PDA

View Full Version : Citadel:Total War units



Pages : [1] 2

Celtic_Winter
11-18-2004, 23:18
The point of this thread, is the development of the units to appear in this MOD(to be updated regularly).
First I will start off by posting the units, that as of now, have been suggested by Silver Rusher:
(quick note:Everything from Janissary musketeers down was submited by Suleimen the magnificent)
English Longbowmen: Welsh Longbowmen available also.

Superior Longbowmen:
Have quite a lot more skill at firing than regular longbows, and are armoured so are quite good melee as well.

Gascon Lancers:
Special norman lancers which form the bodyguard of the early english royal family.

Tudor Lancers:
In the Late Period the Tudors are the main family of England, and having lost all of their lands in France they can no longer produce Gascon Lancers.

Billmen

Puissant Pikemen:
Armoured pikemen with much longer pikes, approx. 8 metres in total, only available to English, French, Burgundians, Swiss and some Italian factions.

Hobilars D'Ordannce:
French Hobilars

Chevaliers D'Ordannce:
Superior french knights, possibly the best in the world. Form the French and Burgundian bodyguard.

French Musketeers:
Later in the game these men come out, lightly armoured, but with an incredible nack for firing muskets.

Gothic Militia:
Holding halberds and wearing gothic armour generally means the perfect fighting force, as cavalry and armoured infantry alike go down in front of the mighty cleave.

Halberdiers

Scale Broadswords:
Good early on, but are soon outclassed by heavier broadswordsmen.

Chain Broadswords:
Broadswordmen wearing chain mail. No further explanation needed.

Plate Broadswords:
Similar to Gothic broadswords, only without the very special armour that they posess.

Gothic Broadswords:
At the top of the broadsword class, these men carry heavy Gothic armour and large two handed swords with which they can slowly cut straight through enemy lines.

Macemen:
Carrying maces, morning stars and flails makes attacking armoured troops a whole lot easier as there is no need to actually pierce the armour but the shock itself is enough to kill the man inside.

Forester Macemen:
With the training of wandering through forests with maces, they are very fearsome when used at the right time.

Partisaniers:
Fearsome weapons, known as partisans were developed by the Italians and Germans to be wielded by men in Gothic armour. They have three points, the two on the sides slanting outwards to chop cut down on the enemy and 'cleave' them, and the one in front provides as good protection against cavalry as any pike.

Neapolitan Hussars:
In Naples, there is a national heritage for Feudal Knights, but now with the evolution of guns light cavalry are equally important. And that is when the Hussar comes in...

Balkanite Hussars:
Hussars from the Balkans and Poland are special in many ways, the fertile plains of Hungary, Wallachia and other areas field good horses and equally good light cavalrymen.

Guard of the 1st Canton:
In the space between the Juras and the Alps is some very flat and fertile land, which actually produce excellent horsemen. Dismounted they will become Swiss Armoured Pikes, which are also very usefull depending on which terrain is being fought on.

Swiss Guard:
Do not be confused with the name, as these men are not actually Swiss, but instead form the bodyguards of the Pope. They are fearsome lancers on horse and devastating sergeants on foot.

Alpine Foresters:
These are the hardy woodsmen of the Alps, using fear and surprise as their main weapons.

Janissary Muskteers:
Armed with matchlock musket, sword has no armor. Good missile troops but shouldn't be committed to battle against pure schock troops but can hold their own against light infantry. Can't fire in the rain. Disciplined, good morale.

Janissary Armoured Infantry:
Armed with wicked looking pole arms and shield, armouring flat ring chain mail, has a sword for close fighting. Good against cavalry and most infantry. Disciplined, excellent morale. Should not be pitted head to head against good quality spainish or swiss pikemen.

Janissary Archers:
Armed with a recurved bow, has a sword for close combat. Missiles good vs armour, high rate of fire (six shot a minute in real life, this makes 'em tire quick. draw wieght of bow is 150lbs). Extreme range of 500 yards. Can pierce though almost any armour with a spaure hit at 100 yards. Should be able to hit a man on horse back once every 4 shots at 280 yards. Good attack, weak defender.

Azap ('bachelors') Muskets:
Armed with muskets and unarmoured. Many carry pole arms to rest their weapons on. They are well trained to use these and this gives them a great advantage when confronted by cavalry. They are volunteers and have good morale.

Azap Macemen:
Has mace and shield. Good morale.

Sipahi:
Is armoured in mail and plate. Wields mace. His horse is lightly armoured reflecting the heat i which they were likely to operate. He wears a 'turban' helm with a mail aventail.

Elite Siege Troops:
Fully armoured in mail and splints. His shield is of iron and could probaly resist the attentions of early muskets. He weilds a fearsome battle-axe and slung at his side is a sword for close combat. His helmet is engraved and has a feather plume.

Ottoman Infantryman:
Armed with javilein and a sword, he also wields a small shield for close combat. He is armoured only in leathers as he comes from the peasent stock. He wears a simple iron helm.

Voynik Auxiliary:
Armed with pole axe, a straight western style sword, he has a 'balkans' stlye shield for use when weilding his pole axe. He wears a mail coat that extend to his knees and has a simple iron helmet with a aventail.

North African Marine:
Armed with a crossbow and short curved sword. He wears a mail shirt to his waist that is covered by his simple clothing. He has a small shield for close combat.

Celtic_Winter
11-18-2004, 23:20
Now,
here are some units, that I have been brainstorming with.
If I have made a historical mistake with my description or the unit, please feel free to correct me.


last updated: December 2, 2004

cavalry:

Spakhs-
the spakh was one of the main cavalry units used by the Ottoman empire.
Usually armed with a spear and a sword, The Spakh is perfect for crushing
enemy formations. Armoured properly most of the time.


Tatar horse archers-
Tatar horse archers usually carried a bow and a small sword. Never really
being equiped with a lot of armor, the Tatar horse archer was one of the most
lethal archers of it´s time. Very weak vs cavalry and infantry attacks
but great at crippling light armor units.

Hussars-
(note:there will be different Hussars, Winged Hussars for Poland and Hungary and a mercenary Prussian Hussar wouldn't be a bad idea)
Light cavalry, one of the main back bones in European cavalry attacks. Their high speed made them excellent for ambushing enemy troops and chasing them off the battlfield. Usually very weak with very little armor, the hussar was great for chasing off the enemy or sneeking up behind the enemy, very effective if used properly.

Cossacks-
(note: like the Hussars, there will probably be different Cossacks in the game)
Russian for "Kazak"(In Turkish it means "Free man" or "Adventurer") the Cossacks come from the areas around the black and caspian sea. They where independent until they where asked by the Russians to give them military service in return of privileges.

infantry units:

Jannisaries-
(note:there will most likely be more than one type of Jannisaries in the MOD)
Jannisaries where the core of the Turkish armies. The jannisaries where christian slaves,
usually taken as children, and taught to be loyal to the Turkish forces since their enslavement.
The Jannisaries didn´t really wear armour, but where excellent with their musket. Weak against melee infantry.

Ottoman pikemen-
the ottoman pikemen usually occupied the frontline of the ottoman armies.
Their main goal was to defend the artillery and janissaries and to hold back
cavalry charges. Greatly effective towards cavlary, the ottoman pikemen
usually wore a chain mail.

Russian Strelet-
the Strelets where the basic unit of the Russian army for a long time.
Appeared around 1550, in order to be a Strelet, you had to inherit it
from your father. Armed with a properly desgined Russian musket,
the Samopal, The Strelets also carried sabers and pole axes. Excellent ranged units, but weak in close combat.

Venetian infantry-
The Venetian republic, being one of the most important powers of Christian Europe, made the Venetian infantry very lethal. They where well armored and where equipped with a shield, a pike and a small sword.



Neapolitanian infantry:
Naples, being the largest city in most of Italy for a while, was used to fighting several battles with different enemies. Being a city, that has been fought over for years, the Neapolitanians have mannaged to create an infantry that is above the average. Usually, citymen who use a typical chainmail, a large wodden shield with some iron applied to it and a a long sword or spear.

Wallachian militia-
Wallachia, being a relatively not very important country during this time period, not as powerful as other states such as France or Piedmont, did mannage to leave their mark behind in European history. Famous for their leader, Vlad Tepes, most Wallachian armies consisted of militia being backed up by a few archers and some noble cavalry from the richer Wallachian families.
Wallachian militia usually wore very little armor, but where excellent defenders of their lands.

Wallachian boyar cavalry-
The Wallachian cavalry was made up of noble blood. Meaning, that just about everyone that was part of the Wallachian boyar cavalry, was of an important family. The Wallachian boyar cavlary where well armored and where properly trained. Perfect for fighting against melee infantry and cavalry.


Artillery-
Mortar-
Used mostly for siege purpouses, the mortar was one of the artillery pieces that was used the most during several years. Very weak against pretty much all attacks, but very useful when used for siege purpouses.

Bombard-
Similar to the mortar, but a bit more powerful. Used for siege purpouses and sometimes against infantry.

Naval units-
Galley-
Expensive but can change the tide of a battle easily. Equiped with forward mounted cannons, the galley has a big advantage over many warships due to speed and the way their cannons are positioned.

Frigate-
Easy to build and powerful. They are not as strong as a galley, but they can fire faster than the galley. They can maneuver faster and like the galley, they are equiped with side mounted cannons, which gives them an advantage in big sea battles.

Yacht-
A weak version of the galley. Their cannons take a long time to reload and they are not equiped the same way the galley has them equiped.

Venetian galley-
Venice, being one of the main sea powers of Europe during this time period, had one or the most powerful navies in the world. The Venetian galley is a little stronger than the regular Galley due to it's design and amount of cannons.

Uesugi Kenshin
11-19-2004, 04:41
I believe that some of the Turkish Jannissaries were armoured and they were considered the cream of the crop because of their high discipline and skill, many christian families under Ottoman rule even bribed officials to accept their children into the Jannisary forces!

SwordsMaster
11-19-2004, 12:59
Excellent heavy infantry unit but weak against melee infantry.

That is a bit of a contradiction isnt it?

Celtic_Winter
11-19-2004, 15:19
That is a bit of a contradiction isnt it?
I apologize, I made myself not very clear with that statement.
by heavy infantry, I meant like, with muskets, as very good units with those weapons. Like I mentioned, there will be different types of Jannisaries, They will all have different strengths and weaknesses.

Silver Rusher
11-19-2004, 20:05
Thanks for this CW. Keep up the good work!

Celtic_Winter
11-21-2004, 19:18
The cossacks, post to be updated.
Cossacks-

Ukranian sich Cossack-
The Ukranian cossack, Unlike the other Cossacks, dosnt carry a spear but a sword and a bow. Good for tactical attacks on enemy flanks.

Don Cossack-
Not as powerful as the Ukranian Sich Cossack, the Don Cossack uses a spear and is not as heavily armored. Good for melee cavalry attacks.

Celtic_Winter
11-21-2004, 19:27
(to be updated)
Hussars-

Neapolitan Hussars:
In Naples, there is a national heritage for Feudal Knights, but now with the evolution of guns light cavalry are equally important. And that is when the Hussar comes in...

Hussars:
The Hussar is a rather weak unit, but if used properly and with skill, it can be very effective. The Hussars carry a sword and are not heavily armoured.
very useful for ambushes or assisting heavy cavalry attacks.

Winged Hussar:
The Winged Hussar, was usually found with the Polish armies, but at times, you could find them in other European armies. The Winged Hussar, is equiped with a pike and wears proper armor. Excellent heavy cavalry unit. Very fast, well armored and very effective against melee infantry and cavalry, the Winged Hussars, where highly respected.

andriyko
11-23-2004, 09:40
The cossacks, post to be updated.
Cossacks-

Ukranian sich Cossack-
The Ukranian cossack, Unlike the other Cossacks, dosnt carry a spear but a sword and a bow. Good for tactical attacks on enemy flanks.

Don Cossack-
Not as powerful as the Ukranian Sich Cossack, the Don Cossack uses a spear and is not as heavily armored. Good for melee cavalry attacks.

Two points:
1. Cossacks Cavalry didn't carry missile wepon in battle, usually (both pike and sabre were often used though). Instead, Cossack Infantry is famous for it (Cossack Musketeers together w/ Janissaries were the best in the region).

2. No sizeable body of Cossacks existed to form Don Cossacks before mid 18th century. Also, they were same Sitch Cossacks who migrated there.

Also, word Cossack has many versions of origin, free man just seem to romantized to be true -- most likely it's Turkik for rogue/brihand.

PS Before you ask: no, I didn't base my statement on the game "Cossack", the game just seems to be quite accurate ;)

Celtic_Winter
11-23-2004, 22:54
Two points:
1. Cossacks Cavalry didn't carry missile wepon in battle, usually (both pike and sabre were often used though). Instead, Cossack Infantry is famous for it (Cossack Musketeers together w/ Janissaries were the best in the region).

2. No sizeable body of Cossacks existed to form Don Cossacks before mid 18th century. Also, they were same Sitch Cossacks who migrated there.

Also, word Cossack has many versions of origin, free man just seem to romantized to be true -- most likely it's Turkik for rogue/brihand.

PS Before you ask: no, I didn't base my statement on the game "Cossack", the game just seems to be quite accurate ;)
Hey Andriyko,
thank you for the corrections. Apparently, this small book I have on the cossacks, has a sketch of a cossack with a sword and a bow, but ill take your word for it.

cegorach
11-25-2004, 09:39
I am from a rival mod, but I am posting this to correct one serious mistake in the list.

"Hussars:
The Hussar is a rather weak unit, but if used properly and with skill, it can be very effective. The Hussars carry a sword and are not heavily armoured.
very useful for ambushes or assisting heavy cavalry attacks.

Winged Hussar:
The Winged Hussar, was usually found with the Polish armies, but at times, you could find them in other European armies. The Winged Hussar, is equiped with a pike and wears proper armor. Excellent heavy cavalry unit. Very fast, well armored and very effective against melee infantry and cavalry, the Winged Hussars, where highly respected."


First thing at that time light Hussars were using a lance and a curved shield with a sabre as the secondary weapon.
There were several types of this units

Szekely Hussars ( armed with bow as well), Hungarian Hussars ( armoured), Croatian Hussars ( lighter than the Hungarian), Rac ( Serbian Hussars) and Ussaria ( Polish light hussars).

All came from the Rac, but were different in some way.
Rac should be mercenaries.




Later ( around 1570)

Polish Winged Hussars ( Husaria) appeared - a very different cavalry unit, which dominated the battlefields of middle/eastern Europe for more than a century and were invincible for about 50 years ( to 1626).
They were fast, armoured ( not really heavily) and very disciplined. Used horses with incredible stamina, 5 m long HOLLOW lances, 1,5 long sword, a special 'Husaria' sabres, wheellock pistols and sometimes an axe or a warhammer.
Wings - 1 earlier, 2 after around 1630 which could scare anemy horses and infantrymen and protected from Tatar lassooes.
Were using several types of formation to counter all kind of enemies - from iron-hard Swedish infantry to agile Tatars and numerous Russian or Ottoman troops.

When winning usually were using about 100 dead, killing 30-100 times more. When losing usually they did most of damage in enemy ranks, and every defeat they suffered was something worth describing in details.


Because they were so successfull some armies tried to copy them, which proved to be impossible.
You simply cannot give wings somebody and expect him to be as good as this unique unit.
The only unit worth mentioning is Russian 'Gusary ' - there were about 1000 of them ( maximum), but were never so good as Husaria ( which scared even Gustav Adolph).

Anyway here are the decsriptions of both units from P&M TW for MTW, use them if you like.

One thing to note Russian Gusary didn't use the 1,5 m long lance-like sword, which was one of most important weapons of the Hussars.


"Gusary are the russian response to the Polish Winged Hussars. Although they look similar and are armed with similar weapons they are still a copy, and a copy is rarely as good as the original"

"Polish Winged Hussars are the very elite of the Polish army. Armed with 5 m. long hollowed lances, heavy sabres, pistols, 1.5 long swords and mounted on the best steeds in the country these professional soldiers are the scourge of all enemies of the Commonwealth. Thanks to their lances and special tactics even enemy pikemen are in trouble."


If you need more info just ask.

My regards Cegorach/Hetman ~;)

Uesugi Kenshin
11-25-2004, 20:06
Nice to know. :bow:

Suleimen the Magnificent
12-01-2004, 08:40
Spanish Musketmen
Armed with a heavy spanish musket and has a rapier for self defence. As these are professenial soldiers they are armoured in proper spanish war gear (helm, breastplate ect.). As muskets could only be used by strong men I think they should be a 2 turn unit.

Spanish Pikemen
Armed with a long (5.2m) pike and a sword for close combat. Well protected by armour. Should not be too proficant with his sword.

Spanish Harquebusier
Armed with a arquebuse and a broad sword. Has only spanish style helm.

'Gentlemen Adventurer' (any other name ideas?)
Mercenary. Recruitable in Spanish-French-Italian Mederterain (sp?) coasts. Armed with hand and half sword. Armoured in a similar fashion to gothic foot knight (but more up to date. I'll try post a pic soon). Expensive to recruit and mantain.

I'll try and post more later.

Do you want ideas for ships yet?

Celtic_Winter
12-01-2004, 17:02
Spanish Musketmen
Armed with a heavy spanish musket and has a rapier for self defence. As these are professenial soldiers they are armoured in proper spanish war gear (helm, breastplate ect.). As muskets could only be used by strong men I think they should be a 2 turn unit.

Spanish Pikemen
Armed with a long (5.2m) pike and a sword for close combat. Well protected by armour. Should not be too proficant with his sword.

Spanish Harquebusier
Armed with a arquebuse and a broad sword. Has only spanish style helm.

'Gentlemen Adventurer' (any other name ideas?)
Mercenary. Recruitable in Spanish-French-Italian Mederterain (sp?) coasts. Armed with hand and half sword. Armoured in a similar fashion to gothic foot knight (but more up to date. I'll try post a pic soon). Expensive to recruit and mantain.

I'll try and post more later.

Do you want ideas for ships yet?
those are good. Thanks there suleimen!
yes. Ships would be good. I have some information about them in my computer, but I am not too sure about how accurate it is ~:handball:

Silver Rusher
12-01-2004, 19:34
Suleman! I thought you would never return. Welcome back.

Suleimen the Magnificent
12-02-2004, 01:13
Sorry Silver, I have had a few deaths in the family lately.

Celtic Winter, most of the direct info I have for Mediterranean navies comes for John Francis Guilmartin Jr's 'Gunpowder and Galleys'. Most of the stuff that I post about atlantic fleets will be use more indirect evidence but probably will still be accurate. But the book has a bit about them too. I'll try anyway.

What is your info about? (Mediterranean or Atlantic?)

Uesugi Kenshin
12-02-2004, 04:28
That sucks....

Celtic_Winter
12-02-2004, 04:49
Sorry Silver, I have had a few deaths in the family lately.

Celtic Winter, most of the direct info I have for Mediterranean navies comes for John Francis Guilmartin Jr's 'Gunpowder and Galleys'. Most of the stuff that I post about atlantic fleets will be use more indirect evidence but probably will still be accurate. But the book has a bit about them too. I'll try anyway.

What is your info about? (Mediterranean or Atlantic?)
It's mainly about the mediterenean. But I have some information about atlantic as well.

Suleimen the Magnificent
12-02-2004, 05:26
Infantry
Soldados (Spanish Naval Swordsmen) (my spanish is no good, is this correct?)
Armed with rapiers or broadswords. Lightly armoured, small breastplate (no backplate). Should be recruitable in port-type structure. Expensive to maintain. (Might be better as a Merc. Can mercs be faction specific?)

Companeros Sobresalientes (Spanish Naval Harquebusier)
Armed and armoured similar to Spanish Harquebusier. But is much better trained, both in marksmanship and in the use of his sword. A small unit (cav size?), 2 turns to train to simulate the social condition in which they were created.

Venitean (sp?) Swordsman
Armed with sword and armoured in leather. Has a buckler. Excellent light fighters.

Venitean Crossbowmen
Recruited from their formidable naval contingent these crossbowmen are armed with a sword and a crossbow. Armoured in leathers. They should be good with their swords as naval combat demands it.

A general comment for the Veniteans, I think all their units should be very costly to maintain so that the player is forced to raise them only in a time of war. This would simulate that fact that when the veniteans went to war they were forced to draw troops from their merchant classes, with the resulting loss of profit.

edit: have renamed Spanish Naval Harquebusier, and naval swordsman, as per Celtic Winter's suggestion

Celtic_Winter
12-02-2004, 06:31
Maybe to make the names of the units more interesting, we can have them in the native languages. For example, for Aragonese infantry, we can have it like "infanteria Aragonesa". But then again, that might confuse the player a bit..

Silver Rusher
12-02-2004, 08:50
Oh, well I'm very sorry to hear that Suleiman.

Suleimen the Magnificent
12-04-2004, 16:21
Celtic Winter, I would like you to state in the first post of this thread that everthing from 'Jassinary Musketeers' down was submitted by myself. Thank you.

Also, I say that I post my ideas for ships and ypu post yours and we see which sounds both the most sensible and the most viable.

Silver Rusher
12-04-2004, 16:25
Celtic Winter, I would like you to state in the first post of this thread that everthing from 'Jassinary Musketeers' down was submitted by myself. Thank you.

Also, I say that I post my ideas for ships and ypu post yours and we see which sounds both the most sensible and the most viable.
Very strange, when I made the list it gave credit to you. Maybe he just accidently left it out. I'll edit it now-

EDIT: OK, I can't edit his post. When CW gets back I'm sure he'll edit it.

Celtic_Winter
12-04-2004, 17:18
Celtic Winter, I would like you to state in the first post of this thread that everthing from 'Jassinary Musketeers' down was submitted by myself. Thank you.

Also, I say that I post my ideas for ships and ypu post yours and we see which sounds both the most sensible and the most viable.

Finished. I apologize for not giving you credit.
I have already posted some of the ship information I have, check it out.
And I can do all the language translating for the Italian,Spanish and maybe German units since those are the languages I know.

Yggdrasill
12-04-2004, 18:36
All right, I'll post now what I think should be the Ottoman cavalry. I really have a lot of info on this subject and I compiled as best as could be done given the limitations and the requirement to generalize for the purposes of gameplay, so I strongly suggest that you make this list the official one, as I am not just guessing here. I'll back up every unit with a picture to give the modellers something to work with without delay. I've also tried to somehow standardise the models so as not to create too much job for them.

Of course you're free to give suggestion and correct if I'm wrong, but don't do it if you only have a vague recollection of something you read years ago.

1. Kapikullu Sipahi - or Sipahi of the Porte as they were labelled in MTW, this is the same thing only 'official'. To model it, basically copy the Sipahi in scale armour 1530 on the site I posted. You won't find a better model than this (in fact the artist who made it basically copied a surviving armour in Florence). The horse armour is a lot shorter than the one in RTW Cataphract type units, extending just below the horse's belly (so as not to impede movement). It is armed with a heavy lance and a sabre, however somebody should animate a couched lance type charge for this (and other) cav unit. The helmet is a standard sisak, a very often type which we will be using for many other units as well so it's worth modelling accurately.

2. Timarli Sipahi - or a basic sipahi unit funded through the timar system of land grants. Somewhat lighter (i'll send you a picture Rusher, as soon as I can find a scanner), horse was armoured as well but only with a chanfron (a plate thet covered the front of the horse's head) and a scale apron to protect the chest and neck (basically half of the armour worn by number 1 guy - this is optional as it wasn't that often). Armed also with a lance and sabre (we need to model a sabre as well since there are none in RTW). This was basic battle cav for the Ottomans. The way it should be modelled is that number 1 are similar to the sacred band of Carthage (takes 2 turns to train, very expensive, very effective, fights to the death) while number two is a more cost effective variant.

3. Gebelis - armed retainers of the sipahi, they were armed at the expense of the sipahi, had no land grants of their own but hoped to acquire one throuh service. Should be modelled according to the Ottoman Sipahi from the batlle of Sisak 1593 on the aforementioned site. Armed with a bow and a sabre, but not classed as light cav.
Important - is it possible to give units both a bow and a shield to use with a sabre? It is impoortant since Ottoman cav and Jannissaries used shield slung over the saddle or back while shooting arrows.

4. Akinji - the famous light cav, armed with bows and sabre and shield. Will post a great pen drawing later.

5. Deli - scout, light horseman, armed with a lance shield and sabre. Picture pending, also great pen drawing

6. Voyniq cavalry - these were Cristian vassals that served the sultan. Should be modelled like a cross between Western heavy cav and turkish sipahi. These are very important and in at least two major battles were instrumental in Ottoman victory (Varna and Nicopolis). Did not exist beyond the 15th century. We'll model them like a copy of a Hungarian armoured cav, maybe change the colour or something. Will post a picture when I get around to creating Hungarian units.

7. Some merc cav (like the Numidians for Carthage) - Tatar horse archer (I think everybody knows how they looked like, but if necessary, I have a great pic), Arab cav (for use in the desert), Wallachian cav (the only one I can offer no info on, I have only one picture and it isn't very good, maybe somebody can help).

And for the love of everything NO CAMELS!

As a final note, I think we really should be getting started on doing comprehensive lists of units for other factions as well. This is by far the most difficult thing to do. I'll post the same for the Russians, Italians, Moors and the Mamluks (and yes I vote for them too!). I can also help a lot with the English, Spanish (during the 15th century period), Germans and French during the 16th.

I hope to post info on Ottoman infantry by tomorrow evening.

Also, if anybody has any info on the Spanish infantry known as TERCIOS it is vital. They were widely regarded as the best infantry during early to late 16th century but I have absaolutely no info on them. I even don't know how they were armed (pikes, guns or sword and buckler?). A picture would be great.

Silver Rusher
12-04-2004, 21:34
I'll use a system of levels for this.

Level 1: Akinji (or "Turkish Horsemen" as they may well be labelled)

Level 2: Timarli Sipahi (I'd label this as Sipahi to avoid confusion)

Level 3: Voynik/Voyniq Cavalry

Level 4: Gebelis

And the Kapikullu Sipahi shall be the general's guard. I feel the Deli to seem fairly useless so I shall regret that I think they would take up too much space in the game. Not everyone can just look at a cavalry unit called "Kapikullu Sipahi" and say, "Oh yeah, of course I know what that is."

That is the ottoman's cavalry list.

Ottoman Infantry List:

Level 1: Town Guardsman

Level 2: Ottoman Infantry

Level 3: Janissary

Level 4: Janissary Heavy Infantry

And the recommended archer list is coming soon.

