Tsardoms Total War - General Discussion & Progress

[Brezkimra]

I just started collecting beautiful medieval Hungarian musics. I can share the results, if you are interested about it in the Tsardoms team.

[NekoGenijalan]

That church on the main screen looks like Sveti Jovan Kaneo in Ohrid. Or I might be mistaken

[pugachev]

Thank you for your appreciation.



This is not possible in the medieval 2 engine. Any spawned character will appear randomly in the family tree, there is control where he appears.



Do you mean the custom battle editor? We do not have any experience with this.

Thats the sc of the victory conditions menu in the battle editor: https://ibb.co/bjtWdPX

[Sarkiss]

hey gents. just wanted to take my hat off before the team, what an outstanding mod this is. very much looking forwards to future updates and wish you all the best.

wasnt sure where exactly to post it so dropping it here if thats ok:



thanks a lot for a splendid mod!

[Kirijakos]

Here is discord guys, feel free to join, I propsed it to Wallachian, long time ago, he said he doesnt have a time but he welcome it.

https://discord.gg/QpNN2kT9

[rafa123]

A new invite, for the same discord this have no expiration limit so can be here for a long time and still work

https://discord.gg/B6Bnx5HRh3

[Nebaki]

- a rework of the Ottoman unit availability which will reduce the rate of Janissary recruitment and aim towards more historical number of janissaries in armies (historically they were about 15% of Ottoman armies) and more forced use of lower tier azaps and yayas

This makes no Sense since the Ottoman Army always fielded larger counterparts of his Eastern or Western Elite Counterparts on the Field. For Example if the Serbia had 3000-4000 Knights the Ottomans had atleast 6000-7000 Janissaries or even more. Lowering their Rate while their Counterparts has no Limits makes no Sense.

[saneel]

Janissary were even more elite than knights, because they were not nobility but elite professional troops. Ottoman knights were sipahis and were not as strong as jannisary because at the time of rise of Ottomans, focus has already switched from cavalry to infantry and ranged units to being most effective military branch.

[Anubis88]

This makes no Sense since the Ottoman Army always fielded larger counterparts of his Eastern or Western Elite Counterparts on the Field. For Example if the Serbia had 3000-4000 Knights the Ottomans had atleast 6000-7000 Janissaries or even more. Lowering their Rate while their Counterparts has no Limits makes no Sense.

Yes, overall the elite units can be recruited too much.

Yes Ottomans fielded much larger armies; that's why we increased the number of men in their units. But those weren't the Janissaries. At the battle of Kosovo, the ENTIRE Kapikulu corp was only about 5% of the Ottoman army, which included Janissaries and the Royal Guard units. The first battle where the Janissaries had any real impact on was the battle of Nicopolis, but even there their number was relatively small.

You will be able to recruit more Janissaries as your empire grows obviously, and the amount of different Janissary units you can recruit grows as well.

Janissary were even more elite than knights, because they were not nobility but elite professional troops. Ottoman knights were sipahis and were not as strong as jannisary because at the time of rise of Ottomans, focus has already switched from cavalry to infantry and ranged units to being most effective military branch.

They were more elite in a sense that they were trained far better, but in battle 100 knights would obliterate 100 Janissaries, since the Knights were heavily armored, and the Janissaries were mostly light units.

And it's not true that focus changed at the time of the Rise of the Ottomans; even the armies of Suleiman often had a 50/50 ratio of Cavalry and Infantry. The Sipahi provincial Cavalry (with their Cebeli) was by far the most used part of the Ottoman armies.

The real increase in number of infantry units can only be seen in the long turkish war, and the number of the increase in Janissary number coincides with that.

[Hrobatos]

I dont think that Jannissaries were better trained. Knights were quite well trained from young age. Janissaries were quite good but not better than either knights or sipahis. They had different role.

Janissaries were elite Ottoman infantry and their number was small, only some 2 000 in 14th century and up to 7 000 in 1526. so we reduced their avability thus players will have to use more of Sipahis, Akincis, Cebelu and dismounted Sipahi etc instead

[Anubis88]

I dont think that Jannissaries were better trained. Knights were quite well trained from young age. Janissaries were quite good but not better than either knights or sipahis. They had different role.

Janissaries were professional soldiers. Knights and Sipahis were not. They were therefore definitely better trained. Whether they were better or more efficient is another question.

[jurcek1987]

It's not that they were better individually, probably they weren't, but I'd say the main advantage of Janissaries (and I guess you can say the same for all professional soldiers) compared to feudal knights is that they were more loyal, reliable and disciplined. Nicopolis and Varna are two good examples of poor discipline of western knights.

[VINC.XXIII]

It's not that they were better individually, probably they weren't, but I'd say the main advantage of Janissaries (and I guess you can say the same for all professional soldiers) compared to feudal knights is that they were more loyal, reliable and disciplined. Nicopolis and Varna are two good examples of poor discipline of western knights.

It would be good to have "Charge without Order" thing increased to the point you lose control on your knights sometimes(or often, lets say French knights get Impetuous 3 or 4). The impetuous trait. "impetuous 1". How far can it be raised?

