PDA

View Full Version : Pocket - MTW Pocket Mod: Units, Buildings and Unit Stats



Pages : [1] 2

Third spearman from the left
10-07-2006, 17:08
Some great ideas here so far keep them coming, :2thumbsup:

Any final decision on the MA for the otto Jan infantry I'm still in favour of getting rid of it and allowing production of the troops in any province that meet the high specs.

caravel
10-07-2006, 18:09
Any final decision on the MA for the otto Jan infantry I'm still in favour of getting rid of it and allowing production of the troops in any province that meet the high specs.

Well the way to do that, IMHO, is to remove the necessity for the Grand Mosque altogether. This way the Military Academy would only depend on the citadel and in this way you would be able to construct multiples. This way (assuming the mods above are present) you can separate your MI from you GM and build the MI in Constantinople (and multiples anywhere else of course) and the GM in Arabia to produce the High valour Imams.

Personally if I was to do this, I would also impose the late era restriction and also have the MI require Fortress level.

Not sure about sending the be-kilted bravehearts to northern spain though... :book:

As to the FMAA/CMAA, Spanish javelinmen may be better... but needs more research.

Kralizec
10-07-2006, 20:56
I'd change the building requirement for the military academy from Grand Mosque to Fortress. Seems much more sensible.

caravel
10-07-2006, 22:42
Well, after adding all of the above changes except some of the most recently mentioned, and starting a new campaign as the Danes, this occured:

https://img301.imageshack.us/my.php?image=techedupforpikemendq8.jpg

Yes the AI French faction is trying, at the expense of all else, to tech up to the +1 valour pikemen now available in flanders with the level 3 militia building and level 3 spearmaker...

Kralizec
10-07-2006, 22:48
That would seem to confirm the issue mentioned in post #42.

A workaround would be to give all bonus provinces border forts, ports and maybe some other buildings on the starting map.

EDIT: another workaround would be to add border forts and ports to the building requirements.
I don't personally like this solution though because
1) it's silly that you should need border forts to build pikemen, etc
2) I prefer not to build border forts. If you have spies or assasins in the province, they'll catch incoming enemy counterparts instead, adding to their valour.

caravel
10-07-2006, 23:15
That's what I was thinking, but even then the AI may not develop those provinces further. Now that the French have developed flanders to train those pikemen, will they develop it further? They've teched the spearmaker up to the max, even though that is not the primary prerequisite and, AFAIK, will not give another +1 valour to the unit. If nothing is built in the province for the next few years I could possibly assume that a fortress is being built in order to upgrade to a level 4 militia building (which should give the additional +1 valour), this would indicate that the AI cannot discern which building gives the additional valour.

I have noticed that the valour bonuses in provinces such as Constantinople and Tolouse also affect those provinces in this way. If the province can be teched up fairly fast, i.e. a province that is famous for peasants won't take much teching up, then it appears that the AI can presumably get back to business, but with provinces that give bonuses to high level units, the AI can spend alot of time working towards that particular unit, to the detriment of all else.

On another note, I have thought about modding the HRE/Italian Baronial Estates building to all factions and using it as an additional prerequisite for 'lancers' then modding them as all factions and renaming them to something more realistic (though I've no idea what, as yet).

The Royal Court also needs to be removed from the Orthodox unit roster as it serves no purpose at present. Though I do feel that such buildings could be utilised for the Russian/Novgorod faction as prerquisites for units such as Druzhina and Boyar cavalry.

-Edit: check the post count! :hide:

-Edit2:


EDIT: another workaround would be to add border forts and ports to the building requirements.
I don't personally like this solution though because
1) it's silly that you should need border forts to build pikemen, etc
2) I prefer not to build border forts. If you have spies or assasins in the province, they'll catch incoming enemy counterparts instead, adding to their valour.

I agree but it may pay to force the AI to improve at least it's famrland when it improves it's royal courts and horse breeders. The royal court and horse breeder upgrades could also depend on the famrland upgrades. The problem is that some provinces are just not worth farming...

I also avoid border forts, as I prefer to train first my assassins and later my spies in the home provinces counterspying. I'm not so worried about forcing the AI to build border forts, and I'm not sure if the AI actually needs watchtowers at all. I have a feeling that the AI is in perpetual .matteosartori. mode as it regularly deploys emissaries straight off the mark to a faction leader on the other side of the map. Assuming the AI does require watch towers they could be made an additional prerequisite to the keep (possibly with border forts as an additional prerequisite to the Citadel, though that would force border forts, which I wouldn't like personally).

The problem lies in the fact that castle upgrades can be teched up and up with no other buildings required, which is wrong in too many ways. You can potentially build a fort and keep upgrading it until it's a fortress, constructing nothing else whatsoever. Such structures should depend on the farmlands upgrades, among other things, and perhaps making those considerably cheaper is the best option?

Kralizec
10-07-2006, 23:47
Assuming the AI does require border forts they could be made an additional prerequisite to the keep (possibly with border forts as an additional prerequisite to the Citadel).

Now that's a good idea I hadn't thought of :2thumbsup:


The problem lies in the fact that castle upgrades can be teched up and up with no other buildings required, which is wrong in too many ways. You can potentially build a fort and keep upgrading it until it's a fortress, constructing nothing else whatsoever. Such structures should depend on the farmlands upgrades, among other things, and perhaps making those considerably cheaper is the best option?

I'd make the castle upgrades* themselves cheaper rather then the farming upgrades. That will make people think twenty times before upgrading Cyreanica or the Sahara to citadel level, wich is silly.
*and also make the defense upgrades (ie curtain wall and ballista towers for the keep) mandatory before you can upgrade to the next castle level, as well as making these defenses somewhat more expensive. This will prevent players from upgrading to citadels and fortresses too quickly.


For the royal courts: maybe it's possible to insert a new agent type that acts like an improved emissary, that's trained at the royal court (just like Cardinals and Orthodox bisshops are basicly just improved bisshops and priests)
Alternatively it could be used like a prerequisite for the Chancellary and some of the other higher-up government buildings.

Why is "lancer" an unrealistic name? It's kinda bland, but not moreso then "plated knights" or anything else I can think of at present.
If they're going to be added to all factions, I do suggest that the valour bonus in an Iberian province is indeed implemented.


check the post count!

Better not reply to this post then, my dark prince :laugh4:

Deus ret.
10-08-2006, 01:11
I'd make the castle upgrades* themselves cheaper rather then the farming upgrades. That will make people think twenty times before upgrading Cyreanica or the Sahara to citadel level, wich is silly.
*and also make the defense upgrades (ie curtain wall and ballista towers for the keep) mandatory before you can upgrade to the next castle level, as well as making these defenses somewhat more expensive. This will prevent players from upgrading to citadels and fortresses too quickly.

the idea about additional requirements sounds good. However the question is if the AI will build them on its own, since fortification upgrades usually do not enjoy a high priority with the AI. And I don't quite get the point why players wouldn't want to upgrade to a fortress in the Sahara if fortifying a province actually becomes cheaper.:inquisitive:


For the royal courts: maybe it's possible to insert a new agent type that acts like an improved emissary, that's trained at the royal court (just like Cardinals and Orthodox bisshops are basicly just improved bisshops and priests) Alternatively it could be used like a prerequisite for the Chancellary and some of the other higher-up government buildings.


An upgraded emissary also sounds good, it would be interesting to see, though, as to how this could be reflected in-game. The difference between bishops and cardinals is mainly in conversion speed (and they don't profit from valor levels except against assassins), the distinction between mere inquisitors and grand ones in burning chance and range of targets. Since of all the emissary's duties only one seems to be tied to valor afaik (bribery missions, at least that's my impression), it would maybe suffice to provide new emissaries with a valor bonus, similar to the one given to spies and assassins. Given the emissary's role in the game, I'm having difficulties in imagining a broadening of his competences in an 'upgraded' version. :book:

caravel
10-08-2006, 10:41
...also make the defense upgrades (ie curtain wall and ballista towers for the keep) mandatory before you can upgrade to the next castle level, as well as making these defenses somewhat more expensive. This will prevent players from upgrading to citadels and fortresses too quickly.

Not sure about this. This won't stop the AI from doing what it's doing. It will still advance through those tech levels in order to get to it's objective, in this case +1 pikemen. I'm confident that if I had made all upgrades part of the tech level, the French would still have raised that province to Citadel abd still teched up to pikmen.


For the royal courts: maybe it's possible to insert a new agent type that acts like an improved emissary, that's trained at the royal court (just like Cardinals and Orthodox bisshops are basicly just improved bisshops and priests)
Alternatively it could be used like a prerequisite for the Chancellary and some of the other higher-up government buildings.

Improved emissaries won't work. The only difference between, i.e, bishops and cardinals is the faith propogation AFAIK. Emissaries don't propogate faith so their abilities are unchangeable. The only way to improve them is to have building upgrades that increaese their valour (as is the case with assassins and spies). So it may be possible to use the court buildings to increase the valour of emissaries. Though personally I would use buildings such as the chancellory, admiralty and university etc for this purpose.


Why is "lancer" an unrealistic name? It's kinda bland, but not moreso then "plated knights" or anything else I can think of at present.
If they're going to be added to all factions, I do suggest that the valour bonus in an Iberian province is indeed implemented.

All knights are pretty much Lancers, it seems strange to have a tech tree of: Feudal Knights -> Chivalric Knights -> Lancers. The Lancers in MTW are also fantasy, and shouldn't be restricted to the Spanish. Lancers in the true sense, is how the later lance wielding cavalry of the 18th century are often described.



the idea about additional requirements sounds good. However the question is if the AI will build them on its own, since fortification upgrades usually do not enjoy a high priority with the AI. And I don't quite get the point why players wouldn't want to upgrade to a fortress in the Sahara if fortifying a province actually becomes cheaper.:inquisitive:

The AI will build them if the build prod file is modded to encourage them to do so, and should do anyway if they have to build them to build something else.


An upgraded emissary also sounds good, it would be interesting to see, though, as to how this could be reflected in-game. The difference between bishops and cardinals is mainly in conversion speed (and they don't profit from valor levels except against assassins), the distinction between mere inquisitors and grand ones in burning chance and range of targets. Since of all the emissary's duties only one seems to be tied to valor afaik (bribery missions, at least that's my impression), it would maybe suffice to provide new emissaries with a valor bonus, similar to the one given to spies and assassins. Given the emissary's role in the game, I'm having difficulties in imagining a broadening of his competences in an 'upgraded' version. :book:

:2thumbsup:

Kralizec
10-08-2006, 14:21
And I don't quite get the point why players wouldn't want to upgrade to a fortress in the Sahara if fortifying a province actually becomes cheaper.:inquisitive:

As of present there's absolutely no reason why a player wouldn't upgrade their castles in "dirt" provinces (well, if you really want gold armoured Saharan cavalry :laugh4: )
If you needed to upgrade to 80% farming before building the citadel, the Sahara or Cyraenica would probably be your last province to upgrade, because the farming upgrade there will take an eternity to return the costs.

Deus ret.
10-08-2006, 15:58
As of present there's absolutely no reason why a player wouldn't upgrade their castles in "dirt" provinces (well, if you really want gold armoured Saharan cavalry :laugh4: )

In fact well armoured (=upgraded) light lancer cavalry has become one of my favorite unit types....not really sure about Saharan cav though ~;)


If you needed to upgrade to 80% farming before building the citadel, the Sahara or Cyraenica would probably be your last province to upgrade, because the farming upgrade there will take an eternity to return the costs.

seems like I missed that point....the whole issue makes much more sense now :idea2:. good idea, not sure about how the AI will react to it, though.

Kralizec
10-08-2006, 18:58
Btw, I already modded the pikemen stats myself in my own game and made Flanders the province that gives the bonus. However I realise that I haven't looked into what building gives another valour bonus.
If I have both the militia and spearmaker at lvl3 (same as you, Caravel), how do you edit the prod11 file to make the militia lvl4 building give a valour bonus?

caravel
10-09-2006, 09:22
Btw, I already modded the pikemen stats myself in my own game and made Flanders the province that gives the bonus. However I realise that I haven't looked into what building gives another valour bonus.
If I have both the militia and spearmaker at lvl3 (same as you, Caravel), how do you edit the prod11 file to make the militia lvl4 building give a valour bonus?

I'm not sure about this myself. It may have something to do with the order in which the prerequisites are listed, i.e.

"{horse_breeder2, spearmaker3}"
"{spearmaker3, horse_breeder2}"

It can't be the higher level building of the two as there would be cases where both are of the same level, i.e.

"{horse_breeder3, swordsmith3}"

It can be tested of course and I will try it later.

Still doesn't get away from the problem of the AI teching up a province for the valour bonus unit though.

I'm not sure about requiring the farmland upgrades either, as the AI would then have to tech up to 80% farmland to train +1 valour Saharan cavalry in Sahara, which would be pointless. The other option is to make the farming upgrades alot cheaper. At present they are stiflingly expensive wheras trade can be cheap and easy, returning massively. The AI is bad at trade (because it's bad at shipping), but won't have a problem upgrading it's farmland. The horse breeder upgrades could also be made cheaper (half price?). This would negate the wastage of upgrading farmland in provinces such as the Sinai, Sahara, Cyrenacia and Arabia. Every horse breeder upgrade would depend on the previous horsebreeder and the same level of farmland upgrade.

Forcing at least the watchtowers for the keep upgrade would work. Also a church could be forced before a castle can be built, this would serve to push up the loyalty and faith propogation in AI provinces which at present tends to be quite unpredictable. Militia buildings should also be a requirement. If you don't have a decent size militia then a castle upgrade shouldn't happen. The upgrade to a castle reflects (an invisible) rise in population that would need better policing.

Another good one would have been the trader in order to force the AI to trade, but since all provinces don't contain trade goods that won't be possible, unless a new generic very low income trade good could be introduced and added to every province as a default, enabling at least the basic trader to be built. This could then form the prerequisite of the castle upgrade.

Also another point. The indestructable "forest clearing" in the VI campaign. I would like to know how this is made indestructable, as It would be good if all farmland was indestructable, as farmland itself is quite literally destruction (clearing of trees, filling in of lakes, levelling of land etc) that is very difficult, if not impossible, to completely undo.

Kralizec
10-09-2006, 16:47
Also another point. The indestructable "forest clearing" in the VI campaign. I would like to know how this is made indestructable, as It would be good if all farmland was indestructable, as farmland itself is quite literally destruction (clearing of trees, filling in of lakes, levelling of land etc) that is very difficult, if not impossible, to completely undo.

Not sure but I think that may be hardcoded. Vikinghordes XL mod replaces 40% farming with forest upgrade (20% --> forest clearing --> 60% --> 80%)

caravel
10-09-2006, 17:08
Yea I think I remember that. That does point to it being harcoded. He obviously placed the forest clearing in there to cause the 40% to become indestructable, which is a very sound idea.

Kralizec
10-10-2006, 00:00
I have an idea for the Arab infantry.
Notch up the unit size to 200 (on huge unit size), down their attack somewhat, up their defense a little.

This will give them actually a viable function. As flankers the vanilla AI are redundant because Ghazi infantry is better, and they're no good for head on clashes with heavy infantry like FMAA.
Their new stats reflects that they're not meat grinding proffessionals like FMAA, but their unit size reflects that plenty of them are readily available and compensates a little for their mediocre stats. It will be different from Byzantine infantry as it's a little weaker and is not disciplined but has better morale.

Suggested requirements: militia building and swordsmith at level 1, both. An alternative would be simply the level 2 militia building, as otherwise it would have no function for the Egyptians.

Limiting the recruitment to certain provinces in the middle east (possibly the same as Bedouin camels + Palestine, Tripoli and Antioch) would probably be a good idea too. They're primarily for the Egyptians and I'm not sure wether the Turks should be able to get them. The Almohads already have a good swordsmen unit, but they should be able to get them when they get one of the right provinces (as AUM isn't any good in the desert)

caravel
10-10-2006, 08:01
I have an idea for the Arab infantry.
Notch up the unit size to 200 (on huge unit size), down their attack somewhat, up their defense a little.

This will give them actually a viable function. As flankers the vanilla AI are redundant because Ghazi infantry is better, and they're no good for head on clashes with heavy infantry like FMAA.
Their new stats reflects that they're not meat grinding proffessionals like FMAA, but their unit size reflects that plenty of them are readily available and compensates a little for their mediocre stats. It will be different from Byzantine infantry as it's a little weaker and is not disciplined but has better morale.

Suggested requirements: militia building and swordsmith at level 1, both.

I'm liking this alot. I'll have a go at this later.


An alternative would be simply the level 2 militia building, as otherwise it would have no function for the Egyptians.

Indeed, the militia buildings, as regards the Turks, Egyptians and Byzantines, have no function whatsoever apart from the first. The first building provides a happiness bonus, after that they have no effect. So like the royal court for the Byzantines they're useless. They can be modded as not buildable, and I've done it, it just appears that CA didn't bother.


Limiting the recruitment to certain provinces in the middle east (possibly the same as Bedouin camels + Palestine, Tripoli and Antioch) would probably be a good idea too. They're primarily for the Egyptians and I'm not sure wether the Turks should be able to get them. The Almohads already have a good swordsmen unit, but they should be able to get them when they get one of the right provinces (as AUM isn't any good in the desert)

I've already limited them to the same provinces as the Bedouin Camels. I feel they should be available to only the Egyptians and the Almohads. The same goes for desert archers.

I was working on the build prod 13 file, last night fixing the royal court and adding the baronial estate to all catholic factions and adding it as an additional prerequisite to Lancers, which are now available to all catholic factions with a valour bonus in Castile.

Third spearman from the left
10-18-2006, 13:12
Hi Guys
I didn't mention it earlier but in my game I adjusted some other aspects which might help to solve the AI valour build problem. The way I see it is the AI will tech up to valour bonus level to reap the rewards like any good general would want to. However on the way to that goal the AI spends a fortune and then has little left to improve other provinces.

I therefore aim to give the AI some help by introducing the following:

Increase in farming revenue and reduction in trade income - AI farms well enough but very rarely trades well.

Lower build time and cost to farm lands - 1yr 20%, 2yr 40% etc

Lower build time and cost from fort to citadel - 1yr fort, 3yr keep, 6yr castle, 8yr fortress, 10yr citadel

lastly I like really hard games so I give all the AI factions 50,000 f to start with and take 10,000 myself - in my last game it helped to get the AI off and running and I lost generals to a AI bride for the first time ever :laugh4:

Caravel@ any more updates on the danes game?

caravel
10-19-2006, 09:43
Hi Guys
I didn't mention it earlier but in my game I adjusted some other aspects which might help to solve the AI valour build problem. The way I see it is the AI will tech up to valour bonus level to reap the rewards like any good general would want to. However on the way to that goal the AI spends a fortune and then has little left to improve other provinces.

Caravel@ any more updates on the danes game?

I haven't been about here much nor have I played any TW for days now, and anyway I assumed the interest in this thread/subject had died off.

The AI does tech up to the the province to the valour bonus unit, to the detriment of all else. Provinces without the high level unit valour bonuses appear to thrive. Wheras Provinces such as Tolouse, Contantinople and now Flanders in the Danes campaign I was running are totally focused on the valour bonus unit. I loaded the game in -ian mode and tested this on a few more campaigns and found it to always be the same. This has led me to the conclusion that perhaps valour bonuses may not be such a good thing after all...

I have a feeling that it may be necessary to impliment valour bonuses some other way, to prevent the AI from acting in that way.


I therefore aim to give the AI some help by introducing the following:

Increase in farming revenue and reduction in trade income - AI farms well enough but very rarely trades well.

I think this is always a good idea, alot of mods do it already and it only enhances gameplay and the overall challenge. I actually tried modding out sea trade and shipping altogether once. Basically I removed the links between land and sea and all sea zones and modded out ship yards and ships. After which I put back all of the default landbridges plus many more liniking up the Islands with the mainland, and others such as sicily -> tunisia and greece -> crete -> cyrenacia. Not surprisingly it didn't work well. The main problem being that crusades began to take rather stupid routes... https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=67131&highlight=landbridge


Lower build time and cost to farm lands - 1yr 20%, 2yr 40% etc

I would add that slotting in the VI forest clearing instead of the 40% farmland would be a good idea (as per Viking Hordes XL Mod) as it's indestructable, and so the razing and burning tactics are less easy to pull off.


Lower build time and cost from fort to citadel - 1yr fort, 3yr keep, 6yr castle, 8yr fortress, 10yr citadel

I'm not sure about this. The AI has a tendency to upgrade the castle before it upgrades anything else. It seems to prioritise this. We will end up seeing alot of citadels and not alot else constructed in the provinces. The high build cost puts off the AI from upgrading, allowing it to build more of the cheaper faster buildings sooner.


lastly I like really hard games so I give all the AI factions 50,000 f to start with and take 10,000 myself - in my last game it helped to get the AI off and running and I lost generals to a AI bride for the first time ever :laugh4:

Good idea.

Third spearman from the left
10-19-2006, 13:19
At present all my changes are for the XL mod and so the increase in farming and reduction in trade is on top of what VH has done already.

Talking of seas, I think the removal of seas around islands like crete would be a great idea. This would help lessen the isolation problem for factions on these islands with a huge army, only one ship and no money.

For me I'd like to see the AI tech up more, as it very rarely does when ever I've been playing and having the AI with more valour based troops can only be a good thing. Maybe we should look at only adding high tech valour bonuses to a few provinces.

Also I think it would be worth trying to give the AI 50,000f at the start game to see how this will affect it's build policy in valour regions and else where. This might cause a positive effect to the valour issue.

caravel
10-19-2006, 13:42
At present all my changes are for the XL mod and so the increase in farming and reduction in trade is on top of what VH has done already.

I see, so you're advocating increasing them even more? Interesting. On an income related note, it may be possible to make the mines worthwhile. I rarely bother building them as the outlay is high and it take eons to get your money back.


Talking of seas, I think the removal of seas around islands like crete would be a great idea. This would help lessen the isolation problem for factions on these islands with a huge army, only one ship and no money.

The only landbridge I have added at present is Finland to Sweden. I was thinking about linking the med islands (crete, rhodes, cyprus) to the mainland and linking Sicily back to Naples and Malta to Sicily. Also linking Ireland to Scotland would be an idea. The problem with Islands as a whole is that because of the AI's inability to manage fleets they tend to lose control of them to uprisings causing the province to turn rebel. It's then not much use until you arrive there. Then there's the major problem of the Byzantines reappearing in Crete or the English reappearing in Ireland... If this was implimented then ships are still vital for trade and long distance travel, not solely as a means to reach an island. Those islands, just like coastal provinces would still be defensible from seaborne invasion using your fleets.


For me I'd like to see the AI tech up more, as it very rarely does when ever I've been playing and having the AI with more valour based troops can only be a good thing. Maybe we should look at only adding high tech valour bonuses to a few provinces.

Agreed. Though adding the farmland as a prerequisite for the horsebreeder may assist the AI in teching up it's farmland.


Also I think it would be worth trying to give the AI 50,000f at the start game to see how this will affect it's build policy in valour regions and else where. This might cause a positive effect to the valour issue.

It's worth trying. I have heard that no matter how many florins you give the AI, it still wastes the lot on peasants and ballistas anyway.

Third spearman from the left
10-19-2006, 14:30
I see, so you're advocating increasing them even more? Interesting. On an income related note, it may be possible to make the mines worthwhile. I rarely bother building them as the outlay is high and it take eons to get your money back.


Yes an increase to farminng even more is a must, and I've already lowered cost and build times for all mines.


The only landbridge I have added at present is Finland to Sweden. I was thinking about linking the med islands (crete, rhodes, cyprus) to the mainland and linking Sicily back to Naples and Malta to Sicily. Also linking Ireland to Scotland would be an idea. The problem with Islands as a whole is that because of the AI's inability to manage fleets they tend to lose control of them to uprisings causing the province to turn rebel. It's then not much use until you arrive there. Then there's the major problem of the Byzantines reappearing in Crete or the English reappearing in Ireland... If this was implimented then ships are still vital for trade and long distance travel, not solely as a means to reach an island. Those islands, just like coastal provinces would still be defensible from seaborne invasion using your fleets.

I like the land bridge idea for finland sweden, but I just think adding say rhodes to the same sea square as cyprus and the other ports available in the east might encourage more invasion, chance of trade and lessen the cut off problem. adding crete to the greece sea square and Malta to the Tunsina sea square.


It's worth trying. I have heard that no matter how many florins you give the AI, it still wastes the lot on peasants and ballistas anyway.

Maybe.... but with the valour bonus it will be pikemen and crossbows with a fighting chance against us :skull:

naut
11-17-2006, 11:09
A bit off topic,


If I have both the militia and spearmaker at lvl3 (same as you, Caravel), how do you edit the prod11 file to make the militia lvl4 building give a valour bonus?

Column 17:



"{},{},{},{UPGRADE_VALOUR(n)}"


Where n is any value.

Innocentius
11-18-2006, 19:47
Regarding the adding and removing of landbridges, is historical accuracy the most important reason for these changes (which would make the landbridge between Sweden/Finland very odd) or is it pure playability?

caravel
11-18-2006, 23:27
Regarding the adding and removing of landbridges, is historical accuracy the most important reason for these changes (which would make the landbridge between Sweden/Finland very odd) or is it pure playability?

Well, looking at literally any map, I can see that all my troops would need to do in order to travel from Finland to Sweden would be to walk northwards then bear westwards which would lead them into Sweden. There is no need to cross the Gulf of Bothnia, though the presence of the Aland Islands near the mouth of the gulf (sadly not visible on the MTW map) would make a Landbridge somewhat viable there, but is redundant of course due the land route.

Innocentius
11-19-2006, 01:35
The lands you are talking about now were not a part of any kingdom at all untill the 15th or 16th century (they were officially Swedish or Norse already by the 13th century though). Only in the 16th and 17th century were these areas truly incorporated to Sweden.
You can't march an army just through nowhere, they need to eat as well. The minimal population of these lands (Laponia etc.) surely would not have greeted armies from a kingdom due south, which they didn't have much to do with. In medieval times, and of course even later on, armies travelling between Sweden and Finland travelled by sea, docking in Visby, Gotland, and then headed on. Åland was another possible port to stop at on the way. There is a reason as to why Laponia is not included in the map.

caravel
11-19-2006, 02:13
I bow to your superior knowledge. :bow:

Though there are many sparsely populated, non thoroughly explored and outright dangerous regions on the map, not just in scandinavia. Many of the siberian, german and desert provinces would be dangerous for an army to march across, though a ruler would claim these lands as part of his dominion some of the local folk might think otherwise. In view of this I do think the landbridge is valid, in any case it is just as valid as sending your men via ship from Scotland to Palestine in one year, or sending a crusade, well anywhere which is why I do think it's a valid landbridge.

I was also wondering if you could help me out with some of the Viking units name changes? :embarassed:


Edit: Update: It's now 2am and most of the changes are done The units and their valour bonuses and stat changes are finished, and the buildings are fixed as per the updated summary. The startpos files are mostly done except the late file which I haven't touched yet (apart from to remove inns). Peasants still need to be removed from all files, the sicilian ships still need to be fixed, as does the spearmen/roundshieldspearnmen mix up, the units for georgia and armenia need to be done, the shipping costs need to be sorted out, and the spearmen for the egyptians and almohads need to be added. Other fixes that need sorting are the homelands (i've done some work on this in the past), trade and farming which I still haven't looked at.

Innocentius
11-19-2006, 03:17
Though there are many sparsely populated, non thoroughly explored and outright dangerous regions on the map, not just in scandinavia. Many of the siberian, german and desert provinces would be dangerous for an army to march across, though a ruler would claim these lands as part of his dominion some of the local folk might think otherwise. In view of this I do think the landbridge is valid, in any case it is just as valid as sending your men via ship from Scotland to Palestine in one year, or sending a crusade, well anywhere which is why I do think it's a valid landbridge.

Totally agree on that part.

The names of the viking units is a tough one, mainly since there were no viking "units", raids were just composed of men from different social classes. In all honesty, the Viking Carls (or Carl Swordsmen) should be removed as only the very social elite (the cream of the cream) could afford swords, but I guess that'd make the game somewhat out of balance.
The Thrall unit seem fit. The Landsmenn could perhaps be renamed to Drängar (dräng=singular, drängar=plural). In modern Swedish dräng would be the equivalent of farm-hand actually, but they were a form of elite warriors in the army of their (often local) lord or king.
Huscarles is another term that does work, however I think that Tegnar (tegn=singular, tegnar=plural) would be somewhat more appropriate. Tegnar were in many ways the same as vassals to the king, who gained land from him, and this land remained in family of the tegn even after his death.
Huscarl is a term that belongs in the dark ages, the viking adapted the Tegn-system from England, do give the impression of being civilized christians. Tegn itself is in fact only a scandinavian from of the anglo-saxon title "Thegn".

Martok
11-19-2006, 03:56
I'm not sure I said anything about training them before era! They're very era restricted. Feudal Knights will no longer be available in High and Late, and Chivalric Knights will only be available in High. Lancers will only be trainable in the Late era. Basically if you have e.g. any battered units of Chivarlic Knights or Feudal Knights left during the Late period you can send them in to be retrained a Lancers. And if you had any Feudal Knights left during the High period you could retrain them into Chivarlic Knights.
Sorry, I should've worded that better. I was actually referring to a comment you'd made earlier in the thread--you had complained how you often couldn't train Feudal Knights until the Early period was almost over, because of all the infrastructure that was required. I was simply commenting that your changes should help remedy that. ~:)


-Edit: I was also thinking of reusing the Fedual Knights unit, but reducing it's stats somewhat, and making a new 'mounted militia' cavalry type. I'm not sure of the exact historical accuracy of this, but mounted militias did exist, I just need to find more information on them...
Well wouldn't that be more or less what the Mounted Seargents represent? Seems to me they're pretty much one and the same. I'm not sure either, though. :shrug:


Summary updated: :2thumbsup:

Summary (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1256747&postcount=39)
Excellent! Looks good, MC. ~:cheers:

One thing that caught my particular attention:


Brothel/Tavern structure needs to be fixed to allow earlier spies.
Are you looking at lowering the fortification requirement for both buildings, or just one of them?

naut
11-19-2006, 10:53
Brothel/Tavern structure needs to be fixed to allow earlier spies.Couldn't agree more. A Keep to get a tavern! GAH!

caravel
11-19-2006, 13:14
Totally agree on that part.

The names of the viking units is a tough one, mainly since there were no viking "units", raids were just composed of men from different social classes. In all honesty, the Viking Carls (or Carl Swordsmen) should be removed as only the very social elite (the cream of the cream) could afford swords, but I guess that'd make the game somewhat out of balance.
The Thrall unit seem fit. The Landsmenn could perhaps be renamed to Drängar (dräng=singular, drängar=plural). In modern Swedish dräng would be the equivalent of farm-hand actually, but they were a form of elite warriors in the army of their (often local) lord or king.
Huscarles is another term that does work, however I think that Tegnar (tegn=singular, tegnar=plural) would be somewhat more appropriate. Tegnar were in many ways the same as vassals to the king, who gained land from him, and this land remained in family of the tegn even after his death.
Huscarl is a term that belongs in the dark ages, the viking adapted the Tegn-system from England, do give the impression of being civilized christians. Tegn itself is in fact only a scandinavian from of the anglo-saxon title "Thegn".

Some good ideas in there. I'm quite happy to remove the sword bearing Carls, for that reason alone. The Carl Axemen can be renamed simply "Carls". I have read elsewhere that the Huscarls would have carried swords due to their being an elite. I'm not sure as to the accuracy of this though. I like your ideas of using Tegn/Tegnar and Drang/Drangar instead of Huscarle/Huscarles and Landsmann/Landsmenn respectively for those units to better match the period. :2thumbsup:


Sorry, I should've worded that better. I was actually referring to a comment you'd made earlier in the thread--you had complained how you often couldn't train Feudal Knights until the Early period was almost over, because of all the infrastructure that was required. I was simply commenting that your changes should help remedy that. ~:)

I understand you perfectly now, sorry! :2thumbsup:


Well wouldn't that be more or less what the Mounted Seargents represent? Seems to me they're pretty much one and the same. I'm not sure either, though. :shrug:

Probably, though I was thinking that these would be a bit tougher than the Mounted Sergeants, a sort of medium Yeoman Cavalry that depends on the County Militia perhaps.


Are you looking at lowering the fortification requirement for both buildings, or just one of them?

Couldn't agree more. A Keep to get a tavern! GAH!

I'm looking at lowering the requirement for both buildings to the fort, removing the requirement of a tavern to build the first brothel, and then I may try to bring the Cunnny Warren building over from VI. Hopefully it will then work exactly as it does in VI.

-Edit: No sooner said than done. The Taverns, Brothels and their upgrades now depend on the Fort, the Keep, Castle and Citadel. You no longer need the Fortress to build that last type of Brothel/Tavern. They are now both equal in cost, construction time and level. I have also added the "Cunny Warren" as the final upgrade for the Brothel (this was previously absent).

Innocentius
11-19-2006, 20:34
Some good ideas in there. I'm quite happy to remove the sword bearing Carls, for that reason alone. The Carl Axemen can be renamed simply "Carls". I have read elsewhere that the Huscarls would have carried swords due to their being an elite. I'm not sure as to the accuracy of this though. I like your ideas of using Tegn/Tegnar and Drang/Drangar instead of Huscarle/Huscarles and Landsmann/Landsmenn respectively for those units to better match the period. :2thumbsup:

Thinking of it, Huscarles could also be renamed as Hirdmen. A hird was simply a small unit of bodyguards, although these were becoming outdated by the 12th century. In the end, Tegn is perhaps the most accurate term since we're talking about the 11th and 12th century.
And after a second thought, I think that Thralls should simply be renamed Vikings since:
1. Thralls were not intended to fight. They were slaves, often taken as loot on a previous raid.
2. They fit in with the description of the traditional viking: armed with a spear, no armour.

Kralizec
11-19-2006, 21:23
One possible reason why Orthodox factions can build the Royal Court is that if they conquer a catholic or muslim province, it doesn't get razed (of course royal estates or baronial courts still would be)

Manco Capac (interesting name btw, could you explain it to me? Is it an actual person): maybe you could have different mounted sergeants for the different eras. The vanilla mounted sergeants would be early only, after that you can retrain them into the high version wich would use the model and skin of Feudal Knights (perhaps with some changes)

Martok
11-20-2006, 07:24
Probably, though I was thinking that these would be a bit tougher than the Mounted Sergeants, a sort of medium Yeoman Cavalry that depends on the County Militia perhaps.
Hmm. I see what you're saying now; yeah, that could work. You'd almost have to give it stats similar to that of Feudal Knights, though. Otherwise they wouldn't really be worth training.


-Edit: No sooner said than done. The Taverns, Brothels and their upgrades now depend on the Fort, the Keep, Castle and Citadel. You no longer need the Fortress to build that last type of Brothel/Tavern. They are now both equal in cost, construction time and level. I have also added the "Cunny Warren" as the final upgrade for the Brothel (this was previously absent).
Excellent! :thumbsup: So what's left now?

naut
11-20-2006, 07:41
Also rename Fyrdmen, Ceorls.

caravel
11-20-2006, 13:37
Thinking of it, Huscarles could also be renamed as Hirdmen. A hird was simply a small unit of bodyguards, although these were becoming outdated by the 12th century. In the end, Tegn is perhaps the most accurate term since we're talking about the 11th and 12th century.
And after a second thought, I think that Thralls should simply be renamed Vikings since:
1. Thralls were not intended to fight. They were slaves, often taken as loot on a previous raid.
2. They fit in with the description of the traditional viking: armed with a spear, no armour.

