New Historical total war era - Total War: Three Kingdoms!

[Marcus Aemilius Lepidus]

https://www.ancient.eu/article/1142/...inese-warfare/

this a good article about the cavalry discussion.

Although i don't know much about cataphracts at the time of the Han-Dynasty from chronicles and literature, i know at least a dozend despictions in art, where i have at least partially horsearmour. Further at least the western Han-Dynasty was well known for their strong cavalry forces and in percentage they were much higher than in previous our later dynasties. Especially under emperor Wu and while they established the four provinces at Korea the Han were notorious for there heavy and superior cavalry.

[yutterh]

So i was curious about the stirrups and looked up when they were invented. Which was 266AD by the jin dynasty. So i feel having stirrups in the fame wouldnt be too much of a stretch. Especially considering we could have marisn reforms hundreds of years before they actually happen. So a hundred years before they were actually invented wouldn't be too much of a stretch. After all this is alternate history. Maybe have them be a near endhame tech that really powers up cavalry or something.

[zoner16]

So i was curious about the stirrups and looked up when they were invented. Which was 266AD by the jin dynasty. So i feel having stirrups in the fame wouldnt be too much of a stretch. Especially considering we could have marisn reforms hundreds of years before they actually happen. So a hundred years before they were actually invented wouldn't be too much of a stretch. After all this is alternate history. Maybe have them be a near endhame tech that really powers up cavalry or something.

So to clarify, we don't know exactly when the stirrups were invented in the empire. The most concrete evidence of their existence starts in the Jin dynasty, which began it's formal reign in 266AD, so that's what your source was likely referencing. The actual inception could've been during Later Han or the Three Kingdoms (which I think is likely), but ultimately, I'd argue that the concept of heavy shock cavalry was already established by the start date and that the invention of the riding stirrup (whenever it was) only represented an increase in effectiveness for a role that had already been filled.

[Intranetusa]

Correct, although stirrups exponentially increases the effectiveness and kinetic energy of the said horse/rider simply by the rider being able to brace, making them true shock cavalry. And, while I don't disagree about the Persians or Macedonians, the vast majority of Chinese cavalry during the early and middle TK period were "light" cavalry - they were not heavily armed, armored, or had horse barding like your Persian or Macedonian examples. While there are a few isolated examples of heavy "shock" cavalry in the early and middle TK period (primarily amongst the warlords of northern China, as zoner noted), it was not until the later end of the era that true shock cavalry emerged (primarily only in Wei/Jin) and became a mainstay of Chinese armies.

Yes, stirrups are not necessary but makes it better. Since we don't have stirrups anywhere in the world until around the 260s in East Asia, we can have early cataphracts vs better late cataphracts in the late game. (Though I doubt this complexity would be implemented given what we've seen so far)

Macedonian companion cavalry didn't really have horse armor either from what I understand. Only the rider was armored with the horse being unarmored.

Yes, the majority of cavalry in the Han era were not armored cataphracts and were lighter light and medium cavalry. However, that is true for Persians and Macedonians too. At Carrahe, 9/10 cavalry were horse archers. Macedonian companion cavalry only had some armor for the rider and no armor for horses, and maybe gets classified as medium shock cavalry in TW terms? Macedonians basically had no armored cavalry until they adopted them from the Persians after Alexander's conquests.

[geala]

In what way do stirrups add to the energy of a horse/rider combo and why are they essential for shock cavalry? You cannot truly brace with stirrups against frontal impacts (aka the force coming back to you when you hit with a lance) as for this purpose they had to be attached much further back than usually seen. A high back part of the saddle is much more important for such a "bracing".

Stirrups are great for getting on to the horse (in my language they, literally translated, are named "climb bails" for this), they greatly relax leg tension on longer journeys and they give lateral stability, good for sword play. For frontal lance combat they are of minor importance. As practical tests have shown (for example by M. Junkelmann's group, reenacting Roman cavalry) it is easily possible to use a crouched lance in frontal attacks without stirrups.

Shocks by cavalry are mostly psychological effects. Extensive horse armor may actually hinder it because a slow moving horse formation might not be as impressive as a fast attacking one. The more lightly armored Swedish cavalry was a much better shock troop than the heavily armored imperial adversaries in the Thirty Years war for example.
Cataphracts with armored horses had advantages in close combat (albeit at Issus the Thessalian cavalry could stand against the heavy Persian cataphracts for a prolonged time) and against missiles mainly, and perhaps they had a feeling of superior safety and thus superiority which mad it easier to attack.

