Wars of the Roses Expansion

[Lord Zimoa of Flanders]

Really looking forward to playing your little gem...



CZoF

[Duke John]

CBR sent me a PM with about a concept that I also had a while ago but I thought it might be confusing. The big difference is the differentation in Shire and Retinue troops. The former are larger in number but lack the discipline and training of the latter. I post it here to hopefully see some more comments on this.

Altered armylist


Men-at-Arms

40 Knights
Stats: excellent morale/def/att, good charge
Combat role: very effective combat unit. Slightly less cost effective (cost rises more than stats) than the Squires to avoid too many Knight units. Primarily in the mod for having a distinctive general unit.

40 Squires
Stats: Excellent morale/def/att, good charge
Combat role: not as good as the Knights, but still very effective in combat.

20 Mounted Knights Only possible if I can cram 2 cav in 1 BIF.
Stats: excellent morale/def/att/charge
Combat role: only 20 to ensure that this unit is not overused. Primarily in the mod for the historical battles. Most of the time the Knights were forced on foot to ensure that they would not run away. But nobody would stop the (aspirant) King himself from staying mounted.

40 Mounted Squires
Stats: excellent morale/def/att, good charge
Combat role: good for performing that decisive flank charge. Horse is unarmoured so it is still very vulnerable versus missiles.


Retinue troops

60 Armoured/Retinue Billmen
Stats: good morale/att, moderate charge/def
Combat role: hold the line and gradually kill opposition.

60/80 Armoured/Retinue Longbows
Stats: good morale/att, moderate charge/def
Combat role: This unit should act like an hybrid.

40 Prickers
Stats: good morale/def, bad att, excellent charge
Combat role: pursueing routers and attacking longbows.

Shire troops
These are lesser variants of the retinue troops. To reflect the lesser amount of training/drilling these units have worse manueverability and slightly worse stats.

80/100 (Shire) Billmen
Stats: moderate morale/charge/att/def
Combat role: hold the line. This unit is benefited by a rank bonus, and because of this has better defense than the retinue billmen. But this advantage is countered by worse manueverability.

100 (Shire) Longbows
Stats: moderate morale/charge, bad att/def
Combat role: English armies had alot of longbows, to reflect this, a 100 unit will provide enough longbows without the need of selecting 4 units. In other words, you can have the same amount missiles but with more slots left to fill with combat troops.


Mercenaries
The baronial families would often hire mercenaries from the mainland or Scotland. These often had weapons normally not used by English troops: the pike and the handgun.

100 Pikemen
Stats: moderate morale, bad att, good def, exellent charge
Combat role: hold the line. Very bad at manuevering, but will excel in a frontal charge and flanks covered. Might be able to defeat enemy unit on charge, but after the combat will be lenghtly, with few kills caused by the pikes.

60 Handgunners
Stats: moderate morale/charge, bad att/def
Combat role: I can't mod the projectile stats so the Handgunners will remain largely ineffective, although they do use the arquebus projectile stat. They are primarily in the mod for historical battles.

Culverin
Stats: moderate morale/charge, bad att/def
Combat role: siege

Cost of units
All units will be balanced for valour 0. You will be able to pick 16 units with 10000 florins. Upgrading units is not encouraged as it will destroy the balance.
I want to avoid the possibility of cheap units outperforming more expensive/better units simply by upgrading. So I want to seek unitcosts that are the same for most units. It's up to you to decide which version you want. For example for 600 florins you might be able to buy retinue or shire billmen. Shire billmen are best in the center, but the retinue billmen are best at the flanks. It will be quite a task to perfect this concept, but I think it will be worth the trouble. Otherwise I might get the situation where certain units are far from effective and that would be a waste of time.

Cheers, Duke John

[KyodaiSteeleye]

Hi Duke.

Army listings look good. Note sure from your note - will retinue troops have better armour than shire units? This would make sense, i think, as their equipment would likely to be paid for by their noble. Higher morale and stats for retinue troops is good, as they would be more likely to have better training, and might even be veterans.

