Re: NEW FACTIONS UNITS ROSTERS
Quote:
Originally Posted by j.a.luna
And also make some specific units for not include factions...mercenary bulgar cavalry(with bows and strong charge), swedens axemen(men with big round shields and axes,mix into viking style and new european style), some volga bulgaria units,irish,prussians or baltics...
Sweden Axemen???? :huh:
There was no such unit at that time in that area as you described. Remember, accuracy, Mate, accuracy :bigboss:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alavaria
Just put the really low tier Spear Militia or something in that place...
That's the idea if they're are removed.
Re: NEW FACTIONS UNITS ROSTERS
hahaha yes mate, i say it for say something haha but we can search resources about historical units for non factions include and especifics regions...but first we must say that units must be remove for have more free slots...do you agree about the list or you will change(quit/add) some units???:whistling
Re: NEW FACTIONS UNITS ROSTERS
Quote:
Originally Posted by
j.a.luna
hahaha yes mate, i say it for say something haha
Please don't.
Re: NEW FACTIONS UNITS ROSTERS
Quote:
Originally Posted by
PerXX
Please don't.
Yes mate, i will search information about sweden units amd other non factions include..the ancient units model of gotlands with two handed sword is historical?
Re: NEW FACTIONS UNITS ROSTERS
I have all I need for Scandinavia. Don't waste your time with it ;)
Re: NEW FACTIONS UNITS ROSTERS
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Lifthrasir
I have all I need for Scandinavia. Don't waste your time with it ;)
Ok perfect Lifth, is good know it, i would like see the new roster for nordics in the new patch..:tongue:
And your opinion about the remove units list? You add someone more?
Re: NEW FACTIONS UNITS ROSTERS
Apart from reworked scandinavian rosters and new stratmap models for, can you tell us what else can we excpect Lifth?
Re: NEW FACTIONS UNITS ROSTERS
To be short, at the start Denmark will be a mix of "traditional" units and western units while Norway would be more "traditional". With the time going, Denmark will be quite westernized while Norway will change but in a slower maner. Norway will also have a lot less access to cavalry units but I still need to think how to compensate that for the gameplay.
Re: NEW FACTIONS UNITS ROSTERS
Thats actualy very good representation of scandinavia. Looking forward to it. Btw, you can give them same cavalry units, just make lower avalability for norway in EDB. Thats one of posibilities.
Re: NEW FACTIONS UNITS ROSTERS
I think that with svenner is enought and maybe they could hire some mercenary knights near to Hamburg(german knights) or give them some stronger infantry
Re: NEW FACTIONS UNITS ROSTERS
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Lifthrasir
Norway will also have a lot less access to cavalry units but I still need to think how to compensate that for the gameplay.
Clearly more sword/axe infantry in the age of Linear Charge Simulator battlefields.
1 Attachment(s)
Re: NEW FACTIONS UNITS ROSTERS
Attachment 338613
About bulgarian cavalry,look at this image about heavy bulgar cavalry versus byzantine army, they usually used heavy cavalry and also have good infantry, mixed into byzantine and stepparians armies...
For this when sship can, it could make bulgarian heavy cavalry and infantry as mercenaries in bulgar regions, not only the ''ugly and poor historically'' bulgar brigands..
Re: NEW FACTIONS UNITS ROSTERS
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MWY
I think I read about them at a battle in wikipedia. Might have been a mistranslation perhaps.. I couldnt find the wikipedia link in a quick search and there are different discussions about the unit.
Here:
http://oldforum.paradoxplaza.com/for...cussion/page43
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...he-XVI-Century
This source also mentions pikemen specifically:
http://unincountry.blogspot.de/2015/...d-dynasty.html
@executior: Most of the muslim rosters have been the same, but the transitions are now better and I think all units are enabled in the campaign. I don't think we need to change the early rosters much further, the muslim factions are still lacking late game units after the mamluk transition. Moors are especially lacking in evolution, but that's kind of a problem because it was basically the same in history.
Sorry for opening old topic, but i found something
Quote:
The occupying forces of the Almoravids were made up largely of horsemen, totaling no less than 20,000. Into the major cities of al-Andalus, Seville (7,000),Granada (1,000), Cordoba (1,000), 5,000 bordering Castile and 4,000 in western Andalusia, succeeding waves of horsemen, in conjunction with the garrisons that had been left there after the Battle of Sagrajas, made responding, for the Taifaemirs, difficult. Soldiers on foot used bows & arrows, sabres, pikes, javelins, each protected by a cuirass of Moroccan leather and iron-spiked shields.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yusuf_ibn_Tashfin
https://books.google.sk/books?id=RhG...oravid&f=false
Quote:
On the battlefield pikes were often used in "hedgehog" formations, particularly by troops such as rebel peasants and militias who had not received a great deal of training in tactical manoeuvres with the weapon. In these, the troops simply stood and held their pikes out in the direction of the enemy, sometimes standing in great circles or squares with the men facing out in all directions so that the enemy was confronted by a forest of bristling pikeheads, and could not attack the formation from the sides or rear.Better-trained troops were capable of using the pike in an aggressive attack, each rank of pikemen being trained to hold their pikes so that they presented enemy infantry with four or five layers of spearheads bristling from the front of the formation.As long as it kept good order, such a formation could roll right over enemy infantry, but had its own weaknesses – as the men were all moving forward, they were all facing in a single direction and could not easily turn to protect the vulnerable flanks or rear of the formation, and the huge block of men carrying such unwieldy spears could be difficult to manoeuvre, other than for straightforward movement.As a result, such mobile pike formations sought to have supporting troops protect their flanks, or would manoeuvre to smash the enemy before they could themselves be outflanked. There was also the risk that the formation would become disordered, leading to a confused melee in which pikemen had the vulnerabilities mentioned above.