[Seether]

"Stirrups enabled these warriors to merge themselves into an integrated fighting unit of rider and horse, and to use a lance to deliver a blow that fully reflected the combined kinetic energy of man and animal."

- Sources of Power: How Energy Forges Human History, vol 1. Weissenbacher. page 63

[ptoss1]

Considering that stirrups appeared almost immediately after the end of the Three Kingdoms and they already had mounting stirrups, is it really that far fetched for Three Kingdoms cavalry to have stirrups?

It's basically just adding another one of what they already had.

[Intranetusa]

@Seether, does the book explain why stirrups "enabled" this integration?

[Daruwind]

There are some new nice info from latest stream:

- New unit cards, toggleable with old ones
https://www.reddit.com/r/totalwar/co..._cards_for_3k/
- New relation screen
https://www.reddit.com/r/totalwar/co...elations_menu/
- Moving capital option
https://www.reddit.com/r/totalwar/co...now_available/
- new graphic option to switch between colour pallete of Records vs Romance
https://www.reddit.com/r/totalwar/co..._panel_for_3k/
....
and many other small things like chines VO, fixing ladies surname, trebuchet no longer OP....
https://www.reddit.com/r/totalwar/co...the_community/

Well if you want, see for yourself:
https://www.twitch.tv/videos/405501685

[PikeStance]

Thank God they change the unit cards. I also like the more realistic tones.

[Daruwind]

New blog post with list of achievements for 3K:
https://www.totalwar.com/blog/total-war-three-kingdoms-steam-achievements/



Loving it

[Daruwind]

Not sure if it was here already, they got wall artillery as well

[Seether]

Not sure how I feel about that...

[zoner16]

Yellow Turban DLC Gameplay Reveal:




While I dislike the practice of Day One DLC, from a content standpoint, this is looking like one of the most fleshed out and extensive faction DLCs that CA have ever dropped for a historical title.

This is one of those times where I can forgive the units being rather odd, because the Yellow Turbans weren't exactly orthodox, and from what we know of other religious revolts in Chinese history, some odd stuff made it to the battlefield.

[♔Greek Strategos♔]

Ι hate Day One DLC policy. It's one of the worst things to do to your community-potential buyers and that because additions like that should easily be in the base game from the beginning.

[PointOfViewGun]

Ι hate Day One DLC policy. It's one of the worst things to do to your community-potential buyers and that because additions like that should easily be in the base game from the beginning.

Why? It's a product. It's common sense to incentivize early adoption. If they didn't do that people would be whining how they got to buy the game first and didn't get anything for it.

[Leonardo]

Why? It's a product. It's common sense to incentivize early adoption. If they didn't do that people would be whining how they got to buy the game first and didn't get anything for it.

Of course it's a product, but with the disastrous release of Rome 2 TW and those who pre-order was given the Greek faction pack DLC (I forgot what it's called as I don't play R2TW anymore) R2TW was kind of a hyped game.

So what happen, when starting a new campaign? One who had a monster PC couldn't play the game and I bet some of those people who pre-order only did that just to get a Day One DLC for free had a monster PC.

So, that's why some people despise the "get a free DLC, if one pre-order a game" commercial strategy and unfortunately CA seems to use that kind of a selling strategy.

[Mantis42]

Not a fan either, but at least the week long window lets you assess early opinion by actual gamers first.

[AHumpierRogue]

Yeah, you do get a week grace period to determine whether you want the game or not which is nice. Don't get me wrong Pre Order DLC are not a good policy, but it is a reality, and at the very least unlike the Hattori, Vikings and Greeks of past historical Pre Order bonuses the Yellow Turbans actually seem to be super high quality, and very fun to play. Honestly at first I thought I would go for Cao Cao as my first campaign then Sun Jian and Liu Bei in any order before even thinking about trying someone else(and even then YT's were low on my list compared to other factions) but now they might be my second playthrough.

[PikeStance]

Why? It's a product. It's common sense to incentivize early adoption. If they didn't do that people would be whining how they got to buy the game first and didn't get anything for it.

I agree. It is marketing 101.
Either they entice you with a DLC and/ or discount. The alternative is the included DLC is not available for purchase until much later.
Based on the feedback by early access players, it seemed to be a DLC properly fleshed out. Did CA learn from their R2 release?