Citadel:Total War units

[Saranalos]

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

[GodsPetMonkey]

What we really need is to start compiling lists of units that WILL be in the game and organising them by faction (and maybe era).

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

[Yggdrasill]

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

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

[Celtic_Winter]

Wait a minute...Milan was added? where the Italians removed?

[Yggdrasill]

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

[Saranalos]

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

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

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

[Celtic_Winter]

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

Oh I agree with this too. I never heard of Florence being under Spanish rule, but who knows. I know that Naples was under Aragonese rule, I have seen the Aragonese castle in Naples and Pulia. Outstanding.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

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

[Saranalos]

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

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

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

is it a good idea?

[Yggdrasill]

Oh you were waiting for me to answer? I thought it was a rhetorical question

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

[Silver Rusher]

Well, the Milanese are kind of a combination of Genoa and Milan. The faction is being called the "Italians" as a temporary name, to avoid confusion, but may be changed to either Genoa or Milan.

[Ignoramus]

Have you thought about German Landsknechts? They have Halberds. Like Swiss Pikemen.

[Yggdrasill]

Sure the Landesknechts are a vital unit (actually several)for the Hre and available as mercs for France (maybeothers as well, have to check that)

[Yggdrasill]

England

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


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

[Kurtisb]

Weren't Men-at-Arms peasants (free-men, not serfs) with issued equipment, and training?

Correct me if I'm wrong.



-Kurts

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

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

[Uesugi Kenshin]

The French used a lot of Foot Knights at Agincourt, I do not know if it was just a fluke, but you may want to put in dismounted units in the french list when you get to it.

[Yggdrasill]

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

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

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

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

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

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

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

[Yggdrasill]

Actually I have it based my info mostly on it funny isn't it?

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

[Speiz_Bankurt]

Hi guys!

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

Cheers

[Uesugi Kenshin]

Don't know if we had this info somewhere before, but thanks it always helps to have it all in one spot. Much easier to find and read.
Thanks

[cegorach]

Hi guys!

I noticed the discussions on hussars before.
Cheers

So what do you think about this

http://img108.exs.cx/img108/8350/win...dreview8vu.jpg


Regards Cegorach

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

[Uesugi Kenshin]

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

[Saranalos]

That Hussar looks great but im not sure about the lepoard skin cloak...

[Yggdrasill]

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

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

[Uesugi Kenshin]

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

[Yggdrasill]

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

[Speiz_Bankurt]

Cegorach, that Polish hussar looks great. I saw it before at the P&M thread.

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

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

[Uesugi Kenshin]

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