Foothold in India: The Great Game

[ilia_r_s]

Version 1.4.7 is out - Windows, MacOS and Linux compatible

---

Foothold in India: The Great Game

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The Great Game was a rivalry between the 19th century British and Russian Empires over influence in Asia, primarily in Afghanistan, Persia, and later Tibet. The two colonial empires used military interventions and diplomatic negotiations to acquire and redefine territories in Central and South Asia. By the early 20th century, a line of independent states, tribes, and monarchies from the shore of the Caspian Sea to the Eastern Himalayas were made into protectorates and territories of the two empires.

Foothold in India is a light overhaul modification, addressing the problems of vanilla Empire while staying true to its spirit.

It is a modular project, with all '.pack' files acting as independent modules that can be applied in any combination with each other or as standalone modifications.

The mod is designed to run on MacOS, Linux and Windows.

---

The original project

Tired of having to begin every campaign with conquering India to contain the Orange Plague, I analyzed the reasons behind Marathas consistent rise to uncontested power:

1. Unfairly strong starting armies
2. Very good generals, which only get better
3. Very strong troop roster, with easilly accessable well above average linear infantry and mailed lancers
4. Insanely rich starting provinces
5. Very capable initial cabinet and ruler
6. And last but not least, only one weak enemy in the whole India

The fact that India is divided between just 2 real powers [the passive Mysore and Netherlands don't count] allows Marathas to steamroll the Mughals, conquering all the rich territories and eventually become an economical [and thus military] superpower.

The most natural solution to this would be introducing more players into the subcontinent - that way we decrease the risk of emergence of one dominant local power conquering all the provinces. Taking all of the above into account I decided to simply give the whole eastern and southern shore to Britain and France which deter Marathas from annexing these territories and are able to compete with them. This is not historically correct, since Europeans only began conquering India on a grand scale later during the century, but this solution is much more robust than trying to make the AI do naval invasions, and should balance out the game gameplay-wise.

Attention: No hybrid startpos methods were involved! All changes are done by simply editing the existing startpos, replacing all the IDs, only touching enough of the BDI to make it work etc. I tried to ensure the mod is bug-free as much as possible, but if you notice any - please share!

---

Small mods collection

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Aside from Foothold in India, I'm sharing a collection of small modifications either created by me or adapted from other projects, which include unit packs, bug-fixes, formations and unit sizes, AI changes, and more.


The highlits are my unit packs for minor factions of Crimea/Caucasus and Maghreb (Northern Africa), as well as a mod allowing Barbary Pirates and Buccaneers to shoot pistols and throw grenades. The packs are designed to provide a unique playing experience, keeping the rosters limited, making the player come up with ingenious playing style.


All the mods in the package are designed with compatibility in mind and can be used as standalone mods or in combination with each other and/or Foothold in India startpos.

---

Patch6: A conservative community bug-fix compilation

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Patch6 is a compilation of bug-fixes. It's aim is not to change the gameplay or rebalance the game, but to only fix the most apparent bugs and oversights as conservatively as possible while staying true to vanilla.


What is included:

• trueman11's simple naval fix with ship gun batteries rebalancing
• BraselC5048's "poor port curse" town wealth fix without companion mod (if you wish to install the companion mod as well, please download and install it separately)
• ilia_r_s's Native American archer recruitment fix
• ilia_r_s's minor factions ship duplication fix
• ilia_r_s's emergent factions churches fix
  
• ilia_r_s's Unit stats minor fixes

---

Vanilla + Foothold in India changelist:

• Bengal and Orissa are now British
• Carnatica and Hyderabad are now French
• Marathas are now practically a one-region state, but it is still in a good enough position to expand
• Two Mughal armies and one Mughal general are reassigned to Britain and the troop types replaced with British East India Company
• Two Maratha armies and one Maratha general are reassigned to France and the troop types replaced with French East India Company
• Initial European armies in the subcontinent include few line infantry/cavalry and many colonial militia, pikemen and provincial cavalry, resembling other colonial armies in the game at 1700
• Orissa now has a minor governor's encampment
• Bawdy houses in Bengal and Carnatica are replaced with church schools
• Bengal, Orissa, Carnatica and Hyderabad now have a fraction of Christian population
• Both Britain and France now have historical governors of India for that time - Josiah Child and François Martin. Some of their traits represent historical truth, but some are added only to make the provinces less rebellious
• Optional submods nerfing Bargir Infantry included
• All factions except emergent and American protectorates are unlocked in main campaign

