Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 30

Thread: JoC/MWY Taxonomy of units

  1. #1
    Jurand of Cracow's Avatar History and gameplay!
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Cracovia
    Posts
    3,844

    Default JoC/MWY Taxonomy of units

    Guys,
    Following our recent discussions I’d like to present you my concept of typology of units in the SS/SSHIP I’ve had in mind for a few years now. It is partially observed in the SSHIP files (EDU and EDB) but not fully so. Implementing it would require a great deal of work so in all likehood it will remain only a conceptual framework. The MWY notes were used in this description as the concepts are partially based on his thinking.



    Additional types in the EDU are:

    • Ships
    • Artillery


    Note that:
    * among feudal knights there're also a.] bodyguard units (differ in price and availability), b.] lesser nobles (lower quality).
    * the "sergeants" are in the type "feudal levies", becaused this class means: soldiers levied within the feudal system.
    * late urban militias with staff weapons (eg. Swiss Halbadiers) are in the type "free professionals".
    * units available as mercenaries but that are actually factional / AoR have their recruitment prices calculated not as 2/3 of upkeep, but 16/6.

    You may also have a look at the RR/RC 2.0 framework - in deals with the similar issues at one place.
    The pricing issues for DIK are dealt in this post.
    Last edited by Jurand of Cracow; June 24, 2020 at 12:55 AM.
    If you want to play a historical mod in the medieval setting the best are:
    the Stainless Steel Historical Improvement Project,
    and the Broken Crescent + Buff and Shine.
    ........................................................................................................................................
    Reviews of the mods (all made in 2018): SSHIP, Wrath of the Norsemen, Broken Crescent.
    Pros and cons of having merchants in an M2TW mod. Arguments against the forts in M2TW.
    Home rules for playing a game without exploiting the M2TW engine deficiencies.
    Thrones of Britannia: review, opinion on the battles, ideas for modding. No good mod yet, alas!
    Dominant strategy in Rome 2 TW and Attila TW: “Sniping groups of armies”. Still there, alas!
    .................................................................................................................................................................................
    Developer of the SSHIP: traits, ancillaries, script fixing, guides, historical improvements

  2. #2
    Jurand of Cracow's Avatar History and gameplay!
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Cracovia
    Posts
    3,844

    Default Re: JoC/MWY Taxonomy of units

    Explanatory notes:

    • This is a summary of the units’ types in the EDU. It’s not a template for making units but rather a derived taxonomy. Many units currently differ in certain aspects – some rightly so, but some may need a re-thought in the futures. This table gives directions for a moder both for re-thinking and also for introducing new units. Note that this taxonomy diverges from the RR/RC framework that Stainless Steel is based on. It does so not in a radical way, and is (or can be) compatible with the other parts or the RR/RC. The base for this framework was my view of how it should look like, but at some point it turned out that in certain parts it was pretty identical with the MWY framework proposed in 2017/18 in the SSHIP team. I think that also the DIK (Die Italienische Kriege made by Aenerin) system is quite similar, if one takes into account differences between historical eras (DIK takes place in early Renaissance).
    • Quality: a general vision of how the stats in the EDU should look like. This is a derived, observable characteristics. Eg. feudal knights are always best equipped and trained (because they are the landowners class), while militias are of low quality. To calculate the right numbers, a spreadsheet with all stats from the EDU should be available (we don’t have one for the SSHIP).
    • Morale: in comparison to other classes. It reflects the typical, historical behavior of the unit. For the gameplay purposes, the morale points should vary a lot. Low should be 4, average 10, high 17 (all +/-3). This would mean that militia flee the field of battle only after some casualties are inflicted on it, while the religious guys fight very long. A low number may be combined with high fighting quality (eg. certain mercenaries).
    • Garrison: how effective is the unit for keeping public order in the settlements. The engine makes it possible to have only two levels: 50 or 100%. This attribute is important for the economic balance: how much does it cost to maintain order in a settlement (and for some huge cities: if it is possible at all). Militia and professional units have high garrisoning efficiency, while tribal and religious troops not so. For the feudal troops it varies, the peasants are for sure not very good at.
    • Free upkeep: this should be approached from the point of view of both history and the gameplay. The feudal knights or tribal warriors always required some payments from whoever called them (so no free upkeep), but the nomadic tribes would live out of their grasslands, and some militias would be kept by the burghers at their expenses. At the same time, having free upkeep for nomadic cavalrymen would help to attain the economic balance by the Cumans, while having free upkeep for a few units of (otherwise crappy but expensive) militias will give the player incentive to keep this sort of troops while in peace. Indeed, high garrisoning efficiency combined with the free upkeep makes militia a perfect garrisoning unit – what seems quite historical to me.
    • Upkeep price: it’s based on the historical situation: the knight required donations of land, the professionals required wages, the tribal troops demanded gifts. For the gameplays it should be based on units’ statistics (ie. “Quality), but may diverge occasionally. For instance, historically some factions had some units that were inexpensive for these factions, but similar units could be very expensive for the other factions. The deciding factor was usually a “martial culture”. Eg. the woods in Wales in England gave them exquisite archers. Other factions could have good archers, and sometimes even comparable, but it’d require a much more money.
    • Recruitment price: defined as a fraction of the upkeep price. It should be typical for historical situation of each type of the troops (see class’ descriptions below). It is nil for feudal knights as they come fully armed at their overlord call, religious orders as they come ready to fight for faith. It is 2/3 for mercenaries (they are armed but they require initial payment). It is equal to the upkeep price for militias (as the cities’ administration partially arm them) and tribal (as they have weapon at home). The standard is 16/6 for the rest, as it seems to be the average for the SSHIP. Bear in mind the EBII team thinks that the best is the ratio 16/3.
    • Recruitment time: number of turns to get a unit operational. It describes how much time is needed to organize a units, including training. Low number for units where the soldiers are already there but doing civilian things (feudal elites, tribal) or are available by definition (religious orders), slightly higher for the levies and militias as they need to be organized somehow, and much higher for professionals (it takes time to recruit, equip and train a unit). For mercenaries is obviously 0, as the units are there and ready.
    • Recruitment pool refilling speed: how fast the new recruits appear and how does it change with the number of people living in the province. For the urban units (militia and professionals) it increases significantly with the level of economic progress of the province as reflected by the “level of the settlement” (bigger cities provide many more recruits. For the religious orders units there’s no relation but for the locals the number diminishes with the economic progress (they are included in the feudal relations of the society).
    • Maximum recruitment pool: maximum number of units in the recruitment pools. High number for units where the soldiers are there doing civilian things in time of peace: militia, feudals, but low for the tribal trops as they’re not so many of them. Along the increase of population in the province (or rather the settlement level) this number will increase for most troop types but tribals (there fewer and fewer of them if they got into the feudal society) and religious orders (no relation). For the gameplay: this number is important only for the player because the AI would recruit whatever is available so this number won’t be any limit.
    • Availability: how often the units appear in the EDB. This includes the question at which level of the settlement it is possible to recruit them. Eg. the feudal elites can be recruited already at low levels of the settlements and also in the cities (Local Council building). The Professionals require usually need more specialized buildings that also means higher levels of castles.
    Last edited by Jurand of Cracow; July 02, 2020 at 11:22 AM.

  3. #3
    Jurand of Cracow's Avatar History and gameplay!
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Cracovia
    Posts
    3,844

    Default Re: JoC/MWY Taxonomy of units

    Overview of the types:


    • Feudal Knights: the social elites who own the land and wield political power. The may have been called differently in various parts of the world, and may had different sets of rights or obligations, but in all cases they are the land owners (high morale) with high martial skills (high quality) able to finance their gear and training (no recruitment costs), owing their allegiance to the Faction Leader (short recruitment times) and paid handsomely in donations or land grants (high upkeep costs). They are not numerous (low refill rates, average pool maximums), but if the number of population grows (more precisely: the settlement level is upgraded), so grow their numbers (increase in pool refill and pool maximum).
    • Feudal Levies: lower born people living mainly in the countryside, owing duty to their lords or recruited and trained in times of a need. They require initial payments for the gear and organization, but they are cheep in upkeep. They are of average quality and morale in battles: they're worse than professionals but better than militia. Those who are village-dwellers, are usually also poor at garrisoning the cities. If the number of people in the province grows, so grow their number.
    • Urban Militias: troops dedicated to defense and policing for the cities. They are paid by the burghers if employed as police forces (some free upkeep), but need to be paid if made a part of a rulers army. They also need to be equipped beforehand, but recruitment time is longer only for cavalry. They are inefficient in the field battles (low quality and morale), at least until 14th century when staff weapons begin to be widely used. They are highly available, and even more so if the settlement grows.
    • Tribal units: folk living out outside the structures of the feudal societies (ie also to the non-tribal locals). They get high martial skill through their life in the nature but often lack proper equipment. They're not widely available, but ready for combat almost instantly. They require initial gifts from the ruler and a moderate upkeep afterwards. They are obviously bad at policing the cities. If the level of the settlement grows (that means that more and more people are living in the feudal societal structure), their numbers dwindle.
    • Free Professionals: appear in greater numbers only in the later eras in Western Europe (note: better halberd or pike historical militias are considered professional), but also from the beginning in Byzantium and some other parts of the world. They have good morale, very good battle quality, and can keep order in the cities pretty well. They are very expensive in both recruitment and upkeep. It takes some time to train them. If the size of population grows, so grow their numbers.
    • Slave Professionals: appear in the Middle Eastern armies throughout the Middle Ages (historically, they even took political power in some places, most notably Egypt). They are well equipped and highly trained (high quality) but being un-free they may lack morale (only average). They are very expensive (buying them as slaves, funding equipment and housing during training). It takes a long time to train them. They are not numerous and their numbers are only partially related to the settlement size.
    • Religious Orders: rather wealthy warriors lead by own religious convictions. They are well equipped, skilled and with high morale. Some of them are also bad at garrisoning cities. No initial payment is required and the ratio of quality for the upkeep costs is very good. However, they are very rare and their numbers are unrelated to the settlement size.
    • Mercenary units: ready to hire military formations. they have their own equipment (recruitment price is not exorbitant), but require very high wages. They have high skills but may easily abandon the paymaster if a battle turns sour for him (average morale). They are very expensive as a standing army but are readily available that makes them perfect as an addition to the main force just before an expedition or a battle.
    Last edited by Jurand of Cracow; July 02, 2020 at 11:36 AM.

  4. #4
    Jurand of Cracow's Avatar History and gameplay!
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Cracovia
    Posts
    3,844

    Default Re: JoC/MWY Taxonomy of units

    Standardization of the sizes of the units (multiply by 2.5 if you play on huge):
    - bodyguards 10
    - Feudal Knights: 24
    - Dismounted Feudal Knights: 40
    - Mounted Crossbomen: 28
    - various specialized cavalry: 30/32
    - Archers & Crossbowmen: 48
    - specialized troops, esp. with axes: 52
    - Spear Militias and Speamen: 60
    - special Militias (Italian, Lithuanian): 80
    Last edited by Jurand of Cracow; June 18, 2020 at 04:47 PM.

  5. #5

    Default Re: JoC/MWY Taxonomy of units

    I somehow have mixed feelings about the Urban Militias having full public order. Wouldn't the people feel much better rioting against a non-trained police force rather than fully trained knights? I mean i know what i would do.

    The other points are very good otherwise , i really like this overhaul.

  6. #6

    Default Re: JoC/MWY Taxonomy of units

    I would argue that Urban Militias are militias, they also might work like police or a neighbourhood watch, so it would make sense to me.

    But knights... I'm not sure. On one hand, if a gang of armed nobles arrived in town, I would rather keep my away from them. On the other, would they care to police petty crimes? Or maybe they would party and wreck the place themselves (if low on morale)? Or their servants would police the town and help keep the place in order?
    Sorry for wild speculations

    @ Jurand of Cracow

    I like the systematic approach and all the descriptions.
    Although I would like to ask, and pardon my ignorance - but isn't it already implemented in game? Or to what degree?

  7. #7
    Jurand of Cracow's Avatar History and gameplay!
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Cracovia
    Posts
    3,844

    Default Re: JoC/MWY Taxonomy of units

    Quote Originally Posted by Just let me post View Post
    Although I would like to ask, and pardon my ignorance - but isn't it already implemented in game? Or to what degree?
    As I've written: " It is partially observed in the SSHIP files (EDU and EDB) but not fully so."

    in particular Morale needs changes to make for a greater variety; garrison 50% efficiency is only for peasants, prices are not adjusted, the rest lacks cohesion.

  8. #8
    kostic's Avatar Biarchus
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Near Lyon in France
    Posts
    652

    Default Re: JoC/MWY Taxonomy of units

    The principle seems credible to me. It seems to me that it is already present in SSHIP, but that does not prevent that there remain imbalances ...

  9. #9

    Default Re: JoC/MWY Taxonomy of units

    Quote Originally Posted by Jurand of Cracow View Post
    As I've written: " It is partially observed in the SSHIP files (EDU and EDB) but not fully so."

    in particular Morale needs changes to make for a greater variety; garrison 50% efficiency is only for peasants, prices are not adjusted, the rest lacks cohesion.
    I see.
    "Fun" fact: to make knights have 50% law efficiency, is_peasant should be added into their attributes. So it would look hilarous in EDU: (Feudal Knights) ..., knight, is_peasant ...

    If we are talking morale (stat_mental only) I could volunteer and edit it in EDU and propose my changes.

  10. #10
    Jurand of Cracow's Avatar History and gameplay!
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Cracovia
    Posts
    3,844

    Default Re: JoC/MWY Taxonomy of units

    Quote Originally Posted by Just let me post View Post
    I see.
    "Fun" fact: to make knights have 50% law efficiency, is_peasant should be added into their attributes. So it would look hilarous in EDU: (Feudal Knights) ..., knight, is_peasant ...

    If we are talking morale (stat_mental only) I could volunteer and edit it in EDU and propose my changes.
    Yep, you're right with coding. Fortunately, it's not visible in-game, it's just for the modders.

    I'm implementing morale values from MWY, who had the overview of all units and could compare them accros classes.

  11. #11

    Default Re: JoC/MWY Taxonomy of units

    Great

    Out of curiosity, are you buffing spearmen along too?

  12. #12
    Jurand of Cracow's Avatar History and gameplay!
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Cracovia
    Posts
    3,844

    Default Re: JoC/MWY Taxonomy of units

    Too. But not much, mostly from +2 to +3, sometimes to +4.

  13. #13
    paleologos's Avatar You need burrito love!!
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Variable
    Posts
    8,313

    Default Re: JoC/MWY Taxonomy of units

    That is a nice table to have, thank you Jurand.
    While for the most part I agree with it there are some points of contention.

    For starters, you have not included the sergeants, either feudal or militia.
    Feudal sergeants held land in fief (sergeanty) in exchange for performing a certain -well described- duty.
    If that duty was military service they were referred to as sergeants-at-arms, professional soldiers and reliable in the performance of their duties.
    I believe there ought to be a clear distinction between feudal sergeants and conscripted peasants.

    I would consider conscripted peasants (serfs taken from the field to bolster an army's numbers) as feudal levies and their stats would be low.
    But for feudal sergeants the stats would be medium-high.



    Correspondingly, I would also make a distinction between perhaps as many as three tiers of militia.

    The lowest would be the untrained and undrilled burgers who might only appear in the game through a garrison script.
    (And in the case of a well thought of garrison script they would need to be automatically disbanded after the siege battle.)
    Low fighting skills, no armor.

    Then there are the partially trained and drilled weekend warriors to whom I would give medium-low stats:
    Better fighting skills than emergency defenders and medium armor (padded and light mail).
    I would have them too appear in an emergency, through a script and then automatically disbanded.

    However, I am not entirely sure about that last part
    :
    On one hand, it would make sense to have a constant pretense of some troops in a city, troops that would be relatively inexpensive to recruit and maintain.
    The concept of free upkeep is tied to part time volunteer militia men who already have a job and a house in that city and therefore a stake in it's security.
    So, on the other hand, the problem with recruitable militias is that they can be transferred from one city to another and it would not be realistic to have a militia company recruited in Paris who have a free upkeep in London.

    Finally I would add the militia sergeants, full time soldiers receiving a stipend for their service.
    I would give them fighting skills equal -or almost equal- to the feudal sergeants, equipment equal to heavy feudal sergeants and good discipline and moral.
    They would be recruitable and in my opinion the only category that should be referred to as "free professionals" from the point of view that in peace time they would probably be allowed to quit that job.


    You see, from the point of view of someone who has done military service as an obligation to the state, the words "free" and "soldier" cannot be placed next to each other with any honesty.
    Soldiers are not free to come and go as they please.
    This is important to keep in mind so that the other category of non-feudal, non-slave professionals can be understood.

    They are the royal retainers.
    I would give them fighting skills equivalent to feudal sergeants, some troop types better than others depending on the traditions of each faction.
    You might argue that royal retainers are mercenaries and from a certain point of view they are.
    But they are to be distinguished from the kind of mercenaries that bring with them their own equipment and do not need to be trained.
    Royal retainers are trained and equipped at the expense of the monarch and while they are salaried, their upkeep costs are lower than that of "regular" mercenaries but the cost to raise them would be quite higher.


    Anyway, that's what I think.
    Last edited by paleologos; June 03, 2020 at 08:08 AM.

  14. #14
    Jurand of Cracow's Avatar History and gameplay!
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Cracovia
    Posts
    3,844

    Default Re: JoC/MWY Taxonomy of units

    thanks, Paleologos, this is very insightful. This describes in more granular way the Western society. What about the other factions: Skandinavian, Eastern European, Orthodox, Muslim in Maghreb, Muslim in the Near East?

  15. #15
    paleologos's Avatar You need burrito love!!
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Variable
    Posts
    8,313

    Default Re: JoC/MWY Taxonomy of units

    I don't see why there should be any differences, except for the Islamic factions using highly trained professionals that were acquired as children through slavery.
    Let's keep in mind that not all differences can be depicted, for example, Muslims would spare a christian POW's life in exchange for his conversion and promise of military service (murtad).
    So, in this way a Muslim prince would readily bolster his army's numbers with trained warrior that would be terrified of returning to -or by recaptured by- their former comrades.

    About the Orthodox factions, we should be aware of the quite deep differences between Slavonic and Greek societies.
    I would expect that the elite troops of the Slavonic would be a combination of Boyars (landed aristocracy) and Rus mercenaries.
    (By the way, mercenaries are royal retainers and vice versa - there is however the difference of the recruitment method which since we can reflect in-game, we should make the arrangements.)

    The Byzantines are a different fish.
    I know with some certainty that the capital had the ability to recruit militias as two units are mentioned in the historical record for the 11th century:
    One was the "Tagma ton Teichon" ("Battalion of the Walls") - basically archers, quite possibly very well equipped and their duty was to man the walls and guard the gates.
    The other was the "Tagma tou Arithmou" ("Battalion of the Number"), a melee unit, possibly spearmen, also probably very well equipped, whose duties were keeping of the order and prison guards.
    In times of emergency it would not be unreasonable to presume that the inhabitants of the Italian mercantile outposts would participate in the defense.

    I have no idea if the other cities were able to bring to arms volunteer burgers.
    In all likelyhood they were garrisoned by troops recruited, trained and provisioned by the local general of the Thema.

    The hard core of the Byzantine military were mercenaries but from a certain point on they were remunerated with feudal arrangements, like the pronoiars, at least the Norman, Italian French and German ones.
    The Varangians were paid in gold.

