Citadel:Total War units

[Yggdrasill]

Changes to Ottomans:

1. Additional unit – Late Sipahy

Changes to Mamluks:

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

Changes to Moors:

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


France:

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

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


Burgundy (revised list):

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

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

[Yggdrasill]

Milan:

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

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

same for Pope plus

Swiss Guard - elite swiss units

[Uesugi Kenshin]

Wow, you were busy. Looks good to me. The French could have an Irish merc unit, the Irish often helped the French against England and were most commonly mercs not regulars.

[Yggdrasill]

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

[Uesugi Kenshin]

All rgiht I did not know that and that sounds like the most thourough method. Other than that it looks quite good. Keep up the good work.

[massamuusi]

I can do the research for Hakkapeliitta cavalry... if they're still in...

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

[Uesugi Kenshin]

Good thing that is cleared up. I do not know if they are in, I cannot remember hearing about them. What faction are they for?

[massamuusi]

Good thing that is cleared up. I do not know if they are in, I cannot remember hearing about them. What faction are they for?

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

Will post more later today-

[Uesugi Kenshin]

Ignoramus do you have a list of all the factions you have done unit lists for?

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

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

[Ignoramus]

For Citadel or Feudal?

[Uesugi Kenshin]

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

[Saranalos]

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

[Uesugi Kenshin]

I will try to pm him, we sure could use some more modellers. Hopefully if we keep on working and godspetmonkey keeps making great models someone who can model will become interested.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

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

[Yggdrasill]

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

[Uesugi Kenshin]

Damn, I thought your post would say that you had a list in one place and I didn't need to do it. Oh well guess I get to start tonight......

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

[Uesugi Kenshin]

Wow that did not take very long...

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

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

[Yggdrasill]

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

[Uesugi Kenshin]

Tosa was working on it but for some reason I could not edit Silver's progress posts, I will check if I can delete the old threads. See my name on the bottom?

[two_Roses]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Billmen

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

Hobilars D'Ordannce:
French Hobilars

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

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

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

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

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

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

Halberdiers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Azap Macemen:
Has mace and shield. Good morale.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Yggdrasill]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[two_Roses]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

[Uesugi Kenshin]

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

[Uesugi Kenshin]

“Polished Lists”

Ottoman Infantry List:

Level 1: Town Guardsman

Level 2: Ottoman Infantry

Level 3: Janissary

Level 4: Janissary Heavy Infantry

Some Ottoman Range Units:

Level 1: Archers

Level 2: Azap Bowmen

Level 3: Janissary Bowmen

Level 4: Trebuchet

And Gunpowder units:

Level 1: Handgunners

Level 2: Janissary Arquebusiers

Level 3: Ballistic Cannon

Level 4: Siege Cannon

And Polish Cavalry (feedback would be nice):

Level 1: Light Hussars

Level 2: Horse Archers

Level 3: Hussars

Level 4: Winged Hussars

My Venetian unit list

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

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

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

England

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


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


Burgundy units

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

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


Changes to Ottomans:

1. Additional unit – Late Sipahy

Changes to Mamluks:

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

Changes to Moors:

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

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

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


Burgundy (revised list):

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

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


Milan:

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

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

same for Pope plus

Swiss Guard - elite swiss units


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

[Yggdrasill]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[GodsPetMonkey]

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

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

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

[two_Roses]

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

[two_Roses]

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

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

Excellent points made there.

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

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

[two_Roses]

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

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

This site explains the effectiveness of the bow at Agincourt - Here

[GodsPetMonkey]

Excellent points made there.

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

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

The English always had problems with the natives

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

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