Medieval Kingdoms Total War: Kingdom of Jerusalem and Cyprus

[Teutonic]

Thanks for the preview The_Fawn_Rescuer. All of it looks really good. I really disliked the shields of the old maronites- the new ones look great!

Also, there will be mounted 3rd tier Poulain Knights too, right?

[The_Fawn_Rescuer]

Also, there will be mounted 3rd tier Poulain Knights too, right?

Yes. See the roster I posted a few days ago. All units will have a version in each tier. I would appreciate your feedback on that as well if you have any suggestions for changes.

[You_Guess_Who]

Some Tier new/redone units I'm working on:

Maronites and Urban Infantry:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Some of the Maronites' kettle helmet and the barbute doesn't fit with the headbands. Pick bigger headbands or smaller kettle helmets?

How with giving the Maronites a bit more Middle Eastern clothing? The trousers and shoes can use some more Middle-Eastern ones instead of Italian tight hose and shoes. In comparison, the Poulains looks more Outremer than the Maronites themselves.

[Teutonic]

Yes. See the roster I posted a few days ago. All units will have a version in each tier. I would appreciate your feedback on that as well if you have any suggestions for changes.

OK, that's great- I meant to ask about the tiers.

About the rosters there are few observations that I have. But first there is one thing I'd like to set out. There is a list which lists the military obligations of the secular lords, the Church, and various cities in the KoJ in terms of set quotas in the 1180s. Knights for the lords (who also bring unspecified numbers of sergeants), mostly sergeants for the Church, and sergeants for the cities. These numbers are quotas that represent the minimum troops that must be provided when the king calls- they do not represent directly the actual forces available. E.g. Oultrejordain was quite large, exposed and had a number of large and important fortresses and towns but owed just 60 knights for the king's army. One could assume this lordship was allowed to keep most of its force for its own defense.

Anyway, sorry for the digression, my main point for the roster is about the "sergeants". From what I wrote above it can be seen that the core minimum of an army of KoJ would be knights and sergeants. The sergeants are totally absent from the roster.
This could be on purpose. It can be said that "sergeant" is a catch all term for decent non-noble troops- i.e. not knights or levy. They can include relatives of knights almost as well trained and equipped and fighting mounted, spear/melee infantry, and the hugely important crossbowmen. Units currently present in the roster may be intended to represent the sergeants.
Also, for later eras post 1180s, troops like sergeants will continue to exist and fulfill similar functions.

- So, I wonder if this is your view regarding the supporting forces (sergeants) of KoJC?

- Another thing I noticed, connected with above, is the lack (except Hospitaller caravan and Turcopoles) of support troops, specifically assigned to the military orders- sergeants and crossbows. Is that on purpose?

- And lastly for now ( ), shouldn't Turcopoles be available in general to the faction, not specifically for the Hospitallers?

By the way, really like the different Generals.

[The_Fawn_Rescuer]

Some of the Maronites' kettle helmet and the barbute doesn't fit with the headbands. Pick bigger headbands or smaller kettle helmets?

How with giving the Maronites a bit more Middle Eastern clothing? The trousers and shoes can use some more Middle-Eastern ones instead of Italian tight hose and shoes. In comparison, the Poulains looks more Outremer than the Maronites themselves.

I want them to have a very 'italian' influence, since Italian fashion dominated in the crusader states. That being said, you're right they don't look 'eastern' enough. I will fix that.

OK, that's great- I meant to ask about the tiers.

About the rosters there are few observations that I have. But first there is one thing I'd like to set out. There is a list which lists the military obligations of the secular lords, the Church, and various cities in the KoJ in terms of set quotas in the 1180s. Knights for the lords (who also bring unspecified numbers of sergeants), mostly sergeants for the Church, and sergeants for the cities. These numbers are quotas that represent the minimum troops that must be provided when the king calls- they do not represent directly the actual forces available. E.g. Oultrejordain was quite large, exposed and had a number of large and important fortresses and towns but owed just 60 knights for the king's army. One could assume this lordship was allowed to keep most of its force for its own defense.

Anyway, sorry for the digression, my main point for the roster is about the "sergeants". From what I wrote above it can be seen that the core minimum of an army of KoJ would be knights and sergeants. The sergeants are totally absent from the roster.
This could be on purpose. It can be said that "sergeant" is a catch all term for decent non-noble troops- i.e. not knights or levy. They can include relatives of knights almost as well trained and equipped and fighting mounted, spear/melee infantry, and the hugely important crossbowmen. Units currently present in the roster may be intended to represent the sergeants.
Also, for later eras post 1180s, troops like sergeants will continue to exist and fulfill similar functions.