I'm quite happy to make those changes. I always though that "Viking" was just a loose term for the scandinavian raiders that attacked Britain?


One possible reason why Orthodox factions can build the Royal Court is that if they conquer a catholic or muslim province, it doesn't get razed (of course royal estates or baronial courts still would be)

Possibly but yes the later upgrades, that take all the time and money, still get razed when an othodox faction moves in. I suppose the muslim factions have to live with their grand mosque's destruction when the catholics and orthodox invade also.


(interesting name btw, could you explain it to me? Is it an actual person)

The first Inca. I was testing out the new name change feature. I'll probably change back to Caravel so don't get used to this one yet! :2thumbsup:


Manco Capac: maybe you could have different mounted sergeants for the different eras. The vanilla mounted sergeants would be early only, after that you can retrain them into the high version wich would use the model and skin of Feudal Knights (perhaps with some changes)

That's a good idea, the problem is retraining them into a different unit, which I'll explain below...


Hmm. I see what you're saying now; yeah, that could work. You'd almost have to give it stats similar to that of Feudal Knights, though. Otherwise they wouldn't really be worth training.

Then no one would bother with the Feudal Knights. I was thinking, a bit faster, and with lower defense and armour and not elite? I'll have to see how I can slot them into the unit roster. I haven't even started this unit yet, so there's alot to do.


Excellent! :thumbsup: So what's left now?

I've done all of the startpos files now, all of the unit positions are fixed:

Some ships added for the Moors (formerly the "Almohads") and the English.

The Sicilian barques are replaced with galleys

The round shield/square shield spearmen mix ups are corrected

All peasants removed

Old Feudal and Chivalric Knights removed and replaced with the new ones

Georgia and Lesser Armenia units placed and provinces removed from Byzantine control.

A problem has arisen however. The new Knights don't upgrade from one to the next and I have a few ideas as to why. This is a hardcoded fix that CA implimented in a particular patch IIRC, so it may be very restricted.

The EarlyRoyalKnights, HighRoyalKnights and LateRoyalKnights must be somehow hardcode linked to the Royal_Court building, and it's upgrades, if there are other dependencies, such as a spearmaker or horse breeder the RK per era upgrades don't function.

It is also possible that EarlyRoyalKnights, HighRoyalKnights and LateRoyalKnights can only be upgraded if they always have the same dependency or dependencies whatever the era, and regardless of what the dependency is.

Another possibility is that the Royal_Court, and it's upgrades, is a unique building (a hardcoded 'feature') that supports the upgrading of any unit that depends exclusively on this building, not units that have multiple dependencies such as the old (Feudal/Chivalric Knights), to the next unit in line (early/high/late specific units).

All of this needs to be tested later. If 'e' is true then things could get rather interesting, but somehow I doubt it is. The way to test all of this is as follows:

Remove all other dependencies, affectively causing all of the RK units to depend on the Royal_Court only (not any additional spearmakers, armourers or horse breeders), this effectively gives us what we had before in a scalable unit with some name changes, and see if that works, if it doesn't then the whole thing could depend on every unit using the same campaign battle map name "Royal Knights". This would be a bit of cheap and dirty, but not impossible.

If it did work then, as another test, other units e.g. peasants, urban militia and militia sergeants could be era restricted (early, high and late respectively) and changing their dependency to the Royal_Court. If they can be upgraded from era to era, then that explains it. The Royal_Court itself is the key and not the units.

A test for the "cheap and dirty" approach would be renaming e.g. "Peasants", "Urban Militia" and "Militia Sergeants" to "Royal Knights" (note: their english language file names and not the internal names) making them era restricted (early, high and late respectively) and changing their dependency to the Royal_Court. If they can be upgraded from era to era, then that explains it. (The cheap and dirty approach. I really doubt this is the case)


Also rename Fyrdmen, Ceorls.

Well Ceorls were the lower class peasants and smaller land owners as opposed to the Thegns (Thanes) who were the upper class landed freemen. Fyrdmen means basically "Army Men" (warriors), the Fyrd being the army. I wouldn't agree with renaming the Fyrdmen as Ceorls because there were roughly three types of Ceorls: Fyrdmen, Gebedmen and Weorcmen (soldiers, priests and workers). Fyrdmen seems to fit the bill.

Innocentius
11-20-2006, 16:17
I'm quite happy to make those changes. I always though that "Viking" was just a loose term for the scandinavian raiders that attacked Britain?

Yes, that's true. However, the "common viking" was just a peasant armed with a spear, axe or bow, and often a shield.

caravel
11-20-2006, 17:53
Yes, that's true. However, the "common viking" was just a peasant armed with a spear, axe or bow, and often a shield.

I'll update the Summary to that effect tonight. Also as regards the Huscarles and Tegns, I was under the impression that Huscarles were a different thing to Tegns? I feel that the Huscarles as an elite bodyguard are probably not interchangeable with the Tegns. Perhaps Landsmenn should be renamed as Tegns and Huscarles removed altogether as they really don't fit the medieval period? The basic Viking could be renamed as Drangar and the Viking Carls also removed. Then the Thralls could be renamed as Viking Carls? Am I making sense? I'm looking at this on the stength of the current info pics and not the current names. I'm breaking it down as follows:

Thrall = Viking1
Viking Carl = Viking2
Viking (Vanilla MTW) = Viking3
Landsmenn = Viking4
Huscarles = Viking5

Viking1 = Poorly equipped basic Viking
Viking2 = Adequately equipped Viking with sword
Viking3 = Adequately equipped Viking with axe
Viking4 = Well Equipped Viking
Viking5 = Elite Bodyguard or Royal Viking

Now lets say that Viking2 and Viking5 are redundant, because the first has a sword which is unusual for that type and the last is just not right for the period, Huscarle Bodyguards. That leaves us with:

Viking1 = Viking Carls
Viking3 = Drangar
Viking4 = Tegnar

Yes/no? :help:

Also I plan to remove the Saxon Huscarles, as they simply would not have been around much after Hastings, and rebel Huscarles is silly. Rebel Fyrdmen ok, Huscarles no. Overall I prefer to boot Huscarles out of the 1087 - 1453 campaign because they are just wrong for the time period.

Innocentius
11-20-2006, 18:18
Thrall = Viking1
Viking Carl = Viking2
Viking (Vanilla MTW) = Viking3
Landsmenn = Viking4
Huscarles = Viking5

Viking1 = Poorly equipped basic Viking
Viking2 = Adequately equipped Viking with sword
Viking3 = Adequately equipped Viking with axe
Viking4 = Well Equipped Viking
Viking5 = Elite Bodyguard or Royal Viking

Now lets say that Viking2 and Viking5 are redundant, because the first has a sword which is unusual for that type and the last is just not right for the period, Huscarle Bodyguards. That leaves us with:

Viking1 = Viking Carls
Viking3 = Drangar
Viking4 = Tegnar


That sounds fine, although you could keep the Huscarles and simply rename them as Hirdmen (many bishops, kings and even knights had a personal hird even until the 13th century) if you'd like. For balance reasons I leave that up to you, but I agree that Viking2 should be left out.

Good work on the mod, I really like your idea of having a milita-cavarly related to the Town Watch-series of buildings:2thumbsup:

caravel
11-20-2006, 23:19
A problem has arisen however. The new Knights don't upgrade from one to the next and I have a few ideas as to why. This is a hardcoded fix that CA implimented in a particular patch IIRC, so it may be very restricted.

The EarlyRoyalKnights, HighRoyalKnights and LateRoyalKnights must be somehow hardcode linked to the Royal_Court building, and it's upgrades, if there are other dependencies, such as a spearmaker or horse breeder the RK per era upgrades don't function.

It is also possible that EarlyRoyalKnights, HighRoyalKnights and LateRoyalKnights can only be upgraded if they always have the same dependency or dependencies whatever the era, and regardless of what the dependency is.

Another possibility is that the Royal_Court, and it's upgrades, is a unique building (a hardcoded 'feature') that supports the upgrading of any unit that depends exclusively on this building, not units that have multiple dependencies such as the old (Feudal/Chivalric Knights), to the next unit in line (early/high/late specific units).

All of this needs to be tested later. If the above is true then things could get rather interesting, but somehow I doubt it is. The way to test all of this is as follows:

Remove all other dependencies, affectively causing all of the RK units to depend on the Royal_Court only (not any additional spearmakers, armourers or horse breeders), this effectively gives us what we had before in a scalable unit with some name changes, and see if that works, if it doesn't then the whole thing could depend on every unit using the same campaign battle map name "Royal Knights". This would be a bit of cheap and dirty, but not impossible.

If it did work then, as another test, other units e.g. peasants, urban militia and militia sergeants could be era restricted (early, high and late respectively) and changing their dependency to the Royal_Court. If they can be upgraded from era to era, then that explains it. The Royal_Court itself is the key and not the units.

A test for the "cheap and dirty" approach would be renaming e.g. "Peasants", "Urban Militia" and "Militia Sergeants" to "Royal Knights" (note: their english language file names and not the internal names) making them era restricted (early, high and late respectively) and changing their dependency to the Royal_Court. If they can be upgraded from era to era, then that explains it. (The cheap and dirty approach. I really doubt this is the case)

Well, well, sometimes the simplest solution is the one. Cheap and dirty it is! Simply renaming them in the English language "names.txt" file to "Royal Knights" has made the upgrades start functioning again. I also tested other building dependencies with the Royal_Court (for Ghulam Bodyguards) and it was the same. They were still upgradable. So it seems that the name is the key after all.

This leaves me with a situation. At present I now have the Bodyguard units restored to as they were in vanilla except they're scalable (still half the size of a standard cavalry unit). No other differences. Same dependencies, everything. The Chivalric, Knights, Royal Knights and Lancers are back in, though the modified tech tree still stands for them as it did for the RKs. The Royal_Courts dependency has been lowered one level, so Feudal Knights can be trained from the Royal_Court with their other dependencies, and so on. Lancers are still all factions and in addtion to the Royal_Court3 they still need their existing dependency structures also. To me this seems ok, though I'm not sure about the Royal Knights. I may raise their depencies to the same as the other full size Knights, but keep them as half size versions. Need some input on this one!

The County Militia Cavalry or Yeoman Cavalry (haven't decided on a name yet) I'm not sure about as yet. I'll need to work on that one. I may have to create a new unit for them using the Feudal Knights model and info pic and change the Feudal Knights info pic to be the same as the EarlyRoyalKnights. That's one of my later tasks.

The Viking changes are going to happen now. I may post screenshots in a while also if I'm able. :2thumbsup:

Ok I've edited the summary, unfortunately it's now getting too late so I'll have to do the actual names and descriptions editing tomorrow. All the changes, and testing, to the Knights took quite a while (I need to look at their support costs also).

Mas tardes. :juggle2:

Martok
11-21-2006, 01:39
Sounds good, buddy. :yes:


Then no one would bother with the Feudal Knights. I was thinking, a bit faster, and with lower defense and armour and not elite? I'll have to see how I can slot them into the unit roster. I haven't even started this unit yet, so there's alot to do.
I should emphasize that I believe Yeoman Cavalry should not have the exact same abilities as FK's--they're not nobles, after all. ~;) I think what you've suggested for them is pretty close to what I had in mind. I was thinking they should maybe have a slightly higher charge bonus (due to being lighter and faster), but I agree with the lower defense/armour values. :thumbsup:

I was only thinking that Yeoman Cavalry should perhaps have similar stats to Feudal Knights because by the time you have the necessary infrastructure to train them, you'll almost certainly be in the High era already (when FK's are no longer available, as they'll get upgraded to Chivalric Knights). Otherwise, there would be no medium-type cavalry to fill the niche in between Chivalric Knights/Lancers and lighter cavalry (Mounted Seargents, Hobilars, etc.).

caravel
11-21-2006, 11:29
Sounds good, buddy. :yes:


I should emphasize that I believe Yeoman Cavalry should not have the exact same abilities as FK's--they're not nobles, after all. ~;) I think what you've suggested for them is pretty close to what I had in mind. I was thinking they should maybe have a slightly higher charge bonus (due to being lighter and faster), but I agree with the lower defense/armour values. :thumbsup:

I was only thinking that Yeoman Cavalry should perhaps have similar stats to Feudal Knights because by the time you have the necessary infrastructure to train them, you'll almost certainly be in the High era already (when FK's are no longer available, as they'll get upgraded to Chivalric Knights). Otherwise, there would be no medium-type cavalry to fill the niche in between Chivalric Knights/Lancers and lighter cavalry (Mounted Seargents, Hobilars, etc.).

Well I'm thinking that Yeoman Cavalry (have we decided on that name?) should basically be a Feudal Knights, that are:

1) Cheaper to support
2) Cheaper to train
3) Better Charge
4) Faster
5) Available in high/late only
6) Less armour (possibly 2 points less)
7) Lower defence (2 points less)
8) Lower Morale
9) Not elite

I will stick with making FKs, CKs and Lancers era restricted. Lancers will supercede CKs in late, and though CKs will not necessarily supercede FKs (they can be useful in the desert), the Yeoman Cavalry will provide a suitable replacement.

Proposal:

The YCs will depend on the Spearmaker's Workshop (no.2), Horse Breeder (no.2) and the Town Militia (no.3), and not the County Militia (no.4 - the one previously used for pikemen which is actually redundant now, apart from as a valour bonus) which takes much too long to tech up to.

I'm also considering era restrictions and name changes for Feudal Men at Arms, Feudal Sergeants and Mounted (Feudal) Sergeants to Early period only. Don't shoot me yet! The problem is that pretty much all catholic faction military units in the time period of the game are technically "Feudal". It is as stupid to call Men at Arms, and Sergeants "Feudal" as it would be to call our own modern armies "Republican", "Democratic" etc. The Chivalric Sergeants and Chivalric Men at Arms are still Feudal, they're just very roughly 13th - 15th Century Sergeants and Men at Arms.

naut
11-21-2006, 13:40
I'm also considering era restrictions and name changes for Feudal Men at Arms, Feudal Sergeants and Mounted (Feudal) Sergeants to Early period only.
Good Idea.

caravel
11-21-2006, 14:33
I'm thinking of this sort of structure now:

Men at Arms - Early
Sergeants - Early
Mounted Sergeants - Early

Chivalric Men at Arms - High/Late
Chivalric Sergeants - High/Late
Yeoman Cavalry - High/Late

Also, there is another issue, as ever, with the Almohad Urban Militia (currently renamed Al-Muwahhidun Urban Militia (see earlier in the thread for an explantion of this)). They seem to be an effort at a loose representation of a al-andalus Moorish infantry garrison unit (a sort of a catholic/muslim hybrid unit for lack of a better description), from what I can see, yet they don't fit anything "Almohad" that I know of. The Almohads originated in Algeria and their infantry would have been alike to the Murabitin Infanty or Muwahid Foot Soldiers (renamed Al-Murabitin Infantry, Al-Muwahhidun Infantry) yet these units are apparently famous in Granada??!! I'm not sure about that one. Maybe they were famous in Granada but that probably wouldn't make them Almohad nor Almoravid. This would indicate that they (or the idea behind them anyway) date back to the early 11th century Taifa kingdoms, which is a possibility. They could also be loosely based on something from Ummayad Spain (10th century) of course. On the whole I think they're probably fantasy. Removing them may imbalance the Moors campaign though. I think they were a flawed attempt at game balance in the first place, instead of better Berber cavalry and infantry as well as Almoravid and Almohad specific cavalry and infantry units. All in all it seems that all the effort went into the Turks and Egyptians unit rosters and the Almohads were sold short. Their only unique units are Almohad Urban Militia, Murabitin Infantry and Berber Camels. They don't get Saracens nor do they get any of the vast selection of skirmishers, horse archers and other cavalry available to the other muslim factions. A unit that should have been a totally unique Almohad units, Muwahid Foot Soldiers, was also assigned to all muslim factions.

In view of this the Almohads probably need more attention than some other factions. Giving them back Muwahids exclusively is a start and access to Jinetes would be a big help. AUM's, if not removed altogether, probably need to be renamed "Andalusian (Heavy) Infantry" or something to that effect. They should probably be available in Early and High only, to reflect the decline and ultimate end of muslim Spain.

The Militia Sergeants are another unit that is wrong in so many ways. But is especially wrong for the Moors (the only muslim faction with access to Militia Sergeants). The info pic (the same as the UM info pic but with the character in a different pose) may be reusable. The Sergeants part of the name could go, for all factions. This would be the simplest solution. I haven't completely decided on a name as yet, but I do feel that the structure should be as follows:

Urban Militia = Urban Militia
Militia Sergeants = Militia Guards (or alternative neutral name)

Urban Militia
Valour Bonus: No Change (Tuscany)
Eras: All Periods
Trainable by: Catholic/Orthodox/Almohad (Moors)

Militia Guards
Valour Bonus: None (I don't remember their being a valour bonus for these, perhaps Cordoba?)
Eras: All Periods
Trainable by: Catholic/Orthodox/Almohad (Moors)

This would remove UMs from the Egyptians and Turks. Which I don't see as a problem. It would also give the Almohads 2 units that the other muslim factions don't have.

Martok
11-22-2006, 00:22
Well I'm thinking that Yeoman Cavalry (have we decided on that name?) should basically be a Feudal Knights, that are:

1) Cheaper to support
2) Cheaper to train
3) Better Charge
4) Faster
5) Available in high/late only
6) Less armour (possibly 2 points less)
7) Lower defence (2 points less)
8) Lower Morale
9) Not elite

I will stick with making FKs, CKs and Lancers era restricted. Lancers will supercede CKs in late, and though CKs will not necessarily supercede FKs (they can be useful in the desert), the Yeoman Cavalry will provide a suitable replacement.
Looks good pretty good, MC. I would be careful about not lowering morale too much, though. I agree they shouldn't have the same morale as FK's, but it should probably still be at a decent level.

(By the way, I don't know if Yeoman Cavalry are what we should call them or not; I just like using the word Yeoman. ~D)


Proposal:

The YCs will depend on the Spearmaker's Workshop (no.2), Horse Breeder (no.2) and the Town Militia (no.3), and not the County Militia (no.4 - the one previously used for pikemen which is actually redundant now, apart from as a valour bonus) which takes much too long to tech up to.
Agreed. I think those are reasonable requirements for the YC. That way, you'll only need a Castle to train them, and not a Citadel. :yes:


I'm also considering era restrictions and name changes for Feudal Men at Arms, Feudal Sergeants and Mounted (Feudal) Sergeants to Early period only. Don't shoot me yet! The problem is that pretty much all catholic faction military units in the time period of the game are technically "Feudal". It is as stupid to call Men at Arms, and Sergeants "Feudal" as it would be to call our own modern armies "Republican", "Democratic" etc. The Chivalric Sergeants and Chivalric Men at Arms are still Feudal, they're just very roughly 13th - 15th Century Sergeants and Men at Arms.


I'm thinking of this sort of structure now:

Men at Arms - Early
Sergeants - Early
Mounted Sergeants - Early

Chivalric Men at Arms - High/Late
Chivalric Sergeants - High/Late
Yeoman Cavalry - High/Late
I think that'll work! ~:cheers:


Also, there is another issue, as ever, with the Almohad Urban Militia (currently renamed Al-Muwahhidun Urban Militia (see earlier in the thread for an explantion of this)). They seem to be an effort at a loose representation of a al-andalus Moorish infantry garrison unit (a sort of a catholic/muslim hybrid unit for lack of a better description), from what I can see, yet they don't fit anything "Almohad" that I know of. The Almohads originated in Algeria and their infantry would have been alike to the Murabitin Infanty or Muwahid Foot Soldiers (renamed Al-Murabitin Infantry, Al-Muwahhidun Infantry) yet these units are apparently famous in Granada??!! I'm not sure about that one. Maybe they were famous in Granada but that probably wouldn't make them Almohad nor Almoravid. This would indicate that they (or the idea behind them anyway) date back to the early 11th century Taifa kingdoms, which is a possibility. They could also be loosely based on something from Ummayad Spain (10th century) of course. On the whole I think they're probably fantasy. Removing them may imbalance the Moors campaign though. I think they were a flawed attempt at game balance in the first place, instead of better Berber cavalry and infantry as well as Almoravid and Almohad specific cavalry and infantry units. All in all it seems that all the effort went into the Turks and Egyptians unit rosters and the Almohads were sold short. Their only unique units are Almohad Urban Militia, Murabitin Infantry and Berber Camels. They don't get Saracens nor do they get any of the vast selection of skirmishers, horse archers and other cavalry available to the other muslim factions. A unit that should have been a totally unique Almohad units, Muwahid Foot Soldiers, was also assigned to all muslim factions.

In view of this the Almohads probably need more attention than some other factions. Giving them back Muwahids exclusively is a start and access to Jinetes would be a big help. AUM's, if not removed altogether, probably need to be renamed "Andalusian (Heavy) Infantry" or something to that effect. They should probably be available in Early and High only, to reflect the decline and ultimate end of muslim Spain.

The Militia Sergeants are another unit that is wrong in so many ways. But is especially wrong for the Moors (the only muslim faction with access to Militia Sergeants). The info pic (the same as the UM info pic but with the character in a different pose) may be reusable. The Sergeants part of the name could go, for all factions. This would be the simplest solution. I haven't completely decided on a name as yet, but I do feel that the structure should be as follows:

Urban Militia = Urban Militia
Militia Sergeants = Militia Guards (or alternative neutral name)

Urban Militia
Valour Bonus: No Change (Tuscany)
Eras: All Periods
Trainable by: Catholic/Orthodox/Almohad (Moors)

Militia Guards
Valour Bonus: None (I don't remember their being a valour bonus for these, perhaps Cordoba?)
Eras: All Periods
Trainable by: Catholic/Orthodox/Almohad (Moors)

This would remove UMs from the Egyptians and Turks. Which I don't see as a problem. It would also give the Almohads 2 units that the other muslim factions don't have.
I do think the Almos/Moors still need an AUM-type unit, although renaming them Andalusians (or whatever you called them) would certainly be fine. Otherwise, they'll simply be too underpowered in the Early & High periods.

Everything else sounds good, though. :2thumbsup:

caravel
11-22-2006, 00:41
That's all done apart from the Yeoman Cavalry, get thee to the Summary (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1256747&postcount=39)! :2thumbsup:

I've taken the liberty of messing with the new Viking Carls unit. It is now a better (more impulsive with a better charge and unformed) cheaper version of the spearmen unit, only available to the Danes. Problem is that it disappears after the end of the High period and will probably be superceded by Sergeants and Chivalric Sergeants. The Carls description fits this unit (formerly the Thralls) perfectly. Thanks to Innocentius for coming up with some brilliant ideas to fix the Viking units once and for all. ~:cheers:

Huscarles are currently not in there, though if there is enough support and some strong argument as to why they should be, I'd like to hear it. :bow:

AUM are also staying in, unchanged, as the Andalusian Infantry (Andalusia is basically "Muslim Spain". I was leaning towards "Al-Andalus Militia" but decided against that at the last minute. "Andalusian Infantry" has a nice ring to it.). Done. :yes:

Martok
11-22-2006, 01:41
That's all done apart from the Yeoman Cavalry, get thee to the Summary (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1256747&postcount=39)! :2thumbsup:
~:cheers:


I've taken the liberty of messing with the new Viking Carls unit. It is now a better (more impulsive with a better charge and unformed) cheaper version of the spearmen unit, only available to the Danes. Problem is that it disappears after the end of the High period and will probably be superceded by Sergeants and Chivalric Sergeants. The Carls description fits this unit (formerly the Thralls) perfectly. Thanks to Innocentius for coming up with some brilliant ideas to fix the Viking units once and for all. ~:cheers:
Good job guys! I was always a little bothered by the term Thralls, as I didn't think that would apply to any type of fighting men in a jarl's employ. Good to see this fixed. :bow:


Huscarles are currently not in there, though if there is enough support and some strong argument as to why they should be, I'd like to hear it. :bow:
They're gone? :sad: Aw, but Huscarles are awesome! ~D

On a more serious note, Huscarles--at least in the Early period, when they're available--often seem to be one of the only Danish units capable of generating decent governors. Given the Danes' starting lands, and the need to maximize Sweden's wealth (once you conquer it), this is a more important factor than it first appears to be.

If the Huscarles need to be "watered down" a little so that they're not so uber in combat, that's fine--I don't think any of us are going to argue that they're underpowered. ~:rolleyes: I'm admittedly not enough of an historian to argue why they should be in the game from a realism standpoint; but from a gameplay standpoint, I do think they perform a fairly important function. (Plus given that they're simply so much *fun*, that shouldn't be dismissed either!)


AUM are also staying in, unchanged, as the Andalusian Infantry (Andalusia is basically "Muslim Spain". I was leaning towards "Al-Andalus Militia" but decided against that at the last minute. "Andalusian Infantry" has a nice ring to it.). Done. :yes:
Agreed. Well done, MC. :thumbsup:

caravel
11-22-2006, 14:28
Good job guys! I was always a little bothered by the term Thralls, as I didn't think that would apply to any type of fighting men in a jarl's employ. Good to see this fixed. :bow:

I'm actually quite pleased with how the Viking Carls have turned out. The Viking Carls description fits the Viking Thralls info pic perfectly, and the stats are now quite interesting, and make the unit useable as opposed to useless. Although they are not indifferent to Vanilla Spearmen the strong charge makes them suited to occasional flanking or downhill charges against cavalry before pinning. Also their "rabble" formation makes them more difficult for archers to hit, but less cohesive. The last point is their uncontrolled behaviour. They may get too big for their boots, underestimate the enemy, and decide to charge without orders if you don't keep a close eye on them. :stupido2:


They're gone? :sad: Aw, but Huscarles are awesome! ~D

On a more serious note, Huscarles--at least in the Early period, when they're available--often seem to be one of the only Danish units capable of generating decent governors. Given the Danes' starting lands, and the need to maximize Sweden's wealth (once you conquer it), this is a more important factor than it first appears to be.

The governor generating thing is I think down to the "general candidate" field in the crusaders files. I believe that setting this to prefered, ok or discouraged (and possibly some more that I can't remember off hand) may determine whether a good general appears at the head of a certain newly trained unit or not. This can be modified so that Tegns (the old Landsmenn) get the same kind of good generals as the Huscarles did. Income is critical to the Danes. Making every florin count is important at the start of the early period I agree. Hopefully this will also be addressed with the cheaper overall shipping proposal. (I'll be working on that soon, it's in the summary).

Also the trade goods idea needs to be looked into. The idea of increasing the values of the trade goods to improve local trade won't help as it will also increase the costs of the goods traded overseas dramatically. I'm pretty sure you just earn that amount per good for every port you trade it at (it seems to be much simpler than I had at first envisaged). So if you had three trade goods, one worth 50 another worth 20 and another worth 40 and you were trading with about 15 provinces. that's over 1500 florins worth of trade income anyway. To me it seems that simply lowering the costs of the goods themselves is the key, while removing trade goods from landlocked provinces altogether. Not much can be done about new goods added during the campaign at a certain date, but at least the bulk of the problem is gone. This will stop the AI wasting florins on traders in most landlocked provinces anyway. The import tax percentage can then be boosted, so that while you're trading you're also giving an the income to the AI and vice versa. This is currently at 20%, raising it to 50% would mean that the AI makes a decent bit of income from your trade.

Farming and mining can then be boosted significantly. I may add extra mines if I can think of anything. I know that at present the Game has gold, silver, copper and salt, but it could have other types of "mines" such as Iron Ore mines, Quarries, Chalk Mines, Forestry.


If the Huscarles need to be "watered down" a little so that they're not so uber in combat, that's fine--I don't think any of us are going to argue that they're underpowered. ~:rolleyes: I'm admittedly not enough of an historian to argue why they should be in the game from a realism standpoint; but from a gameplay standpoint, I do think they perform a fairly important function. (Plus given that they're simply so much *fun*, that shouldn't be dismissed either!)


Agreed. Well done, MC. :thumbsup:

I sort of guessed that if I removed them that there would be revolts! ~;)

I may mod them back in (as Hirdmen as Innocentius suggested), but I think the building dependencies need to be changed considerably. They should depend on the Royal Court (1), the Armourers Guild (3) and the Swordsmiths Workshop (2). I wouldn't change the stats, because that would defeat the object. Crippling them would probably be worse than removing them. Gameplay is also a factor. Varangian Guard, Andalusian Infantry and JHI are probably also overpowered but they're not getting changed.

Martok
11-22-2006, 19:24
I'm actually quite pleased with how the Viking Carls have turned out. The Viking Carls description fits the Viking Thralls info pic perfectly, and the stats are now quite interesting, and make the unit useable as opposed to useless. Although they are not indifferent to Vanilla Spearmen the strong charge makes them suited to occasional flanking or downhill charges against cavalry before pinning. Also their "rabble" formation makes them more difficult for archers to hit, but less cohesive. The last point is their uncontrolled behaviour. They may get too big for their boots, underestimate the enemy, and decide to charge without orders if you don't keep a close eye on them. :stupido2:
They sound a little like Highland Clansmen, except with spears. It should be....interesting to try them out. ~D


The governor generating thing is I think down to the "general candidate" field in the crusaders files. I believe that setting this to prefered, ok or discouraged (and possibly some more that I can't remember off hand) may determine whether a good general appears at the head of a certain newly trained unit or not. This can be modified so that Tegns (the old Landsmenn) get the same kind of good generals as the Huscarles did. Income is critical to the Danes. Making every florin count is important at the start of the early period I agree. Hopefully this will also be addressed with the cheaper overall shipping proposal. (I'll be working on that soon, it's in the summary).
Well if Tegns can be modded so that they're more likely to have good acumen, that would definitely help. I still think the Huscarles should stay in, though. ~;p


Also the trade goods idea needs to be looked into. The idea of increasing the values of the trade goods to improve local trade won't help as it will also increase the costs of the goods traded overseas dramatically. I'm pretty sure you just earn that amount per good for every port you trade it at (it seems to be much simpler than I had at first envisaged). So if you had three trade goods, one worth 50 another worth 20 and another worth 40 and you were trading with about 15 provinces. that's over 1500 florins worth of trade income anyway. To me it seems that simply lowering the costs of the goods themselves is the key, while removing trade goods from landlocked provinces altogether. Not much can be done about new goods added during the campaign at a certain date, but at least the bulk of the problem is gone. This will stop the AI wasting florins on traders in most landlocked provinces anyway. The import tax percentage can then be boosted, so that while you're trading you're also giving an the income to the AI and vice versa. This is currently at 20%, raising it to 50% would mean that the AI makes a decent bit of income from your trade.
Interesting; I didn't realize that was why trade goods in landlocked provinces are so hampered. If raising the tax percentage on imports will help the AI, then I would definitely say go for it! :thumbsup:


Farming and mining can then be boosted significantly. I may add extra mines if I can think of anything. I know that at present the Game has gold, silver, copper and salt, but it could have other types of "mines" such as Iron Ore mines, Quarries, Chalk Mines, Forestry.
Some good ideas there. Timber mills (for Forestry) could help benefit the HRE, as well as some of the northern and eastern provinces on the map. Would you limit iron mines to the provinces that currently have iron (a majority of which are in Iberia), or do you think you'd expand them?


I sort of guessed that if I removed them that there would be revolts! ~;)

I may mod them back in (as Hirdmen as Innocentius suggested), but I think the building dependencies need to be changed considerably. They should depend on the Royal Court (1), the Armourers Guild (3) and the Swordsmiths Workshop (2). I wouldn't change the stats, because that would defeat the object. Crippling them would probably be worse than removing them. Gameplay is also a factor. Varangian Guard, Andalusian Infantry and JHI are probably also overpowered but they're not getting changed.
I think the build requirements you propose are pretty reasonable, except I wonder if needing an Armourers Guild is maybe a little high. Given that you need a Citadel to build it, it seems likely that by the time a Danish player had constructed all the necessary buildings to train Huscarles, the Early period would be nearly over. (Unless my math is way off, upgrading your castle to a Citadel, along with building the other structures, would take around 60 years. And that's if you didn't build anything else!)

So unless you were planning on making Huscarles trainable in both Early and High--which I wouldn't recommend, and I don't think that's what you had in mind anyway--I would ask if perhaps the requirement ought to be lowered from an Armourers Guild to an Armourers Workshop. I doubt anyone would have a major problem with having to tech up a good bit before training Huscarles, but they should still be trainable for a reasonable period of time before the Early period expires.

Sorry if I sound like I'm trying to boss you around and tell you what to do, btw. I just do my best to give input, but I know I come across the wrong way sometimes. ~:rolleyes:

caravel
11-23-2006, 01:05
They sound a little like Highland Clansmen, except with spears. It should be....interesting to try them out. ~D

:2thumbsup:


Well if Tegns can be modded so that they're more likely to have good acumen, that would definitely help. I still think the Huscarles should stay in, though. ~;p

They can be modded to appear as overall good governor material, with better stats. That is what usually occurs. There is no single attribute that boosts the accumen of generals belonging to a certain unit. It's still random. Also elite units, in general, seem to produce some good generals. Alot of the time having a good faction leader will determine the quality of the generals that appear.


Interesting; I didn't realize that was why trade goods in landlocked provinces are so hampered. If raising the tax percentage on imports will help the AI, then I would definitely say go for it! :thumbsup:

Trade goods in landlocked provinces are largely pointless because there's no one to trade with. In my experience trade needs a port as well as a trader. Even if you've got neighbours that are allied to you, trade with them doesn't occur. Trade is only worthwhile if you're trading by sea and that one province is sending, e.g. saltfish to 10 provinces. Local trade is trade within that province only. Local trade is exactly the same size income as foreign trade with a single foreign port. It is an income based upon a set percentage of the trade goods in the province, which is obviously further affected by upgrades to the Trader. It never seems to match the trade value in the startpos files. I forgot this earlier when I described the income from trading with other provinces. You never get the full trade goods value, but the cost per good always appears to be the same whether trading with your own province or others via a port. To reiterate:

1) Land locked provinces cannot trade with each other in any way. If you build the trader in e.g. Syria you will get one complete export trade income from the all of the goods there. This is internal Trade within the Province itself (Syria Trading with Syria not with any neighours whether allied neutral or your own provinces)

2) When a province with trade goods builds a trader that province gets a default standard trade income called "local trade" that is the same value as if you'd traded all of those same goods to another allied or neutral province, that accepts all of those goods, by sea.

3) The import percentage is so low that the importers get a pittance for any goods they import. Raising this from 20% to 50% makes a small difference though it may need to go higher. This will need to be tested for game balancing.

Starting up a Russian/High campaign I built the Trader in Muscovy for 800 florins, the only trade good, furs, is worth 20 florins. The startpos file sets this as 40. Upgrading to the Merchant cost me 1000 forins and I'm now making 24 florins. The Merchants guild costs me 1200 and now I'm making 30 florins. The final upgrade, the Master Merchant, costing 1400 florins has raised the income from furs to 34 florins, but not the 40 in the startpos text file. So is this some kind of seed number or a percentage? Is it 40 percent of something + whatever the traders and their upgrades give, or something else? I'm not sure. In total the outlay was 4400 for the trading buildings, so the Russians just need to wait 220 years for it to pay for itself then they sit back and enjoy the 34 florins per year. :inquisitive:

So really most of those landlocked trade goods need to go, in case the AI goes and blows a few thousand on traders... The other alternative would be to increase the number of Landlocked trade goods and encourage the AI to build the traders more. With more goods the incomes do get quite sizable. Syria for example is, sort of worthwhile, once it aquires those extra goods.

The build prod file contains not info pertaining to the nature of the trader structures. They are labelled as "TRADING_POST" type structures and nohing more. There is nothing in the file to relate to the extra income produced by the upgrades. This must be hardcoded. The game engine possibly recognises that the buildings are in a province and adjust the incomes. There is also nothing in the dependencies info about building conditions, so this must also be hardcoded...


