Historical roster debate and potential modding suggestion thread!

[RollingWave]

Hi, I'm starting to do a submod that is primarily focused on the Islamic factions' roster (or rather the lack there of) which will probably spill over to most other faction to limited degrees as well. the link on the mod (current version, significantly revamped Moors and Fatimid roster)

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...73#post8154273




My primary concern is generally historic accuratcy, and obviously on a secondary aspect some balance and interesting roster is of a concern as well, though history really comes first, so this thread is for the discussion of units that you think is simply historically wrong, either in terms of name, arms , use, or anything.


I'll start with one unit

Iqta'dar

Iqta is a fedual like system practiced by islamic states, though significant differences vary between different time period and region, the Ottoman Timar system (which is the land given to Sipahis) is also similar .

The primary difference between a Iqta system and a western fief is that the land is not technically owned by the recipiant, the state can retrieve it and /or change it when they need, and the subjects is still technically free.

Of course, the key word is "technically" , since in practice a lot of time they work pretty much just like a fief, in some cases the states acknowledge that it can be passed from one generation to the next, and in many cases the subjects were attached to the land and is only different from a serf on paper. though most successfully enduring system tend to be more in line with it's original intent. (such as the Ottoman Timar, or the onces practiced by the Egyptians)

Due to it's wide spread of use (even the Mongol Il-Khanate used it!) it's hard to really generalize what a solider who owns a iqta is like, the truth is that pretty much ALL the professional soldiers of the Seljuq and Egyptian dynasties were paid through the Iqta system in one way or another.

One could glimps into what iqta systems is like by viewing it's implementation in the earlier days of the Mamluk dynasty of Egypt, in those times, aside from the Mamluk and Al-Halqa's being paid VIA this system, another common practice was to grant Iqta rights to various tribes of Bedouin / Turks / Kurds (and/or other tribes with a fierce reputation for martial prowess) in exchange for their allegience and their help in patrolling the border areas.

In the armies, generally a local general would be granted a sum of Iqta, in which he can distribute to his soliders.

Of course, it's not hard to see the obvious result in these sort of arrangement, the primary benifactor of this system would have likely been the tribal leaders / high ranking officers, while their clansmen / soliders would only be getting their due pay (if even that). indeed one of the often cited demise of the Mamluk dynasty was that their Al-Halqa troops often got the short end of the shaft whenever redistribution reforms were made, and in the end the dynasty was left with no more capable soldiers to support their core elites. as many Al-Halqas were forced to either flee the service or sell their holdings / weapons to stay afloat.


So the conclusion is that if we want a unit called "Iqta'dar " (which I think is fine, since it lets people be aware of this system). it should generally depict "high ranking officers or tribal leaders from a wide range of backgrounds" .

Due to this sort of depiction, using them as horse archers as it is now is probably not a great idea, since horse archery wasn't equally practiced by all, depicting them as heavy cavalries roughly armoured to the similar degree as lower level knights makes sense, without the lance charge, though maybe with the inspriation ability since a lot of times they were of such social status as tribal chieftans / highest ranking local officals etc...


Also, only the turks having them doesn't make sense, at the very least Egypt pretty much should have them throughout the entire period, while the Turks should only have them up until the arrival of Ottoman units, since the Sipahi Timar system literrally replaced the Iqta system. one could debate that the Mongols should get them after awhile as well.

My idea right now is to use the BC models of Kurdish lancers for the unit, though maybe with some minor changes.


So plz share your thoughts, if you make a sound argument and what your suggesting is at least reasonablly doable I'll consider it for my future modding attempts to tackle the SS roster

[RollingWave]

Alright, I have now done my submod to include very big changes to Moors and Egypt roster. essentially...

Moors: early fedual unit becomes two Berber Tribal unit , to represent the Almoravid's tribal origin. Granadine Jinetes become much basically a more elite version of Jinetes instead of being a carbon copy, nerfed down Desert archer by a good bit (1 less attack, and considerablly weaker defensively). gave them a lot more Berber units, and also added a arbalest unit in late game for them.

Egypt: I think Egypt is even more historically realistic now , thanks to the obvious part where you have a lot more source to base Egyptian roster on, now the key event that divide the Egyptian Roster is the battle of Hattin event, sort of representing the transition from Fatimid to Ayyubid and later Mamluk dynasty.