- So, I wonder if this is your view regarding the supporting forces (sergeants) of KoJC?

- Another thing I noticed, connected with above, is the lack (except Hospitaller caravan and Turcopoles) of support troops, specifically assigned to the military orders- sergeants and crossbows. Is that on purpose?

- And lastly for now ( ), shouldn't Turcopoles be available in general to the faction, not specifically for the Hospitallers?

By the way, really like the different Generals.

I have been wrestling with the idea of renaming the 'ministeriales' units 'poulain sergeants' because I think that might fit them better. I think I will end up doing that. As far as 'sergeants' is generally considered, military obligations (especially in KoJ) are a whole other can of worms and we don't want to go too far down that rabbit hole. Suffice it to say that the 'Maronites' unit would at least in part be made up of those kind of soldiers, but also there would be sergeants among the 'knight' units, and crossbowmen, etc. For the purposes of the mod I have to name them something, and I like choosing interesting names rather than making everything 'sergeants' or 'spearmen' or whatnot. Your average melee sword 'sergeants' role (similar to western factions like France) is filled by the 'French Regiment' unit.

As to the limitations on the roster, I decided that, rather than have re-skinned identical units for the poulains, crusaders, hospitallers, and templars, that I would try and make each one of those factions within this faction serve their own unique purpose. Not only would it be tiring for me to make 3 tiers of 4-times the same unit (just skinned differently), I think it would be more boring to play as well. The way the roster is now, the player can't really rely on ONLY poulains, crusaders, hospitallers, or templars--you have to combine them in some way, because none of those rosters can really make a complete army. I did this to reflect how historically the armies of outremer always had to rely on the military orders and western crusaders to augment their manpower.

Here's the basic idea:

-Poulains
-supplies core troops, mostly light and medium, a few more reliable soldiers like italian spearmen and french regiment
-Crusaders
-heavy versions of mostly the same troops as poulains
-Military orders
-elite troops

-The military orders are broken up between support troops (hospitallers) and melee troops (templars). I did this, again, so that there would be more to choosing which to build in your provinces (in the eventual campaign) than just how the soldiers look. I chose hospitallers to specialize in support troops not only because of their 'hospitaller' role, but also because their order always placed a special emphasis on missile troops. For instance, the Turcopolier (officer in charge of mercenaries) was the 4th highest-ranking officer in the Hospitaller order, and one of only 4 knight-brothers who could lead other knights on campaign (the others being the Master, Marshal, and Galfonier). The templars, on the other hand, were always seen as first among the military orders by most laymen, and represented the height of chivalry and military badassery, that is why I chose them to specialize in melee troops. In reality, of course, both orders would probably have had much the same troops, but I think this way makes the game more interesting.


-And, yes, I will re-color the turcopoles to make them a generic mercenary unit available to all eastern christian factions. The hospitaller version will have better stats and will only be available to KJC, Antioch, and the Latin Empire.

[Teutonic]

Thank you for the detailed reply and explanation of your vision.

About the French Regiment, I read that it was made of 100 knights and some crossbowmen.

It's good to hear about the turcopoles.

As for the Maronites, I was thinking similar thoughts like You_Know_Who. They were (and are) fierce people form the mountains of Lebanon and I pictured them differently. The way this unit looks now seems more appropriate to be called Poulain Infantry/Spears/Sergeants. Something like that. When you "make them more eastern" you can keep the original unit but rename it, and the more eastern one can become Maronites. The same model can even be given bows for archer unit or be put on horses for cavalry. Like a Maronite mini-faction within faction. This could be more relevant for the Antioch faction which controlled most of Lebanon (Tripoli) post 1212 AD.

Also, I assume the Syrian crossbowmen are what were the Poulain crossbowmen. They were one of my favourite units and personally I think the old name makes more sense.

And still speaking of name changes, I noticed you changed the name of the Ministeriales in the list

[The_Fawn_Rescuer]

Thank you for the detailed reply and explanation of your vision.

About the French Regiment, I read that it was made of 100 knights and some crossbowmen.

It's good to hear about the turcopoles.

As for the Maronites, I was thinking similar thoughts like You_Know_Who. They were (and are) fierce people form the mountains of Lebanon and I pictured them differently. The way this unit looks now seems more appropriate to be called Poulain Infantry/Spears/Sergeants. Something like that. When you "make them more eastern" you can keep the original unit but rename it, and the more eastern one can become Maronites. The same model can even be given bows for archer unit or be put on horses for cavalry. Like a Maronite mini-faction within faction. This could be more relevant for the Antioch faction which controlled most of Lebanon (Tripoli) post 1212 AD.