Yggdrasill
12-04-2004, 22:17
Well Delis are essentially not necessary, so it wouldn't hurt eliminating them.

Everything else is as I suggested except...

Akinjis have to be named Akinjis. It's just the way it is. Naming them Tukish cav or something similar would be like naming Companion cavalry of Macedonia Heavy cavalry. This is the name they were feared all over Europe. This is the name you should name them in the mod. Please. Akin means raid, plunder, attack - this is what they did - attacked, pillaged, burned, basically destroyed the opponents ability to fight. This is a must.

As for Sipahi instead of Timarli S., I guess it's fine. To avoid confusion. But, please General's Sipahi sounds so generic, unimaginative... either name them as I suggested, or Sipahi of the Porte or at the very least Sultan's Sipahi... Names are a very cheap way of adding credibility and historical accuracy to the game. We're not CA, we can't do everything to their high standards. We need simple little tricks like this.

Also, the infantry list needs some work. For one, azaps never used maces, they were infantry archers, then pioneers, and then finally arquebus armed infantry.


The merc cav are basically cav that other factions are gonna use (tatar archer) or we already have them (arab cav, sort of).

Do you still want me to post pictures? It seems that you have this already figured out how you want it to be.

Silver Rusher
12-04-2004, 22:23
Alright, alright. Just light feedback is needed. It's not the final list, just a primer kind of thing. A lot of the infantry were Suleiman's idea.

Silver Rusher
12-04-2004, 22:42
Some Ottoman Range Units:

Level 1: Archers

Level 2: Azap Bowmen

Level 3: Janissary Bowmen

Level 4: Trebuchet

And Gunpowder units:

Level 1: Handgunners

Level 2: Janissary Arquebusiers

Level 3: Ballistic Cannon

Level 4: Siege Cannon

Feedback would be nice.

Silver Rusher
12-04-2004, 22:43
And Polish Cavalry (feedback would be nice):

Level 1: Light Hussars

Level 2: Horse Archers

Level 3: Hussars

Level 4: Winged Hussars

Yggdrasill
12-05-2004, 18:52
Suggestions for Ottoman infantry (both combat and missile):

15th century:
1. Azap – rank and file soldiers, young free Muslim peasants serving as infantry archers, with a sabra (sword) and shield as a secondary weapon. Quite good in hand to hand combat as well, not just pure missile troops. Light armour, just a mail shirt and a helmet (sisak).

2. Yaya – vassal Christian troops. Light infantry, crossbow armed, sword and shield secondary weapon. Not really necessary, however they would be the only Ottoman crossbowmen so I think that it would be good to include them as well. Could be modelled easy by modifying Azaps (give em crossbows and a different soft armour like the Egyptian spearmen, no helmet).

3. Voyniqs – also vassal Christian troops, however these are armoured soldiers armed with polearms (helebards), shield and a sword, similar to generic western militia or something.

4. Janissary bowmen (or Nefer J. Archer, to use an authentic title) – Inf. Archers, secondary sabre and shield, armoured like azaps however much better fighting qualities.

5. Armoured J. (or Zirhli Nefer J) – Heavily armoured Jannissaries. They should be modelled exactly as in MTW, since that unit was one of the few that was very accurate. Polearm, shield and asabre, good armour.

6. Ottoman milita – As the name suggests. A good picture is on the site I suggested under Ottoman infantrymen in the battle of Sisak 1593. A polearm (tirpan battleaxe, shield and sabre, no armour, wears turban).

7. Optional – Siege assault infantry (or Serdengecti, literally head riskers) – Elite infantry armoured in the very comple armour the Ottomans can provide, a metal shield that can resist firearms, sabre or an axe as the main weapon. Melee infantry.

8. Dervish bektashi – similar to screaming women. These priests often accompanied Ottoman armies and would fire up the troops before battle. Very simple to model – a turban, little clothes (peasant style), a sword. Nothing fancy.

16th:
No more yaya inf as they disappeared.

1. Voyniqs – the same as before, no change
2. Ottoman militia – the same
3. azap – the same uniform, instead of bow now has arquebus.
4. Jannisary musketman – No armour. Typican Jannissary outfit (the hat, long yellow or green overcoat). No shield. Just a musket and a sabre.
5. Zirhli nefer – the same
6. Jannissary bowman – same
7. Serdengecti – the same
8. Dervish – the same.

All in all, 10 units, one of which is just a modification (azap arquebus). Not too much I think.

Important ---- Ottomans never adopted the volley fire tactic, instead relied on individual marksmanship. Can that be modelled?
Also, you initially suggested that we include Ottoman pikeman. This would be ahistorical as they never adopted the pike or any kind of linear, phalanx type tactics. This is going to be a major problem for them in the 16th century, however that was actually the case in real life. So basically, they are incredibly strong in the 15th with easily the best available army (best artillery, best cav and best infantry – the Jannissaries). In the 16th the only element that was still better than their opponents was the cav.

Yggdrasill
12-05-2004, 19:03
Hey you added my name! Thanx I'm even more amped now. I'll start work on the Moors right away. should be easy as they had a very limited range of units. Or have you changed your mind abot the Mamluks? They really are quite important.

I know very little of Polish cav of the era except that they were probably unique in mixing eastern and western elements having contact with both (the Teutonic order and the Turks/Golden horde). I do know that the hussar was probably not used even thou they most definetely had Hussar type units. Why? Well hussar is a Hungarian word, means 20 (as in one soldier for every 20 households) and was first started to be used sometime in late 15th century. It didn't spread to other countries until the mid 17th or later.
There are a few guys that seem well informed about that over at Pike and Shot forum. Maybe we should drop them a post, I'm sure they'd be quiete happy to help.

Also, what is the final word on the military revolution? As you can see, I divided the Ottoman inf (it was not necessary for the cav as they didn't move an inch from were they were in late 15th) into two categories as I don't know how you plan to do this. What is the end year?

Yggdrasill
12-05-2004, 19:08
Oh one more thing. When we start doing the reaserch for the Poles, we should combine it with the Lithuanians. Makes sense, after all they were in a union for much of the period. As I recall some very interesting javelin armed and Mongol style light cav to be had.

eadingas
12-05-2004, 19:54
What ending date do you have? The hussars don't start until Bathory in 1570's, and peak of their power is XVIIth century. Before that, polish cav is still strong, but not nearly as strong, and fights in a different style, more similar to typical western knights. It was still being at times defeated by western-type infantry or armored heavy cavalry of Teutonic Knights. Eventually, Poland won over Teutons economically rather than military. Lithuanian light cav was equally important in Poland's battles at the time.

Silver Rusher
12-05-2004, 20:19
A few stuff to be cleared up here now;

1. Mamluks are in the game, when you asked the list had not been properly updated.

2. The Polish and Lithuanians are combined.

3. Hussars (excluding light hussars) are quite late in the game, so no worries there.

End date is 1700. (units from the 1600s are scarcely in there, the time is only stretched that far to give more time to the player)

eadingas
12-05-2004, 23:22
I don't think 300 years span is a good idea. There've been too much development in warfare over that time, sometimes drastic - and you're be entering the turf of Pikes&Muskets :) If you need more game turns, why not use Myrdraal's 4 turns/year mod?

Uesugi Kenshin
12-06-2004, 04:38
Who cares about their turf??? This is an independant mod, it can be made into whatever we see fit, with SR having the most control.

This can be incorporated into the tech tree, advancements that appear late are gained later, due to building times...

Yggdrasill
12-06-2004, 21:43
Mamluk Egypt units
Cavalry

1. Khassaki Mamluks - bodyguard unit, heavy cav similar to Kapikullu Sipahi of the Ottoman. Horse is covered in armour. Lance, shied and sabre as weapons.
2. Qaranis Mamluks - Also heavy cavalry, very good armour for the rider, equal to the Khassaki. No horse armour.
3. Amir's Mamluk - Medium cavalry, lance, shield and sabre, no armour for the horse, medium armour for the rider.
4. Halqa Light cavalry - free men serving as horse archers. Bow and sabre armed, mail shirt and helmet.
5. Merc cavalry - Beduin Arab cav (the same as for the Ottoman Turks). Spear and shield armed, maybe bow.

Silver Rusher
12-06-2004, 21:53
I don't think 300 years span is a good idea. There've been too much development in warfare over that time, sometimes drastic - and you're be entering the turf of Pikes&Muskets :) If you need more game turns, why not use Myrdraal's 4 turns/year mod?
Don't get me started on whose turf is who's.

If it is really wrong for mods to leap onto the turf of other mods, then by simply existing the P&M guys not only ran onto our turf but went to sack our biggest cities. By existing the P&M guys are giving us HUGE competition.

But turf does not matter, so they are fine, and we and they are free to do whatever we want. I was planning my mod AGES AND AGES before the P&M guys came along, and I decided on ending in the 1700s almost right at the beginning. So don't talk to me about "turf". Plus, the 300 year turn span is only to allow the player more time.

However, the four turns per year thing is an appeal, although it would make the game quite long winded. I'll think about that one.

eadingas
12-06-2004, 22:40
Gee, don't get all excited, there was a smiley at the end of that sentence that you all seemed to not notice... but I still think 300 years is a bit too much. This is a period of history in which simply too much has happened - even the list of valid important factions by 1400 and by 1700 is much too different, not to mention the improvements in warfare...

Silver Rusher
12-07-2004, 08:50
Yeah, maybe I did over react a bit there...

But really the idea isn't to follow history in that period but instead to give the player more time. I think that's quite important in itself. However, use of the Myrdraal's mod is full of bugs, so maybe it isn't a good idea.

cegorach
12-07-2004, 10:58
I was planning my mod AGES AND AGES before the P&M guys came along, and I decided on ending in the 1700s almost right at the beginning.


No offence, but P&M for Rome is just another branch of XVI-XVII mod for a new engine, that is all.

Besides P&M TW is more for late XVI and XVIIth century warfare i.e. earlier wars are not much of our concern, especially 1402-1480 period which is completely not for us - our timeframe historically is 1480-1700.

Also our team + supporters are mostly from earlier XVI-XVII thread which still continues.
I am simply doing my work and you are doing your.

My regards Cegorach/Hetman ~:)

Eastside Character
12-07-2004, 23:23
You're right Cegorach. Besides, Citadel as I see isn't going to be like P&M for RTW even a bit. :duel: ~D
This one is like a completely different story. :book:

Regards,
EC

Uesugi Kenshin
12-08-2004, 05:00
Exactly both mod teams have every right to do whatever they want to, as long as they are not blatantly stealing images and such...

Silver Rusher
12-08-2004, 08:00
Heheh, let's not turn this thread into a discussion about the rights modders have to do what they want please.

And just one last point though- cegorach1, what I meant was that I was making the mod for Rome ages before your mod for Rome came along. Sorry if it wasn't clear, but mine was one of the first Rome mods to be announced.

Uesugi Kenshin
12-09-2004, 04:48
OK I will stop now....... It could have been a great debate but now off to work for the greater good.....CTW!

Yggdrasill
12-17-2004, 15:42
Last week was exam frenzy so I had very little time but I'm back with the rest of the Mamluks and Moors:

Mamluk infantry:
1. Halqa militia – militia type unit, however they are not spearmen but infantry archers. As any militia week in hand to hand combat, but as archers they are not bad.
2. Ashir infantry – the rank and file inf of the Mamluks, a cloth covered mail armour, shield, sword and a spear. Cannot form phalanx but are effective enough against cavalry. Very good in melee
3. Naffatin (or naphta throwers or whatever you choose to call them) – just like the ones in MTW. No armour, just a grey coat and a grey hood, to simulate some sort of fireproof fabric, and a small sword for close combat. Maybe a shield as well.
4.North African marine (or Maghribi marine) – a crossbow armed infantry, should be available to the Turks and the Moors as a merc. Not armoured, however has high defense skill. Similar to Cilician pirates in RTW.
5. African handgunner – a typical Mamluk firearm unit. Armed with a arquebus, armoured in mail, helmet, caries a sword or sabre as secondary weapon. Should be made into a effective melee inf as well.

All things considered not a very good selection of infantry units, but that is what was available to them

Granada

Cavalry:
1. Ghulam guard – bodyguard units for the faction family. Simply copy the Khassaki mamluk, change a few bits and pieces of equipement and done. Since they have no other spear armed shock cavalry, maybe this unit should be increased in size to a regular cavalry unit, rather than what is typical of other guard units.
2. Armoured cavalry – javelin armed medium cavalry, similar to Pontic heavy cavalry. Wears a mail shirt, a brigandine of a distinctivly Moorish shape, helmet, a leather daraqa shield and a sword.
3. Jinettes – Light cavalry, mail armoured covered by clothes, a helm wrapped in a turban, daraqa shield, javelins and a sword.
4. Saharan cavalry – available as mercenary cavalry for other factions, for Moors a light cav armed with spear and shield and sword, very high valour, high endurance extremely cheap to recruit and uphold, to simulate that they were religious volunteers. Any other faction that uses them as merc should get a 'stripped down' version,
5. Maybe Mounted crossbowmen – Moors used crossbows in large numbers as an infantry weapon, and used them a lot on horseback as well (although more for hunting than war). Since their unit selection is rather slim, this could be a nice addition.

Infantry:
1. Crossbow milita – Every one in ten Granadan peasant had to serve in time of need and they were armed almost exclusively with crossbows.
2. Urban milita – pike armed milita, however should be better than typical urban militia unit in RTW (which are basically next to useless in a battle). These guys knew how to fight. Rank and file infantry
3. Maghribi marine – a merc unit see Mamluks
4. N. African volunteer (Ghazi) – religiuos volunteers, lightly armed but fanatical. Light infantry (fast moving), leather daraqa shield, spear, sword, helmet wrapped in turban, scarf over face, leather armour.
5. Javelin skirmishers – possible, not sure if necessary
6. Some kind of firearm unit, perhaps similar to Mamluks' NorthAfrican Gunner.
7. In mid to late 16th century, instead of crossbows, militia units would be using firearms as well. So an additional Arquebus militia unit in 16th century.

Celtic_Winter
01-06-2005, 17:33
Ok so I am needing some help with the knight orders.
I know there is a research thread for it, but I would just feel more comfortable if I get some help with it.
I have been working on the units for the factions of Italy,Poland,Venice and I have used a lot of the information that Yggdrasill has provided. Thank you it was helpful. Now, I have mainly been working on the early tech tree for this factions, covering the late middle ages.
What excactly did the knight orders use in their armies? I am sure lots of knights, but what was their general infantry...things like this i need.

Yggdrasill
01-07-2005, 00:26
Sorry have no info on those. Just two comments.
1. When you work on the Order of the Dragon unit list, make sure you include region specific wallachian units (light and heavy cav). Those are also going to be available as mercs for Ottomans and Hungarians.

2. Make sure you include a lot of Italian units for the Pope. I think the papal armies were much more similar to contemporery Italian armies than the armies of the Teutonic order, or the Hospitallers.

Saranalos
01-07-2005, 22:05
I have a question Celtic_Winter since I think you are in charge of the units. is the list okay for me to start working on the units stats or is it just ideas? I can start writing the export_descr_unit.txt file if it is okay? ~:) ~:) ~:)

The Blind King of Bohemia
01-07-2005, 22:28
For the Teutonic Order the main army compositions would be as follows:

The Knights: Who would act as Heavy cavalry but would often dismount to form a solid Heavy infantry when fighting the baltic tribes in swamps, forests etc where Heavy Cavalry would be unsuitable. Yet sometimes rash cavalry actions did prove costly, see Grunwald in 1410 when the Grandmaster launched a cavalry charge which resulted i his death and loss of iover 200 Knights.

The sergeants: Lower than the Knights but could act as medium cavalry and good infantry as spear or sword capacity

Tribal contingents: Especially in campaigns against various rebellions such the Osel island rebellion and insurrections after the Durben disaster and the Lake peipus campaign. They would be used as light infantry with the smaller cavalry elements being used for scouting and skirmish's. Main araes were Estonia and Livonia but other places were no doubt used.

Mercenaries: Especially for the archers and crossbows. Thousands of crossbows would be employed from italy. Other types such as some longbowmen were seen in a small number during the early 15th century during lulls in the Hundred Years War. They could have seen action at Tannenberg in 1410.

Guest Crusaders: Many Princes and kings gained experience during the various Teutonic Crusades against Lithuania such as Henry IV, Jean Bouciquat and John the Blind King of Bohemia who helped with small yet resourceful and sometimes vital military contingents.

Also although holding a kind of autonomy, the Sword Brethren(another smaller military order) whose numbers never recovered after losing 2/3 of their number at Saule river in 1236 would often join the Teutonic order in battle such as at Lake Peipus where many fought under the Bishop of Tartu and most were later assimilated into the Order.

Also various settled Germans and some danes would have seen action either as a militia or cavalry such as in Livonian Feudal Cavalry(although some tribal elements would have been present in this area also)

Silver Rusher
01-07-2005, 23:06
Leading up to the Pike and Shot era of warfare, due to the high cost of proper professional soldiers, many nations used a lot of mercenaries in their armies. It was not surprising to see an army of more than 50% mercenary build.

Some mercenaries:

Genoese Crossbowmen:
Probably the most popular mercenary unit of the time, the Genoese where probably the finest crossbowmen available. They were used largely by France in the Hundred Years War as many crusaders and other european factions.

Condotierri:
The most feared mercenaries in Northern Italy, they did not spread out into the service of other nations but instead laid a helping hand in the contant disputes in the rivalries between the Italian duchies. They were very much elite troops to be mercenaries, which was why they were so popular.

Neapolitan infantry:
I've seen the model and skin for these done and I think it would be good if they were made available as mercs.

And many other rebel specific units would probably be good, gotta sleep now, post more tomorrow.

Celtic_Winter
01-07-2005, 23:25
Alright.
Thanks Blind king! that was helpful.
Saranalos, Sure if you know what you are doing, get working on it ~;)
And silver rusher, Yeah, I originally planned for the Neapolitanian infantry to be mercenary, since Naples wasn´t added to the game, I thought it would be necesary to add atleast one Southern Italy unit.

Saranalos
01-08-2005, 01:49
Right I will :charge:. Although I will not be able to change what faction they belong to yet as that wont allow me to check if the changes I have made worked~:(.

Uesugi Kenshin
01-08-2005, 05:05
Sounds good guys, I unfortunately will be getting more busy, because of finals and may not be able to continue much research until near the end of the month, but I can continue with my normal posting and such, just research time may be limited.

Silver Rusher
01-08-2005, 09:46
Some more mercs:

Tartar Horse Archers:
At Tamerlane's death the Golden Horde, after effectively rising out of the grave, fell into shreds completely once again. Had Tamerlane had an heir, the Golden Horde could even still be around today. This left lots of soldiers out of work, who spent most of their time travelling around and looking for new masters to serve.

Indian Infantry:
Indians have always been based around infantry, a few cavalry and elephants in their armies. But as the mongols came along infantry just seemed to be useless for them. So then they went off to travel around the area, scarcely going past Persia (which is the region where they will be available) looking to be mercenaries for whoever saught to hire them.

Indian Elephants:
I thought it would be nice to have a tiny few elephants in this game, just as incredibly rare mercenaries only available from one province, Persia. Most of the description from above goes for this too.

Yggdrasill
01-08-2005, 21:44
My Venetian unit list

1. Mounted crossbowmen
2. Mounted hand-gunners, later also Mounted Arquebusiers
3. Stradioti light cav *
4. Utili Man-at-arms (lighter version,no horse armour*
5. Elmetti Man-at-arms (manatarms with horse bard)*
6. Cavalleria Leggeria - mid 16th century Venetian attempt at a demi-lancer type cost-effective cav*

1. Militia crossbowmen - militia type unit
2. Urban arbalesters - we could have a version of these with pavise shields
3. Urban militia - very good medium infantry
4. Marine - a very effective crossbowmen, an elite (optional)*
5. Hand-gunners, later Italian arquebusiers also available
6. Venetian infantry - the unit God is working on *
7. Italian heavy infantry - armed with a staff weapon
8. Cretan archers - they were still around beleive it or not *
9. Militia Pikes - a mid 16th century attempt at modern infantry unit, not as effective as foreign types *

The units marked with a * are Venatian only, exclusive. Other should be made available to the Italians faction also.

Saranalos
01-09-2005, 02:43
Just two questions will I mark Gunpowder units as archers? And what about siege units later on in the game will there be cannons? :dizzy2: :dizzy2:

Uesugi Kenshin
01-09-2005, 04:52
I like the idea of allowing elephants to be used only in small amounts as mercs. I think if we have gunpowder sieges we need cannon.... My .00001 cents.

Celtic_Winter
01-09-2005, 06:26
Yes. Cannons will obviously be necesary in the game. I had posted some information on them in this thread I believe.

Saranalos
01-11-2005, 02:23
Now there is a problem with me editing the units before the model is made firstly archers would have to be placed over other archers and that would not work as we may have more or less archers than there already is. So I think that when the 3d unit is done you could e-mail it to me at saranalos@hotmail.com?

~:(~:(

:no: :no: :no: :embarassed:

GodsPetMonkey
01-11-2005, 11:39
What we really need is to start compiling lists of units that WILL be in the game and organising them by faction (and maybe era).

Theres alot of units in this thread, and we can only have 300 in the game, so we should start sorting through it.

Yggdrasill
01-11-2005, 21:48
Well 4 factions are more or less already compiled (Moors, Mamluks, Ottomans and Venetians). I'm perfectly happy with them as they are, I'm only considering perhaps adding one unit for the Venetians (but I'm not really sure). Soon Milan and Hungarians will be done too, and I hope by the end of this month so will the English, HRE and the French. For my part at least.

And yes, I agree, moding unit stats until they're done in 3d is a bit premature. In any case it seems quite simple to do once the models and unit lists are done. I've dabbled with it myself, but it seems far more prudent not to do it at this point in time. What we need to do unit stat-wise now would be to try and balance the stats on paper. In other words, agree on armour-shield-charge-melee values, and for that we need to decide on how to handle the military revolution. Only when we know that, and when we agree amongst ourselves what values to give to certain units, and once unit lists for at least a dozen factions are done and agreed upon, then we can say : OK saranalos is going to do the english, ygg the moors, somebody else... well you get the point.

Celtic_Winter
01-11-2005, 22:23
Wait a minute...Milan was added? ~:confused: where the Italians removed?

Yggdrasill
01-11-2005, 23:13
I think that it's just a 'cosmetic' change. It makes more sense since there is no 'Italian' faction in the time period. This way we get three city states (Pope, Venice, Milan). Barring Florence, and Naples (but as I know they were under the Spanish rule for most of the period), these are the major players in Italy, so i think it's a change for the better. Definetely a plus in my book.

Saranalos
01-12-2005, 01:31
Well what I could do is make a list of what the units stats will be and spend time balancing them out? I could pretty much do this from the list of units on these pages and set them out something like this

Venetian Pikemen/ attack 7/ defense 4/ cost 500 etc etc...

If you think this is a good idea I'll start right on it. :book: :book:

Celtic_Winter
01-12-2005, 04:00
I think that it's just a 'cosmetic' change. It makes more sense since there is no 'Italian' faction in the time period. This way we get three city states (Pope, Venice, Milan). Barring Florence, and Naples (but as I know they were under the Spanish rule for most of the period), these are the major players in Italy, so i think it's a change for the better. Definetely a plus in my book.
Oh I agree with this too. I never heard of Florence being under Spanish rule, but who knows. I know that Naples was under Aragonese rule, I have seen the Aragonese castle in Naples and Pulia. Outstanding.

Uesugi Kenshin
01-12-2005, 04:30
I think what matters is who was controlling who around the starting date, if the spanish were controlling one during the first 50 years or so after 1402 then the spanish get those provinces, because we will be changing history when playing anyway so we might as well not add factions that gained independance far after the start date.

Saranalos
01-13-2005, 19:08
Well what I could do is make a list of what the units stats will be and spend time balancing them out? I could pretty much do this from the list of units on these pages and set them out something like this

Venetian Pikemen/ attack 7/ defense 4/ cost 500 etc etc...

If you think this is a good idea I'll start right on it.

is it a good idea?

Yggdrasill
01-13-2005, 21:30
Oh you were waiting for me to answer? I thought it was a rhetorical question

Yeah but wait just a few days more. Most of this work will revolve around eastern-western difference in unit design, also 15th-16th century tech advances. I hope to post three more factions by Sunday, and we'll have to work out something with the military revolution. I've thought of a few solutions and will present them to Silver to see what he has to say. Then I'll post stats for a few units just to act as a general guideline - and according to that frame we'll model the rest. This is so we get an approximate ratio in unit quality. You can start working on the Venetians if you have some energy to burn...

Silver Rusher
01-13-2005, 21:34
Well, the Milanese are kind of a combination of Genoa and Milan. The faction is being called the "Italians" as a temporary name, to avoid confusion, but may be changed to either Genoa or Milan.

Ignoramus
01-14-2005, 09:14
Have you thought about German Landsknechts? They have Halberds. Like Swiss Pikemen.

Yggdrasill
01-14-2005, 09:58
Sure the Landesknechts are a vital unit (actually several)for the Hre and available as mercs for France (maybeothers as well, have to check that)

Yggdrasill
01-15-2005, 19:52
England

1. Royal Guard (early bodyguard unit)
2. Gentleman Pensioners (late guard) or Household Cavalry
3. Man-at-arms
4. Mounted sargeant
5.Demi-lancer, two types, one with a lance, the other with a pistol
6. Border Reiver, also two types, one with a crossbow and sword, the other with a pistol


1. Light Billman
2. Heavy Billman
3. Yeoman archer
4. Longbow archer (a more heavily armoured longbow unit, don't really know how to name it, so if you have suggestions...)
5. Tudor Longbowman - a 16th century longbow unit
6. Arquebusier
7. Dismounted man-arms - England was the only country that succeeded in convincing its heavy cav that sometimes it's better to fight on foot
8. Crossbowman
9. Tudor pike
10. Tudor guard
11. Levy foot

Kurtisb
01-15-2005, 20:48
Weren't Men-at-Arms peasants (free-men, not serfs) with issued equipment, and training?

Correct me if I'm wrong. :book:



-Kurts

The Blind King of Bohemia
01-15-2005, 22:59
The Border horse would have used the Longbow not the crossbow in battle, many being very handy with the weapon. Also the english had in there armies Sprinkcler men, armed with a weapon like a spear but at the top a spiked ball, these men saw action in france under Thomas Cavendish's contingent during henry viii campaigns

Uesugi Kenshin
01-16-2005, 04:54
The French used a lot of Foot Knights at Agincourt, I do not know if it was just a fluke, but you may want to put in dismounted units in the french list when you get to it.