I guess another mercenary troop type could be Flemish crossbowmen or the like - however putting these in might rather unbalance the MP game and make it very similar to the existing VI MP.

One last question - will your amazing unit BIFs require a lot of processing power? I'm really looking forward to this mod, but not sure if my poor old AMD600 will cope

Span.

[Duke John]

Rest assured Kyodai, my unit BIFs use the exact same technique as the official ones. I couldn't even do otherwise, so yes your computer will perform exactly the same as before. The only change is the look of units.

Retinue troops will be better equipped but fewer in numbers.

Cheers, Duke John

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

Have you got a release date planned Duke John?

[Duke John]

More screenshots

The army of the Prince of Wales


A nice battleline


The elite Men-at-Arms fighting


BKB
No, I don't have an ETA. Next week I'll be away again and I really can't tell how much time I can afford on the mod.

Cheers, Duke John

[Polyphemos]

Ah, more eye-candy. Looking good as always

[Sun Tzui]

Ahhh....a great sight for sore eyes

[NormanPain]

Simply...Stunning. I can't wait for this one to be done...beautifull man, beautifull.

[dimitrios the samian]

Fantastic Graphics , excellent period I cant wait either
cheers

[Nomad]

Hi Duke John,
The mod looks Graphically excellent. Really looking forward to getting my hands on those units. Waiting on a copy of 3dsMax5 so will be trying to make units my newbie self soon. I was wondering if you ever found those tweaked MTW unit bifs, that you were going to post for download in the Alchemists. I'm guessing they've disappeared. But was really looking forward to them so thought I'd take a stab in the dark.

[NormanPain]

I have a few questions, you can answer if you have time but, are you going to make your own campaign map and are you going to include historical battles and or campaigns...also are you going to make the Arquebusiers more accurate becase in real life firing a volley and killing 1 person is rediculous...whole armies of knights were wiped out by these things which is why knights came to a close. No they weren't incredibly accurate but they could certainly hit each other otherwise why would we have switched to using guns? They were far more expensive then bows. Also please tell me your guns look like guns...MTW's look like a pipe stuck to a stump...also are you going to have the stick thing(Cant remember what its called right now) that they used to set the end of their barrels on when they fired(those guns weighed 18 pounds you know...)Anyways I am asking to many questions and have most likely become an annoyance so I will just leave it at that, take care all.

[Duke John]

Thanks all

NormanPain

Campaign and Historical Battles
The mod will come with a campaign map of England (I will modify the VI map) and also with 4 historical battles to start with. I may add more battles, but I will make at least Barnet, Tewkesbury, Towton and Bosworth.

Accuracy of Handgunners
This mod will be an expansion for M:TW - VI. That means that if you have a normal installation then you can install this mod without any consequences for your normal games. However this comes at a prices and that is less flexibility for me when modding; I cannot change how projectiles work without affecting MP-compatability.
However the Handgunners will have the arquebusier projectile type to make them a bit better than MTW Handgunners.

Guns
This is what I got from my sources:
The method of firing the handgun appears to have differed. Early handguns were held under the arm and fired by lightning the touch hole with the glowing tip of a match.[...]
The position in which some of the handgunners are holding their weapons i.e. with the butt of the gun rested on the should instead of against it, tends to suggest that accurate firing could not have been possible without a serpentine mechanism holding the match - since the right hand would have been required to steady the aim if the butt was rested on the shoulder.
[Source: The Swiss at War by Osprey Publishing]

I think I will place the guns on the shoulder as they are indeed heavy weapons to hold. In my sources I have not come across the stick thing to hold the gun, I believe that this was developed later.
And I will of course render the shooting with a flash as in the old days of STW

Cheers, Duke John

[NormanPain]

I was reffering to the early Matchlocks...which is what a Arquebusier is, a handgun(or hand gonne as it was called then) is the weapon you reffered to as unsteady... Plus from what I can find on period firearms...the Matchlock came before the hand gonne and the Arquebus surprisingly. Oh and the stick thing is simply called a fork or rest.

