Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Announcement: Popovic`s Mercanary Love Mod

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1

    Default Announcement: Popovic`s Mercanary Love Mod

    This is something I have been pondering about for a while now. Up to recently I was too busy (or too lazy ) to actually start modding MTW2 myself, but as it seems to no other mod is in line with the ideas I have, I have recently started tempering with modding, and so far I feel that I might be able to create just the kind of mod for MTW2 I wanted...

    This post actually started out as a reply to this thread: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=431427
    You can read it if you want to get a bit more info on my ideas. Basically it boils down to the following: I always felt that the mercenaries were an undervalued part of the TW games. In many periods throughout history mercenary units comprised the core of armies. However, in TW games mercenaries are mostly treated as a side-effect, and are not used much, if at all. Originally, I intended to take away units from factions and then to add them as mercs, while upping both their recruitment, and their upkeep cost to such extent that it would be unfeasible to use these units for more than a few turns.
    However, I was re-thinking that original idea of mine last night, and came to a conclusion that it is horribly flawed.
    I believe that it would, in the long term, prolly lead to human players just blitzing through the map, as I believe that the AI would be too stupid to use the units in the way I just described, while the human player would be able to "abuse" this system to get good units quickly, when and where needed. This would of course, break what I consider is the strongest part of the SS 6.4, and that is RR/RC compilation, and the BGRIV submod.


    So, I decided on a different course of action….
    Take note that not all of the ideas I came up with is related to the balance of mercs, and that some of them will actually focus on games general gameplay balance.

    The Core Ideas:

    Now, I am aware that most "Local" just as most “Late Professional” troops in RR/RC CAN be considered some sort of mercenaries. Now that is all fine and dandy, but I decided that that isn`t enough. After re-thinking my ideas, I decided to take this one step further. I will do the following:
    a) break up the units in game with a specific role for them in mind and
    b) Remove a number of units from each faction. More on that later.

    a) Breaking up the units: ideas and reasoning

    As I stated above I intend to remove most units from most of the factions. After that I intend to break up the remaining units into two basic groups: Various local levies, and various local mercenaries.

    Local levies will encompass various feudal troops such as various knights, boyars etc. Also they will include "trash" levy troops such as peasents. I will remove most "militia" type troops, basically leaving the levies as something I consider they historically were: either landowners, which were also professional fighters, but which still didn`t live off the salary payed for military service in cash, or just peasants, who were as we all know, quite poor fighters. There will be very few, if any troops, in between these extremes.
    Basically these troops (Feudals and Rural Levies/Peasants) will work pretty much the same as they do now. I probably won`t tamper with them at all. Just as it is now, these troops will be recruitable in castles, and the replenish rates will stay the same. The only thing I will change is that I will remove pretty much all peasent archer types, and most non-feudal type units from castles.

    On the other hand local mercenaries will represent both the local troops that were levied into the army for a certain campaign, and then let go by the ruler later, but decided to turn professional and to try and find employment as mercenaries. These troops will also represent local "professional" (i.e. Late Profesionals) mercenaries that operated all over Europe during the Middle Ages. So, these troops will be a mix of troops that are now available to various factions as regular "Local" troops and late era "Professional" troops (I might even include the Early Professionals here, I`m still kinda on the edge about that). Of course Late Professionals will only be recruitable after a proper date. Also some troops that are currently in the game only as mercenaries might be transferred here.

    These, also, will mostly be recruitable only in castles, and will be tied with proper buildings. All of these "local mercenaries" will get a substantial increase in both recruitment AND upkeep costs. This will be done in order to simulate the situation where a medieval ruler`s army is comprised of: feudal knights, professional fighters (almost universaly mercenaries) and peasant levies (which were next to useless). Also this will force the human player to rely on these "mercenary" troops to create the backbone of his armies, which will, in turn, also make the game more challenging, as the higher upkeep will force him to limit the number of troops he musters.
    A sidenote: I am well aware that this might make HUGE problems for the AI. I will try to remedy those through the boost of Kings Purse, and the possible inclusion of the Fred Putz`s "Taxman" script.

