Late Era Campaign 1370

**Point Blank** · September 07, 2018, 03:51 PM

I think I could put something together (y)

**achilles-91** · September 08, 2018, 02:32 PM

Will timurids be playable? If not, why not move date to 1380 so that they are playable? They are very interesting. If you plan to remove some units and add new ones, i am will to help with list. I am very interested in late medieval era.

Another thing, can anyone provide me good map of 1370 ad?

**Point Blank** · September 08, 2018, 03:32 PM

No reason they can't be playable. We can talk about some new units after the initial release. There are a few ok maps online, just Google it.

**achilles-91** · September 08, 2018, 04:04 PM

I've asked you probably because I couldnt find authentic one on goggle. But nevermind il find it on other place.

**achilles-91** · September 09, 2018, 04:59 PM

Do you have something in mind how to portray Iran? Will Timurids be horde or they will have some citye? And what else factions could be in iran? It would be too much 'rebel' space between Jalairids and Timurids. Maybe adding Sarbadars between them? Im aware its too much work, im just asking about your vision of it

**Judeman266** · September 13, 2018, 07:49 PM

Originally Posted by Point Blank

Greetings,

I am currently putting together a quick Late Era Campaign that begins in 1370. At this point it will not be especially historical, but more of an opportunity to play with Late Era units in a reasonable setting. A more historical version will follow in the next update

In this version, the Mongols have been reset as The Golden Horde, while Kwarezm is now the Jalairid Sultanate. Would anyone like to take a stab at updating the descr_strat.txt and campaign_script.txt files for the Late Era? I could do it myself, but right now I have plenty of other things to do driving things towards a release as quickly as possible. I have attached those two files as they are for the High Era Campaign (1220). Note that the campaign script has been broken into two files because the upload limit to TWC is 1MB.

For descr_strat, the units, buildings and leaders would need to be brought up to Late Era level, plus the Teutonic Order and Golden Horde would have established regions rather than appear by event. For the campaign_script, I think the only change would be to remove the script sections dealing with those 2 events.

Would very much like to add this in if I can get permission: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...5#post15520485

In the High Campaign that already exists, the Teutonic Order already has regions, so that's one less thing you have to do.

**merocaine** · September 25, 2018, 03:45 PM

Hi PB,

Is it correct that all cities have the plague when you start the 1370 campaign?

**Point Blank** · September 26, 2018, 02:45 AM

Thats WiP and not playable at this point.

**Mamlaz** · October 20, 2018, 03:07 PM

What changes are being planned for gunpowder weaponry?

I suggest;

Handgunners should have a range of 120, like ordinary archers, with an increased missile damage of 22.

Arquebusiers should have a range of 180ish, like elite archers, with a missile damage of 26.

Musketeers should have a range of 200ish, with a missile damage of 30.

However, they should have a reduced number of men in their troop, at least a -10% or even -20%.

**Point Blank** · October 21, 2018, 03:20 AM

Wasn't planning on making any changes, the ranges in the mod are longer that historically actually, and the damage levels are about right given the KE at impact, reduced in penetration effect due to being spread over a ball rather than delivered by a point like a crossbow bolt. It is then increased somewhat to take account of the shock effect of being hit by a high-velocity weapon, which other medieval missiles didn't cause. The handgun attack, for example, is about right when compared to a heavy crossbow or arbalest etc.

There are 3 different types of Arquebus - Early Arquebus, Arquebus and Late Arquebus, each with faster reload than the previous one, higher muzzle velocity, accuracy and damage. The last one benefits from the introduction of Corned gunpowder as well. On top of that, reload times are as close as possible to reality given the animation constraints, and better-quality shooters reload faster as well.

**Mamlaz** · October 21, 2018, 04:28 AM

The accuracy of both the handgonne, arquebus and the early musket is very underrated.

We have stories of marksmen taking out people at siege distances as early as the 1420s;

"During the campaign to relieve the English siege of Orleans in 1429, the French had in their ranks a famous gunner names Master Jean le Cannonier who used a coulverine to great effect. A coulverine could be either a small cannon or a handgonne. Despite Master Jean's name, this coulverine was most likely a handgonne because he specialized in picking off individual Englishmen. In one instance he was ordered to shoot down a particularly large and well armored Englishman who was causing trouble in a fight and did so with no apparent trouble. When he went with Joan of Arc's army to retake the castles on the Loire, Master Jean shot several of the best English defenders off the walls. It is difficult to imagine that Master Jean used an artillery piece, as there is no evidence in this period of any carriage or mounting that would have been sufficiently manouverable to aim at an individual." - Medieval Handgonnes: The first black powder infantry weapons By Sean McLachlan, page 76

The velocity achieved by 15th century handgonnes was up to 250-300 m/s, and the arquebus got up to 500 m/s, even with the greater penetrative power of arrowheads and boltheads compared to musketballs, the musketball resulted in a far graver wound if penetrated.

This is why I believe that the firearms units should have an increased range and damage, but have a reduced number of men in the troop.

