Muslim Cavalry

With the exception of "foreign service" Kwarziam and AHC, muslim "heavy" cavalry seems not really worth the development efforts, plus some of them (like the mamelukes) seems a bit weird in stat distribution...
How comes that Mameluk HA have higher attack than their melee counterpart and the ottoman sipahi, a late "heavy" unit got absolutely awful stats?

Personally, I think that needs to be rebalanced a bit, so I'm open to any suggestion/proposal for that.

Just like with other similar threads by me, the results will be included in the next ZX mod release ~;)

I think "heavy" for desert fighters is relative. But they could definitely use some truly heavy cavalry for when they step into Europe. I'll leave it people like EYG to suggest stats though ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Graphic

I think "heavy" for desert fighters is relative. But they could definitely use some truly heavy cavalry for when they step into Europe. I'll leave it people like EYG to suggest stats though ~D

---

I agree with you, they weren't really heavyin terms of armor, but why did they give them such poor weapon skills?
I'm not going to put any more armor if I mod that, but at least dd some punch to them... Afer all at least the turkish came from the steppes, and it's unlikely that they forgot how to fight on the saddle...

i'm not into stat crunching but SoP seem to do quite ok against cristian heavy cav. just my obsavations maybe other factors involved. still i dont think muslim factions ever adopted the heavy cavalry charge tactic in their warfare.

SotP are a 20men unit IRC, so it's hard to use them as comparation...

The problem is that muslims had quite effective medium cavalry, that while not really armoured, compensated with martial skills while in game they can barely match mounted sergeants, that are light cavalry by definition...

Ottoman Spahis are not Spahis of the Porte (SoP). The former is a fast light cavalry but there is not much use for them: I 'd use valored up Turcoman Horse because they can shoot and that makes up for the weaknesses.

SoP on the other hand is a royal cavalry nice stats and the only heavy cav that can shoot apart from boyars...

Because the muslim don't need cav to counter cav, they got camels for that job.

:).

You now that camels aren't that great against anything better than FK...

val0 in a frontal charge maybe, but just watch you're CK and Lancers get chewed up by val3-4 camelry. It's scary as hell and the reason I only let Lancers play in the sand if there are no camels.
Part of the problem is that the AI is pretty stupid, even on Hard and Expert. We've all used a single cav unit to rout entire armies by rear charging a key AI unit but how many times has the AI pulled that off against you?

Well, since the AI has a tendency to use camels even where they shouldn't (camels outside desert are nerfed a lot) at least the cavalry they got left should be of some help...

Gah!

Camels indeed need valour 2 to be effective in bigger, more advanced battles, but you got them by the time you can mount chiv knights...

terrain does not matter.

Camels will defeat cav even on lush terrain...

Hmm, maybe I need to refine my camel tactics a bit...

I'm currently working on ZX beta 3, the muslim factions could use some tweaking IMHO, especially the octomans as their tech tree makes little sense to me in many places... For example, why turcoman foots needs level 3 bower? They aren't exactly on par with longbowmen and similar archers like trebizonds got far lower requisites...

Not that Mithrandir needs my back-up, but camels rock against horses. As you can see camels lose only 1 point attack when in lush terrain, but gain +2 against horses and +4 defense. Throw into the mix how cheap they are to build and keep, then add a point or two valor and you can see where this goes.

Bedouin camel warriors
Charge 6 Attack 2 Defence 0 Armour 2 Speed 9, 14, 16 Morale 0 Cost 125 Support cost 40

Terrain

+1 atk for camels in sandy desert
-1 atk for camels in lush or temperate
-2 atk, -2 def for cavalry or camel in trees
Bonus to atk for being uphill (amount depends on height difference)
Penalty to atk for being downhill (amount depends on height difference)

Fear of camels

+4 def for camels against horses
+2 atk for camels against horses

Quote:

---

How comes that Mameluk HA have higher attack than their melee counterpart and the ottoman sipahi, a late "heavy" unit got absolutely awful stats?

---

Mamluk cavalry are armour piercing. So they do have a higher effective attack vs tank-like units. But they'll still get slaughtered by lancers or chivalric knights outside the desert. (Gothic knights would win in a melee as well, but they are too slow) One possible unit for your mod that might even the odds a bit: Camelphracts!

I've been playing in a campaign as the Egyptiians, and the biggest difference between them and the others is that they don't have anything with good attack *and* defence. They do have great attackers(Ghazis, Nizaris, Naptha, Armenian Cav) and great defenders(Saracens, Khwarz cavalry). So my main tactic was to pin with Saracens in front, then sneak the attackers in the side of the enemy, or in the back if possible. They don't play like the catholics and their knights, and they are not supposed to.

One other thing: I'd also like to see Abyssinian guards made better, or Ghazis made worse (or both). Just look at the pictures for the two units, and ask yourself which looks like it has the better charge and attack stats.

Abyssinian guards are already improved on ZX, my debate was about giving to the muslim "heavies" better stats than catholic light cav...

I think the muslim cavalry works just fine as it is. =/

Mounted Sergeants are listed as light cavalry, but I think of them more as medium (since there isn't a medium cavalry section they're listed as light), along with units like gendarmes, polish retainers, or ottoman sipahi, that seem either too strong or too weak to technically be heavy or light. So I don't think all the Muslim heavy cavalry need to be able to defeat MS's by definition.

Also, I was originally very confused that units like Ottoman Sipahi or Ottoman infantry, though not available till late, have lower build requirements and stats than Ghulam Cavalry or Turcoman foot. Now I think of them as Turkish expansion units. It was during the late period that the Ottoman Empire overran the Muslim world and the Balkans. With the lower build requirements, Ottoman troops can be built quickly in conquered provinces with less infrastructure, so they're quickly raisable troops to defend the frontiers or push them further, not so much elite as readily available.

Mamluk cavalry really disappoint me, though. I don't think I've learned to use them to their best potential, but still they feel seriously lacking in punch, especially for the kind of unit that threw off the Mongols and ruled supreme in the desert. Not sure what should be changed, but if any Muslim Cavalry unit needs improving this is the one I'd pick.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaxfetish

Mounted Sergeants are listed as light cavalry, but I think of them more as medium (since there isn't a medium cavalry section they're listed as light), along with units like gendarmes, polish retainers, or ottoman sipahi, that seem either too strong or too weak to technically be heavy or light. So I don't think all the Muslim heavy cavalry need to be able to defeat MS's by definition.

Also, I was originally very confused that units like Ottoman Sipahi or Ottoman infantry, though not available till late, have lower build requirements and stats than Ghulam Cavalry or Turcoman foot. Now I think of them as Turkish expansion units. It was during the late period that the Ottoman Empire overran the Muslim world and the Balkans. With the lower build requirements, Ottoman troops can be built quickly in conquered provinces with less infrastructure, so they're quickly raisable troops to defend the frontiers or push them further, not so much elite as readily available.

Mamluk cavalry really disappoint me, though. I don't think I've learned to use them to their best potential, but still they feel seriously lacking in punch, especially for the kind of unit that threw off the Mongols and ruled supreme in the desert. Not sure what should be changed, but if any Muslim Cavalry unit needs improving this is the one I'd pick.

---

Ok, how about swapping the melee and HA version attacks?
That would mean good attack for the melee version that with AP snould make it a good fast counter armour unit, while their HA still would retain decent self defence capabilites.

That'd probably do a lot to help. With their armor-piercing attack Mamluk Cav have the potential to be one of the more distinctive Muslim cavalry units. I wonder about the Mamluk HA's in this respect. How similar are they to Faris, Turcomans, etc., and is there a good and reasonable way to distinguish them?

Having too many nearly-identical units defeats the purpose of having lots of different/specialized/localized ones in the first place, so it's nice when units have those special characteristics (ghazis, halberds, etc.) to make them stand out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaxfetish

That'd probably do a lot to help. With their armor-piercing attack Mamluk Cav have the potential to be one of the more distinctive Muslim cavalry units. I wonder about the Mamluk HA's in this respect. How similar are they to Faris, Turcomans, etc., and is there a good and reasonable way to distinguish them?

Having too many nearly-identical units defeats the purpose of having lots of different/specialized/localized ones in the first place, so it's nice when units have those special characteristics (ghazis, halberds, etc.) to make them stand out.

---

True, the problem is that we got a limited set of variables to play with, so a realistic unit set of differences requires either shared rosters or pretty limited individual ones.

I think that MTW+VI rosters already take most possibilities, with the possible exception of a mounted firearm unit (though i modded the mameluk handgunners to be fast infantry, thus partially covering that need) and cataphracted camels.

I'm doing some small historical study of my own on medieval armies (though I'm using only internet sources so limited reliability) and tweaking the game to be more fun on the gameplay side while retaining historical accuracy where it's possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Graphic

I think "heavy" for desert fighters is relative. But they could definitely use some truly heavy cavalry for when they step into Europe. I'll leave it people like EYG to suggest stats though ~D

---

Moi?

I appreciate the thought but I'll have to use the "Manuel" clause for this one.

"I know narrrthing."

