Archers vs. bowmen, dismounted knights vs. foot knights, and other miscellaneous naming choices in mods

[Maklodes]

I'm curious about what your take is on various naming variants in mods. Aside from using native language names like calling Spanish heavy cavalry "caballeros" instead of "knights," what are some of the naming choices you've seen that you've liked or haven't liked, and if you're involved in modding, what motivated you to make the choices you made?

Two I notice:

Foot vs. dismounted: E.g. "Dismounted feudal knights" vs. "feudal foot knights." I'm more used to "dismounted," but considering that in M2TW, the units in question never have horses (not even non-combat riding horses, since they move at the same speed as regular infantry on the strategic map) I guess "foot" probably makes more sense, as well as being shorter. I think dismounted makes more sense when talking about, say, dismounted yari cavalry in Shogun 2, who actually have horses, but get off of them.

Archers vs. Bowmen: E.g. "Peasant archers" vs. "Peasant bowmen." I prefer "archers." I'm more used to it, I suppose, and somehow "archer" sounds more stylish. I also prefer gender neutral names where convenient, so that, if it comes up, there's no need to discuss "bowwomen" (or "bowmen and bowwomen" for a mixed unit), since they also fall under "archers." I recognize that with some units (spearmen, for instance) there may not be good gender neutral names (Spear sergeants? Spear infantry?), but since there happens to be one for the units in question (archers), why not use it?

[Dude with the Food]

In civ 5 Bowmen are unique to Babylon so I generally associate that term with ancient warfare. Then again, I think bowman also sounds more formal and I'd use it more for semi-professional troops. Peasants are simply archers and elites get proper names.

I've never modded properly but I do often think about naming units and such. I think that sometimes it is better to use more vague words to describe them though, as opposed to the obvious ones in vanilla. For example, in TATW, just from the Dale list there are Rivermen, Woodsmen, Barding Hird, Dalesmen and Yeomen. These are good because being different, they help you get used to units instead of thinking English Knights are just the English equivalent of Chivalric Knights like is in vanilla.

[knight of meh]

In civ 5 Bowmen are unique to Babylon so I generally associate that term with ancient warfare. Then again, I think bowman also sounds more formal and I'd use it more for semi-professional troops. Peasants are simply archers and elites get proper names.

nah Yeomen or retinue Longbowmen sounds more professional

Bowmen and archers is just say what you see really .. Bowmen obvious but Archer just comes from old French and means someone who makes bows...

but what i really don't like is a mod that is released with lots and lots of units with names like "caballeros" (i mean like entire rosters) i respect the work gone into this but really with some of the historical mods on this site i just look at the pictures to see what i am commanding ...

[Aeratus]

In civ 5 Bowmen are unique to Babylon so I generally associate that term with ancient warfare.

While not for the same reason as yours, I also think that the term "bowmen" is associated with ancient warfare.

[tudor93]

Haha, this pic brings back so much memories. Oh, AOE1...

[Dude with the Food]

Which is why Yeoman and Retinue are the types of words you attach to a name of a unit that is going to be useful.

Which is why I don't play historical realism mods at all. Caballero sounds better for 1-2 units max but it doesn't mean I want to know it without learning the rest of the Spanish language.

Like I said before, vanilla ones a simple and tell you what it is. If it was slightly more varied like in some mods to give a more general idea to the troop type, I think the balance would be better but I like it as it is.

[Maklodes]

I agree that I prefer largely English names for units. (Or whatever language the game is in. If it's a German version of M2TW: "English knights" should be "Englische ritter" or whatever.)

Note on yeoman archers, longbowmen, etc

To me, yeoman seems like it should be the lowest level of longbow archer. Yeoman are supposed to be like a step above peasant archers -- still part-time farmers, part-time soldiers rather than being professional soldiers, but with more archery practice and better bows than generic peasant archers. If a part time farmer-soldier yeoman/franklin/whatever is a better archer than a longbowman, what exactly is a longbowman's training and background? It seems like the progression should be peasant archers --> yeoman archers --> longbowmen --> retinue longbowmen, assuming we're keeping England with so many variants on the same unit anyway. (I kinda want to rip out one of the longbow units and replace its spot in the castle archery progression with a unit of missile cavalry or something. Maybe Norman javelin cavalry? Did that exist? Also maybe make the archer militia a relatively weak longbow militia, equivalent to Welsh longbowmen or something.)

[Kataphractos]

Wololo

[Sitalkes]

In the First Crusade, the knights had to eat their horses while crossing Anatolia, but they were still knights and they fought on foot until after the battle of Antioch so they were dismounted knights even though they didn't have any horses. There are other similar examples of knghts fighting on foot without recourse to their horses in battle. Their status as knights did not change and saying that they are dismounted knghts is an indication of their effectiveness in combat, so the name is correct.

[Maklodes]

Their status as knights did not change and saying that they are dismounted knghts is an indication of their effectiveness in combat, so the name is correct.

In your view, would calling them foot knights be any less correct, or suggest a different level of effectiveness in combat?

[Sitalkes]

No you can't call them foot knights because to be a knight you had to be a proficient horseman. Either they are dismounted knights or they are something else e.g. men-at-arms, mercenary swordsmen etc. In tabletop games the ability to move cavalry around the table and then dismount them as some sort of powerful infantry is a potential game-breaker since it means you can always get the right match-ups. I do think it would be Ok to dismount your cavalry at the start of the battle, though, since that is what Huscarls did and is also what happened at Agincourt etc.