**M.A.E** · October 21, 2018, 04:57 AM

Originally Posted by Mamlaz

The accuracy of both the handgonne, arquebus and the early musket is very underrated.

We have stories of marksmen taking out people at siege distances as early as the 1420s;

"During the campaign to relieve the English siege of Orleans in 1429, the French had in their ranks a famous gunner names Master Jean le Cannonier who used a coulverine to great effect. A coulverine could be either a small cannon or a handgonne. Despite Master Jean's name, this coulverine was most likely a handgonne because he specialized in picking off individual Englishmen. In one instance he was ordered to shoot down a particularly large and well armored Englishman who was causing trouble in a fight and did so with no apparent trouble. When he went with Joan of Arc's army to retake the castles on the Loire, Master Jean shot several of the best English defenders off the walls. It is difficult to imagine that Master Jean used an artillery piece, as there is no evidence in this period of any carriage or mounting that would have been sufficiently manouverable to aim at an individual." - Medieval Handgonnes: The first black powder infantry weapons By Sean McLachlan, page 76

The velocity achieved by 15th century handgonnes was up to 250-300 m/s, and the arquebus got up to 500 m/s, even with the greater penetrative power of arrowheads and boltheads compared to musketballs, the musketball resulted in a far graver wound if penetrated.

This is why I believe that the firearms units should have an increased range and damage, but have a reduced number of men in the troop.

Less men =less volley of fire and that will break the tactics of Skirmishing i think to keep numbers with buffed Stats and upkeep and it will not break gameplay bec it will be at last turns or late game and mostly only wealthy factions could make an army of muskets not every one an do it,and another effect that when using combination armies in transition period between say archers and handgun it will be no use of using 80 handgunners when i have better crossbows of 120 men faster and more efficient it must be worth upgrading.

**Mamlaz** · October 21, 2018, 05:06 AM

Originally Posted by M.A.E

Less men =less volley of fire and that will break the tactics of Skirmishing

Originally Posted by M.A.E

it will be no use of using 80 handgunners when i have better crossbows of 120 men faster and more efficient it must be worth upgrading.

I disagree.

With the increased missile attack values I proposed, the gunners will be deadly enough even with smaller numbers.

You are also forgetting that only the first 2 or 3 ranks of the troop of gunners actually fire in M2TW, so unless you plan to stretch your gunners across the field, you will get at least one or two lines not firing.

That, or perhaps rather the number of the troop should be kept, but the replenishment rate for recruitment should be slowed and expenses of purchase and upkeep increased.

**Point Blank** · October 21, 2018, 06:55 AM

As I said, I am happy with the firearm attack values, they are generated by working out the kinetic energy and using the mass of the ball etc. The ranges are historically accurate. Certainly late medieval / early renaissance guns were superior in that regard to later versions such as the iconic Brown Bess musket used in the Napoleonic wars, due to a tighter fit between the ball and the bore, and that is what partially accounts for the lower rate of fire.

I could enforce a shallower formation for gun users in the Formations file but then would need to reduce the number of men in the unit yes. Unfortunately the animations used by M2TW are generally ahistorical - the revolving ranks one is just broken (have tried many fixes and they only go part way to helping) and the one we use now, a kind of fire-by-rank, was not used until the mid 1570's and then far from generally. I am investigating other fixes including altering those anims as well.

A deeper formation is not necessarily a disadvantage once in combat because it gives a bit of 'padding' when it comes to absorbing casualties - men from the rear ranks filter forward to fill spaces left by casualties - otherwise they spend too much time rearranging themselves instead of shooting.

The prices and replenishment rates are fine and are meant to represent the advantages in training time etc gained by using firearms. As Late Professionals, gun units are also trained one turn faster than other missile ones of the same quality. We even figured in the advantages / disadvantages of the prices of powder and shot as compared to arrows / bolts when working things out.

There were many long conversations behind the scenes when formulating these things.

Also note that the accuracy values vary by weapon and unit quality such that bows, for example, start out with Peasant-quality shooters having very low accuracy but increasing the most of all as shooter quality increases, whereas guns start out as the highest initial accuracy (followed by crossbows) but accuracy increments less per quality level. Thus, elite bowmen are the most accurate of all, whereas Average gunners might still have an edge over Average bowmen. I guess I could put a graph together displaying all this. Range, the distance where one can give accurate and useful fire, also increases for all missile weapons by quality level. In fact we used a value somewhere between the effective and maximum ranges for all weapons concerned. We though about figuring in the 'weapon range', the distance where the weapon was most often used in practice, but for the purposes of this simulation decided against it.

Finally, ammunition dispersion is also considered. That is, no matter how good the shooter is, there is a certain built-in limit to accuracy of each weapon such that, even if shooting at the same target at a given range, the arrow/bolt/ball/javelin will still strike it at a different point, and this effect worsens with range (which is part of the issue with guns). Better-quality weapons as used by increasingly better shooters are less subject to this effect though.

All these factors are calculated in as scientific a manner as possible and included in the missile model, I am pretty sure we got most of them to the extent that M2TW allows it.