    AntoniusII has made two, rather very good posts about the Byzantine army composition.
    [Preview] The Roman Empire-Part I-Thematic Armies.
    [Preview]The Roman Empire Part II-Tagmatic Units.

    They are probably very accurate for the timeframe of TGC but some of the troop types such as the excubitores are not mentioned in historical sources in the 11th century.


    My original concern with troop categorization has as much to do with the method of recruitment as much as the method of upkeep.
    I believe it would be more realistic to have feudal troops recruited from land (agricultural infrastructure) as opposed from castle barracks.
    In the last campaign I played with SS (as Venice, no submods installed) it was almost impossible for me to recruit feudal troops due to the fact that I wanted my regions to generate trading income, so I had very few castles.
    My only heavy cavalry in any significant numbers were the GBs, however I was able to spam urban militias like papers from a xerox machine.
    This was not a realistic composition of an 11th century army.

    Of course realism at 100% would be impossible with the game's engine limitations.
    Historically, Italian trading cities were able to raise large (for their time) citizen armies for their wars, especially against the HRE.
    These soldiers were disbanded after the operations and they could be brought back to service in short notice, with no training and no additional costs for their armaments as they had to provide for themselves.
    This is not possible with the M2TW engine.
    I believe the only reasonable approximation we can achieve is through scripting appearing and disappearing garrison armies (or perhaps we can make militia units have 0 movement points??).


    By the way, how can I tell when a troop type contributes to order by 50% or by a 100% from the EDU?

  16. #16

    Default Re: JoC/MWY Taxonomy of units

    Quote Originally Posted by paleologos View Post
    By the way, how can I tell when a troop type contributes to order by 50% or by a 100% from the EDU?
    If they have the is_peasant , public order is only 50% effective.

  17. #17
    Jurand of Cracow's Avatar History and gameplay!
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Cracovia
    Posts
    3,844

    Default Re: JoC/MWY Taxonomy of units

    Thanks, Paleologos.

    Concerning other societies - I see many reasons why they're different. I'm not sure if they'd fit in the framework you've provided, but maybe.

    Recruitment methods - I also think that the "buildings" they're recruited from should be different, see my framework here.

    I used to play SS (vanilla, BtfB, Titanium) only with BGR, so it was always only 3 castles per faction, I had no problems with it. The armies consisted of very few elite troops and those xerox militias. Not realistic indeed, it's why I would like in the future that the armies in the SSHIP are not-militia armies. But it's for the future.

    I'm not so sceptical about those Italian cities' militia armies. This can be done.

    50% garrisoning efficiency is defined by is_peasant attribute in the EDU.

    My opinion on your previous proposals
    - feudal knight should be recalled "feudal elites" and the quality would be high or average (knights, sergeants), the rest would stay the same. This will be de facto case in the EDU I'm preparing.
    - one type of militia is ok, I don't think we should includ that untrained militia. And there's no garrison script in the SSHIP, alas.
    - your militia sergeants indeed fit into the free professionals.
    - royal retainers are actually the bodyguards - well, this is actually another type, but differs from Feudal knights just in the recruitment methods and in the prices, so I haven't included it as a different category. I'll mention it.
    Last edited by Jurand of Cracow; June 03, 2020 at 09:45 AM.

  18. #18
    Lifthrasir's Avatar A Clockwork Orange
    Patrician Artifex Content Staff Moderation Mentor

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Dunkirk - France
    Posts
    13,110
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default Re: JoC/MWY Taxonomy of units

    Greek roster is more or less done already (see here) and I'm not gonna change it unless someone can prove it's inaccurate
    nikossaiz has spent too much time in it.

    Russian mercenaries: I'm not so sure there were many actually. I mean "pure" Russian.
    From the book 'Armies of Feudal Europe 1066 - 1300' by Ian Heath:
    Throughout this era considerable use of Turkic auxiliaries, often referred to by the Russians as 'svoipoganye', "our own pagans", so as to distinguish them from the "wild" Turks of the steppes (though these too could be, and often were, employed in Russian's endemic civial wars). These nomads mercenaries are also often referred to as Kazzaks or Kazaks, plausibly the same name as was applied to the later Cossaks; it loosely tranlates as "nomades vagabonds" or "freebooters". It has also been suggested that the term derives ultimately from "Khazars".

