Medieval Kingdoms Total War Suggestion Thread

[Roberick]

This might have been suggested before or implemented, but would it be possible to add vlachs/romanians as a playable migratory faction?

[Ciruelo]

are we going to see military orders beside teutonics as, maybe, units for different factions as well as crusaders? During the Reconquista some orders were crucial to fight Islam, Santiago's knighs are infact an available unit for Spain in M2.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milita...astic_society)

[saneel]

Can you modify ATW like MTW2 when you place general or family member in town and he gets title of that town and traits?

What about some historical events that happened and give faction positive or negative traits or even free spawning leaders and armies?

[Arifian]

Hey is it possible fore me to play as all playable factions even if i dont have any dlc's ?

[Enjoy]

A lot of the coloured helmets in the screenshots look garish! Maybe make them duller/less glossy? The blue French ones especially, they look plastic!

[Danishmend]

Nerf archers, especially horse archers.
The engine makes them far more powerful than they actually were so the only option is to reduce their stats.

The combination of horse and powerful composite bow allowed Eurasian nomads (Seljuks/Oghuz, Cumans, Mongols etc) to conquer huge areas and defeat larger but less mobile forces and you are talking about reducing their stats? Besides the engine doesn't make them "more powerful than they actually were", it's too easy to deal with horse archers, all you need to do is put some foot archer units behind the front line while playing against AI, that's it.

You may hate horse archers and their fighting style, but I think you are going too far by saying they were actually weak. They were killing machines.

[+Marius+]

The combination of horse and powerful composite bow allowed Eurasian nomads (Seljuks/Oghuz, Cumans, Mongols etc) to conquer huge areas

No, the combination of numerical superiority, enormous numbers of horsemen and excellent heavy cavalry allowed them to do so.
Even the Mongols praise their swords and lances in poems and war messages more often than their bows.

and defeat larger but less mobile forces and you are talking about reducing their stats?

Larger forces of light cavalry and horsemen were defeated by smaller forces of well equipped infantry far more often.
Just look at the engagements against Georgia.

They were killing machines.

No, they were not, it was the heavy cavalry that did the killing, the vast majority of military casualties before the adoption of firearms were in melee.

The job of horse archers was to create a perfect situation for the heavy cavalry to engage.

So?

One extremely specific battle where the infantry had no archers to defend them against the horse archers?
A battle where, again, the heavy cavalry is reported as actually doing the "dirty work"?

The Romans stood in arrow shower the entire day btw.

How about this;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ramla_(1101)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jaffa_(1192)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Arsuf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Iconium_(1190)

Those and many other battles where the horse archers failed to do their job...which was basically to allow the heavy cavalry to do their job.

How about these two nuggets, two Byzantine armies completely made up of Turkish mercenaries, largely horse archers;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Prinitza

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Neopatras


What odds are those?

Perhaps 10:1, 30:1 in favor of the Byzantines against western knights?

They were skirmishers, extremely good skirmishers, but not a main battle unit.

[bigdaddy1204]

The combination of horse and powerful composite bow allowed Eurasian nomads (Seljuks/Oghuz, Cumans, Mongols etc) to conquer huge areas and defeat larger but less mobile forces and you are talking about reducing their stats? Besides the engine doesn't make them "more powerful than they actually were", it's too easy to deal with horse archers, all you need to do is put some foot archer units behind the front line while playing against AI, that's it.

You may hate horse archers and their fighting style, but I think you are going too far by saying they were actually weak. They were killing machines.

I agree with Danishmend. Horse archers should be effective in battle, otherwise we are going to get an infantry fest, which would be a grave disappointment. Marius has a track record of being rather domineering and demanding his way or no way. I suggest you (the mod team) don't allow him to push other viewpoints aside. The person who shouts the loudest is not necessarily representative of the rest of us (definitely not, in this case). Give us effective horse archer armies that can defeat Byzantine armies in pitched battle, and I'll be happy.