Fatimid: A multi ethnic army well represented, with two black unit (the ole Nubian archers and now with a light swordsmen) . a few berber units (Fatimids were founded from Tunis and was originally supported by Berber forces ) , a few local units, bedouin cavalries (now more interesting, as it's a ultra light lancer, high charge but almost no defense .) well represneted (Bedouins show up later in the Moors roster as well, which is in line with history) and some Armenian units (the Egpytian Vizier for much of the late Fatimids were Armenians and they imported a good number of their homeland troops. sort of the Fatimid version of the Christian guards).

Ayyubid and beyond: Mamluks and Al-Halqa troops only show up after the event, the reasons are quiet obviously, most ethnic troops either decline (blacks) or dissapear (Berber and Armenians) after the event (except for locals and bedouins) and later on they also get a light HA unit due to the Mongol invasion. (i set the date a bit after that, since now Mongol invasion starts earlier with Kwarezmid on the map)



Some plans for the future, obviously Turks roster is something I like to tackle, though in the process I think I'll address Crusader States roster, partially out of practicality too as it uses up way too many spots for questionable representations. and later on the early Catholic roster in general... some basic ideas i'm thinking about....

A. merging mailed knights with fedual knights. makes more sense this way if it's just the divide between fedual and chivaric. esesntially will have mailed armor to start, but generall using the feudal's offense and skill stats. also having both mounted and dismounted version start at the same level. with cost closer to inbetween the two (probably lean more towards mail)

B. tieing most of the Crusader state's unique unit to Jerusalem (probably to one or both of the wonder buidlings), so it has a big advantage early due to Jerusalem being able to pump great units, but if it expand after awhile it becomes a lot more like other catholic factions with some eastern elements blended in. for example simply by having the two wonder building you can build Knights of Jerualem and Knights Templar (Dome of the Rock WAS the TEMPLE in the Templar...) and thier dismounted versions for example..... and some of the basic Templar units too...

C. obviously making the Turkish roster more reasonable, I have most of the units set in mind...

D. adding swordsmen sergents to most catholic roster: the unit's already there, no idea why it's not added in, probably make light MAA a bit better / expensive to represent the difference between the two.

E. try to make all catholic roster stables have at least 2 horsemen (probably with the exception of the Scandanvians until their roster changes), right now until heavy mail even most catholic can build up to king's stable and sitll only build mounted sergents or one of the other light cavs, meh. this isn't too hard, just add mounted sergents to those that doesn't have them , and then add other light cav to factions with mounted sergents, probably use Scout for those that I don't see obvious representations for. (France / Germany mostly). Scotland should get both Hobliar and Border horse (the historic term is Border Reiver, which sounds much more awesome as well XD). with the later made a better unit.

F. I'm considering adding Merchant cav militia and a dismounted version of the unit to most catholic roster as well, so their early roster is more interesting. probably tieing them to the market building or something. they're dressed like knights, but fight like their sister

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_...#Borders_horse

Border Reivers were raiders along the Anglo–Scottish border from the late 13th century to the end of the 16th century. Their ranks consisted of both Scottish and English families, and they raided the entire border country without regard to their victims' nationality. Their heyday was perhaps in the last hundred years of their existence, during the Tudor dynasty in England.

.
.
.

When raiding, or riding, as it was termed, the Reivers rode light on hardy nags or ponies renowned for the ability to pick their way over the boggy moss lands (see: Galloway pony, Hobelar). The original dress of a shepherd's plaid was later replaced by light armour such as Brigandines or jacks of plaite (a type of sleeveless doublet into which small plates of steel were stitched), and a metal helmet such as a burgonet or morion; hence their nickname of the steel bonnets. They were armed with a lance and small shield, and sometimes also with a longbow, or a light crossbow known as a "latch", or later on in their history with one or more pistols. They invariably also carried a sword and dirk.

[WelshDragon]

B. tieing most of the Crusader state's unique unit to Jerusalem (probably to one or both of the wonder buidlings), so it has a big advantage early due to Jerusalem being able to pump great units, but if it expand after awhile it becomes a lot more like other catholic factions with some eastern elements blended in. for example simply by having the two wonder building you can build Knights of Jerualem and Knights Templar (Dome of the Rock WAS the TEMPLE in the Templar...) and thier dismounted versions for example..... and some of the basic Templar units too...

I love that idea... If Jerusalem get's the Cannons of the Holy Sepulcher, then why doesn't the Dome of the Rock (built on the site of Solomons Temple) that became THE birthplace of the Poor Fellow Soldiers of Jesus Christ, later renamed the Knights of the Temple, give you Templar Knights??