    Also, take note that I intend to give certain factions more decent quality levy troops for recruitment. This will be based mostly on historical data . As a rough example: Byzantines had the thema system, so they fielded more and higher quality levy troops then lets say France, which was thouroughly in the feudal system, and which heavily relied on nobles to fight, while most other troops were either mercs, or non-professional combatants. Another thing I will take into consideration is the gameplay balance. We already know that the Byzantines pwn in early campaign. Giving them too many decent quality, easily recruitable troops might break the game. So, this will all be reviewed as my work progresses.

    b) Removing of units: the reasoning

    The thing I liked about RTW the most is the military balance of factions. In that game it was somewhat of a "rock, paper, scissors" system (with the Roman infantry being the buldozer ), i.e. some factions had certain units which allowed them to be played in certain manner, and to be effective against other factions, even if they are generally in a subpar position. For instance, Scythia was generally a weak faction, however, properly played, they could destroy more "advanced" factions by the use of their horse archers.
    I am aware that this "RPS" system is still somewhat present in MTW2, however, I feel that most factions have a relatively easy time getting any type of troops they might need. I intend to change this, and make all factions a lot more "streamlined" than they are now. I know some people will consider this as making the game more bland than it already is, but I believe that I personally will like this. And that is why I am making this submod in the first place

    So, what I intend to do is to remove a number of units from each faction in order to make them more "streamlined". For instance, I will make Khumans the "Horse Archer Faction". What I mean by this, the Khumans will not be able to recruit almost no other units except cavarly units, and I will try to make them especially preffer using horse archers, as opposed to medium cavalry or heavy cavalry (although I intend to leave units of those type they have access to). I am aware that this is not at all historically, but I don`t care. TW games aren`t that historically true anyways, and in my book gameplay>historical accuracy, any day of the week.

    So, this is the basis of the system I am devising right now. I intend to make this into a SS submod. I also intend to temper a bit with the BGR system (mostly in order to make it even more challenging).
    But more on that later. Also, I will have quite a few more things to say about all this, but I`m kinda tired right now, so I can`t be bothered to try and write down everything.

    Questions and suggestions are most welcome. I hope I will soon have something concrete to show...

  2. #2

    Default Re: Announcement: Popovic`s Mercanary Love Mod

    I think a system like that would be good for recruitment

    castle - recruit any city militia unit But much less commerce, very strong defense
    cities - any unit recruit But feudal

    a - Local Levy - Can any recruit anytime (awful morale)
    b - local militia (rural / city) - Can any recruit after some time with settlement , require culture
    c - local mercenaries (expansive)
    d - Imported mercenaries (even more expansive)
    e - local semi-professionals (require a good time holding the settlement ) require high culture
    f - full time treined mercs professionals (full time treined mercs) expansive barracks, require lot of turns holding the settlement or starting location and turns to some training and lot of gold to mantein) require very high culture
    g - Local Feudal Units


    but it would work better in 4tpi
    after conquer a city only levy would be avaliable for some time ,would take many years before be able to form a decent militia to self defence and much more to be able to train loyal professional troops
    and even after professionals become more common mercs continued to play an important role for a simple reason , is much cheper in the long run , because only the survivors receive the pay and mercs died a lot before it.
    Last edited by betto; March 17, 2011 at 11:35 AM.

  3. #3
    Polycarpe's Avatar Back into action!
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Quebec, Canada
    Posts
    3,338