[Danishmend]

No, the combination of numerical superiority, enormous numbers of horsemen and excellent heavy cavalry allowed them to do so.
Even the Mongols praise their swords and lances in poems and war messages more often than their bows.

Numerical superiority my a*s. History is not what you see in Hollywood movies or your fantasy dream world where a knight can kill 1000000 horse archers. The Mongols were much more hardy, disciplined and skilled warriors and the bulk of the Mongol armies were horse archers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Kalka_River

No, they were not, it was the heavy cavalry that did the killing, the vast majority of military casualties before the adoption of firearms were in melee.

The job of horse archers was to create a perfect situation for the heavy cavalry to engage.

,

Says who? A gamer on an internet forum? Do you think the bulk of the European armies were equipped as the guy in your avatar? Nope, most of them were lightly armoured footmen. Heavy armoured knights made up a very small portion of Crusader armies. How sad

So?

One extremely specific battle where the infantry had no archers to defend them against the horse archers?
A battle where, again, the heavy cavalry is reported as actually doing the "dirty work"?

The Romans stood in arrow shower the entire day btw.

How about this;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ramla_(1101)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jaffa_(1192)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Arsuf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Iconium_(1190)

1. Why would any sane person take these numbers seriously? The tendency of chroniclers to exeggerate enemy numbers is no secret. Do you also believe the numbers given by Heredotus (300 vs 2.5 million Persian for example). In a movie named Kingdom of Heaven the Crusaders say Saladin has 200.000 men in Damascus alone and I bet most people take that movie seriously. For God's sake, 200.000 men and only in Damascus LOL.

2. It is ridiculous to use Egyptian/Ayyubid armies as a reference for horse-archer based armies, nice try though. There were horse archers among their ranks yes, but these horse archers were far from being the bulk of Ayyubid armies.

3. Most of the battles between the Seljuks/Zengids and the Crusaders ended in favor of the Seljuks/Zengids.

4. Contrary to popular belief and fantasy illustrations/drawings, the heavy armored knights made up only a very small part of Crusader armies (and medieval European armies in general), these knights were backed by a much more numerous body of light armoured infantry and bowmen; as i said earlier.

How about these two nuggets, two Byzantine armies completely made up of Turkish mercenaries, largely horse archers;

Cou




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Prinitza

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Neopatras


What odds are those?

Perhaps 10:1, 30:1 in favor of the Byzantines against western knights?

They were skirmishers, extremely good skirmishers, but not a main battle unit.[/QUOTE]

The number of Turkic mercenaries in the Battle of Neopatras was little-to-no, only a few mentions of a Cuman contingent still they were not bulk of the army. But you are good at manipulating I must admit, yet you are using Eastern Roman armies (that has some Turkic mercenary bands) as a referance for horse archer based armies.

I understand that you live in a fantasy medieval world where "western knights" are semi-gods butchering thousands on their path, so you can underestimate steppe-style warfare as much as you want.

Anyway I can recommend you a few mods that are based on crusades, crusaders are overpowered and the muslim factions are nothing but peasant rabbles, you will like them I'm sure. Oh and please do not quote me again, I'm really tired of online crusader knights.

Here is a historically very accurate! mod for you, enjoy it. Crusader cavalry crushing mostly infantry copy-paste khergit muslim army with metal music LOL

[Danishmend]

I suggest you (the mod team) don't allow him to push other viewpoints aside. The person who shouts the loudest is not necessarily representative of the rest of us (definitely not, in this case). Give us effective horse archer armies that can defeat Byzantine armies in pitched battle, and I'll be happy.

Well said.

[Heisenburrg]

IMO both of you should calm down and should not take you so important... Please guys, discuss objectively and in a friendly way!
Everyone here wants only that this mod comes to the best results and such small wars who´s definitely right and who´s not are not only unconstructive but also distracting for the disscussion´s atmosphere.