Also they used hemp that was braided and coated in salt pewter as the match.

Your mod sounds great and Im happy with just Tewkesbury and Towton being included let alone the others.

Check this page for infor on period firearms: http://www.st-arbogast.org/Guideline...lines/fire.htm

Im sorry I dont mean to be a nuisance or anything I just want to help if I can. Thanks for hearing me out, I cant wait for this to be out.

[KyodaiSteeleye]

Hi Norman,

The picture you append is of a 17th century musketman - probably from the english civil war, when massed ranks of handguns were starting to become effective, even though they were very inaccurate.

Hand guns in the 15th century however had not been developed such that they were particularly effective battlefield weapons. Indeed, i think the MTW rendering of them as above all 'morale' weapons, with little actual combat effectiveness, is accurate.

Daniel.

[NormanPain]

I suppose but knights were terrified of them and it had to be for a reason other then the sound and the fact that one or two guys would drop dead...I mean they had to have hit quite a few wouldnt they?

[Duke John]

More of my favorite habit: posting screenshots

The finished Armoured/Retinue Longbows:




And the Armoured/Retinue Billmen


NormanPain
Let's not turn this thread into a discussion about the effectiveness of handguns. I cannot chance it so there is no use talking about it. However I found it strange that you said it was a fact that one or two guys would drop dead. I did a single test and placed my 60 handgunners (but they are using arquebusses) 2 deep. I gave the AI 40 knights and the handgunners felled 9 nine of them in a single shot. If this happened together with bowfire or when the knights are tired, then this would probably mean a rout. And I did see this often in my battles. Use your handgunners primarily at wandering units who have seen combat; a single volley usually routs them.
This did not happen and the knights cut 19 handgunners down in 1 second as vengeance...

Cheers, Duke John

[Ypoknons]

And your posting of screenshots is the habit we like most about you. :) Well, not entirely true but they are top notch screenshots. Though I do worry about the balancing part myself.

By the way, what happened to the medieval unit upgrades? Did you have any luck finding them on your hard drive or ... ?

[Duke John]

Ypoknons
I intent to balance the mod with help from the community. CBR already helped me in the beginning but more is needed. Luckily the scale is very small, the campaign will only have 2 factions and for MP and custom battles there will be only 10/11 units. Also I will balance for 10K without upgrades; I want to avoid the numbercrunching of MTW where the perfect upgrade/cost/effectiveness is sought. While testing my units it plays nicely especially when you take something of everything.

The Unitgraphics pack is finished. Check that thread over 5 minutes.

Cheers, Duke John

[Ypoknons]

Many thanks, Duke John. And yes, I think that the smaller scale of this mod is a good thing in a way - it meens that we'll have lots of time to play, especially before RTW distracts us.

Best of luck

[KyodaiSteeleye]

Like the retinue billmen, Dukejohn - V.nice.

[dimitrios the samian]

Gooday Duke John , keep up the good work on your mod I will definately play it . CBR tell me about your mod PM wars ?

[NormanPain]

I appologize for turning it into a discussion about handuns

One thing though...I said 'Handgunners' could only fell a couple people(A hand gun is basically a hand cannon on a stick)...an Arquebus is a completely different weapon, more accurate as it is an early form of musket. But I will no longer bother you here, again I appollogize. Before I go I would like to add that your mod looks fantastic and I cannot wait until it is out...Im sure it will be a fine contribution to MTW. I wish you luck.

[alexmonkey]

will the main campaign map be of england or the british isles, like in VI?

How far have you got with this as i am intested in beta testing it for you.
thanks

[CBR]

And Im always ready for more tests if you need it


CBR

[alexmonkey]

Is the main mod/game still quite buggy, or is it stable? I would also be happy to find out some information on the units of the time and some historic stuff for you.

