A few questions/thoughts about rosters

[Owl_killer]

1 why do the Polish have a unique mounted crossbow unit that's just worse than regular mounted crossbowmen? it seems kinda pointless.

2 in M1TW, Italians had Gothic Knights. What happened? they're not in vanilla or SS for Italians. Are they just taking a new name? I suppose they don't have the best defense anymore so its not very important, just wondering, but Gothic foot knights would be nice...

3 russian rosters confuse me a lot. why does Kiev only get 1 gun while Novgorod gets a bunch? then again, Kiev doesn't get much (any?) late units. also, why are heavy boyars not as powerful as boyars. heavy usually implies the oppisite. am I missing something, besicdes the SLIGHTLY higher defense.

[RollingWave]

1 why do the Polish have a unique mounted crossbow unit that's just worse than regular mounted crossbowmen? it seems kinda pointless.

2 in M1TW, Italians had Gothic Knights. What happened? they're not in vanilla or SS for Italians. Are they just taking a new name? I suppose they don't have the best defense anymore so its not very important, just wondering, but Gothic foot knights would be nice...

3 russian rosters confuse me a lot. why does Kiev only get 1 gun while Novgorod gets a bunch? then again, Kiev doesn't get much (any?) late units. also, why are heavy boyars not as powerful as boyars. heavy usually implies the oppisite. am I missing something, besicdes the SLIGHTLY higher defense.

1. because they get it right off the bat, most other mounted crossbows come much later.

2. Probably an oversight. Italians had the best armour .

3. Because Kiev didn't actually exist in the late era... it was overran by the Mongols and later on most of it's land were taken by the Polish-Lithuanian common wealth, though part of it is that the current roster is half cut from the Rusichi mod so there might also be some issue with the partial roster.

[Silesian_Noble]

1. because they get it right off the bat, most other mounted crossbows come much later.

So one non-historicity was 'cured' by making another non-historiocity? I'm sorry but how ridiculous is this! It should be done by other way - Poles should get its mounted crossbowmen similar to other factions and Polish MC should be not worse then other MC. Historically mounted crossbowmen were extremely popular among Polish armies. They appeared probably in second half of XIIIc, than became most popular Polish cav in XIVc while in XVc probaby around 70% Polish cav was MC. Also Polish Mounted Crossbowmen was never a hit & run cav like eastern mounted archers, but a quality melee cav. So one thing is that Polish MC should be strong and secondary there should be about 3 types of Polish Mounted Crossbowmen to represent their popularity and diversity (some Polish MC were servants, some were lower nobles, some were just padded, other got mail and another were even plate armored, also secondary weapon could vary axes/swords).

[Owl_killer]

oops this shouldn't be in sub mods.

Regardless: I don't understand the "they didn't exist in late period" argument. This is a video game. we are re-writing history. I'm not saying that you should make up a bunch of units to fill in for the time that Kiev didn't exist, but at least give them the generic array of late period units that make some sense in a eastern European context. IF the Kievian Rus had beaten off the mongols, then you can be pretty damn sure that they would use guns like most of their neighbors, right?

also I'm with Silesian_Noble, a heavy mounted crossbow unit would be awesome. He seems to think it would be historically accurate, so lets do it! to not contend the unit limit, give them regular MCs and make strzelcy (seemingly a broad term) an armored heavy cav with a crossbow you get later.

[RollingWave]

Hmmm , ok that can be easily done

[RollingWave]

Currently all the Mounted crossbows comes later anyway, it's the Strzelcy that comes early, and Strzelcy is already heavier armour than other mounted crossbow IIRC (need to check though) . it's not too hard to change the melee stats though.

[Ichon]

Is it possible to make them heavier but with fewer shots? IE function more like Noble's Sons but not quite as heavy, though with longer range and slightly more ammo than those guys have javelins?

I think there could be a few more versatile troops... right now it seems troops specialize as melee or missile when especially in the east the line was more blurred. Just restrict ammo so they aren't so overpowered.

[Gogolometro]

First Streczly are early unit, this mean so early than nobody near have something similar. Imagine hit and run tactics done with poles at 1100. So the point is they are very strong early and all who played Poland will certify that stats are irelevant because your enemy is just padded or unarmored at that year.
About Kiev, even they have a big role in 1100, later in late campaign we talk with ghosts. What if they survive? Try survive golden horde now if is posible around Kiev. We have cumans in game and none ask why they not have pikes, halebards and gunners.
Gothic knights sounds very german right? Why Venice, a republic with fanteria pesante or Sicily with normands, or genova need a gothic knight? By the way, gothic appear so late, is almost imposible to see them in game.

