Printable View
I've neen reading up on some unit guides. I've come across some units that I don't know about. I f some one could tell me what faction I have to play as to get a hold of these units. (by the way, I play vanilla MTW)
~Gothic Sergeants
~Hashishin
~Jannisary Archers
~Jannisary Infantry
~Jannisary Heavy Infantry
~Futuwwas
~Gallowglasses
~Nizaris
~Armenian Heavy Cavalry
~Gendarmes
~Teutonic Sergeants
~Lithuanian Cavalry
Gothic Sergeants- Italy and HREQuote:
Originally Posted by Voivode of Romania
Hashishin- Islamic kingdoms
Jannisary troops- All Jannisary troop are for the Turks
Futuwwas- Turks
Gallowglasses- Any catholic, only trainable in Ireland.
Nizaris- Egypt
Armenian Heavy Cavalry- Islamic Kingdoms, only trainable in Armenia, Lesser Armenia, and Rum.
Gendarmes- Not sure, I believe France, Italy, and Spain. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
Teutonic Sergeants- HRE. Also, only trainable in crusades, IIRC.
Lithuanian cavalry- I believe everyone, but take my advice, they take WAY too long to bother trying to ever train. I've only done it once.
Thank you. I appreciate the info.
You forgot to inquire about camels, you'll have to play Egypt, Almohads or Turkey to get them.
I suggest you take a look at the tech tree that came with the game, as some of those units (especially the Janissaries) need quite a lot of teching up. Also, you can see which nations can train which units.
This reminds me of one of the things that annoyed me when I started playing the game: the unit descriptions sometimes state things about the units that aren't true. It was a shock when the unit I though was brave beyond belief broke before even sustaining large casualties or flanked or anything. Of course, you'll only learn the role of the units by playing and snooping around a bit.
The unit description parchments are in fact accurate. "Brave Beyond Belief" (courageous line) is a virtue for general's, this can be countered by other vices the general has (particularly those of the coward, drunk and gluttony lines of vices). Also there are many other factors that can reduce a unit's morale in battle including being outnumbered, exhaustion, the death of the general, distance from the general, the effects of other routing units, unprotected flanks, vices the general might have picked up that may negate the effect of any virtues, and many more. So what you see on the campaign map is no guarantee of how your army will do in battle. Check for vices very carefully.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caliburn
:bow:
Right you are, Caravel, the stats displayed (in verbal form) are correct. What I meant was the description in the unit parchment, not the other information displayed (i.e. "good attack", "weak defence", "good morale", "fast") gives a different picture of the unit than its stats ever would.
I can't quite remember which unit it is I'm thinking, probably something like the Highland Clansmen. "While exceptionally brave by nature, Clansmen can also be stiff-necked and impetuous" while in fact the unit suffers from low morale (0 if I'm not mistaken). It's been a few years since I've read any of the descriptions (except for the new units in VI coupla years ago, when I got around to finally buying it).
And "finding the right function for the unit" is more of a taste thing - plugging holes with high attack/low defence archers as is offered (if I remember correctly) for some archers, vs. maybe the more effective function as flankers.
Mind though, I am not entirely sure whether it applies to several or only one or two descriptions.
Yes, the descriptions are indeed not really accurate. You see "compound bows" mentioned which don't actually exist in the game.
:bow:
Bah. No one here ever forgets about camels. In the Main Hall, it's simply a given that everyone knows about them -- I've made sure of that. :whip:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mithrandir
@Caliburn: Yeah, some of the unit description are definitely a bit off. The Highlander is indeed a good example of one such. One would think that unit that sometimes charged without orders would have reasonably high morale in battle, but we all know from experience that this isn't necessarily so!
Another example would be Spanish Jinnettes and Bedouin Camel Warriors. Both units should really say something like "Will slay everything but squid". That might give the impression those units are overpowered, however. ~D
@Voivode - back on topic :beam: Also bear in mind that VI expansion added some new units to the Mediaeval campaign, and some troops you mentioned (Janisseries and the Gothics, for instance) will only become available in Late era (IIRC - maybe High?), so even if you have the right faction, fully teched up, the units won't appear until their era comes along as well.
But you can get camels from Early onwards :laugh4:
Gothics are late only, they should probably not be there at all to be honest as they look much more 1500s. Janissaries are available from high, but should actually be available from the late era onwards.Quote:
Originally Posted by macsen rufus
I've just started an early/hard/Seljukid Empire (Pocket Mod) campaign, to get myself back into MTW. The camels are in training. :beam:
:bow:
On that topic... I recall noticing something odd while playing Egypt in the P.M., but I dont know if it was in the last version or in the previous one... (apparently, at least). Arab infantry (the 100-sized sword-wielding one) and some of the camels required next to no building requirements. This allowed me to steamroll the turks early on into a two-border frontier. And I think it contributed to the loss of Africa in an almohad campaign (I beat four huge armies inflicting them considerable casualties, but they KEPT COMING, and after beating my Cyrenaica Garrison they just walked into Sahara, which in P.M. is the gate to all African provinces)
Arab Infantry are now truly the "backbone" of the Fatimid/Ayyubid/Mamluk forces. They have been souped up slightly, not massively but just enough, and they get a valour bonus in Arabia. This does beat fighting armies of peasants! The Arabs only require the Town Watch, nothing else. Camels also dismount to them, and camels also get the valour bonus in Arabia. This can make the Fatimid/Ayyubid/Mamluk faction quite strong in the early period, though I don't find them overpowered.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unknown Guy
Sahara definitely allows the other Maghreb provinces to be invaded from the south much more easily, though the border crossings from Sahara into any of the the three provinces involve attacking into the hills, so the defenders have some advantage.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unknown Guy
Unlocking the Sahara was my first foray into modding and, while testing, I was having plenty of fun as the Almos, progressing into France by the time my Kalipha died, unexpectedly - and heirless!