[Slytacular]

Yeah, please refrain from calling someone stupid while you argue against their words. Otherwise, you just attack the emotional side of the person rather than the education and research that person has placed their time into reading. Discussion and debating history should develop understanding between people of what may have happened and why, not a WWE word wrestling smackdown.

[+Marius+]

I agree with Danishmend. Horse archers should be effective in battle

Yes, they should.
Just not overpowered.

Marius has a track record of being rather domineering and demanding his way or no way.

No, it is me pointing out flaws in the current popular view point on horse archers vs a few people just making vague statements about me being wrong.

I am forcing nobody to do anything, I have no authority to do so.

Give us effective horse archer armies that can defeat Byzantine armies in pitched battle, and I'll be happy.

Well that would be extremely ahistorical, considering that even at the Battle of Manzikert, the posterchild of turkic horse archery, horse archers did next to nothing to the Byzantines for nearly two days, it was the epic charges of the magnificent Seljuk heavy cavalry that actually did the damage and won the day.

What you are stating about horse archers is like me stating the same for...crossbowmen.
That crossbowmen should be enough by themselves to win battles.

Numerical superiority my a*s. History is not what you see in Hollywood movies or your fantasy dream world where a knight can kill 1000000 horse archers.

There is no such movie.

The Mongols were much more hardy, disciplined and skilled warriors and the bulk of the Mongol armies were horse archers.

The bulk of their army were horse archers that were equipped to fight in melee, also 40-60% of their forces were heavy cavalry and in every single battle that they fought the battle was decided and the enemies wiped out with heavy cavalry charges and melee engagements.

Horse archers skirmished,destroyed enemy cohesion, lured enemy out of position and created perfect opportunities for the heavy cavalry to engage.
That is the prime role of the horse archer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Kalka_River

So...a bunch of Russian peasants with farming equipment and swarm of Cuman horse archers vs Mongols...

Also, recent historiography puts the number of Russians and Cumans as low as 15-20 000.

hSays who? A gamer on an internet forum? Do you think the bulk of the European armies were equipped as the guy in your avatar? Nope, most of them were lightly armoured footmen. Heavy armoured knights made up a very small portion of Crusader armies. How sad

You just made my point.
Congrats

1. Why would any sane person take these numbers seriously? The tendency of chroniclers to exeggerate enemy numbers is no secret. Do you also believe the numbers given by Heredotus (300 vs 2.5 million Persian for example). In a movie named Kingdom of Heaven the Crusaders say Saladin has 200.000 men in Damascus alone and I bet most people take that movie seriously. For God's sake, 200.000 men and only in Damascus LOL.

Nobody is talking about movies here...but you.

Those are actually not the exaggerated numbers from contemporary sources, those are the lower estimates

If you seriously have trouble believing that a faction as large as the Fatimid state could not raise 10 000 troops that is your problem.

Historiography gives us a pretty good idea about the size of medieval armies.

2. It is ridiculous to use Egyptian/Ayyubid armies as a reference for horse-archer based armies, nice try though. There were horse archers among their ranks yes, but these horse archers were far from being the bulk of Ayyubid armies.

Yeah, its not like they had tons of Turkic mercenaries or anything;
http://www.ephotobay.com/image/picture-35-10.png

Its not like Saladin himself became ruler because of the activities of said Turkic mercenaries...

3. Most of the battles between the Seljuks/Zengids and the Crusaders ended in favor of the Seljuks/Zengids.

Wrong.
Especially if we count up the casualties.

The Seljuks lost over 4000 troops in a single engagement at Iconium alone.

Crusader casualties are mostly counted in the hundreds, barely.

4. Contrary to popular belief and fantasy illustrations/drawings, the heavy armored knights made up only a very small part of Crusader armies (and medieval European armies in general), these knights were backed by a much more numerous body of light armoured infantry and bowmen; as i said earlier.