Some good ideas there. Timber mills (for Forestry) could help benefit the HRE, as well as some of the northern and eastern provinces on the map. Would you limit iron mines to the provinces that currently have iron (a majority of which are in Iberia), or do you think you'd expand them?

...Mines have the resources column, which they depend upon in order to be built, then the building itself generates a set income stored in the build prod file. Based on that I can have various types of new mines up and going very quickly, just need good historically based ideas and locations!.

The Iron mines would be added to provinces that already have Iron, or the whole thing could be done differently...

At the moment the Metalsmith depends directly on Iron. This could be restructured as follows:

Metalsmith (and upgrades)
Dependency: Iron Mine

Iron Mine (and it's upgrade "Iron Mine Complex")
Dependency: Iron (Ore) Resource

This way we have slotted in a new structure that also gives an income. Then, as I've said in the previous post, Iron resources could be made more plentiful to inlcude about half the provinces (As I've said I need some assistance as to where they should be located as I want them as historical as possible, as well as balanced). Iron was a necessary component of steel, which was used extensively throughout the medieval world for arms and armour of all kinds, so just having it in a few provinces is daft. I think the representation in the game is of "famous steel" (e.g. Toledo steel in particular), abstracting other deposits out. The Toledo Steel thing can still be preserved by only allowing the Spanish (Castilian Leonese) to produce the last Metalsmith upgrade.


I think the build requirements you propose are pretty reasonable, except I wonder if needing an Armourers Guild is maybe a little high. Given that you need a Citadel to build it, it seems likely that by the time a Danish player had constructed all the necessary buildings to train Huscarles, the Early period would be nearly over. (Unless my math is way off, upgrading your castle to a Citadel, along with building the other structures, would take around 60 years. And that's if you didn't build anything else!)

So unless you were planning on making Huscarles trainable in both Early and High--which I wouldn't recommend, and I don't think that's what you had in mind anyway--I would ask if perhaps the requirement ought to be lowered from an Armourers Guild to an Armourers Workshop. I doubt anyone would have a major problem with having to tech up a good bit before training Huscarles, but they should still be trainable for a reasonable period of time before the Early period expires.

I agree. The requirement for a castle is sufficient. That's done. :2thumbsup:


Sorry if I sound like I'm trying to boss you around and tell you what to do, btw. I just do my best to give input, but I know I come across the wrong way sometimes. ~:rolleyes:

That's not a problem. I really appreciate all of the input from all of the members in this thread! The rest of the traitors have obviously sneaked off to play M2TW!! :furious3:

Now, for the latest. The Yeoman Cavalry are in. I haven't tested them yet but they do work (I hate adding units, it's very tedious and I always forget something or make a typo somewhere).

The next thing to do is change the shipping costs. I've done the ports and shipyards already, but the ships themselves I've overlooked! So I need to do those next.

After that, down the mines!

Then it's the trade and farm balancing act.

We should have a testing version ready by next week. The whole thing is mainly text files but a few unit icons (renamed replicas not originals) need to be added also. Because of this I can't Really just post up the text files and allow people to just generate their own txt files from that, so it will have to be contained in a zip file. I should be able to host it early next month, once my internet connection is working again. I can't FTP into my ISP webspace from this connection, it won't allow it.

Geezer57
11-25-2006, 15:42
Hi all! I've been lurking in this thread from the beginning, following the discussions with interest. The work you've done sounds fascinating. One question: when you feel these changes are complete enough, is it going to be downloadable somewhere as a mod? I'd love to play with it when the day comes. :2thumbsup:

naut
11-25-2006, 16:35
As you've made Pikemen Town Watch(3) dependant, have you left Halberdiers Town Watch(3) dependant?

caravel
11-25-2006, 18:07
Hi all! I've been lurking in this thread from the beginning, following the discussions with interest. The work you've done sounds fascinating. One question: when you feel these changes are complete enough, is it going to be downloadable somewhere as a mod? I'd love to play with it when the day comes. :2thumbsup:

Once the changes are complete, and my webhosting is back up and running their will be a zip file available for download. This will be the testing version, and only those interested in taking part in testing should install. I'm hoping at that stage that we will get alot of feedback on any changes or tweaks that need to be made. The more people on board the better, as to the name, I hadn't thought about that as yet. Naming such a mod may seem a bit self indulgent and over the top when you consider that this is no where near the scale of mods such as BKB, NTW, HTW or XL. This is more of a patch than anything. I would like to get as much historical accuracy in as possible but I'm no historian. And any history I do read up on tends not to be military based, so though I understand somewhat about e.g. the Byzantine economic and social history, I'm not aware of what shape of helmet was worn by their infantry between 1090 and 1100, for example. My other focus is gameplay. Achieving a better balance and strengthening the AI's position is a priority. The more people involved the better. If people don't understand modding it's not a problem, ideas and information are more important.

:bow:


As you've made Pikemen Town Watch(3) dependant, have you left Halberdiers Town Watch(3) dependant?

I have. Though Pikeman are only available in Late, so Halberdiers will appear first. I could still make the Pikeman available in Late if I was to lower the build requirement for the Town Watch(4) to a Citadel. At present the depencies are as follows:

TOWN_WATCH - CASTLE
TOWN_WATCH2 - CASTLE4,TOWN_WATCH
TOWN_WATCH3 - CASTLE10, TOWN_WATCH2
TOWN_WATCH4 - CASTLE13, TOWN_WATCH3

They could be restructured like this:

TOWN_WATCH - CASTLE
TOWN_WATCH2 - CASTLE4,TOWN_WATCH
TOWN_WATCH3 - CASTLE7, TOWN_WATCH2
TOWN_WATCH4 - CASTLE10, TOWN_WATCH3

CASTLE7 is the Castle, which was previously not a dependency for the TOWN_WATCH buildings. The previous dependencies were Fort, Keep, Citadel, Fortress. Using this method, the dependency for Pikemen can be changed back to the TOWN_WATCH4.

It seems to me that alot of effort was made to stop the factions from obtaining pikemen and halberdiers too early and in large numbers. This is rather silly because neither are elite troops, and neither are that good, and both are era restricted anyway. I preferred chivalric foot knights (train 20 man units of Royal Knights and dismount before battle) to halberdiers and Chivalric Sergeants to Pikemen. They just don't seem worth the effort with the old dependencies, now with the revised ones I feel I might use them more. (and hopefully the AI will also)

The summary should be updated later with the homelands so far. That is going to be a big job because I'll need to add all of the rest of the units in the game to the list.

caravel
12-11-2006, 09:31
They're basically the same as a mine, except with a different name and depending on the forest resource instead of e.g. silver or salt.

naut
12-11-2006, 09:47
Just something I've stumbled upon in my own research, as this was brought up about a page ago.

Huscarls is the Saxon/English name, the appropriate Norse/Danish name is Butsecarles. Cnut copied their style of fighting from the Saxon Huscarl style of fighting, and then it was implemented across Scandinavia.

Also Heerthmen/Hirdmen are completely different to Butsecarles. Hirdmen would fight with swords, Butsecarles with axes. But the most interesting thing is that they first appeared as a fighting body between 995 - 1035 and the Vikings began to fade out with the advent of cavalry and civilisation in the late 1100s; entirely appropriate for the Early period.

Innocentius
12-11-2006, 16:03
Hirdmen would fight with swords[...]

Well, that really depends. The axe was the weapon favoured in Scandinavia well into the 12th century, and there was no specified "dressing code" for hirdmän, so it's equally possible that a hirdman wielded a sword or an axe. It was quite common that hirds worked as small dragoon units, riding to the battle but fighting on foot.

Innocentius
12-11-2006, 16:20
While I'm at it, I might just mention what I know about hirds, if it could be to any use.

Hirds were small bodies of men, used as personal protection to a certain person. Hirdmän/hirdmen were mostly sons of some nobleman, but who were the third or fourth son in line, preventing them from gaining any profitable heritage, or making them "unmarriable". They could of course be bastards (frillosöner) but that wasn't really a disadvantage untill the 13th or 14th century, when christianty had finally rooted properly.
Anyway, these sons or heirs tended to join a hird for some nobleman (mostly a friend or relative to their own family). There were juridical limitations of how big a hird was allowed to be, depending on the class of the person "owning" the hird. For example, the bishop of Skara was allowed to have a 12 men strong hird, but this of course varied from time to time. The biggest hirds were in the hundred or something, IIRC.

caravel
12-11-2006, 22:01
Rythmic and Innocentius have obviously done alot of research into this, so I will be happy to impliment in the mod whichever they can agree on. Again though, remember how I broke down the viking units in the game before then named them fitting to their appearance, arms and stats. I do think that the old Thralls should stay as they are at present (Carls), and the that the Old "Vikings" should be the Drangar (the younger more inexperiences warriors). The Landsmenn should remain as the Tegnar (the Thegns, older more veteran warriors) as that really does fit their stats and info pic. The Huscarles I don't really know about, but I've decided to leave them in there for gameplay reasons. I haven't kicked Nizari (Nizari Foot Soldiers), AUM (Andalusian Infantry) and Hashishin (Fedayeen) out so I suppose I can't boot out the Huscarles either. Perhaps both Huscarles and Hirdmen need to be in the game? A new unit based on Landsmenn with the old Viking Carls info pic could possibly be used for Hirdmen? I think there is another also for the Early Varangian Guards, but I can't remember that one. Either way it's likely to be axe wielding.

Another thing is the unit sizes. The Carls would have been in large numbers, the Drangar in moderate numbers and the others in small numbers. The Huscarles perhaps only in scalable 20 man units?

naut
12-12-2006, 01:55
Well, that really depends. The axe was the weapon favoured in Scandinavia well into the 12th century, and there was no specified "dressing code" for hirdmän, so it's equally possible that a hirdman wielded a sword or an axe.
Yes, I was just generalising (it is called the Dane axe or Viking axe for a reason :laugh4:)


It was quite common that hirds worked as small dragoon units, riding to the battle but fighting on foot.
Yeah, a tactic also used alot by German(ic) peoples of the Era.


Hirds were small bodies of men, used as personal protection to a certain person. Hirdmän/hirdmen were mostly sons of some nobleman, but who were the third or fourth son in line, preventing them from gaining any profitable heritage, or making them "unmarriable". They could of course be bastards (frillosöner) but that wasn't really a disadvantage untill the 13th or 14th century, when christianty had finally rooted properly.
Anyway, these sons or heirs tended to join a hird for some nobleman (mostly a friend or relative to their own family). There were juridical limitations of how big a hird was allowed to be, depending on the class of the person "owning" the hird. For example, the bishop of Skara was allowed to have a 12 men strong hird, but this of course varied from time to time. The biggest hirds were in the hundred or something, IIRC.
That fills in the gaps of my knowledge. IIRC there were possibly never more than 2000 Hirds across Scandinavia, but I'm not entirely sure of this.


Huscarles perhaps only in scalable 20 man units
For gameplay reasons it sounds like a good idea.

Martok
12-12-2006, 01:58
Another thing is the unit sizes. The Carls would have been in large numbers, the Drangar in moderate numbers and the others in small numbers. The Huscarles perhaps only in scalable 20 man units?
Hmm, that might work. It would also help them from being being so overpowered on the "Normal" unit setting, since they wouldn't have 60 men anymore.

How would you make them scalable, btw? Would it be similar to what you did with converting the RK's to Feudal/Chivalric/Lancers?

caravel
12-12-2006, 09:46
Well they're already scalable. The only non scalable units in the vanilla game are the 20 man Bodyguard units as far as I know. I just put the word scalable in there in case anyone thought I was going to make then non scalable (20 mem no matter what unit size you select). :2thumbsup:

caravel
12-12-2006, 22:26
I've been reading (and posting) in a thread in the modding forum and I has got me thinking. The Tavern/Brothel structure is just wrong for the muslim factions. I feel that they need to replaced with a single building and it's upgrades, based around the harem principle, that trains both types of units and ultimately a kind of "muslim princess" that can be married off to your generals and princes to improve loyalty and produce heirs. I think this is possible, though I can't guarantee it yet. This would be better than muslims having princesses, which wouldn't be realistic.

naut
12-12-2006, 23:01
It is possible. Patrick made trainable princesses (he called them Seductresses) for the Muslim factions, which is downloadable from 3D downloads I think.

To save you some time and effort, have an almost finished building stat.


3 HAREM "Harem1, Harem2, Harem3, Harem4" AGENT_PRODUCER "1300,1500,1700,1900" "6,6,8,10" "{CASTLE},{CASTLE4,HAREM},{CASTLE7,HAREM2},{CASTLE10,HAREM3}" "Office Level 1, Office Level 2, Office Level 3, Office Level 4" "POVERTY_STRICKEN(5), DESPERATE_DEFENCE(30), CATHOLIC_EXPANSIONIST(80), CATHOLIC_NAVAL_EXPANSIONIST(80), CATHOLIC_TRADER(120), CATHOLIC_CRUSADER_TRADER(120), CATHOLIC_EXPANSIONIST_CRUSADER(80), CATHOLIC_DEFENSIVE_CRUSADER(100), POPE(150), CATHOLIC_DEFENSIVE(100), CATHOLIC_ISOLATIONIST(50), ORTHODOX_DEFENSIVE(120), ORTHODOX_EXPANSIONIST(120), ORTHODOX_STAGNANT(200), MUSLIM_PEACEFUL(50), MUSLIM_EXPANSIONIST(100), MUSLIM_DEVOUT(100), BARBARIAN_RAIDER(10), REBELS(100), CLOSE_TO_SUPPORT_LIMIT(0), POVERTY_STRICKEN(7.5), DESPERATE_DEFENCE(45), CATHOLIC_EXPANSIONIST(120), CATHOLIC_NAVAL_EXPANSIONIST(120), CATHOLIC_TRADER(180), CATHOLIC_CRUSADER_TRADER(180), CATHOLIC_EXPANSIONIST_CRUSADER(120), CATHOLIC_DEFENSIVE_CRUSADER(150), POPE(225), CATHOLIC_DEFENSIVE(150), CATHOLIC_ISOLATIONIST(75), ORTHODOX_DEFENSIVE(180), ORTHODOX_EXPANSIONIST(180), ORTHODOX_STAGNANT(300), MUSLIM_PEACEFUL(75), MUSLIM_EXPANSIONIST(150), MUSLIM_DEVOUT(150), BARBARIAN_RAIDER(15), REBELS(150), CLOSE_TO_SUPPORT_LIMIT(0), POVERTY_STRICKEN(11.25), DESPERATE_DEFENCE(67.5), CATHOLIC_EXPANSIONIST(180), CATHOLIC_NAVAL_EXPANSIONIST(180), CATHOLIC_TRADER(270), CATHOLIC_CRUSADER_TRADER(270), CATHOLIC_EXPANSIONIST_CRUSADER(180), CATHOLIC_DEFENSIVE_CRUSADER(225), POPE(337.5), CATHOLIC_DEFENSIVE(225), CATHOLIC_ISOLATIONIST(112.5), ORTHODOX_DEFENSIVE(270), ORTHODOX_EXPANSIONIST(270), ORTHODOX_STAGNANT(450), MUSLIM_PEACEFUL(112.5), MUSLIM_EXPANSIONIST(225), MUSLIM_DEVOUT(225), BARBARIAN_RAIDER(22.5), REBELS(225), CLOSE_TO_SUPPORT_LIMIT(0), POVERTY_STRICKEN(16.875), DESPERATE_DEFENCE(101.25), CATHOLIC_EXPANSIONIST(270), CATHOLIC_NAVAL_EXPANSIONIST(270), CATHOLIC_TRADER(405), CATHOLIC_CRUSADER_TRADER(405), CATHOLIC_EXPANSIONIST_CRUSADER(270), CATHOLIC_DEFENSIVE_CRUSADER(337.5), POPE(506.25), CATHOLIC_DEFENSIVE(337.5), CATHOLIC_ISOLATIONIST(168.75), ORTHODOX_DEFENSIVE(405), ORTHODOX_EXPANSIONIST(405), ORTHODOX_STAGNANT(675), MUSLIM_PEACEFUL(168.75), MUSLIM_EXPANSIONIST(337.5), MUSLIM_DEVOUT(337.5), BARBARIAN_RAIDER(33.75), REBELS(337.5), CLOSE_TO_SUPPORT_LIMIT(0), " NO MUSLIM "{}, {UPGRADE_VALOUR(1)},{UPGRADE_VALOUR(2)}, {UPGRADE_VALOUR(3)}" "1,2,3,4" "10,10,20"

UPDATED: Made them more expensive, longer to build and fiddled with some AI stats.

Martok
12-13-2006, 02:24
Well they're already scalable. The only non scalable units in the vanilla game are the 20 man Bodyguard units as far as I know. I just put the word scalable in there in case anyone thought I was going to make then non scalable (20 mem no matter what unit size you select). :2thumbsup:
Whoops, my bad. ~:doh: When I posted that, I was (for whatever bizarre reason) subconsciously under the delusion that they were always units of 60 men, regardless of what the unit size was set to. (I know they're not, but that's what I was thinking at the time!) :dunce:


I've been reading (and posting) in a thread in the modding forum and I has got me thinking. The Tavern/Brothel structure is just wrong for the muslim factions. I feel that they need to replaced with a single building and it's upgrades, based around the harem principle, that trains both types of units and ultimately a kind of "muslim princess" that can be married off to your generals and princes to improve loyalty and produce heirs. I think this is possible, though I can't guarantee it yet. This would be better than muslims having princesses, which wouldn't be realistic.
Hmm; fascinating. I rather like the concept. Wouldn't that be somewhat unbalanced in favor of the Muslim factions, though (since they would only have to construct one building for Spies/Assassins instead of two)? Or are the costs/build times increased for the Harem to equal things out?

naut
12-13-2006, 06:03
Do you think you could increase the range of longbows. Because as it is Arbalesters have similar (if not almost identical) stats. I find it pretty odd that their range is so pitiful.

caravel
12-13-2006, 11:11
Rythmic, thanks for the code. I'll try that later. :2thumbsup:

The longbow range can be extended easily IIRC. What sort of range would we be looking at though?

The Harems would have to cost more to build, probably double at every level, which is the equivalent of building both a brothel and tavern. The "Harem Women" would have to cost quite a lot as well. Probably about 1000 each and take several years to train. *cough*I envy the man that trains them!*cough*

Anyway, this would even it out somewhat as they wouldn't be easily obtainable and you wouldn't be able to spam them. I'm 100% sure that the AI would be able to use them also, in the same way it uses princesses.

Does the AI know how to marry princesses to it's own generals though?

Innocentius
12-13-2006, 13:28
Do you think you could increase the range of longbows. Because as it is Arbalesters have similar (if not almost identical) stats. I find it pretty odd that their range is so pitiful.

That can easily be fixed by just editing them in the missile units .txt-file. I did so myself a few weeks back, so in my game the LBs have longer range, higher accuracy, fire somewhat faster and are much more lethal. I also increased their ammo a little so that they'd continue firing for the same amount of time as regular archers.
This means they're somewhat overpowered, but indeed more realisitc. This makes it much easier when I'm playing as the English, which is a bit of a shame, but make them almost impossible to beat when playing as another faction.

Martok
12-13-2006, 19:48
Does the AI know how to marry princesses to it's own generals though?
Good question. I don't think I've ever seen married generals outside of my own faction, but I could be wrong. :shrug: Still, I have my doubts as to whether the AI makes effective use of princesses.

caravel
12-13-2006, 23:09
Good question. I don't think I've ever seen married generals outside of my own faction, but I could be wrong. :shrug: Still, I have my doubts as to whether the AI makes effective use of princesses.

I've been wondering about this myself. Now I may be wrong about this but I've often, playing as the Danes, been visited by a Novgorod or other faction princess, and an alliance has been formed and the princess either sat there for a few years or moved on. The important point here is that I had unmarried heirs and an unmarried faction leader, yet the AI could chose not to offer marriage in the first place and just use the princess as a free emissary, which is something that the player can't do. Now when the Ai princesses sit there they may suddenly dissappear which may mean they've been assassinated. Also the AI often dumps princesses in a neighbouring province and leaves them there. e.g. the Danes often leave loads of them in Saxony. It seems to me that the AI can decide what it wants to do with it's princesses, but often reaches some kind of an obstacle that prevents it from doing any more. This may be a safeguard to prevent the AI from continuously sending them around the map looking for husbands. I have also never seen a married AI general, and because of this, and the above, I doubt the AI is coded to do it.

Edit: -

I've added the Harems and the Harem Women, and they work. These can be married to generals with no problems, but if married to your own princes can cause the secret incest vice. They can also be sent off to other factions to propose marriage.

I'd also just noticed something I'd completely forgotten about, a relic from MTW 1.0/1.1. The original tavern and brothel. These look islamic for the muslim faction and orthodox for the orthodox, instead of all looking catholic as they do now. If I could get my head around this bif editing I'd have a go at creating a set of bifs for all of the brothels and taverns, and a muslim version, containing both symbols, for the Harem.

Just need to fix the language files for the Harem Women now, and the portraits. For the info pic I may have to use the same as the building as there is no princess info pic (the one in the folder is called princess.bif but is in fact genoese sailors).

macsen rufus
12-16-2006, 14:08
the one in the folder is called princess.bif but is in fact genoese sailors

NOT something I'd like to try explaining to a Genoese sailor :laugh4:

caravel
12-16-2006, 20:59
NOT something I'd like to try explaining to a Genoese sailor :laugh4:

:laugh4:

Summary updated: Link (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1256747&postcount=39)

There are now a few more things left to do. The Harem womens portraits will probably be the existing princess' ones for now. I may look into finding some others.

Arabic and Turkish woman's names for the harem women are needed.

More ideas for catholic homelands are needed, i.e. for Gothic Knights and other specific units. There are certain catholic units that I won't be able to restrict, i.e. feudal sergeants. (Sergeants), these are so widespread that I would have to enter nearly ever province on the map except the deserts. I've tried doing this before with another units and I think that the number of provinces crashed the game.

Novgorod and the Russians. What to do with them? I'm against adding another real Novgorod faction at present. I'm thinking of leaving them as they are unless anyone comes up with another idea.

Longbow ranges. What sort of range would be best?

Innocentius
12-16-2006, 22:21
These are my LB stats if it's to any help:

Length: 25
(Freq: 11)
Range: 7500
Velocity: 175
Accuracy: 0.7
Lethality: 0.75
Power: 1
Armour Mod: 0.5

I also edited their ammo to 30 in the "Units file" (can't remember the name, something with crusader though).

Be warned that this makes the LBs (that's all LBs - like Welsh Longbowmen - not just longbowmen) quite imba unless you edit all the other missile units as well, although more realistic. Under all circumstances they should be able to out-reach arbalesters, if even slightly (perhaps only by 500 points, giving them a range of 6500).

I'd be glad to help with the homelands if I only new more exaclty what it was about, it makes feel stupid but I'm not actually sure of what you're talking about~;)

Good work on the mod anyway! ~:cheers:

caravel
12-16-2006, 23:33
These are my LB stats if it's to any help:

Length: 25
(Freq: 11)
Range: 7500
Velocity: 175
Accuracy: 0.7
Lethality: 0.75
Power: 1
Armour Mod: 0.5
I can try those stats in the first release and see how it goes.

I also edited their ammo to 30 in the "Units file" (can't remember the name, something with crusader though).
crusaders_unit_prod11.txt

Be warned that this makes the LBs (that's all LBs - like Welsh Longbowmen - not just longbowmen) quite imba unless you edit all the other missile units as well, although more realistic. Under all circumstances they should be able to out-reach arbalesters, if even slightly (perhaps only by 500 points, giving them a range of 6500).
The welsh longbowmen won't be an issue as the mod is for vanilla MTW/Vi and not XL. :2thumbsup:

I'd be glad to help with the homelands if I only new more exaclty what it was about, it makes feel stupid but I'm not actually sure of what you're talking about~;)
The homelands are basically the provinces where units can be trained. Examples of exisiting homelands would be Scotland for the highland Clansmen or the desert provinces for the Bedouin camels. I am proposing to extend this and add homelands for most other units. I have done this for many units already. If you look towards the bottom of the summary you can see them.

Good work on the mod anyway! ~:cheers:
:bow:

naut
12-17-2006, 01:19
Innocentius, you think thats uber. I have them at 9000 Range and Armour mod 0.35. I never play as the English anywho so all it does is hamper my expansion.

Innocentius
12-17-2006, 01:37
Hehe, although the range has no really positive effect unless you alter the Velocity to something similar (like 190). I have tried to edit them to Accuracy: 1 and Lethality: 0.99. Let's just say that wasn't even funny. It was just bloody.

caravel
12-18-2006, 16:58
The Harem .bifs (building graphics) are now finished and the harems are working. The harem is a single building tavern/brothel for the muslim factions only. The Harem will cost twice as much as the tavern/brothel and the build times will be different, getting steeper as it is upgraded. The VI tavern and brothel will no longer be available to them. So far I have these, rather poor, names: Harem, Great Harem, Grand Harem, Sultan's Harem. Any ideas on better names would be appreciated. Ideas such as "Caravel's Escort Agency" will not be considered. The Sultan's Harem allows the training of Harem Women, a kind of princess, that can be trained for 1500 florins and married to one of your lucky generals, or sent off to woo a rival faction leader. The only things left to find for these are some portraits. I have some names I can now work with thanks to Martok and LEN.

:2thumbsup:

caravel
01-05-2007, 22:56
As I had mentioned in another thread. I was planning a review of all crossbow units as follows:

Crossbows:
All Periods
All Factions

Arbalests:
High/Late Era
Catholic and Orthodox

Pavise Crossbows:
Late Era
Catholic (excluding Danes, Hungarians and Poles)

Pavise Arbalests:
Late Era
Catholic (excluding Danes, Hungarians and Poles)

Mounted Crossbows:
All Periods
Holy Roman Empire, Hungarians, Italians, Burgundian, Swiss, Polish, Russian, Novgorod.

Mounted Crossbows are unchanged, I've placed them there for consistency, and also I was wondering if anyone had any more historical data as to when and where they were used? At present they've been placed in a geographical area stretching from the German and Italian provinces, eastwards into Russia.

Also I've been looking at some of the influence factors that makes the AI train certain troops, specifically siege weapons. For those familiar with the crusaders file, I'm referring to columns 15 and 18 in particular.

With some tweaks here and with some other stat changes, i may be able to achieve the following:

1) Reduce the number of ballistas trained by the AI
2) Increase the units size of Al-Muwahhidun Infantry to 100 and cause the AI to use them as a spear unit, not a flanker. This would effectively make them a better version of Feudal Sergeants with higher honour and a stronger charge.

More homelands:

1) Nubian Spearmen could be unassigned from the Almoravid/Almohad/Marinid faction and they would keep the Al-Muwahhidun Infantry as their one and only spear unit (except square shield spearmen) throughout the campaign. The Moorish dynasties had pretty much nothing to do with Nubia historically so Nubian Spearmen belong moreso to the Egyptians anyway. The Nubians would have been only trainable in Egypt, though for gameplay reasons they could be also available in Cyrenacia and the Sinai. I feel that the Nubians should in fact be a hybrid spear/javelin unit. I'm not entirely sure how to do this however, as it involves changing their animations. I'm not sure if the sprite used for the abyssinnians and nubians has the javelin throwing animation frames, I doubt it.
2) Abysinnian Guards would only be available in Egypt and Arabia.

Also I've noticed that the Byzantine are still surging through Europe like an unstoppable war machine. The addition of Armoured Spearmen greatly appreciated obviously... though the real issue is the many starred Kataphraktoi princes of course.

Innocentius
01-06-2007, 00:52
Perhaps Pavise Crossbowmen should be available to the Catholic factions in Early as well, IIRC, Richard Coeur de Lion used pavise crossbowmen in his army during the third crusade.

caravel
01-06-2007, 17:23
I had allways believed them to be 13th century. I can't find any record of them occurring before that. They apparently originated out of Pavia in northern italy, hence the valour bonus in Milan.

Innocentius
01-06-2007, 18:12
Crossbowmen among the Flemish citizens,[10] in the army of Richard Lionheart, and others, had two servants, two crossbows and a pavise shield to protect the men. One of the servants had the task of reloading the weapons, while the second subordinate would carry and hold the pavise (the archer himself also wore protective armor). Such a three-man team could shoot 8 shots per minute, compared to a single crossbowman's 3 shots per minute. The archer was the leader of the team, the one who owned the equipment, and the one who received payment for their services. The payment for a crossbow mercenary was higher than for a longbow mercenary, but the longbowman did not have to pay a team of assistants and his equipment was cheaper.

I think it's in the Osprey book about the Third Crusade as well.

caravel
01-06-2007, 18:29
Wikipedia I wouldn't trust entirely, as it can be publically edited. I've seen some glaring errors in Wikipedia articles in the past. The Osprey books are also just picture books of soldiery throughout history AFAIW, I'm not sure how accurate they are. I'll have to look into it some more. The key question is when did the pavise orginate, and did it actually originate in pavia, or was it merely perfected there and more common. Parts of Milan and Genoa were well known for crossbow mercenaries after all. The French hired Genoese crossbows for deployment at Agincort. It may be that Pavises were starting to appear around the late 1100's but were not commonly used until the 1200's. In view of this I am thinking the high period for Pavises, Early for Crossbows themselves and Late For Arbalests.

-Edit: I've made the changes to the Nubian Spearmen and the Abysinnian Guards. I've also halved the value of trade goods. This will address the trade glut problem that some have no doubt noticed. I hadn't implimented this before as I had wanted to see how the AI handled trade after making ships and ports cheaper. It still handles it poorly of course, though there is more shipping. I want trade to work as a bonus income that gives a faction the edge, not as the mainstay.

I've also reduced Byzantine Infantry to normal sized sword infantry units. Now that the Byzantine have Armoured Spearmen they no longer need those oversized Byantine Infantry (which are a fantasy unit anyway btw). From the Early period the Byzantine are getting economically bloated. The developers seemed to know this and gave them the provinces that they controlled historically but with no buildings. I have just been facing off against them as the Italians (in the end it got boring so I gave up). Their armies consisted mainly of Treb Archers, Archers, UM, Spearmen, Slav Warriors and The Kat princes of course. They had stormed south against the Egytians and Turks and westwards against the Hungarians, Poles and Germans, using only those types of troops. An occasional unit of Pronoiai Allagion, Byz Lancers or Byz Infantry turned up, but not in large numbers. Again the problem is the high command royalty. I may edit these next. I may also make Armenia a low loyalty province, to symbolise it's historic independence and place more rebel units there at the start of the early period. If necessary I may also bring the technology level in Constantinople down slighlty while placing some other buildngs in some of the other provinces.

-Edit2: No point posting again and bumping this thread it would seem. Anyway, now that I've halved the trade goods value, my trade bloating days are over. The 50% import tax means I can make a little more out of the AI's trade than I used to, and the AI is reaping the same benefits, but overall trade income is slashed. The days of bloat are over, it's now a big struggle to make ends meet. In my current Almoravid campaign, I'm having to farm and mine to squeeze out what income I can while building ships to extend my trading network further. At present it stretches from Sahara to Genoa. Portugal is not yet ready, though I've been upgrading it. Castile and Egypt are in a similar condition only having been recently taken. Despite this I would normally be making a decent living, with the halved income it's pretty poor. Certainly more challenging though.

naut
01-09-2007, 15:40
1) Nubian Spearmen could be unassigned from the Almoravid/Almohad/Marinid faction and they would keep the Al-Muwahhidun Infantry as their one and only spear unit (except square shield spearmen) throughout the campaign. The Moorish dynasties had pretty much nothing to do with Nubia historically so Nubian Spearmen belong moreso to the Egyptians anyway. The Nubians would have been only trainable in Egypt, though for gameplay reasons they could be also available in Cyrenacia and the Sinai. I feel that the Nubians should in fact be a hybrid spear/javelin unit. I'm not entirely sure how to do this however, as it involves changing their animations. I'm not sure if the sprite used for the abyssinnians and nubians has the javelin throwing animation frames, I doubt it.
You can do two things.

a) Add javelins and leave it as is, as the game will just leave them in a stationary animation by default if there are no other defined animations.
Or
b) Open the ActionPage folder (in Textures\Men) and open the NegroSpearmen file and copy the "charge" values renaming "charge" as "standing_shoot". It does not make it look ungainly as when they charge they hold their spears above their heads anyhow.

caravel
01-09-2007, 15:50
You can do two things.

a) Add javelins and leave it as is, as the game will just leave them in a stationary animation by default if there are no other defined animations.
Or
b) Open the ActionPage folder (in Textures\Men) and open the NegroSpearmen file and copy the "charge" values renaming "charge" as "standing_shoot". It does not make it look ungainly as when they charge they hold their spears above their heads anyhow.
Thanks Rythmic I'll definitely try that and see how it looks. :2thumbsup:

-Edit: Working fine. The animation is ok for the job. If you get very close up and study it you can see it's not right, but from a normal distance it's hardly noticable. Thanks again. :2thumbsup:

naut
01-10-2007, 10:23
Thanks Rythmic I'll definitely try that and see how it looks. :2thumbsup:

-Edit: Working fine. The animation is ok for the job. If you get very close up and study it you can see it's not right, but from a normal distance it's hardly noticable. Thanks again. :2thumbsup:
Glad to help.

axel
01-12-2007, 22:51
Hi
i got a question
5) Byzantine Infantry reduced to normal sized sword infantry units (60 men on the normal unit size, 100 on the large unit size and 120 on the Huge unit size)
how do i change the unit size?
and wich one most i download to play this mod mate? the 1.0.3.beta?

caravel
01-13-2007, 01:54
Hi
i got a question

how do i change the unit size?
and wich one most i download to play this mod mate? the 1.0.3.beta?

Go to options, performance, unit size and increase or decrease it using the slider.

Download the 1.04-beta version.

To install, extract to the "Total War" folder, not the default location as it won't work.


Update:-

I've made some stat changes to the Ottoman Sipahi. Historically elite cavalry, and mounted counterparts to the Janissary corps, in the game they are absolutely pathetic. The changes are as follows:

Training cost 300 florins
Elite
Disciplined
Armed with bows
Dismount to Ottoman Infantry
Charge +2 (6)
Melee +1 (3)
Defence +0 (3)
Armour +0 (4)
Honour +2 (4)

I've also made changes to the Ottoman Sipahis of the Porte to bring them in line the others:

Dismount to Ottoman Infantry
Charge +2 (6)
Melee +0 (3)
Defence +0 (6)
Armour +0 (7)
Honour +0 (6)

These will be in the next release.[/QUOTE]

Belisario
01-17-2007, 19:02
I play with a Spanish version of MTW and then I suspect this is the cause of the error. Could you send me via e-mail an original English version of the Loc/Eng folder?

I like the javelin armed Nubian Spearmen but from my point of view you could obtain a better result if you use the fight action coordinates to simulate the shoot animation. I'll try to summarize the method here:

1. Go into the Textures/Men/ActionsPage directory and open the NegroSpearmen.txt file. You will see a sequence of coordinates for each action of the unit (walk, run, stand, die, fight, charge). Scrool down and write standing_shoot, then copy the coordinates of the fight action and paste it bellow the standing_shoot entry.

2. Go into the Textures/Men/Items/Shield1/NegroSpearmen directory. You will see several text files which contain the movement coordinates of the shield for each action. Copy and paste the fight.txt file and rename it as sshoot.

3. Go into the Textures/Men/Items/Weapon1/NegroSpearmen directory. You will see several text files which contain the movement coordinates of the weapon for each action. Copy and paste the fight.txt file and rename it as sshoot.