    Default Re: Announcement: Popovic`s Mercanary Love Mod

    http://www.deremilitari.org/resource...les/reuter.htm

    From Wikipedia (this one describe well the recruitment in Middle Ages
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Recruiting
    In the earliest Middle Ages it was the obligation of every noble to respond to the call to battle with his own equipment, archers, and infantry. This decentralized system was necessary due to the social order of the time, but could lead to motley forces with variable training, equipment and abilities. The more resources the noble had access to, the better his troops would typically be. Typically the feudal armies consisted of a core of highly skilled knights and their household troops, mercenaries hired for the time of the campaign and feudal levies fulfilling their feudal obligations, who usually were little more than rabble. They could, however, be efficient in disadvantageous terrain. Towns and cities could also field militias.
    As central governments grew in power, a return to the citizen and mercenary armies of the classical period also began, as central levies of the peasantry began to be the central recruiting tool. It was estimated that the best infantrymen came from the younger sons of free land-owning yeomen, such as the English archers and Swiss pikemen. England was one of the most centralized states in the Late Middle Ages, and the armies that fought the Hundred Years' War were mostly paid professionals. In theory, every Englishman had an obligation to serve for forty days. Forty days was not long enough for a campaign, especially one on the continent. Thus the scutage was introduced, whereby most Englishmen paid to escape their service and this money was used to create a permanent army. However, almost all high medieval armies in Europe were composed of a great deal of paid core troops, and there was a large mercenary market in Europe from at least the early 12th century.
    As the Middle Ages progressed in Italy, Italian cities began to rely mostly on mercenaries to do their fighting rather than the militias that had dominated the early and high medieval period in this region. These would be groups of career soldiers who would be paid a set rate. Mercenaries tended to be effective soldiers, especially in combination with standing forces, but in Italy they came to dominate the armies of the city states. This made them problematic; while at war they were considerably more reliable than a standing army, at peacetime they proved a risk to the state itself like the Praetorian Guard had once been. Mercenary-on-mercenary warfare in Italy led to relatively bloodless campaigns which relied as much on manoeuvre as on battles, since the condottieri recognized it was more efficient to attack the enemy's ability to wage war rather than his battle forces, discovering the concept of indirect warfare 500 years before Sir Basil Liddell Hart, and attempting to attack the enemy supply lines, his economy and his ability to wage war rather than risking an open battle, and manoeuvre him into a position where risking a battle would have been suicidial. Macchiavelli misunderstood the indirect approach as cowardice.
    The knights were drawn to battle by feudal and social obligation, and also by the prospect of profit and advancement. Those who performed well were likely to increase their landholdings and advance in the social hierarchy. The prospect of significant income from pillage and ransoming prisoners was also important. For the mounted knight Medieval Warfare could be a relatively low risk affair. Nobles avoided killing each other, rather preferring capturing them alive, for several reasons—for one thing, many were related to each other, had fought alongside one another, and they were all (more or less) members of the same elite culture; for another, a noble's ransom could be very high, and indeed some made a living by capturing and ransoming nobles in battle. Even peasants, who did not share the bonds of kinship and culture, would often avoid killing a nobleman, valuing the high ransom that a live capture could bring, as well as the valuable horse, armour and equipment that came with him. However, this is by no means a rule of medieval warfare. It was quite common, even at the height of "chivalric" warfare, for the knights to suffer heavy casualties during battles.

  4. #4

    Default Re: Announcement: Popovic`s Mercanary Love Mod

    Quote Originally Posted by Byzantium guard View Post
    http://www.deremilitari.org/resource...les/reuter.htm
    From Wikipedia (this one describe well the recruitment in Middle Ages
    Ok, I just skimmed through that, but from what I saw, Wikipedia agrees with me and my ideas
    Anyway, the work needed to get this done is kinda daunting... It`ll take a lot of time before I finish this.

    One more thing to add: I always disliked how this games goes on until the late reneissance/early baroque period. This is supposed to be Medieval Total War.

    So, the following will also occur in this little submod of mine:
    ALL late era units, and especially gunpowder units are flying out the window.
    Also, the campaign will end in 1453. (this will make the lack of late era units more realistic).

  5. #5
    Polycarpe's Avatar Back into action!
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Quebec, Canada
    Posts
    3,338

    Default Re: Announcement: Popovic`s Mercanary Love Mod

    Quote Originally Posted by popovic View Post
    Ok, I just skimmed through that, but from what I saw, Wikipedia agrees with me and my ideas
    Anyway, the work needed to get this done is kinda daunting... It`ll take a lot of time before I finish this.

    One more thing to add: I always disliked how this games goes on until the late reneissance/early baroque period. This is supposed to be Medieval Total War.

    So, the following will also occur in this little submod of mine:
    ALL late era units, and especially gunpowder units are flying out the window.
    Also, the campaign will end in 1453. (this will make the lack of late era units more realistic).
    I wasn't posting these links to contradict your point, just to help it.

    I tend to agreed about your point, it's supposed to be Medieval and 1453 is, for many historians, the end of Middle Ages with the Fall of Constantinople..

  6. #6

    Default Re: Announcement: Popovic`s Mercanary Love Mod

    a ideia create events(monitor if faction is at war) and use as condition in the descr_mercenaries.txt .
    if a faction is at war ,then give lots of mercs... and if in peace few ... mercs were used mostly during war ... and it would help AI

  7. #7

    Default Re: Announcement: Popovic`s Mercanary Love Mod

    England pretty much done. Also Russian factions partially done.