Yes, proving my point again

The number of Turkic mercenaries in the Battle of Neopatras was little-to-no, only a few mentions of a Cuman contingent still they were not bulk of the army. But you are good at manipulating I must admit, yet you are using Eastern Roman armies (that has some Turkic mercenary bands) as a referance for horse archer based armies.

"Apparently, this is the same Rimpsas who, according to Pachymeres, in 1273 led a large contingent of Turkish troops in a campaign on Thessaly. Gregoras' account of the same campaign, not only mentions the presence of foreign Turks, but of the Tourkopouloi. Since Rimpsas was a Christian and the Tourkopoloi were Christianized Turks, a by-product of Byzantine-Turkish military contacts, it is quite possible that Rimpsas was not only present, but was the head of the Tourkopoloi in the battle of Neopatras." - Savvas Kyriakidis, Warfare in Late Byzantium, 1204-1453, page 116

I understand that you live in a fantasy medieval world where "western knights" are semi-gods butchering thousands on their path, so you can underestimate steppe-style warfare as much as you want.

I have nothing against horse archers, but I love historical facts more than emotional, romantic and subjective nonsense.

Anyway I can recommend you a few mods that are based on crusades, crusaders are overpowered and the muslim factions are nothing but peasant rabbles, you will like them I'm sure. Oh and please do not quote me again, I'm really tired of online crusader knights.

I rolled my eyes just in case.

Here is a historically very accurate! mod for you, enjoy it. Crusader cavalry crushing mostly infantry copy-paste khergit muslim army with metal music LOL

Oh, I do not need such videos, I can pick up history books and I am sure that it will be filled with heavy cavalry of any culture and religion massacring light cavalry of any other culture or religion.

It is not a difficult concept to accept or figure out.

[bigdaddy1204]

Yes, they should.
Just not overpowered.

That's great. I can agree with that.

I remember there is a M2TW mod called Anatolian Principalities which has OP horse archers. They went way too far and made horse archers more like machine guns, able to destroy all infantry. I am definitely not advocating that, I wouldn't want to see that. In fact, I even made a post in that sub forum, specifically asking them to tone it down a bit and reduce the power of their horse archers.

Balance will be fine.

Well that would be extremely ahistorical, considering that even at the Battle of Manzikert, the posterchild of turkic horse archery, horse archers did next to nothing to the Byzantines for nearly two days, it was the epic charges of the magnificent Seljuk heavy cavalry that actually did the damage and won the day.

It was probably a bit of both. Of course, in those days horse archers and lancers were a good team, the best armies used them together.

What you are stating about horse archers is like me stating the same for...crossbowmen.
That crossbowmen should be enough by themselves to win battles.

I never suggested that.

Usually (in my battles) I tend to use the horse archers to target some of the best units in the enemy army. For example, I will aim at slow-moving heavy sword infantry, as well as heavier cavalry units. But they (the horse archers) are always part of a team, and would never be expected to win battles by themselves. I quite often team them up with a few heavy cavalry units, partly to protect them and partly to exploit opportunities that have been opened up by shooting arrows (for example, a spear unit that has weakened due to taking casualties).

As long as they can still carry out this kind of combined arms role, I'll be satisfied.

[+Marius+]

Usually (in my battles) I tend to use the horse archers to target some of the best units in the enemy army. For example, I will aim at slow-moving heavy sword infantry, as well as heavier cavalry units.

That's the thing.
You should not be able to be effective against heavy troops with horse archers, you should instead be doing the opposite and aiming for lighter armored troops and remove them as a support factor for the heavies.

Archers in general should not be that effective against armored troops, horse archers especially so as they used lighter bows.

From the sources I read, anything but (relatively)close range barrage was (edit: not useless rather)inefficient against proper mail and gambeson, let alone lamellar or plate.

Of course, this is mostly valid for heavy infantry, armored warriors on unarmored horses are another issue completely...

