Solution to Dismounted Knights?...

[Kip]

...Give them zero movement points, and only allow their recruitment in select critical settlements.


I think I remember reading on the forums that dismounting knights to fight in the defense of a city was historically relevent or atleast plausible, but the reason they were not implemented in BC was because dismounted knights in the field was inappropriate.

Perhaps if they had zero movement points, this could circumvent the problem? Now they would be used solely for the defense of settlements. They could be used as garrison troops as long as a player wishes, or could be recruited when the settlement is under threat...I mean yeah it will be weird to have dismounted knights basically appear/dissapear at different intervals, but perhaps they could use a slightly disproportional increase in cost to offset this semi-exploit. Plus, I think plenty of players would love to see dismounted knights in the campaign, even in such a limited role.

Also, the AI wouldn't be able to send them in the field either, and a player facing AI controlled settlements with knights garrisoned could face a stiffer, more fun challenge.

Is this idea plausable/doable/worth thinking about?

[Taneda Santôka]

If its such a loss, take five minutes and edit the suckers to be recruitable in your EDB, very simple, savegame compatible...

Otherwise it's a BC developement choice, and there ARE some dismounted knights to use, for most faction...

[Fenix_120]

What about the Knights who dismounted during the attack of cities:hmmm:



What I would personally do is lower the amount of men in the unit to 30, give them 2 hp and an increase in defense skill and the horde formation, this would make them more like a strike team than line infantry and would be more historically accurate.

[Strelac]

If its such a loss, take five minutes and edit the suckers to be recruitable in your EDB, very simple, savegame compatible...

Otherwise it's a BC developement choice, and there ARE some dismounted knights to use, for most faction...

[Kip]

Oohhh no no sorry guys, I didn't mean to make this post as a personal complaint against the mod. I just remember some debate as to why Dismounted Outremer knights weren't in the campaign, and this idea popped into my head, so I thought I'd post it up.

Oh and to clarify I was meaning the dismounted knights for Jerusalem, I know there are plenty of dismounted lancer-types for the other factions.

The idea just popped into my head today in school and I posted it up to see what people thought of it. Sorry if it seemed like I was complaining. I'm usually a bit more tactful

[Ahiga]

No it's ok there was nothing wrong with the topic mate.

I wish we could adjust the speed of individual units - We could then perhaps make dismounted units have the same speed as cavalry.

We might look at different ways of approaching the dismounted jerusalem knights in the future.

[CtrlAltDe1337]

Put them in but give them a TINY recruit pool so ppl can't make many of them. Otherwise, leave it like it is. I don't really see much problem tbh.

[Ahiga]

The main reason we've taken such vengeance to them is the almost canonical anachronism of so many mods and so many games featuring knights fighting on foot. Granted, no armies were really fielding Romanesque legions at this point (Which would be boring if everyone was spearmen - In reality a lot of those spears probably carried swords), yet the notion of having your knights fighting on foot seems beyond a leap of creativity.

The sad thing being they did fight on foot, some such as the Normans and Germans doing it frequently (The latter preferring it earlier on according to the Romans I believe). But the system in MTWII doesn't cater to that. Of course you all know that, I'm an evil lobbyist for the "Keep knights on horseback" lobby.

Ideas such as yours Fenix or Crucifix are certainly options we might pursue, though the current setup seems favorable for now. There's other various ones that haven't been discussed but might be later which we could pursue too, such as all dismounted troops being the size of their mounted equivalent, so that factions who have dedicated foot infantry (Romans, Oman, Ghazni, early Armenia) would hold something over those who have dismounted infantry (Jerusalem, Ayyubids, Georgia). But that would hinge on having the quality of such dismounted troops also rise, so that numbers don't solve anything.

The role that we, or at least I, would like dismounted knights to fill is like non phalanx infantry back in Successor Times. On the flanks or in the rear.

[Fenix_120]

The main reason we've taken such vengeance to them is the almost canonical anachronism of so many mods and so many games featuring knights fighting on foot. Granted, no armies were really fielding Romanesque legions at this point (Which would be boring if everyone was spearmen - In reality a lot of those spears probably carried swords), yet the notion of having your knights fighting on foot seems beyond a leap of creativity.