Also, I've always thought that the Crusader States should be able to get both major Knight orders, since the Hospitallers and the Templars became THE standing army of the Kingdom.

[Gorrrrrn]

merchant cavalry militia - probably best to restrict to factions with strong city bias - where cities had a degree of autonomy.
I've not found any evidence that, for example, french, scottish or english ever had any such units - cavalry was either feudal knights and sergeants or
light scouts, hobelars etc.
agree with giving english mounted sergeants - big gap in their roster, hobelars should be later (same date as border reivers ?)
england and scotland need some form of crossbows for castle garrisons and battlefield use, esp before dominance of longbows.
scottish noble archers are a nonsense - the scots didn't develop their archery beyond the basic archer level.
light men at arms - these a bit of a fudge unit - men at arms would be heavy (for their period) other than that you had armed men -
variously equipped and armoured.

[RollingWave]

Hobilars should come later I agree, then again Border Reiver was also a unit that both Scots and English used... so it's hard to make a difference, and then of course there's also the need to depict the different faction with something different for vairety sake, so it would be quite boring if everyone was scout + mounted sergents for the first 400 turns (in 2TPY)

For variety sake, I think I want to give Hobilar and Border Reiver off the start, with the English being Hobilar + Mounted sergents while the Scots being Hobilar + Border Reiver, and set their armor upgrade to higher level so they won't wear metal armor until later.

Some Border Reivers also used mounted cross bows... so there's an idea...

As for Merchant Cav militia, good point, I think I'll restrict the cavalry part to the Italian states and Merchant guilds (since Merchant guilds were often founded in more independent cities) but the concept of a merchant militia on foot fills a variety need early on especially.

Also, men at arms is a rather generic terms, it's hard to seperate where the sergents end and where early men at arms began, the difference is generally that sergents were more like followers while MAA were more like contracted professionals. but the line can be pretty blurr at the intersection...

And yes, agree on the crossbows, both English and Scots should get them for sure.

I'm also considering making Highland Noble a fedual unit, it's kinda silly that you need some high level barrack to train them. also i plan on turning highland rabble to highland spearmen using my 2 handed spear method.

[RollingWave]

The Knights Templar 's real headquoter until Jerusalem was lost anyway WAS the Dome of the Rock (aka Solomon's temple), so it make 100000% sense that the Dome give you the templar units, and probably should for any other Catholic faction should they hold Jerusalem too.

[Polycarpe]

Good point for Scotland, nobles will be much more realistic as feudal troops maybe with an increased stats.

Something that I never understand is why's only the england who use the longbow? In fact, all the people of Britain (scotland, irish, english and welsh) should fight with longbow. Of course with less focus on it than the english. maybe change the highlander with the longbow after the event. I'll replace the noble archer with highlander longbowmen.

feudal knight/general's bodyguard should start with the mailed knight skin and make them upgrading earlier (the armourer for the typical feudal knight).

But I don't agree with the highlander rabble with the two-handed spearmen, they have already the highlander pikemen. Instead, I'll raise the atk of the rabble by one.

About the egyptian roster, are you doing a mamluk cavalry with melee based or just using the mamluk cavalry archer with a better melee stats or something like that?

Agreed with the cavalry militia, sounds fun dismounted ones.

But with all these goods ideas, which unit we have to remove? the limit is reached and I only see around 15 units that we can remove.

That's funny Rollingwave, I was to suggest the same thing for Idha'qar by using the kurdish lancer

[RollingWave]

Good point for Scotland, nobles will be much more realistic as feudal troops maybe with an increased stats.

Something that I never understand is why's only the england who use the longbow? In fact, all the people of Britain (scotland, irish, english and welsh) should fight with longbow. Of course with less focus on it than the english. maybe change the highlander with the longbow after the event. I'll replace the noble archer with highlander longbowmen.

feudal knight/general's bodyguard should start with the mailed knight skin and make them upgrading earlier (the armourer for the typical feudal knight).

But I don't agree with the highlander rabble with the two-handed spearmen, they have already the highlander pikemen. Instead, I'll raise the atk of the rabble by one.

About the egyptian roster, are you doing a mamluk cavalry with melee based or just using the mamluk cavalry archer with a better melee stats or something like that?

Agreed with the cavalry militia, sounds fun dismounted ones.