Sinan might be a good person to ask when it comes to historical aspects, if not actual stats.

I daren't dream up any stats myself because I have little enough experience of gameplay as it is, let alone extensive balance testing. I imagine that tiny changes in stats may have much more far-reaching consquences in game balance terms because you also need to take account of the AI's building habits and troop training tendencies. Make a unit just slightly better than CA made it only to find the AI likes to spam that unit heavily and wipes the floor with the other factions, thanks to the changes made.

So think globally and account for (increased stat) x (numbers trained) on the overall strength of the faction's army. If any units have been watered down, compared to historical qualities, it may be because, historically, they were exceptionally tough units but only made up a tiny proportion of the overall army. You can't be sure of preventing the AI troop training scheme deviating from reality.

Remember that the AI fights other AI factions using autocalc. Some of the factors may have been set, taking this into account. Use the -ian 'autopilot' mode to see what kind of difference the changes make and what sort of numbers of the revised type are getting trained when the AI is in charge.

I'm guessing the changes Zarax plans are to make the experience more interesting for the player in actual battles but the way the AI performs against other AI, in areas of the map over which the player has no real influence is a significant part of the game experience, IMO.

Personally I think that balancing won't be affected that much by such changes, considering that tech tree plays a far more active role in influencing the unit mix than anything else, so lower tech unit changes are much more influencing than high tech ones.
I learnt a great deal of AI balancing in the first beta, which was mostly aimed towards making the danes capable of developing properly.

The current state of the AI balancing has shown that all factions are capable of growing to considerable size under the AI with the only exception of the turkish (that needs a whole reshaping of their tech tree imho) and the almohads on a minor factor.
Beta 3 is focused on these tweaks as well as high and late period rebalancing (plus making the horde playable), and I found the mulim cavalry roster to be a problem, especially with the turkish (the eggys are able to defends themselves well, but their camel armies are of little use out of desert)...

I have absolutely no problem with the Muslim cavalry. I'm in love with several of them, and I want to have their babies.

- Bedouins: Cheap horse killers with big home ground advantage. Nuff said.
- Mamluk Cav: Armour piercing flankers with easy build requirements.
- Sipahis of the Porte: Best all-rounders in the game. They can do anything.
- Armenian Heavy: Easy to valour up. Easy to armour up. Devastating charge.
- Saharan cav: Eat my dust. Perfect balance to camels and ghulams.

I often use an all-cavalry ultra-mobile army when playing as the Muslim factions, using Turcoman Horse or Faris to take care of spear units from a distance. Catholics are soooo slow.

I think Roark has this one nailed as I seem to get along better with Muslim cavalry or units in general. I really think the game was designed to offer a different feel and difficulty not just by religion but faction. I think the game would be pretty boring if every faction played the exact same way, with nearly the same troop mix.

On the other hand I also understand what the modders are trying to do with balance so each AI faction has a chance to grow, thus increasing the human challenge. The biggest problem I see for the AI Turks is location not troop selection. They only have several provinces, none a real money maker, and they are completely hemmed in. You have the Byz who are strong in early with troop roster and all those high command Jedi princes, room to expand, and the ultimate ATM in Constantinople. Then you have the Eggies sitting there with plenty of cash to spend in one of the riches sets of provinces in the game. This is just slow death for the Turks if the human player is on the other side of the map. But if the human player is close to either of their foes, just close enough they need to watch you a little, then the situation changes and I've seen the Turks become the 900 pound gorilla in the room. All I think it would take to improve their situation would be a clear shot at all those rebel provinces in the steppes. That seems to be one of the main keys to their expansion from what I've seen.

Unfortunately that doesn't work.
I've tried to pave them the way to the steppes by making georgia rebel (which is one of their homelands) but they still sit down in the starting lands until byz or the eggys kills them...

[QUOTE=Roark]I have absolutely no problem with the Muslim cavalry. I'm in love with several of them, and I want to have their babies.

[QUOTE]

The horses or the men riding them? :jester:

Err, that's on the border of moderation...

Quote:

---

The horses or the men riding them? :jester:

---

Haha... Just an expression, duder...

I'm a Turcophile, all the way.

Although I'm enjoying my HRE campaign immensely, my usual style is to blacken the sky with arrow shafts and run rings around the Catholics. The Turks are perfect for it.

Yeah, I love the Turks' and Egyptians' cavalry as well.
And I think they can hold their own against the Catholics. In fact I prefer the fast cavalry tactics of the Muslims to the slow Catholics.


BTW, Roark, that comment wasn't intended to offend. I just have a sick sense of humour.

Ditto, man.

No offence taken at all.