There are other javelin armed units in the game like the Jobbagys or the Almughavars which don't have a bif animation for the standing_shoot action. You could follow this method to give them an improvised shoot animation.

caravel
01-19-2007, 01:09
I play with a Spanish version of MTW and then I suspect this is the cause of the error. Could you send me via e-mail an original English version of the Loc/Eng folder?
I'll try and get it hosted for you as a zip tomorrow failing that I'll email it you. PM me with your address. :2thumbsup:


I like the javelin armed Nubian Spearmen but from my point of view you could obtain a better result if you use the fight action coordinates to simulate the shoot animation. I'll try to summarize the method here:

1. Go into the Textures/Men/ActionsPage directory and open the NegroSpearmen.txt file. You will see a sequence of coordinates for each action of the unit (walk, run, stand, die, fight, charge). Scrool down and write standing_shoot, then copy the coordinates of the fight action and paste it bellow the standing_shoot entry.

2. Go into the Textures/Men/Items/Shield1/NegroSpearmen directory. You will see several text files which contain the movement coordinates of the shield for each action. Copy and paste the fight.txt file and rename it as sshoot.

3. Go into the Textures/Men/Items/Weapon1/NegroSpearmen directory. You will see several text files which contain the movement coordinates of the weapon for each action. Copy and paste the fight.txt file and rename it as sshoot.

There are other javelin armed units in the game like the Jobbagys or the Almughavars which don't have a bif animation for the standing_shoot action. You could follow this method to give them an improvised shoot animation.
Many thanks for the info, I'll try and get that in to the next release. I've just finalised the latest release now, so I won't get it into this one, it'll be the next one.

Regards

Caravel

:bow:

caravel
01-22-2007, 09:48
Some ideas from another thread and some notes:

The Grand Mosque as the Prerequisite for jihads.

Upping the cost and build times of jihads

The ribat used as a prerequisite for "fanatical" troops such as the Nizari Fedayeen, Nizari Foot Soldiers and Ghazi Infantry instead of the Mosque and Grand Mosque. Other dependencies adjusted accordingly.

The Royal Court removed from Muslim factions (redundant).

Increasing the build time and cost for crusades.

Also the chapter house to form the prerequisite for knightly orders such as the Teutonics, Templars, Hospitallers, Santiago and Order foot soldiers in provinces where the orders were based historically.

Units such as the order knights, foot soldiers and fanatics modded to determine how likely they are to appear in crusades, to give slightly stronger crusades.

Other possibilities needing more input:

Removing the unique status of the Grand Mosques and Cathedrals. As the GM will no longer be a prerequisite for either the Military Academy or the Nizari Foot Soldiers, it would make sense to allow multiples to be built. The cost and build time could also be slightly reduced. The Cathedral could also be modded in this way.

Belisario
01-22-2007, 18:29
Another idea

Revise the look of the Ghulam Bodyguards:

-EarlyGhulamBGs: remove the kite shield and give them the wooden round shield which remains unused in the MailHCav.bif

-HighGhulamBGs: don't need changes, they have a nice Muslim look :2thumbsup:

-LateGhulamBGs: really need a urgent change, a Muslim cavalryman (and horse) with a Gothic armour?! I propose the same look of the HighGhulamBGs but with mail horse armour (the same horse armour of the Khwarazmians or the Kataphraktoi; I don't remember its bif's name). The golden round shield of the Faris also would be nice. And for the Unit Icons you could use the Khwarazmians icons.

PD: The correct spelling of archers in Greek is Toxotai.

caravel
01-22-2007, 20:30
Another idea

Revise the look of the Ghulam Bodyguards:

-EarlyGhulamBGs: remove the kite shield and give them the wooden round shield which remains unused in the MailHCav.bif

-HighGhulamBGs: don't need changes, they have a nice Muslim look :2thumbsup:

-LateGhulamBGs: really need a urgent change, a Muslim cavalryman (and horse) with a Gothic armour?! I propose the same look of the HighGhulamBGs but with mail horse armour (the same horse armour of the Khwarazmians or the Kataphraktoi; I don't remember its bif's name). The golden round shield of the Faris also would be nice. And for the Unit Icons you could use the Khwarazmians icons.
Superb ideas, I agree completely. :2thumbsup:

PD: The correct spelling of archers in Greek is Toxotai.
Thanks for spotting that one. :bow:

Martok
01-22-2007, 22:03
Some ideas from another thread and some notes:

The Grand Mosque as the Prerequisite for jihads.

Upping the cost and build times of jihads

The ribat used as a prerequisite for "fanatical" troops such as the Nizari Fedayeen, Nizari Foot Soldiers and Ghazi Infantry instead of the Mosque and Grand Mosque. Other dependencies adjusted accordingly.

The Royal Court removed from Muslim factions (redundant).

Increasing the build time and cost for crusades.

Also the chapter house to form the prerequisite for knightly orders such as the Teutonics, Templars, Hospitallers, Santiago and Order foot soldiers in provinces where the orders were based historically.

Units such as the order knights, foot soldiers and fanatics modded to determine how likely they are to appear in crusades, to give slightly stronger crusades.
Of course I support you on these changes, although again I urge caution with upping the costs of Jihads -- we don't want to overdo it! That said, the rest sounds splendid. :2thumbsup:


Removing the unique status of the Grand Mosques and Cathedrals. As the GM will no longer be a prerequisite for either the Military Academy or the Nizari Foot Soldiers, it would make sense to allow multiples to be built. The cost and build time could also be slightly reduced. The Cathedral could also be modded in this way.
I concur with removing their unique status. I'm not sure about reducing their costs/build times, however. Not that they're cheap or anything, but I do think they should be kept expensive enough so that one isn't tempted to spam them in every available province.

caravel
01-23-2007, 10:16
Of course I support you on these changes, although again I urge caution with upping the costs of Jihads -- we don't want to overdo it! That said, the rest sounds splendid. :2thumbsup:
Upping the costs of jihads would only be a small increase. The main increase I want is in the build time. That should be about 4 years. I want to ensure that a Jihad cannot be used as a quick way to break a short siege. Crusades would have to be about 6 years build time, I'm thinking. Anything more than that would effect the AI taking advantage of "the pope has called for a crusade against" offers, as by the time it had built the crusade and got going, the situation may have changed entirely.

I concur with removing their unique status. I'm not sure about reducing their costs/build times, however. Not that they're cheap or anything, but I do think they should be kept expensive enough so that one isn't tempted to spam them in every available province.
I was thinking of trimming off only 2 years. I haven't decided on the cost yet, I may just leave them as they are. I'm thinking strongly that having them as non unique is bonus enough, one might say that making them more expensive and take longer to build would be more reasonable, and more historical.

The Unknown Guy
01-23-2007, 11:09
About jihads: could their "base units" be switched as well? I mean, crusades get crusader knights, which makes sense. Whereas jihads start with... lots of siege weapons?

Methinks they should start with Ghazi fanatical troops and the like. Maybe ghulam cavalry, or something

caravel
01-23-2007, 14:40
I have been looking into this. Ghazis, Fedayeen and Nizaris are all units I'd like to see making up the bulk of a jihad, not siege equipment archers* and peasants.

Another possibility I've been looking into is another "muslim fanatic" mujahidin unit possibly based on the muslim peasants unit, which at present only appears in jihads and revolts. Peasants have a place in feudal european society where they may appear as part of a revolt or may join a crusade in large numbers, eager for some looting. In muslim society there would not be this kind of peasant presence, due to that society not really being a wholly peasant farming society and due to religious and cultural differences. The general masses of the mujahidin would have been equipped with rudimentary weaponry, not hay forks.

The Western European Archer unit is also completely wrong for the Muslims and Byzantines, one solution would be homelands, though this would be a very long list of provinces covering much of Europe and would probably cause a crash, as it has in the past.

Another possibility would be to utilise the Desert Archers, as universal archers for all of the muslim factions, because they are much more true, as regards the type of bow and apparel, to those factions. This way the Catholics, Russians and Novgorods would have the European archers, the Byzantines would have their own Toxotai, and the Almohads and Egyptians would have exclusively the Desert Archer, with the vanilla MTW homelands removed so that it could be trained anywhere on the map. For the Turks I would simply use the Turcoman Foot soldier, which are almost similar to Desert Archers, the main difference being, IIRC, armour. For such an average unit (I'm not giving them a slating, here. They are easily one of my favourite units) as far as stats go, they require alot of teching up. Depriving the Turks of both Desert Archers and Archers would leave them with nothing whatsoever in the way of hybrid units or archers. The Futuwwa are obtainable but take some more teching up and have already been restricted to only Syria (their proper place), and the Janissaries and Ottoman Infantry won't be along until the late era. This is why the Turcoman Foot need to take place of the basic Turkish archer unit for the early era. They should be available with only the bowyer instead of the bowers guild which is far too steep a requirement.

Another thing that needs looking at is dismounts. Some units can only dismount before sieges. I feel that heavy knights need to be restricted from dismounting before battle, as it took a crane to get them into the saddle in the first place. Other types of moderately and lightly armoured, as well as unarmoured cavalry should probably always be able to dismount. This adds a bit to the tactical decisions and positioning before a battle. Dismount or not?

Don Esteban
01-23-2007, 16:46
Perhaps desert archers could get a bonus in the appropriate terrain and normal archers a bonus in temperate terrain so that both become a unit more valuable in their home areas (which is probably realistic). At the moment I can see no reason to build non-desert archers anyway - I only get them through Jihads.

caravel
01-23-2007, 17:33
Unfortunately, I'm almost 90% certain that can't be done. Bedoiun camels fight at a penalty in lush environments, and I'm sure that's hardcoded, and something to do with the camel mount type. What you say is true, no one would train vanilla archers if you've got Desert Archers. Turcoman Foot Soldiers are a better armoured, more defensive version of desert archers with 1 point less honour, apart from that they are very similar with reagards to melee and charge. Turcoman Foot cost more to build though their support costs are lower. Both can run and charge faster than Vanilla Archers.

I would improve the stats of Desert Archers to bring them slightly more in line. I would give them a 1 point morale bonus (previously 0), and raise their melee bonus to 0 (from -1).

Geezer57
01-23-2007, 19:00
Another thing that needs looking at is dismounts. Some units can only dismount before sieges. I feel that heavy knights need to be restricted from dismounting before battle, as it took a crane to get them into the saddle in the first place. Other types of moderately and lightly armoured, as well as unarmoured cavalry should probably always be able to dismount. This adds a bit to the tactical decisions and positioning before a battle. Dismount or not?
You must be mistaking jousting armor (which was indeed too heavy for normal mobility) for battle armor. No one in his right mind would go into combat wearing panoply so heavy they couldn't get up from a fall, or get back up on a horse.

A good friend of mine makes full suits of armor for re-enactors, SCA members, etc. His personal full plate regalia (made from heavier than normal gauge material, to hold up under multiple seasons of live-steel demonstrations) weights 90 lbs. He does repeated cartwheels / backflips in the course of his act, and has no trouble mounting a horse unassisted.

A well-designed suit of combat armor has the weight distributed evenly over the body, and doesn't encumber any more than obesity would. Do you think overweight people (provided they're otherwise in good shape) can't get up on a horse? At worst mounting/dismounting might benefit from having an assistant (i.e., a Page) around - but for game purposes, I wouldn't limit Knights from fighting afoot.

caravel
01-23-2007, 20:01
Very good points Geezer57, and I'm thinking that you're right of course. I would probably be a good idea to let all mounted units dismount before battle. I've never seen any reason why not, and it does beat making fuedal foot knights and chivalric foot knights as trainable units as others have done.

Geezer57
01-23-2007, 20:53
I'm just glad you're doing this mod - I'm looking forward to spending quite a bit of time with it! :2thumbsup:

FYI, here's a link to some the the videos with my friend's "armored antics": https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=%22Heavy+Metal+Combat%22&search=Search

They're pretty active for carrying all that metal around. :laugh4:

Martok
01-24-2007, 00:34
Upping the costs of jihads would only be a small increase. The main increase I want is in the build time. That should be about 4 years. I want to ensure that a Jihad cannot be used as a quick way to break a short siege. Crusades would have to be about 6 years build time, I'm thinking. Anything more than that would effect the AI taking advantage of "the pope has called for a crusade against" offers, as by the time it had built the crusade and got going, the situation may have changed entirely.
Ah, I see. Yeah, I think I like that. In addition to the points you've just made, it would also help cut down on the temptation to have mutiple Crusade/Jihad markers "on standby", ready to be unleashed at a moment's notice. (Not that *I've* ever done that.... [whistles innocently]) ~D


I'm thinking strongly that having them as non unique is bonus enough, one might say that making them more expensive and take longer to build would be more reasonable, and more historical.
That's actually what I was thinking. Cathedrals and Grand Mosques provide enough of a bonus to their respective provinces that I don't think it would be necessary to reduce their cost/build times -- not if we're removing their unique status, anyway. I agree it would be far more realistic if their build times were longer, but I also agree that simply wouldn't be practical (or more importantly, fun).

In regards to the ideas for the archers (Europeans, Muslims, and Byz each get their own), I definitely like it. :2thumbsup: I have a question, however: Did the Novs/Russians really have more traditional European archers? While I'm definitely not an expert on their military traditions, I would've thought their missile units would be closer to those of the steppe peoples (who usually used the compound bow). Am I completely off-base in thinking this?

Sensei Warrior
01-24-2007, 01:04
Not that my opinion will be the clincher here, but I'm in agreement with Geezer on this one. I remember reading a book about armour, and it had a bit about a knights training. One part said that a knight in full armour was able to leap from the ground into the saddle in one swift motion. He did something with his hands in there as well, maybe on the saddlehorn or horses hindquarters. I read it a very long time ago, as a kid fascinated on the subject of knights so the above should be taken with a grain of salt. Also the above was definately not meant as a historical hijack either. I am not a historian, I'm just giving Caravel my own take on the matter.

I think 90lbs of gear would put a knight at the same weight as the gear that their modern day counterpart would carry.

Not to mean it as a comparison, but in the past I would mod the Feudal Knights (I can't remember if there is more, as my current install wasn't tweaked) to dismount at any time.

I downloaded 1.0.4about 2 seconds before you released 1.0.5 so I think I'm gonna wait a little longer before I take a crack at it. Never fear sooner or later you will be seeing some story of mine that starts out ...So I was playing the (insert faction here) TD, Expert, PocketMod when those backstabbers the (insert evil factione here) attacked... well you get the point.

caravel
01-24-2007, 01:06
In regards to the ideas for the archers (Europeans, Muslims, and Byz each get their own), I definitely like it. :2thumbsup: I have a question, however: Did the Novs/Russians really have more traditional European archers? While I'm definitely not an expert on their military traditions, I would've thought their missile units would be closer to those of the steppe peoples (who usually used the compound bow). Am I completely off-base in thinking this?
The Russians and Novgorod need a different archer infopic, the bulgarian brigand one would probably do the job, but it's just cosmetic really. I'm not entirely sure about the use of foot archers among the those factions, I'm pretty sure the mounted archers would have been much more common.

I've just run almost every change so far for 1.0.6 . This is going to be a big one, but it's not ready yet. The only thing left to do for the changes suggested so far is to change the Ghulam Bodyguard's shields around.
:2thumbsup:

-Edit: @Sensei Warrior: I have made all cavalry dismountable.

Sensei Warrior
01-24-2007, 01:51
In regards to the ideas for the archers (Europeans, Muslims, and Byz each get their own), I definitely like it. :2thumbsup: I have a question, however: Did the Novs/Russians really have more traditional European archers? While I'm definitely not an expert on their military traditions, I would've thought their missile units would be closer to those of the steppe peoples (who usually used the compound bow). Am I completely off-base in thinking this?

Alot of steppe nomad people migrated through their territories. The Hungarians (or Magyars) improved on the design of a compound bow used by the Huns, so the idea isn't completely unrealistic.

Caravels idea about a bulgarian brigand looking archer would fit the bill even if it was only cosmetic. The Mongolian Foot Warrior is also something similar looking. You could be evil and give them the longbow as their missile weapon, a good number of bows in that area of the world were able to pierce armour. The English just managed to get all the good press.

Not that CA is an authority but they do give them the Vanilla Archers, so maybe an Archer type unit isn't totally off base. You could also be equally cruel and make it their only foot unit (no xbows, arbs or pavise of any kind). Just a thought.

EDIT:

-Edit: @Sensei Warrior: I have made all cavalry dismountable.

Cool. A wise decision. ~;)

caravel
01-24-2007, 10:42
Caravels idea about a bulgarian brigand looking archer would fit the bill even if it was only cosmetic. The Mongolian Foot Warrior is also something similar looking. You could be evil and give them the longbow as their missile weapon, a good number of bows in that area of the world were able to pierce armour. The English just managed to get all the good press.
Renaming the brigands and using them as an archer unit for the russians, poles, hungarians and novgorod may make more sense. As they are, they're not alot of use. I'm not sure of a name as yet. The Mongol "warriors" would be fine as Steppe Archers, though I would only make them available through dismount. There isn't any real need for these as there are no real steppe factions, such as the Volga Bulgars, in the game only the mongols - the rest are all rebels - so it is probably pointless.

The Unknown Guy
01-24-2007, 13:47
(Methinks compound bows should be armor piercing, too -agreeing with SW)

Was going to comment, a bug I discovered in the previous version (not the last one): The harem woman gives your princes the "incest" point.

Another thing, about the desert archers/regular archers change: while it´s not much trouble for byzantium, it would be for the muslim factions, as they wouldn´t be able to rise horse archers outside the desert, and both Turkey and (specially) the Almohads have or can have potentially a lot of non-desert provinces. In the latter case, you can even lose all your desert provinces and survive (and flourish) keeping Spain. You´d limit almohad unit building in Spain to urban milita, spearmen, and Andalusian Militia that way.

Another suggestion: since France does not get any unique unit barring the shared hobbilar, maybe they should get gothic knights along with Germany and Italy?

caravel
01-24-2007, 14:36
(Methinks compound bows should be armor piercing, too -agreeing with SW)
Good point, maybe with not as long a range as the longbow though? I'll need some more input on this one.

Was going to comment, a bug I discovered in the previous version (not the last one): The harem woman gives your princes the "incest" point.
I know about that one. It will always be there as it's hardcoded. I can change the wording to make it a generic "improper or scandalous relationship" vice ("He is having an improper relationship with a commoner, servant, courtesan or family member" etc etc etc), but they will always get the vice.

Another thing, about the desert archers/regular archers change: while it´s not much trouble for byzantium, it would be for the muslim factions, as they wouldn´t be able to rise horse archers outside the desert, and both Turkey and (specially) the Almohads have or can have potentially a lot of non-desert provinces. In the latter case, you can even lose all your desert provinces and survive (and flourish) keeping Spain. You´d limit almohad unit building in Spain to urban milita, spearmen, and Andalusian Militia that way.
The vanilla horse archers can be raised in any provinces. I don't think I've set any homelands for them? They probably should be restricted to the desert near east, steppes and eastern europe though. This is one that I need to set the boundaries for. The desert archers, as I've said could be modded as trainable in any provinces. Personally I don't see it as a problem. I do think that if in some provinces where cultural differences are very defined levy spearmen and militias should be the only units available. Archers take a lot of training and cannot be obtained easily by the invader.

Another suggestion: since France does not get any unique unit barring the shared hobbilar, maybe they should get gothic knights along with Germany and Italy?
Well, gothic armour originated in southern germany. The Italians would have used Milanese armour, but these types of armour would have come into use in the 16th century, outside the timeframe covered by the game, so in reality they shouldn't be there at all. Still, if they are going to be there it makes sense to allow the French to train them.

Don Esteban
01-24-2007, 14:55
Well, gothic armour originated in southern germany. The Italians would have used Milanese armour, but these types of armour would have come into use in the 16th century, outside the timeframe covered by the game, so in reality they shouldn't be there at all. Still, if they are going to be there it makes sense to allow the French to train them.

I would think some kind of unique knights unit would be more àppropriate - possibly with cheaper support or more soldiers than a traditional unit to reflect their increased access to armoured knights (rather than having better armoured knights).

Belisario
01-24-2007, 19:17
Hi Caravel, these are the instructions to change the look of the Ghulam Bodyguards:

-Early Ghulam Bodyguards; at present this unit uses a typical 12th century European kite-shaped shield like the Early Royal Knights and the Feudal Knights. You could replace this shield for a round wooden shield. It’s very simple:

1.Go into the Textures/Men/MailHCav directory and open the EarlyRoyalGhulamKnights_S text file. Delete the number 4 and write the number 2, save the file.
2.Go into the Textures/Men/Items/Shield4 directory and cut the EarlyRoyalGhulamKnights folder, then go into the Textures/Men/Items/Shield2 directory and paste it.
3.Go into the Textures/Men/Items/Shield1 directory, open the ArmenianHeavyCavalry folder and copy all the text files. Return to the Textures/Men/Items/Shield2 directory, open the EarlyRoyalGhulamKnights folder and replace all the files.

-Late Ghulam Bodyguards; from my point of view this unit need a total conversion. At present they use late European 14th century-15th century armour (both the cavalryman and the horse). My proposal would be: SMailCav for the cavalryman, EHorse for the horse, a heavy spear, and the round shield of the Faris.

1.Go into the Textures/Men/SMailCav directory, copy and paste the HighRoyalGhulamKnights_W and the Faris_S text files, and rename them as LateRoyalGhulamKnights_W and LateRoyalGhulamKnights_S respectively.
2.Go into the Textures/Men/ActionsPage directory, delete the LateRoyalGhulamKnights file, copy and paste the HighRoyalGhulamKnights file and rename it as LateRoyalGhulamKnights.
3.Go into the Textures/Men/Items/Weapon4 directory, copy and paste the HighRoyalGhulamKnights folder and rename it as LateRoyalGhulamKnights.
4.Go into the Textures/Men/Items/Shield3 directory and copy the HighRoyalGhulamKnights folder; paste it into the Textures/Men/Items/Shield4 directory and rename it as LateRoyalGhulamKnights.
5.Open the Crusaders_unit_prod11 file with the GnomeEditor, go to the LateRoyalGhulamKnights line (102) and scroll to the column 48. Substitute the entry "LAKNIGHT, YES, YES, ArmHorse" for "SMAILCAV, YES, YES, EHorse"; save the file.

Good luck and regards.

The Unknown Guy
01-24-2007, 21:02
I suppose new projectile types can be added, right? After all, the Viking Invasion expansion did that, AFAIK...

caravel
01-24-2007, 23:50
@Belisario: Working and looking very good! :bow:

@The Unknown Guy: New projectile types can be added yes. A projectile as close to the arrow fired from a compound can be created, I just need some more input, as to it's velocity and range when compared to the longbow.

The next thing to do is change the early and late Ghulam Bodyguard review panel and battle icon pics which are really equivalent to feudal knights and gothic knights. The high era Ghulam Bodyguards review panel pic looks much the same as the one for Ghulam Cavalry viewed from a different angle. I suppose that one can be left alone. The other two simply need to go. The late Ghulams will need o have their info pic replaced with for example the one for Avar Nobles (that shouldn't be in the game anyway). I should be able to modify the mongol helm. As to the first one I'm not sure, a modified and mirrored version of AHC perhaps? The info pics for Ghulam bodyguards I'm going to leave as they are.

The old Early Ghulam Bodyguards one is going to be used for Early Royal Knights and the old Royal Knights one I'm going to pass on to the Militia Cavalry. They are all the same, except that they are viewed from differing angles.

Sensei Warrior
01-25-2007, 03:39
More about Archers. I am pretty sure that MTW/VI has a set amount of bows. IIRC its ShortBow, Longbow, MtdShortbow, Crossbow, Arbalest, and Shuriken. Don't quote me, as I'm not much of a modder but I don't think the list can be expanded. If thats the case then you might have to make certain sacrifices to make it work close to the way you want it to.

Never fear as the solution is in the slot for Shuriken. Since it is a throwback from STW and not implemented in the game, you can tinker with it to make a new bow, point it to more suitable Medieval graphic images, attach it to the appropriate units, and voila, you're in business.

I remember this from a post somewhere but I can't find it. If I flubbed it then my apologies in advance. Anyways food for thought.

caravel
01-25-2007, 09:24
I'm sure I can add a new projectile in the same way that I can add a new unit, otherwise the shuriken can be used like you say. I think that was used for the battlefield ninja but can't say for sure because I can't remember ever using any.

-Edit: I've been looking at cavalry speeds. I've noticed, among other things that Gothic Knights run as fast as Muwahid Foot Soldiers!? Is that horse pulling a trailer? ("Gothic Knight and Cart"??). They also have masses of armour and defence and decent melee. This seems to be very un knightly indeed. If I'm deploying these on the field I want them to hit the enemy like a ton of bricks then back off for another charge, not slowly crawl up to the enemy hit them half heartedly then sit their meleeing. Geezer57 has all ready pointed out that the weight of gothic armour is largely myth, and they were not hoisted into the saddle as I suggested earlier, this is also a myth. I remember reading somewhere that not even jousting armour was that heavy, but was simply too awkward and cumbersome for battle. In view of this I would certainly impose a minimum gallop speed of 16 (currently 12) and a minimum cavalry charge speed of 18. (this excludes camels and infantry). This would make units like Kataphraktoi and Gothic Knights much more mobile, and realistic.

Gothic Knights also have a very poor charge bonus for their class. The charge bonus needs to be upped to 8, the same as Kataphraktoi. They should be the most powerful cavalry on the battlefield. The cost and amount of teching up needed certainly warrants this. I would also have to tweak some of their other stats to give them the edge over lancers which are currently better in every respect.

This brings us back to Kataphraktoi and Khwarazmian Cavalry. The latter essentially the former with half the charge bonus and almost twice the speed. Again, you want these types of units to charge and be effective at it, if they are horse archers a lesser charge is somewhat acceptable, but as pure heavy cavalry it is not. I would propose reducing the speed of khwarazmian down to the minimum gallop and cavalry charge level stated in the first paragraph. I would then increase the charge bonus to 8 (from 4), and then tweak the other stats to put them at a slight disadvantage to the Kataphraktoi.

The Templar Knights also have a charge bonus of just 4, which I would double to bring it in line with all other knights of the same type.

Don Esteban
01-25-2007, 13:57
The Templer charge bonus has always been ridiculous - every other knightly order is equal so why not these guys? Make playing as the crusaders irritating as foreign crusaders ge better knights than you do.

caravel
01-25-2007, 14:08
The Templer charge bonus has always been ridiculous - every other knightly order is equal so why not these guys? Make playing as the crusaders irritating as foreign crusaders ge better knights than you do.
It has to be an error, that has never been patched. I can see no valid reason as to why they are like that. All of the heavy cav need the 8 charge bonus, and the heavy cav archers need the 6 bonus, no less. The other stats can be variable within reason.

Odin
01-25-2007, 19:39
I'm sure I can add a new projectile in the same way that I can add a new unit, otherwise the shuriken can be used like you say. I think that was used for the battlefield ninja but can't say for sure because I can't remember ever using any.

-Edit: I've been looking at cavalry speeds. I've noticed, among other things that Gothic Knights run as fast as Muwahid Foot Soldiers!? Is that horse pulling a trailer? ("Gothic Knight and Cart"??). They also have masses of armour and defence and decent melee. This seems to be very un knightly indeed. If I'm deploying these on the field I want them to hit the enemy like a ton of bricks then back off for another charge, not slowly crawl up to the enemy hit them half heartedly then sit their meleeing. Geezer57 has all ready pointed out that the weight of gothic armour is largely myth, and they were not hoisted into the saddle as I suggested earlier, this is also a myth. I remember reading somewhere that not even jousting armour was that heavy, but was simply too awkward and cumbersome for battle. In view of this I would certainly impose a minimum gallop speed of 16 (currently 12) and a minimum cavalry charge speed of 18. (this excludes camels and infantry). This would make units like Kataphraktoi and Gothic Knights much more mobile, and realistic.

Gothic Knights also have a very poor charge bonus for their class. The charge bonus needs to be upped to 8, the same as Kataphraktoi. They should be the most powerful cavalry on the battlefield. The cost and amount of teching up needed certainly warrants this. I would also have to tweak some of their other stats to give them the edge over lancers which are currently better in every respect.

This brings us back to Kataphraktoi and Khwarazmian Cavalry. The latter essentially the former with half the charge bonus and almost twice the speed. Again, you want these types of units to charge and be effective at it, if they are horse archers a lesser charge is somewhat acceptable, but as pure heavy cavalry it is not. I would propose reducing the speed of khwarazmian down to the minimum gallop and cavalry charge level stated in the first paragraph. I would then increase the charge bonus to 8 (from 4), and then tweak the other stats to put them at a slight disadvantage to the Kataphraktoi.

The Templar Knights also have a charge bonus of just 4, which I would double to bring it in line with all other knights of the same type.

I have followed your pocket mod, hats off it looks very good.

I am adding my 2 cents at this point because in your post you seem to lean toward giving heavy cavalry more speed. While you might have historical precedence to back this I strongly urge you to test this in game.

A lot of the heavy horse units are heir units, and often (byzantines especially) benefit from the command value of the heir. If we add more speed to these units were really upping the anty for thier value. My main concern is the byzantines, while not impossible, thier heavy horse units are not easily defeated, with more speed added in now they can not only wipe out your melee units (via the command/jedi bonus) but when they are done with that run away from them.

Additionally I urge observation on AI behaviors with increased speed on heavy horse units (particularly heirs). Often if the AI is numerically superior the command unit will lead the frontal assault, make them faster and they arrive at your front before thier support inf units.

I wont haggle over the historical accuracy as more educated people then I can attest to it, but game balance should be considered.

my 2 cents....

Odin

Martok
01-25-2007, 20:00
-Edit: I've been looking at cavalry speeds. I've noticed, among other things that Gothic Knights run as fast as Muwahid Foot Soldiers!? Is that horse pulling a trailer? ("Gothic Knight and Cart"??). They also have masses of armour and defence and decent melee. This seems to be very un knightly indeed. If I'm deploying these on the field I want them to hit the enemy like a ton of bricks then back off for another charge, not slowly crawl up to the enemy hit them half heartedly then sit their meleeing. Geezer57 has all ready pointed out that the weight of gothic armour is largely myth, and they were not hoisted into the saddle as I suggested earlier, this is also a myth. I remember reading somewhere that not even jousting armour was that heavy, but was simply too awkward and cumbersome for battle. In view of this I would certainly impose a minimum gallop speed of 16 (currently 12) and a minimum cavalry charge speed of 18. (this excludes camels and infantry). This would make units like Kataphraktoi and Gothic Knights much more mobile, and realistic.

Gothic Knights also have a very poor charge bonus for their class. The charge bonus needs to be upped to 8, the same as Kataphraktoi. They should be the most powerful cavalry on the battlefield. The cost and amount of teching up needed certainly warrants this. I would also have to tweak some of their other stats to give them the edge over lancers which are currently better in every respect.
I whole-heartedly support this. Not that I use GK's that much, but I use the Katanks all the time in my Byz campaigns. Giving them improved speed and a higher charge value would really help keep them from becoming obsolete so quickly. (And I'm certain our HRE fans would appreciate this as well.) :2thumbsup:


This brings us back to Kataphraktoi and Khwarazmian Cavalry. The latter essentially the former with half the charge bonus and almost twice the speed. Again, you want these types of units to charge and be effective at it, if they are horse archers a lesser charge is somewhat acceptable, but as pure heavy cavalry it is not. I would propose reducing the speed of khwarazmian down to the minimum gallop and cavalry charge level stated in the first paragraph. I would then increase the charge bonus to 8 (from 4), and then tweak the other stats to put them at a slight disadvantage to the Kataphraktoi.
Sounds good, Caravel. Speaking of the Khwarazmians, did you lower their build requirements? (I haven't progressed very far enough in my current Fatamid campaign yet to tell.) I know you were going to tweak their stats a bit, but I can't remember what - if anything - we'd decided about their build requirements (other than to agree they were rather high for their mediocre abilities).


The Templar Knights also have a charge bonus of just 4, which I would double to bring it in line with all other knights of the same type.
You're right; that's pretty odd, especially since they were generally considered to be the best of the Crusading orders. :inquisitive: Glad to see you're correcting this! :2thumbsup:

caravel
01-25-2007, 23:18
I have followed your pocket mod, hats off it looks very good.
:bow:

I am adding my 2 cents at this point because in your post you seem to lean toward giving heavy cavalry more speed. While you might have historical precedence to back this I strongly urge you to test this in game.
The whole idea of this mod that at present, in the beta stage, it gets playtested. Changes are introduced and tested by those contributing. If it is found that Kataphraktoi and Gothic Knights have become too fast then they will be adjusted.

A lot of the heavy horse units are heir units, and often (byzantines especially) benefit from the command value of the heir. If we add more speed to these units were really upping the anty for thier value. My main concern is the byzantines, while not impossible, thier heavy horse units are not easily defeated, with more speed added in now they can not only wipe out your melee units (via the command/jedi bonus) but when they are done with that run away from them.
The only bodyguard heavy cavalry that I will be modding are the Kataphraktoi. They will be slightly faster and nothing more, still no where near as fast as ghulam bodyguards or chivalric knights.

Additionally I urge observation on AI behaviors with increased speed on heavy horse units (particularly heirs). Often if the AI is numerically superior the command unit will lead the frontal assault, make them faster and they arrive at your front before thier support inf units.
Ghulam Bodyguards are always faster anyway than all supporting units. The modded Kataphraktoi won't be any faster than them.

I wont haggle over the historical accuracy as more educated people then I can attest to it, but game balance should be considered.
Indeed. This mod always takes balance into consideration, as well as historical accuracy. Gameplay is also an issue.
:2thumbsup:

I whole-heartedly support this. Not that I use GK's that much, but I use the Katanks all the time in my Byz campaigns. Giving them improved speed and a higher charge value would really help keep them from becoming obsolete so quickly. (And I'm certain our HRE fans would appreciate this as well.) :2thumbsup:
Kataphraktoi already have the maximum charge value. The only thing that needs changing is their run and charge speeds.

Sounds good, Caravel. Speaking of the Khwarazmians, did you lower their build requirements? (I haven't progressed very far enough in my current Fatamid campaign yet to tell.) I know you were going to tweak their stats a bit, but I can't remember what - if anything - we'd decided about their build requirements (other than to agree they were rather high for their mediocre abilities).
The Fatimids can no longer train Khwarazmian Cavalry, only the Turks and Mongols. I haven't changed the build requirements at all. The only stat change is that they are disciplined. They will have their charge increased from 4 to 6 and will be slowed down to the same new speed as Kataphraktoi and Gothic Knights

You're right; that's pretty odd, especially since they were generally considered to be the best of the Crusading orders. :inquisitive: Glad to see you're correcting this! :2thumbsup:
:2thumbsup:

Edit: It is important to remember that, at present even with the proposed stat changes there is no reason to train Gothic Knights as all factions can already produce Lancers which are statistically better. Gothic Knights will need to surpass Lancers to be feasible. Alternatively Lancers could be removed from the HRE and Italians forcing them to tech up to Gothic Knights?? Difficult one.

Here are some stats (modified):

Chivalric and Order Knights:
Charge: 8
Melee: 5
Defense: 5
Armour: 7
Honour: 8

*Gothic Knights:
Charge: 6 (+2)
Melee: 6 (+2)
Defense: 7
Armour: 9
Honour: 8

Lancers:
Charge: 8
Melee: 5
Defense: 7
Armour: 9
Honour: 8

*Kataphraktoi:
Charge: 8
Melee: 3
Defense: 5
Armour: 7
Honour: 4

*Khwarazmian Cavaly:
Charge: 6
Melee: 4 (+1)
Defense: 5
Armour: 7
Honour: 4

*run/charge = 16/18

All others run/charge = 20/22

Lancers are better, faster and take less teching up than Gothic Knights. Lancers cost more to train and support but that's it.