[PrestigeX]

I don't like having "dismounted" version of units being seperate. I prefered the way it worked in original MTW where some of the Mounted units could dismount in deployment stage -- yes they'd be the same size as their mounted version, BUT on foot they are extremely strong. Sort of like Muire or Hashisham.

big reason why I dislike the m2tw style of 'dismounted knights' is

1 - Dismounted versions always seem to be available before the mounted!
2 - They are more men than the Mounted version.

Its not that big of a deal, but I do like to use 'dedicated infantry' more so than 'dismounted' -- that means units like Billmen, Spearmen, and so on... the way england does it's "Armor Swords" or the SOuthern Europeans have the "Sword n buckler men" etc --

[Aeratus]

2 - They are more men than the Mounted version.

Exactly. There's no reason why the dismounted version should have more men compared to the mounted one. That's why I also dislike the system of having separate mounted and dismounted units.

[knight of meh]

Exactly. There's no reason why the dismounted version should have more men compared to the mounted one. That's why I also dislike the system of having separate mounted and dismounted units.

actually i can think of several reasons

1)properly trained warhorses are rarer than trained men

2)consistency all professional infantry have this many men per unit etc only elites should have less

3)if it was me making these units i would have made all the infantry first then dealt with the difficult horse animations so it may have been the case that actually the mounted got less men after being made up to dismounted standards,with due consideration to the charge bonus and speed bonus etc , not that the dismounted units got enlarged after they were made

[Maklodes]

I do agree that cavalry with a dismount feature would be preferable to "foot cavalry" or "dismounted cavalry" as separate units.

1 - Dismounted versions always seem to be available before the mounted!

Huh. I thought that mounted versions were available first. Now that I look at, it seems more split.

List of mounted/dismounted availability

Mounted first: *Arab cavalry is available far sooner than dismounted Arab cavalry. (motte and bailey vs. fortress). *Boyar sons (wooden castle vs. fortress) *Druzhina (castle vs. fortress barracks). *Byzantine lancers (fortress vs. fortress barracks). *Mounted sergeants are available sooner than sergeant spearmen or armored sergeants (motte and bailey vs. wooden castle with garrison quarters (sergeant spearmen) or castle with drill square (armored segeants). Simultaneous: *Broken lances become available simultaneously mounted and dismounted to the only faction that gets both in campaign (Milan's huge cities). *Chivalric knights (Hungarian and Spanish citadels). *Conquistadores (Portuguese/Spanish large towns in America). *Feudal knights (fortress, for everyone except England and Portugal). *Imperial knights (HRE citadel). *Latinkon (citadel with armoury/earl's stables). *Men at arms (citadel). *Noble knights (citadel). *Norman knights (fortress). *Polish knights (citadel). *Polish nobles (wooden castle). *Sipahi lancers (fortress). Dismounted first: *Dvor (fortress with archery range vs. citadel with earl's stables). *English knights (citadel vs. citadel with Earl's stables). *Feudal knights (England and Portugal: fortress vs. fortress with baron's stables). *Huscarls (castle vs. castle with knight's stables). *Portuguese knights (citadel vs. citadel with earl's stables). Ambiguous: *Christian guard are available sooner dismounted from citadels, slightly. (It requires more upgrades to get to a citadel with king's stables than a citadel with an armoury.) However, mounted Christian guard has a pathway to availability which does not involve citadels at all (huge cities). (Personally, I find huge cities easier to get than citadels, so I'd call this one for "mounted first")

[Aeratus]

@Knight of Men

If the unit is a "foot knight," then I think the infantry unit can properly have more men than the cavalry version.

However, if the unit is a "dismounted knight," then it should have the same amount of men as the cavalry version. This is because "dismounted" means that the unit was originally a mounted unit that came along with horses, and simply choose to get rid of their horses.

*Mounted sergeants are available sooner than sergeant spearmen or armored sergeants (motte and bailey vs. wooden castle with garrison quarters (sergeant spearmen) or castle with drill square (armored segeants).

That seems logical, since the dismounted for is the default form. That's why the infantry version is not called "dismounted sergeants."

[Maklodes]

That seems logical, since the dismounted for is the default form. That's why the infantry version is not called "dismounted sergeants."

Interesting. You think it's most logical that the "variant form" of a unit would be available before the "default form?" I'd think the opposite.

[Gromovnik]

So, pirate ghosts or ghost pirates? It's a tough decision.

[knight of meh]

@Aeratus

i disagree (surprising hunh)

a knight is a type of training specifically it means horsemen ,

dismounted knights could have just chosen to dismount out of personal preference.. maybe they didn't have enough money to keep a war horse etc .So right when the unit was founded they were dismounted (trained as horsemen but there were no horses available)

also it doesn't say when they dismounted at the start of battle or when there horses got killed , so if the horses got killed why wouldn't you group them into larger bodies of infantry so that they are more effective ? so i see dismounted knights as horsemen who would have liked to have a horse but don't right now so are acting as infantry and should adopt infantry tactics if they can.

also foot knights are a later edition to this kind of warfare they were rarely mounted at all except when travelling . so they should have an infantry level complement of men because there weapons like pole axes and stuff just don't work from horseback

[Yayattasa]

I always wondered why the dism. variants have less movement points in the campaign map... I think they shoul maintain the same number of MPs and their unit pic should show a horse standing by the soldier.