The Great Game Campaign changelist:

• Admiralties in Denmark and Barbary States.
• Emergent Bohemia (replaces Hessen).
• Caucasian and Crimean starting armies replaced with units from the Caucasus unit pack.
• Ottoman capital moved to Ankara (for gameplay concerns: the AI tends to defend the capital better, and Anatolia is a more important place than Rum, since it has a school and is a vast major province).
• Carlos II is 99 year old (so that the Spanish Succession War starts faster).
• Readjusted AI, making all factions fully functional (in vanilla, minor factions are almost inactive).
• Readjusted diplomatic relationships, primarily between Eastern factions, to make them more dynamic.

...and more.


Download


Source code on GitHub

[MikeKalashAAC]

Could you link the thread with the companion mod again? Thanks in advance.

[MikeKalashAAC]

https://www.twcenter.net/forums/show...usted-port-GDP I've found it.

[ilia_r_s]

Hi MikeKalashAAC! Great to know you handled it. I attached the link in the description.

[Mersechal]

Hello, I installed https://www.moddb.com/mods/foothold-...nux-compatible and played for several hours. Everything works perfectly... except none of the patch 6 bugfixes seem to work.

[ilia_r_s]

Hello, I installed https://www.moddb.com/mods/foothold-...nux-compatible and played for several hours. Everything works perfectly... except none of the patch 6 bugfixes seem to work.

Hi Mersechal. Thanks for reporting!

Which OS do you have?

Are you sure you don't have any other mod's leftovers in the folder? Or, maybe, leftovers from older versions of Foothold in India? All previous version's files should be deleted prior to installation. Compatibility with other mods is not guaranteed.

Did you download patch6 separately? If yes, you shouldn't have - it is already included in complete version. Verify you only have `tgg_patch6.pack` and no `patch6.pack` in the folder.

I just checked and the only thing that doesn't work in patch6 is technology requirements for Native American bowmen - but everything else is fine. I'll fix the bowmen in the next release, which is coming soon.

[Mersechal]

Lord, now I feel like a heel, I double checked and the only thing that doesn't work is the bowman fix, the rest is fine. Sorry for not testing the rest.

[ilia_r_s]

Lord, now I feel like a heel, I double checked and the only thing that doesn't work is the bowman fix, the rest is fine. Sorry for not testing the rest.

No worries, Mersechal! Meanwhile, you can replace tgg_patch6.pack with this version. Here it's already fixed.

[Mersechal]

If you're taking unit roster suggestions, I have a few. If not, please disregard.

I think two units from the Ottoman roster would fit in very well with the Caucasus factions, specifically the Circassian Cavalry (https://wiki.totalwar.com/w/Circassi...TW_unit).html) and the Armenian Archers (https://wiki.totalwar.com/w/Armenian...TW_unit).html). You could make them "late game" units by keeping the region requirement for their recruitment, rewarding skilled players for being able to expand into Ottoman territory.

The Circassian cavalry would also be a good fit for Crimea, who often used Circassian mercenary cavalry as a heavier supplement to their Tatar horse archers. Continuing with Crimea, the Khanate used in addition to their Tufekci musketeers, a mounted musketeer force in somewhat of the Janissary style called Segban (literally "mercenaries"). These troops had horses, but dismounted to fight as musketeers. I think they'd be interesting as a kind of "primitive" dragoon, acting as sabre using light cavalry ahorse and dismounting to fight with matchlock muskets. They could support either the infantry or the cavalry as needed, but not be quite as effective in either role. Might make a decent later tier unit for Crimea.

[ilia_r_s]

If you're taking unit roster suggestions, I have a few. If not, please disregard.

I think two units from the Ottoman roster would fit in very well with the Caucasus factions, specifically the Circassian Cavalry (https://wiki.totalwar.com/w/Circassi...TW_unit).html) and the Armenian Archers (https://wiki.totalwar.com/w/Armenian...TW_unit).html). You could make them "late game" units by keeping the region requirement for their recruitment, rewarding skilled players for being able to expand into Ottoman territory.