[Danishmend]

Well that would be extremely ahistorical, considering that even at the Battle of Manzikert, the posterchild of turkic horse archery, horse archers did next to nothing to the Byzantines for nearly two days, it was the epic charges of the magnificent Seljuk heavy cavalry that actually did the damage and won the day.

These are some serious claims, did you participate in that battle?

What you are stating about horse archers is like me stating the same for...crossbowmen.
That crossbowmen should be enough by themselves to win battles.

Comparing horse archers with crossbowmen is beyond ridiculous, especially in open fields. I'm not even going to argue.

So...a bunch of Russian peasants with farming equipment and swarm of Cuman horse archers vs Mongols...

Also, recent historiography puts the number of Russians and Cumans as low as 15-20 000.

"A bunch of peasants with farming equipment" because it doesn't please you.

It is funny how you mention "recent historiography" and modern estimates when the numbers don't please you, you never mention that when it comes to Crusader chronicles somehow.

Yeah, its not like they had tons of Turkic mercenaries or anything;
http://www.ephotobay.com/image/picture-35-10.png

Its not like Saladin himself became ruler because of the activities of said Turkic mercenaries...

Ayyubid armies were far from being horse-archer based mobile armies no matter how much you want to portray them as such, period

Wrong.
Especially if we count up the casualties.

The Seljuks lost over 4000 troops in a single engagement at Iconium alone.

Crusader casualties are mostly counted in the hundreds, barely.

Well, this is becoming really, really funny. The Crusader casualties in some battles of the first crusade alone can defeat your argument. The Crusaders had slow, infantry-based armies that turned most of their defeats into massacres. The Seljuks on the other hand had mobile armies that allowed them to retreat without suffering too much casualties, they would easily retreat when they sensed the defeat.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Crusade also known as peasants' crusade, the army (numbered 20.000-40.000) was almost completely destroyed, I know you are going to say that "they were mostly peasants!!" this is not my problem, they were a part of the crusades.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Xerigordon (totally destroyed)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Civetot (most killed, upwards of 60.000 by some accounts)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusad...le_of_Mersivan (most killed or enslaved)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Harim (10.000 killed)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle...rylaeum_(1097) Although the Turks (mostly horse archers with some heavy ghulam cavalryman) led by Kilij Arslan and Danishmend Ghazi were outnumbered in this battle 1 to 6 (or 1 to 8) by the Crusaders, they had less casualties because they managed to retreat before the battle turn into a massacre.




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle...rylaeum_(1147) (most killed)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Melitene (most killed)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Harran (most killed)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Damascus_(1148)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Al-Sannabra

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ager_Sanguinis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ba%27rin

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Edessa

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mount_Cadmus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Inab

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle...e_Huleh_(1157)


This is just a tip of the iceberg as guys like you tend to ignore the battles and parts of the history that don't please you. The Crusaders had much, I mean MUCH more casualties compared to the Seljuks. They suffered devestating defeats and lost hundreds of thousands of men while trying to cross Anatolian plateau. I can bring more serious sources about these battles but I'm not here to transform this thread into a debate but you are pushing me to do so by spreading subjective nonsense. Get your facts straight.

I have nothing against horse archers, but I love historical facts more than emotional, romantic and subjective nonsense.

If anyone spreads emotional, romantic and subjective nonsense here it's you. I don't want horse archers to be overpowered too, but you literally want horse archers to be underpowered in the mod just because they don't fit your fantasy world where you can defeat a horde of horse archers with a single knight unit. Why don't you just tell them to remove horse archers from the mod? Wouldn't that be better for your fantasy world? Or why don't you personally remove them or reduce their stats when the mod is done and ready to play?




I don't know why am I even talking to a guy like you. Stop quoting me for the of this thread.

[Ltd.]

This discussion is going in the wrong direction.