But with all these goods ideas, which unit we have to remove? the limit is reached and I only see around 15 units that we can remove.

That's funny Rollingwave, I was to suggest the same thing for Idha'qar by using the kurdish lancer

A. the Welsh were the only onces who were using longbows, the English adopted it, the main thing about the English having longbow units is the fact that they mandated that the citizen practice it, without this policy there was no way they could have have real longbow units as there simply wouldn't be enough longbow users, the thing about bows is that to be good with it (i.e not just shooting small hunting bows) you must practice for many years so that your muscels develope , this is why nomads typically have a huge advantage on settled people because their livehood depend on the bow, simply giving a longbow to a peasant is about as useful as giving him a (really expensive) piece of fire wood.

B.The Scots' tradition with the pikes most likely was somthing that passed down from the Picts and earlier celtic times, and many evidences suggest that most of their "pike" were not the 20 + feet monster demonstrated by the game's pikemen anyway. either way, a two handed spearmen unit is a good way of depicting early pikes. From my testing, two handed spearmens are very VERY good at holding off infantry (even better than pikes actually heh). and does a ok job at holding off cavalry. (still gets overrun by heavy onces though) so it's both historically realistic and useful.

C.Right now I have both Mamluk and Royal Mamluk as horse archers with strong melee attack, and Khassaki as a lancer, Mamluks did use lance, but I don't want to over represent them, and most of their lance user used it with a bow anyway. and since you can't have a unit in M2TW that is both a HA and a lancer (As you can only have two weapon, and lance as a secondary weapon don't work properly) and if you have to make a choice between the two the bow is the no brainer choice.

D. getting unit spots open isn't THAT difficult. there are alot of overkill representation that could easily be removed.. levy archer / archer militia could be merged (they have the same stats anyway, with all the different variety and consider the peasant xbow / crossbow milita Billmen / Bill militia pikemen / pike militia etc you can easily free up a dozen slots already). and then a part that I plan on removing is the overkill of the Crusader state's templar and special knights. at this point all I plan on retaining is the Knights of Jerusalem (and dismounted version) Canons of the Holy Scepture, and remove all the other none sense templar units except the sergents. I think this is already enough to gain like what. 20 slots ? and of course some random units here and there that could be removed... like Highland Noble archers... There's also a argument that we could remove the Lituanian Nobles and simply use Boyars (that isn't high on the agenda list though)

[Polycarpe]

Here a suggestion, why not incorporate the slave system of BC for the ghulam troops? I mean, all the muslims factions use the slave system and the ghulam were superior professional troops I believe.

You've made the royal mamluk as heavy HA, that is interesting

I have the idea to make the khwarezmian empire with more daylami troops by using the light infantry as javelin/skirmish troops and daylami heavy infantry with javelin/good tackle for melee. and make the persian horsearcher available at the beginning. What do you think?

[RollingWave]

that's probably what I'd do too... data on the Kwarzmid era tend to be limited as well, since you know... they were litererally removed from the face of the earth by a certain Khan...

My basic idea is that you should give them more turkish units, such as replacing Saracen archer with Turkish archer instead (makes more sense, and also free up a unit slot!). the Persian archer seem wayyyy too Imbal IMHO (it's basically armoured longbowmen right off the bat on the cheap), but that's for another day..

your idea on the Daylami is basically what I have in mind.

I do have Ghulam still in, (that reminds me, I should remove Turkish Ghulam and that'll free up a slot.) though different faction gets them at different phases, essentially Turks get them until new era , Egypt gets them until the Mamluks appear, Kwarzemid probably have them from start to end, while Moors gets them from around heavy mail event onward (and only the infantry, as I see no record of heavy slave cavalry of the moors)

I do plan on adding a Islamic Arquebus unit for Moors / Egypt / Kwarzmid and possibly Turks as well, they were around (well except for Kwarzmid for obvious reasons) just not as common as western states, not helped by the general declining status of Moors and Egypt during that time . some of the later Ottoman Azabs used guns as well.

[Ichon]

It sounds like some interesting changes but maybe you could also who a slow progression of shock charge stats from 1100 when game starts to later units which higher have charge values as equipment and training improve through the medieval wars?