    Vladimir Monomach, Prince of Kiev 1113-25, was the 1st to hire large numbers of Turks since his grandfather St Vladimir's day (973-1015), employing them extensively against the Cumans (who were called 'polovtsy' by the Russians) in the late 11th century when he was Prince of Pereyaslavl. These seem to have mainly been Torks, Pechenegs and Berendei (Brodniki), many of whom were permanently settled in South Russia, particularly in Pereyaslavl and Chernigov. Following Vladimir's victories over the Cumans in the 1st quarter of the 1éth century most of the remaining Tork and Pecheneg tribes acknowledged the suzerainty of Kiev. The Pechenegs are sometimes referred to in 12th and 13th century Russians' sources as 'Kitbitki', literally 'heavy chariots', in reference to their charateristic wagons (see Armies of the Dark Ages). We also hear of Kaypichi, Kovuye and Turpeye tribesmen, who collectively became the 'Chernyeklobuki' (in turkish the Karakalpaks or 'Black Caps', first recorded in 1146), settled as frontier guards along the greater part of Kiev's eastern frontier. The character of such Turkic allies inevitably underwent gradual change as they became more settled, intermarried and were supplemented by Russians, until eventually many became absorbed into the indigenous Russian population. Such, at least, appears to have been the fate of the "Irregulars" introduced into Suzdal in the mid 12th century by Yuri Dolgoruki.

    Some Cumans, though at first probably not many, were also allied to and settled in Russia, and it was the Cumans who supplied the bulk of Kiev's Turkic mercenaries at the time of the first Mongol attack in 1223, though these were "Wild" Turks rather than settled allies. The Cumans and the Karakalpaks alike were smashed along with the Russians in the Mongol invasions (though interestingly as late as 1325 there is record of a Cuman tribe called by the name of 'Black Caps'; the Pechenegs similarly made their last appearance in history in the 13th century as a minor Cuman horde).
    The Cumans, in fact, were so heavily defeated in the invasion of 1223 that their control of the South Russian steppes was brought to an abrupt and bloody end; their demise as a major Central Asian power was underlined by a further - and final - defeat at the hands of the Mongols in 1239.

    In addition to Turks, we also read of Hungarian, Polish and German troops employed by or allied to various principalities. From the mid 12th century some cities also began to employ Lithuanian tribesmen under their own boyars, usually in bands of 3-800 men at a time, though sometimes 2 or 3 boyars would join together and hire themselves out as a larger force of up to 2,000 men.
    Under the patronage of Flinn, proud patron of Jadli, of the Imperial House of Hader


    - Results published

  19. #19
    paleologos's Avatar You need burrito love!!
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Variable
    Posts
    8,313

    Default Re: JoC/MWY Taxonomy of units

    Quote Originally Posted by Jurand of Cracow View Post
    Thanks, Paleologos.
    You are welcome.



    Quote Originally Posted by Jurand of Cracow View Post
    Concerning other societies - I see many reasons why they're different. I'm not sure if they'd fit in the framework you've provided, but maybe.
    The nomenclature of their ways might be different but the basic methods of acquiring, training, equipping and provisioning of their troops falls -more often than not- neatly into one of the categories delineated for the Catholic factions.
    There are differences of course and they can be represented in-game.

    For example, Islamic furūsīyah would yield both heavy and medium-light cavalry and the warriors would be in some cases free men holding land in exchange of military service and in other cases, such as the Mamluks, slave warriors, but very honored ones, entirely provisioned by the King's purse.

    All of the above were known as farises (knights) in the Islamic world but in Catholic Europe the designation of knight was exclusive for heavy cavalry.



    Quote Originally Posted by Jurand of Cracow View Post
    - feudal knight should be recalled "feudal elites" and the quality would be high or average (knights, sergeants), the rest would stay the same. This will be de facto case in the EDU I'm preparing.
    Some disagreement here, I would reserve the designation of "feudal elites" for the barons and -certainly- their feudal superiors as well as the male members of their immediate families.
    Most of the knights were not "feudal elites".
    Acknowledgement of this in the faction rosters would produce the distinction between the "regular" knights and the "noble" knights.