[saneel]

They were more elite in a sense that they were trained far better, but in battle 100 knights would obliterate 100 Janissaries, since the Knights were heavily armored, and the Janissaries were mostly light units.

And it's not true that focus changed at the time of the Rise of the Ottomans; even the armies of Suleiman often had a 50/50 ratio of Cavalry and Infantry. The Sipahi provincial Cavalry (with their Cebeli) was by far the most used part of the Ottoman armies.

The real increase in number of infantry units can only be seen in the long turkish war, and the number of the increase in Janissary number coincides with that.

We saw at Agincourt what a knights charge can do against well positioned units with armor penetrating volleys of fire. In the 15th century, focus in cavalry switches from heavy cavalry to light missile cavalry. Soon it will become era of pikemen and musketeers, and heavy cavalry charges against those two types of units were total waste.

[Anubis88]

We saw at Agincourt what a knights charge can do against well positioned units with armor penetrating volleys of fire. In the 15th century, focus in cavalry switches from heavy cavalry to light missile cavalry. Soon it will become era of pikemen and musketeers, and heavy cavalry charges against those two types of units were total waste.

15th century was THE era of heavy cavalry in Europe... You are probably confusing it with the 16th century

[Hrobatos]

Like jurček said they werent better trained. They were more loyal and for Ottomans also importantly provided needed quality infantry.
Young noblemen would train from youngest age and would learn use of a bow, sword and lance. They participated in tournaments and feudal lords were fighting all the time so they had a lot of expirience too.
Issues was lack of loyalty and discipline combined with lots of arrogance.
Janissaries were not that great, they were good but nothing that exceptional. They were elite Ottoman infantry but not some kind of super soldiers.
At siege of Belgrade in 1456. a mix of Hungarian and Serbian knights and levies defeated Ottoman Sipahis and Janissaries at close quarters. Ottomans lost because their cavalary could not flank enemy, their artillery and field fortifications could not be properly used against enemy because they were tied in siege so it went down to melee which they lost.

[Anubis88]

Issues was lack of loyalty and discipline combined with lots of arrogance.

Those are massive issues though . Would you ever want a soldier fighting your battle that wasn't loyal, wasn't disciplined, and had lots of arrogance?

Also keep in mind you are probably thinking of a "model" nobleman that fought as a knight. That good son that had a good physique, trained all the time, didn't spend most of his days doing stuff for fun and just fought as a knight cause he was rich enough to do it. A lot of them were average soldiers with great equipment.

Now i can easily get behind the idea that 10% of nobles that fought as knights were better than most Janissaries. But as a whole, the Janissary corps had men that were in outstanding physical condition, used to fight with various weapons, and had been basically fanatics when it came to fighting for their Sultans.

So basically i think the issue with our disagreement is what constitutes a "trained" soldier. I consider discipline for example a key element of being trained.

And yeah the Siege of Belgrade was a terrible campaign from start to finish, and the Ottomans as a whole performed terribly there. But you have to keep in mind battles where elite knights were defeated by an army with Janissaries, like Nicopolis or Varna. Even at Mohacs the Hungarians still had a lot of Knights. Namely they weren't defeated 1 on 1 by a Janissary; a light infantry man obviously cannot stand toe to toe against a fully armored knight, no matter his training. Steel always beats muscles

[Hrobatos]

These are indeed massive issues, but knights individualy were well trained. If used properly by their commanders they were amazing shock cavalary. They can charge at anything and break them.
If not used well or if countered with proper terrain, field fortifications, artillery, and salves of missiles their charge coule be broken.

Only arrival of pikemen ended domination of knights on battlefields of Europe. Other tactics were hit and miss, not always succesfull and not succesfull enough and reliably to make knights obsolete.

[Slaytaninc]

It's a few centuries later but in FoG2 the Janissaries are tough troops but few enough in number that you can really shoot them up before they get close but if you fail to they'll route your infantry. They tend to be supported by a few less disciplined infantry but the Ottomans tend to have a swarm of really good cavalry to keep yours busy. Anyway the real comparison shouldn't be between Knights and Janissaries, it should be between Janissaries and regular infantry. In the 1400s and into the 1500s there simply wasn't any infantry of particularly great quality in European armies, while the Ottomans had quite a hard core of foot.

[saneel]

You are speaking about one battle and forgetting about 100 others where jannisary won the siege or broke through enemy lines in battle. I know many of you have have hatred against Turks from their home, but in reallity in 15-16 century, jannisary were elite infantry in strongest army in the world. So in this mod probably only swiss pikeman and italian handgunners could go toe to toe with them in meele and firepower.

Knights in heavy armor were becoming obsolete in 15th century because tactics and focus was switched from slow moving and costly feudal armies to professional and large field armies, and were definetaly abandoned already in 16th century. You can even see in many battles in 14th century like Najera or later at Agincourt, where winning side dismount their heavy cavalry because it was becoming such an easy prey for superior firepower from enemy side.

So saying that heavy cavalry still rulled battlefield in 15th century is not correct. Yes it was still important and could be used, but not as most important part of army.