The sad thing being they did fight on foot, some such as the Normans and Germans doing it frequently (The latter preferring it earlier on according to the Romans I believe). But the system in MTWII doesn't cater to that. Of course you all know that, I'm an evil lobbyist for the "Keep knights on horseback" lobby.

Ideas such as yours Fenix or Crucifix are certainly options we might pursue, though the current setup seems favorable for now. There's other various ones that haven't been discussed but might be later which we could pursue too, such as all dismounted troops being the size of their mounted equivalent, so that factions who have dedicated foot infantry (Romans, Oman, Ghazni, early Armenia) would hold something over those who have dismounted infantry (Jerusalem, Ayyubids, Georgia). But that would hinge on having the quality of such dismounted troops also rise, so that numbers don't solve anything.

The role that we, or at least I, would like dismounted knights to fill is like non phalanx infantry back in Successor Times. On the flanks or in the rear.

Thats what I was thinking, lower the number of men, increase their hit points and defense values a tad.


I'm going to mod my personal ver. of BC with these stats and see what comes up...


Ill post my results later in the week.


EDIT: Just so that you guys know i'm only going to try this with the dismounted Latin, Templar and Outrimmer knights, all other types such as the ax men-at-arms and the Jerusalem guard ill leave be for now.


For other fatcions than the Koj ill try out the Taiwashi for Egypt and dismounted noble lancers for Oman.

[DarthDisco]

I like the ideas that Ahiga suggests, but for my part I have only one question. Namely, why, in the current version does KoJ use Dismounted Latin Knights when both the historical events and even the unit descriptions point out clearly that Outremer Knights were the more likely of the two to fight on foot?

Given that knowledge I would have preferred to see Jerusalem use Outremer Knights as their dismounted infantry and leave the Latin ones strictly mounted.

However, to be fair, if one wanted to make an argument for Latin Knights fighting on foot, you could argue that, being foreigners, Latin Knights would have a more difficult time finding replacement horses when their own was shot out from under them, as was prone to happen. As a result, it is known that during the crusades it was entirely possible to have whole groups of Knights who simply did not have a horse to ride. Outremer Knights would have been able to call upon their own stables to replace their mounts.

[republic_bohemia]

...Give them zero movement points, and only allow their recruitment in select critical settlements.


I think I remember reading on the forums that dismounting knights to fight in the defense of a city was historically relevent or atleast plausible, but the reason they were not implemented in BC was because dismounted knights in the field was inappropriate.

Perhaps if they had zero movement points, this could circumvent the problem? Now they would be used solely for the defense of settlements. They could be used as garrison troops as long as a player wishes, or could be recruited when the settlement is under threat...I mean yeah it will be weird to have dismounted knights basically appear/dissapear at different intervals, but perhaps they could use a slightly disproportional increase in cost to offset this semi-exploit. Plus, I think plenty of players would love to see dismounted knights in the campaign, even in such a limited role.

Also, the AI wouldn't be able to send them in the field either, and a player facing AI controlled settlements with knights garrisoned could face a stiffer, more fun challenge.

Is this idea plausable/doable/worth thinking about?

I agree with this one.

Regards.John

[merlinuscdxx]

I agree with the lowered movement idea for Dism. Knights, but I think that instead of 0 movemt. , it'd be better to give them the absolute minimum above 0, so that it would be possible to sally from a besieged settlement (I ran into this problem in RTW [EB] with client rulers who had 0 movement, and they weren't able to sally at all, even if there were other units with movement present, it seems that ALL units need to be able to make a minimal movement to initiate a sally). That said, make them so slow (slower than siege machinery) that no one would want to put them in a field army under any circumstances.

[republic_bohemia]

Truth that mate.

[Ahiga]

I don't think it's possible to edit the campaign movement rates of specific units. If it is, it would be awesome, but I seem to recall hearing it's not. Do you guys know if it is?

[republic_bohemia]

Ask Darth or what ever his name is,or send a e-mail to the developers.

ect.