[Lord Humungus]

Talking about mounted x-bowmen - they didn't even existed in the way they are depicted in MTW. They only RODE to battle, then they dismounted and fought on foot, like XVII century dragoons. Sometimes they were used as light cavalry, yes, but they never actually fired their crossbows from a horseback. It's not even practical.
The only advantage crossbow has over bow is it's huge penetrating power and relative using simplicity. But because of the weight, complicated and slow reloading process, only specially modified ultra-light versions of crossbow can be used while mounted. But that kind of weapon lacks the power and distance of true crossbow AND requires more training, so again - it is not practical and defeats the whole purpose of using them in a first place.

I realize that MTW engine doesn't allow to dismount cavalry in battle, but mounted x-bows as they are now = joke.

[PerXX]

While it was common for most mounted crossbowmen to dismount prior to shooting their weapons, there certainly also were some that stayed mounted.
Granted, they weren't western versions of horse-archers, but would rather be well-armored, and participate in the mêlée.

Hans Thalhofer, a German fencing and general weapons expert from the 15'th century wrote several books on weapons use and warfare, one of which apparently should have a complete chapter on mounted crossbow use. Unfortunately I haven't been able to find that book, though there is a single picture here, in another book: http://www.kb.dk/da/nb/materialer/ha...ott-2_290.html

Phillip Von Seldeneck (also 15'th century) writes in his Kriegsbuch (War Book) that the mounted crossbowmen should be placed on the left flank, and attack the enemy lancers right after they had lowered their lances, because the enemy would usually carry their shields to their left, and they can hardly defend themselves with their arms.
He also specified that they should fire only once, (Which would also appear to indicate that they were capable of shooting several times). and then immediately engage with their swords, either trying to chop the tips off the lances, or to wrest them away from the lancers. If possibly they should then penetrate deeper, and engage in hand-to-hand-combat.

By this use, their main purpose was to break up the enemy lancers formation, and due to the immense danger of such actions, Phillip dubbed them 'doomed marksmen'. They should work in tandem with friendly lancers who would engage the enemy as soon as the crossbowmen had succeeded in disrupting the enemy formations.

The formation can be seen here; Mounted Crossbowmen in front, with Lancers in the back: http://diglit.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglit/cpg126/0105

As such, they filled much the same role that cavalry with hand-cannons later would do.


With the invention of full-metal crossbows, and push-lever and ratchet drawing mechanisms, made it possible to have powerful and reload-able crossbows that you could use while mounted. However, it seems likely that they would slow down/stop when reloading.

Crossbows could also be used from horseback when hunting, like Emperor Maximilian does here:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

So, you're right in that they're not depicted properly in the game, but mounted crossbowmen did exist.

[RollingWave]

With the invention of levers for crossbows it would be more than possible to use / reload heavier onces while mounted.. though yeah they were not really the same thing as horse archers, though the engine can't depict that at this point which is too bad (all they really need is to require them to either stop or at least can't run while shooting).

Still, mounted X-bow does have one advantage over Horse archer no matte what though.. they can wear more restrictive (and thus usually protective) armour .

[Gogolometro]

And by the way, a crossbow can penetrate real armor, horse archers will go for quantity for unarmored army.

[RollingWave]

And by the way, a crossbow can penetrate real armor, horse archers will go for quantity for unarmored army.

that would again depend on what kind of bow and what kind of armour, at least up until maile it was still more than possible for a bow to pierce it . and the benifit of horse archer over foot is that they usually have a better chance of landing direct shots on their opponents. only plate would be truely near imprevious to arrows. but then plate only became widely avalible at a very late date, and FULL plate was never widely avalible .

There was a prefectly good reason why early medieval knights carried very large shields like kite.

[Gogolometro]

You know when I say armor I imagine something like full plate. About arrows, I saw in museums some normal arrows from bronze age to medieval, but sometime I saw monsters, long, heavy with spikes. Tatars was experts of bow and arrows. But even some years ago I imagine a longbow or a steppe composite can penetrate armor, now I realise that was just pure luck. I look at woman dress XIV century, is so impervious, the dress can stand. I saw a lot of clothes from medieval times, surprising well preserved, in mu opinion even a good knife will have a problem with that. My point is just a lader armor with padded is not a easy target from a arrow fired from a bow, even close range. When we talk about a virtual mesh of metal like is mail, and under that again we have padded armor, not even ideea of hundreds of arrows coming mean this armor will be pierced. In my sincere opinion, like no expert, the rain of arrows, will hit probably from luck, a small part of unprotected area, face, or the horse itself.