IE- Mailed knights and Feudal knights being made into the same unit sounds ok on the face of it with armor improving due to metallurgy but charge of 8 sounds right for them not the 10 and 12 of later knights. Armors might also be lowered a bit initially to reflect that while the man was armored the armor for horses was much slower in developing and many of the 1st Crusades battles had so many horses being shot out from under them that the majority of knights fought on foot vs the Turks. So at maximum armor level after all improvements are added a mailed knight reaches at most 18 total defense so starts at 14 or so which is sufficient in early game and improves as more professional and deadly infantry also emerge. BG and elite knights such as Orders or Gendarmes etc are probably the only ones which go past 20 total defense as quality armor is quite expensive and the difference between average plate and exceptional steel plate is pretty big.

Cavalry militia being tied to merchants guilds make sense... not as sure about dismounted militia- are you thinking like caravan guards or a similar group of lower paid mercenaries contracted soldiers that worked with merchants to protect shipments or the actual conscripted merchants themselves forced to fight?

The Border raiding cavalry are probably ok to work similar to mailed knights with armor improving over time- the difference between border cavalry and mounted sergeants would be more in discipline and morale and maybe slightly in +1 melee for sergeants who had professional training. Cost should be slightly more for the professionals(+1 is enough as with XP that raise the mounted sergeants from 3 to 6 melee while the raiders from 2 to 5). Of course the professionals are more limited availability offset by the fact they will stick around in a melee after charge where lower morale raiders are not interested in that sort of fight.

Scots 2 handed spears sounds like a good change. Such units should be effective vs most infantry outside of some well armored and trained infantry and more effective against cavalry than regular spearmen but not yet the advanced pike formations of Swiss or even Flanders or some of the mercenary companies. Also as Scots were relatively poor and not able to afford good armor so 2h spears would be quite vulnerable to missiles. Highland nobles if kept would need to be very low availability but decent armor which might hold the front line against English armies equipped with many longbows. Though really the biggest difference between English, Welsh, and Scottish in longbows is probably availability and later for the English a few specialty units though if Scots had fought in the 100 years war like the English they would probably get some specialty units as well. Maybe just a later unit with +1 missile and +1 melee and let XP make up the rest of the difference. Scots and English/Welsh probably should start relatively close in availability of longbow but after some reforms England gets many more available. (also the Scottish highlands aren't quite the bow hunting training grounds of lower England's more remaining forests)

[RollingWave]

It sounds like some interesting changes but maybe you could also who a slow progression of shock charge stats from 1100 when game starts to later units which higher have charge values as equipment and training improve through the medieval wars?

IE- Mailed knights and Feudal knights being made into the same unit sounds ok on the face of it with armor improving due to metallurgy but charge of 8 sounds right for them not the 10 and 12 of later knights. Armors might also be lowered a bit initially to reflect that while the man was armored the armor for horses was much slower in developing and many of the 1st Crusades battles had so many horses being shot out from under them that the majority of knights fought on foot vs the Turks. So at maximum armor level after all improvements are added a mailed knight reaches at most 18 total defense so starts at 14 or so which is sufficient in early game and improves as more professional and deadly infantry also emerge. BG and elite knights such as Orders or Gendarmes etc are probably the only ones which go past 20 total defense as quality armor is quite expensive and the difference between average plate and exceptional steel plate is pretty big.

Cavalry militia being tied to merchants guilds make sense... not as sure about dismounted militia- are you thinking like caravan guards or a similar group of lower paid mercenaries contracted soldiers that worked with merchants to protect shipments or the actual conscripted merchants themselves forced to fight?

The Border raiding cavalry are probably ok to work similar to mailed knights with armor improving over time- the difference between border cavalry and mounted sergeants would be more in discipline and morale and maybe slightly in +1 melee for sergeants who had professional training. Cost should be slightly more for the professionals(+1 is enough as with XP that raise the mounted sergeants from 3 to 6 melee while the raiders from 2 to 5). Of course the professionals are more limited availability offset by the fact they will stick around in a melee after charge where lower morale raiders are not interested in that sort of fight.