Also, I assume the Syrian crossbowmen are what were the Poulain crossbowmen. They were one of my favourite units and personally I think the old name makes more sense.

And still speaking of name changes, I noticed you changed the name of the Ministeriales in the list

When I said "make them more eastern" what I meant to say was that I'll "add more eastern variation." Some variations within the unit will still have more western style clothing

[Teutonic]

When I said "make them more eastern" what I meant to say was that I'll "add more eastern variation." Some variations within the unit will still have more western style clothing

This is what I thought you meant. I didn't think you'll be remaking it completely. From what I understand this roster is pretty much done and only little things here and there may be tweaked. From the screenshots it looks even better than before

[The_Fawn_Rescuer]

Here's some small tweaks to add more eastern variation for the later poulain units:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

And just for you, Teutonic, Poulain Mounted Knights Tier 3

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Teutonic]

The Poulains look very good- clearly the overall colour scheme has been revamped. Also, I am a fan of painted armour- the helmets in this case. It looks natural, not garish and animated or modern.

The Tier 3 knights (still called men-at-arms I hope) also look great. There used to be an issue with plate breastplate over byzantine hauberk, with the byzantine armour which was mostly under the plate sticking partially over it. Now I can't see it, it looks very clean.

PS I just noticed that previously I wrote that I disliked the old Maronite shields. I like the new ones, but before I actually meant the old Ministeriales shields. They looked completely different from the shields of all other KoJC units. Now with the revamped colour scheme they might look better, even if they haven't been changed.

[Tasty Leaf]

In the campaign would it be possible to spawn a crusading unit for a set amount of turns (let's say for two years in game). The units can vary from common footmen to mounted knights, but they are only free for a set amount of time, after this period you must pay for them if they are not disbanded. Historically, Christians would come from their homes to fight the Muslims and conquer the Holy Land and take pilgrimage to holy sites. Not all would stay for a long time, some would stay for a year or two and fight to redeem their sins etc. Not necessarily for money.
Here is a scenario of this taking place in game:
I train my army in Jerusalem, it is quite small with only around eight units. Two turns later I receive one unit of crusader sergeants and one military order knights unit, they spawn at my coastal settlement of Jaffa. I do not pay for their recruitment but they have perhaps no upkeep, or half. After eight turns (two years in game) their upkeep returns to its original value.

[Visarion]

Interesting mix

[Teutonic]

In the campaign would it be possible to spawn a crusading unit for a set amount of turns (let's say for two years in game). The units can vary from common footmen to mounted knights, but they are only free for a set amount of time, after this period you must pay for them if they are not disbanded. Historically, Christians would come from their homes to fight the Muslims and conquer the Holy Land and take pilgrimage to holy sites. Not all would stay for a long time, some would stay for a year or two and fight to redeem their sins etc. Not necessarily for money.
Here is a scenario of this taking place in game:
I train my army in Jerusalem, it is quite small with only around eight units. Two turns later I receive one unit of crusader sergeants and one military order knights unit, they spawn at my coastal settlement of Jaffa. I do not pay for their recruitment but they have perhaps no upkeep, or half. After eight turns (two years in game) their upkeep returns to its original value.

This is a good idea in general (though I don't agree with the inclusion of the military order knights in your example) but I don't know enough of the modding to know if it's technically feasible.

A simpler way could be no recruitment costs but higher upkeep. The reason for this is as follows:

Basically the way the military forces of the kingdom were set up was by first setting up the financial conditions and then assigning to them troops.
E.g. if a lord wants a knight to be always available to him he first must have a fief already in place. He grants this fief to the knight so the he can draw an income from it to finance himself and the sergeants he brings along to war. The fief can be olive groves, tolls from a city gate, etc.
The Patriarch of Jerusalem is able to provide the king with crossbowmen and footmen because he was first provided with thousands of acres of arable lands and other commercial assets.

All this is specifically for the feudal force of the KoJC. The principle is similar for the Military Orders, though the execution different. It doesn't count for mercs, armed pilgrims, and allies.


In short, we can assume the bulk of the local forces are maintained with funds already allocated in the local economy. When armed pilgrims (knights, squires, footmen) arrived from the West, they don't cost for recruitment but they still need to be maintained- war is expensive activity. This has to be done with hard cash. So, in game this can be simulated by making the "Crusaders' " maintenance more expensive. If they are too expensive the player can disband them afetr a couple of turns or send them on a suicide missions.

Another way could be an event. A pop up window appears saying "A unit of brave knights has arrived from the West. They will stay in the Holy Lands for a season then leave. Do you want to include them in your armies". If you say yes you'll have to pay higher maintenance for them until they disband.