[Duke John]

CBR
Thanks I will give you the next beta then once I have finished all the BIFs and when I'm done cleaning up some imperfections of the tactical part.

NormanPain
You don't need to apologize. Feedback is always welcome My remark was more to avoid a discussion then anything else. And it certainly was not personaly directed at you.

Alexmonkey
The campaignmap will compromise England (so excluding Scotland and Ireland). I am at the moment trying to setup the campaign, so it is still very buggy. I just needed to recover some old files because it didn't load, but alas that is the life of a modder.

Cheers, Duke John

[Duke John]

Campaign map
I've been (and still am) modding the campaignfile to suit the WotR setting. It has the following features:[*]2 playable factions, the Lancastrians and the Yorkists.
[*]10 unplayable factions that die out after ending the first turn. These are put in for diversity in Custom and MP battles. You will need at least 8 faction to make a campaign work, but in the construction that I have devised the 10 unplayable factions will rarely bother you. However they will occasionnally reappear, which is not only historical (there were uprisings/revolts and some dukes decided that they were powerfull enough to become king) but will also provide more of a challenge
[*]Almost no existant techtree. The AI is not capable of building up provinces adequately. Also the WotR campaign will only last 32 years so the sometimes long build times would be a big pain. This will focus the campaign on army movement and battles. Which suits me just fine as I have grown tired of the inadequate AI.
[*]No castles. Again, the span of the campaign is very small and long sieges will only unneccesarily slow down the pace of the game. Also there were very few sieges during the WotR, the Tower of London and London and itself were besieged and also some castles were bombarded into submission. London will be the only castle present. Conquering London will have the reward in the form of the fat title Protector of the Realm.
During the WotR the English population was mostly left alone safe for some looting by the winning side in a nearby village. The barons needed to have the favour of the population and that is why they mostly fought pitched battles. Excluding castles from the game will make sure that you will also play pitched battles.[/list]That being said, I would appreciate some feedback from fans of this period about my campaignmap:

I used a historical map as reference but I am not sure about certain provinces: Lancaster, Anglesey, The Welsh provinces (I would prefer other names), Leicester, Bedford.
They grey provinces are necessary to place the 10 unplayable factions on the campmap. They will die out immediately and the provinces will become rebels. They will also act as buffers initially and as quick safe expansion areas.

EDIT: Blue are the Lancastrians and Red the Yorkists.

Thanks for any info,
Duke John

[alexmonkey]

If it would help Then i could look up some history stuff about england fro you, i know loads of history sites and stuff. camp map looks good though

[KyodaiSteeleye]

Hi DukeJohn,

Been trying to get a decent historical county map of england and wales off the internet, but alas don't seem to be able to find one (Caxton's 16th C one would be the best). If you could, i would be very tempted to have every historical county as a seperate province, would that be unrealistic in terms of the gameplay? Not sure about some of your provinces or titles - chester (county - cheshire) is more accurately Flintshire. Derby would be more accurate as either chester (cheshire) or Lancaster (lancashire). West Marches could be Carlisle (Cumberland), Hampshire more accurate as Wiltshire. Guess my trouble is that i'm english, so i don't like to see province names that cover much wider areas than they do in reality

On the factions - did you ever play the board game kingmaker? This had a very good system where factions were made up of allied nobles. Check out this link for a list of the one's featured in the game and actual biographies of their often tragic histories in the wars (from a Yorkist slant, methinks )

http://home.sprintmail.com/~cfitzger...er/nindex.html

You could have the two main factions as Duke of York and Duke of Lancaster, and then have your other minor factions as the notable nobles from the period. I would suggest Neville, Percy, Stanley, Mowbray, Stafford, Herbert, Beaufort, De La Pole, Holland and Talbot.

I agree that not having castles will speed the game up - although have to watch that it doesn't lead to loads of rebellions No tech tree is good, as for the period of time we're talking about, there weren't any military advances. I suppose you could have the event on taking London as '****** crowned king

Regards,

Daniel.