Scots 2 handed spears sounds like a good change. Such units should be effective vs most infantry outside of some well armored and trained infantry and more effective against cavalry than regular spearmen but not yet the advanced pike formations of Swiss or even Flanders or some of the mercenary companies. Also as Scots were relatively poor and not able to afford good armor so 2h spears would be quite vulnerable to missiles. Highland nobles if kept would need to be very low availability but decent armor which might hold the front line against English armies equipped with many longbows. Though really the biggest difference between English, Welsh, and Scottish in longbows is probably availability and later for the English a few specialty units though if Scots had fought in the 100 years war like the English they would probably get some specialty units as well. Maybe just a later unit with +1 missile and +1 melee and let XP make up the rest of the difference. Scots and English/Welsh probably should start relatively close in availability of longbow but after some reforms England gets many more available. (also the Scottish highlands aren't quite the bow hunting training grounds of lower England's more remaining forests)

It's mostly concept right now, i'll have to see how it works, mostly though the charge of units seems to be more tied into horse mount than charge value, if I merge Feudal with Mail knights they'll use early heavy horse so no horse armour there, horse armor were not THAT common until middle parts of the medeival era anyway, in the early era at MOST maybe some general units had it.

My main idea with the dismounted merchant militia is mostly to fill a need on a very short early era militia roster of most catholic factions, basically representing the wealthiest commoners when force to fight, they'll be well armed but have really bad skill attributes (moral.. defense skills... etc..)

Yeah, i'll have to think about how Border Reiver work relative to Mounted sergents, probably less defense and not as good in terms of discipline, but I think one aspect would be that they have better enviornment attributes, i.e they suffer considerablly less or benifit more in rough terrain like scrub / forest / snow than most other cavalries, which was what the Reivers were most reknown for anyway, the ability to travel tough terrain on their horses quickly.


BTW, for those interested, here's version 2 of my mod, now with large changes to Moors and Egypt roster (but not much else yet) avalible for MSC 2TYP early and Roz mod TM9

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...73#post8154273

[Ichon]

It's mostly concept right now, i'll have to see how it works, mostly though the charge of units seems to be more tied into horse mount than charge value, if I merge Feudal with Mail knights they'll use early heavy horse so no horse armour there, horse armor were not THAT common until middle parts of the medeival era anyway, in the early era at MOST maybe some general units had it.

My main idea with the dismounted merchant militia is mostly to fill a need on a very short early era militia roster of most catholic factions, basically representing the wealthiest commoners when force to fight, they'll be well armed but have really bad skill attributes (moral.. defense skills... etc..)

Yeah, i'll have to think about how Border Reiver work relative to Mounted sergents, probably less defense and not as good in terms of discipline, but I think one aspect would be that they have better enviornment attributes, i.e they suffer considerablly less or benifit more in rough terrain like scrub / forest / snow than most other cavalries, which was what the Reivers were most reknown for anyway, the ability to travel tough terrain on their horses quickly.


BTW, for those interested, here's version 2 of my mod, now with large changes to Moors and Egypt roster (but not much else yet) avalible for MSC 2TYP early and Roz mod TM9

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...73#post8154273

Well mass makes the biggest difference in MTW2 charges and that is what the different horse mounts change along with a bit of speed, stamina etc. The charge stat is still making impact though and is the easiest to change per unit is why I suggested it.

Also most of the armor improvements actually add more than indicated unless that has been changed so actual difference between 14 initial mailed knight armor to the final armor level is going to add more than +4 defense.

If the border cavalries get more terrain bonus what type of mounts will you have them on? Should be different from the mounted sergeants(lighter, smaller) and that along with the lower morale/cost/-1 melee should make it differentiated enough.

Ok so you are thinking dismounted merchant militia are the burghers pressed into service? I can understand that but should be very low availability in early era. Tied directly to merchant guild level would make sense as cities grow in size and merchant guild grows more of these guys are available though in reading historically I'm not that aware of such men fighting. They usually concentrated on what they did best and hired mercenaries. The free cities had more mercenaries than anything else. So given all that using them to add roster to early era maybe isn't quite making sense. To represent accurately having very high recruit cost and upkeep but free upkeep in cities so human player uses to defend cities but AI leaves them alone mostly. Still- easier would be just to leave that alone and more do the following.

Maybe some units of freemen? IE- in 1100 there still most areas are not completely feudal with only serfs existing. So some units of freemen who volunteer to fight for loot or to protect their homes etc would have more availability and maybe fulfill the function you are talking about in the early rosters. Spearmen with +2 base attack and similar armor to militia but tiny bit better morale and defense skill?

BTW- food for thought, http://www.classicalfencing.com/articles/shock.php which reaches some conclusions I mostly agree with...

[Polycarpe]

For the daylami heavy infantry, I suggest the tawashi skin as for the troops but I don't know how to give him javelin and not actually good with milkshape( that was the name I'm not sure)

Azab are historically accurate but they need to be really changed. The azab in BC are quite good.