[The_Fawn_Rescuer]

Roster updated. See original post

[Slytacular]

I would change the northmen to using heaters. Viking style round shields are way outdated by now.

[You_Guess_Who]

Either that, or smaller iron-reinforced wooden targes. As of now they look more Russian than Norwegian.

I like how you use eastern tunics as additional tabard over the mail. Giving the units some flavor. Also how you give them urban militias comprised of locals.

Oh right, some of your Crusader Crossbows have missing arms.

[The_Fawn_Rescuer]

Oh right, some of your Crusader Crossbows have missing arms.

Ugh, that's annoying. I accidentally used an older pic of them. That's already been fixed

[Teutonic]

Looks very good, great roster. I noticed that dismounted Tier 3 Poulain Knights (or are they still called men-at-arms?) are also with lances, unlike before. I noticed it now even though it was probably shown before.

[Kjertesvein]

Viking style round shields are way outdated by now.

Either that, or smaller iron-reinforced wooden targes. As of now they look more Russian than Norwegian.

It would be a folly to presume we know what was the case when we don't have enough evidence to make that case. We have 6 large wooden bucklers from Norway and Denmark, most likely ~13th century, constructed in a more rigid fashion, jet fundamentally similar to viking shields. Meaning that it wasn't a rediscovery of old equipment, but a continuation. We have loads of round shields in Europeans artwork. We have 1000s of them ordered specifically to the French navy in 1295. We have but loads of large painted targes in the English Tower inventory from the 14th century. We have eyewitness account from 1171 stating "round red shields, bound about with iron."

You guys still have a point. The fashion of the nobility, which is what is reflected in art work, show heater shields. As Rasmussen state, it's a matter of quality of the troops.

I think it is important to distinguish between professional warriors (viking as profession and hird/huscarl warriors) which would likely have the newest up to date equipment and the drafted-for-campaign (leding) free farmers, which supplied their own weaponry. The free farmers would have shield + sword and/or axe, so here we can definitely expect round shields quite far up in time. As farmers had to provide their own equipment it was probably also produced fairly locally, whereas the viking & hird/huscarl warriors could have equipment from vastly different geographical areas.

I would hypothesis that its first when you have a substantial amount of german craftsmen in the Scandinavian towns, who really starting to pop up everywhere in Scandinavia beginning around ~1100 and really becoming town dominant in the ~1300's (especially Hansa merchants), that the transition from viking age- to middle age equipment would have ended within "leding" armies. Thus ~1100-1300 AD would be a gradual transition period between viking and middle age outlook of a Scandinavian leding army. Likely Denmark was affected earliest and people living close to major trading town in Norway and Sweden with german merchants (Bergen, Stockholm) would have access to the new than the more inland population.
You had to arrive with a shield - so far as I remember the Scandinavian landscape laws don't specify its shape or size.


So how this transition would be working around within communities of Norwegian, Danish and Norse-Gaels people in Shetland, Orkney, Scotland and Ireland is quite interesting.


Conservatism in contrast to new "Medieval" influx from the continent:
Hansa influence from Bergen in Norway to the Western Norse.
Influence from England? (Both domestic english and german merchants moving to England and the ideas going west?)
Focus on own specialization? - the Irish through time had weapon specializations within their own "conservative" guerrilla style of fighting. That influence could also greatly influence the local Scandinavians.

Niels Rasmussen, lecturer in medieval studies, Denmark. https://myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic...r=asc&start=20

"warlike men in the Danish style, dressed all over in iron, some with long loricae, some with iron lames artfully sewn together, and also with round red shields, reinforced all about with iron, men just as iron in their hearts as in their arms, in ordered battalions."

1171, Giraldus describing battalions of Norwegians and Norse Islander mercenaries in Dublin.

In the Norwegian text King's Mirror (mid 13th century) we see the description of 'wide shields', as the best sort for ship combat. Suggesting larger shields than normal.

Would most elite warriors use heater shields, yes. Do we know that with any level of certainty what was the case? Nope. Did people still use "viking" equipment? Yes, people still used fundamentally the same "viking" equipment until the 1300s, as Nils states. We see this in ships used, such as longships and the surviving targest, even though the continent had turned to the Cogs and smaller targes (see i.33 manuscript).

~Wille

[Teutonic]

Last night I compared the old roster with the new one and (finally!) noticed that the mounted crossbowmen are not in the revamped one. I really liked them and hoped they will be left in the new roster. Mounted crossbowmen could be used as a medium cavalry to compliment the Crusader part of the roster, like the Coustiliers, Mounted sergeants, etc., for other factions.