Yggdrasill
01-16-2005, 14:21
Men-at-arms was a generic term for all armoured riders, including both the knight, their squires and asorted mercenary soldiers. It was commonly used in 15th and later periods as the chivalry and knighthood lost prestige, many knights, at least in England preferring the role of gentry rather than warring (not that I blame them), leaving the fighting to less noble soldiers. Another reason for this was that nobles (knights) would demand higher wages than commoners. How the term was widespread, is evidenced by the fact that a french equvalent, hommes d'armes, by early 16th century transformed into gandarmes, which by then denoted an armoured rider from the royal Compaignes d'Ordonnace, made up in large part from nobility. Today it is the name of the french police force.

I'm waiting for a book on Henry VIII's army, should arrive any day now. If it is necessary, I'll revise the list then. However, the Tudor guard unit, as I imagined them would have some sort of staff weapon, probably a halebard or a pole-axe, but that sprinkler thing could work as well. I still have to see about that.

I know that the English Border reiver used longbows more often than crossbows but there are two things to consider here. Firstly, longbows couldn't be fired from horseback at least not very well, and in RTW it is impossible to dismount them. If we enable horseback firing, it would simply make them too powerful (reivers were good light cav, but they were no tatar horse archers), not to mention unrealistic. Secondly, Scots also used Reivers, however armed mostly with crossbows. So this one unit would fit both roles. Sadly this I think is compromise that is necessary to make. Also, crossbows remained in service longer than longbows as far as reivers were concerned.

The Blind King of Bohemia
01-16-2005, 15:52
I wasn't saying give them a longbow, of course they couldn't fire a longbow moving on horseback but they wouldn't have used a crossbow either, except maybe a smaller one for hunting purposes. The borderer used the Longbow as an essential weapon in constant family and sometimes national warfare.
They would mostly be armed a with a lance, buckler shield, sword and later pistol mainly the "Dagg" a heavy single shot, wheel lock pistol which was seen in the battle of solway moss in 1542 when 3,000 border horse fired shots into the poorly laid out scottish forces numbering some 15,000 and there speed captured a number of nobles and most of the scots artillery train.

The dismounted borderer would sometimes be armed with the Jeddart staff, a weapon some 4 feet, with a long cutting edge with a wicked spike for piercing.

Try getting the Border Reivers by Osprey which is a tremedous source of info.

Yggdrasill
01-16-2005, 19:38
Actually I have it based my info mostly on it funny isn't it? ~D

Well, I spent a long time thinking about whether to give em a lance or a crossbow (even toyed with the idea of adding a third border reiver with a lance), finally decided on a crossbow for the reasons mentioned above but also because I think that light cav without some kind of missile weapon is next to useless, and these guys were far from useless. Which is not to say that a lance armed reiver wouldn't be fun also. The gun version is in anyway. I just don't see a longbow armed rider viable in RTW engine with no dismount option, shame really that CA didn't include one after all they had it in MTW. Crossbow wasn't a universal weapon, lance was, so we might decide on it eventually, nothing is written in stone yet. But crossbows were used, smaller ones ofcourse.

Speiz_Bankurt
01-21-2005, 06:51
Hi guys!

I noticed the discussions on hussars before. May I just add that the word hussar was first used or at least documented in written form in Hungary in the late 1400's! They were usually Serbian mercs/border guards. The word Cegorah used before which was Rac is actually a Hungarian word meaning serbian. So I reckon you might as well call them serbian hussars. Also Rac wasn't a nice word, it should not be in the game because it might offend serbians.
Hussars became very popular in Hungary by 1500 and I reckon everything else Cegorah said is pretty much accurate.
The final thing I wanted to add was that Hungarian Hussars were basicaly just medium/light cav, their equipment wasn't that special but what did make them special and almost an elite unit was their skill and experience. They slightly varied per region, more armoured in some areas and lighter in others. Some had bow and arrow too. It probably depended on the type of terrain they usually fought on. I don't know if this is useful, maybe you can find a way to incorporate it into your mod.

Cheers

Uesugi Kenshin
01-22-2005, 04:42
Don't know if we had this info somewhere before, but thanks it always helps to have it all in one spot. Much easier to find and read.
Thanks

cegorach
01-22-2005, 15:18
Hi guys!

I noticed the discussions on hussars before.
Cheers


So what do you think about this

http://img108.exs.cx/img108/8350/wingedgussarcomradreview8vu.jpg


Regards Cegorach ~D

P.S. I have implemented some changes to the MTW testing full release using some info provided by you ~:cheers:

Uesugi Kenshin
01-23-2005, 05:11
Wow. I would love to see them in a unit, had no idea they wore those feather things and jaguar capes. I also don't know very much about hussars but I never pictured that.

Saranalos
01-23-2005, 05:19
That Hussar looks great but im not sure about the lepoard skin cloak...

Yggdrasill
01-23-2005, 21:02
I just wanted to say that even though I haven't posted any new unit lists in quite some time, be sure that I'm still on it, and it now seems that I may be able to collect enough data for all factions. :book:

Right now I'm a little too busy with my exams, and also I'd like to scout other forums, notaby Pike/Shot, and see what they have as it may give me some ideas. Maybe I can even talk them inot sharing some models with us, although that is a not very likely.

Uesugi Kenshin
01-24-2005, 04:33
I am not sure we should accept them even if they offered. This mod should look ands feel unique. Unless we cannot find modellers and godspetmonkey dies of a stroke or wins the lottery and bugs out we need our own models, with their own distinct flavor and feel. Having our own models would also give our mod a uniform feel, where every unit is made with at least a similar style.

Yggdrasill
01-24-2005, 09:44
The 16th century units are in large part the same for both our mods. You can't invent unique uinits just for the sake of it - for example, both we and they are going to have the Landesknechts (pikemen, arquebusiers, doppelsodners, halebardiers). So why not share and help each other out, they can model two of tohose, and we can model the other two. It would only concern units which are already common to both our mods.

Speiz_Bankurt
01-26-2005, 03:58
Cegorach, that Polish hussar looks great. I saw it before at the P&M thread.

The leopard skin is completely realistic. Hungarians used them too. The thing is though that only the richer hussars could afford expensive exotic animal skins. But I think they used many other animal skins too!

I don't see why you couldn't accept this unit in this mod. Why bother remaking it if in the end it is going to look practically the same. And surely, if your two mods overlap in time and place, you will include hussars too!

Uesugi Kenshin
01-26-2005, 04:27
If most of the people on the mod want to share models with pike and shot and they want to as well I am not going to try and stop or disrupt it, but I feel strongly that we should make our mod look unique. By using our own unit models and interface. I do not think it would help us to have our mod look almost exactly the same as pike and shot, if we make our own units we can make them look different.

Yggdrasill
01-26-2005, 09:11
We're talking about 200+ units. I've skimmed through their unit selection and have done about 80% of our own unit lists, and as far as I can see, there are about 20, 30 units at most that overlap. That's not that many, but it would certainly help godspetmonkey. No need to worry about our mod's unique feel...

Ignoramus
01-26-2005, 09:21
I can find some unit dedign on google, just pm a list, and I'll find out as much as I can

Uesugi Kenshin
01-26-2005, 18:33
I think Godspetmonkey should decide if it is intended to alleve some of the work and pressure. But I still think we should have a unique mod in every way possible.

Yggdrasill
01-28-2005, 09:14
Burgundy units

1. Duke's Guard (Household Cavalry)
2. Knights - heavy cavalry that the game starts with
3. Compaignes d'ordonnance men-at-arms - In 1472 these units were created. Heavily armoured knights riding barded horses.
4. Coustillier - lightly armoured horseman
5. Mounted crossbowman,
6. Mounted Arquebusier

1. Flemish Pikeman - after Swiss, the best 15th century infantry in Western Europe
2. Crossbowmen, Arbalesters
3. Handgunners
4. Arquebusiers, Musketeers
5. Archer
6. Mounted Archer - yes they had horses but they never used them in combat, nor were they trained to fight on horseback, it was just to increase mobility. BAsically they will be elite archer unit, capable to handle themselves well in a close combat
7. Pikeman - just an ordinary pikeman unit, no or very little armour, modest status
8. Town militia - lightly armoured spearman, shield and sword

GodsPetMonkey
01-28-2005, 13:20
I think Godspetmonkey should decide if it is intended to alleve some of the work and pressure. But I still think we should have a unique mod in every way possible.

To be honest its a big ask of me to produce all the units in the game.
Working at full pace, it takes me 10 hours total to create a new unit (inc. modelling, texture, testing), which normally means 2 days per unit, and thats a simple unit (I spent 3 days alone on the texture for the gothic armour). At that rate, 200 units will take me 400 days, and I only have so much time now due to it being holidays, in a few weeks time I'm back off to uni, so poof, I'd then be lucky to get 2 hours a day to work on models.

It is offset by the fact that as I complete more and more units, I have more and more material to recycle, taking some texture from one skin, and making some quick modifications is much faster then doing it from scratch.

Though, if we are to use several artists work, I think it should be work created for this mod, rather then using stuff for someone else, uniqueness is important, whats more, it means I can easily share my own working material (like textures, anyone like 3-5Mb psd files?) with out it becoming common in several mods. Graphics contribute greatly to a mods feel, and though we overlap somewhat with P&M, I'd much prefer the mods to feel different.

And to anyone who wants to learn 3DS Max and photoshop texturing, trust me, its easier then it looks! Even if you only work on the simpler units, its work I don't have to do, and I can easily give some pointers as well was templates and work material. Hell, it took me less then a month to learn 3DS Max using just free guides and google, and most of the crap I learnt doesn't even matter for RTW models, at the start of this month I couldn't texture in photoshop for crap (though I am good at pointing small scale figurines) but now I taught myself how to use a small set of tools to create good looking skins.

Yggdrasill
01-28-2005, 16:25
To be honest its a big ask of me to produce all the units in the game.
Working at full pace, it takes me 10 hours total to create a new unit (inc. modelling, texture, testing), which normally means 2 days per unit, and thats a simple unit (I spent 3 days alone on the texture for the gothic armour). At that rate, 200 units will take me 400 days, and I only have so much time now due to it being holidays, in a few weeks time I'm back off to uni, so poof, I'd then be lucky to get 2 hours a day to work on models.

It is offset by the fact that as I complete more and more units, I have more and more material to recycle, taking some texture from one skin, and making some quick modifications is much faster then doing it from scratch.

Though, if we are to use several artists work, I think it should be work created for this mod, rather then using stuff for someone else, uniqueness is important, whats more, it means I can easily share my own working material (like textures, anyone like 3-5Mb psd files?) with out it becoming common in several mods. Graphics contribute greatly to a mods feel, and though we overlap somewhat with P&M, I'd much prefer the mods to feel different.

And to anyone who wants to learn 3DS Max and photoshop texturing, trust me, its easier then it looks! Even if you only work on the simpler units, its work I don't have to do, and I can easily give some pointers as well was templates and work material. Hell, it took me less then a month to learn 3DS Max using just free guides and google, and most of the crap I learnt doesn't even matter for RTW models, at the start of this month I couldn't texture in photoshop for crap (though I am good at pointing small scale figurines) but now I taught myself how to use a small set of tools to create good looking skins.


I'm fully aware of that and right now it's my biggest concern. I'm planning unit lists accordingly. Even though it must seem that units are completely different, they actually are not, and many units are common for various factions, In fact, I think that no Burgundian unit other than the mounted archer is unique (and even that will be very similar to the longbow unit you already modelled, just with a different helm). For example, the Compaignes d'Ordonnaces and Coustilliers are available for France also. The first unit is nothing more than a glorified man-at-arms (the gothic plate you made with minimal changes), with additional horse-armour and a different helm. The second unit is basically a Mounted sargeant, lighter cav unit, available also for the English, Habsburgs etc. Then with minimal changes to that unit, you can make the mounted crossbowman. Flemish Pikeman will be very similar to the picture of light billman I sent you - so again two units for the price of one. And so it goes...
Many units are the same just with different names and minimal diferences, I use that as a trick to add additional historical feel to the game.
I don't know how many units we'll need in the end, but the max number is 300. So going by that, I imagine that maybe every third unit is completely new and original, everything else is modification, to a greater or lesser extent.
But I am concerned about the amount of work ahead of us.
I think it would be a good idea to again ask at the official forum for some 2d/3d artist to help us. There a lot of people at the modding subforums with at least the basic knowledge of modeling and texturing, and some are bound to be interesed. Uesugi, since you're the point man now, maybe you could drop a post at the official modding subforum asking for help?
As for sharing models, it seems nobody likes my idea very much :embarassed: so I'll just shut up. Just for the record, units are bound to be the same to an extent. It depends what picture they are using as a source for their models, but a Landsknecht is a Landsknecht, no matter how you look at it. You can't invent an unit just for the sake of being unique. Even if you get a finished model, you can make various minor changes, tweaks and such to make it unique. Certainly easier than doing it from scratch yourself.
I really hope someone might decide to take up graphics developement and help GodsPetMonkey (if it really is that easy, then we should at least try). For my part, I promised to try and do some animation work, and I'm sticking to that promise - as soon as I clear up my schedule a bit.

Uesugi Kenshin
01-29-2005, 04:26
Right, I will plead with the masses. Anyone wanna come watch?

Saranalos
01-29-2005, 04:34
Me! no really we do need more modellers its a bit much to heap it all on godspetmonkey so everyone had best start recruiting. ~:) :charge:

GodsPetMonkey
01-29-2005, 04:46
In truth I do have a friend who is damn handy with 3DS Max, and he offered to help if I needed any, but sadly, he is in the middle of moving and starting a new job, so its a bit much of me to ask him to start cranking stuff out at this point in time.

And I have to teach him how to use photoshop ~D

Saranalos
01-29-2005, 04:53
I would try to learn 3dsmax 7 but unfortunately I am
A: Not rich
B: Not old enough to have a job that will pay for 3dsmax
C: Probably not going to get an internet connection fast enough to download the tutorials, and too busy at the moment. :book: :book:

Although I have photoshop I am not very good at it.

Uesugi Kenshin
01-29-2005, 04:53
I understand, maybe when we are making CTW 2.0 the modding continues we can get him to help. If anyone survives this mod. Oh well just gotta hope someone in the general modding forum volunteers.

GodsPetMonkey
01-29-2005, 04:56
~:handball:

You never know.

On a semi-related note, Silver had threads going at a few of the other RTW sites, perhaps you should post an update in them or something?

Saranalos
01-29-2005, 04:57
or put up BIG SIGNS everywhere


also I can update the rtw heaven thread if you want.

GodsPetMonkey
01-29-2005, 05:03
I don't see why not ~:cool:

Silver would often repost the latest images (of both units and camp map), so it might be a good idea to include those, it shows the mod is moving along, and I would guess that a part time modeller would be wore willing to work on something that isn't going to die in a few weeks time.

Saranalos
01-29-2005, 05:07
I will update the RTW heaven thread then I will also take some pictures from citadeltotalwar@hotmail.com and post them with it when there is new pics if that is okay.

Uesugi Kenshin
01-29-2005, 05:13
Sure.

BTW Saranalos as soon as I can edit SR's posts here I will add your name, what job do you have exactly? You seem to help out with everything that you can but I do not know what to put down....

Uesugi Kenshin
01-29-2005, 05:17
Where exactly did he have the other threads?

Godspetmonkey where did you learn to model?

Saranalos
01-29-2005, 05:18
Just put me down as an everythingist ~D ~D

I joined the team as a unit scripter but since there has been no real demand for scripting at the moment I am helping out with everything I can I will update the threads in forums that I know of but I will also update other threads as well if you find one. ~D ~D

Uesugi Kenshin
01-29-2005, 05:28
K I will use that exact word and everything. Guess now that I have something to do for the mod I will have to do most of the stuff on weekends. Because my family hogs the net connected computer and I live in the boonies without broadband I have only one hour gauranteed on week days. But weekends I can stay up later and get more time.

Saranalos
01-29-2005, 05:36
Good ~:) I am updating one of the threads as I type it has fallen way behind and needs to be bumped up a bit. ~:)

You should also see about being able to edit the Citadel Total war posts. ~:cheers: ~:cheers:

Uesugi Kenshin
01-29-2005, 05:43
I posted a request to Tosa about that in the watchtower. SR had those sorts of powers I believe and I need them if we are going to avoid a lot of confusion....

GodsPetMonkey
01-29-2005, 05:52
Where exactly did he have the other threads?

Godspetmonkey where did you learn to model?

100% self taught. IMHO all those courses and books are junk (and you have to pay for them). Theres nothing you cant learn by just sitting there and trying things out!

I just started playing about (I had some prior experiance in lightwave, but it was little more then making boxes and moving points (aka vertices)).

After about a week, I knew my way arround well enough to create things and do a good deal of editing, then I just learnt from small tutorials everything else.

Really, to model for RTW all you need to know is how to edit meshes/polys and UVW map, thats pretty much it for simpler units (although if you know how to, and want to, you can create units from scratch, but it takes alot more time, and really, doesn't give that much of an improvement anyway, theres only so much you can put into a low poly model, and humans are all shaped like each other).

The real killer is texturing IMHO, I spend alot more time makeing nice textures then models, as with

Saranalos
01-31-2005, 01:15
The map editor coming out with the patch could just be for custom battles and not the campaign map but if it is only for custom battles it could be very usefull for historical battles? ~:)

Uesugi Kenshin
01-31-2005, 02:44
True, that would be great.

BTW nobody is volunteering to join as a modeller yet. My thread in the general mods section has gone unanswered.

Saranalos
02-04-2005, 21:24
The unit limit was raised it in the 1.2 patch to 500, but I'm not sure about the models limit... it may have been kept in order to keep the tex memory requirements under control


Look above and smile ~:) :balloon2: ~:) ~:)

A dev posted this so it should be true. ~:) ~:) ~:)

but unfortunately


The other limits (200 provinces, 255 unit models, 20 landmasses) have been left in place, and it's unlikely that there will be another patch which will change those. Oh well...

Ignoramus
02-04-2005, 22:16
Do that mean we will need the patch to download Citadel?

Uesugi Kenshin
02-05-2005, 04:48
Most likely, the patch has many improvements, including the much complained about friendly fire. CTW would probably end up being harder to make without the patch or worse. The patch is 56 mbs. so if you have a friend with boradband you may want him to dl it (if you have 56k like me).

Saranalos
02-05-2005, 05:01
Just leave the download overnight thats what I did. ~:) ~:)

Uesugi Kenshin
02-05-2005, 05:22
I am going over to their house anyway now, so I might as well wait a bit. Plus my family usually wakes up before me, because I stay up quite late and they might do something and on top of all that the comp sometimes chooses to restart itself when somebody is logging on or off.

Ignoramus
02-07-2005, 02:22
How about adding Norse Spearmen, Halberdiers, Pikemen, and Arquebusiers to the Danish units list?
I could provide info about equipment for N. Spearmen.

Yggdrasill
02-07-2005, 11:41
Changes to Ottomans:

1. Additional unit – Late Sipahy

Changes to Mamluks:

1. Additional Merc cav – Turcoman horse archers, Beduin cavalry
2. Additional unit – Town guard

Changes to Moors:

1. Ghulam Bodyguard – name change to Ma'lughun
2. Additional unit – Renegados (christian converts)
3. Armoured cav – name change to Moorish cavalry


France:

1. Knights
2. Gendarmes
3. Coustilliers
4. Chevaux-Legers
5. Two guard units, based on 1 and 2 for early and late periods
6. Mounted crossbowman, Mtd arquebusiers
7. Mtd sargeants

1. Town militia
2. Crossbowman, arbalesters
3. Arquebusiers, Musketeers
4. Scottish guard
5. Gascon infantry
6. Franc archer
7. Swiss and Landesknechts as mercs
8. French pike,
9. Sargeants
10. Merc unit – Genoese crossbowman


Burgundy (revised list):

1. Knight
2. Gendarmes
3. Coustilliers
4. Two guard units same as above
6. Mtd crossbowman, Mtd arquebusiers
7. Mtd sargeants

1. Flemish Pikeman - after Swiss, the best 15th century infantry in Western Europe
2. Crossbowmen, Arbalesters
3. Handgunners
4. Arquebusiers, Musketeers
5. Archer
6. Mounted Archer - yes they had horses but they never used them in combat, nor were they trained to fight on horseback, it was just to increase mobility. Basically they will be elite archer unit, capable of handling themselves well in a close combat
7. Pikeman - just an ordinary pikeman unit, no or very little armour, modest status
8. Town militia - lightly armoured spearman, shield and sword
9. Sargeants

Yggdrasill
02-07-2005, 11:50
Milan:

1. Condottieri Man-at-arms
2. Condotierri Heavy Man-at-arms
3. Household cavalry – guard unit
4. Merc units – stradiotti, Croatian light horse,
5. Mtd crossbowman, mtd arquebusiers, Italian light cavalry
6. Mtd sargeants

1. Milita crossbowman
2. Urban crossbowman
3. Hand-gunners, Italian arquebuisiers, Musketeers
4. Urban milita
5. Italian heavy infantry
6. Archers
7. Genoese crossbowman
8. Pikeman

same for Pope plus

Swiss Guard - elite swiss units

Uesugi Kenshin
02-08-2005, 04:29
Wow, you were busy. Looks good to me. The French could have an Irish merc unit, the Irish often helped the French against England and were most commonly mercs not regulars.

Yggdrasill
02-08-2005, 08:51
Probably but I plan to make a list of region specific units last, sort of like a 20th faction. Sometimes I add a specific merc unit if I remember it at the moment of writing, but I plan to take an atlas of Europe and Middle East and go region by region trying to think of all the specific units that were available as mercs.

Uesugi Kenshin
02-09-2005, 04:34
All rgiht I did not know that and that sounds like the most thourough method. Other than that it looks quite good. Keep up the good work.

massamuusi
02-11-2005, 13:06
I can do the research for Hakkapeliitta cavalry... if they're still in... ~:confused:

Just had a bit of a rough family life for some time, but everything is cleared up now and I'm once more available.

Uesugi Kenshin
02-12-2005, 02:04
Good thing that is cleared up. I do not know if they are in, I cannot remember hearing about them. What faction are they for?

massamuusi
02-15-2005, 10:30
Good thing that is cleared up. I do not know if they are in, I cannot remember hearing about them. What faction are they for?

The swedes. The Hakkapeliitta got their reputation in campaigns against germans, and their charges were feared.

Will post more later today-

Uesugi Kenshin
02-16-2005, 04:41
Ignoramus do you have a list of all the factions you have done unit lists for?

That would be re4ally helpful and make sure you have them backed up on your computer, this weekend I will start doing that on mine as well because I have vacation coming up and will have a lot of time to do that sort of work, even if it means staying up until 5 I will do it.

Hope the work is going well godspetmonkey, if you need extra info on anything I will be able to do a lot more work during vacation.

Ignoramus
02-16-2005, 04:44
For Citadel or Feudal?

Uesugi Kenshin
02-16-2005, 05:03
CTW, sorry bout that. Cleaning the kitchen took a bit longer than usual so I was unable to get on right at ten, I am going to sleep soon so if you have anymore questions post them or pm me, but do not expect an answer until around this time tomorrow.

Saranalos
02-16-2005, 19:51
I found out that dr_zaius_22 has 3ds max and he used to be on the team but unless something happened to him he has quit as his last post was around a month or two ago. Unfortunately people seem to be unintrested in our mod, I think this is because there are a lot of mods being created around the same time period. I am not going to quit unless the whole team falls apart so I will continue to help unless my computer blows up. ~:)

Uesugi Kenshin
02-17-2005, 04:29
I will try to pm him, we sure could use some more modellers. Hopefully if we keep on working and godspetmonkey keeps making great models someone who can model will become interested.

Uesugi Kenshin
02-19-2005, 04:41
Vacation has started, *Much Rejoicing*. So I will begin to search the subforum for unit lists, unless someone has the full lists already in one spot. I will then organize them and start checking off factions. This will mean many late nights, but heyt it is vacation that would happen anyway!

Yggdrasill
02-19-2005, 12:34
Great I was thinking how we need to have a list in one place. However be warned that this is still a work in progress - for example two days ago I had what I believed to be a definite list for Hungarians, then I did major changes and again thought I had a final draft, and today again I'm having second thoughts - that's why I haven't posted anything yet on them. Just yesterday I found a great resource on the web about the French and Italians, so minor changes can be expected there as well.

Uesugi Kenshin
02-20-2005, 04:22
Damn, I thought your post would say that you had a list in one place and I didn't need to do it. Oh well guess I get to start tonight......

That is all right if you have changes just post an updated list and I will be able to replace the one I have.

Uesugi Kenshin
02-20-2005, 05:09
Wow that did not take very long...

Next I will try to locate a faction list so we can know exactly who we need units for and who we will need to shuffle for 2 German states and so on...

If anybody would like the 13 page almost 5000 word lists I have them, but they are not organized other than chronologically and some of them are rough lists that do not say Burgundy gets: blah blah blah, but instead say: Janissary Heavies= blah blah blah Hussars= blah blah blah Cossacks= Blah Blah.
Once they are organized and/or somewhat polished we can make a new thread not for discussion but for storing the unit lists.

Yggdrasill
02-20-2005, 08:26
while you're at it could you tidy up the forum a bit, erase those old threads that no one is using. See if you can get a moderator status, seeing how you're the point man, plus 750 posts, shouldn't be a problem...

Uesugi Kenshin
02-21-2005, 04:30
Tosa was working on it but for some reason I could not edit Silver's progress posts, I will check if I can delete the old threads. See my name on the bottom?

two_Roses
02-24-2005, 15:58
The point of this thread, is the development of the units to appear in this MOD(to be updated regularly).
First I will start off by posting the units, that as of now, have been suggested by Silver Rusher:
(quick note:Everything from Janissary musketeers down was submited by Suleimen the magnificent)
English Longbowmen: Welsh Longbowmen available also.

Superior Longbowmen:
Have quite a lot more skill at firing than regular longbows, and are armoured so are quite good melee as well.

There is no difference between superior longbowmen and Welsh/English Longbowmen except in armour. Welsh longbowmen were sort after archers, the best in Europe at this point in time, English Longbowmen were virtually as good. And during the 14th C. Archers began to wear basic armour anyway, after Agincourt English and Welsh archers tended to wear light helmets and occasionally you see them with breast plates.

Gascon Lancers:
Special norman lancers which form the bodyguard of the early english royal family.

Only in a ceramonial role would they be most likely to have lances. They are heavily armoured out dated Norman Knights, on the battlefield they would carry maces, cavalry swords or even short pole axes.

Tudor Lancers:
In the Late Period the Tudors are the main family of England, and having lost all of their lands in France they can no longer produce Gascon Lancers.

Again a ceramonial role were they lancers. They wear highly impracticle battle armour, slowing them down, they would also tend to carry a close combat weapon like I mentioned for the previous unit. These units are highly vunerable to archers.

Billmen

Puissant Pikemen:
Armoured pikemen with much longer pikes, approx. 8 metres in total, only available to English, French, Burgundians, Swiss and some Italian factions.

Hobilars D'Ordannce:
French Hobilars

Chevaliers D'Ordannce:
Superior french knights, possibly the best in the world. Form the French and Burgundian bodyguard.

Heavily armoured out-dated knights, it is arguable that these units were not the best knights in the world, German and to some extent English armour had major advantages over French armour. Chevaliers D'ordance are bogged down by the weight of their old "heavy" armour, they are slow, mounted troops who have little purpose against modern knights.

French Musketeers:
Later in the game these men come out, lightly armoured, but with an incredible nack for firing muskets.

They are innaccurate as heck, they cant fire in rain or snow, they cant fire far but they do firghten basic infantry and mounted units.

Gothic Militia:
Holding halberds and wearing gothic armour generally means the perfect fighting force, as cavalry and armoured infantry alike go down in front of the mighty cleave.

Hmmm doesnt matter how artistic you want to be with you units, you wouldnt get Gothic armoured Knights fighting with halberds. It is an impracticle weapon for someone carrying armour, as your apponent can get in close and take advantage of weak points under you armpits. These Knights would of carried maces, pole axes, or swords.

Halberdiers

Scale Broadswords:
Good early on, but are soon outclassed by heavier broadswordsmen.

These are basically men at arms, there is no difference in training or weapon strenght. Later men at arms were better armoured.

Chain Broadswords:
Broadswordmen wearing chain mail. No further explanation needed.

Wow, we going for Richard the lionheart movie? Basically Ive never seen a men at arms unit (of this time period) wearing nothing but chain male, perhaps you should revise this to the thick padded and studded jackets that alot of English units wore. Topped off with a basic pot helmet. This unit could have some chain mail.

Plate Broadswords:
Similar to Gothic broadswords, only without the very special armour that they posess.

Basic "Knight" unit, plate armour was used more so by the French during this period, although Italian heavy armour still relied heavily upon plate armour but including some modernisations such as armpit stabbing deflectors.

Gothic Broadswords:
At the top of the broadsword class, these men carry heavy Gothic armour and large two handed swords with which they can slowly cut straight through enemy lines.

Same as the gothic halberds really, just refine your gothics to one unit type, or several with different close combat weapons.

Macemen:
Carrying maces, morning stars and flails makes attacking armoured troops a whole lot easier as there is no need to actually pierce the armour but the shock itself is enough to kill the man inside.

Hmmmm, why not just make a men at arms unit with these weapons and call them "men at arms"?

Forester Macemen:
With the training of wandering through forests with maces, they are very fearsome when used at the right time.

Hmmm very Dutch, Forester's were axemen with no armour, by the begining of the Tudor period they were soooooo outdated.

Partisaniers:
Fearsome weapons, known as partisans were developed by the Italians and Germans to be wielded by men in Gothic armour. They have three points, the two on the sides slanting outwards to chop cut down on the enemy and 'cleave' them, and the one in front provides as good protection against cavalry as any pike.

Hmmm again gothic/heavy knights but with pole axes......nothing really special about them.

Neapolitan Hussars:
In Naples, there is a national heritage for Feudal Knights, but now with the evolution of guns light cavalry are equally important. And that is when the Hussar comes in...


Balkanite Hussars:
Hussars from the Balkans and Poland are special in many ways, the fertile plains of Hungary, Wallachia and other areas field good horses and equally good light cavalrymen.

Very impracticle unit, in its early experimental days. I think this unit could afford to be left out as the Hussars were pretty much de-funked for the type of warfare that was still being waged.

Guard of the 1st Canton:
In the space between the Juras and the Alps is some very flat and fertile land, which actually produce excellent horsemen. Dismounted they will become Swiss Armoured Pikes, which are also very usefull depending on which terrain is being fought on.

Very lightly (if at all) armoured pikemen, they wear padded jackets and a light helmet.

Swiss Guard:
Do not be confused with the name, as these men are not actually Swiss, but instead form the bodyguards of the Pope. They are fearsome lancers on horse and devastating sergeants on foot.

Lances were outdated by this period and were mainly for show, we all imagine the Knight riding galiently towards his foe with lance in hand.....not the case, it is arguable that most battles of this period were fought off horse back anyway. Best to give them cavalry swords with a bollock dagger.

Alpine Foresters:
These are the hardy woodsmen of the Alps, using fear and surprise as their main weapons.

Same as the other foresters you mentioned, they are basically peasants with long axes.

Janissary Muskteers:
Armed with matchlock musket, sword has no armor. Good missile troops but shouldn't be committed to battle against pure schock troops but can hold their own against light infantry. Can't fire in the rain. Disciplined, good morale.

Well thats I would have to disagree with this strongly. They have no sword, perhaps a bollock dagger. They are innacurate missle troops and they have little or no training in self defence. At this period musketeers really only woar padding, .

Janissary Armoured Infantry:
Armed with wicked looking pole arms and shield, armouring flat ring chain mail, has a sword for close fighting. Good against cavalry and most infantry. Disciplined, excellent morale. Should not be pitted head to head against good quality spainish or swiss pikemen.

Janissary Archers:
Armed with a recurved bow, has a sword for close combat. Missiles good vs armour, high rate of fire (six shot a minute in real life, this makes 'em tire quick. draw wieght of bow is 150lbs). Extreme range of 500 yards. Can pierce though almost any armour with a spaure hit at 100 yards. Should be able to hit a man on horse back once every 4 shots at 280 yards. Good attack, weak defender.

Bring your ranges and fire times down abit, these units may be able to fire at that distance on a range, but when ur in battle and your hands are shaking, and you can hardly see, the ranges are braught down. This unit takes forever to reload too.

Azap ('bachelors') Muskets:
Armed with muskets and unarmoured. Many carry pole arms to rest their weapons on. They are well trained to use these and this gives them a great advantage when confronted by cavalry. They are volunteers and have good morale.

This unit is still innacurate, however they frighten mounted and foot troops. And this is where MTW becomes confused with Musketeers of the Cromwellian period, they are not good against any unit as they were men at arms, or peasants given a weapon and told how to use it. They would sooner run than be faced with mounted units, however the range of their weapons compensates for this.

Azap Macemen:
Has mace and shield. Good morale.

Sipahi:
Is armoured in mail and plate. Wields mace. His horse is lightly armoured reflecting the heat in which they were likely to operate. He wears a 'turban' helm with a mail aventail.

Elite Siege Troops:
Fully armoured in mail and splints. His shield is of iron and could probaly resist the attentions of early muskets. He weilds a fearsome battle-axe and slung at his side is a sword for close combat. His helmet is engraved and has a feather plume.

Why not just create a general men at arms unit in which you have basically described. I have read about certain units being trained/used to storm defenses, but these were taken from regular units with sergeants who could afford their own armour. The shield could not withstand a hit from a musket ball, and if by some fluke it did, the guys arm would be broken.

Ottoman Infantryman:
Armed with javilein and a sword, he also wields a small shield for close combat. He is armoured only in leathers as he comes from the peasent stock. He wears a simple iron helm.

Voynik Auxiliary:
Armed with pole axe, a straight western style sword, he has a 'balkans' stlye shield for use when weilding his pole axe. He wears a mail coat that extend to his knees and has a simple iron helmet with a aventail.

North African Marine:
Armed with a crossbow and short curved sword. He wears a mail shirt to his waist that is covered by his simple clothing. He has a small shield for close combat.

Yggdrasill
02-24-2005, 19:04
Well that was just the first draft. We are going a different direction with unit selection, faction by faction. You should direct your comments at the specific faction units that are found in this thread. It’s much more balanced.

Just a few comments... Lancers were not obsolete (yet), they were effective as hell, and the first ever real indication they are no longer superior to infantry (barring sporadic and extreme events like Agincourt) was at the Burgundian wars (around 1475). And still they retained their armor and horse bard well into the 16th century. Lances were dropped only in about 1550s, and at that point only by the lowly men-at-arms in favour of pistols, not of noble birth, and the nobility (like the French gendarmes) retained the lance until the turn of the century. It was during the Wars of Religion (1562-1598) that the pistol armed cuirassier proved superior to old fashioned lances (which by now discarded armor bards and reduced personal suit of arms to three quarters armor).
Also, the effectiveness of the longbow against a 15th century alwhite armor is often exaggerated. longbow could not pierce a suit of armor (not its stronger parts like the helmet and breastplate at least) at ranges over 50 yards. I actually saw a reenactment (on TV but I think that doesn’t disqualify it) of a longbow arrow failing to pierce a small 2 mm thick plate at just 10 yards. Archers firing in volleys (not firing at specific targets and not using full draw in order to keep the rhythm of the fire) at long range would not kill men-at-arms. They would wreck havoc among infantry billmen, other archers, crossbows and especially horses (which you don’t necessarily need to kill, only wound and they are no longer useful in a battle), but the full plate men-at-arms would weather it.
What spelled doom for the lances was a strong formation of disciplined pikemen that would stop them cold. Firearms as well, but only at ranges 30 yards and less. At this distance however, the longbow was dangerous as well. It was just difficult to train men to use it, thus firearms came to dominate.
Also, the French Gendarmes were the best heavy cavalry in the world. For a time at least. Until Pavia. They were better than the Italians due to their approach to war, do or die, better than the Spanish due to heavier armor (in the time when that still mattered), and better horses. The English had good man-at-arms, but they rarely fought mounted, and after the Wars of the Roses, there were very few full plate knights in the English army. For example, in 1544 Henry VIII mustered 200 fully armored men-at-arms (his personal guard) out of more than 5000 cavalry. And the French at the time officially had 15 Compaignes with 1500 fully armored men-at-arms, plus the various contingents supplied by well to do nobility (a further four figure number). In addition to that, for every Gendarme came 2 Chevaux-legers, the equivalent of the English Demi-lancer.
The Germans however, were about even. Less horse armor though.
Also, don’t know if you know, but every unit in RTW can have two weapons, the primary and the secondary. So every cavalry unit can have a lance and a sword. And a shield if needed.

Also, one notion we have to do away with is that alwhite armor made the wearer extremly slow. Speed was not the issue, it was heat exhaustion. On horses, and in favourable weather it did not matter much. They were not as fast as eastern cavalry becasue of the horses they rode (not because of weight of armor), which were raised for strenght and speed in an all out charge, straight line, not agility and sudden changes in direction. And only when using full horse bards they became really cumbersome. Think about it. A 600 kg heavy horse, all muscle, plus a 80 kg rider, and on top of that the weight of armour. Never more than 25 kg for full plate. Now that doesn't sound that bad does it? The horse bard however, could weigh up to 35 kg. That would be felt somewhat by the horse, and speed would suffer.
The light horse used by hussars and eastern light cavalry, on the other hand, weighed about 450 kg. See my point?

Hussars... are just light cavalry with a special name. This is the time when the actually first appeared under that name, in late 15th century. Don't think Napoleon era hussars, with flashy dress and gayish overcoats, think mail shirt, breastplate and shield, sword, mace, warhammer, bow or later firearms. They were effective for their respective jobs – skirmishing, raiding and counter-raiding, reconnoitering, reconnaissance, etc. Just like stradiots and border reivers. It’s just that the western states lacked the raw material (recruits) and the proper tactics for such cavalry. They, for the most part, did not understand the value they could have on the strategic level and only begun to realize it in the 16 th century. And also they were useful in a set piece battle, and much cheaper than full man-at-arms. Don't discount them, because from the late 16th century, such units became the elite in some countries (like Poland) and very respected in others. Plus, they often used missile weapons.

I agree with your opinion with regard to firearms (inaccurate, range, slow reload), and the various foot man-at-arms units are going to be toned down a bit and will in general use poleaxes (could use a different weapon but those are way too cool). Also, I don’t know if any faction other than the British should have them (since they were the only ones regularly dismounting their men-at-arms). What is your opinion? I’m not inclined to them being too present in the game as they will ruin the balance. They were very effective, well protected, well trained, and not as slow as one might expect. In other words an uber unit. And since the game doesn’t model the economics well and money is not the issue, plus the player is going to have loads of such units (probably with a lot of experience by then) by the time he or she enters the 16th century, it will completely ruin the balance with regard to later 16th century infantry units that wear very little armor. Pikes won’t stand a chance. So I'm not too crazy about those. Even though they look cool.
Also, you’re right about the mail. No unit in the West wore it as a principal protection anymore, only if they couldn’t afford any better. Funny thing is, in the 16th century mail actually was more expensive than plate, because it was very labor extensive.
But in the east, it still was very much used well into the 17th century.
So don’t worry, jacks and brigandines are number one infantry armor as far as I’m concerned.

What else... Siege troops are Ottoman Serdengecti, and yes their shield could withstand firearms. Because 16th century arquebus can only penetrate 1-2 mm of armor at short range. Even breastplates were shot-proof, and as late as 1700s. Don't know about broken arms, but I'd rather have a broken arm than be dead. Anyway, we can't make a unit completely resistant to certain missiles, unless we give it a ridicilous armor value. At best, we can give them a slightly higher shield bonus then we normaly would (and those bonuses are usually given according to the size of the shield). So a medium sized shield would have a value of a large one. That is all. So no worries there either.

two_Roses
02-24-2005, 23:13
Well that was just the first draft. We are going a different direction with unit selection, faction by faction. You should direct your comments at the specific faction units that are found in this thread. It’s much more balanced.

Just a few comments... Lancers were not obsolete (yet), they were effective as hell, and the first ever real indication they are no longer superior to infantry (barring sporadic and extreme events like Agincourt) was at the Burgundian wars (around 1475). And still they retained their armor and horse bard well into the 16th century. Lances were dropped only in about 1550s, and at that point only by the lowly men-at-arms in favour of pistols, not of noble birth, and the nobility (like the French gendarmes) retained the lance until the turn of the century. It was during the Wars of Religion (1562-1598) that the pistol armed cuirassier proved superior to old fashioned lances (which by now discarded armor bards and reduced personal suit of arms to three quarters armor).
Ok, I never said that Lances were not carried by the respective units, however, in practicle use it was a ditch weapon. Many units are depicted to have these weapons by artists of the period or later, but given the favourability of close combat weapons it is douptful that lances were used as a primary weapon - its just too impracticle. Is it possible in RTW for this weapon to be used once and then ditched? That way we could cross-blend reality with "supossed-ta's" . I wonder, have you ever tride wheelding a lance? Its long, its heavy and has a small point.....try charging on a horse at someone with it, its hard to hit em enless theyre standing still. If you look at modern archeology, it tells us that at battles during the 14thC. most of the injuries and deaths were caused by crushing or dis-membering - not by puncture as in the case of a lance. By the 1550's Armour was impracticle anyway, I can post some designs up for you if you want, armour as you most probably know was becoming an art form by this period, due to as you say, the open breach guns of the time.

Also, the effectiveness of the longbow against a 15th century alwhite armor is often exaggerated. longbow could not pierce a suit of armor (not its stronger parts like the helmet and breastplate at least) at ranges over 50 yards. I actually saw a reenactment (on TV but I think that doesn’t disqualify it) of a longbow arrow failing to pierce a small 2 mm thick plate at just 10 yards. Archers firing in volleys (not firing at specific targets and not using full draw in order to keep the rhythm of the fire) at long range would not kill men-at-arms. They would wreck havoc among infantry billmen, other archers, crossbows and especially horses (which you don’t necessarily need to kill, only wound and they are no longer useful in a battle), but the full plate men-at-arms would weather it.

See again this all depends upon padding, where the arrow lands, and especially what type of head was used. A bodkin arrow and its later designs were able to pierce virtually any armour, this is why you see 15C. armour as being more rounded off and deflective than previous versions, it was designed to deflect the arrow or make the armour thicker at a small pressure point (which would represent an arrow head). Mounted targets are easy targets, yes I will agree that "knights" did not favour dismounting, but in battle it was a neccessity, a mounted unit again is an easy target. If you wade into the enemy like units do on RTW they were likely to become dismounted and dragged off their horse. Richard the III shows us this as his death was caused by a simple bollock dagger under his armpit deflector. Beleive me, archers were deadly - Agincourt showed this as the French Knights were cut down. French armour by the 1500's was still outdated. Pretty much their entire army was outdated (except their crossbowmen).

What spelled doom for the lances was a strong formation of disciplined pikemen that would stop them cold. Firearms as well, but only at ranges 30 yards and less. At this distance however, the longbow was dangerous as well. It was just difficult to train men to use it, thus firearms came to dominate.

I would argue that the lance was dead at the middle of the 14th C. However I will agree that the expert use Pikemen really spelled the end for mounted close combat units.

Also, the French Gendarmes were the best heavy cavalry in the world. For a time at least. Until Pavia. They were better than the Italians due to their approach to war, do or die, better than the Spanish due to heavier armor (in the time when that still mattered), and better horses. The English had good man-at-arms, but they rarely fought mounted, and after the Wars of the Roses, there were very few full plate knights in the English army. For example, in 1544 Henry VIII mustered 200 fully armored men-at-arms (his personal guard) out of more than 5000 cavalry. And the French at the time officially had 15 Compaignes with 1500 fully armored men-at-arms, plus the various contingents supplied by well to do nobility (a further four figure number). In addition to that, for every Gendarme came 2 Chevaux-legers, the equivalent of the English Demi-lancer.

The French Gendarmes were the best Heavy cavalry in the world, but not by the time period we are talking about. Yes they won certain victories, you see the problem lays exactly where you say it does. The English couldnt muster together enough Nobility because we were a small Island (theres only so much land to go to people), unlike the French who could muster together many nobelmen. However, the English could muster together alot of basic fighting men who had a standard of armour higher than that of the basic French infantryman, this was topped off with powerful close combat weapons. It was really Henry the VIII who organised the army after the lag period from the Wars of the Roses. Yes he couldnt muster together many Knights in armour, but as I already put, armour was impracticle by this period and the gun, all be it an unreliable and innacurate weapon, was seen as the way forward.

The Germans however, were about even. Less horse armor though.
Also, don’t know if you know, but every unit in RTW can have two weapons, the primary and the secondary. So every cavalry unit can have a lance and a sword. And a shield if needed.

But can they drop the lance? If you impale someone on it, I wouldnt want to get off the horse in the middle of a battle and retreive it! lol. You see this is where practicle experience over-rides whats put on paper. Alot of these weapons were used as fashion accessories by showing the owners wealth in the amount and type of weapons he owned. Then, when he goes for his ceramonial doo he is dipicted with the weapon (a lance).

Also, one notion we have to do away with is that alwhite armor made the wearer extremly slow (why?). Speed was not the issue, it was heat exhaustion. On horses, and in favourable weather it did not matter much. They were not as fast as eastern cavalry becasue of the horses they rode (not because of weight of armor), which were raised for strenght and speed in an all out charge, straight line, not agility and sudden changes in direction. And only when using full horse bards they became really cumbersome. Think about it. A 600 kg heavy horse, all muscle, plus a 80 kg rider, and on top of that the weight of armour. Never more than 25 kg for full plate. Now that doesn't sound that bad does it? The horse bard however, could weigh up to 35 kg. That would be felt somewhat by the horse, and speed would suffer.

On the conterey, speed was the deciding factor, if your mounted units and more so your foot units were slow to operate they were easily out-manovered. Take for instance a Gothic Knight with a double handed sword, its a cold morning, damp, he's only been in the armour for 10 minutes, he's then pitted against a man at arms who has a short sword, padded jacket with a pot helmet and a sheild - he is of reasonable spirit and is confident fighting this golliath. Who do you think will win?

The light horse used by hussars and eastern light cavalry, on the other hand, weighed about 450 kg. See my point?


Hussars... are just light cavalry with a special name. This is the time when the actually first appeared under that name, in late 15th century. Don't think Napoleon era hussars, with flashy dress and gayish overcoats, think mail shirt, breastplate and shield, sword, mace, warhammer, bow or later firearms. They were effective for their respective jobs – skirmishing, raiding and counter-raiding, reconnoitering, reconnaissance, etc. Just like stradiots and border reivers. It’s just that the western states lacked the raw material (recruits) and the proper tactics for such cavalry. They, for the most part, did not understand the value they could have on the strategic level and only begun to realize it in the 16 th century. And also they were useful in a set piece battle, and much cheaper than full man-at-arms. Don't discount them, because from the late 16th century, such units became the elite in some countries (like Poland) and very respected in others. Plus, they often used missile weapons.

I agree with your opinion with regard to firearms (inaccurate, range, slow reload), and the various foot man-at-arms units are going to be toned down a bit and will in general use poleaxes (could use a different weapon but those are way too cool). Also, I don’t know if any faction other than the British should have them (since they were the only ones regularly dismounting their men-at-arms). What is your opinion? I’m not inclined to them being too present in the game as they will ruin the balance. They were very effective, well protected, well trained, and not as slow as one might expect. In other words an uber unit. And since the game doesn’t model the economics well and money is not the issue, plus the player is going to have loads of such units (probably with a lot of experience by then) by the time he or she enters the 16th century, it will completely ruin the balance with regard to later 16th century infantry units that wear very little armor. Pikes won’t stand a chance. So I'm not too crazy about those. Even though they look cool.
Hmmm good point, if they can be implemented in the game I would want them. And to combat your fear of them being uber soldaten, make the team contain 4 -6 men with roughtly 4 shots each which is not too unrealistic as these teams would be small anyway. The gun previous to the mid 15thC. was classed as non gentlemanly. I think by the 15thC. however most countries had their own form of gunners, I would be inclined to bring artillery into the equation rather than gunners or hasaars with carbines as by the 14thC. the cannon was used to combat walls - turning the castle from a fortress to a home.

Also, you’re right about the mail. No unit in the West wore it as a principal protection anymore, only if they couldn’t afford any better. Funny thing is, in the 16th century mail actually was more expensive than plate, because it was very labor extensive.
But in the east, it still was very much used well into the 17th century.
So don’t worry, jacks and brigandines are number one infantry armor as far as I’m concerned.

What else... Siege troops are Ottoman Serdengecti, and yes their shield could withstand firearms. Because 16th century arquebus can only penetrate 1-2 mm of armor at short range. Even breastplates were shot-proof, and as late as 1700s. Don't know about broken arms, but I'd rather have a broken arm than be dead. Anyway, we can't make a unit completely resistant to certain missiles, unless we give it a ridicilous armor value. At best, we can give them a slightly higher shield bonus then we normaly would (and those bonuses are usually given according to the size of the shield). So a medium sized shield would have a value of a large one. That is all. So no worries there either.

Hmmmm the thing is, the shield may be able to hold the shot, but if the shot breaks your arm with the concussion youve lost your defense and your knackerd. This thing doesnt just hit your arm and break it in two, it shatters your arm into pieces therefore you cant hold the shield. Although this is a game so I agree that we should put the defensive skill up and leave the armour at a decent level.

Uesugi Kenshin
02-25-2005, 05:02
At Agincourt the English used Bodkins and could not penetrate most of the French armor, the reason the archers did well at Agincourt was little armor, lots of mud and a lot of spirit. The soil grabbed the steel boots much more firmly when it was saturated than it grabbed cloth covered objects, because the cloth can move and come up a bit at a time.

Uesugi Kenshin
02-25-2005, 05:46
“Polished Lists”

Ottoman Infantry List:

Level 1: Town Guardsman

Level 2: Ottoman Infantry

Level 3: Janissary

Level 4: Janissary Heavy Infantry

Some Ottoman Range Units:

Level 1: Archers

Level 2: Azap Bowmen

Level 3: Janissary Bowmen

Level 4: Trebuchet

And Gunpowder units:

Level 1: Handgunners

Level 2: Janissary Arquebusiers

Level 3: Ballistic Cannon

Level 4: Siege Cannon

And Polish Cavalry (feedback would be nice):

Level 1: Light Hussars

Level 2: Horse Archers

Level 3: Hussars

Level 4: Winged Hussars

My Venetian unit list

1. Mounted crossbowmen
2. Mounted hand-gunners, later also Mounted Arquebusiers
3. Stradioti light cav *
4. Utili Man-at-arms (lighter version,no horse armour*
5. Elmetti Man-at-arms (manatarms with horse bard)*
6. Cavalleria Leggeria - mid 16th century Venetian attempt at a demi-lancer type cost-effective cav*

1. Militia crossbowmen - militia type unit
2. Urban arbalesters - we could have a version of these with pavise shields
3. Urban militia - very good medium infantry
4. Marine - a very effective crossbowmen, an elite (optional)*
5. Hand-gunners, later Italian arquebusiers also available
6. Venetian infantry - the unit God is working on *
7. Italian heavy infantry - armed with a staff weapon
8. Cretan archers - they were still around beleive it or not *
9. Militia Pikes - a mid 16th century attempt at modern infantry unit, not as effective as foreign types *

The units marked with a * are Venatian only, exclusive. Other should be made available to the Italians faction also.

England

1. Royal Guard (early bodyguard unit)
2. Gentleman Pensioners (late guard) or Household Cavalry
3. Man-at-arms
4. Mounted sargeant
5.Demi-lancer, two types, one with a lance, the other with a pistol
6. Border Reiver, also two types, one with a crossbow and sword, the other with a pistol


1. Light Billman
2. Heavy Billman
3. Yeoman archer
4. Longbow archer (a more heavily armoured longbow unit, don't really know how to name it, so if you have suggestions...)
5. Tudor Longbowman - a 16th century longbow unit
6. Arquebusier
7. Dismounted man-arms - England was the only country that succeeded in convincing its heavy cav that sometimes it's better to fight on foot
8. Crossbowman
9. Tudor pike
10. Tudor guard
11. Levy foot


Burgundy units

1. Duke's Guard (Household Cavalry)
2. Knights - heavy cavalry that the game starts with
3. Compaignes d'ordonnance men-at-arms - In 1472 these units were created. Heavily armoured knights riding barded horses.
4. Coustillier - lightly armoured horseman
5. Mounted crossbowman,
6. Mounted Arquebusier

1. Flemish Pikeman - after Swiss, the best 15th century infantry in Western Europe
2. Crossbowmen, Arbalesters
3. Handgunners
4. Arquebusiers, Musketeers
5. Archer
6. Mounted Archer - yes they had horses but they never used them in combat, nor were they trained to fight on horseback, it was just to increase mobility. BAsically they will be elite archer unit, capable to handle themselves well in a close combat
7. Pikeman - just an ordinary pikeman unit, no or very little armour, modest status
8. Town militia - lightly armoured spearman, shield and sword


Changes to Ottomans:

1. Additional unit – Late Sipahy

Changes to Mamluks:

1. Additional Merc cav – Turcoman horse archers, Beduin cavalry
2. Additional unit – Town guard

Changes to Moors:

1. Ghulam Bodyguard – name change to Ma'lughun
2. Additional unit – Renegados (christian converts)
3. Armoured cav – name change to Moorish cavalry
France:

1. Knights
2. Gendarmes
3. Coustilliers
4. Chevaux-Legers
5. Two guard units, based on 1 and 2 for early and late periods
6. Mounted crossbowman, Mtd arquebusiers
7. Mtd sargeants

1. Town militia
2. Crossbowman, arbalesters
3. Arquebusiers, Musketeers
4. Scottish guard
5. Gascon infantry
6. Franc archer
7. Swiss and Landesknechts as mercs
8. French pike,
9. Sargeants
10. Merc unit – Genoese crossbowman


Burgundy (revised list):

1. Knight
2. Gendarmes
3. Coustilliers
4. Two guard units same as above
6. Mtd crossbowman, Mtd arquebusiers
7. Mtd sargeants

1. Flemish Pikeman - after Swiss, the best 15th century infantry in Western Europe
2. Crossbowmen, Arbalesters
3. Handgunners
4. Arquebusiers, Musketeers
5. Archer
6. Mounted Archer - yes they had horses but they never used them in combat, nor were they trained to fight on horseback, it was just to increase mobility. Basically they will be elite archer unit, capable of handling themselves well in a close combat
7. Pikeman - just an ordinary pikeman unit, no or very little armour, modest status
8. Town militia - lightly armoured spearman, shield and sword
9. Sargeants


Milan:

1. Condottieri Man-at-arms
2. Condotierri Heavy Man-at-arms
3. Household cavalry – guard unit
4. Merc units – stradiotti, Croatian light horse,
5. Mtd crossbowman, mtd arquebusiers, Italian light cavalry
6. Mtd sargeants

1. Milita crossbowman
2. Urban crossbowman
3. Hand-gunners, Italian arquebuisiers, Musketeers
4. Urban milita
5. Italian heavy infantry
6. Archers
7. Genoese crossbowman
8. Pikeman

same for Pope plus

Swiss Guard - elite swiss units


Still not final lists, but I figured I should post these for all to see.

Yggdrasill
02-25-2005, 10:19
It’s true that the English men-at-arms never used lances, since they fought on foot. But other countries still used them. If a charge was ordered, they would use their lance in a charge, then drop by now either a broken shaft or a lance that was stuck, and go for whatever weapon was their favorite, mace, hammer, sword. If you were ordered to go attack a formation of enemy infantry wouldn't you want to use a weapon with the longest reach possible at least in the very first moment of contact? Simple as that. And they continued to do so until pistols and caracoling in the late 16th century. And even then many noble men-at-arms were slow to give it up. The Poles used lance as a weapon in a charge throughout the 17th century. You can’t say that the lance was obsolete by mid 14th century. If so, how come so many countries used the lance for so long and achieved considerable success? Like the Poles, or the French Gendarmes... Probably the late medieval lancers had problems using these tactics (mid 14th, early 15th century) because it required a certain amount of cohesion and training for the entire unit as a whole rather than just the individual rider, but with the emergence of semi-professional companies like the French ones, or the Burgundian, or Spanish Guardia Real, this was no longer a problem. we will model these changes in our mod.
French Gendarmes were formed, IIRC, around 1450, and lasted until the 17th century. The battle of Pavia took place in 1525. I argue that for those 75 years, the French Gendarmes formed the most effective large heavy cavalry unit (not counting small elite bodyguard units like the Henry VIII’s one) in Western Europe. Good quality armour (bought in Italy) and very high espirit de corps made them very effective. And you are absolutely right that the French army was obsolete. Their infantry was always lousy, even in late 15th century, they compensated with foreign mercs, but that was not always the best solution. But even so, they were a superpower, challenging the combined might of Spain (which had arguably the best army in the 16th century) and Germany in the Italian wars. One of the thing that enabled them to do that were the Compaignes d’Ordonnance, which gave the French king a very large, loyal and very effective heavy cavalry force. As time went by, by early 1520s, they did become obsolete, with too much armour and not enough mobility. Thus they started to discard the armour piece by piece. So a Gendarme from the 1520 would look old fashioned in 1550, but they no longer looked that way. Around the same time the lighter component of the companies, the chevaux-legers, started using firearms.
Their armour was impractical by 1530s, yes, and they started shedding it piece by piece. First the horse armour was abolished (only the frontal was allowed), then the full plate was substituted for three quarters armour. As such, armour survived well into the 17th century, and was strengthened to withstand firearms. The heaviest surviving piece of three quarters armour (so not full) weighed at 42 kg – compared to a 25 kg heavy full plate from late 15th century that’s almost double.
About the difficulties of aiming the lance... I have never tried doing it myself, but there is a game called Alka in my country, the object of which is to impale a small 10 cm in diameter wide ring with a 3 meters long lance while charging (yes full speed charge) for almost 100 yards. Also, the ring is divided into sections, with the innermost (most points for hitting it) being wide just enough for the lance to pass through it – 5 cm at most. And people (who have not trained their whole lives to do that and only that but rather do it as a hobby and tradition) hit it about 75%, and the center is hit about 5%. The ring is suspended high above the ground, at about 3 meters so the lance has to be held very high which makes it even more difficult than aiming at something at ground level. Now imagine a human being, 170 cm high... Yeah I could hit him, no problems. Anybody could.

Fighting on foot in the 15th century was probably a better idea than being mounted. The English understood that and used it to good effect. But very few others did, except in sieges. If you know of any other country that also regularly dismounted their men-at-arms, please tell us, because only those factions shall have a special unit of foot man-at-arms. I wouldn’t want that to be a very common sight in our mod. Balancing issues. Maybe you’re influenced a bit by the English tradition in thinking that others followed suit, but England was, as far as I know, rather unique in this regard. I think it was the longbow that caused that since a battle would be murderous on horses. As far as I know of course.
Which is not to say that a small mounted reserve (5% of the army) wouldn’t have been a very good thing for the English... In fact this was the most prudent way of using heavy cavalry... Instead of wasting a fortune on thousands of heavy cavalry, the 16th century armies started to employ more light cavalry, masses of good quality infantry pikemen and arquebusiers and a small reserve of heavy cavalry. At the beginning of the Italian wars, the ratio of infantry to heavy cav was 3:1, and firearm infantry to normal infantry 1:10. At the end of the wars it was the other way around, 3:1 for firearms infantry, and 10:1 for heavy cavalry.

Speed not being the deciding factor... I meant for heavy cavalry since the weight of armour of only 25 kg compared to a horse’s weight of 600 + rider wouldn’t matter much. Of course once you strap on horse armour it’ a different story, but that armour did have its uses in protecting the horse in protracted melee. Of course, staying in melee after the initial charge was not very smart. But the heavy horse, with all that armour, could not stop, turn around and gallop away that easily thus often were sucked into a melee battle. That is why they became obsolete, since mobility was more important than protection once they started engaging disciplined infantry on a regular basis (16th century). The Poles understood that, discarded a lot of armour (max 15 kg) and would charge repeatedly their opponents, using severya lances. Charge, turn around, gallop away, take another lance, charge.... The West went in a differnet direction, reduced the armour as well, but only in size not weight, and used a caracoling tehnique - firing pistols at the infantry until they would be so disorganized that a charge with drawn swords would shatter them. Late 16th century tactics, and only then did they truly and for all times discard the lance.

And the wearer not being extremely slow... The emphasis is on the extremely part, he was slower than a lighter opponent of course, but not that slow. I should have been more clear sorry. Slow in running and walking yes, but fast enough to fight dismounted (like the English did) in a small area, supported by his retainers (vital for their survival). Let’s not forget, even a lightly armed opponent would still have a 10 kg worth of armour and shield with him.

I actually tried to make spears a missile weapon once, but the game crashed. No wonder, since it’s not to be played that way, but I still think that somehow it can be done. All we have to do is somehow label spear as a missile, give the unit an appropriate ammo supply (very low) and still have the unit use the lance animation. Then the computer will automatically switch weapons once the ‘ammo supply’ runs out.
GodsPetMonkey understands best how animations work, if anybody knows it’s him.
What exactly time period are you talking about? The mod’s period is 1400-1600.

Uesugi, you forgot some more Ottoman units in pages 1 and 2.

GodsPetMonkey
02-25-2005, 10:54
And the wearer not being extremely slow... The emphasis is on the extremely part, he was slower than a lighter opponent of course, but not that slow. I should have been more clear sorry. Slow in running and walking yes, but fast enough to fight dismounted (like the English did) in a small area, supported by his retainers (vital for their survival). Let’s not forget, even a lightly armed opponent would still have a 10 kg worth of armour and shield with him.


The high tech armours (Gothic, Maximillion, and to a slightly lesser extent, Italian full plate) were a hell of alot lighter then early full body plate armour. The main problem was not the wieght slowing them down, but the armours restriction on agility, hence the tendency for such well armoured troops to use big, heavy weapons (a zwiehander doesn't need the finess of a long sword). With those big weapons, it didn't matter what part of the body you struck, it was going to hurt like hell, and were very good (comparitively) against armour.

AFAIK, one reason why the english loved to fight with loads of infantry is due to the hundred years war. The longbow proved such an excellent weapon against the french mounted forces (Crecy often used as a prime example) that riding a horse just gave the enemy a big soft target to turn into something that resembles porcupine road-kill, it was just safer to fight on foot. Crossbows had a similar effect (but the longbow seems to be a more 'romantic' weapon). Barding of the 15thC was miles ahead of 14thC versions, and so mounted heavies once again became viable.
For some reason the english maintained the infantry based lineup, but after lossing just about all their french holdings, enemies would have to first cross the sea before a land engagement, so we start to see the shift towards the naval rather then land dominent forces that Britain was famous for in later times, especially after the armada (how many land battles did england take part in on the continent during the Tudor dynasty?).

two_Roses
02-25-2005, 11:35
It’s true that the English men-at-arms never used lances, since they fought on foot. But other countries still used them. If a charge was ordered, they would use their lance in a charge, then drop by now either a broken shaft or a lance that was stuck, and go for whatever weapon was their favorite, mace, hammer, sword. If you were ordered to go attack a formation of enemy infantry wouldn't you want to use a weapon with the longest reach possible at least in the very first moment of contact? Simple as that. And they continued to do so until pistols and caracoling in the late 16th century. And even then many noble men-at-arms were slow to give it up. The Poles used lance as a weapon in a charge throughout the 17th century. You can’t say that the lance was obsolete by mid 14th century. If so, how come so many countries used the lance for so long and achieved considerable success? Like the Poles, or the French Gendarmes... Probably the late medieval lancers had problems using these tactics (mid 14th, early 15th century) because it required a certain amount of cohesion and training for the entire unit as a whole rather than just the individual rider, but with the emergence of semi-professional companies like the French ones, or the Burgundian, or Spanish Guardia Real, this was no longer a problem. we will model these changes in our mod.
I think that my argument of lances being dropped by alot of units is a valid point. Although I can see where you are going with this, and so I think that if we get lances to be dropped after theyve been used once - then we should implement them into the mod. I already explained why the lance was an obsolete weapon by the mid 14thC. in my previous post, its because alot of Western European countries used it as a simbol of wealth and as a ceramonial type weapon (pretty much like the SS honour daggers - never actually used in battle). Having said that lances were carried onto the battlefield, but in Western European battles a direct cavalry charge at massed infantry was not favourable as by the mid 14thC. foot soldiers (not just men at arms, which is an English way of describing virtually any foot soldier) carried weapons that could combat cavalry. Take the pole axe for example, a pointed tip at both ends (with an axe at one end) - you would stick the bottom point into the ground and brase it with your foot and wait for the horse to hit you, which of course would kniock you down but it would flip the horse and send the mount flying - thus making a cavalry charge ineffective. Ok so a lance has a chance of hitting the stationary soldier, but only if he is off to one side, in a charge at a block of men this proved ineffective and so direct lance attacks against Western European units should fail. Can you see where I'm going with this? Implement Eastern European units with lances, but make Western European units have a bonus fighting cavalry.

French Gendarmes were formed, IIRC, around 1450, and lasted until the 17th century. The battle of Pavia took place in 1525. I argue that for those 75 years, the French Gendarmes formed the most effective large heavy cavalry unit (not counting small elite bodyguard units like the Henry VIII’s one) in Western Europe. Good quality armour (bought in Italy) and very high espirit de corps made them very effective. And you are absolutely right that the French army was obsolete. Their infantry was always lousy, even in late 15th century, they compensated with foreign mercs, but that was not always the best solution. But even so, they were a superpower, challenging the combined might of Spain (which had arguably the best army in the 16th century) and Germany in the Italian wars. One of the thing that enabled them to do that were the Compaignes d’Ordonnance, which gave the French king a very large, loyal and very effective heavy cavalry force. As time went by, by early 1520s, they did become obsolete, with too much armour and not enough mobility. Thus they started to discard the armour piece by piece. So a Gendarme from the 1520 would look old fashioned in 1550, but they no longer looked that way. Around the same time the lighter component of the companies, the chevaux-legers, started using firearms.
Yes exactly, they modernised, but how are you going to represent this modernisation throughout the game? I mean you wouldnt have a 1520 Gendarmes in 1550 would you.

Their armour was impractical by 1530s, yes, and they started shedding it piece by piece. First the horse armour was abolished (only the frontal was allowed), then the full plate was substituted for three quarters armour. As such, armour survived well into the 17th century, and was strengthened to withstand firearms. The heaviest surviving piece of three quarters armour (so not full) weighed at 42 kg – compared to a 25 kg heavy full plate from late 15th century that’s almost double.
About the difficulties of aiming the lance... I have never tried doing it myself, but there is a game called Alka in my country, the object of which is to impale a small 10 cm in diameter wide ring with a 3 meters long lance while charging (yes full speed charge) for almost 100 yards. Also, the ring is divided into sections, with the innermost (most points for hitting it) being wide just enough for the lance to pass through it – 5 cm at most. And people (who have not trained their whole lives to do that and only that but rather do it as a hobby and tradition) hit it about 75%, and the center is hit about 5%. The ring is suspended high above the ground, at about 3 meters so the lance has to be held very high which makes it even more difficult than aiming at something at ground level. Now imagine a human being, 170 cm high... Yeah I could hit him, no problems. Anybody could.
Isnt this something that is done in Greece or the Balkans? Ahhh but have you tride hitting the target whilst it dodges you?


Fighting on foot in the 15th century was probably a better idea than being mounted. The English understood that and used it to good effect. But very few others did, except in sieges. If you know of any other country that also regularly dismounted their men-at-arms, please tell us, because only those factions shall have a special unit of foot man-at-arms. I wouldn’t want that to be a very common sight in our mod. Balancing issues. Maybe you’re influenced a bit by the English tradition in thinking that others followed suit, but England was, as far as I know, rather unique in this regard. I think it was the longbow that caused that since a battle would be murderous on horses. As far as I know of course.
Oooo a rather polite form of insult that ~;) . I would personally say that English units, battle tactics and European armour is where my speciality lays. However alot of my research into the units and weapons mentioned for the mod, has been learned at the Royal Armouries in England. Which houses the most fantastic display of medieval to modern day weapons I have ever seen. It also regularly displays the usage of the weapons and the vunerability of armour types. If you are in England sometime, I recommend you visit it (My aim would be to actually work there someday). But back to the point, have you forgotten that even a basic peasent unit by the late 14thC. had a standard set of armour and a wide variety of weapons to choose from other than a sword or basic axe - therefore you must implement these into the factions.

Which is not to say that a small mounted reserve (5% of the army) wouldn’t have been a very good thing for the English... In fact this was the most prudent way of using heavy cavalry... Instead of wasting a fortune on thousands of heavy cavalry, the 16th century armies started to employ more light cavalry, masses of good quality infantry pikemen and arquebusiers and a small reserve of heavy cavalry. At the beginning of the Italian wars, the ratio of infantry to heavy cav was 3:1, and firearm infantry to normal infantry 1:10. At the end of the wars it was the other way around, 3:1 for firearms infantry, and 10:1 for heavy cavalry.

Speed not being the deciding factor... I meant for heavy cavalry since the weight of armour of only 25 kg compared to a horse’s weight of 600 + rider wouldn’t matter much. Of course once you strap on horse armour it’ a different story, but that armour did have its uses in protecting the horse in protracted melee. Of course, staying in melee after the initial charge was not very smart. But the heavy horse, with all that armour, could not stop, turn around and gallop away that easily thus often were sucked into a melee battle. That is why they became obsolete, since mobility was more important than protection once they started engaging disciplined infantry on a regular basis (16th century). The Poles understood that, discarded a lot of armour (max 15 kg) and would charge repeatedly their opponents, using severya lances. Charge, turn around, gallop away, take another lance, charge.... The West went in a differnet direction, reduced the armour as well, but only in size not weight, and used a caracoling tehnique - firing pistols at the infantry until they would be so disorganized that a charge with drawn swords would shatter them. Late 16th century tactics, and only then did they truly and for all times discard the lance.

And the wearer not being extremely slow... The emphasis is on the extremely part, he was slower than a lighter opponent of course, but not that slow. I should have been more clear sorry. Slow in running and walking yes, but fast enough to fight dismounted (like the English did) in a small area, supported by his retainers (vital for their survival). Let’s not forget, even a lightly armed opponent would still have a 10 kg worth of armour and shield with him.

I actually tried to make spears a missile weapon once, but the game crashed. No wonder, since it’s not to be played that way, but I still think that somehow it can be done. All we have to do is somehow label spear as a missile, give the unit an appropriate ammo supply (very low) and still have the unit use the lance animation. Then the computer will automatically switch weapons once the ‘ammo supply’ runs out.
Yes I had wondered about that. Well, if you can implement it, go for it. But I wouldnt want lances on Western units to be used more than once - otherwise its just too unrealistic. :duel:
GodsPetMonkey understands best how animations work, if anybody knows it’s him.
What exactly time period are you talking about? The mod’s period is 1400-1600.

Uesugi, you forgot some more Ottoman units in pages 1 and 2.

two_Roses
02-25-2005, 11:44
The high tech armours (Gothic, Maximillion, and to a slightly lesser extent, Italian full plate) were a hell of alot lighter then early full body plate armour. The main problem was not the wieght slowing them down, but the armours restriction on agility, hence the tendency for such well armoured troops to use big, heavy weapons (a zwiehander doesn't need the finess of a long sword). With those big weapons, it didn't matter what part of the body you struck, it was going to hurt like hell, and were very good (comparitively) against armour.

AFAIK, one reason why the english loved to fight with loads of infantry is due to the hundred years war. The longbow proved such an excellent weapon against the french mounted forces (Crecy often used as a prime example) that riding a horse just gave the enemy a big soft target to turn into something that resembles porcupine road-kill, it was just safer to fight on foot. Crossbows had a similar effect (but the longbow seems to be a more 'romantic' weapon). Barding of the 15thC was miles ahead of 14thC versions, and so mounted heavies once again became viable.
For some reason the english maintained the infantry based lineup, but after lossing just about all their french holdings, enemies would have to first cross the sea before a land engagement, so we start to see the shift towards the naval rather then land dominent forces that Britain was famous for in later times, especially after the armada (how many land battles did england take part in on the continent during the Tudor dynasty?).


Excellent points made there.

As part of the "Auld Alliance" with France, King James IV of Scotland agreed to attack England to divert some of Henry VIII troops away from their French campaign. But the English army defeated the Scots on 9 September 1513 at Flodden in the last and most bloody battle to be fought in Northumberland. Not only was the Scots king slain but also were most of the Scottish nobility. It was thus one of the key turning points towards the ending of Scotland as a separate nation state.

Perhaps we could include Scottish units in this mod? I quite like the rapier :duel:

two_Roses
02-25-2005, 12:06
At Agincourt the English used Bodkins and could not penetrate most of the French armor, the reason the archers did well at Agincourt was little armor, lots of mud and a lot of spirit. The soil grabbed the steel boots much more firmly when it was saturated than it grabbed cloth covered objects, because the cloth can move and come up a bit at a time.

I beleive that your point is valid against well armoured units. However it was post Agincourt that new developments in arrow heads to combat plate armour were introduced.

This site explains the effectiveness of the bow at Agincourt - Here (http://www.shieldwallgames.com/articles/longbow.pdf)

GodsPetMonkey
02-25-2005, 12:24
Excellent points made there.

As part of the "Auld Alliance" with France, King James IV of Scotland agreed to attack England to divert some of Henry VIII troops away from their French campaign. But the English army defeated the Scots on 9 September 1513 at Flodden in the last and most bloody battle to be fought in Northumberland. Not only was the Scots king slain but also were most of the Scottish nobility. It was thus one of the key turning points towards the ending of Scotland as a separate nation state.

Perhaps we could include Scottish units in this mod? I quite like the rapier :duel:

The English always had problems with the natives ~D

The Scottish is another reason for infantry heavy armies, though its to a lesser extent, and happened long before the time period we are interested in.

Regardless, a well disciplined infantry-centric army is a force to be feared. But that doesnt mean the power of cavalry should be lessened... each has their place and use.

GodsPetMonkey
02-25-2005, 12:36
I think that my argument of lances being dropped by alot of units is a valid point. Although I can see where you are going with this, and so I think that if we get lances to be dropped after theyve been used once - then we should implement them into the mod. I already explained why the lance was an obsolete weapon by the mid 14thC. in my previous post, its because alot of Western European countries used it as a simbol of wealth and as a ceramonial type weapon (pretty much like the SS honour daggers - never actually used in battle). Having said that lances were carried onto the battlefield, but in Western European battles a direct cavalry charge at massed infantry was not favourable as by the mid 14thC. foot soldiers (not just men at arms, which is an English way of describing virtually any foot soldier) carried weapons that could combat cavalry. Take the pole axe for example, a pointed tip at both ends (with an axe at one end) - you would stick the bottom point into the ground and brase it with your foot and wait for the horse to hit you, which of course would kniock you down but it would flip the horse and send the mount flying - thus making a cavalry charge ineffective. Ok so a lance has a chance of hitting the stationary soldier, but only if he is off to one side, in a charge at a block of men this proved ineffective and so direct lance attacks against Western European units should fail. Can you see where I'm going with this? Implement Eastern European units with lances, but make Western European units have a bonus fighting cavalry.
Yes exactly, they modernised, but how are you going to represent this modernisation throughout the game? I mean you wouldnt have a 1520 Gendarmes in 1550 would you.
Isnt this something that is done in Greece or the Balkans? Ahhh but have you tride hitting the target whilst it dodges you?

Oooo a rather polite form of insult that ~;) . I would personally say that English units, battle tactics and European armour is where my speciality lays. However alot of my research into the units and weapons mentioned for the mod, has been learned at the Royal Armouries in England. Which houses the most fantastic display of medieval to modern day weapons I have ever seen. It also regularly displays the usage of the weapons and the vunerability of armour types. If you are in England sometime, I recommend you visit it (My aim would be to actually work there someday). But back to the point, have you forgotten that even a basic peasent unit by the late 14thC. had a standard set of armour and a wide variety of weapons to choose from other than a sword or basic axe - therefore you must implement these into the factions.
Yes I had wondered about that. Well, if you can implement it, go for it. But I wouldnt want lances on Western units to be used more than once - otherwise its just too unrealistic.

Some good ideas mentioned here, and earlier, but you have to remember we are restricted by what is possible within RTW.

Firstly, while we can have 500 units, we are restricted to 255 models, each of which can have a large number of skins applied to it (porbably large enough to be considered unlimited).
The problem is, the rule of one skin per model per faction applies. So take a Sipahi model I made, as it so happens, the same model with a different skin can be used to represent a later age Sipahi, the problem? I need to use 2 entries in the models text file, despite only using one model.
Luckily, the Turks are the exception, being fairly unique, for the western faction I can do some recycling, though it means pikemen looking all alike, just with different colours. So a huge variety of differently armed units is just not feasable.

Yggdrasill
02-25-2005, 14:54
Yes exactly, they modernised, but how are you going to represent this modernisation throughout the game? I mean you wouldnt have a 1520 Gendarmes in 1550 would you.

This is a problem. I've ranted about it at the official forums, started a thread about it which even attracted attention of the CA staff member. They have chosen a completely wrong system of economy and especially recruitment and advance in tech. Every advance in armour should be reflected on all your applicable units, so once an upgrade is researched, it should change all existing units in game. Alas, the developers, for reasons beyond me never included this in the game. Even in RTW it represents a problem - hastati units are still around in 27 BC. Unfortunately, there is no way around it. I am so disappointed with campaign game that for the past few months I've played only custom and historical battles.
The thing is, a lot of old time veterans of the game agree that this blows big time, and it is quite possible that something will be done about it. I can't imagine it's that hard to implement. So I am of the opinion that we shouldn't rush the campaign. Work on the unit models is our top priority, hopefully the pace will pick up if you decide to pitch in, general history research is always good as is work on the campoign map. But we should perhaps wait to see what advances the expansion brings (we can safely say that it's going to be released by autumn).


Isnt this something that is done in Greece or the Balkans? Ahhh but have you tride hitting the target whilst it dodges you?

Well I am from the Balkans. And such equestrian games are held all over Europe, in various forms. This just happens to be the one I'm familiar with.

I don't think one can dodge that much while being in a group of people. An individual with good reflexes could dodge a lance tip, sure, but a block of 1000 man, pressing on all sides, charged by 500 horses... Well some would get hit no matter what.

Oooo a rather polite form of insult that . I would personally say that English units, battle tactics and European armour is where my speciality lays. However alot of my research into the units and weapons mentioned for the mod, has been learned at the Royal Armouries in England. Which houses the most fantastic display of medieval to modern day weapons I have ever seen. It also regularly displays the usage of the weapons and the vunerability of armour types. If you are in England sometime, I recommend you visit it (My aim would be to actually work there someday). But back to the point, have you forgotten that even a basic peasent unit by the late 14thC. had a standard set of armour and a wide variety of weapons to choose from other than a sword or basic axe - therefore you must implement these into the factions.

didn't meen to insult you mate. :embarassed:

It is going to be hard to implement units with various weapons mainly because of limitations that GodsPetMonkey mentioned. Having one unit armed with swords, then the exact same unit armed with maces etc. would eat up too many slots. But using primary/secondary weapons, we can correct this a bit. Basic weapons we shall have are swords, sabres, lances, pikes and spears, axes, various polearms (poleaxes, halebards, bills, tirpan axe, some other I can't remember all now). I don't know what to do about maces or warhammers. It's seems a bit silly to have special units of 'macemen', and having a mace or hammer as a secondary weapon just seems wrong, since most soldiers in the period had in addition to their primary weapon (pike, bow, crossbow, poleaxe...) a sword. Weapons such as mace and hammers were used in addition to those, like a third weapon...which we don't get in RTW.
Scottish units are supposed to be included, as region specific and mercenary units. If you want you can suggest some since I don't exactly know much about them in the period.

So you think that only eastern units should have lances?
The relative effect a cavalry charge shall have on a formation of infantry in the mod (I'm talikg about the game now not real life) has not so much to do with the type of weapon used but more with the stats of the defending unit. A infantry unit with phalanx ability and reasonable armour and shield values, and good melee value and a special 'bonus versus cavalry' option we can turn on or off for units, will eat cavalry for lunch, any cavalry, east or west, heavy or light, lance or sword. They'll break like waves. It's just a question of balancing the game. On the other hand, a unit without that option (indicating a lower discipline and training), and poor stats, without the bonus and armed with a weapon not designed to be used agains cavalry, will be hard hit. Initial charge will create casulties, but then, during the subsequent melee the odds will even out or be stacked against the riders. So that infantry unit will either rout, or stand and fight - in which case the cavalry should best retreat and charge again. And here's the catch. Eastern cav shall either be classed as light or have better stamina value. I also think that it is possible to mod the time needed for turning around and manouvering. So an eastern cav unit shall be able to extract themselves from a melee faster and try again. This is how I think we have to model the penalties that heavy cavalry suffers in combat.

Why should the Western heavy cav units have a bonus versus cavalry (other than their naturally high armour values and presumably high melee)?

Uesugi Kenshin
02-25-2005, 19:11
I will track down those Turks and add them to the list.

Two Roses my post was mainly about that age, I did not mean to say that later Bodkins could not penetrate heavy armor.

The only way we could really try to flush the game of old units at a certain point would be if we could have multiple reforms, but so far we can only have one that I know of so that will be for gunpowder weaponry.

Uesugi Kenshin
02-25-2005, 19:20
I know why I did not include them!

They were not placed in a polished list to ensure that the Turks were not using too many units. If you would like to post a revised polished list go ahead. I have those on my computer under unpolished lists. They are more likre general information and research not a completed list. If you want all of the unpolished lists/jumbled data I can e-mail it to you.

two_Roses
02-26-2005, 00:11
Yes exactly, they modernised, but how are you going to represent this modernisation throughout the game? I mean you wouldnt have a 1520 Gendarmes in 1550 would you.

This is a problem. I've ranted about it at the official forums, started a thread about it which even attracted attention of the CA staff member. They have chosen a completely wrong system of economy and especially recruitment and advance in tech. Every advance in armour should be reflected on all your applicable units, so once an upgrade is researched, it should change all existing units in game. Alas, the developers, for reasons beyond me never included this in the game. Even in RTW it represents a problem - hastati units are still around in 27 BC. Unfortunately, there is no way around it. I am so disappointed with campaign game that for the past few months I've played only custom and historical battles.
The thing is, a lot of old time veterans of the game agree that this blows big time, and it is quite possible that something will be done about it. I can't imagine it's that hard to implement. So I am of the opinion that we shouldn't rush the campaign. Work on the unit models is our top priority, hopefully the pace will pick up if you decide to pitch in, general history research is always good as is work on the campoign map. But we should perhaps wait to see what advances the expansion brings (we can safely say that it's going to be released by autumn).


Isnt this something that is done in Greece or the Balkans? Ahhh but have you tride hitting the target whilst it dodges you?

Well I am from the Balkans. And such equestrian games are held all over Europe, in various forms. This just happens to be the one I'm familiar with.

I don't think one can dodge that much while being in a group of people. An individual with good reflexes could dodge a lance tip, sure, but a block of 1000 man, pressing on all sides, charged by 500 horses... Well some would get hit no matter what.

Oooo a rather polite form of insult that . I would personally say that English units, battle tactics and European armour is where my speciality lays. However alot of my research into the units and weapons mentioned for the mod, has been learned at the Royal Armouries in England. Which houses the most fantastic display of medieval to modern day weapons I have ever seen. It also regularly displays the usage of the weapons and the vunerability of armour types. If you are in England sometime, I recommend you visit it (My aim would be to actually work there someday). But back to the point, have you forgotten that even a basic peasent unit by the late 14thC. had a standard set of armour and a wide variety of weapons to choose from other than a sword or basic axe - therefore you must implement these into the factions.

didn't meen to insult you mate. :embarassed:

No problems mate, I found it more comical than insulting ~;)

It is going to be hard to implement units with various weapons mainly because of limitations that GodsPetMonkey mentioned. Having one unit armed with swords, then the exact same unit armed with maces etc. would eat up too many slots. But using primary/secondary weapons, we can correct this a bit. Basic weapons we shall have are swords, sabres, lances, pikes and spears, axes, various polearms (poleaxes, halebards, bills, tirpan axe, some other I can't remember all now). I don't know what to do about maces or warhammers. It's seems a bit silly to have special units of 'macemen', and having a mace or hammer as a secondary weapon just seems wrong, since most soldiers in the period had in addition to their primary weapon (pike, bow, crossbow, poleaxe...) a sword. Weapons such as mace and hammers were used in addition to those, like a third weapon...which we don't get in RTW.
Scottish units are supposed to be included, as region specific and mercenary units. If you want you can suggest some since I don't exactly know much about them in the period.

So you think that only eastern units should have lances?
The relative effect a cavalry charge shall have on a formation of infantry in the mod (I'm talikg about the game now not real life) has not so much to do with the type of weapon used but more with the stats of the defending unit. A infantry unit with phalanx ability and reasonable armour and shield values, and good melee value and a special 'bonus versus cavalry' option we can turn on or off for units, will eat cavalry for lunch, any cavalry, east or west, heavy or light, lance or sword. They'll break like waves. It's just a question of balancing the game. On the other hand, a unit without that option (indicating a lower discipline and training), and poor stats, without the bonus and armed with a weapon not designed to be used agains cavalry, will be hard hit. Initial charge will create casulties, but then, during the subsequent melee the odds will even out or be stacked against the riders. So that infantry unit will either rout, or stand and fight - in which case the cavalry should best retreat and charge again. And here's the catch. Eastern cav shall either be classed as light or have better stamina value. I also think that it is possible to mod the time needed for turning around and manouvering. So an eastern cav unit shall be able to extract themselves from a melee faster and try again. This is how I think we have to model the penalties that heavy cavalry suffers in combat.

Why should the Western heavy cav units have a bonus versus cavalry (other than their naturally high armour values and presumably high melee)?[/QUOTE]

You read me wrong, I beleive that western foot units should have a bonus fighting cavalry.

two_Roses
02-26-2005, 00:16
I know why I did not include them!

They were not placed in a polished list to ensure that the Turks were not using too many units. If you would like to post a revised polished list go ahead. I have those on my computer under unpolished lists. They are more likre general information and research not a completed list. If you want all of the unpolished lists/jumbled data I can e-mail it to you.

For now I'll just revise some Scotish and Irish units. As I think we should recognise that these two parties maintained that they were seperate states. As the Irish originated from the scots, to make the game easier we could just use them as one "faction" in control of several townships.

Tom.

Uesugi Kenshin
02-27-2005, 04:29
I think it would be great if we can include Ireland and or Scotland, that should be discussed in the central data thread. I believe we may have some free faction slots and if we do we can use them for Ireland and Scotland.

two_Roses
02-27-2005, 20:27
Ive got this link from a re-enactment forum I go on occasionally - its got some good pics for resourcing unit info etc etc.

http://www.livinghistory.co.uk/1100-1500/snapshots/index.html

Saranalos
02-28-2005, 02:06
As the Irish originated from the scots, to make the game easier we could just use them as one "faction" in control of several townships.

The Irish originated from the scots? I dont think so, it was the other way around in fact. The Scotti were actually Irish but called Scotti by the Romans. The people of Ulster were being pushed back into the sea as their land grew smaller and smaller because larger factions were taking it. Eventually their land came under the control of the Uí Néill and as they were not content with the boundary presented by the sea sailed over to Scotland, as we now know it. The Uí Néill were the ones called Scotti. :book:

Ignoramus
02-28-2005, 02:48
We could have a Gaelic faction. That couldinclude both Ireland and Scotland.

two_Roses
02-28-2005, 23:32
The Irish originated from the scots? I dont think so, it was the other way around in fact. The Scotti were actually Irish but called Scotti by the Romans. The people of Ulster were being pushed back into the sea as their land grew smaller and smaller because larger factions were taking it. Eventually their land came under the control of the Uí Néill and as they were not content with the boundary presented by the sea sailed over to Scotland, as we now know it. The Uí Néill were the ones called Scotti. :book:

Thats the one, I always get muddled as to who originated where ~;)

Saranalos
03-01-2005, 03:09
It would be pretty nice to have Ireland in the game but we have to consider the 255 unit model limit. Wheras we can have up to 500 units but the Irish were very different from other nations so we probably couldnt have the same model but different textures as another nation. ~:handball:

Uesugi Kenshin
03-01-2005, 04:02
Yeah, icing on the cake afterwards pehaps?

If we find we have extra units that we fell we can use on Ireland and/or Scotland we could release one version of it and then release a version with the Irish when we get to it.

Ignoramus
03-01-2005, 06:01
Well the Irish on the east coast of Ireland, and the Scots in the South of Scotland were pretty Anglocised or whatever. That means, just whack them in South Scotland and Ireland and have one or unique units such as Gaelic Clansmen as expert Swordsmen and use English Models and Units.

two_Roses
03-01-2005, 12:35
Well the Irish on the east coast of Ireland, and the Scots in the South of Scotland were pretty Anglocised or whatever. That means, just whack them in South Scotland and Ireland and have one or unique units such as Gaelic Clansmen as expert Swordsmen and use English Models and Units.


Two units is really all the Scots had, kilted clansmen with Rapiers, and peasants - which basically allows us to use RTW peasants but re-textured.

Ranika
03-01-2005, 17:50
Scots also had exceptionally long-barreled gunmen later on in this period, and they didn't use rapiers, they used schianova-style backswords and baskethilted broadswords (a broadsword is NOT two handed, it's called a broadsword because the blade is slightly wider than that of most other swords in this period); both look about the same, though schianova are a bit shorter. Both are a single handed slashing sword they used in combination with a large thick shield. Both Irish and Scots had riflemen once rifles were more proliferated, but, that's just a generic type of unit, I'd imagine. The Scots still occassionally used the cleighdemhor (claymore), the large two-handed affair, as well as a good number of pikemen. Scots found it fashionable to grow beards (a little note for skinning). There are plenty of 'Scottish' units possible.

The Irish didn't look at all like the Scots. Irish tuathnaght (clansmen) never wore kilts (the 'Irish' kilt is a product of British dominion, the actual Irish have never worn kilts) and for the most part preferred to be clean shaven (though mustaches were pretty popular too). They wear a long shirt called a leine; it goes to the knee, and they wear it with a belt. Subsequently, on stonework, that looks kind of like a kilt, because the belt makes it look like the lower half of the shirt is seperate. During the religious turmoils, the Irish also used a ton of French and Spanish rifles, and had elite marksmen in the west (which fought until the Irish civil war in the early 1900s; one is possibly who killed Michael Collins, actually). The Irish developed a number of swords, and didn't use baskethilt broadswords as often as the Scots (though there is a sword called 'the Irish hilt sword', which was actually Scottish in design, but the Irish favored it a lot). The wealthier Irish used cup-hilt sabres, usually, as time went on, combined with carrying numerous pistols. However, even in that period, the Irish still used a number of other swords; two-handed swords, hand-and-a-half swords, and longswords. Irish swords had a kind of unique look, and they're one of the few types of swords that can easily be identified with a specific nation, due to the open ring pommel, which is a very old design, used as early as 600 AD, and still used on Irish ceremonial swords much of the time. The Irish shield is the same as the Scottish shield (as it's where the Scots got their shield).

Additionally, the idea of a Gaelic confederation is horribly historically inaccurate. The Irish felt little kinship with the Scots at this point; they had their own problems. In the wake of Norman collapse in the country, everywhere outside of Connacht was in anarchy (the north of Connacht was spared a lot of problems, as it was never touched too close by Norman invasion). Even the English holdings in Ireland were not that firm (as an aside, Irish provinces should be very prone to rebellion, if possible). The Irish had not felt that close to the Scots for decades; they felt closer than they did to the English, of course, but they had little empathy for one another, and had their own problems. Plus, they were their own countries. There was no 'confederation'. The Scots had their own nation totally seperate from Ireland, and the Irish were still trying to get their own nation back. If a faction at all, it should just be the Scots. Ireland was in total disarray. You could let the Scots get Irish regional units (as, if incorporated into the Scottish nation, they'd probably continue to fight the same way), but having a totally ahistorical Gaelic confederacy seems so very artificial.

Uesugi Kenshin
03-01-2005, 19:13
I had my doubts about a Gaelic Confederation, thanks for clarifying Ranika your help is always welcome. Aside from that he has also given me a ton of info on Scottish and Irish units of the era, if anyone would like it I can e-mail it to you.

two_Roses
03-01-2005, 20:14
Scots also had exceptionally long-barreled gunmen later on in this period, and they didn't use rapiers, they used schianova-style backswords and baskethilted broadswords (a broadsword is NOT two handed, it's called a broadsword because the blade is slightly wider than that of most other swords in this period); both look about the same, though schianova are a bit shorter. Both are a single handed slashing sword they used in combination with a large thick shield. Both Irish and Scots had riflemen once rifles were more proliferated, but, that's just a generic type of unit, I'd imagine. The Scots still occassionally used the cleighdemhor (claymore), the large two-handed affair, as well as a good number of pikemen. Scots found it fashionable to grow beards (a little note for skinning). There are plenty of 'Scottish' units possible.

The Irish didn't look at all like the Scots. Irish tuathnaght (clansmen) never wore kilts (the 'Irish' kilt is a product of British dominion, the actual Irish have never worn kilts) and for the most part preferred to be clean shaven (though mustaches were pretty popular too). They wear a long shirt called a leine; it goes to the knee, and they wear it with a belt. Subsequently, on stonework, that looks kind of like a kilt, because the belt makes it look like the lower half of the shirt is seperate. During the religious turmoils, the Irish also used a ton of French and Spanish rifles, and had elite marksmen in the west (which fought until the Irish civil war in the early 1900s; one is possibly who killed Michael Collins, actually). The Irish developed a number of swords, and didn't use baskethilt broadswords as often as the Scots (though there is a sword called 'the Irish hilt sword', which was actually Scottish in design, but the Irish favored it a lot). The wealthier Irish used cup-hilt sabres, usually, as time went on, combined with carrying numerous pistols. However, even in that period, the Irish still used a number of other swords; two-handed swords, hand-and-a-half swords, and longswords. Irish swords had a kind of unique look, and they're one of the few types of swords that can easily be identified with a specific nation, due to the open ring pommel, which is a very old design, used as early as 600 AD, and still used on Irish ceremonial swords much of the time. The Irish shield is the same as the Scottish shield (as it's where the Scots got their shield).

Additionally, the idea of a Gaelic confederation is horribly historically inaccurate. The Irish felt little kinship with the Scots at this point; they had their own problems. In the wake of Norman collapse in the country, everywhere outside of Connacht was in anarchy (the north of Connacht was spared a lot of problems, as it was never touched too close by Norman invasion). Even the English holdings in Ireland were not that firm (as an aside, Irish provinces should be very prone to rebellion, if possible). The Irish had not felt that close to the Scots for decades; they felt closer than they did to the English, of course, but they had little empathy for one another, and had their own problems. Plus, they were their own countries. There was no 'confederation'. The Scots had their own nation totally seperate from Ireland, and the Irish were still trying to get their own nation back. If a faction at all, it should just be the Scots. Ireland was in total disarray. You could let the Scots get Irish regional units (as, if incorporated into the Scottish nation, they'd probably continue to fight the same way), but having a totally ahistorical Gaelic confederacy seems so very artificial.


I beleive for the 1400's the scotish sword was that of which you speak, however well into the tudor period your looking at Claymores and rapiers, of which a rapier would be for a more well to do character or specialist unit. I would be interesting in seeing what units you have come up with for the Scotish contingent.

Note:
A claymore is simply a heavier version of a rapier but relys more upon crushing the enemy with the impact than slicing and cutting at them. :duel:

Oh and although I highly agree that politically and historically we cannot make the Scots and the Irish one faction, I suggested/agreed that it might be for the best in the long run, as we may not be able to fit both factions into the game.

Tom.

Ranika
03-01-2005, 20:37
Note:
A claymore is simply a heavier version of a rapier but relys more upon crushing the enemy with the impact than slicing and cutting at them.

This generalizes a bit much. All claymore means is 'greatsword', and was actually a number of different weapons. And the baskethilt broadswords of the Scots were not heavier versions of rapiers, they were an outgrowth of schianova backswords, which were older than rapiers; they aren't fought with remotely similar to the rapier. They were just a type of longsword with a basket guard to defend the wielder's hand. They look similar to a rapier, but that's more coincidence than anything else. The Scottish baskethilts also had very good cutting edges. They didn't crush with impact, they were slashing weapons; they carried bata or ambu sticks for bludgeoning or cracking armor as a back up.

For the Scots more unique units, I'd have some manner of swordsmen, using aforementioned basket hilts, Scottish pikemen, Sinoach men (they dressed themselves in fox skins as camoflauge at a distance, used altenratively bows or rifles, kind of rare though, more popular with the Irish), heavy greatswordsmen (the large two-handed swords were used as late as the Jacobite rebellion), combined with more 'regular' units; the lowland Scots were pretty much English in culture and employed near identical soldiers.

Saranalos
03-01-2005, 22:35
If we have The Irish or Scottish in the game it should be the Irish starting off with only one province and the rest of Ireland is rebels. It would be brilliant if you want a very hard game. Can you imagine the Scots and English starting off right next to each other on a very small Island? One of them would get wiped out at a very early stage. :charge: :charge: :duel:

two_Roses
03-01-2005, 22:49
This generalizes a bit much. All claymore means is 'greatsword', and was actually a number of different weapons. And the baskethilt broadswords of the Scots were not heavier versions of rapiers, they were an outgrowth of schianova backswords, which were older than rapiers; they aren't fought with remotely similar to the rapier. They were just a type of longsword with a basket guard to defend the wielder's hand. They look similar to a rapier, but that's more coincidence than anything else. The Scottish baskethilts also had very good cutting edges. They didn't crush with impact, they were slashing weapons; they carried bata or ambu sticks for bludgeoning or cracking armor as a back up.

For the Scots more unique units, I'd have some manner of swordsmen, using aforementioned basket hilts, Scottish pikemen, Sinoach men (they dressed themselves in fox skins as camoflauge at a distance, used altenratively bows or rifles, kind of rare though, more popular with the Irish), heavy greatswordsmen (the large two-handed swords were used as late as the Jacobite rebellion), combined with more 'regular' units; the lowland Scots were pretty much English in culture and employed near identical soldiers.

Yes I did generalise abit about the variations of claymore, but every claymore I have seen is the same virtually as the next. Although I must disagree that any claymore could be used as an effective slashing sword, the surface area of most claymores is rather large, in order to have an effective slicing action, the blade needs to be thin and sharp to excert maximum pressure on a single pressure point (or basically apply maximum pressure in a horizontal movement against a set of cells such as human or cloth). Although if you had the right angle on a human torso you could split a man in two, this has more to do with the pressure excerted by the attacker through the blade than the design of the blade for a tearing/slicing action - and was probably designed as a multi-purpose tool alot like knives with serated edges are. Therefore I would put the weapon stat to blunt and put the hitting power up to 2, as you will easily knock a man over with a claymore if used correctly by an experienced user.
Btw. I like your list of units - two thumbs up.

Tom.

Uesugi Kenshin
03-02-2005, 04:24
It would definately be messed up if the Scottish always wiped out the English in campaigns....

I am a bit torn, I would love to see Ireland in the game and think it would be a great gameplay challenge, but I also think Scotland is the most historical.... Damn those tough decisions.

Saranalos
03-02-2005, 21:26
Having scotland or Ireland take control of europe is not historical nor is it historical for any other faction to take all of europe because it never happened. But I think England would win all the time against scotland and that would be a waste of a faction. Wheras Ireland is set apart from england a bit not on it! And they will have a chance to survive.

two_Roses
03-02-2005, 22:02
Having scotland or Ireland take control of europe is not historical nor is it historical for any other faction to take all of europe because it never happened. But I think England would win all the time against scotland and that would be a waste of a faction. Wheras Ireland is set apart from england a bit not on it! And they will have a chance to survive.

Having England, Germany, France, Italy, the Ottoman Empire....take control of Europe isnt Historical either......your point exactly is?

Scotland can easily hold its own against England, as someone said earlier, they have prettymuch the same units.

Tom.

Ignoramus
03-03-2005, 00:39
And neither is having Ireland taking over all Europe. If you had Ireland, it would become a major sea power, and would invade England anyway, as well as all of France.

Uesugi Kenshin
03-03-2005, 04:29
Well I think it would be less likely that the AI would quickly have Ireland smite down England, so I think it might be better to have it be Ireland from a purely gameplay point of view.

I meant if the AI did it all the time, then you would never get to fight England when it was a power.

Saranalos
03-04-2005, 00:10
But you see Scotland is at the most going to have two provinces and they will be pretty infertile at that. Wheras England is going to have three maybe four provinces and they will be fertile. Scotland will be wiped out in the game by England because they wont have enough money. But Ireland is set apart a bit and will have a chance to build up an army.


Having England, Germany, France, Italy, the Ottoman Empire....take control of Europe isnt Historical either......your point exactly is?

That having any faction in the game isnt historical because the game itself isnt historical so people saying that Scotland is more historical than Ireland are wrong because I saw a post where someone was saying that Ireland was a squabbling mass of chieftans so it wouldnt be historically correct to have Ireland in the game because Scotland had more of a kingdom than Ireland.

Uesugi Kenshin
03-04-2005, 04:13
I totally agree that Ireland is a better option for gameplay, but if Scotland is able to hold of the English a while then Scotland's historical accuracy may redeem it a hundred fold. I am currently leaning towards Ireland. Anyway we can shore up Scotland's position without making it ahistorical?

The Ottomans may have been able to take Europe. If the Europeans had fought each other a bit more and unified against the threat less often or less completely they may well have fallen. I am not sure this would have been so bad, because they were very fair to most conquered people and women. Though as with any army they did their fair share of looting they did, at least in the case of Constantinople) limit its length.

Saranalos
03-04-2005, 04:54
But is it better to have a more fun game or a game with absloutley everything historically correct there is only one way for scotland to expand and that is downwards! Through england and of course the english will retaliate. My point is that A certain faction will lose every time. If we could somehow get it so that Ireland attacks France it might be good...

Uesugi Kenshin
03-04-2005, 05:01
Yeah, I wonder is there a way to change alliance status or probability for factions other than the Romans?
If having Scotland is bad for the game then i do not think it should be included, gameplay is to me the most important thing, as long as we do not leave history out.

Well I am calling it a night, tomorrow I will be able to be up until the dead rise and if you guys are on then we can sort through all of this.

Saranalos
03-04-2005, 05:14
If we really are in disagreement perhaps we should use msn messenger or some such messenger? Otherwise its going to take ages to decide on what we want. I am for Ireland Uesugi you appear to be undecided and Ignoramus is for scotland.

Uesugi Kenshin
03-05-2005, 05:07
I have an AIM account.


We should remember to not forget the masses though and the other team members, though the poll is in a dead heat right now.....

Saranalos
03-05-2005, 06:40
You also can get msn when you open a hotmail account. But it looks like it was decided already. ~:)

Uesugi Kenshin
03-06-2005, 04:46
I got AIM because my frineds use it.... If I opened up an MSN account I would only be able to be on one at once because AIM kills my connection as it is...

If you got AIM I could IM you.

Saranalos
03-06-2005, 11:21
No unfortunately I dont have AIM I only have msn because all my friends & cousins use it.:(

Uesugi Kenshin
03-07-2005, 04:33
Do you have broadband?
If you did you probably wouldn't notice having two IMs open at once.

GodsPetMonkey
03-07-2005, 04:51
Trillian is your friend.

Uesugi Kenshin
03-07-2005, 04:54
Whaaaaaaa?????


Who is Trillian?

Saranalos
03-08-2005, 12:50
No I dont have broadband unfortunately I'll have to wait a few months for that....

Oh and by the way its my birthday today.... ~:)

Yggdrasill
03-08-2005, 19:19
I just want to ask if everybody agrees that I take over unit selection completely. I already researched most of our units, and in the past few months I found numerous new sources for units, in addition to the ones I already had at home. All the time I’ve been supplying GodsPetMonkey with pictures to base his models on. I now need to make sense of all the various and often conflicting info, and make unit lists as rational as possible, use as many as possible common units (for several factions to cut down on the modeling), and possibly translate as many unit names into the original language as possible.

It would be so much easier for me if I could just be sure that everybody agrees on this. I worry that some may think that since the progress has been slow lately, that I’ve given up or done all I could – nothing could be further from the truth. I just don’t like to post anything until I’m sure in the results, I keep it at home in notes, on my computer or in my head. Also, it’s a work in progress, and often I find new info I did not know of before (for example, I changed the Venice and Milan units and they now look very much different form what is posted on the forum). If anybody wants to contribute or if I need help with a particular faction, I think the best way would be to contact me so we don’t work on both ends only to find out we have very different results. Also, if we start throwing unit ideas around it will confuse our most diligent members – the modelers – and result in unnecessary work being done.

So what do you think?

Uesugi Kenshin
03-09-2005, 03:49
Happy Birthday Saranalos!

Right now Ignoramus is down as the one doing unit lists, I have not been able to keep track of who is actually posting the lists. I will check tonight. Right now I think you guys could work together on the lists. But I will check it out a bit later after I have done my sweep of the forum. I am on early so I will have plenty of time to check it out.

Uesugi Kenshin
03-09-2005, 04:27
I have checked it out and have seen that you have made the all the actual lists that I can find. I will rectify that.

Saranalos
03-09-2005, 05:14
Happy Birthday Saranalos!

Thanks :balloon2: ~D :balloon2:

And yeah Yggdrasill to me you seem to have done nearly all of the unit research so I think if anyone has a right to be in charge its you but if anyone else has done more then please correct me. At the moment if you got all the unit lists together and ordered them and all are agreed on then we could actually have something finished, and the mod would look a lot more solid than what it is now and we might get some more people to join.

Ignoramus
03-09-2005, 05:27
I agree. Why don'y we make it that Yggdrasil gets all unit info etc. And I will get general's names, basic captain names, diplomat, spy, and assassin names, and mercenary captain names. I pmed about 30 names to Celtic Winter quite a while back.

Yggdrasill
03-09-2005, 11:06
This sounds good to me Ignoramus.

To give you an update, this is finished: Mamluks, Ottomans, Moors, Venice, Milan, Papacy, France, England, Burgundy, German faction 1 (Habsburgs), German faction 2 (Saxony), Poland.
I'm fairly close to completing Spain, the Hungarians and the Russians (Muscovy).

I started but haven't completed more than 40% the following - Golden Horde, Teutonic Order, Scotland.

I have done virtually nothing regarding Naples, and for the Danes I only have the units Ignoramus sent me. So those two are the biggest problem right now.

:balloon2: And before I forget (again)... Happy Birthday Saranalos :balloon2: :balloon2:

Ignoramus
03-09-2005, 11:32
Oh yes, Happy Birthday :balloon2: Saranalos :balloon2: ~:cheers: !

Ignoramus
03-09-2005, 11:34
Opps! Forgot to add: Alright Yggdrasil, that's settled, just tell me what factions need names and I'll hop to it. Also congrats on your hard unit research!

GodsPetMonkey
03-09-2005, 12:39
Opps! Forgot to add: Alright Yggdrasil, that's settled, just tell me what factions need names and I'll hop to it. Also congrats on your hard unit research!

He's been keeping me going for a few months now ~D


:party2: Happy bday Saranalos! Don't drink to much :barrel:

Saranalos
03-09-2005, 21:01
Hey thanks for all the bday wishes. ~D
:balloon2: :barrel: :party:


And Yggdrasill do you know how much(roughly) you have done? After all we can only have 255 models so they cant all be too different.

GodsPetMonkey
03-09-2005, 21:52
Hey thanks for all the bday wishes. ~D
:balloon2: :barrel: :party:


And Yggdrasill do you know how much(roughly) you have done? After all we can only have 255 models so they cant all be too different.

General rule of thumb, 200 models dedicated to units.

Of course, if we don't use captains and standards for the units (which I guess arn't totally needed considering the time period, and we can use ANY unit for a captain, so for a pikemen unit, have a gothic plated swordsman as captain!) we have about 230....

Ignoramus
03-10-2005, 02:28
To whom should I send them?

Uesugi Kenshin
03-10-2005, 04:40
If you are doing the captain names and such you should e-mail them to citadeltotalwar@hotmail.com. I think it is a com. Anyway, if you want you can also e-mail it to me at uesugikenshincitadel@hotmail.com.

I like the idea of using already made unit models for captains and such, but standard bearers will have to be different.


I do not know how you can think Saranalos would drink to much! Come on he is Irish! They never drink too much!

(I have Irish heritage... Yes I am being sarcastic, my parents drink like fish.)

Saranalos
03-10-2005, 19:19
I do not know how you can think Saranalos would drink to much! Come on he is Irish! They never drink too much!

(I have Irish heritage... Yes I am being sarcastic, my parents drink like fish.)

Oh how could you think I would drink too much I am Irish after all.....

Nah unforunately I am too young to drink "too" much....

And I think it's best if you e-mail them to citadeltotalwar@hotmail.com or if you Uesugi e-mail them on to citadeltotalwar@hotmail.com because then everyone can look at them and we are'nt going to run out of room too quickly with a 250mb inbox....

Uesugi Kenshin
03-11-2005, 05:18
If I was unclear I meant at least e-mail them to the mod one and if you would like to you can also e-mail them to me. It was late and I was befuddled.

Speiz_Bankurt
03-15-2005, 03:02
YGGDRASSILL,

I received a pm from you, I would be happy to help with those Hungarian units, or at least offer opinions and ideas.

Do you want my email address?

GodsPetMonkey
03-15-2005, 05:28
YGGDRASSILL,

I received a pm from you, I would be happy to help with those Hungarian units, or at least offer opinions and ideas.

Do you want my email address?

He's currently on holidays, and should be back in a few days time.

Yggdrasill
03-18-2005, 23:56
* units are generic, available for several faction


Ottomans:

1. Kapikullu Sipahi - or Sipahi of the Porte
2. Timarli Sipahi -
3. Gebelis
4. Akinji -
6. Voyniq cavalry
7.Some merc cav – Turcoman horse archer, Tatar horse archer, Arab cavalry, Wallachian cavalry
8. Late Sipahy


1. Azap
2. Yaya
3. Voyniqs
4. Janissary bowmen (Nefer J. Archer,
5. Armoured J. ( Zirhli Nefer J)
6. Ottoman milita
7. Serdengecti, literally head riskers
8. Dervish bektashi
9. Azap Tufekci – azap with arquebus
10. Jannisary Tufekci

Instead of Janissary we should use the authentic Turkish title – Yeniceri (yeni – new, ceri – army)


Mamluks:

1. Khassaki Mamluks
2. Qaranis Mamluks
3. Amir's Mamluk
4. Halqa Light cavalry
5. Merc cavalry - Arab cavalry (the same as for the Ottoman Turks), Turcoman horse archers


1. Halqa militia
2. Ashir infantry
3. Naffatin (or naphta throwers or whatever you choose to call them) –
4. North African marine (or Maghribi marine)
5. African handgunner
6. Town guard
7. Halqa militia - with arquebuses for 16th century


Moors:

1. Ma'lughun Ghulam guard
2. Moorish cavalry
3. Jinettes
4. Saharan cavalry
5. Maybe Mounted crossbowmen
6. Renegados (christian converts)


Infantry:
1. Crossbow milita
2. Urban milita
3. Maghribi marine
4. N. African volunteer (Ghazi)
5. Some kind of firearm unit, perhaps similar to Mamluks' NorthAfrican Gunner.
6. In mid to late 16th century, instead of crossbows, militia units would be using firearms as well. So an additional Arquebus militia unit in 16th century.
7. Archers


Venice

1. Mounted crossbowmen *
2. Italian light cavalry – mounted arquebusiers but very effective
3. Stradioti light cav – merc unit
4. Utili Lanze Spezzate (lighter version, no horse armour)
5. Elmetti Lanze Spezzate (man-at-arms with horse bard)
6. Cavalleria Leggeria - mid 16th century Venetian attempt at a demi-lancer type cost-effective cavalry
7. Mounted sergeants *
8. Capeletti light cavalry


1. Provisionati (professional hired troops on a permanent basis): Lanceri (spearman), Balestrieri (crossbowman), Arceri (archers), Picchieri (pikeman), Rotularii (light sword-and-buckler infantry), schiopettieri (hand-gunners), Arbalesters
2. Ordinanze Balestrieri – militia crossbowman (the unit GPM already made)
3. Ordinanze Lanceri - former Urban militia
4. Scappoli, Marine crossbowman, Marine arquebusier –three different naval units
5. Musketeers *
6. Italian arquebusiers
7. Venetian infantry
8. Italian heavy infantry - armed with a staff weapon
9. Cretan archers - they were still around believe it or not
10. Ordinanze Picchieri (Militia Pikes) - a mid 16th century attempt at modern infantry unit, not as effective as foreign types
11. Cernide – Dalmatian infantry, sword and musket armed
12. Ordinanze arquebusiers – militia arquebusiers
13. Town militia *

colours are red and white stripes, and the Lion of St. Mark

Milan:

1. Condottieri Utili Man-at-arms – merc unit available to other factions also
2. Condotierri Elmetti Man-at-arms – see above
3. Household cavalry (Famiglia) – guard unit
4. Merc units – stradioti,
5. Mtd crossbowman *
6. Mtd sergeants *
7. Italian light cavalry
8. Lanze Spezzate – Utili, Elmetti

1. Provisionati –see above
2. Ordinanze Lanzeri
3. Italian arquebuisiers,
4. Musketeers *
5. Town militia *
6. Italian heavy infantry
7. Genoese crossbowman – mercenary unit


Same for Pope plus Swiss Guard unit



England

1. Royal Guard (early bodyguard unit)
2. Gentleman Pensioners (late guard) or Household Cavalry
3. Man-at-arms
4. Mounted sergeant *
5.Demi-lancer, two types, one with a lance, the other with a pistol
6. Border Reiver, also two types, one with a crossbow and sword, the other with a pistol
7. Petronels
8. Knights *

1. Light Billman
2. Heavy Billman
3. Yeoman archer
4. Longbow archer (a more heavily armoured longbow unit, don't really know how to name it, so if you have suggestions...)
6. Arquebusier, Musketeer *
7. Dismounted man-arms - England was the only country that succeeded in convincing its heavy cav that sometimes it's better to fight on foot
8. Crossbowman, Arbalesters *
9. Yeoman of the Guard (Tudor guard)
10. Foot Levy (County Militia)
11. Trained Band Billman
12. Trained Band Pikeman
13. Tudor Pike
14. Dismounted knight



France:

1. Knights *
2. Gendarmes – early and late
3. Coustilliers
4. Archer a cheval
5. Chevaux-Legers
6. Two guard units, based on 2 for early and late periods
7. Mounted crossbowman, Mtd arquebusiers *
8. Argoulets
9. Carabins
10. Millers

1. Town militia *
2. Crossbowman, arbalesters *
3. Musketeers *
4. Scottish guard
5. Gascon infantry
6. Franc archer
7. Swiss and Landsknechts as mercenaries
8. French pike – poor quality early pikemen
9. Foot Sergeants *
10. Merc unit – Genoese crossbowman
11. French Royal Pike – a mid 16th century regular infantry formation
12. French Royal Arquebusiers
13. French Arquebusiers – early arquebusiers
14. Hand-gunners


Burgundy

1. Knights *
2. Gendarmes – early and late
3. Coustilliers
4. Two guard units same as above
6. Mtd crossbowman, Mtd arquebusiers *
7. Mtd sergeants


1. Flemish Pikeman - after Swiss, the best 15th century infantry in Western Europe
2. Crossbowmen, Arbalesters
3. Hand gunners
4. Arquebusiers, Musketeers
5. Archer *
6. Mounted Archer - yes they had horses but they never used them in combat, nor were they trained to fight on horseback; it was just to increase mobility. Basically they will be elite archer unit, capable of handling themselves well in close combat
7. Pikeman - just an ordinary pikeman unit, no or very little armour, modest status
8. Town militia - lightly armoured spearman, shield and sword, spear or some sort of staff weapon *
9. Foot Sergeants *



Poland

1. Knights *
2. Szlachta *
3. Strzelcy
4. Towarzysze
5. Racowie, Racowie Strzelcy
6. Lithuanian Boyars
7. Lithuanian retainers
8. Tatarzy
9. Husaria
10. Pancerni
11. Petyhorcy
12. Kozacy Rejestrowi
13. Kozacy

1. Levy archers
2. Crossbowmen, Arbalesters *
3. Foot sergeants *
4. Town militia *
5. Lithuanian archers
6. Cossack infantry: Zaporozska pihota
7. Polish Arquebusiers
8. Wybraniecka piechota
9. Wybraniecka pikinierzy


Germany (both Habsburgs and Saxony)

1. Knights *
2. Gothic Man-at-arms *
3. Frei Ritter
4. Maximilian Man-at-arms – light and heavy version (with and without the horse bard)
5. Reiter
6. Schwarze Reiter – possible mercenary unit
7. Mounted sergeants *
8. Mounted crossbowman, arquebusiers *


1. Crossbowman, Arbalesters *
2. Archer *
3. Swiss, Landsknechts – mercenary units
4. Town militia *
5. Burghers
6. Burghers pikemen (piekeniers)
7. Hand gunners *
8. Arquebusiers, Musketeers *
9. Foot sergeants *
10. Kaiserlicher Fussknechts – Piekeniers, Musketiers, Harquebuchsen,
11. Rondartschiere

Swiss units

1. Halberdiers
2. Armoured Pikemen
3. Pikemen
4. Hand gunners
5. Arquebusiers
6. Crossbowmen

Landsknechts units

1. Armoured Pikemen
2. Pikemen
3. Crossbowmen
4. Arquebusiers
5. Doppelsoldner
6. Halberdiers
7. Verlorne Haufe

Artillery units

1. Bombard
2. Serpentine
3. Organ gun
4. Siege gun
5. Culverin
6. Demi Culverin
7. Falconet
8. Cannon Royal



Scotland

1. Guard unit – for early period, lance armed cavalry, with lighter armour than the usual Western cavalry (brigandines and mail, plate protection only for the legs and arms), for later period, men-at-arms in three-quarters armour (like german reiters)
2. Border Reivers, two types, one with a crossbow, the other with a pistol, a possible third one with a spear
3. Mounted crossbowmen *

1. Schiltrons
2. Archers *
3. Crossbowmen, Arbalesters *
4. Arquebusiers *
5. Dismounted nobles
6. Highlanders
7. Highlander Archers
8. Highland Claymores
9. Lochaber Highlander
10. Foot Lowne
11. Lowland Pikes
12. Lowlanders
13. Town Militia *


Well I'm back!
Speiz, I'm glad you are ready to help. I'll send you a pm soon!

Uesugi Kenshin
03-19-2005, 03:36
11 polished unit lists! Great work! They look pretty good. I never knew that the Turkish name for Jannissary meant new army. Cool, yet another fact I will never be able to use but will always remember. Thanks!

Zharakov
03-19-2005, 07:12
Owww no Russians... ~D

Do you want me to find stuf on Russians?

Ignoramus
03-19-2005, 08:53
GodsPetMonkey, please email me the stuff!

Yggdrasill
03-19-2005, 10:20
Owww no Russians... ~D

Do you want me to find stuf on Russians?


The Russians are in the works!

If you want, we can work together. In fact I've been looking for a Russian bloke to help me out. I'll contact you by pm and give you what I have so far, and would welcome your comments ideas and such... Please send any comments via e-mail as my inbox is rather full

here's my mail

zlatko.vlasic2@zg.htnet.hr

Yggdrasill
03-20-2005, 11:01
Somebody asked for Scots? Well here you go!


Scotland

1. Guard unit – for early period, lance armed cavalry, with lighter armour than the usual Western cavalry (brigandines and mail, plate protection only for the legs and arms), for later period, men-at-arms in three-quarters armour (like german reiters)
2. Border Reivers, two types, one with a crossbow, the other with a pistol, a possible third one with a spear
3. Mounted crossbowmen *

1. Schiltrons
2. Archers *
3. Crossbowmen, Arbalesters *
4. Arquebusiers *
5. Dismounted nobles
6. Highlanders
7. Highlander Archers
8. Highland Claymores
9. Lochaber Highlander
10. Foot Lowne
11. Lowland Pikes
12. Lowlanders
13. Town Militia *


Edit: I made some changes later. I will also edit the original post so that we keep all unit lists in one place.

Zharakov
03-21-2005, 02:01
@ Yggdrasill

Ok here is the best list of units for Russia I could find. Tell me how it is.


Infantry:

1. Russ Spearmen
2. Russ Swordsmen
3. Russ Line Spearmen
4. Russ Early Guard
5. Russ Gunmen
6. Russ Marksmen
7. Russ Late Guard

Cavelry

1. Druzhina
2. Russ Hussar
3. Russ Lancer
4. Russ Carbiner
5. Cossak
6. Cossak Carbiner


What do you think. Which would you keep and give away.

Uesugi Kenshin
03-21-2005, 03:41
Thanks for the Scottish units!

cegorach
03-21-2005, 11:47
For the Russian units check the 'Units' thread in the P&M TW sub-forum. I can give you more info if you need it. ~:cheers:

Salazar
03-21-2005, 14:10
On Request of Yggdrasil, i have done the following German translation for Unit names.

1. Knights *

Ritter

2. Gothic Man-at-arms *

Gotische Soldaten

3. Frei Ritter

Freie Ritter/Freiritter

4. Maximilian Man-at-arms – light and heavy version (with and without the horse bard)

Maximilianische Soldaten (???)

5. Reiter

Reiter

6. Schwarze Reiter – possible mercenary unit

Schwarze Reiter

7. Mounted sergeants *

Sergeanten zu Pferd

8. Mounted crossbowman, arquebusiers *

Armbrustschützen/Arkebusiere zu Pferd

1. Crossbowman, Arbalesters *

Armbrustschützen, Arbalestenschützen

2. Archer *

Bogenschütze

3. Swiss, Landsknechts – mercenary units

Could you give detail over what Landsknecht and swiss units you are inclunding so i can translate them as well?

4. Town militia *

Stadtmiliz

5. Burghers

Bürger

6. Burghers pikemen (piekeniers)

Bürgerpikeniere

7. Hand gunners *

Pistolenschützen (???)

8. Arquebusiers, Musketeers *

Arkebusiere, Musketiere

9. Foot sergeants *

Sergeanten zu Fuß

10. Kaiserlicher Fussknechts – Piekeniers, Musketiers, Harquebuchsen,

Kaiserliche Fussknechte - Pikeniere, Musketiere, Arkebusenschützen

11. Rondartschiere

Rondartschiere

Uesugi Kenshin
03-22-2005, 04:36
Looks good. I am not sure if we are going to include it though. I think it would be a great idea, but we would have to have some way to make people who do not know German able to understand what the units are. I think we could do this in the unit descriptions, but I would like to hear other people's opinions and ideas.

Ignoramus
03-22-2005, 05:29
Have the name in German, and in the unit descriptions put it in English within parentheses.

Narayanese
03-22-2005, 11:41
I think a translation in the unit description is enough. I didn't have any trouble learning what kind of unit Velites is for example.

I'm not german, but this (http://www.musketeer.ch/blackpowder/handgonne.html) page translates handgun to "faustrohr" or "faustbüchse".

Uesugi Kenshin
03-23-2005, 04:50
Looks like we are on the same page about this. Sounds good.

Uesugi Kenshin
03-25-2005, 16:41
All the polished unit lists I could find, here for easy access and so we can know which factions need units.

On Request of Yggdrasil, i have done the following German translation for Unit names.

1. Knights *

Ritter

2. Gothic Man-at-arms *

Gotische Soldaten

3. Frei Ritter

Freie Ritter/Freiritter

4. Maximilian Man-at-arms – light and heavy version (with and without the horse bard)

Maximilianische Soldaten (???)

5. Reiter

Reiter

6. Schwarze Reiter – possible mercenary unit

Schwarze Reiter

7. Mounted sergeants *

Sergeanten zu Pferd

8. Mounted crossbowman, arquebusiers *

Armbrustschützen/Arkebusiere zu Pferd

1. Crossbowman, Arbalesters *

Armbrustschützen, Arbalestenschützen

2. Archer *

Bogenschütze

3. Swiss, Landsknechts – mercenary units

Could you give detail over what Landsknecht and swiss units you are inclunding so i can translate them as well?

4. Town militia *

Stadtmiliz

5. Burghers

Bürger

6. Burghers pikemen (piekeniers)

Bürgerpikeniere

7. Hand gunners *

Pistolenschützen (???)

8. Arquebusiers, Musketeers *

Arkebusiere, Musketiere

9. Foot sergeants *

Sergeanten zu Fuß

10. Kaiserlicher Fussknechts – Piekeniers, Musketiers, Harquebuchsen,

Kaiserliche Fussknechte - Pikeniere, Musketiere, Arkebusenschützen

11. Rondartschiere

Rondartschiere

Ok here is the best list of units for Russia I could find. Tell me how it is.


Infantry:

1. Russ Spearmen
2. Russ Swordsmen
3. Russ Line Spearmen
4. Russ Early Guard
5. Russ Gunmen
6. Russ Marksmen
7. Russ Late Guard

Cavelry

1. Druzhina
2. Russ Hussar
3. Russ Lancer
4. Russ Carbiner
5. Cossak
6. Cossak Carbiner


Scotland

1. Guard unit – for early period, lance armed cavalry, with lighter armour than the usual Western cavalry (brigandines and mail, plate protection only for the legs and arms), for later period, men-at-arms in three-quarters armour (like german reiters)
2. Border Reivers, two types, one with a crossbow, the other with a pistol, a possible third one with a spear
3. Mounted crossbowmen *

1. Schiltrons
2. Archers *
3. Crossbowmen, Arbalesters *
4. Arquebusiers *
5. Dismounted nobles
6. Highlanders
7. Highlander Archers
8. Highland Claymores
9. Lochaber Highlander
10. Foot Lowne
11. Lowland Pikes
12. Lowlanders
13. Town Militia *


* units are generic, available for several faction


Ottomans:

1. Kapikullu Sipahi - or Sipahi of the Porte
2. Timarli Sipahi -
3. Gebelis
4. Akinji -
6. Voyniq cavalry
7.Some merc cav – Turcoman horse archer, Tatar horse archer, Arab cavalry, Wallachian cavalry
8. Late Sipahy


1. Azap
2. Yaya
3. Voyniqs
4. Janissary bowmen (Nefer J. Archer,
5. Armoured J. ( Zirhli Nefer J)
6. Ottoman milita
7. Serdengecti, literally head riskers
8. Dervish bektashi
9. Azap Tufekci – azap with arquebus
10. Jannisary Tufekci

Instead of Janissary we should use the authentic Turkish title – Yeniceri (yeni – new, ceri – army)


Mamluks:

1. Khassaki Mamluks
2. Qaranis Mamluks
3. Amir's Mamluk
4. Halqa Light cavalry
5. Merc cavalry - Arab cavalry (the same as for the Ottoman Turks), Turcoman horse archers


1. Halqa militia
2. Ashir infantry
3. Naffatin (or naphta throwers or whatever you choose to call them) –
4. North African marine (or Maghribi marine)
5. African handgunner
6. Town guard
7. Halqa militia - with arquebuses for 16th century


Moors:

1. Ma'lughun Ghulam guard
2. Moorish cavalry
3. Jinettes
4. Saharan cavalry
5. Maybe Mounted crossbowmen
6. Renegados (christian converts)


Infantry:
1. Crossbow milita
2. Urban milita
3. Maghribi marine
4. N. African volunteer (Ghazi)
5. Some kind of firearm unit, perhaps similar to Mamluks' NorthAfrican Gunner.
6. In mid to late 16th century, instead of crossbows, militia units would be using firearms as well. So an additional Arquebus militia unit in 16th century.
7. Archers


Venice

1. Mounted crossbowmen *
2. Italian light cavalry – mounted arquebusiers but very effective
3. Stradioti light cav – merc unit
4. Utili Lanze Spezzate (lighter version, no horse armour)
5. Elmetti Lanze Spezzate (man-at-arms with horse bard)
6. Cavalleria Leggeria - mid 16th century Venetian attempt at a demi-lancer type cost-effective cavalry
7. Mounted sergeants *
8. Capeletti light cavalry


1. Provisionati (professional hired troops on a permanent basis): Lanceri (spearman), Balestrieri (crossbowman), Arceri (archers), Picchieri (pikeman), Rotularii (light sword-and-buckler infantry), schiopettieri (hand-gunners), Arbalesters
2. Ordinanze Balestrieri – militia crossbowman (the unit GPM already made)
3. Ordinanze Lanceri - former Urban militia
4. Scappoli, Marine crossbowman, Marine arquebusier –three different naval units
5. Musketeers *
6. Italian arquebusiers
7. Venetian infantry
8. Italian heavy infantry - armed with a staff weapon
9. Cretan archers - they were still around believe it or not
10. Ordinanze Picchieri (Militia Pikes) - a mid 16th century attempt at modern infantry unit, not as effective as foreign types
11. Cernide – Dalmatian infantry, sword and musket armed
12. Ordinanze arquebusiers – militia arquebusiers
13. Town militia *

colours are red and white stripes, and the Lion of St. Mark

Milan:

1. Condottieri Utili Man-at-arms – merc unit available to other factions also
2. Condotierri Elmetti Man-at-arms – see above
3. Household cavalry (Famiglia) – guard unit
4. Merc units – stradioti,
5. Mtd crossbowman *
6. Mtd sergeants *
7. Italian light cavalry
8. Lanze Spezzate – Utili, Elmetti

1. Provisionati –see above
2. Ordinanze Lanzeri
3. Italian arquebuisiers,
4. Musketeers *
5. Town militia *
6. Italian heavy infantry
7. Genoese crossbowman – mercenary unit


Same for Pope plus Swiss Guard unit



England

1. Royal Guard (early bodyguard unit)
2. Gentleman Pensioners (late guard) or Household Cavalry
3. Man-at-arms
4. Mounted sergeant *
5.Demi-lancer, two types, one with a lance, the other with a pistol
6. Border Reiver, also two types, one with a crossbow and sword, the other with a pistol
7. Petronels
8. Knights *

1. Light Billman
2. Heavy Billman
3. Yeoman archer
4. Longbow archer (a more heavily armoured longbow unit, don't really know how to name it, so if you have suggestions...)
6. Arquebusier, Musketeer *
7. Dismounted man-arms - England was the only country that succeeded in convincing its heavy cav that sometimes it's better to fight on foot
8. Crossbowman, Arbalesters *
9. Yeoman of the Guard (Tudor guard)
10. Foot Levy (County Militia)
11. Trained Band Billman
12. Trained Band Pikeman
13. Tudor Pike
14. Dismounted knight



France:

1. Knights *
2. Gendarmes – early and late
3. Coustilliers
4. Archer a cheval
5. Chevaux-Legers
6. Two guard units, based on 2 for early and late periods
7. Mounted crossbowman, Mtd arquebusiers *
8. Argoulets
9. Carabins
10. Millers

1. Town militia *
2. Crossbowman, arbalesters *
3. Musketeers *
4. Scottish guard
5. Gascon infantry
6. Franc archer
7. Swiss and Landsknechts as mercenaries
8. French pike – poor quality early pikemen
9. Foot Sergeants *
10. Merc unit – Genoese crossbowman
11. French Royal Pike – a mid 16th century regular infantry formation
12. French Royal Arquebusiers
13. French Arquebusiers – early arquebusiers
14. Hand-gunners


Burgundy

1. Knights *
2. Gendarmes – early and late
3. Coustilliers
4. Two guard units same as above
6. Mtd crossbowman, Mtd arquebusiers *
7. Mtd sergeants


1. Flemish Pikeman - after Swiss, the best 15th century infantry in Western Europe
2. Crossbowmen, Arbalesters
3. Hand gunners
4. Arquebusiers, Musketeers
5. Archer *
6. Mounted Archer - yes they had horses but they never used them in combat, nor were they trained to fight on horseback; it was just to increase mobility. Basically they will be elite archer unit, capable of handling themselves well in close combat
7. Pikeman - just an ordinary pikeman unit, no or very little armour, modest status
8. Town militia - lightly armoured spearman, shield and sword, spear or some sort of staff weapon *
9. Foot Sergeants *



Poland

1. Knights *
2. Szlachta *
3. Strzelcy
4. Towarzysze
5. Racowie, Racowie Strzelcy
6. Lithuanian Boyars
7. Lithuanian retainers
8. Tatarzy
9. Husaria
10. Pancerni
11. Petyhorcy
12. Kozacy Rejestrowi
13. Kozacy

1. Levy archers
2. Crossbowmen, Arbalesters *
3. Foot sergeants *
4. Town militia *
5. Lithuanian archers
6. Cossack infantry: Zaporozska pihota
7. Polish Arquebusiers
8. Wybraniecka piechota
9. Wybraniecka pikinierzy


Germany (both Habsburgs and Saxony)

1. Knights *
2. Gothic Man-at-arms *
3. Frei Ritter
4. Maximilian Man-at-arms – light and heavy version (with and without the horse bard)
5. Reiter
6. Schwarze Reiter – possible mercenary unit
7. Mounted sergeants *
8. Mounted crossbowman, arquebusiers *


1. Crossbowman, Arbalesters *
2. Archer *
3. Swiss, Landsknechts – mercenary units
4. Town militia *
5. Burghers
6. Burghers pikemen (piekeniers)
7. Hand gunners *
8. Arquebusiers, Musketeers *
9. Foot sergeants *
10. Kaiserlicher Fussknechts – Piekeniers, Musketiers, Harquebuchsen,
11. Rondartschiere

Swiss units

1. Halberdiers
2. Armoured Pikemen
3. Pikemen
4. Hand gunners
5. Arquebusiers
6. Crossbowmen

Landsknechts units

1. Armoured Pikemen
2. Pikemen
3. Crossbowmen
4. Arquebusiers
5. Doppelsoldner
6. Halberdiers
7. Verlorne Haufe

Artillery units

1. Bombard
2. Serpentine
3. Organ gun
4. Siege gun
5. Culverin
6. Demi Culverin
7. Falconet
8. Cannon Royal


That should be all of them, I included the Germabns twice, the top one is only the translations, having the unit list in english as well makes it easier to read.