[Gorrrrrn]

catholic / order rosters idea:

remove templar longbows, squires (latter wouldn't be heavy infantry).
but make templar sergeants (mounted and dismounted) available at templar hqs (and equivalent orders) as Order sergeants.

english were using longbows prior to welsh wars of edward I - but the archer militia unit best represents those early bowmen.
scots never found a way of effectively incorporating archers into their armies and lacked the life-time training and practice.

[Silver Legionary]

I like where this is going.
Good theory crafting, guys...

[Gogolometro]

From all islamic factions, the only I like now are turks, but not in early. Like janisaries they are very very interesting and look pretty good. One thing lack is their survivibility in game. Turks disapear very soon in all my games even I play in Britania or Hispania. Thats wrong. Guess who was superpower in 1500?

[teks]

Scots 2 handed spears sounds like a good change. Such units should be effective vs most infantry outside of some well armored and trained infantry and more effective against cavalry than regular spearmen but not yet the advanced pike formations of Swiss or even Flanders or some of the mercenary companies.

I like this idea too since it's realistic, but they should not be effective against infantry. While wielding a spear and a shield is awkward, it's worth it 10 times over when the enemy closes in, and you can switch to a sword. I think any soldier would rather have a shield, and a sword to go with his spear, but the scots probably didn't have much choice in the matter.

I always felt that the islamic factions were not properly represented. While I couldn't find too much information on my own I do know that after all those crusades the islamic factions still won. Here are the points that I feel aren't properly represented, and I would love to here a more qualified opinion on these subjects.

1. Islamic factions had better swords early on. Their well-crafted curved blades could be swung much faster then a European equivalent. European swords were better at finding weak spots in armor though. I propose that Islamic swords get a -1 to attack, but swing much faster.

2. Ismalic factions don't get many armor upgrades. The Islamic factions did a great job adapting to fight the crusaders. They did not have heavy armor because it's suicide in the desert, but they did have the resources to make heavy armor if they wanted to. I propose giving the Islamic factions full armor upgrades even at the cost of lowering a units initial armor. This way they can keep light units in the desert, and heavy units farther north.

3. Europeans are inaccurately portrayed as being more advanced then the Islamic factions. Check this out...http://www.history-science-technolog...ticles%202.htm . Gunpowder started in asia, and in medieval 2 it somehow 'magically' jumped over islam right into europe. Based on this I feel that the islamic factions should have more, and better gunpowder units, and they should be available at an earlier time period.

4. If possible early Islamic fortifications should be stronger then the European equivalent.

5. Higher armor penalties in the desert. Saladin defeated many knights by simply letting the desert do the deed for him. There are many ways to simulate this..
* higher desert penalty statistic for armored units.
* Western General's bodyguard size decays in the desert rather then acumulate.
* Chance of some sort of bad event triggering when western factions end turn in the desert. Possible results would be unit losses(berber ambush, sandstorm),temporary bad general traits (the sand, and heat causes a horrible cold-like sickness. Many soldiers in iraq get it when they first arrive), and moral penalties for units not accustomed to the desert.

One last suggestion. gunpowder units should get the 'scares horses' attribute if they don't already.

I welcome criticism!!

[Ichon]

I like this idea too since it's realistic, but they should not be effective against infantry. While wielding a spear and a shield is awkward, it's worth it 10 times over when the enemy closes in, and you can switch to a sword. I think any soldier would rather have a shield, and a sword to go with his spear, but the scots probably didn't have much choice in the matter.

1. Islamic factions had better swords early on. Their well-crafted curved blades could be swung much faster then a European equivalent. European swords were better at finding weak spots in armor though. I propose that Islamic swords get a -1 to attack, but swing much faster.

2. Ismalic factions don't get many armor upgrades. The Islamic factions did a great job adapting to fight the crusaders. They did not have heavy armor because it's suicide in the desert, but they did have the resources to make heavy armor if they wanted to. I propose giving the Islamic factions full armor upgrades even at the cost of lowering a units initial armor. This way they can keep light units in the desert, and heavy units farther north.

3. Europeans are inaccurately portrayed as being more advanced then the Islamic factions. Check this out...http://www.history-science-technolog...ticles%202.htm . Gunpowder started in asia, and in medieval 2 it somehow 'magically' jumped over islam right into europe. Based on this I feel that the islamic factions should have more, and better gunpowder units, and they should be available at an earlier time period.

