat adaptable as more important is the role of the unit in a roster and the basic equipment. Many Christian mercenaries served Saladin for example while Muslims in Crusader Kingdoms fighting fellow Muslim was also not unheard of. Also Ghulams could be from many different regions though Turks might normally serve mostly with other Turks etc though the way BC and RW differed in using them seems ok to me since those units were often of many different ethnicities and thus could be chosen to represent any other. Also equipment between 2 units might be similar but the training and motivation vastly different justifying different unit stats.

[k/t]

Has anyone said "ballistas" yet? Those should be removed to make room for Georgian or Abbasid units. Both the NE and ME Ballistas should be removed, and one catapult, one trebuchet, one bombard, and one grand bombard. Six unit slots available. And is the Mercenary Grand Bombard historically accurate?

[Ichon]

I think I said siege but I wasn't specific. Mercenary Bombard is historic I would say, Ottomans, Hungary, Moscovy, etc all used such things.

[flyingcat]

Has anyone said "ballistas" yet? Those should be removed to make room for Georgian or Abbasid units. Both the NE and ME Ballistas should be removed, and one catapult, one trebuchet, one bombard, and one grand bombard. Six unit slots available. And is the Mercenary Grand Bombard historically accurate?

Siege units are too underpowered!!!!!
AND AI waste huge amounts of money building siege workshops!!!

Well,what about making all(most) siege units mercenaries?

[k/t]

Yes, that can only be recruited during a siege. It has been brought up before, but nothing came of it.

They're not underpowered.

[Ichon]

Ballista might be underpowered but not much else.

[flyingcat]

Ehhh....
Why they're not underpowered?I can't understand because it's low and ineffectual on the field,even somehow ineffectual in a siege.

Mangonel and gunpowder is balanced I think.
While I find Catapult a bit ..

[Steward Denethor II]

Siege weapons really are underpowered, at least in my opinion. And Ballistas are basically useless except to damage morale. Even trebuchets take freaking forever to destroy stone walls when put right next to the walls. Though those Mangonels are definitely good enough.

[Ichon]

Ballista are nearly pointless I agree though use as anti personal weapons is pretty weak outside of Roman era. Making smaller and a bit more accurate but with longer loading time would work better in my opinion. With current AI all other artillery is OP. Of course when AI actually attacks it might not seem OP it is far more often that AI sits still and lets half its army be killed from long range making those OP. Flaming catapults etc especially are garbage OP in my opinion toasting multiple units in a single hit. It only takes 2 hits to route half enemy army even on VH and if you have cavalry to chase the routers and 2-3 such artillery 1-2 lucky hits are bound to happen in most battles though occasionally it doesn't and if you relied on them you are screwed which is why I don't use them in my armies (along with the slower movement speed).

[Philozoraptor]

I would say that elephants with archers/Xbows would be much more usefull than with musquets since they would be available sooner, would be usefull against most of ranged units(light targets in general) and would add more flavour to Khwarezm. I mean what are those musquets good for anyway? They are few, got short range, bad accuracy, slow reload and in a first place elephants are those wo deal with heavy targets not musqueteers. Or canon elephant could be reworked to ballista elephant(I got no idea of its historically accurate but if u can put canon on elephant why not some light ballista.)

[Vissewalde rex de Gerzika]

Siege weapons really are underpowered, at least in my opinion. And Ballistas are basically useless except to damage morale. Even trebuchets take freaking forever to destroy stone walls when put right next to the walls. Though those Mangonels are definitely good enough.

This is the reason why i never bother to use them myself. A sige engine that is OP trough is the rocket launcher - i got it at about turn 45 in late campaign, dont know if that is normal, and as a bonus it does 3% damage per hit on stone walls, if you place it close enough getting a breach is quite easy.

[flyingcat]

Ballista are nearly pointless I agree though use as anti personal weapons is pretty weak outside of Roman era. Making smaller and a bit more accurate but with longer loading time would work better in my opinion. With current AI all other artillery is OP. Of course when AI actually attacks it might not seem OP it is far more often that AI sits still and lets half its army be killed from long range making those OP. Flaming catapults etc especially are garbage OP in my opinion toasting multiple units in a single hit. It only takes 2 hits to route half enemy army even on VH and if you have cavalry to chase the routers and 2-3 such artillery 1-2 lucky hits are bound to happen in most battles though occasionally it doesn't and if you relied on them you are screwed which is why I don't use them in my armies (along with the slower movement speed).

Anyway,I think you also agree with that..

Firstly,siege buildings are too costly and useless.Perhaps siege buildings should be cheaper or could offer some other bonus.

Accuracy,I think,is authentic because people couldn't expect catapults to be missile-launchers or tanks.While considering that an army could only have 20 units in maximum,I suggest adding their number.Ballista to 6,Catapult to 3,Trebuchet to 3.They should also have more ammos.

Hmm.If most of them are mercenaries and some of them removed to get unit slot.....