Duke Malcolm
03-25-2005, 16:53
The Scottish Schiltrons should have the ability to go into a formation where they are in a circle with all their pikes pointing out, like a hedgehog.
This made them very good against cavalry, and some infantry, but weak against archers...

Salazar
03-27-2005, 14:54
Germany (both Habsburgs and Saxony)

1. Knights *

Singular: Ritter
Plural: Ritter

2. Gothic Man-at-arms *

Singular: Gotischer Soldat
Plural: Gotische Soldaten

3. Frei Ritter

Singular: Freier Ritter
Plural: Freie Ritter

4. Maximilian Man-at-arms – light and heavy version (with and without the horse bard)

Singular: Maximilianischer Soldat
Plural: Maximilianische Soldaten

5. Reiter

Singular: Reiter
Plural: Reiter

6. Schwarze Reiter – possible mercenary unit

Singular: Schwarzer Reiter
Plural: Schwarze Reiter

7. Mounted sergeants *

Singular: Sergeant zu Pferd
Plural: Sergeanten zu Pferd

8. Mounted crossbowman, arquebusiers *

Singular: Armbrustschütze zu Pferd/ Arkebusier zu Pferd
Plural Armbrustschützen zu Pferd/ Arkebusiere zu Pferd
1. Crossbowman, Arbalesters *

Singular: Armbrustschütze, Arbalestenschütze
Plural: Armbrustschützen, Arbalestenschützen

2. Archer *

Singular: Bogenschütze
Plural: Bogenschützen
3. Town militia *

A bit more Complex,

One Militiaman would be „Milizionär“, one Militia would be „Miliz“ and several Militias would be „Milizen“
4. Burghers

Singular: Bürger
Plural: Bürger

Burghers pikemen (piekeniers)

Singular: Bürgerpikenier
Plural: Bürgerpikeniere

7. Hand gunners *

Singular: Handbüchsenschütze
Plural: Handbüchsenschützen

8. Arquebusiers, Musketeers *

Singular: Arkebusier, Musketier
Plural: Arkebusiere, Musketiere

9. Foot sergeants *

Singular: Sergeant zu Fuß
Plural: Sergeanten zu Fuß

10. Kaiserlicher Fussknechts – Piekeniers, Musketiers, Harquebuchsen,

Singular: Kaiserlicher Fußknecht, Pikenier, Musketier, Arkebusier
Plural: Kaiserliche Fußknechte, Pikeniere, Musketiere, Arkebusiere

11. Rondartschiere

Singular: Rondartschier
Plural: Rondartschiere

Landsknechts units

1. Armoured Pikemen

Singular: Gepanzerter Landsknecht-Pikenier
Plural: Gepanzerte Landsknecht-Pikeniere

2. Pikemen

Singular: Landsknecht-Pikenier
Plural: Landsknecht-Pikeniere

3. Crossbowmen

Singular: Landsknecht-Armbrustschütze
Plural: Landsknecht-Armbrustschütze

Arquebusiers

Singular: Landsknecht-Arkebusier
Plural: Landsknecht-Arkebusiere

Doppelsoldner

Singular: Doppelsöldner
Plural: Doppelsöldner

Halberdiers

Singular: Landsknecht-Hellebardier
Plural: Landsknecht-Hellebardiere

7. Verlorne Haufe

Hmm, the Unit Name would be „Verlorener Haufen“, whilst one Member of the Unit would probably be something like „Soldat des verlorenen Haufens“, which doesnt sound good, i would try to only use the Unit name not that of a single soldier.

Swiss names, will probably be translated into „Schwyzerdytsch“ ;-)

Speiz_Bankurt
03-29-2005, 00:48
Yggdrasil,

I have a few links with pictures and impressions of Hungarian hussars, including early hussar which is really hard to find. If you still need this info, check out these sites. They're in hungarian, but the pictures speak for themselves.

http://magyarhuszar.hu/huszar/huszar_matyas.htm

http://magyarhuszar.hu/huszar/huszar_huszartorna.htm

http://magyarhuszar.hu/huszar/huszar_torok_01.htm

http://magyarhuszar.hu/huszar/huszar_torok_02.htm

http://magyarhuszar.hu/huszar/huszar_zsakmany.htm

http://magyarhuszar.hu/huszar/huszar_elso_ezredek.htm

and

http://www.kali-medence.hu/salfoldmajor/huszarok/


later periods, perhaps irrelevant:

http://magyarhuszar.hu/huszar/huszar_ezredek_1683-1768.htm


Cheers

kaya
04-19-2005, 23:35
hello i'd like to say some things if i may, i know a lot about the ottoman empire, first of all the jannisary corps was an elite amongst all other infantry and had only mustages and no beards (if you want pictures i can draw them for you, not 3d ofcourse), and they where accompanied with akinci (not akinji) and the akinci where not armoured much but where fearsome shock cav who attacked enemy lines before the jannisary to enspire them into attack, and the real name for jannisary was YENICERI, if you want the ottoman army to be complete you will need a mehter band they where musicians who played during a battle to give the men courage (i can also send you some music of the ottoman army that was used in attack).
I'm not trying to critisize your ideas, just trying to be usefull and give you the right info.
:bow: :bow: :bow:

Uesugi Kenshin
04-20-2005, 03:36
Have anything to support your spelling of akinji? I do not mean to seem hostile towards your ideas but you spelled Janissary wrong so I am slightly doubtful.

Other than that could you substantiate your other claims? I know the Janissaries were an elite, but after a certain point they made up a large part of the army.

If you would also substantiate the role of the Akinji that would be great.

Thanks for the input.

kaya
04-20-2005, 15:15
Hello.. i'm not gonna critisize you guys but just give you some details about the ottoman empire: the jannisary corps were not slaves but captured christian childeren who were raised as muslims and most of them did convert to the islam by theyre own will, also dont think lightly of the jannisary corps because they were an elite amongst the elite, with little armour they were very skilled and strong and brave soldiers, as for the akinji it is spelled akinci and they didnt plunder and destrof everything, they were proud cav who attacked the enemy before the jannisary to inspire them and give them courage to attack, also the ottoman empire always had respect for other religions and did not destroy churches and never forced other people to convert to the islam but they set islamic laws at places they concoured, back to the jannisary corps: they always had a mehter band (musicians) with them playing the attack music to encourage them, if you like i could draw you some pictures and send you anything you like because ive seen some screenshots and it looks fantastic, i'm trying to moddel to but i just figured out how to mod the texture but the geometry and skeletens are still new for me and my max trial is about to expire in 10 days so i won't be able to do much just texture but you guys are doing a great job ~D keep it up guys....

Yggdrasill
04-20-2005, 16:04
Akinji is an anglicised form of the akinci. I know that, and recently we decided to go with authentic names (and spelling) for most if not all units, and akinji will be changed to akinci. Also, the Yeniceri was also the name that was agreed upon see the page before.

Beards - I don't think our models of Janissaries have beards. I have to check

Musicians - impossible since we would need new animations for that, plus it would take up a model entry slot and there is a limit to those so we have to be careful not to include something that is not absolutely necessary. And musicians are not necessary.

Akinji did plunder a lot and were devastating to a country they were unleashed upon. Raiding parties attacking as deep as Friuli would gather up 10 000+ prisoners to be sold as slaves. If that is not devastating I don't know what is.

Janissaries are an elite in the game. Later on (17th century) they were no longer that good but that is beyond the scope of our mod.

Ottoman rule in the 15th and 16th century was rather benevolent and allowed a lot of freedom, especially religious. We have several Christian units included in the Ottoman army. . But later, with battlefield failures, it worsened.

kaya
04-20-2005, 18:14
hey there, akinci did plunder but did not kill or harm innocent civilians and also the akinci were not normal cav they were an elite and fought in the front of the battle but they were usually used for special assignments for the sultan such as rescue missions or protect the sultan on his way to his destination, the akinci were no barbaric force but special forces who fought for pride rather than plunder and if they plundered it was the enemy's stock and the gold and valuables of the enemy king but in no way did they kill or plunder from civilians, i know this because i'm a Turk and i did study allot about the Ottoman empire, it's a pity of those mucisians, can you show me some screenshots of the janissary? Again i'm not critisizing you guys just trying to help because i like your concept of the game ~:cheers:

Yggdrasill
04-20-2005, 19:31
There are some screenshots in the Available Screenshots thread.

Strange what you say about akinjis. I have read a lot about the Ottoman empire (hell I even had to take a course in its history and law history at uni) and everywhere I read that the akinjis were raiders - that the very word akin means to raid or to plunder (if you are a Turk can you verify this translation for me?). In any case, I find it hard to believe that they did not harm civilians or plunder as even today armies do that on a regular basis. Also, my info tells me that the akinjis were irregulars, not paid so they had to rely on booty from campaigns for profit. Unlike Sipahy cavalry which were supported by state owned timar fiefs.
Very rarely, in any culture or religion, do people ever fight only for pride. It is usually much baser than that - some kind of material gain is to be derived from war. War is fueled by economy as much as it fuels it.

I do not mean to portray the Turks as savages or barbarians, by no means. In fact, in MTW I only played the Turks and plan to do the same when the mod is finished. So you might say I have a soft spot for the Ottoman empire. But the Ottoman conquest by its very strategy tended to be brutal. For yearsor decades even before the actual attack, raids were frequent, population was taken as prisoners, harvests burned and livestock taken. Such raids were done by the akinjis. This was done in order to undermine the economy of the enemy (based mostly on agriculture) and undermine his morale. Only then the main strike would follow up, usually an entire army commanded by the sultan.
Ironically, once the conquest of the new territory was complete, Ottoman rule was often much more efficient and better organized than the original rulers they replaced, and the common farmer was better protected than in the still feudal Christian world (because the sipahy did not have a direct control over timar fief, and could not exercise any kind of authority over the serf, since they and their land, belonged to the state, unlike nobility in Christian Europe, who had almost godlike powers over their subjects). At least for some time, before the state started to break at its seams.
Being from a country that took the brunt of Ottoman attacks, we learn a lot about this in school, and it's pretty much made clear that there was no such thing as an innocent civilian to Ottoman raiders - they were all fair game to be herded and sold into slavery.
I'm not criticising nor do I have a problem with this. After all, all of this happened 500 years ago. I just want to say that wars by their very nature are brutal affairs (and Christian armies were no less brutal in wars be it against protestants, Catholics or Muslims), and the Ottoman conquests were no exception. And the strategy employed by the Ottomans, made them even more brutal.
Anyway, we study most of this in school, but I've also read other books (at university the aforementioned course I took, General history of Law and State, included a chapter about the Ottoman empire, and the author is a Muslim), some of them from English and Western European authors, and they all pretty much agree on this. I'm curious, how does your history describe the events of the Ottoman conquests in Europe? What do you learn in school?

Uesugi Kenshin
04-21-2005, 04:06
So Akinci it is.

I remember we talked about yeniceri. We will use that as well, but mention in the unit description that they are more commonly known as Janissary.

One theory on why the Turkish schools and/or publications may not confront the Akinci brutality (all armies committ horrible acts, not singelling them out as more brutal) is that they are biased. I know the history books made by Americans are biased, we cover Europe, the US and Americas and very little about ancient Asian cultures, 1 tiny chapter devoted to Fuedal Japan, China and Korea and a few other things, but there is a definate and overwhelming focus on Europe and the Americas.

kaya
04-28-2005, 13:14
ok, sorry i kept you waiting, the akinci were not ordinary civilians, they were the diehards who would gladly give they're live for their country and did fight for proud and honour, the samurai also fought for pride and country so its not that rare people fought for honour and country.
The word akin means something that's flowing, keeps coming without stopping and because the akinci kept coming at the enemy without braking and running away they called them akinci but akinci is the word for just one of them, if you want to name them as a unit they were originally called akincilar (like preatorians instead of preatorian), so my friend now i know that they teach you guys wrong at your schools, its a shame you cant understand Turkish because you could then read the true history of the Ottoman empire in Turkish (the real history),
but i am astounded cause you know a lot do and i'm honoured that you gave a lot of time in my country's history :bow: :bow: :bow: .
And the akincilar were usually used for special missions mostly like i told you before, the most famous of them all was Malkoc oglu ( son of Malkoc in English), and that my friend is what we learn at school, i was born in Turkey and raised in Holland so i've had history lessons here in Holland to but that was wrong also, so i took Turkish classes also and that's how it is, sorry if i bug you with my private live but i really want you to know the real Ottoman history :duel:
also the cotton like hats of the gunmen janissary you guys created has to be a little more higher but the rest is magnifficent and also the swordsmen janissary whore those hats too, sorry for critisizing you guys but i don't mean it wrong ~:grouphug:

Narayanese
04-28-2005, 15:54
I took a look in the dictionary
akıncı = raider, incursionist
akın = raid, assault, flow, rush, foray
akıntı = flow, current, running, flux
akıcılık = fluency

I can't see the unitlist for Kalmar Union.
Is there something you want me to translate into swedish or danish (not that I'm good at danish)?
Anything like this? http://bjorn.foxtail.nu/ovriga_folk2.htm

kaya
04-28-2005, 17:08
i dont know who wrote that dictionary but it isnt raider and at no way assault, i am Turkish and i know my language but the English maybe called them raiders but in our history they were called akincilar because they kept coming and not because they were raiders cause they were not, but you guys keep hammering they were so make the game like you want i don't care but do not tell me what my history is cause i know it, i just wanted to help you guys because i wanted to be helpfull but i will backoff now so good luck with your mod ~:cheers:

Uesugi Kenshin
04-29-2005, 03:36
Thank you for giving us your view of the akinci. We are all about free input and discussion. If you have something else you think should be rectified in some way go ahead and tell us.

Yggdrasill
04-29-2005, 16:43
Narayanese

You're Swedish? Well why didn't you say so earlier! I've already mentioned that I do not have a shred of info on the Scandinavian armies and that I'd more than happy if someone else did their units instead of me. If you speak both Swedish and Danish, why don't you do it? Search the internet for any info, I already tried and lot of it is in some strange language that is probably something you'd understand. Also, you can visit your local library and probably find something also. If I asked for books in my library about the Scandinavian armies in the late Medieval period and Renaissance, they probably laugh at me!
I've done all the factions except the Kalmar union. So just them and some rebel factions (like Ireland) and we're done. The problem is that the unit cap for models is 255 (we can have that many entries for models - than each entry can have a different skin for every faction applied plus one for the merc and slave faction 20 + 2 =22. Based on that we can than make a single unit for every faction, with a different name and stats, but only one per faction, additional units even though they might look the same, need an additional entry). So before I post the units I have to make it fit into that number. And try as I might I just can't sqeeze everything in. I was thinking about leaving out standard bearers (leaving us with just generals and officers). That would free up about 8 entries. What do you think?


Kaya

When I said irregulars I didn't mean they were ordinary civilians - just that they did not receive money from the sultan or didn't get land revenue for their services (like sipahies). They would get all the booty they could carry plus a certain amount of money for every slain enemy - they'd cut the heads of the enemy and count them! :duel: Nice! In a way they needed constant wars to sustain themselves.
Akinci were greatly feared by their opponents. They were elusive, always appearing were nobody expected, could attack hundreds of kilometers deep into enemy territory, and retreat before anybody could react (like special forces if you will but you can't really equate the 15th century military formation with contemporary special forces like the SEAL or SAS). And if a feudal army of heavy cavalry and infantry could catch up, they would usually get their asses handed to them! Like in 1493 when a numerically superior Croatian army caught up with a returning Ottoman akinci formation and suffered the worst defeat in centuries. It is said that there were so many Christians dead that the Tuks had given up on cutting their heads and just cut off their noses because they could take that many heads with them but still wanted to get the reward from the sultan!

Thanks for the translation! I don't see it as being contrary to the raider theory. When I said they were raiders, I meant they operated like light cavalry, bypassing enemy fortifications, 'flowing' around the flanks of the enemy, like water - bypassing obstacles and finding a weak spot to break through! So in a way your translation fits well!
Don't get upset at us! We mean no harm, we're a rather inquisitive bunch and always eager to learn more. So stick around and help us by translating other Ottoman units.
The dictionary offers several translations for the word akinci including:


akın = raid, assault, flow, rush, foray
akıntı = flow, current, running, flux

So it's not any different from what you told us! Words have a funny way of transforming their meaning. As I see it, the akin word was applied to the specific brand of light cavalry (earlier on probably called ghazis) because of their 'flowing' style of fighting. Avoiding superior enemy formations and fortifications and attacking quickly. After some time the name stuck and came to signify not only that unit but also that particular style of fighting - raiding! The Christians adversaries took that meaning as the primary for the word akin and it stuck. No need to get upset.
Janissary hats were raised as time passed. Initially they weren't very high. Later on, like 17th century or later, they became really high, but that is outside the scope of the mod, which ends in 1600.

If you know of any good books by Turkish authors available in English and possibly through Amazon, could you please recommend it! I'd like to learn more about history from the other perspective as well. It doesn't have to be a historical book, it can be a historical novel as well. I recently read 'My name is Red' by Orhan Pamuk and I liked it a lot. Not as great as The name of the Rose but a very good book nonetheless.



On a side note, I just browsed the official forums and found a lot of info on the expansion. It will really rock, add new features, probably get rid of some of the restrictions we are under like the unit and faction cap, and most importantly - RELIGION IS BACK!!!!

Narayanese
04-30-2005, 03:18
I'll do the scandinavian units. I wonder what units from other faction can be reused. Can you post equipment list for archers, knights, handgunners, town militia, arquebusiers, crossbowmen.

Knights (riddere/riddare) weren't common because they could only be dubbed by the king, so the vast majority of the nobles were squires (vaepnere/väpnare/vaebnere), so I'll have the knights as bodyguard only and vaepnere as heavy cav (armour: full armour, gauntlets, has gorget also protecting the mouth and a kettlehelm which doesn't cover the eyes, no horsebard. weapon: spear (without banner on it), longsword).
Is it possibly to use the generic knights unit as bodyguard without using up a unit slot?

Skipping standard bearers is good, as the flags that float in the air are already enough, two flags per unit is too much.

When will the marian reform be? (about which year?)

Uesugi Kenshin
04-30-2005, 05:08
I think we decided on using the Renaissance as our Marius Reforms right? It would then be in the vicinity of 1485, but gunpowder weaponry was available before then so maybe we should allow gunpowder units to be trained somewhere around 1450, slowed by building times or something, and have 1450ish to 1485 be the only time where we allow the new ways to really meet the old ways.

Another option is to have the reforms be around 1450 and have the Renaissance be an event, if possible with major effects akin to the reforms, but not quite the same.

Wonder if the english akin comes from turkish akin, nowhere near the same meaning, but you never know. Akin def: similar, of the same kind.

Ignoramus
04-30-2005, 10:40
Well, I think about 1452, It will allow 100 turns of "Medieval" fighting, the first two main importances of guns were the Siege of Constantinople and the Battle of Castillion. Although, we'll need at least one non-gunpowder artillery unit, perhaps a Treberchaut or something.

Abokasee
04-30-2005, 10:59
WHEN ARE YOU GONNA SHOW SOME :furious3: PICTURES???!!?!?

Uesugi Kenshin
04-30-2005, 16:20
We do have some pictures, all of the units that have been pretty much finished have pictures here:https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=38801 It just takes a bit of searching. We are focusing more on making the mod than hype.

Narayanese
05-01-2005, 02:09
Here is a draft for the "pre-marian" kalmar union army:
Riddere (bodyguard unit)
Wepnere (heavy lancers)
Lett rytteri (light shield/falchion cav)
Armborstrytteri (crossbow cav)
Bysseskiwder (handgunners)
Spiwdmaen (spearmen)
Armborstskiwder (crossbowmen)
Boghskiwder (archers)
Wechtere (heavy spearmen)
Bürger

I also want high-xp versions of the light units as mercenaries in sweden after ~1430.
So far I have half of the unitnames are in 15th century danish/swedish, the other half is in 19th century danish/norwegian/swedish.

Uesugi Kenshin
05-01-2005, 03:08
Thanks for including the native names.

Why do you want high xp mercs after 1430?

Narayanese
05-01-2005, 09:45
Early in the 15th century the army was mostly nobility and landsknecht. There was militia, but it was not used much, and not with good results. Denmark used such an army for a long time but in sweden sometime after 1430 or 1440 it changed to the use of heaps of commoners (but nobility still called to fight as much as earlier). The reason for the change was a rebellion in 1430 which included a lot of militia (landvärn). That rebellion failed, but in the peace negotiations the taxes were lowered to appeae this militia. Spurred by that, people rebelled in sweden very often, sometimes even every year, putting themselves under the command of some nobles that had won them over. The result was often that whatever demands they had were met, that's why it went on so much. After a while the many wars had made them better at fighting and warfare in sweden was very much about convincing the people to fight at your side, unlike in denmark. The umion kings couldn't cruch this habit of fighting, it was crushed first in the 1520s by gustaff vasa, but he's no kalmar union ruler.
Thus I want light mercs in sweden after 1430 which soon pop up with gradually more xp, and I also want rebellions in sweden to be more likely after 1430.
Those units I want as swedish mercs as well as buildable would be Lett rytteri, Spiwdmaen, Armborstskiwder, Boghskiwder.


And I hink it would be better to have to marian reforms in the 1450s or so, otherwise you'd reach it too seldom.

Uesugi Kenshin
05-01-2005, 14:04
I agree that 1450's is the way to go, but I am not sure if we can make the mercs get better over time, or get better after a specific time.

Narayanese
05-01-2005, 19:16
I see, you can't have different mercs at different periods. In that case it is better to leave them (the native swedish) out as the danish kings weren't good at recruiting them anyway. Landsknecht should still be there of course, especially in denmark.

Trebuchets were used in the 15th century, though not in scandinavia (which introduced cannons in the 14th century).

An early 16th century swedish book has an illustration where muscovy horsemen use short bows from horseback when galloping (as well as showing russian lancers). What do russian sources say about scandinavian armies?

Narayanese
05-01-2005, 20:27
Kalmar union unitlist

:Premarian:
Riddere (bodyguard) = heavy lancers
Wepnere = heavy lancers
Lett rytteri = light cavalry
Landwernrytteri = militia light cavalry
Armborstrytteri = crossbow cavalry
Spiwdmaen = light spearmen
Wechtere = heavy spearmen
Archers *
Crossbowmen *
Bürger *
Handgunners *

:Postmarian:
Riddere (bodyguard)
Wepnere
Landrytteri = medium pistol cavalry
Lett rytteri
Landwernrytteri
Armborstrytteri
Spiudmenn = light spearmen
Hellebardamaen = light halbardiers
Wechtere
Archers *
Crossbowmen *
Bürger *
Handgunners *
Arquebusiers * (light and heavy)
Pikemen *
Musketeers *

:Warships:
Ledhungaskip (only in norway, only premarian) = vikingstyle longships
various generic ships

:Artillery:
Same as rest of europe

:Mercs:
Landsknecht units
German mercenary units

* = generic (ie multifaction)

Uesugi Kenshin
05-03-2005, 03:37
What's a Burger with two dots over the u?

GodsPetMonkey
05-03-2005, 05:23
What's a Burger with two dots over the u?

Means 2 patties instead of one.

Tasty!

Narayanese
05-03-2005, 17:33
Maybe gpm's explanation was satisfying on bürger, but here is mine

Bürger is one of the units in the german faction list, I assume it is urban levy. The nordic cities had up to half of the pop german (visby probably had more, but then visby was controlled by the teutonic order in 1402), so I thought a german urban levy would be correct for kalmar union. The old swedish word for bürger was burghere. I guess the fought with spear or crossbow, in light armour (seldom more than brigandine (or later a cuirass), helmet, aventail/coif and hauberk).