The Circassian cavalry would also be a good fit for Crimea, who often used Circassian mercenary cavalry as a heavier supplement to their Tatar horse archers. Continuing with Crimea, the Khanate used in addition to their Tufekci musketeers, a mounted musketeer force in somewhat of the Janissary style called Segban (literally "mercenaries"). These troops had horses, but dismounted to fight as musketeers. I think they'd be interesting as a kind of "primitive" dragoon, acting as sabre using light cavalry ahorse and dismounting to fight with matchlock muskets. They could support either the infantry or the cavalry as needed, but not be quite as effective in either role. Might make a decent later tier unit for Crimea.

Hi Mersechal. Thanks for suggestions! I do take them and listen to them.

I'm planning to give Armenian Archers to Georgia and will probably give them to Dagestan as well. I also gave Georgia, Crimea and Dagestan access to all bedouin troops - should they conquer the desert territories. I also gave Georgia and Dagestan Circassian Horsemen - they are a missile cavalry unit with carbines, capable of fairing while mounted, with ability to skirmish, mostly similar to Russian Cossacks in stats.

As for Circassian Armoured Cavalry - I'll think about it. Indeed, giving Crimea a proper heavy shock cavalry unit seems reasonable.

Segbans, though, sounds like a bit of an unnecessary overkill to me. But I'll think about it anyway.

P.S. I sometimes post small teasers on moddb page. I consider moddb my priority platform.

[ilia_r_s]

Foothold in India: The Great Game 1.3.2 is out! Big changes in early campaign, diplomacy adjustments, better AI and more.

[Mersechal]

Some Persian suggestions perhaps?

Main thing I think is that they have some Indian units, which are a bit jarring if you're playing as Persia. Gameplay and historically wise their equipment is actually reasonably accurate for 1700s Persia, just could use some reflavoring. Some of these could be dealt with by giving them simple renames and different descriptions, but keeping the stats nearly the same, like changing the Zamindar (a specifically Indian/Mughal feudal system) pikemen and cavalry into something like Ghilman Pikemen and Cavalry, representing the hereditary military slaves.


A possibility for a line infantry unit comparable to Ottoman Isarelys: Tofangchi matchlock musketeers. These made up the bulk of the infantry component of Persian armies during Empire Total War's period.


Historically the Afsharid dynasty undertook a limited reform of their military to make it more competitive against the Ottomans, especially under Nader Shah in the 1730s. Gameplay wise this could be represented as a sort of limited version of the Ottoman Nizam-I Cedit units. The new jazāyerchi units used flintlock muskets compared to the earlier Tofangchi's matchlocks, but they did not comprise a wholesale replacement of the army. Rather they made up an elite corps among the musketeers. These units used much heavier flintlock muskets than European or Ottoman counterparts, and notably preferred swords to bayonets. Jazāyerchi were also trained to ride mounts while on campaign. So they would basically provide two units;

Jazāyerchi musketeers would be quality riflemen that most of the firing drills/formations such as fire by rank and such, and would be handy in melee but would *not* have access to bayonets.

Mounted Jazāyerchi would be roughly equivalent to Mounted Nezim-I-Cedit or Dragoons.

Notably even though the Persian roster would be able to gain some units capable of matching Western factions in the late game, they would still be forced to rely on more "primitive" units to a greater extent than the Ottomans for the entire campaign, and would lack elite/guard infantry and quality light infantry or riflemen.

For artillery, one interesting idea for both Persian and Indian factions would be to add would be camel pulled light artillery along the lines of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zamburak

[ilia_r_s]

Some Persian suggestions perhaps?

Main thing I think is that they have some Indian units, which are a bit jarring if you're playing as Persia. Gameplay and historically wise their equipment is actually reasonably accurate for 1700s Persia, just could use some reflavoring. Some of these could be dealt with by giving them simple renames and different descriptions, but keeping the stats nearly the same, like changing the Zamindar (a specifically Indian/Mughal feudal system) pikemen and cavalry into something like Ghilman Pikemen and Cavalry, representing the hereditary military slaves.


A possibility for a line infantry unit comparable to Ottoman Isarelys: Tofangchi matchlock musketeers. These made up the bulk of the infantry component of Persian armies during Empire Total War's period.


Historically the Afsharid dynasty undertook a limited reform of their military to make it more competitive against the Ottomans, especially under Nader Shah in the 1730s. Gameplay wise this could be represented as a sort of limited version of the Ottoman Nizam-I Cedit units. The new jazāyerchi units used flintlock muskets compared to the earlier Tofangchi's matchlocks, but they did not comprise a wholesale replacement of the army. Rather they made up an elite corps among the musketeers. These units used much heavier flintlock muskets than European or Ottoman counterparts, and notably preferred swords to bayonets. Jazāyerchi were also trained to ride mounts while on campaign. So they would basically provide two units;

Jazāyerchi musketeers would be quality riflemen that most of the firing drills/formations such as fire by rank and such, and would be handy in melee but would *not* have access to bayonets.

Mounted Jazāyerchi would be roughly equivalent to Mounted Nezim-I-Cedit or Dragoons.

Notably even though the Persian roster would be able to gain some units capable of matching Western factions in the late game, they would still be forced to rely on more "primitive" units to a greater extent than the Ottomans for the entire campaign, and would lack elite/guard infantry and quality light infantry or riflemen.

For artillery, one interesting idea for both Persian and Indian factions would be to add would be camel pulled light artillery along the lines of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zamburak

Hi Mersechal! Sounds reasonable. I don't really wish to make too many new units, and would like to stick with the original CA approach with more or less similar rosters with, yes, reskins, renames, a bit different stats... Like, we know, that Swedish and, for instance, Russian line infantry were not completely similar, they had different drills, organization, names etc... But after all they remain line infantry nevertheless, and, say, a janissary remains a janissary, no matter whether you call it jazāyerchi or not :D But renamings + a bit different stats + if I have a good model, reskins - why not. Sounds reasonable. Technically, I'm already doing a lot of that with the Caucasus.

Are ghilman historically the same thing as ghulams, mamluks, janissaries etc.? And jazāyerchi are technically equal to elite janissary corps?

I think, I've seen zamburaks in some other ETW mods. I could probably copy them if I find them.

For the next update I'll probably focus more on Persia, Italy and improving the AI.

[Mersechal]

Ghilman are historically the same sort of slave soldier model as ghulam/mamluks etc. The Persian model of these would be of an older sort though, even more old fashioned than the Ottoman ones. Although originating as slave soldiers, by the 1700s they had become an incredibly hide-bound military aristocracy, with sons inheriting their positions in the military from their father and families amassing vast wealth and lands.

The jazāyerchi were the reformed troops of the Afsharid Iran in the 1730s-1740s, and could be thought of as somewhere in between the elite Ottoman jannisary and Nezim-I-Cedit units, in the sense that they were a similar sort of military reform initiative as the Nezim-I-Cedit, but rather than being based on European doctrine they were based on reforming existing local doctrine instead. The main jazāyerchi reforms were based on increasing the usage of gunpowder weapons and taking power away from the Ghulam families in favor of establishing a proffesional army in direct royal service.

The specific units that stand out as "non-Persian" and how I would suggest changing them are:

Zamindari Pikemen/ Zamindari Horsemen: would change to Ghilman Pikeman and Horsemen, in early 1700s Safavid the Ghilman/Ghulam class dominated the political apparatus, and were hopelessly old-fashioned even compared to the Ottoman Jannisaries, sticking mostly to traditional weapons like spears, swords, bows, lances etc.

Fellahin Sword/ Muskets: Fellahin refers to Egyptian/North African peasants: would change the swords to Ghilman Swords and the Muskets to Tofangchi. The Tofangchi were the late 1600s/early 1700s citizen mass musketeer levy of the Persian Empires, separate from the Ghulam class and rather disdained by them. They were very much a side show during the Safavid period, but after the 1730s under the Afsharid became more prestigious and received better training. Maybe make Tofangchi a pretty bad musketeer unit that can nevertheless benefit from later firing drill/bayonet technologies.

Sipahi: An Ottoman unit; would change to "Savaran" (riders), the Persian term for professional cavalry in royal service, which mirrors the role of the Ottoman unit.

Ahadis: A Mughal unit; would change to Qurchi, the royal bodyguard of the Shah, which mirrors the role of the Mughal unit.

For Jazāyerchi units I would make two types, a musketeer and a mounted/dragoon version. The Jazāyerchi Musketeer could be a reskin/similiar concept as the Sikh Musketeers, a quality musketeer that uses a sword instead of bayonets. The Mounted Jazāyerchi would be a typical enough dragoon type unit, sabre using light cavalry that can dismount and use muskets.

[ilia_r_s]

Ghilman are historically the same sort of slave soldier model as ghulam/mamluks etc. The Persian model of these would be of an older sort though, even more old fashioned than the Ottoman ones. Although originating as slave soldiers, by the 1700s they had become an incredibly hide-bound military aristocracy, with sons inheriting their positions in the military from their father and families amassing vast wealth and lands.

The jazāyerchi were the reformed troops of the Afsharid Iran in the 1730s-1740s, and could be thought of as somewhere in between the elite Ottoman jannisary and Nezim-I-Cedit units, in the sense that they were a similar sort of military reform initiative as the Nezim-I-Cedit, but rather than being based on European doctrine they were based on reforming existing local doctrine instead. The main jazāyerchi reforms were based on increasing the usage of gunpowder weapons and taking power away from the Ghulam families in favor of establishing a proffesional army in direct royal service.

The specific units that stand out as "non-Persian" and how I would suggest changing them are:

Zamindari Pikemen/ Zamindari Horsemen: would change to Ghilman Pikeman and Horsemen, in early 1700s Safavid the Ghilman/Ghulam class dominated the political apparatus, and were hopelessly old-fashioned even compared to the Ottoman Jannisaries, sticking mostly to traditional weapons like spears, swords, bows, lances etc.

Fellahin Sword/ Muskets: Fellahin refers to Egyptian/North African peasants: would change the swords to Ghilman Swords and the Muskets to Tofangchi. The Tofangchi were the late 1600s/early 1700s citizen mass musketeer levy of the Persian Empires, separate from the Ghulam class and rather disdained by them. They were very much a side show during the Safavid period, but after the 1730s under the Afsharid became more prestigious and received better training. Maybe make Tofangchi a pretty bad musketeer unit that can nevertheless benefit from later firing drill/bayonet technologies.

Sipahi: An Ottoman unit; would change to "Savaran" (riders), the Persian term for professional cavalry in royal service, which mirrors the role of the Ottoman unit.

Ahadis: A Mughal unit; would change to Qurchi, the royal bodyguard of the Shah, which mirrors the role of the Mughal unit.

For Jazāyerchi units I would make two types, a musketeer and a mounted/dragoon version. The Jazāyerchi Musketeer could be a reskin/similiar concept as the Sikh Musketeers, a quality musketeer that uses a sword instead of bayonets. The Mounted Jazāyerchi would be a typical enough dragoon type unit, sabre using light cavalry that can dismount and use muskets.

Very good and very interesting! Sounds very reasonable to me. I'll see if the jazāyerchi fit the concept and whether they could introduce disbalance. As for everything else, I don't really see any reasons not to make the regional variations.

You seem to know the subject quite well. I think I haven't really seen a good Persian [or, to be honest, any Eastern faction] roster in any ETW mod before, neither in terms of accuracy, nor in terms of being balanced and not overly packed with 10 similar variations of technically one unit... Mind sharing the sources you read?

Any thoughts on Afghanistan? Punjab? Mamelukes, Morocco and Barbary States?

[ilia_r_s]

Also, the Safavids already have qizilbash musketeers, that are technically already claiming the niche that jazāyerchi are supposed to be at. Maybe it could be a bit of an overkill to introduce both. I'll think about it. As far as I understood, the qizilbash corps indeed existed in the Safavid Iran?

[ilia_r_s]

IMHO, a vital part of a good gameplay design is sticking to healthy minimalism. An overlbloated array of units would desorient the player, make development less maintainable, make recruitment tab cramped and is generally an unnecessary complication. In my understanding, the best is to have 1 unit for each "role" in the army. The roles may be numerous and nuanced, but when one unit is an almost complete replica of another inside the same faction (such as, for instance, Wallachian Boyars vs Mamelukes in vanilla), it is clearly a candidate for reduction. Unless it is some sort of a unique unit or some specific case which should be kept for reasons beyond the aforementioned (e.g. Wallachian Boyars are a bit stronger than Mamelukes, but are a regional unit, only available in Bulgaria and Moldavia and requiring the player to make special efforts, building minor governor's barracks in those regions).

[Mersechal]

Also, the Safavids already have qizilbash musketeers, that are technically already claiming the niche that jazāyerchi are supposed to be at. Maybe it could be a bit of an overkill to introduce both. I'll think about it. As far as I understood, the qizilbash corps indeed existed in the Safavid Iran?

That's correct. The qizilbash were Shia Islamic militant groups of Turkish tribal origin that played important roles in both the Safavid/Afsharid Persian and the Mughal courts, and also flourished in the Caucasian highlands and Azerbaijan. In all cases the qizilbash were noted for their religious zeal and loyalty to the ruler. I honestly wonder if qizilbash might make sense having the "inspire nearby units" trait, acting as a rather-weak Eastern/Muslim version of guard infantry. This could have an interesting effect when combined with the typical early-game Eastern factions' low morale. Maybe one way to distinguish them might be to make qizilbash musketeers more line infantry, and jazāyerchi a more long-range specialist unit. They jaz used heavier and longer ranged, but slower to fire, flintlock muskets than their Ottoman or European contemporaries. So maybe the Persian musket infantry units could look something like:

Tofangchi: early game sorta-trash matchlock line infantry, but get better and remain viable over the game because of they benefit from firing drill technologies and remain cheap.

Qizilbash: stats aren't all that much better than Tofangchi, but notably better morale and melee ability, as well as inspiring nearby units? Basically a bootleg Guard unit? Actually making them a bootleg Guard unit available in an area consisting of to all minor Eastern Muslim factions (Dagestan, Persia, Afghanistan, Mughals, Mysore etc.) sounds rather sensible to me. Should probably be removed from Punjab though if you haven't already.

Jazāyerchi: a 90 range elite musket unit, with good melee ability and defense stats as well, but hampered from being the mainstay of the army by small unit size and cost.

You seem to know the subject quite well. I think I haven't really seen a good Persian [or, to be honest, any Eastern faction] roster in any ETW mod before, neither in terms of accuracy, nor in terms of being balanced and not overly packed with 10 similar variations of technically one unit... Mind sharing the sources you read?

Honestly, I just do a lot of tabletop/miniature wargaming in various settings, read army lists for said wargames, and read Wikipedia articles, and their sources. I totally agree about the roster thing... in Total War games, nothing annoys me more than booting up a new mod, and seeing 45 units in the recruitment tab, of which half of them serve the same tactical role with little meaningful variation.

[Mersechal]

Any thoughts on Afghanistan? Punjab? Mamelukes, Morocco and Barbary States?

Afghanistan:

Mostly fine as is? Though maybe remove Indian style Sipahi and Ahadi cavalry units, as Afghan cavalry tended more towards lighter, tribal sorts of cavalry, not heavy cavalry. Two possible ideas for unique units: The core of the Durrani army under Ahmad Shah was mounted qizilbash soldiers using blunderbusses, perhaps a reskin of https://empiretotalwar.fandom.com/wiki/Libyan_Kuloglu ? Also you can't have an Afghan faction without jezail riflemen.


Punjab:

Fine as is, they already get very good Sikh units.


Mameluks:

Are probably fine being an Ottoman copy, but it's a bit strange that the group revolting in response to military reforms gets Nezim-I-Cedit units... no idea what to replace those with though.


Morocco/Barbary States:

Rename Fellahin Sword/Muskets to "Berber Sword/Muskets" for both factions, Fellahin is an Egyptian term, bit out of place. In both cases these represent the levy militia composed from local Arab-Berber warriors, whose weaponry was self-supplied. As nearly every peasant and tribesman owned a musket, it was expected from the soldiers to be equipped with one, but some made due with swords or other melee weapons. As many of these tribes were traditionally warrior ones, many of these troops were trained since childhood, and thus were relatively effective soldiers, albeit they were hampered by their weak organization, and by the 19th century their muskets became grossly outdated. The Berber Cavalry/Lancer units can also represent this type of tribal levy, but in the Moroccan case they would be more professionalized/standing bodies.


The army of Morocco under the Alaouite dynasty in the 1700s was basically divided into two components; the Guich (literally "army") tribal troops who had been granted land by the king and exempted from taxation in exchange for military service and the Black Guard (yes really), composed of the descendants of Black African slaves personally loyal to the King.


The Guich were given lands on which to settle, usually between 5 and 18 hectares per warrior, and were exempt from taxation, but expected to remain in military service. Military positions were often passed down from father to son, thus forming a kind of hereditary caste. In terms of military units they mostly took the form of irregular musket marksmen and mounted cavalry, which is represented rather well by existing units like Desert Warriors, Camel Units, Berber Cavalry/Lancers etc. You could represent this by making the "Berber" units (old Fellahin infantry units and Berber and Lancer/Calvary) and Camel units (1/3 of the Guich was comprised of Camelry) a bit better statistically than their Barbary counterparts.

The Black Guard were a bit different, they descended from black captives brought to Morocco from West Africa, who were settled with their families in special colonies, to have children and to work for the royal family. At age 10, children began to be trained in certain skills: the girls in domestic life or entertainments, and the boys in masonry/architecture and military skills. Around the age of 16 (on average), the boys who passed their training were enlisted into the army. They would marry, have children, and continue the cycle. Considered more loyal than the Guich because of their lack of tribal affiliation, the Black Guard formed the backbone of the standing army. By the late 17th century they became key kingmakers in Moroccan politics, putting heirs they liked on the throne and even today their descendants make up a large portion of the Royal Moroccan army. A solid musket line infantry or guard unit would be a good choice to represent these, giving Morocco an infantry backbone around which to orient their lighter tribal infantry and cavalry.

I would remove Barbary pirates from Morocco or make Barbary States' version slightly better in order to distinguish the factions more.


For the Barbary States they used the same sort of Arab-Berber tribal levies as Morocco, (Berber Swords, Muskets, Cavalry, Lancers... etc.) but they were a less professionalized body compared to their Moroccan counterparts. For professional troops they had their own native Ottoman style Janissary corps, the Odjak. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odjak_of_Algiers) These units could be reskins of certain Ottoman Janissary units. I would suggest using https://wiki.totalwar.com/w/Cemaat_J...ETW_unit).html and https://wiki.totalwar.com/w/Libyan_K...ETW_unit).html as bases, since the elite swordsmen could supplement Pirates quite well and the Kuloglu were based off of the Corsair units that fought the Americans at Tripoli anyway. Maybe name them something like "Odjak Janissaries" and "Mounted Odjak Janissaries" respectively. Like their Ottoman patrons, the Barbary States eventually ran into issues with the loyalty of their Janissary units, causing later Beys like Ali Khodja to attempt reforms on Nezim-I-Cedit lines by recruiting from the local Zwawa tribe and training them in European style. However these reforms were very limited in scope, so if you wanted to represent this I'd just give them a single unit of Nezim-I-Cedit style line infantry trainable from top tier military buildings, called something like Zwawa Infantry.

I would make the Barbary States naval vessels have slightly better statistics compared to Morocco, while both factions had significant piracy, the Barbary States' was much greater in scope and importance (this is the other reason I suggest removing the Pirate infantry unit from Morocco).


To summarize:

Barbary States: Rename Fehallin units to Berber Swordsmen/Musketeers, new "Odjak Janissary" units based on Ottoman Cemaat Janissaries and Libyan Kuloglu, perhaps late-game "Zwawa Infantry" based on Nezim-I-Cedit. Result is a more melee/sudden shock charge focused roster than Morocco. Stonger navy.

Morocco: remove Barbary Pirates, rename Fehallin to Berber Swordsmen/Musketeers, rename Moroccan Berber Cavalry/Lancers and Camel Gunners to Guich Cavalry/Lancer and Guich Camel gunners and make them slightly better than the Barbary State versions, new "Black Guard" line infantry musketeer, reasonably good but requires full royal palace construction. Result is a more generalized roster than the Barbary states, especially in cavalry, but notably weaker in naval terms and in melee.

[ilia_r_s]

Miniature wargaming? That's how you know a person's qualification can be trusted