    There is also another thing I want to touch here.
    Vanilla M2TW includes such troop types as "warrior clergy" (I'm not entirely sure I remember their name correctly).
    There were no cavalry companies manned entirely of clergymen.

    Yet, in the HRE, some bishoprics were prince-bishoprics and their bishops were "princes" who were not relieved of a feudal "prince's" military obligations to the empire.
    So, I find it quite cheesy to have in the game barded heavy cavalry units where the helmet tops of the cavalrymen all look like a bishop's mitre.
    Ergo, if we are to have this represented in-game we should have a unit of knights whose captain is a bishop.
    I don't believe this warrants a unit slot in the EDU.



    Quote Originally Posted by Jurand of Cracow View Post
    - one type of militia is ok, I don't think we should includ that untrained militia. And there's no garrison script in the SSHIP, alas.
    I suppose you consider militia sergeants as not militia, that's ok.
    If the SSHIP team decides to stick with the non-garrison-script policy then I suppose one type of militia is ok.

    But in the case of a garrison script generating a full stack inside a settlement, I don't believe that all this army should be well trained and equipped.
    Most of them, or at least no fewer than half of them, should be unarmored cudgel men.



    Quote Originally Posted by Jurand of Cracow View Post
    - royal retainers are actually the bodyguards - well, this is actually another type, but differs from Feudal knights just in the recruitment methods and in the prices, so I haven't included it as a different category.
    It seems you are using the word "retainer" to refer to the closest personal retinue of generals and Kings, their bodyguards.
    I believe that generals' bodyguards were actually "noble" knights but that's just my opinion.

    For my part, when I mentioned "royal retainers" I meant troop types that were "retained", as in "standing army", without being issued any fiefs or sergeanties.
    These were salaried troops, ergo professionals, but not the "free" type and they were remunerated from the trough of the royal demesne.
    Examples of such troops would be war archers, good quality crossbowmen, non feudal men-at-arms (heavy cavalry), artillery crews and ship crews (Just the ones that come to mind right now).
    Examples for the Byzantines would be the Varangian Guard, royal spatharioi/vestiaritai and the siphonatores.

  20. #20

    Default Re: JoC/MWY Taxonomy of units

    Sharing a bit of my opinion on unit pricing, as I'm quite confused (097 test)

    Just look at these prices (all from 1 city in England)

    Norman Serjeants -- 2304 florins (!) ~ how about 1200?
    Hobilars ------------- 1896 florins (!) ~ 800?
    Archers -------------- 1338 florins (!) ~ 600?
    Levy Archers -------- 433 florins (ok)
    Spear Militia --------- 318 florins (ok)
    Miles/Miles Pedites -- 0 florins (ok, feudal)

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 




    I'm confused because I don't understand such high prices on some units. They ain't supermen, their units size aren't numerous, yet cost as much as later full-plate professionals. As a player, I would expect pricing to hint me quality of a unit. It might not be uber historical, but gameplay-wise it's so comforting.

    If I were to evaluate current pricing guidelines, it would look somewhat close to this:


    0 florins
    Feudal units
    Upkeep: very high, 1000+ (just like already implemented)

    100-300
    Poor levy/Ad hoc units
    Upkeep: half (no less, lots of men need to eat)

    300-500
    Units requiring some training (archers, specialized militia)
    Upkeep: half

    500-800
    Cheap professionals, cheap cav, good militia
    Upkeep: 3/4 melee and cav, half for missile units

    800-1200
    Decent professionals, ok cav, excellent militia
    Upkeep: 3/4 melee, full melee cav, half missile

    1200-1800
    Good professionals and cav
    Upkeep: 3/4, half for missile

    1800-2200
    Absolute best extraordinary professionals
    Upkeep: half, 3/4 cav


    Just tossing an idea.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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