  8. #8

    Default Re: Announcement: Popovic`s Mercanary Love Mod

    Scotland done.

  9. #9
    Gorrrrrn's Avatar Citizen
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    here
    Posts
    5,546

    Default Re: Announcement: Popovic`s Mercanary Love Mod

    Doing some more reading (MJ Strickland's (ed) collection of articles on Anglo-Norman Warfare) -
    only just started and it mentions that Henry I in 1101 signed up 1,000 mercenary Flemish knights to supplement the 5,000 or so in England and Normandy.
    see also:
    http://www.deremilitari.org/resource...es/mcglynn.htm
    which references the Strickland article.

    whether that was exceptional or not I don't know.
    We know that William the bastard brought many mercenaries with him when he crossed the Channel in 1066,
    so it looks like there was a plentiful supply of mounted knights at the start of the 12th century in NW Europe.

  10. #10

    Default Re: Announcement: Popovic`s Mercanary Love Mod

    Quote Originally Posted by Rozanov View Post
    Doing some more reading (MJ Strickland's (ed) collection of articles on Anglo-Norman Warfare) -
    only just started and it mentions that Henry I in 1101 signed up 1,000 mercenary Flemish knights to supplement the 5,000 or so in England and Normandy.
    see also:
    http://www.deremilitari.org/resource...es/mcglynn.htm
    which references the Strickland article.

    whether that was exceptional or not I don't know.
    We know that William the bastard brought many mercenaries with him when he crossed the Channel in 1066,
    so it looks like there was a plentiful supply of mounted knights at the start of the 12th century in NW Europe.
    Intereseting stuff, really.

  11. #11

    Default Re: Announcement: Popovic`s Mercanary Love Mod

    Mercenaries was a major factor i medieval warfare, sometimes they ware a backbone of an army. In medieval Serbia they even became a personal guard of a Serbian Kings!
    Here some info:Attachment 161503
    I personally edit a FA mod for Serbian campaign to recruit mercenary units in brothel/inn/tavern ( like old MTW ) because mod have very little number of units in roster, low quality early units, and this allow player to have more chance to win ( for more cost, but no matter ), and now is little more historically accurate.
    Last edited by sale70; May 12, 2011 at 02:49 PM.

  12. #12

    Default Re: Announcement: Popovic`s Mercanary Love Mod

    Just a quick question to the community: do you feel that removing Pechenegs for the Novgorod roster, and adding Chude militia would break Novgorod (i.e. make it too weak)?

    BTW, just to let everyone know, I`m modding stuff in slowly, however, I am constantly revising stuff, and changing my mind, so things are going very slowly. Basically I`m modding stuff for my own use and enjoyment, although I plan to share the changes I made, once I feel they are significant enough to be called a submod.

    So, back to my original question: Chude in for Novgorod, Pechenegs out. This is historically correct (more or less), but would leaving Novgorod with very little to no HA break them down?

    P.S. I already reduced their regions from 8(?) to 4.

    P.P.S. I also plan to take Chude away from Kiev. Again, a historical change. Would it hurt Kiev too much?

  13. #13

    Default Re: Announcement: Popovic`s Mercanary Love Mod

    Interesting ideas though that source that Polycarpe posted was concerned with matters between 700-1000. Even if its conclusions are correct things were changing by 1100 and more swiftly as trade grew feudal contracts broke down and also the increasing power of kings who became more than just warleaders but heads of states.

    The link Rozanov posted is the best description of 1100-1300 warfare that my own knowledge and reading has indicated. The main differences after 1300 arose from economics and a rise in population. Armies that could campaign and control large territories in 1000 with 5,000 men now had to control 3 times as many people and so army sizes and garrison forces grew correspondingly. Also the proliferation of castles that were stronger and required serious efforts to control impacted warfare hugely. Economics and trade had shifted such that large parts of the population were no longer just agrarian. The vast majority was but even 10-20% of the population having specialized into a trade other than agriculture meant that taxes in coin rather than grain/food became more important and also the cost to construct arms, armor and the other various equipments of war came down. Dedicated fletchers that could churn out higher quality arrows than each archer fashioning his own etc meant the logistics of war also changed.

    http://www.deremilitari.org/resource...es/mcglynn.htm

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •