About range when sailing

[Resdulac]

Is it logical that the movement of ships is proportional to those armies they carry? Why sailing slowly when transporting siege gear and faster for the cavalry? On the contrary, one could determine that some timbers and a few operators are less heavy and bulky as companies of horses horses with the suites of noble knights concerned about their comfort.

The distances travelled by vessels should be inversely proportional to the speed of units carried: Highest for equipment, average for infantry and smallest for riders.

Is it possible to correct this in a mod?

[Double A]

Well, first of all, it would be easier to carry infantry because they ain't gots no horsies.

And secondly, boats at that time (for the most part) were powered by wind, not men. So it wouldn't affect them that much. (a couple hundred guys aren't going to screw up the wind)

I think you are forgetting something also: BOTS = FAST. Why would you want to get rid of the speed of them if they would move the same as infantry? It would ruin the whole point of the boats!

But then again, boats on crusades move ridiculously fast even though they are sailboats.

[Resdulac]

My point is only to say that boats loaded with canons or catapults must not be slower than those transporting cavalry. That if ship speeds must be different, cause it would be more correct to set all fleets with the same speed.

Anyway all travels in M2TW are not realistic. A full military campaign lasted only a few months. It was less than ten weeks for an army to walk from Portugal to Austria. Most crusades lasted less than 2 years, travels included. Columbus and the conquistadors crossed the Atlantic in 2 months.

[schoenkoenig]

My point is only to say that boats loaded with canons or catapults must not be slower than those transporting cavalry. That if ship speeds must be different, cause it would be more correct to set all fleets with the same speed.

Anyway all travels in M2TW are not realistic. A full military campaign lasted only a few months. It was less than ten weeks for an army to walk from Portugal to Austria. Most crusades lasted less than 2 years, travels included. Columbus and the conquistadors crossed the Atlantic in 2 months.

I don't know that travel speeds are that unrealistic.

It could take less than ten weeks for an army to get from Portugal to Austria. Under less-than-ideal conditions, it could take months...

Ships could travel the Atlantic in two months. But, ships could also take six months getting from Nantes to Danzig, as late as 1830...

[Double A]

yes, but turns in M2 are 2 YEARS (even though generals age like the turns are a 1/2 a year... but that would also half their lifespan )

[HighLord z0b]

Actually, I think the slow movement of siege equipment isn't necessarily realistic. Most siege engines would be transported on carts in pieces but large parts would be sourced and built on site. So really, all your transporting is the ropes, metal fittings, specific parts and the siege engineers themselves, not whole catapults.

Even if you were transporting a complicated late period trebuchet it's still going as fast as a horse drawn cart which is generally how fast infantry would move (if they're travelling with supplies).

[Dead Sun]

What i don't get is how a boat can be fresh on a turn but when a an army only just makes it to the boat, it now can't go anywhere! Surely the boat would move just the same distance even with tired troops on it. Plus i find it hard to believe that someone cant take 500 people across into scotland in a year and a half.

[Azim]

What i don't get is how a boat can be fresh on a turn but when a an army only just makes it to the boat, it now can't go anywhere! Surely the boat would move just the same distance even with tired troops on it.

I think the implication here is that the boats had to wait for the army to arrive.

[Dead Sun]

yh probably... but tht still doesn't mean i like it

[Elvallie]

I have to agree with this.

First, sailing speed was determined, apart from wind, from weight. 100 men weight less than 100 knights (men + horses). A heavier loaded boat would have a deeper floating line, making it harder to sail because of friction. Besides, there was always the danger of a shipwreck in low waters.

Then, I think it is correct to affirm that knights should travel slower than men without horses. Siege machinery is heavy. But as Highlord said, there were war engineers to make the whole thing more adequate and affordable. Logistics. Chopping down trees where they could, for example.

But, this a strategy game by turns. So, if one turn is, let's say, 1 year, there must be a calculation of how much they can travel by land, by sea or both. That's why movement range is lessened due to the remaining points of the traveling units.

If I did not explain well, excuse me. I'm not english. ^^u

[Double A]

You explained it better than most people on here could.

But anyway people, its just an real time strategy, not realistic time strategy. (play total realism if you want real and not fun).

And it takes so long to move troops and siege equipment because, if it didn't, the player would be SOOOOOOO overpowered that you could march to the Holy Lands in a few turns from ARGUIN.

[Desperado †]

I'd of put it in this order, from slowest to fastest:

Cavalry, Infantry, Artillery

Yes thats right. Why? Well firstly, as mentioned, artillery would be pretty light and would probably be dismantled. The thing that slows it down is the fact it must be pushed, but this isn't a matter on a ship. OK, this may be diffrent with cannons which where very heavy. With artillery you have a small amount of men (less weight) and a small amount of food for those men, and armour, and personal retinue e.t.c

Infantry. This varies, but infantry need armour, they need weapons, they need swords, they need food. And you compare the overall weight of a unit of infantry with a unit of artillery. Say 80 Infantrymen, along with their food and weapons and perhaps personal retinue say if their dismounted knights, and compare it to a lightly armoured 20 man unit of artillery with the artillery, which would usually be mostly wood and be fairly cheap, and the rocks tended to be found on site. And this 20 man unit would be generally poor and probably not have a personal retinue, and would not have armour e.t.c.

