Insulting dismounted units...

[Kristaps]

Hmm, dismounted lithuanian cavalry (supposedly and elite unit) turns into archers (one needs almost top-level infrastructure to produce lithuanian cavalry)... Similarly, dismounted camel warriors turn into peasants... Seems quite a drop in quality going from mounted to dismounted. Anyone agrees these should be changed up a bit?

[A.Saturnus]

No, don`t think so. These Beduins are only good on camels. You can`t expect camel riders to become great infantry when dismounted. Dismounting is usufull for Knights but not necessary for any other unit that`s mounted.

[NateEngle]

I think my main question viz the bedouins is what would you make them instead? Maybe nubian spear? And what would you make the lithuanians instead of archers?

[Portuguese Rebel]

To dismount or not to dismount that's the question... (sorry couldn't resist)

I find very little reason to dismount a unit. Perhaps only chiv knights are worth for battle, and then again, this is under some very specific conditions.

Usually people dismount their horsies when they know the enemy has lots of spear units or it's a map with lots of trees (there aren't many like this) so horsies wouldn't do much good. But this is seldom so and thus it isn't very usual.

I think mainly CA dudes included this option because someone bitched about the possibility of doing so in Shogun. It is not a very developed feature in the game, but they included it never the less so people didn't bug them because of this. Of course people bug them about the use of it (if it wasn't there people would bugged them anyway, i don't even know why they care). http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

[BDC]

Well in real life it was much easier to defend on foot, maybe they should have special units or be able to dismount in the battle itself if they are under attack and need to defend.

[Red Harvest]

I try not to insult armed men whether they are mounted, or dismounted. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Back on topic. I agree about the dismount choices being odd for some units. It would make more sense to me if dismounted camel warriors still had higher valour and perhaps higher defense than standard muslim peasants. They would almost certainly have been a bit wealthier and had somewhat better gear than a peasant. Perhaps Ghazi infantry would be more logical for them dismounted? A special unit would make even more sense. It gets interesting as Egyptians if you have Saharan Cav. You can' dismount them to get murabitin infantry (javelins) which is otherwise unavailable to the faction. These can be handy in some circumstances.

Lithuanian cav gets the shortest end of the stick though. They are at the top of the build tree yet they are light cavalry (I have knocked them down a building level accordingly.) Dismounted they would still have decent armour and shields and high morale. What they really need is a special archer unit with high armour, morale, and shields, and with some serious melee punch.

Same problem happens to the muslim heavy cav dismounts defaulting to Saracen Infantry. They need a special spear unit instead with higher morale and higher armour.

[Cousin Zoidfarb]

I have modded lithuanian cavalry as fast as steppe cavalry. Dismounted they become bulgarian brigands. This makes them quite useful, after all they were reputed to be fast-moving nimble cavalry using feigned retreats etc.

[Hakonarson]

What is good on horseback is not necessarily good on foot tho - mounted men often have heavier equipment or more of it because they have an animal to carry all the weight, and monuted archers often carry shorter weaker bows than their foot cousins becaue longer stronger bows aer too difficult to use on horseback.

Many cavalry refused point blank to dismount historically - Mameluks for example refused to under any circumstances except to stand guard in palaces, while Lithuanians were quite happy to.

Mongols were reputedly clumsy and useless on foot but are known ot have dismounted in battle a few times as archers.

[LordKhaine]

I can't see many reasons to dismount anything. Certainly not Lithuanian Cavalry. Lets turn mounted archers... into foot archers. Theres little sense there. Foot archers are useless without ammo, while mounted archers are still very useful, esp when they have a spear

[Red Harvest]

Quote[/b] (Hakonarson @ Feb. 26 2003,22:25)]What is good on horseback is not necessarily good on foot tho - mounted men often have heavier equipment or more of it because they have an animal to carry all the weight, and monuted archers often carry shorter weaker bows than their foot cousins becaue longer stronger bows aer too difficult to use on horseback.

Many cavalry refused point blank to dismount historically - Mameluks for example refused to under any circumstances except to stand guard in palaces, while Lithuanians were quite happy to.

Mongols were reputedly clumsy and useless on foot but are known ot have dismounted in battle a few times as archers.
Decent points, but I really doubt they would stay on horseback if trapped in a castle, particularly after they had eaten their horses. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif

Another thing to keep in mind, mounted units that came from nobility or better off families would tend to have had taller, better fed men than the peasantry. Diet of the young has a big impact on human height so I would expect on average they might be 2" taller. Chances are in combat they would have had better gear and better training, even on foot. I'll take my chances fighting that short peasant with the well caloused hands. He might be tough as nails, but I can use my height and reach to strike him at range with martial skills he's not even aware of. Depending on early diet the average height of the same group of men might be 5'0" or 6'0". I've seen this first hand with asians both in asia, and the same group in the US. As their diet changes in succeeding generations the average height shoots up. Same for caucasians looking at my own ancestry. It happened in the US with caucasians from the Revolution to the Civil War, WWI, WWII, to the present (forgive me that I can't recall exact numbers but it is a progression of something like 5'0" to 6'0".)

[andrewt]

Fat is choice food back then, though. Better fed might mean eating more meat high in saturated fats, though the wine consumption helps lessen that risk. If CA takes diet into account, your nobility, especially the dismounted ones who have to walk, would have a higher percent chance of having a stroke or heart attack and suddenly keeling over and dying compared to mere peasants.

[econ21]

Well, the two cases mentioned in this thread do seem insulting. I guess I would make the Bedouin camels desert archers and I like the idea of the Lithuanians becoming Bulgarian brigands.

However, the mount/dismount issue is one that nags at me when thinking about the historical accuracy of the game. My impression is that for a large part of the period in the West, the dominant troop was well-armoured men on mounts with lances/spears and swords (knights, men-at-arms whatever) who could fight either mounted (eg Crecy) or dismounted (eg Agincourt). So Catholic players should have a core force of such troops (supplemented by missile-firing and other infantry for their lower cost). The game works against this because of the 40/100 unit size disparity between cav and spears means that it is best to have the cav mounted and make the spearwall from infantry.

But I can't see how to make a mod that overcomes this problem without leading to greater issues with history and balance. 100 strong units of knights is the obvious mod, but has problems.

The other thing about the historicism of the game that continues to niggle is the sword vs spear distinction, which seems ahistorical - most troops with swords also had spears. I wonder about dismounted knights and men-at-arms having BOTH the defence of the spear and the attack of the CMAA type sword units. This just might make dismounting attractive when defending - especially if you can't buy dismounted equivalents or they come at only a small discount. Even with 100 strong units of knights, but I am not sure. Maybe I should try it.

[A.Saturnus]

Historically, swords were only used as side-weapons in Europe. The knights charged with their lances or fought mainly with maces in melee. Foot troops had spears or polearms. In the late medieval period, most knights dismounted because the heavy charger horses have became rare and expansive. The way battles happen in MTW aren`t historically correct. Armies would have to consist mainly of knights and their squires (medium cav or mounted x-bows) and these knights would have to be uncontrollable after the battle has begone. Battle tactics as a science of it`s own, like in ancient times, were unknown in medieval times. In addition, sicknesses would have to cost more lifes than any battle and supporting a standing army would have to be a challenge of it`s own. I doubt MTW were still so much fun if accurate.

[econ21]

I think there is a big difference in terms of historical accuracy between the strategic and battlefield parts of MTW.

The strategic aspect is pretty hopeless, I guess, due to the omission of attrition and logistics etc like the sickness issue you mention. It is not far from Age of Empire type games.

However, the battlefield part of the game is pretty good and arguably the best computer wargame for pre-gun warfare. I think it could be modded to be a little more accurate. It might be a little less fun in that there would be fewer "rock-scissors-paper" dynamics (I would say there would be essentially spears-cav-missiles rather than spears-swords-cav-missiles). But it would be essentially the same kind of battlefield game as it is now.

I am not sure about the lack of discipline point - a lot I have read suggests that Medieval armies did not fight so differently from those in other periods. Besides, I think the TW engine captures the "scrum" image of chaotic medieval warfare quite well - particularly, if you don't pay enough attention to the battlefield

[Exile]

Lithuanian calvary are under-powered all around considering the investment needed just to make them. When dismounted, they're archers? really? that's silly.

The only advantage to dismounting IMO is when you're fightin an enemy with much more calvary/archers than you and you can fight them in the woods.

I've heard disomunting knights can be advantageous when defending castles, but I rarely have the opportunity to do so.

In mose cases, it's not worth giving up the mobility.

[Kristaps]

Hmm, turning dismounted lithuanian cavalry into bulgarian brigands? Sounds like a good idea. Definitely, more honoring than the current version: archers...

Btw, somebody suggested lithuanian cavalry are mounted archers: in the game, they're not.

[Leet Eriksson]

you perfectly realise bediouns are not supposed to fight on foot,they are unorganised and can't form proper lines,they are almost like peasants.its historically correct,and it happened too,the bediouns led by abu firas got defeated by a hashimite army.although abu firas warned them not to dismount they eventually did.the organised hashimites smashed into their ranks and took abu firas prisoner.later after his release he would have a series of victories over the byzantines and gets captured and imprisoned by them.until he got ransomed back again http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

EDIT:arrrgghhh another typo... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif

[Rowan11088]

Well at least Civalric Knights and Feudal Knights, Dismounting can be quite useful. Their attack and defense values go up, even though they lose their charge value. If you're up against an army with high morale and good defense, it's often better to dismount, because your units can take more punishment and dish out more too. Charging is great against low morale units and low defense units, but against heavy infantry and spear-type units it doens't help nearly as much as a flank attack by some foot knights.

[Hakonarson]

Lithuanian cavalry carried bows but only used them on foot in real life - mounted they used a long light lance/spear.

European cavalry did not dismount at will - there were various times when they weer willing to dismount - but others when they refused point blank. The English were almost always willing to do so - they had a tradition of fightign on foot dating back to the Anglo norman armies after teh conquest - the Normans themselves were wiling to fight dismounted to stiffen their spearmen and they did this for English Fyrd as well after teh conquest. I guess it dates back to Norman's having Viking Ancestry??

Swords were not merely a sidearm - the sword was the symbol of the Christian Knight and it is no accident that he classic sword hilt in medieval times is in the shape of a cross - a knight would take his sword into his vigil, not his lance

Maces and other anti-armour weapons did becoem more popular as armour incrased, but the sword was never replaced as the universal sidearm of mounted and foot.

Indeed swords themselves changed - some became little more than sharpened stakes - it they lost their edges and were used solely with a chisel-armour-piercing point, while Falchions and other heavy variations were also quite common.

[cugel]

"Historically, swords were only used as side-weapons in Europe. The knights charged with their lances or fought mainly with maces in melee. Foot troops had spears or polearms. In the late medieval period, most knights dismounted because the heavy charger horses have became rare and expansive. The way battles happen in MTW aren`t historically correct. Armies would have to consist mainly of knights and their squires (medium cav or mounted x-bows) and these knights would have to be uncontrollable after the battle has begone. Battle tactics as a science of it`s own, like in ancient times, were unknown in medieval times. In addition, sicknesses would have to cost more lifes than any battle and supporting a standing army would have to be a challenge of it`s own. I doubt MTW were still so much fun if accurate. "

Not only were swords not merely a sidearm, medieval armies were decidedly NOT composed mainly, let alone exclusively of knights and their squires. For example, the combined armies of the first Crusade (Bohemond, Prince of Otranto, Godfrey of Bouillion, Duke of Lorraine, Raymond of St. Giles, and Robert of Flanders) numbered about 4,000 mounted knights and 25,000 infantry (of all types) - better than a 5 to 1 ratio. There were many poorer knights who could not afford a suitable destrier, much the most expensive part of the knight's equipment and many fought on foot. Some actually served in order to receive a warhorse, others would be equipped by their lord or Captain from his purse or that of the King. See Philippe Contamine's War in the Middle Ages for an analysis of the expense of equiping mounted knights and the difficulty of keeping armies in the field for any length of time. As the advisor used to say in Shogun "Even if you are victorious, if you keep your army in the field for a long time your supplies will be inadequate." It was very difficult to equip a very large force exclusively of mounted knights, just as today it would be impossible to mount the entire infantry force of a modern army in tanks or equally heavy armored vehicles, because of the prohibitive cost. Even during the 19th century look at the difficulties Napoleon had in equipping his large cavalry force. It's not easy to find suitable war horses and they were always very expensive. One of the ways we know today about the composition and dynamics of medieval armies is because such good records were kept regarding the expense of warhorses (the king was often obliged to make good the losses of his vassals' horses and they kept very good records regarding the matters of how many knights served and how much their horses cost, etc.) Again, see Contamine, .op. cit. for details.

[LordKhaine]

Quote[/b] (Kristaps @ Feb. 27 2003,14:14)]Btw, somebody suggested lithuanian cavalry are mounted archers: in the game, they're not.
Aren't they? I haven't used them, but I've read the description. And that hinted strongly at them being armed with bows. Oh well... guess I wont rush to develop up Lithuania in my Polish game now http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif

[Kristaps]

Lord Khaine: polish can build lithuanian cavalry anywhere it appears. At least I could do it in Lith, Poland, and Volhinia.

[econ21]

IIRC, Lithuanian cav do have bows in the game, but also pack quite a punch. They are "hybrid" troops capable of both shooting and charging.

[Edit: as Kristaps corrected me later, they can't shoot on horseback.]

[A.Saturnus]

cudel, I didn`t mean the armies consisted exclusively of mounted knights. Actually it wasn`t quiet right to say that they consisted of knights. Non-nobles may well have had the majority but the knights (mounted and dismounted) dominated the battlefield. But most of them did use mainly other weapons than swords.

[Kristaps]

Simon Appleton wrote:
Quote[/b] ]IIRC, Lithuanian cav do have bows in the game, but also pack quite a punch. They are "hybrid" troops capable of both shooting and charging.

Hmm, what version of the game are you playing? In my polish campaign Lithuanian cavalry can only charge. No bows unless dismounted.

[econ21]

Sorry, Kristaps - I am playing an illusory game that exists just in my head. You are right, they don't have bows when mounted. The strategy guide description of them as nobles in mail means that making them vanilla archers is strange.

[longjohn2]

Lithuanian cavalry did carry bows, but didn't use them much mounted, hence they are represented as charging cavalry. Allowing them to dismount as archres allows them an interesting tactical alternative.

[Kristaps]

Yes, having them as archers, would be interesting if it was possible to build them in the early period. Due to the high building requirement it is already the high period when the factions interested in lithuanian cavalry are able to build them (Polish {always poverty stricken in the Early period; have to budget any building they erect...} and Russians {one can play them only starting in the high period unless playing a mod and they face the same budget issues as Polish}). So, it seems to me, the tactical advantage of dismounted lithuanian cavalry is rather limited in the game: i.e., they get to dismount when archer-time is over in Europe ;(