http://www.medievalwarfare.info/weapons.htm#pikes
Quote:
The dariyah or sariyah was an infantry pike around four metres long
page 16
https://www.scribd.com/doc/149940560...hates-862-1098
Re: NEW FACTIONS UNITS ROSTERS
None of those are actual historical sources.
The book you cited is a fantasy novel, not a history book.
Re: NEW FACTIONS UNITS ROSTERS
Re: NEW FACTIONS UNITS ROSTERS
For sship team and their historical researchs here there a valuable and interesting link about normans and their armies...
http://www.albion-swords.com/articles/norman.htm
Re: NEW FACTIONS UNITS ROSTERS
Quote:
Originally Posted by
j.a.luna
about normans and their armies...
A race untamed;
"Their leaders are particularly generous thanks to their desire for fame. It is also a race skilful in flattery, absorbed in the study of eloquence, so that even the boys are skillful speakers, a race untamed except and if it is held by the yoke of justice. They endure the fatigue, hunger and cold, whenever fate throws it upon them. Are absorbed with the hunting and falconry, and they particularly like horses and all the trappings(skills) of war." - Geoffrey Malaterra about the Normans
Re: NEW FACTIONS UNITS ROSTERS
Quote:
Originally Posted by
+Marius+
None of those are actual historical sources.
The book you cited is a fantasy novel, not a history book.
I think i know, where is a problem: for moslim pikes is used word lances (even for cavalry and infantry)
The Almoravids launched a second attack on the plain of Mindaswhen the Almohads came down from the Two Rocks into Zanataterritory to “punish Zanata rebels,” the Bani Ilumi and the Bani Abdal-Wad. The Almohads moved into square formations in the openplain. In the first rank were the infantry, armed with long lances andprotected by armor. Behind them were soldiers carrying shields andshort lances and men carrying leather bags filled with rocks and slings.In the middle of the square were the Almohad cavalry....
https://www.academia.edu/14577573/Ro...ings_of_Jihad_
solution (maybe, it needs to confirm by spanish or arabic speaking member of forum.(or do myself research :) )
The Muslim soldier’s primary weapon was, as in Western Europe,
the lance, although it was used in a more flexible way—not just as a
shock weapon. It is also clear that they used both the lance, couched
under the right arm, and the spear, which was thrown. Other forms
of polearms were also certainly used by Muslim infantry but, though
it is clear that they were used, they are not easily identifiable.
https://books.google.sk/books?id=jdc...fantry&f=false
Re: NEW FACTIONS UNITS ROSTERS
Most likely is that the lance is interchangeable with spear.
Meaning those were all just spears of various lengths.
I have yet to see any actual evidence of Muslim pike formations during this period apart from the army of Saladin.
Re: NEW FACTIONS UNITS ROSTERS
Quote:
Originally Posted by
+Marius+
I thought Poland has quite a number of found longbows dated 10th-12th century?
http://arcus-lucznictwo.pl/index.php?id=47
The tallest one is 200 cm, probably one of the tallest bows ever found.
Also, are you sure there was a lack of composite bows in Poland?
In the Balkans, nearly all medieval bow findings are composite, though, the area was surrounded by the Avars, later Magyars and Bulgarians.
There's a very well researched new academic book on the Polish medieval arms http://historia.org.pl/2010/08/06/br...acki-recenzja/
The topic was extensively explored in the past (at least 200 years of research), but I think this book is the most accurate, strippin down overhype of the previous authors and sticking to the sources - litterary and especially archeological.
I recall that indeed the use of the bows in Poland is poorly documented. For written sources: why to bother to mention such peasant weapon while you have knightly swords and lances. For archeology: bows decay fast while metal-weapons linger. Neverthelss, the composite bow was not present, and there were no particularly famous archer formations.
As far as crossbows are concerned, they become the main weapon in 15th century, I doubt we have documented use already in 12th century - I need to check it at home.
A classical book on the Polish knights can be found here: http://wizard.vipserv.org/books/Nadolski%20A.-%20Bro%F1%20i%20stroje%20rycerstwa%20polskiego%20w%20%9Credniowieczu%20(PDF).pdf but don't get it wrong as far as bows are concerned: it's about knights, while bows were used mainly by the lower classes.