View Full Version : Should knights have secondary weapon?
DukeofSerbia
06-11-2006, 10:05
Question: Should knights have secondary weapon?
My view: YES.
One of rare good things introduced by Rome Total War was secondary weapon for cavalry armed with spear or lance. I think it would be great that M2 TW continue that tradition.
Knights used lances when they charged but they were fragile as lances were constructed of wood with metal reinforcements at the breaking points. After initial charge they switched weapon to sword (especially Carolingian sword was used by knights) and later became popular mace (plus special versions of maces like flail, morningstar, holy water sprinkler, and ball and chain).
What I wrote about knights the same can apply to other heavy cavalry units armed with spear or lance.
P.S.
Thanks econ21 for adding polls.
https://img376.imageshack.us/img376/6948/srpskivitezovi8wl.jpg
Basileus
06-11-2006, 11:23
If i remember correctly they had secondary weapons in MTW aswell
Ibn Munqidh
06-11-2006, 11:34
Nope, no secondary weapons in MTW. RTW looked stupid, with the 1.5 patch, cavalry would charge ino another unit without lowering their spears. Then, they wouldnt use their swords most of the time. I just hope that I wouldnt see this in MTW;2
Peasant Phill
06-11-2006, 11:35
No they didn't, knights kept using their lances in MTW. Archers did have melee weapons, that's maybe where your confusion came from.
I agree that cav should have a secondary weapon (as this was so in reality). Actually every unit that had a secondary weapon should have it in the game as well.
I think units should only have secondary weapons if they are programmed to automatically switch to that weapon where it is appropriate. There's some debate about whether AI cavalry currently do this enough in RTW. And the pike to sword switch in phalanxes was often infuriating. From a player's point of view, to have to micro manage the switch seems ahistorical (the lance is broken - what are they going to do? hit the enemy with stump?) and inefficient (if, as seems likely, the game plays at the same fast speed as RTW).
Vlad The Impala
06-11-2006, 13:00
Side-mounted missile launchers for knights!!1
But seriously, it sounds like a good idea. It looks very odd to see a knight in melee combat trying to poke somone with his lance, it almost looks like a medieval form of snooker.
Would it be possible to program the knight's AI in such a manner that it thinks 'when engaged in combat, and not moving at charge speed, use secondary weapon'?
Yggdrasill
06-11-2006, 14:09
Ofcourse they should have.
Though if they do then they should use it when appropriate, which is something AI never does in RTW/BI which is very strange, after all the missile units can do so it can't be that difficult to program.
Just one of those things - TW series is great overall but there small and easily corrected mistakes here and there like this one that are very frustraing. I am hoping the game (and the devs!) have matured enough by now not to let that happen again
I´m all for it, and implementing shouldn´t be that hard, it worked almost in RTW, after all, where you had to press ALT to order cavalry to use the lance/spear/whatever for the charge and then switch to the secondary weapon in melee. Just a minor coding glitch (the necessity to press ALT while giving the attack order) prevented the AI from using the secondary weapon and I assume somethig like that can be fixed by an averangely skilled programmer with access to the source code.
I think units should only have secondary weapons if they are programmed to automatically switch to that weapon where it is appropriate. There's some debate about whether AI cavalry currently do this enough in RTW. And the pike to sword switch in phalanxes was often infuriating. From a player's point of view, to have to micro manage the switch seems ahistorical (the lance is broken - what are they going to do? hit the enemy with stump?) and inefficient (if, as seems likely, the game plays at the same fast speed as RTW).
In RTW cav switches only when being attacked.
If the player makes them attack, they charge with spears and then go on with spears. If the player types Alt while giving the attack-command, they charge with spears and go on with their secondary weapon.
I think the only change M2TW needs is to make the switching of weapons the standard and then we´re all happy, should be rather easy to do for CA.
Historically, once a knight's lance broke or was dropped, was he stuck with whatever secondary weapons he had for the duration of the battle? Or did they have back-ups somewhere? I'm assuming a lance is too large to just holster on the side of your horse, so I guess you'd have to just drop it for good if you decided to switch weapons?
If so, then a more realistic M2TW would make it impossible for knights to use their lances again once they had switched to secondary weapons. What are ya'lls thoughts on that? I'm all for it, but I don't know if that's how it actually worked in real medieval combat.
IrishArmenian
06-11-2006, 22:49
I think if archers have secondary weapons, so should knights, even moreso. If archers can be programmed to do this, so should knights. And, yes hopefully it doesn't turn out like the phalanxes in Rome.