I am a big fan of horse-archery, but the last thing I would like to see are horse-archers who can kill anyone and everyone. It was not their role and it would make the game boring. If you are fighting against unarmored peasants, then yes, arrows will hurt a lot, but that is not going to happen in our mod. However, you won't see entire armies made up of knights or very heavy units alone either.
We have to take a lot of things into consideration when balancing units, as this is a game. Even if a man is armored to the teeth , but his horse is unarmored, he obviously should take hits from arrows or any missile weapons, as we cannot depict only horses being killed.

Horse archers as well as any other unit will have their strengths and weaknesses. They should not be killing machines and they should not be flimsy units either. In reality it always depended on the circumstances and victories were achieved by the combination of several factors , several types of engagements, weather, location etc.

Ideally you won't see overpowered units able to kill half of the enemy all by themselves. That's the plan. So, to sum it up: as will be the case with any other unit, HAs will be very useful IF used wisely and correctly.

[Caucasian Iberia]

If missile units hurt so much than i think horse armor must be like technology which can be unlocked. and will be great to make missile unit range of fire as technology (like "better bows" or archery drills).

this mod will become most successful if you guys work hard on it. I think you will get pretty good income, just carry on like this.

[+Marius+]

These are some serious claims, did you participate in that battle?

Both Byzantine flanks were solid and the army was in an organized state until the heavy cavalry charge by the Seljuks, the horse archers had nothing to do with it.

Comparing horse archers with crossbowmen is beyond ridiculous, especially in open fields. I'm not even going to argue.

It is not about the comparison between them, it is about being exclusive about the usefulness of a particular warrior.

"A bunch of peasants with farming equipment" because it doesn't please you.

They obviously were, it was a hastly recruited army by Rus princes.
If the feudalized kingdoms in the west were forced to recruit peasants(nearly a third of the army at Leginca were miners), than so were probably the Rus.
They were far from having large professional armies by that point.

It is funny how you mention "recent historiography" and modern estimates when the numbers don't please you, you never mention that when it comes to Crusader chronicles somehow.

Not really, because the number estimates on the battles that I posted actually warn the reader of the exaggeration of numbers.

Apart from the battle of Ramla, which has absolutely reasonable numbers.

Ayyubid armies were far from being horse-archer based mobile armies no matter how much you want to portray them as such, period

I never stated that they were.

The Crusaders had slow, infantry-based armies that turned most of their defeats into massacres. The Seljuks on the other hand had mobile armies that allowed them to retreat without suffering too much casualties, they would easily retreat when they sensed the defeat.

Interesting then how the entire army of Saladin failed to escape at Montgisard or how the entire combined Seljuk force that came to relieve Antioch failed to reogranize after the crusaders sallied out and beat them.

Things are never so exlusive on the battlefields.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Crusade also known as peasants' crusade, the army (numbered 20.000-40.000) was almost completely destroyed, I know you are going to say that "they were mostly peasants!!" this is not my problem, they were a part of the crusades.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Xerigordon (totally destroyed)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Civetot (most killed, upwards of 60.000 by some accounts)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusad...le_of_Mersivan (most killed or enslaved)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Harim (10.000 killed)

Lol, the Peasants Crusade was never sanctioned by the Pope, it is not actually a crusade.
You are really using an argument of peasants getting slaughtered?
Also the numbers are obviously exaggerated, no way in hell did a common priest manage to transport tens of thousands of unorganized peasants across the continents.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle...rylaeum_(1097) Although the Turks (mostly horse archers with some heavy ghulam cavalryman) led by Kilij Arslan and Danishmend Ghazi were outnumbered in this battle 1 to 6 (or 1 to 8) by the Crusaders, they had less casualties because they managed to retreat before the battle turn into a massacre.

They were not really outnumbered, most of the Crusader army did not even engage properly.
The crusader numbers are obviously exaggerated, just as you stated before.

I mean seriously, Godfrey is mentioned as arriving with a force of 50 knights as some reinforcements...and they speak of tens of thousands of combatants.