4. If possible early Islamic fortifications should be stronger then the European equivalent.

5. Higher armor penalties in the desert. Saladin defeated many knights by simply letting the desert do the deed for him. There are many ways to simulate this..
* higher desert penalty statistic for armored units.
* Western General's bodyguard size decays in the desert rather then acumulate.
* Chance of some sort of bad event triggering when western factions end turn in the desert. Possible results would be unit losses(berber ambush, sandstorm),temporary bad general traits (the sand, and heat causes a horrible cold-like sickness. Many soldiers in iraq get it when they first arrive), and moral penalties for units not accustomed to the desert.

One last suggestion. gunpowder units should get the 'scares horses' attribute if they don't already.

I welcome criticism!!

Well most of the infantry these 2 handed spears will be fighting is other spearmen. Would you propose they are weaker against other spears? That makes little sense to me. As for swordsmen- lightly armed and armored swords men wouldn't have that much more advantage than short spearmen but heavily armored swordsmen could probably defeat such groups. From Rolling Waves testing it appears it works close to that, maybe a tweaks but its already close.

I agree Islamics aren't properly represented and I think its due to perception the Crusaders came in and crushed them easily with a few thousands vs their tens of thousands. Actually it was more like half the Crusader knights were BGs with their best faction infantry and they still took heavy losses in most battles. The 1st Crusade battled through modern Turkey and was only successful at siege assaults. It lost many other field battles and really only achieved draws in the major battles however the Turks were preoccupied with rebellions and also realized why fight them if the Crusader are moving into Fatimid territory who were at the times enemies of the Turks and so for almost a whole year most important Turkish armies left the Crusaders alone. Also Fatimids who were at first temporarily allied with Turks against Crusaders deserted Turks in some battles trying to purposely weaken Turks because both sides did underestimate Crusaders.

1. In 1100 there isn't much doubt Islamic metal working was superior to Europeans yet due to different traditions and different climate most eastern warriors were not armed in as heavy as armor as the Europeans. I don't know if eastern factions should get much faster animation just due to the lighter steel of their swords. It is not that huge a difference in sword weight just due to metal- more that sword design was different. I'd say just that while they might not have as many heavy armored units as Europeans they had much more availability of medium armored units at cheaper costs than the Europeans due to their more advanced metals industries.

2. Europeans excelled at close combat compared to most eastern cultures which were adapted for raiding and quicker battle with more cavalry being decisive. Many European knights of the time still choose to fight dismounted due to cavalry requiring fairly clear ground for full impact of a shock charge whereas eastern horses were more for HA tactics of hit and run or flank, charge, retreat, hit other flank etc. I don't think it would make sense to give all eastern factions access to complete armor upgrades even if they were capable of doing it- such thing was against their fighting traditions. However- almost all Islamics and eastern factions have access to heavy armored warriors either through mercenaries, minor ethnics, or slaves such as Mamelukes and Janissaries were at least initially composed of. Byz and Moors got access to many mercenaries while Mamelukes and Turks have some mercenaries but also slave and minor ethnic units. K-Shah probably only left out but they are really such a weird culture in SS anyway as historically they were not a unified political state but a bunch of separate tribes ruled by Islamic conqueror. However in 1100 both Turks and K-Shah had many people in their lands who weren't Muslims, in fact Turks might still have been Muslim minority and the rest mix of Pagan and Christians. IE- 40-30-30.

3. Totally agree... the Muslim Ottoman armies were the first to heavily incorporate gunpowder as part of doctrines and the Ottoman navy began to establish control of the eastern Med in late 1300's and by 1500 was unchallenged- part of the reason Western European ships went west. In 1600s Ottomans raided as far north as Denmark and there are reports of Barbary corsairs fighting with English merchants off the coasts of North America. Battle of Lepanto in 1572 was first time in a century that Ottomans suffered serious naval defeat and it was only temporary. Ottoman decline didn't begin until 1700s and was mostly political at first- however Europe began to industrialize shortly after and left Ottomans way behind technologically but for most of the period 1100-1600 Islamic cultures were more advanced technology than Europe.

4. Mostly agree but how to represent this?

5. RC/RR already does much of this- I think the penalties etc could be more extreme for units far outside their normal climates though. Both for Europeans in desert heat and for example Moors trying to fight in the Alps or southern France/England.

[teks]

As a greek I am perfectly OK with this.