Basileus
06-11-2006, 22:54
ok i guess i was mistaken, its been a few years since i played MTW and im getting older :D
Furious Mental
06-12-2006, 05:52
Are you sure they don't have a secondary weapon? In some screen shots heavy cavalry have lances. In others the same unit seems to have a mace or a sword. I do not see why they would abandon the feature from Rome.
They have secondary weapons in MTW2. Cavalry switches to maces/swords in melee.
x-dANGEr
06-12-2006, 11:16
One note about Knights too. I think they only should be able to use their lances in the first charge, and in no other one. After the first charge their lances are broken, and they start using the Sword for the whole what's left of the battle. (That will limit their strength a little)
DukeofSerbia
06-12-2006, 11:33
Are you sure they don't have a secondary weapon? In some screen shots heavy cavalry have lances. In others the same unit seems to have a mace or a sword. I do not see why they would abandon the feature from Rome.
But this is not shore. Most knights on screenshots have lance. On one screenshot it appeared that knights use mace but it could be Gothic knights who in MTW had maces as primary weapon. And samo muslim cavalry unit had mace as weapon.
Furious Mental
06-12-2006, 15:37
Well from looking at the screen shots it appears to me that exactly the same cavalry on the same map are using both lances and maces. Given that the ability was added in Rome would you not presume that it would be carried over to MTW 2?
matteus the inbred
06-12-2006, 16:29
I think they should be allowed one charge with lances, and this would be devastating (possibly more than it is now) but to compensate they should then revert to secondary weapons, these probably should be (slightly) armour piercing though, maces and heavy axes and suchlike. Whatever, they should still be very melee-effective after the charge; being hit with a big bit of wood by a guy on a rampaging warhorse is presumably not much good for you!
But, knights usually went into battle accompanied by squires and suchlike, who might be able to re-supply them with lances...possibly a unit of knights could therefore need a certain period of down-time to 're-supply', during which they'd have to remain inactive. Getting too complicated, really. Similar with missile units, they often got re-supplied on the field or even re-used the arrows that had been fired at them.
Some Asiatic cavalry types did in fact 'fence' with lances, much the same as is depicted in MTW, will try and find out which ones.
DukeofSerbia
06-12-2006, 19:49
Well from looking at the screen shots it appears to me that exactly the same cavalry on the same map are using both lances and maces. Given that the ability was added in Rome would you not presume that it would be carried over to MTW 2?
That only CA programers know. Maybe you have right, but I'm just not shore.
Furious Mental
06-13-2006, 03:33
Perhaps there should be a bunch of wagons that will increase how many arrows, gunpowder and lances your army can use.
Sensei Warrior
06-13-2006, 04:40
Yes, knights should have secondary weapons. Didn't a knight drop his lance after the initial charge and then switched to a melee weapon afterwards?
I mean if they didn't, what did they do? Retire from the field?
It just seems to make more sense.
Of course, the cav that don't use lances, like Gothic Knights, won't need a second weapon. There is no need to make it overly realistic. If they did that, they should keep the knights who lived but whose horse was killed on the field as Foot Knights :dizzy2: .
sunsmountain
06-13-2006, 08:17
This is a no brainer, unless the knights are not using lances at the charge (which were discarded afterwards), and using their "secondary" sword/mace (gothic!) straight away. Even then it's easy to strap another handheld weapon on your horse in case the first gets broken during the charge or first few (hard) hits.
I think they should require three graphicscards and a physicscard for the game to run at all, this way they can make the units very high poly and physically calculate every breaking lance, maybe the abundance of calculation power will also be sufficient to simulate the knights´ thoughts and feelings and affect the way they use their weapons.:dizzy2:
Hey, I think you're on to something, Husar! :idea2: A physics card... I've never heard of them before, but somebody should definitely make one!
DukeofSerbia
06-13-2006, 18:11
Of course, the cav that don't use lances, like Gothic Knights, won't need a second weapon.
Even Gothic knights used lance in initial charge, but their secondary weapon was mace (in MTW it was so called "morning star" for devastating armour piercing).
Hey, I think you're on to something, Husar! :idea2: A physics card... I've never heard of them before, but somebody should definitely make one!
http://www.ageia.com/:juggle2:
http://www.ageia.com/
Wow, that's pretty dang cool! :2thumbsup: I guess it won't be long before we all have to buy physics cards in order to play the latest games.
Archayon
06-14-2006, 09:12
About the lances, maces, knives, swords and stuff ...
if CA really wants to be historical accurate, they should be thinking of this:
(and please remind that i'm only speaking about west-european knights)
Use of lances: in War
When war was fought in the 10th-13th century, the army (west-eu) consisted mostly of the lord/king/whatever who felt himself obliged to start a battle, and many of his vassals (being knights). All those knights (king included) brought a small group of other mounted troops, each like 4-5 shield-bearers, maybe some other troops, but most of all a LOT of peasants, working on their lands. This last category carried every weapon they could possibly possess, mostly tools used for agriculture, (think about axes, pitch-forks, scythes, ...) but some nations could wield bows (like in England, where men used to train with them on sundays after church).
Sometimes, some major cities in regions with a lord fighting in the battle, could send troops (from 2nd half of 13th century and further on), sometimes allied to their lord, sometimes enemies, depending on their relationship with him, their own power as a city and the privileges they were waiting for.
(let's forget a while about the train, the whole group of engineers, servants, whores, ... following the army).
Sometimes there were a lot mercenaries. Most times, they were infantry armoured to the teeth, or crossbowmen (often Swiss, Burgundian or Italian troops).
The purpose was to keep the battlefield until the next day.
In M1TW-language, we could say: some royal knights (sometimes), most of the times some feudal knights and mounted nobles (shield bearers? ), vanilla archers, LOTS of peasants and in some cases LOTS of urban militia. In most battles in those times, there weren't that much spearmen.
Let's take a closer look at the mounted units (that's where we are interested at, aren't we?). Most of them, especially the higher classes (not the nobles, but the knights), were carrying lances. When they had to fight, they could fight against 3 kind of troops:
(archers were mostly used for initial shootings, decreasing morale, making it easier to get the enemy routing)
- other mounted units. I don't really know much about lances for them, but i don't think they were used much, maybe for an initial charge (imagine fighting with a 10-15ft lance in close melee...). Weapons like maces,
- peasant: in close formations, lances pointing ahead, the ground shaking of a few 100s horses (think about horse + armoured man = 600-750 kg, that"s 1200-1500 lb?) at mediocre speed, most peasant units didn't stand long. Just try to stop those tanks! After an initial contact, knights returned, charged again (with lances, most times a couple ft longer than pitch-forks and scythes), until the peasants routed. THAT's what lances were used for!
When armoured, the knights were pretty save fighting peasants.
(of course, in many battles peasants tried to secure themselves with stakes planted in the ground
- mercenaries. not bounded by any consequences of their deeds (they already received the money), they always looked for the best opportunity to fight. I can imagine they could give the knights a hard time. Usually, peasants (and urban militia) engaged them, sometimes the knights followed the routers, but not always, because mercenaries weren't captured, they were slaughtered, by order of the church.
Note about the peasant and UM: their status changed in 1302, when the fine fleur chivalric army of France fought the Flemish (almost without knights, only UM from Bruges, Courtrai, Ypres, ...) at the Battle of Courtrai, and LOST. This was because the UM had the idea of sticking together, defended by pointed wooden sticks in the ground and heavy maces in their hands (called "goedendags"), and were forced to keep formation at all costs. Imagine a horse, storming a bunch of weakly armoured peasants and UM, but with pointing sticks, keeping formation (think of a unit of spearman in M1TW on hold formation instead of loose, not on hold). The horse will prance (?) in the end, shaking the knight off his back. This knight, chained on the ground due to his heavy armour, was killed by those "peasants who do not know the rules of battle".
The most important reason for a knight to take part in a battle, was the opportunity to become rich in 1 day (ransom is what i mean). Of course, there was always risk, but the richer the knights were, the smaller the risk became (they bought armour when they could afford it). Knights didn't fight often to death. In a defending position, they were surrounded by their servants and shield-bearers. Once they were dead/captured/distracted, the knight just fought until he saw an enemy knight of a certain status to hand over his sword (they don't wanted the humiliation to be too big).
You'll probably already know this almost better than me, but my point is this:
in war: lances were used :
- against peasant to make them rout (including archers, who were useless after an initial shooting, unless they were on a high, well-defended position)
- against other knights: maybe on a initial charge, but the sword, the axe and the mace were much more important here. (maces were most often used by mounted MONKS, who were not admitted to wield weapons, in their eyes: "carving weapons like sword, dagger, axe", i could give you many examples of this).
- mostly they didn't fight mercenaries at all. Peasants an UM did it.
Use of lances: on tournaments
You all should keep in mind that tournaments (like in the picture in post 1 of this thread, if someone can edit my post and quote it here, please go ahead :) ) were very, VERY rare (did i mention they were rare?). They are an invention of the 18th and 19th century romanticist, due to misinterpretation of the sources, and LOTS of fantasy.
There WERE tournaments, but they were a lot different.
Think of a real-time war battle, on a few square miles, with this alterations:
- not being fought in war time, but on invitation, between members of the same court
- few square miles battlefield (5-30), with lots of hiding places, hills, ... with clearly marked or agreed borders.
- no UM, much fewer peasants
- no mercenaries (except for the few semi-independent warlords, who used to let themselves hired in war, but who wanted to receive some status at the court)
- farms in the territory with innocent peasants, harvesting their crops, just made the "game" more fun
- it was all about hiding, ambushing, and CAPTURING. Making money was the purpose, and also gaining skill, status and fame. Someone was called "brave" because of those tournaments.
Many of those tournaments we know of have taken part in France.
Lances are pretty useless in such a tournament, because they could kill someone easily. I even think i've read somewhere lances with iron points were prohibited, but i'm not sure. Of course, there were wounded men, often someone got killed, but this was more by "accident", and the aggressor could receive the vice "ruthless".
About M2TW
Keeping all this thinks in mind, i would like to see in M2TW:
- knights having a secondary weapon, being a sword, axe or mace depending on what kind of knights they are.
- charging with lances, high charge "points"
- melee with lances: impossible, or with a serious attack penalty.
- knights on defence: fighting with secondary weapon instead of lances.
and also:
- impossibility to capture mercenaries (flee or die :skull: )
- possibility to gain valour without fighting a war (in-game tournament option), maybe an agreed non-war battle between 2 factions, an extra possibility to gain money
- ransoms are taken away from your treasury (maybe partly, because the local peasants did pay most of it). Think of France during the 100-yrs war, not being able to field a massive army because of the depleted treasury, kept empty by continuous ransoms for their captured knights.
:oops: lots of reading ... plz don't mind my crappy english :embarassed:
:idea2: Arch
Archayon
06-14-2006, 09:24
Sorry but i can't edit.
Just wanted to say that i also would like some kind of baggage train being part of engaging armies. They were subject of heavy looting during battles, used to make blockades, and were often as heavy defended as the standard.
In many battles, the baggage train was a major factor, and the cause of many movements of units.
Also, this message and the one above are just my opinion. Don't want to accuse/embarrasse someone, feel free to discuss ... :bow:
:idea2: Arch
_Maximus_
06-15-2006, 20:59
Secondary weapom would improve the atmosphere and reality because as you know they had secondary weapons,every unit! Cavarly had swords,some of the infanrty had daggers and archers also! But i only hope that we would be seeing soon secondary weapons!
Patriarch of Constantinople
06-17-2006, 05:09
Were knights only mounted?
Archayon
06-17-2006, 08:55
Were knights only mounted?
Not in cases where they lost the advantages of being mounted,
or for defending purposes.
Some British battles prove this. A good book about some aspects is "The medieval archer" (Jim Bradbury), which describes in one of its chapters the role of knights in defending and attacking archers, both mounted and dismounted.
:book:
For MTW: I can't figure out why knights can be mounted all times, while others only can during sieges. in M2TW, it might be a good idea to include the possibility to re-mount knights during the battle or something...
(e.g. on foot defending a high position, mounted to capture routers, or something). There would be some difficulties: what to do with those horses?
A little off-topic: An addition to the tournaments i told about in one of my previous posts, i did some research. The tournaments like in the picture in post 1 of this thread actually did take place, but in Constantinople, during the reign of the western europe orientated Manuel (I) Comnenos, in the hippodrome in Constantinople. He organised them, and i believe he also took a part in them, but i'm not sure of that.
ChewieTobbacca
06-21-2006, 23:51
From some of the new pics, the knights are indeed shown wielding maces.
Watchman
06-22-2006, 09:50
Lances were "alpha strike" shock weapons. Even if they survived the charge physically intact I think everyone can see certain problems inherent in trying to manage a three- or four-meter spear one-handed in a melee...
I actually recently read the lances were so cumbersome it was a common practice to have the cavalrymen at the flanks of the formation use their swords, maces and similar melee weapons from the start during the charge, just so they could protect the actual lancers during the very vulnerable point right after the impact when these were switching to their sidearms.
The resupply of new lances for surther charges, however, can be assumed to take place "behind the scenes" in-game. Armies had their systems for taking care of such miscellanea, and adding the essentially noncombatant support personnel who took care of such things into the battlefield would only serve to bog things down and cause quite unnecessary complications (like someone sending troops to intercept the "supply train" - and where would that bunch start from anyway ?)- all the more so as the TW series cuts a whole lot of corners when it comes to representation anyway, and the battle formations in the games tend not quite maneuver and operate like their historical counterparts actually did.
sunsmountain
06-23-2006, 19:30
This is the most unanimous poll i've ever seen! So i'm changing my answer to NO, Knights Should Proceed to Horse About When They Lose Their Weapon ~:)
I'd like to see an obvious action where the rider puts away the lance and draws a sword. I didn't like in RTW when a phalanx's spears keep dissapearing and reappearing instantly. It just looks silly. Maybe I'm being too hopeful (infact i bet I am) BUT, in some of the screenshots it looks like there is some kind of thing on the horse that the riders could attach their lances to (like oars on a boar) but I'm not going back to check in case I am dissapointed :P
Of course they should, and the switch should be handled automatically by the AI. The lance should be used when the unit is charging; the sword at all other times.
Also, cavalry shouldn't be able to instantly go from a dead stop to a charge. Single-click for attack with sword, double-click for charge with lance, and the charge bonus should only apply if the unit actually had enough time/space to get up to charging speed.
in some of the screenshots it looks like there is some kind of thing on the horse that the riders could attach their lances to (like oars on a boar)
Oars on a boar, heh heh ha! I realize it was a typo, but for some reason I got a big kick out of that. Anyway, I can't speak with any authority about the historical accuracy of "holstering" a lance on the side of one's horse, but I would certainly think it would be pretty much impossible. Or, rather, too impractible to be an option. I mean, lances were pretty dang long. Can you picture a mounted knight with one dangling alongside his horse? To me it doesn't seem like something they would have done. But again, I'm no historian, so if someone more knowledgable on the matter could provide some facts on that matter of knight "switching out" weapons, it would be appreciated.
Dang... why won't they let me edit my posts? :(
OK so i probably was being a bit optimistic there - but i hope there will be some sort of swapping animation. And with it a moment of vunerability when they are unarmed.
Alien_Tortoise2345
07-05-2006, 17:35
Well the Byzantine cataphracts should because history records they carried a bow aswell as a sword.
DukeofSerbia
07-05-2006, 18:17
I'd like to see an obvious action where the rider puts away the lance and draws a sword. I didn't like in RTW when a phalanx's spears keep dissapearing and reappearing instantly. It just looks silly. Maybe I'm being too hopeful (infact i bet I am) BUT, in some of the screenshots it looks like there is some kind of thing on the horse that the riders could attach their lances to (like oars on a boar) but I'm not going back to check in case I am dissapointed :P
Why only sword? Different types of mace were in later medieaval more popular than sword.
Sensei Warrior
07-07-2006, 03:38
Why only sword? Different types of mace were in later medieaval more popular than sword.
I'm not sure Duke, but I don't think he just meant a sword, he probably meant a secondary weapon it's just a little long to type out. My classic image of a knight is with sword and lance, but we've already made a number of references to maces, morningstars, and other weapons. I just assumed he typed sword for the image and for speed.
I would love to see units in MTW2 having 3 different weapons, this is expecially refers to cavalry -> spear, bow or javelins for skirmishing, sword/mace/axe for close combat. That kind of light and medium cavalry was characteristic for muslim countries, eastern Europe, Central Asia.
I agree with Archayon about the penalties for melee with lances, they should be a once use weapon so you need to time the initial charge just right for maximum effect.
Supply wagons are an interesting concept and I would like to see it though I doubt it will be implimented.
DukeofSerbia
07-24-2006, 11:06
I would love to see units in MTW2 having 3 different weapons, this is expecially refers to cavalry -> spear, bow or javelins for skirmishing, sword/mace/axe for close combat. That kind of light and medium cavalry was characteristic for muslim countries, eastern Europe, Central Asia.
Excellent idea, but can engine do that? We don't know:no: ...
Excellent idea, but can engine do that? We don't know:no: ...
Probably not, at least not for RTW I guess. Has anyone tried to implement this ?
DukeofSerbia
07-24-2006, 11:16
As I know it's impossible. In RTR they even got out secondary weapon for cavalry units (except for horse archers).
Three weapons sound good, but impossible, so far.
This is the most unanimous poll i've ever seen! So i'm changing my answer to NO, Knights Should Proceed to Horse About When They Lose Their Weapon ~:)
Gods, I laughed so hard when I read this. Also, the quip about medieval snooker on the first page. Good stuff, gents.
Ohh, yes, they should. I do not need to elaborate--y'all have done that for me...
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.