Cavalry. Cavalry. Yep. Horses are hard to travell with. The loading anjd unloading takes ages. They can't travel very long distances wqithout getting ill. They need a lot of food. Their responsibillity is large. Just consider the carring of 40 horses. Their food, their poop, their harnesses, their equipment. Then consider we have a rich unit travilling - say a Knight. Every knight would also need food. They would have armour. They would have their retinue. The horse would have it's retinue of a groom e.t.c. The numbers become huge.

Horses are ackward to transport and need a lot of food, and their retinue will generally be alrge and need a lot of food.

Infantry need a lot of food, especially when you compare their numbers to the artillery.

A twenty man unit of poor, un armed artillery men, with barely any retinue at all, along with a pile of wood and ropes e.t.c

So I repeat:

Cavalry are the slowest to transport

Infantry are next

And artillery aren't that big a problem.

[Hossi]

I must disagree with you on this one. I think many pepole have a wrong picture of medieval siege equipment.
You see, there were many kinds of siege equipment that were usually constructed right at the siege site, like battering rams, ladders and all kinds of large protective equipments (large shields, often mounted on waggons). This stuff can be easily made of fresh wood that can be found on most places (but not everywere, think of the holy land here).

And there were complicated machines, like trebuchets, catapults etc, that need a pretty large construction effort. You realy can not chop down some trees and make a trebuche out of this. The wood would dry much to fast, it wuold bend and split, rendering your machine completly usless within a few days. And 10 to 15 meter long, straight (realy straight) trees are also pretty hard to find.
These machines where carfully designed and constructed often years before they were used, and transporting them was an incredible efford. For example, when in 1369 an trebuchet was transported from Basel to austria (where it was used 76 years later at the siege of Rheinfelden) it took 24 waggons pulled by 144 horses to transport it.
Often you would even take your amunition (rocks) with you, because normaly you didn't wanted to open a quarry right beside your enemy, before you can start your siege. And you can't just throw some stones that lie arround, because if you wanted to have eaven a little chance of hitting anything, you would realy want to have rocks that have the same size and formost the same weigth.
And finaly you shouldnt underestimate the position of the personel needed to assemble and operate these machienes, espacially compared to knights. For the 13th century we have historical proof of at least 17500 inhabited knights castles in the HRE alone. For each castle you can calculate 1 to 5 knights (mainly depending on size). You do the math.
And these knights would normaly work for 'free' because they were obligated by there feudal oath to fight for there lord.
Siege engineeres on the other hand where highly payed specialist. Any noble would be glad if he could get a single one to work for him.
So I think your "A twenty man unit of poor, un armed artillery men, with barely any retinue at all, along with a pile of wood and ropes e.t.c" is realy far, far from reality.

[Elvallie]

Agree.

[HighLord z0b]

Well on some things I must disagree with you, Hossi.

Whilst you're correct about the very large, complex late period Trebuchet's were pre-made, for the majority of earlier machines they still didn't pre-make every part, and they wouldn't have to cut down new trees to get the wood. When on campaign the armies would loot along the way, there would be plenty of wood, stone and other building materials they could take from old buildings or new construction sites.

Also, if you think 24 wagons is a lot, think of the huge wagon trains that would follow every army for supplies. In this case the army could only move as fast as it's supplies so not any slower than the siege engines.

So for all the earlier seige engines (including the smaller traction and counter weight trebuchets) they still wouldn't have been particuarly slower than the infantry, unless the infantry is on a forced march.

A good example are the Mongols, they captured many Chinese siege engineers (the best in the world at that time) and took them on campaigns to the east, but they certainly didn't make them bring their chinese machines with them, they just took them to where they wanted to siege. Ironically during the mongol Siege of Fancheng and Xiangyang, they brought up Persian engineers to build counter-weight trebuchets.

In the Siege of Acre, King Philip built two trebuchets whilst waiting for King Richard to arrive, that was less than two months.

[Viking Prince]

As someone has already stated -- this is a strategic game and not a simulation. Also, you represent time in two year chunks, but people age 6 months per turn. Why would expect the ship movements to be more timeline appropriate. It is all a balance of play, bookkeeping, and a simulation of projection of force.

[Double A]

Yes, the developers want the large fun-oriented crowd to be pleased more than the hardcore everything-needs-to-be-realistic crowd.

[Azim]

Not even the realism crowd would want realistic movement rates. If you could move half way across the map in one turn, M2TW would become an unimaginable siege-fest.

[Hossi]

Not even the realism crowd would want realistic movement rates. If you could move half way across the map in one turn, M2TW would become an unimaginable siege-fest.

Not necessarily. You could just reduce the timespan per turn to get a realistic movement rate. If one turn would be one week (or perhaps one month) it should be pretty good. But not even I would want to play several thousand turns before the mongols arrive .

Also, if you think 24 wagons is a lot, think of the huge wagon trains that would follow every army for supplies. In this case the army could only move as fast as it's supplies so not any slower than the siege engines.

Yeah, thats certainly true. But by point was, if you compare these 24 wagons (x2=48 wagons 288 horses, for 1 unit of trebuchets) with one unit of 75 spearman, I'am pretty sure that transporting the trebuchets on a ship would be more difficulty.

[Elvallie]

I want to suffer!!


...Not really.