I thought Sahara would make an ideal 'bolt-hole' for the Almos, so they could simply step out of the way of Spanish crusades and then take back their territory after these had passed. Similarly, if the Eggies push west, you can pin them down just by placing a big garrison in Sahara. Should they get as far as Tunisia, or beyond, they don't know where you might attack and have to split their forces, leaving plenty behind in Cyrenacia, for example. So, strategically, it's a province that you want to hold at all costs!
I can't properly remember if the Spanish ever had the wherewithal to send more than one crusade through my lands but the one which did come kept trying to get from Morocco into Sahara because it was a 'short-cut' to Cyrenacia! (Not on a map, it isn't, even before thoughts of food, water and being fried).
Since then, my preference has been to make it a cul-de-sac province, to force Crusades to take the 'proper', coastal, route. Beyond that, it's a matter of deciding whether to allow the Almos land access to it, from Morocco only, or completely lock it off to everything except by coastal invasion only.
I have tried this idea I'd read elsewhere, whereby you all-but seal it off and make it fund the rebels (10k farms, plus trade goods) which makes life interesting in other parts of Europe but thought that, if I sealed off the sea-access route as well, the game might crash, or that the port wouldn't work for import or export.
Not least of considerations was that no-one would ever be able to get the 100% conquest victory, if it was left active but totally inaccessible.
The other night, when I'd set up the Dutch faction (that tutorial) and set it to autorun, they suddenly took provinces all over the shop (Scandinavia, Baltics, Iberia) but also invaded Sahara and took all that lucre!
Seeing that this might totally unbalance the game in favour of the naval powers, I think I'll return it to meagre levels of farm output, keep the trade goods and have it represent just the inhabitable coastal margin of southern Morocco, facing the Atlantic (with the trade goods theoretically coming from "off-map", like the Ivory, Spices, Silk etc on the south-eastern corner). I think I read that, historically, they did conquer this area at one stage.
This way, it is still worth capturing and developing but is otherwise deemed 'impassible', in terrain terms, for anyone wanting to traverse the continent.
Until they can gain ground, the Almos themselves are in dire need of places to train troops, especially at times when the need to recover substantial battle casualties quickly makes all the difference between continued survival and imminent collapse. In my test campaign, it was a constant dilemma between raising specialist units (eg Ghazis) here and it being the only non-frontline province where it was safe to build ships, without fear of interruption by a battle. Even during quiet spells, I still had to 'stockpile' troops, to cover these eventualities, which meant cashflow was always tight.
Yikes, talk about thread drift. I'll shut up. :embarassed:
@EYG - apologies if this furthers the thread drift :beam:
If you just close off the Sahara-Cyrenacia border then the route between Morocco and Tunisia is the same "length" whether you go through Sahara or Algeria so it reduces the odds of Sahara being used by 50%!Quote:
Since then, my preference has been to make it a cul-de-sac province, to force Crusades to take the 'proper', coastal, route. Beyond that, it's a matter of deciding whether to allow the Almos land access to it, from Morocco only, or completely lock it off to everything except by coastal invasion only......
... Not least of considerations was that no-one would ever be able to get the 100% conquest victory, if it was left active but totally inaccessible.
Also you can set provinces as not being required for the conquest - now memory fails me, but I THINK it's the final entry in the SetRegionAttributes section of your startpos file, which is a TRUE/FALSE flag. Set it to FALSE and it doesn't count towards your victory requirement. Compare with Horda & Jutland in the Viking campaign..... :2thumbsup:
Closing all borders, except to Morocco, reduces its use by 100% :boxedin:Quote:
Originally Posted by macsen rufus
I'd forgotten about that entry. Thanks for reminding me. :2thumbsup:Quote:
Also you can set provinces as not being required for the conquest - now memory fails me, but I THINK it's the final entry in the SetRegionAttributes section of your startpos file, which is a TRUE/FALSE flag. Set it to FALSE and it doesn't count towards your victory requirement. Compare with Horda & Jutland in the Viking campaign.....
How do you unlock Sahara???
If I remember right, there was a thread at the mod section exactly about this question.
linky ~:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Voivode of Romania
Please remember to issue the standard 'health warnings', when pointing people in the direction of the modding section.
I'll do it, this time: -
1. Campaigns in progress will no longer load if you modify files in your one and only copy of the game. If you're at all fond of them, then finish them first.
2. If you enjoy online, multiplayer battles, then your properly-installed copy of MTW:VI (the one which shows up in Windows Add/Remove programs) needs to be completely unmodified.
GAH! I completely forgot to mention that. :oops: Good of you to pick up my slack, EYG. :bow: