[Suggestion] muslim weaponry and military structure in future BC versions

[Prince of Judah]

I hope 3.0 removes many of the AP units. There are far too many, and It damages balance. Christian factions are either unrealistically underpowered, or Muslim ones are unrealistically overpowered. The unit sizes have such disparity still it makes the game unbalanced, despite Gamegeek's edu, which is certainly an improvement.
EDIT:

The ottoman units really need to be replaced with other ones too.

"Ottoman Heavy Infantry" should be relabelled as a Palace guard type unit, since they are very elite.

[Heeehehe]

I hope 3.0 removes many of the AP units. There are far too many, and It damages balance. Christian factions are either unrealistically underpowered, or Muslim ones are unrealistically overpowered. The unit sizes have such disparity still it makes the game unbalanced, despite Gamegeek's edu, which is certainly an improvement.
EDIT:

The ottoman units really need to be replaced with other ones too.

"Ottoman Heavy Infantry" should be relabelled as a Palace guard type unit, since they are very elite.

i thought it's the muslim that unrealistically underpowered

[Prince of Judah]

They are loaded with AP infantry, AP cavalry as well, which are much better than knights. There are the Mutawa(sorry I can't spell it) spearmen which outmatch Christian equivalents. Muslim factions relied primarily rely on militia for infantry, with some professional mercenaries and a very small number of palace guards. BC, in its current state, is vary unfair to Christian factions, with the exception of the ERE. The mod has a lot of blood, sweat, and tears put into it. But that doesn't change the fact that it is fantastical rather than historical. on an unrelated note, I find your sig amusing. So you think non Muslims should be forced to submit to Muslim rule, and pay taxes for being Non-Muslim? I suggest you remove that, since it utterly discredits you on this forum and does no service to your faith (regardless of whether or not forcing the submission of infidels is supported by Islamic scripture or not), in the eyes of TWCers.

[wudang_clown]

Muslim factions relied primarily rely on militia for infantry, with some professional mercenaries and a very small number of palace guards.

Oh, you are very wrong. What surprises me is that you are making no effort to expand your knowledge on this matter.

As for your aggressive remarks regarding other user's signature - this is highly irrelevant. If you want to discuss such things, send a PM to him.

[DMX23]

They are loaded with AP infantry, AP cavalry as well, which are much better than knights. There are the Mutawa(sorry I can't spell it) spearmen which outmatch Christian equivalents. Muslim factions relied primarily rely on militia for infantry, with some professional mercenaries and a very small number of palace guards. BC, in its current state, is vary unfair to Christian factions, with the exception of the ERE. The mod has a lot of blood, sweat, and tears put into it. But that doesn't change the fact that it is fantastical rather than historical. on an unrelated note, I find your sig amusing. So you think non Muslims should be forced to submit to Muslim rule, and pay taxes for being Non-Muslim? I suggest you remove that, since it utterly discredits you on this forum and does no service to your faith (regardless of whether or not forcing the submission of infidels is supported by Islamic scripture or not), in the eyes of TWCers.

.........Another crusader.alaaaah wou akbar!!!!!LOL

[Heeehehe]

They are loaded with AP infantry, AP cavalry as well, which are much better than knights. There are the Mutawa(sorry I can't spell it) spearmen which outmatch Christian equivalents. Muslim factions relied primarily rely on militia for infantry, with some professional mercenaries and a very small number of palace guards. BC, in its current state, is vary unfair to Christian factions, with the exception of the ERE. The mod has a lot of blood, sweat, and tears put into it. But that doesn't change the fact that it is fantastical rather than historical. on an unrelated note, I find your sig amusing. So you think non Muslims should be forced to submit to Muslim rule, and pay taxes for being Non-Muslim? I suggest you remove that, since it utterly discredits you on this forum and does no service to your faith (regardless of whether or not forcing the submission of infidels is supported by Islamic scripture or not), in the eyes of TWCers.

I like this word "for I bring the men who desire death as ardently as you desire life" and Khalid Ibn Al-Walid too of course I think he is the greatest generals ever. about tax, i think it's better than pay taxes for being human, they get protection, the muslim have to pay zakat the non-muslim don't, it's fair for me, we always have to pay taxes anyway now. I value truth more than "Eye of TWCers", so I will refuse your suggestion

[Prince of Judah]

Let me correct myself, the Ayyubids used primarily miltia for their infantry, likewise the Seljuks focused primarily on cavalry. I have not researched more eastern Muslim factions extensively. There is no need to accuse me of not attempting to expand my knowledge. I read constantly. I never claimed to be an expert on eastern Islamic militaries. As far as the crusader states are concerned, they had minimal contact with Islamic factions outside of their immediate vicinity, Khwarzem mercenaries being the only exception I am aware of. I am also certainly correct in asserting that Muslim factions do have an unfair advantage, due to their disproportionate amount of AP units.

As for my highly irrelevant remarks, they are no more aggressive or rude than his signature, which reaches a level of offense and absurdity that makes my off topic remarks pale in comparison. You should be complaining about his stupid signature, not my at least marginally justified remarks.

[DMX23]

Let me correct myself, the Ayyubids used primarily miltia for their infantry, likewise the Seljuks focused primarily on cavalry. I have not researched more eastern Muslim factions extensively. There is no need to accuse me of not attempting to expand my knowledge. I read constantly. I never claimed to be an expert on eastern Islamic militaries. As far as the crusader states are concerned, they had minimal contact with Islamic factions outside of their immediate vicinity, Khwarzem mercenaries being the only exception I am aware of. I am also certainly correct in asserting that Muslim factions do have an unfair advantage, due to their disproportionate amount of AP units.

As for my highly irrelevant remarks, they are no more aggressive or rude than his signature, which reaches a level of offense and absurdity that makes my off topic remarks pale in comparison. You should be complaining about his stupid signature, not my at least marginally justified remarks.

it's just a citation of a muslim general (reputed for his genius....And brutality).take it easy man

[Heeehehe]

it's just a citation of a muslim general (reputed for his genius....And brutality).take it easy man

Hmmm I don't think he is brutal, maybe for a man that used to live in peace killing is considered to be brutal (I used to live in peace), but actually it's depend more on "how and why" i think

[Prince of Judah]

Thanks DMX. I do need to calm down. I think it is a combination of horrid headaches (due to bad weather, changing barimetric pressure) and the fact that my air conditioner isn't working properly in 95+ degree weather, as well as Amazon.com screwing me in over 100 USD worth of books i purchased for EoR research, is turning me into a bit of a jerk.

[Heeehehe]

about the underpowered muslim, I think there's many muslim ability and technology than are not present in the game, like faris ability to shoot 5 arrow/2.5 second (i read in ospray). two handed lance charge, damascus steel weapon and armour, Fireproof clothing, Hand cannon, Ballistic war machine (According to Chinese sources, two Muslim engineers, Alaaddin and Ismail (d. 1330), built machines of a ballistic-weapons nature before the besieged city of Hang-show between 1271-1273. Chinese sources mention that when this war machines were fired, the earth and skies shook, the cannons were buried seven feet into the ground and destroyed everything.) Siege cannon, fire lance, Torpedo, better medicine (better change for unit to survive death), better navigation (longer distance campaign movement) etc. but like what is written in BC FAQ "we have no qualms with bypassing or 'enhancing' history for gameplay purposes".

Hindu India and Mongol is historically underpowered too I think

[m_1512]

Does that mean, mongols non-playable???

[Messremb]

From my point of view this is an entire page (or more) used for a pointless discussion- the modders create the patches how they think is best because it's their work.
You don't like something, edit it in your install- tweak unit stats, tech trees, attributes and so on. I mod to my own liking every mod I play and don't play those I don't like or think they're beyond redemption.
What's the point of all this whining? Let them work in peace, say thank you and be quiet. (now there's a philosophy! )

[Heeehehe]

From my point of view this is an entire page (or more) used for a pointless discussion- the modders create the patches how they think is best because it's their work.
You don't like something, edit it in your install- tweak unit stats, tech trees, attributes and so on. I mod to my own liking every mod I play and don't play those I don't like or think they're beyond redemption.
What's the point of all this whining? Let them work in peace, say thank you and be quiet. (now there's a philosophy! )

Yes i do that too, that is more to support my argument about the underpowered muslim when i talk to imperiumiv, my conversation is out of this thread topic actually sorry about that

[Prince of Judah]

I don't think that technology can be put in the game due to limitations with the MTW2 engine. I also doubt it was used extensively. Example, Crossbows have been around since 500 BC in China and 400 BC in Greece, but were never widely used (In Greece), for one reason or another.

Also, I think missile units need their attack values (or whatever stats necessary to make them more useful) increased. This is a mod that uses high armor values, so it needs to be balancer by higher missile values.

[Dago Red]

Also, I think missile units need their attack values (or whatever stats necessary to make them more useful) increased. This is a mod that uses high armor values, so it needs to be balancer by higher missile values.

You can check out the real battle sub mod for a different approach to missiles, but I disagree for the most part. Arrows tend to inflict heavy casualties on light troops over time and do very little against heavy armored troops -- and I think that's how it should be. We know for a fact that the Turks of Rum could not stop the Crusaders from crossing Anatolia in 1098 despite mustering all they had against them before it was done. Many historical sources on both sides say they just could not inflict serious casualties on the armored footmen and even fewer on heavily armored knights. Just a year prior Kilij Arslan decimated a massive "army" of unarmored peasant crusaders who came before the real Crusade.

Missiles in general should have catastrophic repercussions on light troops, and not be much more than a nuisance for most heavy armor unless it's fired from a crossbow or has otherwise some reason for being effective against armor. There are of course, specially designed armors that can defend against arrows without being classed "heavy" too, such as thick overlapping hardened leather scales.

Another point in fact, when Saladin defeated the large allied Crusader army at Hattin, he did so by harrying them the whole way to the battlefield with hit and run horse archers and missile units. They caused very few casualties, but that wasn't the point, he meant to throw them off and delay their arrival -- making them use all their water in the hot summer so that by the time they arrived at the main battle they were dying of thirst. The Ayyubids won with superior planning, strategy, and tactics more than by superior arms.

This brings us to the issue that BC tends to have more heavily armored troops than was likely historical for many of these factions. But Harafisha volunteers and Ghazi fanatics just aren't that sexy.

[wudang_clown]

The Ayyubids won with superior planning, strategy, and tactics more than by superior arms.

This brings us to the issue that BC tends to have more heavily armored troops than was likely historical for many of these factions. But Harafisha volunteers and Ghazi fanatics just aren't that sexy.

Well, claiming that BC units as merely "sexy", and suggesting that they have little basis in reality on a basis of one battle is simply unjust.

We had a fierce dispute about it few months ago; the thread (closed) is somewhere there. There was much of heat during discussion, but there were also several interesting arguments used.

Anyway, any conclusions about alleged superiority of Latin arms and alleged lightness of Muslim troops are pointless, because archeological (sculptures, paintings, weapon and armour artefacts) and documentary (official registers) data proves something different.

Every army in the Middle East had access to weaponry and armour of high quality. Ayyubids were even importing weapons from Europe. Indian weaponry was also of high quality and was used by Muslims; and they had their own blacksmiths, after all. So, the issue is not whether Muslim were using heavy equipment, but in what numbers they were using it, because that was only a matter of money - you had money, you could decently equip your army. Today situation is different, because weapons are incomparably more sophisticated, and process of their production is incomparably more complicated. But then there was not such a big difference to talk about superiority in general (not to say: on particular battlefields).

Another thing is composition of Saladin's army, or Muslim armies in general. You conclude that because those were horse archers who actually won the battle of Hattin, it means that "BC tends to have more heavily armored troops than was likely historical for many of these factions". This is clearly and overstatement. Firstly, you are talking about one battle. Secondly, "horse archers" does not automatically mean "light cavalry". Thirdly, composition of Saladin's army and composition of other Muslim armies was registered and some registers are available to us, and on their basis it can be said that no, Saladin's (and other Muslim rulers') army didn't consist of mainly light troops. On the contrary.

Most Muslim armies of that time consisted of ghulam corps as a backbone and various supporting units. Ghulams might be equipped differently, but they were not light troops. Evasive tactics and quality of equipment are two different things.

[Wareg]

Secondly, "horse archers" does not automatically mean "light cavalry".

I totally agree. Even during battle of Hattin 12 000 Mamluk cavalry weren't light HA.

According to ap for HA: I think that It is good idea for close bow HA. Much better than ap for crossbowmen. Crossow bolts with for ex. 6 damage and ap are the same dangerous against light troops as archers with 6 damage but without ap. It isn't logical, higher damage for crossbowmen without adding ap seems to be much better solution.
In case of HA ap can work as special arrows able to pierce armour but with much smaller range.
I think that at least Mongols and all Turks should have units of close bow HA, the same numeros as long range HA.

[Dago Red]

So, the issue is not whether Muslim were using heavy equipment, but in what numbers they were using it

I agree completely, I would never suggest that the heavy armor depicted in BC is unrealistic. I have seen suits of Ghulam armor, covered from head to toe in iron in many books and even with my own eyes in the finest museum in North America (which i took pictures of for the BC community here).

The question is, exactly, how prevalent various armors were. We differ on that estimate I think, though I won't argue about anything else you said regarding Saladin's army. I'm confident many heavily armored troops were present... I was making a separate point about the tactics of archery at the time directly to Imperiumiv's point because I disagree that BC's missiles are underpowered (they could maybe be very slightly increased). I think in general they reflect a great deal of accuracy. In my point about Saladin, he used his fast, agile missile troops not to defeat the Crusaders with deaths and casualties, but to bleed them -- and in the larger picture to sculpt the overall battle into a thing of his time and choosing, on his terms, by forcing the Crusaders into a particular situation.


PS.
There are plenty of lightly armored BC units that are "sexy" too, aka well skinned and pretty to look at. Particularly among the sumptuously detailed fabrics of the eastern factions.

[Prince of Judah]

I agree completely, I would never suggest that the heavy armor depicted in BC is unrealistic. I have seen suits of Ghulam armor, covered from head to toe in iron in many books and even with my own eyes in the finest museum in North America (which i took pictures of for the BC community here).

The question is, exactly, how prevalent various armors were. We differ on that estimate I think, though I won't argue about anything else you said regarding Saladin's army. I'm confident many heavily armored troops were present... I was making a separate point about the tactics of archery at the time directly to Imperiumiv's point because I disagree that BC's missiles are underpowered (they could maybe be very slightly increased). I think in general they reflect a great deal of accuracy. In my point about Saladin, he used his fast, agile missile troops not to defeat the Crusaders with deaths and casualties, but to bleed them -- and in the larger picture to sculpt the overall battle into a thing of his time and choosing, on his terms, by forcing the Crusaders into a particular situation.


PS.
There are plenty of lightly armored BC units that are "sexy" too, aka well skinned and pretty to look at. Particularly among the sumptuously detailed fabrics of the eastern factions.

I've done some research and I am under the impression that metal lamellar portrayed in BC is late 14th to early 15th century. Looking thru books I see illuminated manuscripts portraying mamluks equipment as nearly identical to crusaders. If they did use lamellar, which is plausible due to their turkic origins, it would not have been the type in this mod, and would provide less protection than chainmail. The Muslim illuminated manuscripts that i've looked at portray them with no armor, which is obviously not true. I think that most of the extremely good looking, but likely not so historical armor should be toned down.

Anywho, even if missiles are not underpowered in this mod historically, for gameplay, it still is not practical and does make missile units not very helpful.