Also if you actually read the articles you post;

"The Turks were terrified by the sight of their camp in flames, and by the ferocity and endurance of the knights, since the knights' armour protected them from arrows and even many sword cuts, and they promptly fled, abandoning their camp and forcing Kilij Arslan to withdraw from the battlefield."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle...rylaeum_(1147) (most killed)

Firstly, it was a heavy cavalry charge, secondly the HRE Emperor barely had 3000 men in their Italy campaigns, speaking of them having 20 000 men in a separate army is ludicrous.

An amazing victory for the Seljuk heavy cavalry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Melitene (most killed)

Not only were the Crusaders heavily outnumbered in that ambush, but it was, again, a melee, as the Armenians described.

A great victory for the Seljuk heavy cavalry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Harran (most killed)

A magnificent surprise heavy cavalry charge by the Seljuks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Damascus_(1148)

...that is a failed siege.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Al-Sannabra

Again, a melee(seeing a patter here yet?)

Also;

"The surviving Crusaders kept their cohesion and fell back to a hill west of the inland sea where they fortified their camp."

"Unable to annihilate the Crusaders, Mawdud watched them with his main army while sending raiding columns to ravage the countryside"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ager_Sanguinis

A proper melee battle against a larger Seljuk force.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Edessa

Another siege?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Inab

Do you even read the articles you post or do you just post stuff with a shovel?
That was an amazing crusader last stand.

Another siege?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle...e_Huleh_(1157)

Again, a surprise heavy cavalry charge.

This is just a tip of the iceberg

No, that is pretty much it

as guys like you tend to ignore the battles and parts of the history that don't please you.

I ignore nothing.

You put some major battles here, a few sieges and some minor raids and engagements that are basically unknown.

No mention of these two battles for some reason;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ascalon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Montgisard

I too can post loads of wiki links...whats the point?

The Crusaders had much, I mean MUCH more casualties compared to the Seljuks.

Nope.

If you take merely Ascalon, Montgisard, Arsuf, and Acre, you get at least a few tens of thousands of "Eastern" casualties.

They suffered devestating defeats

Nobody is denying that.
That is completely natural considering they were fighting in a completely foreign land immediately after travelling thousands of miles across land to get there.

and lost hundreds of thousands of men

...and you accuse me of being loose with numbers

First you mention exaggeration of numbers but now you swipe crusader casualties like flowers in the field, fully knowingly that most crusader armies probably did not exceed a few thousands.

I can bring more serious sources about these battles

I don't think so, you just made a wiki article list to prove the might of Seljuk horse archery without posting a single battle where the horse archers are mentioned as providing victory.

If anyone spreads emotional, romantic and subjective nonsense here it's you.

Oh, I am calm.
Don't you worry about me.

Seems to me someone else is getting illusive around here

but you literally want horse archers to be underpowered in the mod just because they don't fit your fantasy world where you can defeat a horde of horse archers with a single knight unit.

No, I simply do not want archers to be a main battle unit.
Which horse archers currently are, and they should not be.
There is barely a single major engagement after Carrhae where they actually took the day.

They should be what they actually are, a skirmishing unit.

Will you now accuse me of being a French lower because I want to nerf the longbowmen as well?

Why don't you just tell them to remove horse archers from the mod? Wouldn't that be better for your fantasy world? Or why don't you personally remove them or reduce their stats when the mod is done and ready to play?

I use horse archers in every single campaign I play, why would I want to remove them?

I don't know why am I even talking to a guy like you.

Because you became antagonized by my simple request to nerf archers.
It is you who replied to me and it is you who started this.

[Danishmend]

You are desperately dragging Ayyubids (Arsuf, Acre etc) into this again because the battles between the Seljuks and the Crusaders don't fit your agenda for obvious reasons, how many more times do I have to repeat that Ayyubids were far from representing mobile, horse-archer based armies?

To hell with it, ok you are right. I'm out