Biased balance in Kingdoms? An über rant

[Francebunkerer]

Hello there children. It's time to voice one's own biased oponion on a seemingly biased depiction of something.
Playing Kingdoms, which I nonetheless find very nice, I noticed some weird things. In my opinion certain factions were given advantages beyond the point of reason, this means these factions are frickin' überstrong.

Let's take the crusades campaign for instance.
Certain new Turkish units, by which I mean mounted and dismounted Hasham, are a bit heavy for Eastern factions. C'mon dismounted Hashams beat up dismounted knights of Jerusalem which is not cool. Even Ghulams managed to beat knights of Antiocheia in my tests. With the mounted versions, the heavy Muslim troops haven't got that much of a disadvantage. And any drawbacks are compensated by huge heat mali considering the crusaders.
Now the unique units are better but limited in numbers.
By way of comparison the crusaders haven't got much advantage in their strong fields but a large number of weaker troop types.

I can't say I find it very cool.

Other than that, the Irish seem a bit strong. And the Apache compared to the Mesoamerican civilisations.(John Wayne?)

[IrAr]

Heavy for Eastern Factions? The East invented heavy cavalry! Sure, their charge isn't as good as that of the Latins but they should be fine going toe-to-toe!
The Irish should be somewhat strong, especially in this timeframe in which they have assimilated Viking and Norman military traditions.
The Apache defied colonists for another 300 years!

[Francebunkerer]

The East invented heavy cavalry

I can hardly believe the direction did.
Haha, bad pun joke I know. 8[
And inventing something doesn't mean being the best at it.

And I keep the oponion the knights were heavier than the rest.
+ Mentioning the wort Arabs, the first word which is springs to mind isn't heavy cavalry. For me at least.

The Irish should be somewhat strong, especially in this timeframe in which they have assimilated Viking and Norman military traditions.

The strong units don't seem very Viking or Norman.

The Apache defied colonists for another 300 years!

Because they got less attention by the Europeans.

[IrAr]

But the Apaches also stayed mobile, adapted and held their own.
For Ireland, aren't the Muire and Retainers rather Norman-esque? For Vikings what about Ostmen, who are surprisingly some of the most effective light infantry.

[ShadowGladius]

Who wasn't a terrorist back then? I remember that the Crusaders slaughtered the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and also the Crusades enflamed religious persecution in Western Europe.

And if the Teutonic Campaigns against Lithuania weren't for terrifying them to become Christians, I don't know what terrorism is .

[gogis]

East invented heavy cavalry, to say least.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kataphract

But granted, in crusades times, they wasnt that heavily armoured, as western armies. It's was for tactical purpose mostly, but that not means, that turks don't know what heavy armor is.

[Francebunkerer]

Iranians and Byzantines are neither Arabs nor Turks.
Arabs and Turks are Arabs and Turks, for the love of whatever deity.

Yes they weren't as heavily armoured. That's what I'm trying to say.
But in Kingdoms they are toe to toe with the crusaders in terms of heavy infantry and cavalry. And that's what bugs me.

[Kyias]

Eastern factions should have an edge on the Europeans in the Middle East. Gives the impression of Finite resources for the crusader groups and the reliance on a bit more strategy than we were used to the first time around.

It is their homeland afterall and the crusade kingdoms were upstarts.

Good for CA for giving that feeling to the game

[Francebunkerer]

But the Muslim factions shoudln't be able to beat the Crusaders in their strong fields.

Most people would go nuts if Aztecs had heavier units than the Spaniards.

[akd]

I guess you think that the Crusaders should be able to steamroll "arabs" whenever they face them in equal numbers. Setting bodyguard units aside, the heaviest Jerusalem cavalry unit has a higher charge bonus and more hit points than the heaviest Eqyptian cavalry unit, while the heaviest foot unit has a slight edge in defense. What exactly are you expecting here?

[Kyias]

But the Muslim factions shoudln't be able to beat the Crusaders in their strong fields.

Most people would go nuts if Aztecs had heavier units than the Spaniards.

In prolonged melee, yes they should. The crusader strength has always been in their charge.

[tehhaxxor23]

East invented heavy cavalry, to say least.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kataphract

Persians, to be exact

[Osskssa]

EH no that would be a modern war where public lack of support drove the yanks out,and the fact the VC where so hard to catch becos they new the land so well and where use to it,same for arabs/turks in holy lands.

[Francebunkerer]

And NOT because they had superior troops.

[Kyias]

How about we put all the Crusader armies to their historical lesser numbers...and cut their squads in half then give them higher stats.

I bet that would be more fun eh?

[Francebunkerer]

It worked in the Americas campaign.

But the Muslims have strong fields other than heavy troops. The crusaders don't.

[akd]

Most people would go nuts if Aztecs had heavier units than the Spaniards.

Forgot to address this as it is an excellent point of discussion. Many conquistadores abandoned their heavy steel armor and switched to wearing padded cotton armor just like their native adversaries. Now they still had an edge in weapons technology and because of their different cultural background. They fought a different war than the natives were prepared to fight. They didn't win these fights because they had steel pots on their heads.

This situation does not apply to the Crusades, however. The Crusaders did not have a technological edge over their Turkish/Arab adversaries. In fact, in some areas they were behind. While not identical, their cultural/military backgrounds were not so different from their adverseries to give either a definitive edge in all circumstances. At times, their powerful charge could prove decisive, at other times, it did not.

[Zonoes]

my army was routed by 4 mongol archer units. i had 8 syrian militia with knights of anitoch in fresh condition.

This was my reinforcement army btw. i took my sweet time marching slowly to battle ground and was ready to slaughter the leftovers because they were already weary from previous battle i had with..

[Francebunkerer]

Forgot to address this as it is an excellent point of discussion. Many conquistadores abandoned their heavy steel armor and switched to wearing padded cotton armor just like their native adversaries. Now they still had an edge in weapons technology and because of their different cultural background. They fought a different war than the natives were prepared to fight. They didn't win these fights because they had steel pots on their heads.

This situation does not apply to the Crusades, however. The Crusaders did not have a technological edge over their Turkish/Arab adversaries. In fact, in some areas they were behind. While not identical, their cultural/military backgrounds were not so different from their adverseries to give either a definitive edge in all circumstances. At times, their powerful charge could prove decisive, at other times, it did not.

Let me specify this.

If the Atzecs had heavier units than the Spaniards could get in any way known to man.

[Banzai!]

Forgot to address this as it is an excellent point of discussion. Many conquistadores abandoned their heavy steel armor and switched to wearing padded cotton armor just like their native adversaries. Now they still had an edge in weapons technology and because of their different cultural background. They fought a different war than the natives were prepared to fight. They didn't win these fights because they had steel pots on their heads.

Lol that's because you don't need to wear plate armour when your enemy is trying to whack you to death with a stick.