Martok
01-26-2007, 00:28
Kataphraktoi already have the maximum charge value. The only thing that needs changing is their run and charge speeds.

The Fatimids can no longer train Khwarazmian Cavalry, only the Turks and Mongols. I haven't changed the build requirements at all. The only stat change is that they are disciplined.
Doh! I forgot about that. My bad. :dunce:


Edit: It is important to remember that, at present even with the proposed stat changes there is no reason to train Gothic Knights as all factions can already produce Lancers which are statistically better. Gothic Knights will need to surpass Lancers to be feasible. Alternatively Lancers could be removed from the HRE and Italians forcing them to tech up to Gothic Knights?? Difficult one.

[snip]

Lancers are better, faster and take less teching up than Gothic Knights. Lancers cost more to train and support but that's it.
Hmm. That is a quandary. I like the idea of removing Lancers for the HRE and Italians, but you're right in that the GK's will then have to equalized with Lancers somehow. Perhaps increase the build requirements for Lancers, and further lower the cost of Gothic Knights? I'm not sure. :shrug:

Sensei Warrior
01-26-2007, 01:15
Just one minor almost picky thing. MTW says that the reason why GKs charge is so low is because they don't charge with lances, all they have is Maces or Morning Stars or some type of AP melee weapon.

I guess my question is are they going to be charging with Lances or are you just upping the charge modifier?

Like I said it was rather picky, but I was just curious, in the end I don't think it'll matter either way.

caravel
01-26-2007, 01:27
Just one minor almost picky thing. MTW says that the reason why GKs charge is so low is because they don't charge with lances, all they have is Maces or Morning Stars or some type of AP melee weapon.

I guess my question is are they going to be charging with Lances or are you just upping the charge modifier?

Like I said it was rather picky, but I was just curious, in the end I don't think it'll matter either way.

That's actually a good point...

Sensei Warrior
01-26-2007, 01:39
Well, as long as I am on a roll ...

Now that I'm thinking about it, I think the Cav that have low charge values are because they aren't equipped with a lance. They attack with swords and the what not. This is especially true with mounted missile units, when they charge into melee, they typically are charging with swords drawn not Lances levelled. I can think of the Jinettes as an example of that sort of thing.

Of course you were talking about the Knightly units, but I threw the thing about the Missile Units as more of a comparison.

caravel
01-26-2007, 11:42
Well, as long as I am on a roll ...

Now that I'm thinking about it, I think the Cav that have low charge values are because they aren't equipped with a lance. They attack with swords and the what not. This is especially true with mounted missile units, when they charge into melee, they typically are charging with swords drawn not Lances levelled. I can think of the Jinettes as an example of that sort of thing.

Of course you were talking about the Knightly units, but I threw the thing about the Missile Units as more of a comparison.
Very true. The gothic Knights lack the high charge of Kataphraktoi and others due to their not wielding a lance. The problem is that historically they would have charged with lances, then switched to maces, swords or hammers for melee. In MTW there are no secondary weapons (bows are not secondary weapons, the bow is part of the unit animation, when bowmen charge and engage in melee their swords appear, once they're standing or walking, running or shooting the swords disappear and their bows are visibile again.) so there's not alot we can do about it. The horse archers are the exception. They wouldn't have charged with lances, so their charge should always be about 4. With the Gothic Knights we either assume they're equipped with lances and give them an 8 charge bonus, reduce their charge back to 4, making them pointless IMHO, or up it to 6 and increase some of their other stats. I will have to look at their dependencies and those of Lancers. I am also thinking of creating another Gothic Knights type of unit using the Late Ghulam Bodyguards unit icons (Knight in Gothic Armour). These could be Milanese Knights and allocated to the italians instead of the GKs, too late for the MTW timeframe, but then Gothic Knights are probably also too late.

Another change I've made is that Byzantine Toxotai are now clothed as Ottoman Infantry and Bulgarian Brigands instead of the old Western European Peasant Tunic Archer unit.

caravel
01-26-2007, 20:07
I've settled on these stats for Gothic Knights for now:

Gothic Knights:
Charge: 6 (+2)
Melee: 6 (+2)
Defense: 7
Armour: 9
Honour: 8

I have only increased their charge by 2 to take the lack of a lance into account. The melee I've increased to give them an edge over Lancers in that respect.

Sensei Warrior
01-26-2007, 20:10
Sounds good to me. :thumbsup: . Keep up the good work.

Martok
01-26-2007, 22:46
I've settled on these stats for Gothic Knights for now:

Gothic Knights:
Charge: 6 (+2)
Melee: 6 (+2)
Defense: 7
Armour: 9
Honour: 8

I have only increased their charge by 2 to take the lack of a lance into account. The melee I've increased to give them an edge over Lancers in that respect.
Cool. :2thumbsup: What about their build requirements? Are you going to leave them as is for now?

caravel
01-27-2007, 01:12
Cool. :2thumbsup: What about their build requirements? Are you going to leave them as is for now?
They'll be left as is for the present.

I've just finished modding Vanilla Horse archers, the result is that they no longer exist. Vanilla Horse Archers are now replaced with Desert Horse Archers (generic Berber/Arab/Saharan Horse Archer unit) and Steppe Horse Archers. Both have exactly the same stats as the old vanilla horse archers.

Desert Horse Archers are recruited in any of the desert provinces on the map from Edessa, Syria and Antioch southwards, and westwards as far as Sahara and Morocco. They can be trained by the Turks, Almohads and Egyptians. Desert Horse Archers dismount to Desert Archers.

Steppe Horse Archers can be recruited in the same provinces as Steppe Cavalry and Steppe Heavy Cavalry. They can be trained by the Mongols, Russians, Novgorod, Byzantines, Turks and Hungarians. Steppe Horse Archers dismount to Archers.

Both units have visually changed with Desert Horse Archers looking the part, and Steppe Horse Archers looking much like Steppe Cavalry but with bows of course. The info pics now suit the units perfectly.

Sensei Warrior
01-27-2007, 03:09
I thought I'd make a quick pop in regarding possible new bow types. I know you are probably not thinking about it now, but when you do:

In the repository, in the projectile stats thread, pg. 2, there is a post from GilJaySmith (one of the guys from CA) saying that you can't extend the file to add new types.

Clicky to the thread (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=13105&page=2)

Here's a link if you want the reference in context. The thread is a pretty good read, as long as you skip over the references to tactical nukes ~;) .

Anyways that's it for now. If I'm being a bother tell me to bugger off.

caravel
01-27-2007, 19:51
I thought I'd make a quick pop in regarding possible new bow types. I know you are probably not thinking about it now, but when you do:

In the repository, in the projectile stats thread, pg. 2, there is a post from GilJaySmith (one of the guys from CA) saying that you can't extend the file to add new types.

Clicky to the thread (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=13105&page=2)

Here's a link if you want the reference in context. The thread is a pretty good read, as long as you skip over the references to tactical nukes ~;) .

Anyways that's it for now. If I'm being a bother tell me to bugger off.
So it's hardcoded then... I will modify the ninja star if possible. I'm still lost as to what type of stats are needed for this projectile?

Belisario
01-27-2007, 19:58
Very true. The gothic Knights lack the high charge of Kataphraktoi and others due to their not wielding a lance. The problem is that historically they would have charged with lances, then switched to maces, swords or hammers for melee. In MTW there are no secondary weapons (bows are not secondary weapons, the bow is part of the unit animation, when bowmen charge and engage in melee their swords appear, once they're standing or walking, running or shooting the swords disappear and their bows are visibile again.) so there's not alot we can do about it.

It's true that MTW don't use secondary weapons, but this aspect can be easily moddified. The key is in the Unit_W.txt file and in the Items folder.
In the Unit_W.txt file is defined the weapon of the unit and you can add a secondary weapon here in the same way that the javelin-armed units (Jinetes, Kerns...). But you want see the secondary weapon when the unit fight in close combat. Then you need make some changes in the Items folder. On one hand suppose that our unit uses the number 4 for its first weapon, a lance. Open the Weapon4 folder and search our unit folder, open it and delete the fight.txt file. On the other hand suppose that the unit uses the number 2 for his secondary weapon, for example a sword. Open the Weapon2 folder and make a new folder with our unit name. Into this folder will be the fight.txt file of our unit based in the fight.txt file of a unit that uses the same bif but bear a melee weapon. It's very simple with the Hospitallers, Santiago Knights, Teutonics and High Royal Knights because we have the Templars for the new fight.txt file. Excuse me for my complicated explanation

naut
01-28-2007, 12:43
Good progress being made here, (more than I can say for myself). Great Work Caravel.

Sensei Warrior
01-29-2007, 03:02
So it's hardcoded then... I will modify the ninja star if possible. I'm still lost as to what type of stats are needed for this projectile?

Do you mean what types of stats you need for a new bow type? Thats up to you. You could look at the other entries to get a rough idea on how the file is set up. I suggest GnomeEditor, the file os ugly like the unit file.

If your looking for suggestions for what the stats should be, there are probably better people to ask than me, I promise.

If I missed what your asking altogether then I am confused and you'll have to clarify.

caravel
01-29-2007, 11:25
Do you mean what types of stats you need for a new bow type? Thats up to you. You could look at the other entries to get a rough idea on how the file is set up. I suggest GnomeEditor, the file os ugly like the unit file.

If your looking for suggestions for what the stats should be, there are probably better people to ask than me, I promise.

If I missed what your asking altogether then I am confused and you'll have to clarify.
That is what I would wondering. In relation to a shortbow, crossbow, longbow or arbalest how would it stand?

@Belisario: That looks to be a good idea. I may try it. It would be good to have most knights charge with a lance then switch to a mace or pole arm in melee.
:2thumbsup:

@Rythmic: It's hard going at times, but we're getting there slowly but surely. I have just changed the probability of siege equipment appearing revolts again after seeing a loyalist revolt in Wallachia consisting of one catapult. The AI training influences are working better in that that the pope has stopped building armies of ballistas and has instead opted for Militias. These modifications take up a lot more time than many people realise. Adding a new units for example is an absolute chore. It's not difficult once you're used to it, but you can so easily forget something. Then even if you remember it all you've got to ensure that every needed file gets into the distribution. :dizzy2:

One annoying point I'm working on at the moment is the unit icons for the Ghulam Bodyguards. I've done them all but I'm not happy with them so I'll have to do them over again.
:wall:

naut
01-29-2007, 12:01
It's most annoying, I get constant CTDs. Like in my first attempt. I guess that's the problem of adding an entirely new unit list.

caravel
01-29-2007, 13:07
I know what you mean. You only have to make one omission, get distracted or forget something, and you end up with Byzantine Toxotai that hold their swords by the point rather than the hilt, as I had a few days ago.

Martok
01-29-2007, 21:04
I know what you mean. You only have to make one omission, get distracted or forget something, and you end up with Byzantine Toxotai that hold their swords by the point rather than the hilt, as I had a few days ago.
I confess that conjured up quite the amusing image in my head. :laugh4:

In all seriousness, though, I applaud what you guys (Caravel & Rythmic) have done -- indeed, *all* modders deserve our praise and appreciation. I know modding isn't exactly a walk in the park, and your efforts are definitely to be commended. :bow:

Incidentally, I'm greatly enjoying my Fatamid campaign -- I've finally crushed the Turks, and the Byzantines are next on my list. :thumbsup:

caravel
01-29-2007, 23:33
I'm in the middle of a Byzantine Campaign myself. Of course I'm playing with what will be v1.0.6, which still needs some more fine tuning. Another gripe I have is the armoured spearmen. They look far too "viking" for the Byzantines...

naut
01-30-2007, 09:53
You'll have to redo their localisation name, otherwise it will change their appearance in VI too, (but you would already know that so this becomes a redundant statement :laugh4:).

caravel
01-30-2007, 10:25
Yes, I'd take Armoured Spearmen from the Byzantine altogether. There needs to be a separate Byzantine Spearmen unit. I'm wondering whether it may be better to mod Byzantine Infantry into Spearnmen... to do this would involve taking the ahistorical Saracen Infantry from the Turks and Egyptians and giving them to the Byzantines as spearmen, and renaming them as Byzantine Infantry. The original Byzantine swordsmen would then be removed. Alternatively they could be renamed as Byzantine Spearmen reassigned to the Byzantines and the Byzantine infantry retained. The next stage then would be to reduce the starting command stars of the Byzantine royalty, and weaken their position in the early era.

A new spear unit would need to be devised for the Turks and Egyptians, based around Feudal Sergeants and not chivalric sergeants. Alternatively the Turks and Egyptians could be left to rely on the basic spearmen only, which would be more accurate than giving them a unit that is equal to Chivalric Sergeants.

bamff
01-31-2007, 00:27
I will try to get organized enough to download and install this weekend (not that I expect my input to be even remotely insightful, I just figure the more feedback you get, the merrier)....

What I have read thus far is hugely impressive - I am really looking forward to having a tinker with it.

caravel
01-31-2007, 11:35
I will try to get organized enough to download and install this weekend (not that I expect my input to be even remotely insightful, I just figure the more feedback you get, the merrier)....
Any feedback, whether positive or negative, would be greatly appreciated. I'm pretty clueless about many aspects, especially the types of units that were used by factions during certain periods. That sort of information would be greatly appreciated. :bow:

What I have read thus far is hugely impressive - I am really looking forward to having a tinker with it.
:2thumbsup:

I have been looking at the Saracen Infantry again and can't work them out? Going purely on the info pic, what are they supposed to be? They look more so late medieval Ottoman than early Seljuk or anything from the Fatimid or Ayyubid dynasties, though I'm not 100% sure of course. I need to get them sorted one way or the other.

The Byzantine Spearmen issue also needs resolving. I will have to give them a unit that looks like Byzantine Infantry (on the field, not the info pic) except with a spear, and with stats similar to Feudal Sergeants. What I want to avoid is giving the eastern factions any spearmen of Chivalric Sergeants Calibre. The Turks in particular need to be much more cavalry based.

The Vanilla Vikings, now known as the Drangar have had a facelift. Their units now looks much the same as Tegnar (the old Landsmenn) except with a smaller shield (the ones used by the armoured spearmen). They now look more in keeping with the rest. (they previously used the peasant unit animations).

Martok
01-31-2007, 21:31
A new spear unit would need to be devised for the Turks and Egyptians, based around Feudal Sergeants and not chivalric sergeants. Alternatively the Turks and Egyptians could be left to rely on the basic spearmen only, which would be more accurate than giving them a unit that is equal to Chivalric Sergeants.
Limiting the Eggies and Turks to vanilla spearmen is probably not a good idea, even if it would be historically accurate. Doing so would simply put them at too much of a disadvantage, unless you were going to completely nerf Katanks. I understand not wanting the Muslim factions to have the equivalent of CS, though.

Innocentius
01-31-2007, 22:56
Any feedback, whether positive or negative, would be greatly appreciated. I'm pretty clueless about many aspects, especially the types of units that were used by factions during certain periods. That sort of information would be greatly appreciated. :bow:


Think I mentioned it earlier in this thread or in the other thread about this mod, but would it be possible to add some sort of Scandinavian peasant unit? Like less effective crossbowmen with high charge and armour-piercing stats but pretty bad defence? This could be a really interesting unit as it could first be used to shoot up the enemy, then work like Woodsmen or Militia Sergeants (although perhaps with better stats). Trainable by the Danes in High/Late and in Norway, Sweden and Finland. Another interesting aspect could be added; the recruit cost should be really low, while the upkeep is rather (or very) high so that they can't be used extensively, and to simulate their unwillingness to stay in service for very long.
The in-game pic could be crossbowmen and for the info-pic one could recycle the Woodsmen unit.

Historically, these units would be very accurate as the swedish peasants - a very misleading word as swedish "peasants" generally had a lot more rights than in the rest of Europe - levy was a dominant part of the army, particularly during the unstabile 15th century. In fact it could be taken even further, so that there's one form of unit in High and another one that works in the same way although better (Swedish peasant armies in the 15th century were really quite professional and well-equipped thanks to the many conflicts), just like the upgrade from FS to CS.
Anyway, I don't want to put too much work on you, and it's merely a suggestion. You've done some great work with the viking units already!:2thumbsup:

caravel
02-01-2007, 00:32
Limiting the Eggies and Turks to vanilla spearmen is probably not a good idea, even if it would be historically accurate. Doing so would simply put them at too much of a disadvantage, unless you were going to completely nerf Katanks. I understand not wanting the Muslim factions to have the equivalent of CS, though.
I'm thinking vanilla spearmen would be a disaster also. This is why I wanted to give armoured spearmen to the byzantines in the first place. I think a purpose build byzantine spear unit is needed. As to the Saracens I'm still not sure. Something needs to be done though.

Think I mentioned it earlier in this thread or in the other thread about this mod, but would it be possible to add some sort of Scandinavian peasant unit? Like less effective crossbowmen with high charge and armour-piercing stats but pretty bad defence? This could be a really interesting unit as it could first be used to shoot up the enemy, then work like Woodsmen or Militia Sergeants (although perhaps with better stats). Trainable by the Danes in High/Late and in Norway, Sweden and Finland. Another interesting aspect could be added; the recruit cost should be really low, while the upkeep is rather (or very) high so that they can't be used extensively, and to simulate their unwillingness to stay in service for very long.
The in-game pic could be crossbowmen and for the info-pic one could recycle the Woodsmen unit.

Historically, these units would be very accurate as the swedish peasants - a very misleading word as swedish "peasants" generally had a lot more rights than in the rest of Europe - levy was a dominant part of the army, particularly during the unstabile 15th century. In fact it could be taken even further, so that there's one form of unit in High and another one that works in the same way although better (Swedish peasant armies in the 15th century were really quite professional and well-equipped thanks to the many conflicts), just like the upgrade from FS to CS.
Anyway, I don't want to put too much work on you, and it's merely a suggestion. You've done some great work with the viking units already!:2thumbsup:
I remember this. A militia sergeants/crossbow hybrid using the pictish crossbows info pic??? This should be easy but they'll have to use the militia sergeants/crossbowmen unit graphics. The crossbowman already attacks with an axe in melee. If you look closely you'll see it. The instant they attack the crossbow switches to an axe. It would be a simple matter of using this unit as it is and modifying it's stats to give it a true armour piercing weapon. Something like Ghazis though more extreme perhaps. Hopeless fighting in melee though with a woodsmen like charge and other stats?

:bow:

Innocentius
02-01-2007, 16:57
I remember this. A militia sergeants/crossbow hybrid using the pictish crossbows info pic??? This should be easy but they'll have to use the militia sergeants/crossbowmen unit graphics. The crossbowman already attacks with an axe in melee. If you look closely you'll see it. The instant they attack the crossbow switches to an axe. It would be a simple matter of using this unit as it is and modifying it's stats to give it a true armour piercing weapon. Something like Ghazis though more extreme perhaps. Hopeless fighting in melee though with a woodsmen like charge and other stats?

Didn't know that about crossbowmen and axes:book:

Hmm...I wouldn't say hopeless melee, rather just below average. I'm not quite sure how all the stats work (although I've modded a few units on my own in the GnomEditor), but their defence should be very low, so that they can't take any charges or be used as clog units etc. It really would be easier if split up into two units:

High unit: Toned-down crossbow as range attack. High charge, bad melee and hopeless defense. High honour and slightly below normal armour.

Late unit: Toned-down crossbow as range attack. Very high charge, decent melee and bad defence. Very high honour and slightly below normal armour.

The units could still look the same as the MS is actually wearing a chest plate, despite being recruitable in Early. One of MTWs few downsides.

Edit: the building dependancy though is a tough one. Really all it should require is a fort, but that'd make them way too easy to reach.

caravel
02-01-2007, 17:53
Didn't know that about crossbowmen and axes:book:

Hmm...I wouldn't say hopeless melee, rather just below average. I'm not quite sure how all the stats work (although I've modded a few units on my own in the GnomEditor), but their defence should be very low, so that they can't take any charges or be used as clog units etc. It really would be easier if split up into two units:

High unit: Toned-down crossbow as range attack. High charge, bad melee and hopeless defense. High honour and slightly below normal armour.

Late unit: Toned-down crossbow as range attack. Very high charge, decent melee and bad defence. Very high honour and slightly below normal armour.

The units could still look the same as the MS is actually wearing a chest plate, despite being recruitable in Early. One of MTWs few downsides.

Edit: the building dependancy though is a tough one. Really all it should require is a fort, but that'd make them way too easy to reach.

So would it be available from the high period only? A post-Viking unit?

The toned down crossbow would be a problem as it would involve a new projectile type. It would have to be the standard crossbow. Personally I have no problem with that as it's not exactly overpowered anyway. The only other way to tone it down would be to reduce the number of bolts they carry?

I would have to disagree somewhat over some of the stats, though. I think it would be better to have the high unit as slightly better morale than the later unit, but give the late unit a bit more armour and better overall stats.

I need to do an experiment with these also. I've just remembered this (an experienced modder may know better on this issue). It appears that if two or more units have the same name in the language file and the same building dependencies they may support "updating" from one to the other in different eras. This works with the Royal Knights and is based solely on their language file name in names.txt as far as I can tell. It may be hard coded to the bodyguard units only, but it could possibly work for any unit. I've never tested it! :dizzy2: I know this is the case for Royal Knights because the player is able to update "Royal Knights" (known internally as "EarlyRoyalKnights", "HighRoyalKnights" and "LateRoyalKnights".) from one era to the next when they were called "Royal Knights" in names.txt, but once renamed as e.g. "Not So Royal Knights" they would no longer update. If the game only checks the text string name in the language file when upgrading, then many units could be updated from one to the next when the new era begins and they expire. This would be a brilliant feature but I somehow doubt it would work. :thumbsdown:

Belisario
02-01-2007, 18:03
I have been looking at the Saracen Infantry again and can't work them out? Going purely on the info pic, what are they supposed to be? They look more so late medieval Ottoman than early Seljuk or anything from the Fatimid or Ayyubid dynasties, though I'm not 100% sure of course. I need to get them sorted one way or the other.

The Byzantine Spearmen issue also needs resolving. I will have to give them a unit that looks like Byzantine Infantry (on the field, not the info pic) except with a spear, and with stats similar to Feudal Sergeants. What I want to avoid is giving the eastern factions any spearmen of Chivalric Sergeants Calibre. The Turks in particular need to be much more cavalry based.

Like many units in MTW the Saracen Infantry info pic is based on an illustration from an Osprey book (Saladin and the Saracens by David Nicolle, if I remember rightly) that represents a 13th century Anatolian infantryman from the Seljuq Sultanate of Rum or Iconium. A possible alternative could be reduce it to a 60 men unit and on the other hand increase the Turk and Egyptian light cavalry -especially the horse-archers- to 60 men units.

I've made a new unit icon for the Late Ghulam Bodyguards, but I have some problems when I try convert it to Bif and Lbm files. I've asked for help in the Alchemist forum.

Innocentius
02-01-2007, 18:57
So would it be available from the high period only? A post-Viking unit?

Well, as this was a predominantly Swedish thing (Danish peasants had the same "rights" as most of Western Europe) and Sweden didn't exist by 1087 I'd say yes. Of course there were peasant levies before, but they would be more interested in keeping the king away than serving him. Generally, Swedish peasants revolted (although often under the command of or by request from the nobility) against the king if he wasn't fit or they weren't happy with him.


The toned down crossbow would be a problem as it would involve a new projectile type. It would have to be the standard crossbow. Personally I have no problem with that as it's not exactly overpowered anyway. The only other way to tone it down would be to reduce the number of bolts they carry?

Can't it just be edited in the projectilestats-file? If it can't I agree that lowering the ammo to say...24 (what a peasant was required to carry with him in times of war actually) would be a good idea.


I would have to disagree somewhat over some of the stats, though. I think it would be better to have the high unit as slightly better morale than the later unit, but give the late unit a bit more armour and better overall stats.

If for balance reason then I completely agree, but really the morale of the levies had increased by the 15th century as they were becoming more and more aware of their capability of defeating professional armies (although using their own rather sneaky tactics).

naut
02-02-2007, 08:09
I've made a new unit icon for the Late Ghulam Bodyguards, but I have some problems when I try convert it to Bif and Lbm files. I've asked for help in the Alchemist forum.
I'm sure I can help with this, and if I can't Ras will be able to.

caravel
02-02-2007, 10:31
Well, as this was a predominantly Swedish thing (Danish peasants had the same "rights" as most of Western Europe) and Sweden didn't exist by 1087 I'd say yes. Of course there were peasant levies before, but they would be more interested in keeping the king away than serving him. Generally, Swedish peasants revolted (although often under the command of or by request from the nobility) against the king if he wasn't fit or they weren't happy with him.
High an late periods it is then. Only trainable in Sweden, and often present in revolts there?

Can't it just be edited in the projectilestats-file? If it can't I agree that lowering the ammo to say...24 (what a peasant was required to carry with him in times of war actually) would be a good idea.
Unfortunately new projectiles can't be added to that file. I would have to mod the unused projectile. To be honest though I would use the crossbow as it is. Toning it down may make it virtually useless. The ammo can be decreased. At present it is at 28, and could easily lowered to 24.

If for balance reason then I completely agree, but really the morale of the levies had increased by the 15th century as they were becoming more and more aware of their capability of defeating professional armies (although using their own rather sneaky tactics).
In view of that I would suggest a modest increase in armour, a good increase in morale and few other changes.

Like many units in MTW the Saracen Infantry info pic is based on an illustration from an Osprey book (Saladin and the Saracens by David Nicolle, if I remember rightly) that represents a 13th century Anatolian infantryman from the Seljuq Sultanate of Rum or Iconium. A possible alternative could be reduce it to a 60 men unit and on the other hand increase the Turk and Egyptian light cavalry -especially the horse-archers- to 60 men units.
Now, that is a very good idea. It has never occurred to me to increase unit sizes for horse archers, but it makes perfect sense! :wall: The Turcoman, horse, Ottoman Sipahi (horse archers in this mod), Faris, Mamluk Horse Archers and Desert/Steppe Horse Archers could all be increased to 60 man units.

For the Saracen Infantry a renaming to Seljuk Infantry would be in order and reassigning them to the Seljuks/Ottomans only. They would also have to be available from the high to late periods and not in early.

For the Byzantines it's either a conversion of Byzantine Infantry into spearmen or the creation of a separate unit of Byzantine Spearmen.

I've made a new unit icon for the Late Ghulam Bodyguards, but I have some problems when I try convert it to Bif and Lbm files. I've asked for help in the Alchemist forum.
I'll get over there. I've been having problems with LBMs myself and have been meaning to ask for a while. I find that though paintshop pro supports them it saves the file much larger than the original. also enabling the compression makes a mess of the image. The biggest problem I have with that program is that it doesn't preserve palettes properly either. With the bifs there is always the black spot editing annoyance a far as I know. I don't know any way around this.

The Unknown Guy
02-02-2007, 10:47
I had thought a while ago on suggesting "Byzantine Sergeants" instead of armored spearmen, as a unit for Byzantium.

Also: how about tweaking the Varangian Guard to have two versions? If you check the description file, there´s one that lists them as "A place where many a viking king won his throne" and another that lists them as a "sometimes ceremonial unit"

So how about Varangian Guard Early and High with good stats and Varangian Guard late with diminished stats?

caravel
02-02-2007, 14:33
I had thought a while ago on suggesting "Byzantine Sergeants" instead of armored spearmen, as a unit for Byzantium.
They would be perhaps equal to Sergeants but would not be Sergeants if that makes sense? "Sergeants" are a medieval western european thing, not really a Byzantine troops type IIRC. They would have to be called Byzantine Spearmen or Byzantine Infantry.

Also: how about tweaking the Varangian Guard to have two versions? If you check the description file, there´s one that lists them as "A place where many a viking king won his throne" and another that lists them as a "sometimes ceremonial unit"
This is possible. There is an early Varangian unit in existence, but it was never used in the game. THey could be used for the early era and the regular ones for the high era (their own equipment would have been almost completely replaced by Byzantine equipment by then).

So how about Varangian Guard Early and High with good stats and Varangian Guard late with diminished stats?
I'm still unsure as to whether to place them in the late era. This is a very overpowered unit as it is.

Martok
02-02-2007, 20:37
So how about Varangian Guard Early and High with good stats and Varangian Guard late with diminished stats?I'm still unsure as to whether to place them in the late era. This is a very overpowered unit as it is.
Aside from Caravel's valid point about VG being rather overpowered, I would also object to Varangians being included in the Late period for historical reasons. By the 12th century, the traditional "Vikings" had already begun passing away into memory, and the ranks of the Guards had largely been replaced by Anglo-Saxons instead of Rus & Norsemen. After the Fourth Crusade sacked Constantinople in 1204, the Varangians - for all intents and puroposes - appears to have ceased as an operational military unit.

While I do think the Byz could stand to have a decent heavy infantry unit available in the High & Late period (for the sake of game balance, if nothing else), I don't think they should be Varangians. Instead, I would suggest something like what VikingHorde did in his XL mod, which was to give the Byzantines Latin Auxillaries. Not that they necessarily should be called that, though.

Frankish Mercenaries, perhaps? Men from western Europe - often times young nobles who had no inheritance of their own and seeking fortune/fame - did serve in later Imperial armies. I don't know if it was really that common, but at least there's *some* historical precedence to include them as a unit. :shrug: It might not be the greatest idea, but it would allow the Byz to have heavy infantry available in the High & Late periods.

The Unknown Guy
02-02-2007, 21:47
During the siege of Constantinople by Mehmed II, the byzantines received military and economical assistance from the venetians and the genovese, so it would have base. Maybe enable halberdiers for Byzantium in late?

Martok
02-02-2007, 23:57
During the siege of Constantinople by Mehmed II, the byzantines received military and economical assistance from the venetians and the genovese, so it would have base. Maybe enable halberdiers for Byzantium in late?
That had occurred to me as well, except that I'm under the impression their military aid was primarily in the form of a navy, not soldiers. Still, you might have a point. :book:

The Unknown Guy
02-03-2007, 11:39
according to this: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showpost.php?p=1265105&postcount=567
and assuming that the quote is real, there were genovese and venetian soldiers in the garrison.

Noir
02-03-2007, 12:56
Originally Posted by Caravel

They would be perhaps equal to Sergeants but would not be Sergeants if that makes sense? "Sergeants" are a medieval western european thing, not really a Byzantine troops type IIRC. They would have to be called Byzantine Spearmen or Byzantine Infantry.

i think they should be called scutati (or skutatoi in a more "hellenised" spelling).

Scutum, was refering to their shield (a left over term from roman times). They were good quality rank and file (spear) infantry evlolved from the commitanses.

http://www.answers.com/topic/byzantine-battle-tactics

http://www.freewebs.com/hv-wargamers/HV-WAB19JUL03/ByzantineBattleline.jpg

caravel
02-03-2007, 14:38
@excetchzebe1: Scutatoi would be fine, but if I'm going to go down that route, which I might as well, I'll need the same sort of names for Byz infantry, Byz lancers and Byz cavalry. :thumbsup:

Noir
02-03-2007, 18:47
Originally posted by Caravel

@excetchzebe1: Scutatoi would be fine, but if I'm going to go down that route, which I might as well, I'll need the same sort of names for Byz infantry, Byz lancers and Byz cavalry.

Hmmm, then you'll be too close to the medmod that has chosen that exactly (that is not necessarily good neither necessarily bad, i guess). The respective names in the medmod are:

Byz infantry (swordsmen): vestiaritai
Byz lancers (medium cavalry with lances): stradiotai (or stratiotai, meaning "soldiers" in greek)
Byz Cavalry (medium cavalry + swords + bows): Vardariotai (vardariots)
(Trebizond) Archers: psiloi (meaning "thin" in greek, obviously refering to the fact that they were lightly armoured skirmishers)

None of these is "exactly" accurate (as there isn't such a thing anyway).

Alternative names for the spearmen would be Kontaratoi ("those bearing spears - kontarion") and for the skirmishers/archers toxotai ("archers").

The swords the Byzantines used were the "spatha" (or "spathi" - longsword) as well as the "paramerion" (sort of a scimitar sword that i guess makes for the inspiration on the unit info). A name along the lines of "spathatoi" (those bearing swords) would be probably acceptable, i guess, for a sword unit.

The byzantine infantry (swords) and the byzantine spearmen were most likely one and the same unit that occupied different positions in the formation (spears front ranks - swords behind). The same is possibly true for the "kataphraktoi" and the "clibanophoroi" - horsemen whithin the same unit with different functions.

Good luck with it - it seems you enjoy it very much :beam:

By the way:

This is a reconstructed kataphract of the 12th century. The style was "adapted" to a slightly western style by (of course) Manuel Comnenos who was ...suspiciously excited about chivalry for a byzantine emperor (he was organising jousts too!).

http://www.levantia.com.au/military/kataphraktos.html

Belisario
02-03-2007, 19:47
Some notes about Turkish units

Sipahis of the Porte: I think this unit could be renamed as Kapikulu Sipahis. The Kapikulu (“slaves of the court”) were the elite corps of the Ottoman army, and its infantry units or Janissaries (yeni çeri, “new troops”) are well known to us. However the Kapikulu cavalry was militarily more important and had higher prestige than the Janissary infantry. Its members are sometimes confused with feudal, provincial, fief-holding cavalry as both were known as “sipahis”. The Kapikulu cavalry formed six “Bölükat” or regiments under the rulers immediate command. Most are again called sipahis, though this was also the title of one specific regiment, the “Sipahi Oglan” (sipahi children), an elite bodyguard created by Mehmet I early in the 15th century. The others were the “Silahdars” (ruler’s weapon holders; an early bodyguard), the Left and Right “Gureba” (non-Ottoman Muslims), and the Left and Right “Ulufeciyan” (salaried men). Their numbers were small –a few hundred in each regiment- but they were superbly equipped and heavily armoured. The Kapikulu cavalry was the battle-winning element in a classic Ottoman army, so the game could reflect this fact. I suggest make them a shock cavalry armed with lance and sword or mace to close combat.

Ottoman Sipahis: I think this unit could be renamed as Timarli Sipahis. By the late 14th century the provincial forces maintained and provided by the “timar” (an Ottoman form of “fief”) holders constituted the bulk of Ottoman cavalry and often were called sipahis like the elite palace regiments. The quality of a timarli cavalryman’s weaponry reflected the sized of his fief, though most were lightly equipped compared to the Kapikulu cavalry. Ordinary timar fiefs supported one horseman, while the holders of higher valued timars were also expected to equip mounted retainers, but all mustered and fought beneath the banner of their “Sancak Beg” (a governor of a military province).

In Anatolia the Ottomans incorporated existing sipahis and their timars. At first the process was similar in Christian Rumelia (the Balkan portion of the Ottoman state). Many Balkan “pronoia” fiefs were converted into timars and thus a large proportion of Balkan or Rumeli timarli cavalry were still Christian, being members of existing warrior aristocracies which had accepted Ottoman rule. In short I think another possibility could be make two types of provincial, fief-holding, sipahis:

-Anatolian Timarli Sipahis: equipped as horse archers with some armour and decent melee stats in a typical Turkish fashion and only trainable in the Anatolian provinces (Nicaea, Anatolia, Rum, Trebizond).
-Rumelian Timarli Sipahis: equipped as heavy cavalry in a typical Balkan fashion (I suggest a look similar to the Byzantine Pronoiai Allagion) and only trainable in the Balkan provinces (Bulgaria, Greece, Serbia, Constantinople).

Sources:
-Armies of the Ottoman Turks 1300-1774 by David Nicolle, Osprey MAA 140.
-Nicopolis 1396 by David Nicolle, Osprey Campaign 64.

Will be continued…

caravel
02-06-2007, 00:46
Belisario and excetchzebe1, thanks for the name change info! I may be able to actually do some modding now. :bow:

Well I've been working on Innocentius' Swedish Crossbow Peasants for hours and on the campaign map they're fine. In battle they CTD the game straight to the desktop... I haven't changed anything except to set their weapon as AP (I've tried without AP as well) and I have changed their Charge, Melee, Defense, Armour, Honour stats and their movements speeds are those of slav warriors. The base unit size is 100 instead of 60. Apart from that they are regular crossbows. The crash occurs as soon as they try to fire on the enemy. All of their textures files are inplace. I have replicated the crossbows entirely simply copying and renaming files. I've done the item/shield, done the files in the MShelm and the actionspage stuff, I've even done the deadpage coordinates already. At present I'm totally stumped. If I can't find a solution I'll have to delete them and start afresh.
:wall: :furious3: :furious: :bigcry: :bomb2: :hanged:

Martok
02-06-2007, 07:55
Hey, you can only try your best Caravel. If you can't get them to work, yes of course it'd be unfortunate, but so be it. You're not Superman, you know. :beam:

caravel
02-06-2007, 10:46
Hey, you can only try your best Caravel. If you can't get them to work, yes of course it'd be unfortunate, but so be it. You're not Superman, you know. :beam:
This is nothing complicated just a new unit, like the Militia Cavalry or the Desert Horse Archers. There is some kind of error or omission somewhere, but I'll be damned if I can find it. :book:

naut
02-06-2007, 10:55
Did you give them ammo in the Unit_Prod file? That can cause CTDs.

caravel
02-06-2007, 12:34
Did you give them ammo in the Unit_Prod file? That can cause CTDs.
I changed their ammo from 28 to 24, then I changed it back. I ended up basically turning them back into standard crossbows, statistically, and they still wouldn't work. :shame:

Belisario
02-06-2007, 17:38
Hi Caravel

I've read your problems with the new Swedish crossbowmen peasants and I remember that crossbows are treated like shields. Duke John in his Unit Graphics guide says about this matter:

Note that crossbows (and if you want bows) are treated like shields to create perspective. Technically there is no difference between crossbows and shields, visually you will just see a crossbow instead of a shield.

5.1.4 Textures\Men\NameBIF\NameUnit_S.txt
This file contains an integer corresponding to the shield number:2[/list]In this case the unit will use the shield2; the blue entry as entered under 5.1.2.
In some cases, as with Pavise Crossbowmen, the unit uses two 'shields'. You should then make the following entry:2,3[/list]In which 3 corresponds with the crossbow graphic. Note that you should also make the positioning coordinates for the crossbow

The link for the guide is: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=31893

Belisario
02-06-2007, 18:42
Some notes about Turkish units, chapter 2:

Janissaries: In MTW we can deploy three units of janissaries: janissary infantry, janissary archers, and janissary heavy infantry.

Janissary infantry’s info pic is based on a plate from an Osprey book – The Janissaries by David Nicolle, Elite Series 58 – that represented a “Nefer Janissary soldier” from the late 14th century, the early days of the Janissaries. The bif animation matches well with the info pic. I think these soldiers would be the first janissaries available to the Ottomans and you could rename them as “Nefer Janissaries” (nefer means soldier).

Janissary Heavy Infantry’s info pic is based on a plate from the same Osprey book that represented a “Zirhli Nefer” janissary from the 16th century and the author’s comment about the figure says some interesting words: “Janissaries who continued to wear full armour were simply known as Zirhli Nefer or “armoured soldiers”. They were used as assault troops (…). This man has a highly decorated gilded helmet with a Janissary plume-holder on the front, a flexible neck-guard and a mail-and-plate “zirh gömlek” cuirass (…). His shield is a form adopted from the Ottoman’s eastern European foes, while the “tirpan” staff-weapon suggests Italian influence”. I think the term Zirhli Nefer was a common expression and not only for the armoured janissaries so you could rename the JHI as “Zirhli Nefer Janissaries”.

Janissary Archers have an authentic classic janissary look when we deploy them on MTW battlefields. I refer to their Bif animation which includes the typical white cap of the janissaries. However their info pic doesn’t do them justice; from my point of view this represents a tribal or irregular Turkish archer. Concerning the Janissary Archers bif, this corresponds with the 15th century Janissary equipment similar to the equipment used by the famous Janissary musketeers. In the Osprey book Armies of the Ottoman Turks 1300-1774 the author comments an illustration of a 15th century Janissary: “The government-issued equipment of the Janissary infantry was simple but of good quality, as was their heavy woollen clothing. The characteristic woollen cap would later grow larger, while shield and bow would soon both be abandoned in favour of a musket”. I think you could give them the longbow or create a new type of bow/projectile which represents the eastern composite bow; you can bear in mind these words from the Osprey book Nicopolis 1396: “The Ottoman composite bow, though having greater range, accuracy and rate of shooting than the Western European longbow, shot notably lighter arrows”.

Ottoman Infantry: This unit would be the bulk of Ottoman non-elite infantry, however its info pic leaves me perplex: it’s based on a plate from the Osprey book Armies of the Ottoman Turks 1300-1774 which represents a superbly equipped Ottoman infantryman of the early 15th century. The author’s comment about the figure says: “This man is clearly one of the Sultan’s elite. He wears full infantry armour of mail-and-splints, probably designed for siege-warfare. Even his engraved iron shield could resist primitive firearms. His sword is slung from his shoulder, a style only used by foot soldiers”. A possible solution for this unit could be rename it as “Zirhli Nefer” which means “armoured soldier” or as “Baltaci” which means “halberdier or man who wielded a battle-axe”.

caravel
02-07-2007, 00:07
Thanks Belisario, I had thought the crossbow might be a shield in frames but wasn't sure. I did notice it in the files in the MShelm directory though.

The Skutatoi are finished and working, with one hitch. The unit icon on the battle map. I can't get a program (tried psp and ultimate paint) to save .lbm files small enough so as not to crash the battle map, or at least I think that's the problem. They're currently using a copy of the Byzantine Infantry unit icon, which doesn't cause a crash. The black spots need cleaning off the bifs as well, but apart from that the .bifs have come out ok... ok by my standards anyway.

The Swedish Crossbows (name required) are also finished and working! The problem was that I had inadvertently given them an armour value of 0....... :dunce:

Once I get these sorted I'll get onto some Byzantine, Janissary and Ottoman renaming. :thumbsup:

Martok
02-07-2007, 02:31
The Swedish Crossbows (name required) are also finished and working! The problem was that I had inadvertently given them an armour value of 0....... :dunce:

Once I get these sorted I'll get onto some Byzantine, Janissary and Ottoman renaming. :thumbsup:
Huzzah! ~:cheers:

Just out of curiosity (and NOT to nag - I'm in no hurry ~:)), do you have any idea when the 0.6 version will be ready for download? I'm just wondering if I'll have at least another week or two to play some more of my Fatamid campaign (on the 0.5 version)....

caravel
02-07-2007, 10:52
We've a way to go yet. Before this next release I hope to be able to turn out working lbm files for the battle map uniticons. If I can't do that, then the release will have to be delayed until I can.

The Skutatoi are basically based on Chivalric Sergeants stats at present, but I would prefer to move away from that set formula, giving them different strengths and weaknesses to the former. Their info pic is the same as byzantine infantry except they are holding a spear instead of a sword. The same goes for their review panel icon. In battle they also look the same as Byzantine Infantry except that they carry a spear, or one could say that they look identical to Saracen Infantry except with the Byzantine Infantry shield.

I have some more questions/proposals/suggestions for the learned amongst us to peruse:

1) Were Kataphrakoi/Klibanophoroi actually the bodyguard units for Byzantine Royalty? If so which one (see below first).

2) With respect to the Pronoiai Allagion, I understand the pronoiars but why the "Allagion" bit? Surely that just means "unit", "formation" or "squadron" or whatever. I'm thinking that these should be renamed as "Pronoiai Kataphraktoi", but in all honesty the "Pronoiai" is redundant. These "knights" were already in existence before the gradual introduction and extension of the Pronoia system, they weren't created by it. Kataphraktoi generally meant "heavy cavalry" in the Medieval Byzantine Empire and was not the "cataphract" - as in all over armoured man and horse - synonymous with earlier times. I think "Kataphraktoi" would be a better name.

3) The Kataphraktoi in the game should definitely be Klibanophoroi, the all over armoured man and horse. There should probably be two type of Klibanophoroi, those armed with bows ("Klibanophoroi Toxotai"?) and those without. Historically both types would have been used probably within the same unit. It would have varied alot. The problem with MTW is that if we create only one type of Klibanophoroi with a bow, the AI will use it primarily as a horse archer and not unleash it's full potential.

4) Byzantine Cavalry would be the bow armed version of Kataphraktoi, my greek is not good, so perhaps someone can come up with a name for these "Kataphraktoi Horse Archers" ("Kataphraktoi Toxotai"?).

5) For Byzantine Lancers, perhaps "Trapezitoi" would be a good name? I have seen alot of references to this on the net, albeit mostly at wargaming minatures sites. I could do with finding some more reliable information. It appears that they may have been javelin armed cavalry similar to Jinetes.

6) I also think that the Psiloi need to be introduced, that is the light infantry. These would have to be based on the Trebizone Archers (currently the Toxotai hat look similalar to Ottoman Infanry/Bulgarians Brigands in battle but have the Treb Archers stats). To do this I would replicate the Toxotai but remove the shields and slightly nerf their stats. As a compromise they would of course get the composite bow once it's up and running. The Psiloi would then take over from the old Toxotai, possibly with slighly improved stats (no decisions on stats yet).

7) The Skutatoi would replace the old byzantine infantry. Their stats would be slightly adjusted to allow them to fare better vs sword infantry.

-Edit: Note to self: Check the Swedish Peasants' charge animation is working correctly. I have used the charge script from militia sergeants in order that their axes be visible when charging, but I didn't pay any attention to whether it was working or not.

Martok
02-08-2007, 00:22
1) Were Kataphrakoi/Klibanophoroi actually the bodyguard units for Byzantine Royalty? If so which one (see below first).
I've had a passive interest in that very question for a while now, but I have yet to find a satisfactory answer. I know that the Emperor sometimes rode into battle with an elite regiment of heavy cavalry call the Immortals (they were generally stationed in Constantinople), but it doesn't specify whether or not they were actually Kats of some type. My gut feeling tells me they were, but I have no proof of that.


2) With respect to the Pronoiai Allagion, I understand the pronoiars but why the "Allagion" bit? Surely that just means "unit", "formation" or "squadron" or whatever. I'm thinking that these should be renamed as "Pronoiai Kataphraktoi", but in all honesty the "Pronoiai" is redundant. These "knights" were already in existence before the gradual introduction and extension of the Pronoia system, they weren't created by it. Kataphraktoi generally meant "heavy cavalry" in the Medieval Byzantine Empire and was not the "cataphract" - as in all over armoured man and horse - synonymous with earlier times. I think "Kataphraktoi" would be a better name.
I'm not so sure about that, actually. Granting that I've not read up on all things Byzantine (or even a majority of it, I'm sure!), pretty much every source of material on the Byz I *have* come across has mentioned Kataphractoi/Klibanophoroi and Pronoia as being different things. Katanks were generally recruited from the middles classes of Imperial society, whereas the PA generally seem to have been restricted to the upper nobility and higher-ranking military officers.


3) The Kataphraktoi in the game should definitely be Klibanophoroi, the all over armoured man and horse. There should probably be two type of Klibanophoroi, those armed with bows ("Klibanophoroi Toxotai"?) and those without. Historically both types would have been used probably within the same unit. It would have varied alot. The problem with MTW is that if we create only one type of Klibanophoroi with a bow, the AI will use it primarily as a horse archer and not unleash it's full potential.

4) Byzantine Cavalry would be the bow armed version of Kataphraktoi, my greek is not good, so perhaps someone can come up with a name for these "Kataphraktoi Horse Archers" ("Kataphraktoi Toxotai"?).
Yeah, I'm not sure what to tell you there. The only thing I can think of would be to take Byzantine Cavalry and rename them ("Prokursatores", maybe?). Possibly reduce their training costs and/or build requirements as well? That would be counter-intuitive, though, seeing as they should probably be roughly equal to Kataphractoi/Klibanaophoroi. Hmm, need to think on that one more.... :book:


5) For Byzantine Lancers, perhaps "Trapezitoi" would be a good name? I have seen alot of references to this on the net, albeit mostly at wargaming minatures sites. I could do with finding some more reliable information. It appears that they may have been javelin armed cavalry similar to Jinetes.
It's as good a name as any. I wasn't able to find anything on them either, so I'd just say go for it. :yes:


6) I also think that the Psiloi need to be introduced, that is the light infantry. These would have to be based on the Trebizone Archers (currently the Toxotai hat look similalar to Ottoman Infanry/Bulgarians Brigands in battle but have the Treb Archers stats). To do this I would replicate the Toxotai but remove the shields and slightly nerf their stats. As a compromise they would of course get the composite bow once it's up and running. The Psiloi would then take over from the old Toxotai, possibly with slighly improved stats (no decisions on stats yet).
Sounds good to me. If they're going to have composite bows, I think that'll be more than a fair trade for reducing their melee abilities (I assume that what you're referring to, anyway). ~:cheers:


7) The Skutatoi would replace the old byzantine infantry. Their stats would be slightly adjusted to allow them to fare better vs sword infantry.
Cool. I was going to mention that, but you're obviuosly already way ahead of me. :2thumbsup: If I may make another suggestion, I would recommend looking at upping their morale and discipline stats as well. Not necessarily by a lot, but the Byzantines' heavy infantry was known for their discipline, especially during the Comneni dynasty.

Noir
02-08-2007, 02:48
Originally posted by Caravel

With respect to the Pronoiai Allagion, I understand the pronoiars but why the "Allagion" bit? Surely that just means "unit", "formation" or "squadron" or whatever. I'm thinking that these should be renamed as "Pronoiai Kataphraktoi", but in all honesty the "Pronoiai" is redundant. These "knights" were already in existence before the gradual introduction and extension of the Pronoia system, they weren't created by it. Kataphraktoi generally meant "heavy cavalry" in the Medieval Byzantine Empire and was not the "cataphract" - as in all over armoured man and horse - synonymous with earlier times. I think "Kataphraktoi" would be a better name.

If you want to disengage this type of cavalry from the faudal system of land grants that was introduced that is a fair renaming. If not the pronoiai can still stay in. Allagoion indeed is a term meaning "company - unit". Pronoia (singular) - Pronoiai (plural) means providence/provision and refers to the land grant given to nobles.

The system was introduced as a measure of getting the nobilities allegiance but in time created bigger problems as they've grown too powerful to control. Fragmentation and constant intrigue was the main two reasons of Byzantine collapse - they were simply too busy dividing spoils among them to fight off external enemies.

Clibanophoroi can come in two: something like (basic) Clibanophoroi (with lances or maces) and Clibanophoroi or Kataphaktoi toxotai as you suggest.

The rest sounds fair enough and quite good.

Will you give Byzantium any kind of lighter horse archer?

*EDIT*
Just thought now; weren't "Trapezitoi" thematic troops?

caravel
02-08-2007, 10:13
I've had a passive interest in that very question for a while now, but I have yet to find a satisfactory answer. I know that the Emperor sometimes rode into battle with an elite regiment of heavy cavalry call the Immortals (they were generally stationed in Constantinople), but it doesn't specify whether or not they were actually Kats of some type. My gut feeling tells me they were, but I have no proof of that.
The Athanatoi (The Immortals) are too early and belong to a previous dynasty from the 10th century IIRC. They were still a type of kataphraktoi/klibanophoroi though.

I'm not so sure about that, actually. Granting that I've not read up on all things Byzantine (or even a majority of it, I'm sure!), pretty much every source of material on the Byz I *have* come across has mentioned Kataphractoi/Klibanophoroi and Pronoia as being different things. Katanks were generally recruited from the middles classes of Imperial society, whereas the PA generally seem to have been restricted to the upper nobility and higher-ranking military officers.
The Pronoia was a land grant system, not a type of cavalry AFAIK, this is why I have looked at disassociation of the heavy cavalry away from the Pronoia name. These cavalry are actually Kataphraktoi, as all heavy Byzantine cavalry were referred to as Kataphraktoi. In the medieval byzantine empire the name appears to have referred to the man only, and not the man and the horse. The very heavy cavalry (the katapraktoi in the game) were referred to as Klibanophoroi, though this term appeared to have fallen out of use and is ignored by many writers

Yeah, I'm not sure what to tell you there. The only thing I can think of would be to take Byzantine Cavalry and rename them ("Prokursatores", maybe?). Possibly reduce their training costs and/or build requirements as well? That would be counter-intuitive, though, seeing as they should probably be roughly equal to Kataphractoi/Klibanaophoroi. Hmm, need to think on that one more.... :book:
I would say they are not really light enough to be considered as Prokursatores, and I'm unsure if that term was still in use during the timeframe of the game (as I'm unsure if klibanophoroi was still in use).

Sounds good to me. If they're going to have composite bows, I think that'll be more than a fair trade for reducing their melee abilities (I assume that what you're referring to, anyway). ~:cheers:
I'm looking to introduce a composite bow once I get some idea of the stats required. I'm thinking of longbow type range and power though with less armour piercing ability due to the lower weight of the arrow?

Cool. I was going to mention that, but you're obviuosly already way ahead of me. :2thumbsup: If I may make another suggestion, I would recommend looking at upping their morale and discipline stats as well. Not necessarily by a lot, but the Byzantines' heavy infantry was known for their discipline, especially during the Comneni dynasty.
The Scutatoi would have carried the curved sword you can see in the Byzantine Infantry pic, and a long spear, which would have been the primary weapon. I'm sure that using Belisario's method I can perhaps get them to fight with both, but it wouldn't look right as they'd do all of their fighting with the swords and only charge/walk/run/stand with the spear.

If you want to disengage this type of cavalry from the faudal system of land grants that was introduced that is a fair renaming. If not the pronoiai can still stay in. Allagoion indeed is a term meaning "company - unit". Pronoia (singular) - Pronoiai (plural) means providence/provision and refers to the land grant given to nobles.
The issue is that the nobles that were part of the Pronoiai system were equipped as Kataphraktoi (heavy cavalry) soldiers and not somehow distinct from kataphraktoi. To me it would be like calling Feudal Knights "Feudal Units", wheras they would be better called simply "Knights".

Clibanophoroi can come in two: something like (basic) Clibanophoroi (with lances or maces) and Clibanophoroi or Kataphaktoi toxotai as you suggest.
I will probably have to create Klibanophoroi (old Kataphraktoi), Klibanophoroi Toxotai (old Kataphraktoi with added bows and reduced charge), Kataphraktoi (PA) and Kataphraktoi Toxotai (Byzantine Cavalry with stats brought up to PA level with less charge).

The rest sounds fair enough and quite good.
:bow:

Will you give Byzantium any kind of lighter horse archer?
I'm looking into that. They may be the Prokursatores that Martok mentioned.

*EDIT*
Just thought now; weren't "Trapezitoi" thematic troops?
:shrug:

:bow:

naut
02-08-2007, 10:45
The Scutatoi would have carried the curved sword you can see in the Byzantine Infantry pic, and a long spear, which would have been the primary weapon. I'm sure that using Belisario's method I can perhaps get them to fight with both, but it wouldn't look right as they'd do all of their fighting with the swords and only charge/walk/run/stand with the spear.
You could have them as a unit that can fight with spears and then "dismount" to have swords.

The Unknown Guy
02-08-2007, 11:16
About the Byzantines, and the Heavy Spear issue: AKA: My case for leaving Byz Infantry as 100 men units:

- In the Alexiad the battle descriptions seem to indicate that the byzantine military was more sword than spear oriented (Historical reasons)

- In vanilla TW, I think the issue is having a faction that instead of regular sergeants (Like catholic ones) gets a "man-at-arms" sergeant unit that is superb as man-at-arms but lacks punch when dealing with cavalry. In vanilla, this is supplemented with mercenary corps, althrough this is disabled in the pocket mod.

- My case: remove armored spearmen, put Byzantine infantry back at 100 men units so they act as "sword sergeants", and force the byzantines to use general spearmen as anticavalry defense. It presents quite a dillema, and makes the faction general land strategy quite different, based on mass men at arms and a few spearmen as support (you will not get pike shoves, as your infantry will cut through enemy spearmen like butter, but likewise, unless you´re in a hill, not bringing around one or two regular spear units to bear the blunt of cavalry charges will decimate your forces.)



About the compound bow: quite the contrary: the lower weight of the arrow would diminish the distance, not the armor piercing capabilities, methinks. Think: Crossbows.

The "special" bows get their added power from the elastic power drawn from the frame. Longbows had a huge arch and thus greater range and armor piercing capabilities (as well as long flying arrows, I guess). Compound bows have a complex arch, and are usually made of materials of greater tension, like bone, so for their size they have a bigger punch, as well. Crossbows use metal , and thus are able to hurl projectiles at great speeds.

(This reminds me of a class of physics from first year of college, when, while studying arches and tension, the teacher for some reason started speaking about the english longbowmen, and how they had found out that arrows launched from a bow with a greater arch could pierce platemail. "which they found... well, interesting, for their armies")

caravel
02-08-2007, 11:50
You could have them as a unit that can fight with spears and then "dismount" to have swords.
I've though about that one, but would prefer not to go down that route. It seems wrong to have the unit irreversibly lose their spears before the battle starts... :dizzy2:

About the Byzantines, and the Heavy Spear issue: AKA: My case for leaving Byz Infantry as 100 men units:

- In the Alexiad the battle descriptions seem to indicate that the byzantine military was more sword than spear oriented (Historical reasons)
I've never read anything to that effect. The sword is generally a much more romantic, christian and chivalrous weapon, and features a lot in historical texts because running the enemy through with a sword sounds much more heroic than pranging his horse with a spear then jabbing the rider through the chest once he's fallen off. The spear was much more commonly used in open warfare in medieval western and central europe also. I have seen numerous images of byzantine spearheads and references to the "Kontarioi" (spearmen) or "Skutatoi" (shieldmen) infantry that were equipped with them. The byzantine units were combined arms units by all accounts, with archers in the center of the formation. The heavy infantry in the formation formed the outer ranks and were armed with kontarion (heavy spear) and paramerion (scimitar type sword) or spathion (long sword). The spear was the primary weapon of the Skutatoi with the sword stowed as a back up weapon.

- In vanilla TW, I think the issue is having a faction that instead of regular sergeants (Like catholic ones) gets a "man-at-arms" sergeant unit that is superb as man-at-arms but lacks punch when dealing with cavalry. In vanilla,
This is the CA's game "balancing" tricks, and not historical accuracy at work. Despite these attempts at balancing, the Byzantine are still highly overpowered and imbalanced due, quite simply, to their 8 and 9 star royalty and nothing much else.

this is supplemented with mercenary corps, althrough this is disabled in the pocket mod.
Mercenaries are disabled for the simple fact that they are an exploit and the AI cannot use them.

- My case: remove armored spearmen, put Byzantine infantry back at 100 men units so they act as "sword sergeants", and force the byzantines to use general spearmen as anticavalry defense. It presents quite a dillema, and makes the faction general land strategy quite different, based on mass men at arms and a few spearmen as support (you will not get pike shoves, as your infantry will cut through enemy spearmen like butter, but likewise, unless you´re in a hill, not bringing around one or two regular spear units to bear the blunt of cavalry charges will decimate your forces.)
There are no "Sword Sergeants". The Byzantine infantry do not have any cavalry defence bonus and giving this to the sword wielders would be wrong IMHO. The skutatoi, the historical spear armed byantine infantry, need to to replace the current byzantine swordsmen for this reason. Restoring everything back to the vanilla setup, would defeat the object of this mod.

About the compound bow: quite the contrary: the lower weight of the arrow would diminish the distance, not the armor piercing capabilities, methinks. Think: Crossbows.
I'm not sure about that. Crossbows are unflighted bolts that are almost always fired on a pretty flat trajectory. There is no real comparison. As to whether less weight would decrease range, that seems to against the laws of physics somehow?? Surely with such projectiles it was all about balance?

:bow:

Belisario
02-08-2007, 17:56
We've a way to go yet. Before this next release I hope to be able to turn out working lbm files for the battle map uniticons. If I can't do that, then the release will have to be delayed until I can.

I’m able to save working lbm files with Ultimate Paint. But in my lbm files the faction colours (the green/pink colours that in the game are replaced for the colours of each faction) don’t work, though this little - and irritating – problem is irrelevant for the functionality of the lbm file. Make sure that you save the file as a lbm (unitname.LBM) of 256 colours, otherwise UP will save the image as an iff file. You can also create a working lbm with the Dragon Mtw Editor.


2) With respect to the Pronoiai Allagion, I understand the pronoiars but why the "Allagion" bit? Surely that just means "unit", "formation" or "squadron" or whatever. I'm thinking that these should be renamed as "Pronoiai Kataphraktoi", but in all honesty the "Pronoiai" is redundant. These "knights" were already in existence before the gradual introduction and extension of the Pronoia system, they weren't created by it. Kataphraktoi generally meant "heavy cavalry" in the Medieval Byzantine Empire and was not the "cataphract" - as in all over armoured man and horse - synonymous with earlier times. I think "Kataphraktoi" would be a better name.

Many Byzantine soldiers of the post-Manzikert era were maintained by grants of land called “pronoiai” (literally “providences” or “solicitudes”). The pronoia-holder, typically a native heavy cavalryman (though as early as Manuel I’s reign “pronoiai” were being granted to foreigners), was properly called a pronoiar (Greek sing. “pronoiarios” / pl. “pronoiarioi”), but was more commonly known simply as a “stratiotes” (literally “soldier”; pl. “stratiotai”). Latin mercenaries and their descendants also received pronoia fiefs in return for their services; these Latin pronoiars were known as “kavallarios” (from the Latin “caballarius; pl. “kavallarioi”). “Kavallarioi” were socially the equivalent of native pronoia-soldiers (“Stratiotai”) and became the best equipped soldiers of the 13th Byzantine cavalry. I think the Byzantine Lancers could be renamed as “Stratiotai” or “Pronoiarioi Stratiotai” and the Pronoiai Allagion as “Kavallarioi” or “Pronoiarioi Kavallarioi”.

I’ve found this interesting post in another forum:

Latinikon: Frankish heavy cavalry (initially Norman and German mercenaries) filled the void left by the decline of native heavy cavalry starting in the mid 11th century. By the 1060’s they represented the largest contingent of heavy cavalry in the Byzantine army with approximately 3,000 serving by 1071. After the First Crusade, they were primarily recruited from the various Crusader States. Their numbers also included at times soldiers provided from allied kingdoms such as the 500 Flemish knights sent as a gift to Alexios Komnenos in 1092. By 1100 the old tagmatic cavalry units had been either destroyed or disbanded and except for the nobles and retainers of the extended Komnenian family (supported through pronoia), the Latin’s were the Byzantine’s sole heavy cavalry force during the Komnenian period. After the Fourth Crusade, Latin heavy cavalrymen were recruited from the impoverished Latin Kingdom of Constantinople and from Frankish Greece. Frankish knights along with Cuman small holding soldiers were the backbone of the Nicean army with the Latin’s distinguishing themselves at the battle of Antioch in 1211. After the Nicean's captured Constantinople in 1261, Latin pronoiars known as Kavallarioi were likely the best equipped soldiers in Byzantine employ. Kavallarioi, who first appear in Nicean Smyrna in the 1220’s, were socially the equivalent of native pronoia soldiers (Stratiotai) but wore heavier armour and rode large war horses in contrast to the Stratiotai who preferred smaller (and faster) Turkish or Hungarian mounts.


7) The Skutatoi would replace the old byzantine infantry. Their stats would be slightly adjusted to allow them to fare better vs sword infantry.

There are a confusing number of names to refer the Byzantine Infantry. I think “Skoutatoi” is a valid term for the Byzantine infantrymen; its etymology derives from the term “Skouta”, a large infantry shield. Alternative names are “Kontaratoi” (spearmen), “Spatharioi” (swordsmen), “Peltastoi” (light or medium infantryman), etc. If you want maintain the old Byzantine Infantry you could adopt other solutions, for instance renaming these units as Skutatoi Swordsmen and Skutatoi Spearmen. This is a large matter of debate.

These words from the ChivalricTW forum posted by a Greek speaker are interesting:

Zenith Darksea

I posted this at stratcommandcenter.com, but I thought I'd post it here as well for good measure.

They're absolutely fantastic, but I see that you still can't get the Greek right. Please, for the love of a twisted pedant like myself, try and make sure that the Greek names of Byzantine units actually make sense in Greek. For example:

Tagmata Klibanophoron should be Klibanophoron Tagma
Trapezitae should be Trapezitai
Themata Spatharioi should be Thematikoi Spatharioi or Thematon Spatharioi
Dynatoi Oiketai should be Dynastou Oiketai (I assume you're attempting to say 'Emperor's Retainers'?)
Themata Kontaratoi should be Thematikoi Kontaratoi or Thematon Kontaratoi
Varrangoi Tagmata should be Varangion Tagma
Latinikon Mercenaries were much better as Latinikoi, or would also be good as Latinikoi Misthophoroi
Skythikon Mercenaries likewise would be better as Skythikoi or Skythikoi Misthophoroi

These Greek corrections of mine, even if I do say so myself, are much more elegant, idiomatic, and correct.

Now, as for the Exkoubitores, you may well refer to them as a 'Tagma' (remember, it is one Tagma and two Tagmata) but a 'Skoutatos' could be any infantryman practically, as by this point in history the Skouta/Skouton referred generally to large infantry shields. Historically the word 'Skoutatos' was much more likely to refer to an ordinary infantryman than anyone else. So you might just leave the name at 'Exkoubitores'.

The exact translation of Themata Taxeis is something like 'Provinces [and] Units'. In Greek, that just doesn't make any sense. The Pronoiarioi or Pronoiarion Allagion would be a good unit for the late period (CA's original Pronoia Allagion was totally ungrammatical - it translates as 'Foresight [and] Battalion').

Incidentally, I added the 'and' in square brackets because in Greek, when you have two nominatives next to each other that are inapposite, they take on a predicative role rather than attributive. In other words, they come out with the sense of 'a something and a something else' rather than 'a something something'. It's hard to explain to non-linguists!

The Unknown Guy
02-08-2007, 18:34
As to whether less weight would decrease range, that seems to against the laws of physics somehow??

Try to throw a long distance a bundle of cloth, little grasshopper :p

It does not go against the laws of physics. Objects without weight do not travel far

caravel
02-08-2007, 18:41
So, questions/observations (again):

1) Are Klibanophoroi (I mean the type of Kataphraktoi in the game) simply too eary to be in the game?

2) I'm happy with "Stratiotai" / "Pronoiarioi Stratiotai" and "Kavallarioi" / "Pronoiarioi Kavallarioi" based on what you've mentioned about the post manzikert era, which is actually quite an important point that I hadn't paid enough attention to.

3) Regarding the Skutatoi, I have read that the Kontaratoi was the newer term, so it may be best to stick with that? The Byzantine Infantry could be preserved, or used as a dismount unit as Rythmic suggested (that way fans of the old infantry could field them in battle, but the AI would never use them). They [the old paramerion equipped Byzantine Infantry] would be renamed as Skutatoi I suppose?

4) With regards to Byzantine Cavalry, would they also be a Pronoiarioi unit?

Belisario
02-08-2007, 19:46
So, questions/observations (again):

1) Are Klibanophoroi (I mean the type of Kataphraktoi in the game) simply too eary to be in the game?

The question about Kataphraktoi/Klibanophoroi is often a large matter of debate. In the post-Manzikert era the main source of heavy cavalry for Byzantium was the pronoia system and the mercenaries. Cavalrymen with horse armour like the soldier in the Kataphraktoi info pic were not many. However the retainers of the Byzantine rulers or generals and some units of the imperial guard perhaps were equipped in such way. You could maintain the Kataphraktoi as a 20 man BG unit or even create a BG unit called Dynatoi Oiketai (Magnates' retainers) and maintain the 40 man Kataphrakoi unit (but very expensives, only available in the Early era and two years to train).


3) Regarding the Skutatoi, I have read that the Kontaratoi was the newer term, so it may be best to stick with that? The Byzantine Infantry could be preserved, or used as a dismount unit as Rythmic suggested (that way fans of the old infantry could field them in battle, but the AI would never use them). They [the old paramerion equipped Byzantine Infantry] would be renamed as Skutatoi I suppose?

Kontaratoi --- Byzantine Spearmen
Skutatoi --- Byzantine Infantry

I agree with you, for our purpose it's a good solution (remember that we don't go to write the definitive guide about the Byzantine army).


4) With regards to Byzantine Cavalry, would they also be a Pronoiarioi unit?

I think this unit could be preserve to represent the huge amount of Pecheneg, Cuman, Alan, Turk mercenaries in Byzantine service during the period covered by MTW. There are several terms for these soldiers who mostly fought as light horse-archers: Skythikoi for Pechenegs and Cumans, Tourkopouloi for christianised Turks, Vardariotai for an elite guard unit formed by Turks or Hungarians settled in the Vardar valley, Alanoi or Massagetoi for Alans.

caravel
02-08-2007, 20:20
The question about Kataphraktoi/Klibanophoroi is often a large matter of debate. In the post-Manzikert era the main source of heavy cavalry for Byzantium was the pronoia system and the mercenaries. Cavalrymen with horse armour like the soldier in the Kataphraktoi info pic were not many. However the retainers of the Byzantine rulers or generals and some units of the imperial guard perhaps were equipped in such way. You could maintain the Kataphraktoi as a 20 man BG unit or even create a BG unit called Dynatoi Oiketai (Magnates' retainers) and maintain the 40 man Kataphrakoi unit (but very expensives, only available in the Early era and two years to train).
Well that's basically how Kataphraktoi are now, a 20 man scalable unit. So I suppose, keep the name, or rename them as Dynatoi Oiketai, and leave them as they are, but increase the dependencies and costs for raising new ones.

I think this unit could be preserve to represent the huge amount of Pecheneg, Cuman, Alan, Turk mercenaries in Byzantine service during the period covered by MTW. There are several terms for these soldiers who mostly fought as light horse-archers: Skythikoi for Pechenegs and Cumans, Tourkopouloi for christianised Turks, Vardariotai for an elite guard unit formed by Turks or Hungarians settled in the Vardar valley, Alanoi or Massagetoi for Alans.
Well the Steppe Horse Archers I've introduced will probably fill that role as would Alan Mercenary Cavalry. I was thinking of placing the Byzantine Cavalry on a par with the Pronoiarioi Stratiotai, but with bows and a reduced charge? If I were to do so, what sort of naming would we be looking at?

The Unknown Guy
02-09-2007, 09:50
(I was going to mention that, according to the highly unreliable wikipedia, Byzantine Kataphractoi carried both bow and spear. It also notes that the army was chiefly composed of bowmen and cavalry -and cavalry archers-, with heavy infantry playing the role of opening gaps for cavalry)

Perhaps a full rehasal of the byzantine units&building order is in order?


BTW: in regard to the earlier topic of "Royal bodyguards trainable only in your capital", I was going to suggest limiting the training of these to capitals. AKA: You can only train Royal Knights in Castile, Aragon, Ile de France, London, and whatnot, Kataphractoi in Constantinople, Siphanis in Rum, and Ghulams in Cordoba, Cairo and Rum.

It would also give a degree of realism to the game, with the royal family generals and/or monarch having to travel back to the capital from time to time

caravel
02-09-2007, 10:03
(I was going to mention that, according to the highly unreliable wikipedia, Byzantine Kataphractoi carried both bow and spear. It also notes that the army was chiefly composed of bowmen and cavalry -and cavalry archers-, with heavy infantry playing the role of opening gaps for cavalry)
There are far too many conflicting sources without bringing wikipedia into it (:laugh4:), but that isn't far off what I've read elsewhere. The Skutatoi and Kontaratoi apparently formed a kind of "base" for the cavalry and nothing more. The cavalry being the mainstay of the force.

Perhaps a full rehasal of the byzantine units&building order is in order?
I think so, but I must admit I'm beginning to lose patience with them [the byz]. Everytime I think something is clear, another hitch turns up. Their history, especially militarily seems to be made up mainly of speculation and opinion. :sweatdrop:

BTW: in regard to the earlier topic of "Royal bodyguards trainable only in your capital", I was going to suggest limiting the training of these to capitals. AKA: You can only train Royal Knights in Castile, Aragon, Ile de France, London, and whatnot, Kataphractoi in Constantinople, Siphanis in Rum, and Ghulams in Cordoba, Cairo and Rum.

It would also give a degree of realism to the game, with the royal family generals and/or monarch having to travel back to the capital from time to time
Good in theory but possibly not in practice. I've so far modded the Royal Palace as a unique building. This basically means that the bodyguard units for the muslims and catholics can only be produced in one province. Capitals also moved around during that period, and because the game does not follow history exactly your capital may move also. This would leave you unable to train the bodyguard units.

Noir
02-09-2007, 14:02
Originally posted by Caravel

I think so, but I must admit I'm beginning to lose patience with them [the byz]. Everytime I think something is clear, another hitch turns up. Their history, especially militarily seems to be made up mainly of speculation and opinion.

It is indeed and it is a point of frustration equally for making a mod as for many other things too.

To put it in a LOTR kind of way with cheesy Hollywood voice, very few things are trully known about Byzantium "...for none now lives to remember it..."

If i was in your shoes, i would make their units fight in a certain style when combined in each era that is reflecting their strengths (organisation/professionality, focus on tactics, avoid taking losses due to having to fight in multiple fronts wth lesser numbers, good use of missiles, brute force only at the tip point) rather than anything else. I would use what accounts have to offer to make the mod enjoyable in a way i wished without being ahistorical.

Martok
02-09-2007, 20:13
There are far too many conflicting sources without bringing wikipedia into it (:laugh4:), but that isn't far off what I've read elsewhere. The Skutatoi and Kontaratoi apparently formed a kind of "base" for the cavalry and nothing more. The cavalry being the mainstay of the force.

I think so, but I must admit I'm beginning to lose patience with them [the byz]. Everytime I think something is clear, another hitch turns up. Their history, especially militarily seems to be made up mainly of speculation and opinion. :sweatdrop:
I second excetchzebe1 in saying that you should probably just "go with what you got". Given how information on the Byzantines' order of battle seems to be both relatively scant and/or contradictory, I think it's going to be all but impossible to come up with a unit roster that's truly "realistic". Unless and until someone comes up with a way to travel back in time, we could sit here merrily debating the issue until the Second Coming. ~:rolleyes:

I would say go ahead and change the BI to the Skutatoi as planned, redo the Katanks if you wish, and then call it good. Otherwise the Byz unit roster will be in a permanent state of flux, which could cause an existential crisis. The poor soldiers will begin wondering whether or not they're really there, or if they're just figments of their own (digital) imaginations. ~D


I've so far modded the Royal Palace as a unique building.
By the way, I've been meaning to tell you that I really appreciate the change. Being able to train bodyguard units in just my capital definitely helps with the immersion factor. :2thumbsup:

caravel
02-09-2007, 23:30
Ok so let's break it down somewhat. As the original Byzantine units, we have:

Trebizond Archers
Byzanine Infantry
Kataphraktoi
Pronoiai Allagion
Byzantine Cavalry
Byzantine Lancers

The question is, are the extra units needed? (giving them CA style names):

Trebizond Archers
Byzantine Light Infantry
Byzantine Infantry
Byzantine Spearmen
Kataphraktoi
Kataphraktoi Horse Archers
Pronoiai Allagion
Byzantine Cavalry
Byzantine Lancers

The next question is, are the following unit renames good enough?

Trebizond Archers -> Toxotai
Byzantine Light Infantry -> Psiloi
Byzantine Infantry -> Skutatoi
Byzantine Spearmen -> Kontaratoi
Kataphraktoi
Kataphraktoi Horse Archers -> Kataphraktoi Toxotai
Pronoiai Allagion -> Pronoiarioi Kavallarioi
Byzantine Cavalry -> Pronoiarioi Kavallarioi (Toxotai? or ?)
Byzantine Lancers -> Pronoiarioi Stratiotai

After this is the unit stats for the following, with my suggestions so far:

Toxotai - as Archers
Psiloi - as Trebizond Archers
Skutatoi - As Byzantine Infantry 60 man unit
Kontaratoi - As Chivalric Sergeants (or Feudal Sergeants or Armoured Spearmen or other?) 100 man unit
Kataphraktoi - No change - 20 man scalable unit
Kataphraktoi Toxotai - As Kataphraktoi with less charge and compound bows
Pronoiarioi Kavallarioi - As Pronoiai Allagion
Pronoiarioi Kavallarioi (Toxotai? or ?) - As Pronoiai Allagion with less charge and compound bows
Pronoiarioi Stratiotai - As Byzantine Lancers

Unit dependencies also need to be finalised.

caravel
02-09-2007, 23:52
This is where we've got so far renaming Ottoman units, as per Belisario's recommendations:

Sipahis of the Porte -> Kapikulu Sipahis

Ottoman Sipahis -> Anatolian Timarli Sipahis

Rumelian Timarli Sipahis (new unit possibly similar in appearance and stats to the vanilla Pronoiai Allagion)

Janissary infantry -> Nefer Janissaries

Janissary Heavy Infantry -> Zirhli Nefer Janissaries

Janissary Archers -> ?

Ottoman Infantry -> Zirhli Nefer or Baltaci

Saracen Infantry -> Anatolian Infantry

Innocentius
02-10-2007, 01:09
Ok so let's break it down somewhat. As the original Byzantine units, we have:

Trebizond Archers
Byzanine Infantry
Kataphraktoi
Pronoiai Allagion
Byzantine Cavalry
Byzantine Lancers

The question is, are the extra units needed? (giving them CA style names):

Trebizond Archers
Byzantine Light Infantry
Byzantine Infantry
Byzantine Spearmen
Kataphraktoi
Kataphraktoi Horse Archers
Pronoiai Allagion
Byzantine Cavalry
Byzantine Lancers

The next question is, are the following unit renames good enough?

Trebizond Archers -> Toxotai
Byzantine Light Infantry -> Psiloi
Byzantine Infantry -> Skutatoi
Byzantine Spearmen -> Kontaratoi
Kataphraktoi
Kataphraktoi Horse Archers -> Kataphraktoi Toxotai
Pronoiai Allagion -> Pronoiarioi Kavallarioi
Byzantine Cavalry -> Pronoiarioi Kavallarioi (Toxotai? or ?)
Byzantine Lancers -> Pronoiarioi Stratiotai

After this is the unit stats for the following, with my suggestions so far:

Toxotai - as Archers
Psiloi - as Trebizond Archers
Skutatoi - As Byzantine Infantry 60 man unit
Kontaratoi - As Chivalric Sergeants (or Feudal Sergeants or Armoured Spearmen or other?) 100 man unit
Kataphraktoi - No change - 20 man scalable unit
Kataphraktoi Toxotai - As Kataphraktoi with less charge and compound bows
Pronoiarioi Kavallarioi - As Pronoiai Allagion
Pronoiarioi Kavallarioi (Toxotai? or ?) - As Pronoiai Allagion with less charge and compound bows
Pronoiarioi Stratiotai - As Byzantine Lancers

Unit dependencies also need to be finalised.

Not my field but I'd say go for it. A lot of work has gone into it really, and it's a drastic improvement from the original set-up:yes:

Glad to hear you got those Swedish Peasants working, I was thinking I might have put a little too much work on your shoulders:sweatdrop:

Martok
02-10-2007, 08:37
The question is, are the extra units needed? (giving them CA style names):

Trebizond Archers
Byzantine Light Infantry
Byzantine Infantry
Byzantine Spearmen
Kataphraktoi
Kataphraktoi Horse Archers
Pronoiai Allagion
Byzantine Cavalry
Byzantine Lancers
Well unless you're going to make the build requirements for Byz LI (Psiloi) insanely high, I think having both them and regular archers (Toxotai) would be pretty redundant. It would be like how the Muslim factions had both vanilla archers and Desert Archers -- seems rather pointless IMHO.

I'm also not sure about the katank HA's (Kataphraktoi Toxotai). Historically accurate they may be, but I have to wonder as to how often a Byzantine player would actually use them. Given that they'll still have access to Byz Cavalry (Pronoiarioi Kavallarioi/Toxotai), again it seems like it would be a rather redundant unit. Still, I can't deny that at least they seem to have actually existed, so what do I know? :shrug:

Other than that, however, the roster looks good. :thumbsup:

(Sheesh. I can't believe I'm actually arguing to pair *down* a faction's unit roster. Surely something is wrong with me....)


The next question is, are the following unit renames good enough?

Trebizond Archers -> Toxotai
Byzantine Light Infantry -> Psiloi
Byzantine Infantry -> Skutatoi
Byzantine Spearmen -> Kontaratoi
Kataphraktoi
Kataphraktoi Horse Archers -> Kataphraktoi Toxotai
Pronoiai Allagion -> Pronoiarioi Kavallarioi
Byzantine Cavalry -> Pronoiarioi Kavallarioi (Toxotai? or ?)
Byzantine Lancers -> Pronoiarioi Stratiotai.
Looks good to me, Caravel. The only thing I can think of would be to maybe rename the regualar Kataphractoi as Klibanophoroi (if only to better differentiate between them and the Kataphractoi Toxotai), but that's it. I think you have a good list there. :yes:


After this is the unit stats for the following, with my suggestions so far:

Toxotai - as Archers
Psiloi - as Trebizond Archers
Skutatoi - As Byzantine Infantry 60 man unit
Kontaratoi - As Chivalric Sergeants (or Feudal Sergeants or Armoured Spearmen or other?) 100 man unit
Kataphraktoi - No change - 20 man scalable unit
Kataphraktoi Toxotai - As Kataphraktoi with less charge and compound bows
Pronoiarioi Kavallarioi - As Pronoiai Allagion
Pronoiarioi Kavallarioi (Toxotai? or ?) - As Pronoiai Allagion with less charge and compound bows
Pronoiarioi Stratiotai - As Byzantine Lancers

Unit dependencies also need to be finalised.
I would say keep the Kontaratoi as CS-type units (though with lower charge and higher morale stats, maybe?); and to keep the Pronoiarioi Toxotai the same, unless you wanted to up their melee stats a bit (I would otherwise leave them be). Everything else looks pretty peachy. ~:)

naut
02-10-2007, 10:04
A solid list.


Well unless you're going to make the build requirements for Byz LI (Psiloi) insanely high, I think having both them and regular archers (Toxotai) would be pretty redundant. It would be like how the Muslim factions had both vanilla archers and Desert Archers -- seems rather pointless IMHO.

Agreed.

caravel
02-10-2007, 13:46
Well the idea behind the regular archers was to have a replacement for the vanilla archers (which the byzantine cannot access). They would have the same stats.

Here are the dependencies I'm looking at:

Toxotai - Bowyer
Psiloi - Bowyer
Skutatoi - Swordsmith
Kontaratoi - Spearmakers Guild
Kataphraktoi - Horse Breeders' Guild and Armourers' Guild
Kataphraktoi Toxotai - Horse Breeders' Guild and Bowyers' Guild
Pronoiarioi Kavallarioi - Horse Breeders' Guild and Spearmakers' Guild
Pronoiarioi Kavallarioi Toxotai - Horse Breeders' Guild and Bowyers' Guild and Swordsmith
Pronoiarioi Stratiotai - Spearmakers' Workshop and Horse Breeder

I'm with Martok on the Toxotai and Kataphraktoi Toxotai, I think they would be largely redundant.

The recruitment and support costs will be much the same apart from the Pronoiarioi Kavallarioi Toxotai which will need to be adjusted in line with the Pronoiarioi Kavallarioi. I would make them cheaper to build but slightly more costly to support.

caravel
02-10-2007, 16:18
I've been looking into the Mongol Warriors. I was thinking of reassigning them as a dismount only unit for the Steppe Horse Archers, Steppe Heavy Cavalry and Mongol Horse Archers, and renaming them as "Dismounted Steppe Horsemen".

This will also, hopefully, stop the Mongols Emerging with them, though that is possibly hardcoded? There is another unit bif known as "MongolAuxilliaryCavalry", this could be introduced as another mongol unit called simply "Mongol Cavaly", to give three types of cavaly.

naut
02-10-2007, 23:04
Sounds good. To stop them emerging when the Mongols do go to GnomeEditor (their entry is #72) and find column 11. Then delete the bit that says "MONG_RAIDERS(-15),", this will prevent them emerging with the Mongols. Or you could set it to "MONG_RAIDERS(0),"; either way works.

Kralizec
02-14-2007, 19:51
Gah, who is this Cambyses II? What happened to Manco/Caravel ~;)

Once this mod comes out I'll reinstall MTW/VI immediately :2thumbsup:

About the Scutatoi...maybe you can give them stats similar to swordsmen, but with a spear animation and an anti-cav bonus?

Belisario
02-17-2007, 19:13
I have made a Infopic for the Byzantine Spearmen (Kontaratoi). I got the image from the Osprey book Byzantine Armies 1118-1461. You can download the infopic in this link (search the file ByzantineSpearmen_InfoPic.zip):
http://www.totalwar.org/Downloads/Mtw_Uploads/MTWupload/

The Unknown Guy
04-21-2007, 18:58
An idea for Sicily: apparently Frederick II allowed muslims to settle there as his personal guard (mainly because he had good relations with muslim princes, and they didn´t mind when he got excommed, apparently).
So, maybe the King of Sicily could have access to some muslim units? Perhaps Faris, or maybe Desert Archers?

Martok
04-21-2007, 19:58
You know, that's a good point, Guy. I rather like that idea. I'm not sure about Faris, but it probably wouldn't be unrealistic to have some sort of Muslim archer unit available to the Sicilians. :yes:

Still, it's entirely up to Cambyses/Caravel as to whether he decides to add something like that to the Pocket Mod or not. I know creating new units is a non-trivial task, so it's probably better to ask him.

Noir
04-21-2007, 20:03
Medmod IV, makes in fact use of this: the Sicilians can recruit muslims as their spear unit in all eras as well as their light cavalry. Its an interesting addition that gives a distinct style to their roster that needs to be IMO different than the Northern Italians. Also adding North African provinces to their homelands makes up for nice colonial wars.

Noir

The Unknown Guy
04-21-2007, 20:43
Well, you have a point there. Simply adding Sicily and/or naples as provinces where some muslim unit such as Desert Archers could be built would make a Sicilian player able to exploit all desert provinces for his unit production.

Plus, on the gameplay side, it would not show the "mercenary" status of those units, so it would be fitting to use a custom one. Then again, this does not necessarily mean over-complication, as an already working muslim unit (maybe the Futuwwas, or Janissary bowmen?) could be copied, and used with a different description along the lines of "Territorial disputes with the Papacy have forced the Crown of Sicily resort to recruiting muslim settlers in their lands as soldiers. These men are both indifferent to excommunication threats and loyal to the King of Sicily beyond any kinship with fellow muslim rulers, making them a fierce fighting force in Sicilian armies - as long as they are paid"

They could be called... Mercenary Sarracen Militia, or something?

The Unknown Guy
04-21-2007, 21:35
Why not increase their number from 60 to l00?

The Unknown Guy
04-26-2007, 03:32
Concerning my observation of Spain after my tweaking of Spanish jinetes to make them more expensive to produce and keep

As I said, they managed to kick the almohads out of Spain by lll8, or so, but they only had four units of jinetes in their attacking armies. The main strike force were the king and his heirs.

together they carried the battle to the Sahara, and by ll32, or so, the Almohads were wiped out
HOWEVER
Spain´s abuse of heirs in combat meant that eventually, the King was left without any heir, and he died without offspring or generals of royal blood. That very same turn the Almohads resurged in eight provinces (I´d check which, but I´m having trouble holding to my rump and bankrupt Holy Roman Empire as it is. Likely I´ll have to slash and burn some British city)

The Unknown Guy
04-26-2007, 05:34
Also, I lowered the build time of Ballistas from 2 to one turn. It doesn´t seem to unbalance them, and it makes them fit as a cheap and (mostly) worthless artillery campaign, as their inherent inaccuracy makes hitting things a fluke. And the AI doesn´t go into ballista-building sprees because of this either, for the record.

caravel
04-26-2007, 14:06
I'm unsure as to whether it is Jinetes giving The Castilian - Leonese the edge over the Moors. The missiles are after all not taken into account in AI vs AI autocalced battles so it's not the missiles causing it. The Jinete stats are as follows:

Charge: 2 Melee: 2 Defence: 2 Armour: 3 Morale: 2

When compared with Mounted Sergeants:

Charge: 8 Melee: 2 Defence: 2 Armour: 3 Morale: 2

Hobilars:

Charge: 6 Melee: 1 Defence: 2 Armour: 3 Morale: 0

and Steppe Cavalry:

Charge: 6 Melee: 2 Defence: 1 Armour: 3 Morale: 0

It is obvious that Jinetes are not that special. So the problem is their abundance as you have noted. Basically the Spanish are spamming this unit, so they could be the problem.

Mounted Sergeants cost less to raise but have the same maintenance costs. The difference is that they require "{SPEARMAKER2, HORSE_BREEDER2}" whereas Jinetes require only {HORSE_BREEDER2} 2. In view of this I would leave the support and training costs alone and increase the Jinetes dependencies to "{SPEARMAKER2, HORSE_BREEDER2}", and remove mounted Sergeants from the Spanish/Aragonese unit roster. The Spearmakers' Workshop and Horse Breeder would both depend on the Keep in the Pocket Mod so that would further restrict them. This will prevent early Jinete spamming and allow the Moors to develop.

The Unknown Guy
04-26-2007, 16:27
Mounted Sergeants cost less to raise but have the same maintenance costs. The difference is that they require "{SPEARMAKER2, HORSE_BREEDER2}" whereas Jinetes require only {HORSE_BREEDER2} 2. In view of this I would leave the support and training costs alone and increase the Jinetes dependencies to "{SPEARMAKER2, HORSE_BREEDER2}", and remove mounted Sergeants from the Spanish/Aragonese unit roster. The Spearmakers' Workshop and Horse Breeder would both depend on the Keep in the Pocket Mod so that would further restrict them. This will prevent early Jinete spamming and allow the Moors to develop.
That was the first thing I tried. Well, actually, raising the horse breeder level required to 3 instead of 2. It resulted in the annihilation of Spain/Castile in a short while. Apparently the AI can´t hold them back without spamming cavalry, and has an inborn tendence to do so, as they will still build as many Jinetes as they can if you make them more expensive. :juggle2:

caravel
04-26-2007, 17:09
Have you checked the building/training influences?


"POVERTY_STRICKEN(133), DESPERATE_DEFENCE(13.3), CATHOLIC_EXPANSIONIST(159.6), CATHOLIC_NAVAL_EXPANSIONIST(159.6), CATHOLIC_TRADER(133), CATHOLIC_CRUSADER_TRADER(133), CATHOLIC_EXPANSIONIST_CRUSADER(159.6), CATHOLIC_DEFENSIVE_CRUSADER(106.4), POPE(66.5), CATHOLIC_DEFENSIVE(106.4), CATHOLIC_ISOLATIONIST(66.5), ORTHODOX_DEFENSIVE(106.4), ORTHODOX_EXPANSIONIST(159.6), ORTHODOX_STAGNANT(133), MUSLIM_PEACEFUL(133), MUSLIM_EXPANSIONIST(159.6), MUSLIM_DEVOUT(159.6), BARBARIAN_RAIDER(212.8), REBELS(133), CLOSE_TO_SUPPORT_LIMIT(33.25)"

I'd say they're pretty high on the AI's list of priorities overall. Compared to Mounted Sergeants:


"POVERTY_STRICKEN(119), DESPERATE_DEFENCE(6.8), CATHOLIC_EXPANSIONIST(81.6), CATHOLIC_NAVAL_EXPANSIONIST(81.6), CATHOLIC_TRADER(68), CATHOLIC_CRUSADER_TRADER(68), CATHOLIC_EXPANSIONIST_CRUSADER(81.6), CATHOLIC_DEFENSIVE_CRUSADER(54.4), POPE(34), CATHOLIC_DEFENSIVE(54.4), CATHOLIC_ISOLATIONIST(34), ORTHODOX_DEFENSIVE(54.4), ORTHODOX_EXPANSIONIST(81.6), ORTHODOX_STAGNANT(68), MUSLIM_PEACEFUL(68), MUSLIM_EXPANSIONIST(81.6), MUSLIM_DEVOUT(81.6), BARBARIAN_RAIDER(108.8), REBELS(68), CLOSE_TO_SUPPORT_LIMIT(11.56)"

caravel
04-30-2007, 15:03
Update:

I had been taking notes from this thread on Friday, and had compiled those notes into a "to do" list. So far I have implemented the following changes from these notes:

1) Renamed the Bulgarian Brigands and installed them as an archer unit for the Russians, Poles, Hungarians and Novgorod. Simply called "Archers". These faction now recruit those archers and not the western European ones. The Muslims and Byzantine cannot recruit either, but have their own archers.

2) The Mongol "warriors" are now Dismounted Steppe Horsemen, only available through dismount. Several Steppe cavalry types (KRC, SHC, MHC, MHA, MAC) dismount to these, though Steppe Cavalry and Steppe Horse Archer now dismount to (eastern) Archers, to avoid the player exploiting this and dismounting these units to acquire Dismounted Steppe Horsemen cheaply. The Dismounted Steppe Horsemen no longer emerge with the Mongols.

3) "Mongol Auxilliary Cavalry" 6/3/3/4/6 introduced as an extra mongol medium cavalry unit to emerge with the Mongols - needs info pic.

4) Incest / Secret Incest vice wording changed to be more general.

5) Kataphraktoi, early era only, increased to 40 man scalable units, Kapikulu Sipahi increased to 40 man scalable units, Boyars increased to 40 man scalable units.

6) New Bodyguard unit for Byzantine. Dynatoi Oiketai, in effect scalable 20 man units of Kataphraktoi.

7) New Bodyguard unit for Kievan Rus and Novgorod. <name needed>, in effect scalable 20 man units of Boyars.

8) New Bodyguard unit for Ottomans. Sipahi Oglen, in effect scalable 20 man units of Kapikulu Sipahi.

9) Support costs for bodyguards are very low, training costs are very high.

10) Kontaratoi info pic added

11) Armies crossing from the Sinai into Egypt face a bridge battle - though not in the other direction.

12) Ballistas build time one turn.

13) Gothic Knights available to all catholic factions.

14) Nizari Fedayeen now also depend on the Ribat.

15) Ghazi Infantry depend on the Ribat instead of the Mosque (I'm not sure about axe wielding loons being "trained" in a mosque, a Ribat seems much more appropriate).

16) Russian faction added to the early era as the Kievan Rus faction, occupying many eastern provinces. Symbology and faction colours yet to be finalised. Assistance with finding a suitable symbol for the Kievans and another for Novgorod would be appreciated as the current symbol is incorrect for both. Also info on the royal lines of the Kievans would be helpful.

:bow:

Edit: My experiments with the rebel income buildings have not yielded any results so far. Their economy simply doesn't add up. No matter how much the income/expenses statement states their income to be, they still go into the red within a year or two. I haven't tried the cut off province approach, that would probably work, but is something I'd prefer to avoid.

The Unknown Guy
05-01-2007, 05:42
My point was that Portugal could be added in earl as "County of Portugal" and in High and Late as as kingdom. It is fairly easy to do this. How about "duchy"? It started off as one with the con&#231;uest of Lisbon.



The Almohads pretty much swept away the Almoravid Dynasty from within as what was effectively a large scale Islamist rebellion.
Actually, they wiped them out just as the Almoravids had wiped out the taifas . They had come up in a similar fashion "attending the pleads of their iberian brethen". But for practical purposes it&#180;s the same.

I see the representation of the Cid's occupation of Valencia as an irrelevance. He would only have held Valencia for a matter of years before his death. It was back in Almoravid control quite quickly.
Indeed. In fact, while he held it, as a vassal of Castile, it WAS largely irrelevant, as pretty much the local laws of the former muslim rulers, and the muslim population, stayed in place. Still the guy&#180;s hyped, for some reason. I guess people find the idea of tying a dead man to a horse and routing an army as hilarious.



1) Renamed the Bulgarian Brigands and installed them as an archer unit for the Russians, Poles, Hungarians and Novgorod. Simply called "Archers". These faction now recruit those archers and not the western European ones. The Muslims and Byzantine cannot recruit either, but have their own archers.
So, if I get this right: Now Byzantines&muslims (which had access to "specialized" compound bow units) have access to both these and a "regular" bow unit? :nod:


The Dismounted Steppe Horsemen no longer emerge with the Mongols.
Kind of made you wonder "Where did they leave their horses?" :p
Besides, they were a hindrance on the mongol AI, as once you had beaten back their cavalry, they lacked enough mobility NOT to be s&#231;uikked by cavalry



16) Russian faction added to the early era as the Kievan Rus faction, occupying many eastern provinces. Symbology and faction colours yet to be finalised. Assistance with finding a suitable symbol for the Kievans and another for Novgorod would be appreciated as the current symbol is incorrect for both. Also info on the royal lines of the Kievans would be helpful.
Nice. I think that Novgorod had something on the order of a black castle as an image, not sure


6) New Bodyguard unit for Byzantine. Dynatoi Oiketai, in effect scalable 20 man units of Kataphraktoi
Royal palace dependent?


4) Incest / Secret Incest vice wording changed to be more general.
Another good idea. Afterall, the dynastic mismash can mean that a "king" is marrying his cousin or niece, not his daughter.
Could also the "piety penalty" made less steep? And/or add some other kind of penalty, such as morale. After all, dynastic inbreeding was run-of-the-mill...




12) Ballistas build time one turn.

13) Gothic Knights available to all catholic factions.

:smile:

Btw, are the Gothic Knight stats changed? I seem to recall you mentioned changing them in an earlier version, but I don&#180;t know if that made it in or not...

caravel
05-01-2007, 08:26
How about "duchy"? It started off as one with the con&#231;uest of Lisbon.
Probably.

Actually, they wiped them out just as the Almoravids had wiped out the taifas . They had come up in a similar fashion "attending the pleads of their iberian brethen". But for practical purposes it&#180;s the same.
Not what I've read. The Almohads emerged from the Atlas mountains regions (within Almoravid territory) and overthrew the Almoravids. They were a movement with popular support both in Andalusia and the Maghreb. They appeared as a direct result of the lax attitude to islam among the Almoravids whom of which may be considered "moderate".

Indeed. In fact, while he held it, as a vassal of Castile, it WAS largely irrelevant, as pretty much the local laws of the former muslim rulers, and the muslim population, stayed in place. Still the guy&#180;s hyped, for some reason. I guess people find the idea of tying a dead man to a horse and routing an army as hilarious.
It seems that CA simply felt the need to represent these famous historical characters even though they don't really fit in. Valencia should start as a Muslim province perhaps occupied by Castile, with El Cid as the general, or as simply an Almoravid province.

So, if I get this right: Now Byzantines&muslims (which had access to "specialized" compound bow units) have access to both these and a "regular" bow unit? :nod:
No, the Byzantines will not be able to train them. Only the Rus, Novgorod, Hungarians and Poles. The unit will be compound bow equipped for now, though if this imbalances the game somewhat, I will change this. The compound bow is still in the testing phase after all. It would be a good idea to have a more generic unit equipped with it in order that it can be fully tested.

Kind of made you wonder "Where did they leave their horses?" :p
Besides, they were a hindrance on the mongol AI, as once you had beaten back their cavalry, they lacked enough mobility NOT to be s&#231;uikked by cavalry
I found them easy pickings and it was annoying to see the first mongol battle consisting almost entirely of them.

Nice. I think that Novgorod had something on the order of a black castle as an image, not sure
I'll have to look into this. I was working on the Kiev one yesterday, but wasn't happy with the result in the end, so I'll start that again when I've more time.

@Noir: Kiev symbol :bow:

Royal palace dependent?
No, but could be I suppose. This is not an issue as yet, as I need to re-do a lot of the unit dependencies anyway. I have changed the Metalsmith into the Blacksmith and removed the weapon upgrades. The Blacksmith no longer depends on the Iron mine and can be built in all provinces. I intend to use this building as the prerequisite for:

1) Militias such as UM, MS and Halberdiers
2) All Cavalry
3) Axe equipped units such as Vikings, woodsmen or Ghazi etc
4) Lower class sword units such as clansmen or gallowglasses

My reasoning for this, on a historical basis, is that crude swords, axes and pole arms used by the peasant levies were usually rude weapons knocked up by a blacksmith. Any respectable smithy could put together a decent axe, but forging a good sword or battle axe, especially that which was fit for nobility was a different trade requiring much more skill and expertise.

I have also removed the armour upgrades from the armourer.

The next stage will be to assess every units equipment needs and add the necessary prerequisites required to equip that unit. My hope is that this will not be at all complicated, but in fact simple, perhaps simpler than it is at present. The system will work something like this:
A few units need first to be examined to use as examples:

Men at Arms: This unit has a helm, shield, sword and mail armour. It would probably need at least the Armourers' Workshop, as I will be using this as the default base level armourer. The Swordsmith would be required for the sword.

Chivalric Men at Arms: As above, though the sword and equipment would be of higher quality so; Swordsmiths' Workshop and Armourer's Guild.

Futuwwa: These would be a fanatical unit that would also depend on the Ribat. The additional dependencies would be the Swordsmith and Bowyers' Workshop. The latter due to the unit having the compound bow.

Turcoman Foot Soldiers: Swordsmith, Bowyers' Workshop, Armourers' Workshop.

Psiloi: Swordsmith, Bowyers' Workshop, Armourer. The armourer would be the default for units that are virtually unarmourerd (armour: 1) but carry a shield.

Feudal Knights: Royal Court, Horse Breeder's Workshop, Blacksmiths' Workshop, Spearmakers' Workshop, Armourer's Workshop, Swordsmiths' Workshop. This seems a lot and come to think of it I haven't checked if a unit can support this many dependencies, but if it does work it won't be an issue as the build times and costs of most military buildings will be reduced anyway to assist the AI. I've added the Swordsmith line to all Knights because I feel that in reality they would make use of maces, swords, battle axes flails etc, whilst in close combat.

Chivalric Knights and Order Knights: Would be as above but with all buildings upgraded one level.

Lancers: Would be as above but with Royal Court and Armourer upgraded one more level.

Gothic Knights: Master Level Military buildings and highest level royal court.

Hobilars: Spearmaker, Horse Farmer, Blacksmith.

Mounted Sergeants: Spearmakers' Workshop, Armourer, Horse Farmer, Blacksmith.

Crossbowmen: Bowyers' Workshop, Armourers' Workshop.

Archer: Bowyer


All of these are only examples, and those dependencies may not be the ones used. I could base the requirements on unit stats also, instead of just gut instinct. For example on: attack, weapon type, armour level, is cavalry?, has shield? AP?, anti cav?, cav defence, etc, etc, etc.


Another good idea. Afterall, the dynastic mismash can mean that a "king" is marrying his cousin or niece, not his daughter.
Could also the "piety penalty" made less steep? And/or add some other kind of penalty, such as morale. After all, dynastic inbreeding was run-of-the-mill...
I'm not sure if vnvs can be modded in this way, I'm sure they're not, I'll have to check.

Btw, are the Gothic Knight stats changed? I seem to recall you mentioned changing them in an earlier version, but I don&#180;t know if that made it in or not...
They were changed in v1.0.6.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1428014&postcount=181

:bow:

naut
05-01-2007, 09:38
I like some of the innovations mentioned. I'll give some more detailed feedback and input when I have more time.

caravel
05-14-2007, 13:48
(split from post in the other thread)

I was messing with the unit rosters today, removing redundant units (I'm no where near done as yet). I have renamed Chivalric Sergeants and Vanilla Square Shield Spearmen to "Sergeants". They are now effectively Sergeants for the three eras. The first have been given a +1 morale bonus as they were severely lacking previously. The others are unchanged for now. As to the faction association:

[Early - Catholic Square Shield Spearmen] Sergeants: All Catholic factions except Danes, Hungarians and Poles.

[High - Feudal] Sergeants: All Catholic factions except Italians

[Late - Chivalric] Sergeants: All Catholic factions except Italians

Armoured Spearmen are renamed simply Spearmen and are Russian/Novgorod High/Late only.

[Early - Round Shield] Spearmen (same stats as Early Sergeants): Hungarians and Poles

[Muslim - Square Shield*] Spearmen (same stats as Early Sergeants): Moors/Turks Early only.

*broken off into a separate unit

In the Early era the Danes have their own Spearmen, namely Viking Carls (originally thralls), so they don't need the Early Sergeants nor the Round Shield Spearmen.

The Egyptians have the Nubians in all eras, so don't need the Muslim Spearmen.

The Rus and Novgorod have the Rus Spearmen in Early.

So that does it, for now, for the spear units. The Byzantine have their own Kontaratoi, the Italians have Italian Infantry for High and Late, the Turks Saracens from high onwards and the Moors al-Muwahhidun Infantry ("Almohad" Infantry) for High/Late. So I think I have that pretty well covered. This is all based on an idea posted by YourLordandConqueror. :bow:

The next stage is the Militias, then it's onto the training dependency buildings. Nearly all of those need changing, and I mean logical changes.

Martok
05-15-2007, 01:45
(split from post in the other thread)

I was messing with the unit rosters today, removing redundant units (I'm no where near done as yet). I have renamed Chivalric Sergeants and Vanilla Square Shield Spearmen to "Sergeants". They are now effectively Sergeants for the three eras. The first have been given a +1 morale bonus as they were severely lacking previously. The others are unchanged for now. As to the faction association:

[Early - Catholic Square Shield Spearmen] Sergeants: All Catholic factions except Danes, Hungarians and Poles.

[High - Feudal] Sergeants: All Catholic factions except Italians

[Late - Chivalric] Sergeants: All Catholic factions except Italians

Armoured Spearmen are renamed simply Spearmen and are Russian/Novgorod High/Late only.

[Early - Round Shield] Spearmen (same stats as Early Sergeants): Hungarians and Poles

[Muslim - Square Shield*] Spearmen (same stats as Early Sergeants): Moors/Turks Early only.

*broken off into a separate unit

In the Early era the Danes have their own Spearmen, namely Viking Carls (originally thralls), so they don't need the Early Sergeants nor the Round Shield Spearmen.

The Egyptians have the Nubians in all eras, so don't need the Muslim Spearmen.

The Rus and Novgorod have the Rus Spearmen in Early.

So that does it, for now, for the spear units. The Byzantine have their own Kontaratoi, the Italians have Italian Infantry for High and Late, the Turks Saracens from high onwards and the Moors al-Muwahhidun Infantry ("Almohad" Infantry) for High/Late. So I think I have that pretty well covered. This is all based on an idea posted by YourLordandConqueror. :bow:
Sounds good, Cambyses. :thumbsup:


The next stage is the Militias, then it's onto the training dependency buildings. Nearly all of those need changing, and I mean logical changes.
You mean you're going to change them from the Town Watch/Town Watch tech line? What did you have in mind instead?

caravel
05-15-2007, 08:28
Sounds good, Cambyses. :thumbsup:


You mean you're going to change them from the Town Watch/Town Watch tech line? What did you have in mind instead?
Well so far we have a line of militia buildings that do nothing apart from to provide provincial happiness bonuses, and turn out some mediocre units. I have my doubts about Pikemen and Halberdiers being "Militias" as such, I also have my doubts about the militia being a unit training building at all, they certainly shouldn't be the sole dependency of any unit (but I'm not going to cover that as yet). It is my opinion that the militia buildings should somehow effect income and perhaps bestow a title at level 4, also perhaps providing an income as Noir suggested to represent the lessened crime rate, order and their capacity as fire fighters. This would make them more valuable to, and useable by the muslims and orthodox.

I would be interested in ideas (and sources) as to what constituted a "militia" in Feudal Europe and what type of arms and equipment were used. I'm not entirely convinced by the urban militiaman / militia sergeant with the 'tommy' helmet and pole axe. From what I've read of militias they were variously armed, but usually swordsmen in the style of the FMAA.

ULC
05-15-2007, 14:06
Strange idea, but what if you were to restrict the UM/MS to the Italians, and possibly the Byzantines? Use the Islamic version of the UM/MS as the basis for another unit type, Almohad only? Just a suggestion.

caravel
05-15-2007, 14:52
Strange idea, but what if you were to restrict the UM/MS to the Italians, and possibly the Byzantines? Use the Islamic version of the UM/MS as the basis for another unit type, Almohad only? Just a suggestion.
I'd always assumed that the wide brimmed helmets were used in the warmer climes to keep the sun off? With regard to the Byzantine, the militias look unsuited due to the style of weapon and gear which has more of a Frankish or western appearance. To me their equipment looks like it is adapted for use in the holy land. I was thinking Outremer troops? It may be that they could be infantry recruited by the Catholics, or some of the Catholics, but only in Edessa, Antioch, Tripoli and Palestine?

The Muslim Militia Sergeants and Urban Militia are currently Almohad only. These would probably have to be split off and or removed altogether. I'm not so sure what they are supposed to represent, perhaps Andalusian troops? I need more info on this before I can do any more.

The Unknown Guy
05-16-2007, 15:14
One thing I&#180;m curious about is the weaponry used by Spanish muslims. It occured to me that maybe they purchased most of their weapons from the Christian kingdoms. I&#180;m making a google search on it.

Martok
05-16-2007, 16:13
Thread moved from the Main Hall per request.

caravel
05-16-2007, 16:22
One thing I&#180;m curious about is the weaponry used by Spanish muslims. It occured to me that maybe they purchased most of their weapons from the Christian kingdoms. I&#180;m making a google search on it.
I do know that the Taifa kingdoms had armour and weapons more like the Christian kingdoms, than the Moors, but I'm not sure of the source.

ULC
05-17-2007, 14:02
I thought up a few ideas last night...

1) What if you were to add a "disloyalty" bonus to military buildings, and a "loyalty" bonus to ecomic buildings. This may cause the AI to do one of two things: either increase its garrison, or build up it's economy. It may also slow down the computer in it's tech advancment, so it will need some testing.

2) Remove the militia building line entirely. Or better yet, rename them so they represent military training centers. They could hold all the morale, valour and discipline upgrades. I have a few name ideas, but I'd prefer to hear about you think.

3) Add titles to "master" rank buildings. You could have "Master of the Emperor's Citadel" or "Warden of the xyz".

caravel
05-17-2007, 15:00
I thought up a few ideas last night...

1) What if you were to add a "disloyalty" bonus to military buildings, and a "loyalty" bonus to ecomic buildings. This may cause the AI to do one of two things: either increase its garrison, or build up it's economy. It may also slow down the computer in it's tech advancment, so it will need some testing.
This is a difficult one, as the AI often goes military mad, especially in valour bonus regions, and could end up with a province revolting because they built a lot of military buildings first and not a lot else. The historical/real life relativity is also an issue. Let's suppose that you build an impressive new town swordsmith in Normandy. I doubt the populace would be effected by it. If you had converted to paganism and built a sacrificial shrine there, they might be annoyed, but worried by new military buildings? I'd say not. I would have fought that a stronger military presence would help to cow the population?

2) Remove the militia building line entirely. Or better yet, rename them so they represent military training centers. They could hold all the morale, valour and discipline upgrades. I have a few name ideas, but I'd prefer to hear about you think.
Barracks? I had thought about this but wasn't sure about it's historicalness in a feudal society. For the Byzantine yes, but I'm not sure about the others. Still it's a good idea. Perhaps the Militia buildings could be renamed as e.g. "Barracks", "Town Barracks", "Barracks of the Citadel" and "Barracks of the Fortress" or something similar. These would then be added as the main training facilities for almost all troops such as Sergeants, men at Arms Mounted Sergeants etc. The valour bonus could be added to the highest level barracks and not to the weapons makers. This would represent better training as opposed to better weapons. Certain units such as Knights, Vikings and Highland Clansmen would not come from the barracks, but perhaps the muster field from VI could be added as a lower level barracks than the current town watch? This would depend on the fort only and allow the training of units such as clansmen. Note that this wouldn't replace a units other dependencies (in particular the proposed specific dependencies that I will be working on soon) it would instead add to these. A foot unit armed with a basic sword and shield would still need at least a swordsmith and armourer for example.

3) Add titles to "master" rank buildings. You could have "Master of the Emperor's Citadel" or "Warden of the xyz".
I'm not so sure about that, for me a Master Spearmaker would give someone the title "Master Spearmaker". :dizzy2:

This may work for the highest level Militia Building and the Royal Court buildings though (remember the title to the highest level Royal Court is technically the title to the province anyway, so I'm thinking about lesser titles (the Duke's right hand man for example?)). We just need to come up with some historical titles. :book:

Belisario
05-17-2007, 17:00
During the period covered by MTW "urban militias" were the main source of infantry troops for the Castilian-Leonese rulers (and I suspect the same in Aragon, Catalonia, Navarre and Portugal). These infantrymen provided by the "concejos" (town council) were called "peones" in the historical sources and their terms of service were regulated by the "fueros" (code of laws) of each city. Their weaponry included a varied set of weapons such as spears, maces, poleaxes, axes... The concejos also provided important contingents of cavalrymen, known as "caballeros villanos" (villager or commoner cavalrymen). In the context of the frontier warfare social promotion was common, so a "peón" could became a "caballero villano" if he was able of maintain war horse and good arms. Some "caballeros villanos" were influential figures in the social and political life of the "concejos", and they could became members of the lesser nobility ("infanzones") after a successful career.

Omanes Alexandrapolites
05-17-2007, 19:28
May I suggest that for the highest level of the Millita Line of buildings, or perhaps even lower at say level three or two, we could have a "Sheriff of x" Provincial Title for Catholic factions. Perhaps providing a small loyalty and a dread bonus to represent the fear he will instil upon criminals and brigands.

caravel
05-17-2007, 20:04
That is actually a good idea, but it would have to be localised for different factions, otherwise we would have a Turkish Sheriff! :laugh4:

Once I get some ideas together for some equivalent titles for other factions I'll definitely add the sheriff title though.

:bow:

ULC
05-18-2007, 14:01
Originally Posted by Cambyses II

This is a difficult one, as the AI often goes military mad, especially in valour bonus regions, and could end up with a province revolting because they built a lot of military buildings first and not a lot else. The historical/real life relativity is also an issue. Let's suppose that you build an impressive new town swordsmith in Normandy. I doubt the populace would be effected by it. If you had converted to paganism and built a sacrificial shrine there, they might be annoyed, but worried by new military buildings? I'd say not. I would have fought that a stronger military presence would help to cow the population?

Thye idea behind it was to curve the AI's tendency to go for military buildings and to appeal to happiness buildings. By making "military" buildings have a negative loyalty bonus and giving economic buildings a positive loyalty bonus, the AI MIGHT start caring about it's economy as much as the player does. Needs testing though.


Originally Posted by Cambyses II


Barracks? I had thought about this but wasn't sure about it's historicalness in a feudal society. For the Byzantine yes, but I'm not sure about the others. Still it's a good idea. Perhaps the Militia buildings could be renamed as e.g. "Barracks", "Town Barracks", "Barracks of the Citadel" and "Barracks of the Fortress" or something similar. These would then be added as the main training facilities for almost all troops such as Sergeants, men at Arms Mounted Sergeants etc. The valour bonus could be added to the highest level barracks and not to the weapons makers. This would represent better training as opposed to better weapons. Certain units such as Knights, Vikings and Highland Clansmen would not come from the barracks, but perhaps the muster field from VI could be added as a lower level barracks than the current town watch? This would depend on the fort only and allow the training of units such as clansmen. Note that this wouldn't replace a units other dependencies (in particular the proposed specific dependencies that I will be working on soon) it would instead add to these. A foot unit armed with a basic sword and shield would still need at least a swordsmith and armourer for example.

You could tie them into the higher levels (Castle, Citadel, Fortress) for more historical accuracy. The muster field could be relageted to the Fort and/or Keep. Thus could also be the dependency for the Military Academy if we go this route. An idea on the bonuses could be: +1 morale for first level, +2 for second, +1 valor for third, and +2 valor or +1 valor and +2 morale for the final level. For the MA, we could have the same bonuses as the final building, but with the discipline bonus also.


Originally Posted by Cambyses II

I'm not so sure about that, for me a Master Spearmaker would give someone the title "Master Spearmaker".

This may work for the highest level Militia Building and the Royal Court buildings though (remember the title to the highest level Royal Court is technically the title to the province anyway, so I'm thinking about lesser titles (the Duke's right hand man for example?)). We just need to come up with some historical titles.

Errr... a bit of miscommunication there, sorry about that. What I meant was that buildings such as the Military Academy, the University, Surgeons ???? could have thier own titles. If it's possible to set multiple buildings for a single title, then we could also have all the "smith" buildings as a requirement for a title such as "Lord's Master at Arms" or "Lord's Master Smith", etc.

caravel
05-18-2007, 14:36
Thye idea behind it was to curve the AI's tendency to go for military buildings and to appeal to happiness buildings. By making "military" buildings have a negative loyalty bonus and giving economic buildings a positive loyalty bonus, the AI MIGHT start caring about it's economy as much as the player does. Needs testing though.
I don't think the AI can take happiness bonuses into account, that is that it doesn't seem to know the bonus exists, so sadly that wouldn't really effect the AI's approach to building. The only real way to make the AI want to build something is to change the build influences or give it a good income. I have found that the AI goes mad for the lev1_income or cathedral income buildings. The forester for example is extremely attractive to the AI and it will try to build those, and upgrades, before anything else. Their building influences are only the same as mines so it seems that it is the large income that attracts the AI above all else, except for maybe the valour bonus regions.

You could tie them into the higher levels (Castle, Citadel, Fortress) for more historical accuracy. The muster field could be relageted to the Fort and/or Keep. Thus could also be the dependency for the Military Academy if we go this route. An idea on the bonuses could be: +1 morale for first level, +2 for second, +1 valor for third, and +2 valor or +1 valor and +2 morale for the final level. For the MA, we could have the same bonuses as the final building, but with the discipline bonus also.
The problem with tying the barracks and military buildings into the higher level citadel/fortress tech tree is that it take the AI an age to tech up and it often bankrupts itself doing so. Under the newer system base level and workshop level depend on the keep and guild and master level depend on the castle. I feel that this is enough and that later castles should be exceptional fortifications and as dependencies for the cathedrals, grand mosques, and administration buildings.

Errr... a bit of miscommunication there, sorry about that. What I meant was that buildings such as the Military Academy, the University, Surgeons ???? could have thier own titles. If it's possible to set multiple buildings for a single title, then we could also have all the "smith" buildings as a requirement for a title such as "Lord's Master at Arms" or "Lord's Master Smith", etc.
That is an idea, certainly for the Military Academy, this should give a decent title but not command stars. I am against giving command stars because the AI fails to use them correctly. For example it will give a title that gives 1 command star to a 0 command general sitting in a fort in a backwater province, instead of using it to top up the command of a four star general that is leading an army stack near the front line. The player can take advantage whereas the AI cannot.

I feel that titles should give loyalty, piety, dread and acumen only and not increase command, a stat that is only effective on the battlefield and which can only be improved through successful campaigning, not by being given a title. Yes the same can be said for the other stats, but they are not battlefield stats.

With regard to the titles, the problem is that a skilled Swordsmith would a) never be risked on the battlefield and b) would generally be a, probably aged, craftsmen and not a soldier. I think that nobility or military titles are needed and only for the Military Academy, highest level barracks and perhaps some of the royal court buildings?

:bow:

ULC
05-18-2007, 18:07
What about for The Brothel/Tavern? An actual spymaster anyone?

barocca
05-18-2007, 20:27
...I feel that titles should give loyalty, piety, dread and acumen only and not increase command...
what about morale?
possibly mens morale would be lifted knowing their general is lord of this or that?
:bow:
B.

The Unknown Guy
05-18-2007, 21:43
For what I understand the problem is not so much of realism as of the computer being able to use it. AKA: Playing Byzantium, if you pick a Prononai Kavalliori Toxotai, and make him Lord of Trebizond and Commander of the Fleet, you have a four-stars commander ex nihilo, which is the reasonable thing to do given the circumstances.
However, the computer will just grant the titles to whom it fancies best, and thus will leave the Admiral sitting in the backwaters, and make Lord of Trebizond a high acumen urban militia, or something after that fashion.

caravel
05-19-2007, 16:14
what about morale?
possibly mens morale would be lifted knowing their general is lord of this or that?
:bow:
B.
Very true and a good idea, adding titles would be great, but I must admit I'm stumped as to how to go about it. I know how to change the titles for provinces but not for buildings.

:help:

Omanes Alexandrapolites
05-19-2007, 18:13
Sorry Cambyses, but I'm just going to interrupt the flow of dissussion to make a small suggestion regarding units post-1205.

It's nothing major, however, it seems that the earlier troop types go completely out of fashion, cannot be re-trained or trained again. I'm sorry, yet I confess that I find it a little bit irritating. So, to solve this, may I suggest that post-1205, the old starting units still exist as a cheaper alternative that can still be trained and re-trained. However they instead go out-of-date in the Late Era, representing the out-dating of the equipment that these older units used, leaving the player with the later Chivalric troops only.

Apologies for the hijack.

caravel
05-19-2007, 20:39
The version you're playing, 1.0.6, has Feudal Men at arms and Chivalric Sergeants as Early and High/Late eras respectively. The reason I have made these units go out of fashion is because previously there was a lot of redundancy in that area. I have treated Feudal Sergeants and Chivalric Sergeants in the same way. 1.0.7 will take this a step further and add three eras to the catholic Spear units. Regular Square shield Spearmen will receive a 1 point valour bonus and will be renamed "Sergeants". They will be early era only. Feudal Sergeants will be renamed "Sergeants" and will be high era only, and Chivalric Sergeants also renamed "Sergeants" and Late era only.

This will give three levels of Catholic Spearmen, easier for the AI to deal with to give more balanced rosters. The annoyance will be when you have a good general leading an early Men at Arms or Sergeants unit that cannot be retrained in the high era, but what you have to remember is that the AI in a similar situation cannot retrain units anyway, whether they're out of fashion or not.

This is something that you will get used to in time. The old system of preserving the old unit types into the next era doesn't work. The AI will still keep training the inferior units and will not be able to compete. Similarly the Turks can only train the basic Spearmen until the high era when those are phased out and Anatolian Infantry are phased in. The Almoravids similarly only train basic spearmen until high, when al-Muwahhidun Infantry become available and the basic spearmen are phased out. The player will still be able to take advantage and retrain their units before the era changes over.

:bow:

Noir
05-19-2007, 20:44
Assuming that a satisfactory level of balance with this arrangement in faction roster and faction roster flow (over time) can be achieved, i find Omanes' idea good.

It's more easy i guess for balance purposes to completely discontinue rosters from era to era - however an arrangement of the form Omanes is proposing would make for smooth transition in tactics/style of tactics from era to era and thus a more elegant game overall IMO.

Many Thanks

Noir

*Sorry Cambyses II, when i started composing the present post you hadn't replied yet - post now (almost) irrelevant*

caravel
05-19-2007, 21:58
The problem with the idea is that to make FMAA become cheaper they would need to be added again as a duplicate unit. This would mean that the old unit would still not be retrainable. Otherwise I'd support the idea of a "grace period" wholeheartedly.

Omanes Alexandrapolites
05-20-2007, 07:44
Sorry Cambyses, I should have been more clear about that, apologies. I meant that they would be cheaper as in they could cost less than the more elite and prestigious Chivalric troops - not generally cheaper overall. However, may I suggest that FMAA could still be re-trainable, but they upgrade to the next level when this occurs - quite like Royal Knights at current.

BTW, I'm sorry to trouble you again, but I think that I've noticed a small bug. Peculiarly, Chivalric Sargents have Poor Morale unlike their predecessors who have Average Morale. I'm very sorry if it's deliberate. Hope this helps, cheers!

caravel
05-20-2007, 15:33
Sorry Cambyses, I should have been more clear about that, apologies. I meant that they would be cheaper as in they could cost less than the more elite and prestigious Chivalric troops - not generally cheaper overall. However, may I suggest that FMAA could still be re-trainable, but they upgrade to the next level when this occurs - quite like Royal Knights at current.
Well they already cost significantly less to train and less to support.

BTW, I'm sorry to trouble you again, but I think that I've noticed a small bug. Peculiarly, Chivalric Sargents have Poor Morale unlike their predecessors who have Average Morale. I'm very sorry if it's deliberate. Hope this helps, cheers!
CS have lower morale than FS, those are the stats from Vanilla MTW - not a bug. I believe that the morale of CS was lowered due to them having more armour and so relying on a better general to up their valour, whereas FS are relying more on their own bravery not having as much armour as CS.

:bow:

Omanes Alexandrapolites
05-20-2007, 19:30
I would have thought that their morale would be higher than their earlier version due to them having more confidence in the might of their better arms and improved, tougher and more re-enforced armour. May I suggest that their morale be increased to a higher level - perhaps simply normal morale, similar to that of their predecessors. I apologies for making so many suggestions, yet I find that, since they have lower morale, that it makes for a few nasty instant-rout battles - since they are often the main force and backbone of my front-line fighting armies. I also feel the same about the trained Byzantine Infantry - I find it quite odd that their morale is quite low even though they are a reasonably good fighting force otherwise. Since their forces are often the mainline of the almighty Byzantine military machine, also often resulting in a much higher battle speed, may I also suggest an increase in their morale to a higher level. May I suggest "Good Morale" would be a better level for them due to their good training and larger amounts of discipline than most units. Thanks!

BTW, didn't somebody mention something about transforming the Militia line of buildings into a barracks for the Byzantines. May I suggest that, if you were to accept this idea, that this could be the pre-requirement for all of the higher quality Byzantine Units that would be historically trained and disciplined units such as Byzantine Infantry or those Royal Guard Axemen type troops. Perhaps units that require the barracks line could have slightly better statistics, but be a little bit more expensive in terms of both training costs and upkeep costs. I'm not too sure, but perhaps this could keep the Byzantine military machine from becoming too powerful due to the higher upkeep costs.

caravel
05-20-2007, 20:31
I would have thought that their morale would be higher than their earlier version due to them having more confidence in the might of their better arms and improved, tougher and more re-enforced armour. May I suggest that their morale be increased to a higher level - perhaps simply normal morale, similar to that of their predecessors. I apologies for making so many suggestions, yet I find that, since they have lower morale, that it makes for a few nasty instant-rout battles - since they are often the main force and backbone of my front-line fighting armies. I also feel the same about the trained Byzantine Infantry - I find it quite odd that their morale is quite low even though they are a reasonably good fighting force otherwise. Since their forces are often the mainline of the almighty Byzantine military machine, also often resulting in a much higher battle speed, may I also suggest an increase in their morale to a higher level. May I suggest "Good Morale" would be a better level for them due to their good training and larger amounts of discipline than most units. Thanks!
The morale decrease is in the name of game balance. Basically Feudal Sergeants can expect to die quickly when under fire or attacked by sword infantry due to their lower armour, so they get a +2 point morale bonus to make up for this. Chivalric Sergeants have this bonus removed due to their much better better armour and defence stats and slightly better melee. Personally I think they're balanced enough as is. When it comes to Byzantine Infantry I both agree and disagree with your points. Byzantine Infantry are an inferior version of FMAA. The main difference is that BI are disciplined. They should perhaps have higher morale, but the problem with this, is the inbuilt Byzantine faction leader's starting +2 influence and +1 command bonus. This gives the Byzantine much better general over all and so the morale deficiency is not so much of an issue. Also the morale bonuses can have the nasty effect of producing killer unroutable lunatics. With the morale bonuses from churches etc, valour bonuses from the general and master buildings, it can get a bit over the top. This is why we have to be cautious when adding morale bonuses. For weaker units yes, and for flankers such as Ghazi, suicidal morale is a vital part of their makeup.

BTW, didn't somebody mention something about transforming the Militia line of buildings into a barracks for the Byzantines. May I suggest that, if you were to accept this idea, that this could be the pre-requirement for all of the higher quality Byzantine Units that would be historically trained and disciplined units such as Byzantine Infantry or those Royal Guard Axemen type troops. Perhaps units that require the barracks line could have slightly better statistics, but be a little bit more expensive in terms of both training costs and upkeep costs. I'm not too sure, but perhaps this could keep the Byzantine military machine from becoming too powerful due to the higher upkeep costs.
Yes this is all in the pipeline. I am going to add the muster field from VI to the base level of the town watch line of the tech tree to create 5 levels of barracks. The first will be bound to the fort, the next two to the keep and the last two to the castle. All of these will form the dependencies for most units (the training facilities). They will also provide the valour bonus at master Level, instead of the weaponsmith. (valour should come from exceptional training not an exceptional bit of equipment). The weaponsmiths will become the necessary equipment makers for all units. They will also produce a small income, Armourers and Swordsmiths producing the most, with blacksmiths, spearmakers and bowyers producing somewhat less.

caravel
05-21-2007, 11:24
A quick update. After spending an age trying to find that bug yesterday, I finally got something done. I have decided to rename the Urban Militia and Militia Sergeants as Outremer Militia, the first being the early period version and the second being the late. They can now only be trained by the catholics in the crusader states. Both depend on nothing but the first town watch, for now, but this may change when the dependencies are re-done (there will be a thread on this at some point). This naming is by no means final but the removal of their general availability is.

Suggestions for the Moorish appearance muslim UM and MS welcome. They, if used at all, will be divided into separate units. Both are identical info pics, except for the pose, and that the MS version has a few feathers in his cap.

ULC
05-21-2007, 13:56
Originally Posted by Cambyses II
A quick update. After spending an age trying to find that bug yesterday, I finally got something done. I have decided to rename the Urban Militia and Militia Sergeants as Outremer Militia, the first being the early period version and the second being the late. They can now only be trained by the catholics in the crusader states. Both depend on nothing but the first town watch, for now, but this may change when the dependencies are re-done (there will be a thread on this at some point). This naming is by no means final but the removal of their general availability is.

Have their stats changed? Are the UM available in the High Era, when they'll get the most use?


Originally Posted by Cambyses II
Suggestions for the Moorish appearance muslim UM and MS welcome. They, if used at all, will be divided into separate units. Both are identical info pics, except for the pose, and that the MS version has a few feathers in his cap.

They cold be the Moorish version of Axemen. More specifically so, they could be for the Tiafa kingdoms, considering thier adoption of christian arms. Then the actual Almohads could have the Ghazis and other muslim fanatics, factoring in accuracy, that would suit them. Dunno, you have the final say.

I don't know if this is the place to put this, but as of right now my posting may become very erratic. I took a small vacation only to come back and find myself robbed. Not the most pleasant experiance I can tell you. Right now I am using a library computer.

caravel
05-21-2007, 14:26
Have their stats changed? Are the UM available in the High Era, when they'll get the most use?
Stats, unchanged, UM are early only MS are the high/late equivalent. It will be a kind of upgrade, as I don't see the need for two units that perform the same function.

UM:
c4 a2 d-1 a1 m0

MS:
c4 a2 d3 a3 m0

The difference is only in the defence, and the armour.

They cold be the Moorish version of Axemen. More specifically so, they could be for the Tiafa kingdoms, considering thier adoption of christian arms. Then the actual Almohads could have the Ghazis and other muslim fanatics, factoring in accuracy, that would suit them. Dunno, you have the final say.
They would be Taifa / al-Andalus units. We already have Andalusian Infantry (formerly AUM) so perhaps Andalusian Militia? Early and High/Late versions equal to the Early and High/Late Outremer Militias?

I don't know if this is the place to put this, but as of right now my posting may become very erratic. I took a small vacation only to come back and find myself robbed. Not the most pleasant experiance I can tell you. Right now I am using a library computer.
I'm truly sorry to hear that, and you have my deepest sympathies. I've been a victim I've crime myself, only last year when I was beaten up and robbed in the street so I can sympathise with you. I hope you can get everything back to normal and recover quickly. Your presence will also be sorely missed here if you are posting less.

Hoping that the "craven whore's sons" are brought to justice.

Best regards

Cambyses II

:stwmean:

ULC
05-21-2007, 14:49
Thanks for your sympathies Cambyses II. I hope to get back on the ball with this very soon.

The Unknown Guy
05-21-2007, 16:46
They cold be the Moorish version of Axemen. More specifically so, they could be for the Tiafa kingdoms, considering thier adoption of christian arms. Then the actual Almohads could have the Ghazis and other muslim fanatics, factoring in accuracy, that would suit them. Dunno, you have the final say.
(How about muslim-nasrid version of halberdiers? I mean, it LOOKS like a halberdier)

caravel
05-21-2007, 23:11
It does, but isn't. There were many types of poleaxes but the halberd was quite unique in it's useage and design. It is not really synonymous with muslim spain. I would be all for armour piercing attack, but not anti cavalry bonuses.

ULC
05-22-2007, 13:53
I've been thinking upon the Byzantine units and concerns voiced by Omanes. I have used the following stats for Byzantine units with varying successes.

Byzantine Infantry - 2 Charge, 2 Attack, 4 Defense, 3 Armor, 0-2 Morale. This unit ends up surviving very long in fights. It's shield combined with the high defense easily offsets poor morale, and their disciplined and elite status virtually guarantees them not routing unless in absolutely horrid conditions. Large unit sizes means the unit is effectively invulnerable except to Knights and Heavy Cavalry and/or good tactics, where as smaller unit sizes can cause a quick rout despite good defense.

Byzantine Infantry - 4 Charge, 3 Attack, 2 Defense, 2 Armor, 4 Morale. This unit quickly loses men but can eat a whole through most defenses. It's shield helps in combat and the good morale combined with their disciplined and elite status keeps them on the field long enough to do their work. Smaller unit sizes allow for better flanking, which can be critical to this unit; larger unit sizes make it less vulnerable to cavalry but very clumsy, which is generally bad for such a unit type.

Varangian Guard - 5 Charge, 3 Attack, 5 Defense, 5 Armor, 6 Morale. This unit is an excellent shock unit, and very capable in a melee. The problem is that it easily outclasses most infantry throughout Early and the beginnings of High. It's shield combined with the high defense, very good morale, and elite and disciplined status means the unit can virtually walk through hell and back. Unit sizes aren't really a factor for this unit variation.

Varangian Guard - 4 Charge, 5 Attack, 4 Defense, 3 Armor, 8 Morale. This unit is bar none in a melee, but has problems with projectiles. Again, the problem is that it easily outclasses most infantry throughout Early and the beginnings of High. It's shield, excellent morale, and elite and disciplined status offsets the lower armor rating. This unit is significantly affected by unit sizes, the larger the better.

Kataphraktoi - 8 Charge, 3 Attack, 6 Defense, 8 Armor, 8 Morale. Truly filling the role of shock cavalry, this unit variation has a bit of a weakness in a melee. A problem is that its defense virtually guarantees immunity to arrows for the most part of the Early era, but artillery works fine ;). The high defensive capabilities has the tendency to create "Jedi" units (yes that right, the only thing worse then a Jedi general is 20-30 of them) that DO NOT DIE! (Ask the 95 Halberdiers that performed flanking maneuvers, were supported by 60 arbalesters, and the 40 Chivalric Knights that went Jedi too, who lay littered across the battlefield during testing; oh well, accidents happen).

Kataphraktoi - 6 Charge, 5 Attack, 5 Defense, 6 Armor, 6 Morale. This unit type fares far better in a melee, but seems to attract missile fire. Conventional weaponry now works against this type, and I suggest you use missile fire because they will outclass most of your units in Early, but are easily killed by High and Late (on another note, you can actually rout this unit). With an emphasis on offense rather then defense, this type creates "Sith" units and generals (Kills everything in sight then proceeds to die from a peasant, and I'm not kidding) that DO DIE, but will take a nice portion of your forces that varies upon your tactics.

Psiloi - 4 Charge, 3 Attack, -2 Defense, 1 Armor, 4 Morale. This unit is an excellent skirmisher and flanker, but does not excel at anything else. Good for starting the initial rout of the enemy. Poor defenses mean this unit’s numbers drop like flies in an inferno, with cavalry tearing them apart with amazing ferocity.

Psiloi - 2 Charge, 2 Attack, 1 Defense, 2 Armor, 0-2 Morale. This unit is an excellent skirmisher and can act as back up infantry, but is extremely poor in the shock and flanking department compared to the other type. Decent defense in turn gives staying power, but is still sub par compared to other infantry.

As of right now I am doing work on the other Byzantine units and reworking the entire unit structure of the Catholics to make their rosters a little more unique. I am doing this all from a fresh install on my laptop. I will be working on individual unit rosters for the “possible” factions.

caravel
05-22-2007, 17:09
I've been thinking upon the Byzantine units and concerns voiced by Omanes. I have used the following stats for Byzantine units with varying successes.

As of right now I am doing work on the other Byzantine units and reworking the entire unit structure of the Catholics to make their rosters a little more unique. I am doing this all from a fresh install on my laptop. I will be working on individual unit rosters for the “possible” factions.
I can't comment on your changes as yet as I'm at work, and need some time to analyse them. From observation I would advise that Psiloi be left as is. All units are supposed to have strengths and weakness. Psiloi are light infantry with bows small shields and swords, if charged down by cavalry they wob't have much of a chance. The Byzantine would have screened these with units of Kontaratoi or Skutatoi to prevent them from being engaged directly by enemy cavalry, the game needs to reflect this. For Kataphraktoi we don't want them to outclass units such as Chivalric Knights.

If you want to do work on unit stats for this mod, then it might be a good idea for you to have the latest files to work with. I'll see about getting those to you when I have time.
:bow:

ULC
05-23-2007, 14:02
Souds good to me, but I would like a free hand in unit testing. What that entials is that I will design basically unit classes and customize that factions units so that each unit has a role, and these roles basically remain intact throughout the game. so certian unit stats may be changed dramatically.

caravel
05-23-2007, 15:34
Souds good to me, but I would like a free hand in unit testing. What that entials is that I will design basically unit classes and customize that factions units so that each unit has a role, and these roles basically remain intact throughout the game. so certian unit stats may be changed dramatically.
This is up to yourself. I can supply you with the latest files, though that will probably be when 1.0.7 is released to be honest, and you are then free to do as you wish. I cannot guarantee that anything you do will be added to the next version, but I can have a look at it. As I've said before I'm running this in phases and we're no where near the balancing and refining phase yet.

:bow:

ULC
05-23-2007, 18:20
Any projection dates on 1.0.7b release? I will collect all my data over the next few days on what I have done and send it you, including my unit rosters.

Omanes Alexandrapolites
05-23-2007, 20:59
Sorry to interrupt your topic again with my annoying and pesky suggestions which are hopelessly useless and illogical. Yet may I suggest that, when the High Era is entered, that the old units become out-dated, however they are still re-trainable yet they upgrade to the more modern level after the re-train - similar to what occurs to the existing Royal Knights and other similar bodyguards.

I'm not really permitted to comment on this, I'm not really experienced enough in M:TW to understand the AI correctly, yet, I think, that it could resolve the problems which you mentioned regarding the AI building less balanced rosters, while preventing the player from having problems when his/her Feudal units become out-dated.

Hope this idea helps, sorry if I'm being a pestilence to you, cheers!

caravel
05-23-2007, 21:09
No idea as yet. I'm not working to a schedule. I advise that if you are going to develop any rosters that you don't dwell too much on dependency buildings as those are going to be overhauled. Also you should not base any of your stats on valour, weapon or armour upgrades as their won't be any of these in the pocket mod except a +1 valour in the highest level barracks. I am going to build a new unit training tech tree based on these key components:

Training Facility: Courts/Estates, Muster field/Barracks, Ribat or Chapter House.

Equipment facilities: Blacksmith, Horse Breeder, Armourer, Spearmaker, Bowyer, Swordsmith, Gunsmith, Siege Engineer.

Equipment facilities will produce a small income in the province. Training facilities may incur a running cost but could also improve loyalty in the province.

Every unit will depend on one training facility and one or more Equipment facilities. I will base the need for training facility on the units stats as follows (not entirely finalised as yet):

Blacksmith for equipping axe and "peasant style" units with rude swords, as well as the shoes for all cavalry (historic data for cavalry horses that didn't use shoes during the period welcome to exempt them from this.)

Horse Breeder for all cavalry, the noble or elite cavalry always requiring either of the two highest levels, lighter cavalry needing only the first level and most medium cavalry needing the second.

Armourer based on unit's armour stats, the better quality armour the better type of armourer it will need. This is the reverse of the old system where the armourer unrealistically gave "extra armour" to the units.

Spearmaker for equipping all spear and polearm units, though polearms may perhaps need the swordsmith or blacksmith also. I'm thinking pole and axe/spear head as separate parts.

Bowyer for bows, crossbows and arbalests, though arbalests made use of a lot of steel, and steel is used for bolts. So I'm thinking that in the case of arbalests, blacksmith and bowyer.

Swordsmith, any unit with a sword, mace, etc would depend on these. The level of dependency perhaps depending on the class of the unit.

Gunsmith and Siege engineer self explanatory, though with only Arquebusiers and Handguns/Mamluk Handguns and some artillery.

The Unknown Guy
05-28-2007, 12:19
Two suggestions:

-The old "increase Jinetes cost" one, to make it impossible to spam them. (sorry for over-repeating, but this time I am testing it playing as Castile, instead of just messing aronud with another faction and keeping an eye on the "Juggernaut vs Getting Wiped in Twenty Turns" balance, and it seems to work just fine)

-Spanish Javelinmen: as they are now, they&#180;re a tad useless, as they're more expensive to keep up&build than the Jobbagy, exactly as poor in HtH combat, and they lack their charge bonus.
HOWEVER, when compared to Urban Militia, they are actually somewhat better, due to having a slightly higher morale, and, while lacking the "against armor" bonus, have javelins as a compensation factor.
So, how about removing Urban Militia from the Castilian/Aragonese rooster, and leaving the javelinmen as their base unit, with the cost reduced from 35 to 30 (Jobbagy cost)? It wouldn't be a-historical either, as guerrilla warfare using javelins was quite widespread (That was what the almugharavs were about anyway)

EDIT: another suggestion. Don't know if it's possible, but it prolly is: About the Nasrid kingdom of Granada: would it be possible to dump them into the "CATHOLIC_CULTURE", yet keep them as muslim-religion, hence giving them a mostly European rooster, and somehow let them keep the Mosque, and forbid building churches?
Changing the music isn't hard: it&#180;s done from the startpos.