[Lord Humungus]

Yes, there were mechanisms allowing to shoot x-bow from a horseback, but they got adopted relatively late (like 15-16th century). By that time usual light x-bows were already outdated as new armor types were developed, able to resist (not a 100% of course) standart x-bow bolt. That's why emperor in the picture uses x-bow for HUNTING, not for killing knights in full plate armor. For that purpose arbalests existed, and they greatly exceeded old x-bows by all terms. So once again - there is no point in using expensive, a lot of training and good equipment requiring troops when simple peasant levy with huge arbalest could do the job better and he costs nothing.

Surely, mounted x-bowmen could use tactics you described, but:
a) reloading process is REALLY slow that way and required full stop (on the battlefield!)
b) enemy arbalesters could shoot harder and farer than your cavalry anyway, so when they stop - it's turkey shoot.

I'm maybe wrong but that kind of tactic going to work only in rare, favourable situations.

[Silesian_Noble]

Talking about mounted x-bowmen - they didn't even existed in the way they are depicted in MTW. They only RODE to battle, then they dismounted and fought on foot, like XVII century dragoons. Sometimes they were used as light cavalry, yes, but they never actually fired their crossbows from a horseback. It's not even practical.

In Polish armies Mounted Crossbowmen always shot while mounted A claim that they shoot only dismounted is unacceptable. Polish sources describe precisely the most popular way of fighting of Mounted Crossbowmen - they were charging together with heavy lancers but behind their backs and they shot the enemy over lancers heads during the charge! So the lancers hit the enemy that was already hurt by the mounted crossbowmen fire. When both rival armies clash mounted crossbowmen joined the melee. And this is the most common way of fighting of Monted Crossbowmen in Polish armies and described example was typical tactic of Polish armies in late XIII-earlyXVIc. Of course MC could also harass the enemy before main battle or even dismount (but unwilingly, they were the horsmen and they much prefered the fight on the mount).

[Caesar Clivus]

Mounted crossbowmen did shoot while mounted. They usually used smaller crossbows than the infantry did and they used a cranequin for drawing the bow while mounted. But they still shot while on their horses.

[ninja51]

Perhaps slowing the reload time substantialy and makeing the mounted crossbows better at melee fighting would be a good compromise. To completely portray them as they were used in history is impossible, along with alot of combat intracisies, in M2TW's engine. I think putting a heavy emphasis on them being melee cavalry and making it so they can only reload very slowly is the best plan. It might actually require the player to move them out of combat and away if they plan to use their crossbows after the initial volly, thus portraying the slowing down/stopping required to reload and removing that heavy horse archer vibe they have

[RollingWave]

There are a lot of different tests conducted on the effectiveness of armour vs bow, though usually the conclusion have some variety since most of the test have considerablly different variables... if we use some of the longbow test results though, most war quality longbows could generate around 70-80J in normal shooting circumstances (like a semi arc shot over a significant distance) but in point blank shots might shoot up to 160J.

160J is almost certainly enough to defense any sort of maile no matter the padding and quality of steel / workmenship etc... and might even defeat lower quality plate, hence you see the text record of some early Norman battles against the Welsh where Norman knights wearing full heavy maile were pierced through the leg completely AND it pinned his leg to his horse AND killed the horse.

meanwhile, most test suggest that 70-80 J have a reasonable chance defeating maile depending on some variable factors such as the padding and quality of workmenship and the angel of the shot etc..

Of course, we're using the Longbow which is a pretty high standard for energy of bows, and this ignors the obvious issue that early knights carried big shields. thus it would still be reasonablly safe for them in battle with maybe the exception of getting hit by a direct crossbow shot that the shield didn't catch.

And also, the landing direct shot part is usually easier said than done.

[Gogolometro]

Plus we can add the WW2 experience about piercing shots at tank armors. Angle is evreything. A perpedicular shoot is the best. But look at soldiers, they are no cubes,in fact human is a very round shape all around, legs, head, even breast plate, so change to hit will consider that, almost no perpendicular shoot.
I saw tests maded with longbows, really close range, piercing a good steel armor, 3-4 mm thik. But consider that in battle, after you fire let say 5 shoots. To fire a longbow is like keep up 40-50 kilograms, with one arm. Noise, yelling, and some knights coming to you with maces, swords, and halebards to behead you mighty yeoman. I think lot of things about bows, especially longbows are overrated.