As most of what I had to say was history I posted here
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...41#post1792141
to save the trouble of moving it. But it is also a gamers issue more than just a historical one...soooo,
anyone have any feed back?
Printable View
As most of what I had to say was history I posted here
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...41#post1792141
to save the trouble of moving it. But it is also a gamers issue more than just a historical one...soooo,
anyone have any feed back?
Maybe CA thought they'd be a push-over and be made vassals of England (or just incorporated without the above) before they'd ever get to gunpowder age.
They did give them artillery though.
I guess its the same with the Byzantines who only get some artillery (less advance than the Scots even) and no gun infantry or horsemen.
Yes, don’t you hate it when someone hard-codes history into a game and locks you into an outcome you are there to change!
Constantinople fell just about the same time as handguns were coming onto the field…so no Byzantium didn’t have those troops.
The Templars were outlawed in the early 1300s so they miss an armor upgrade, but why don’t they carry a huge boost in trade for being the first bankers, or diplomacy, or influence…
One other issue:
At Battle of Flodden Field it was said that the Scots Pikes were poorly trained, the tactics that worked on the continent did not work so well that day.
Pardon me but were they or were they not using musket and pike tactics on the continent?
From gameplay point of view it wouldn't change much, as that would still not be the main strength of Scotland. I wouldn't rely on them much. Maybe, only if they are really good units, like musketeers. Otherwise it is not a good idea to try to defeat foes using the same tactic as they do, just executed by weaker troops.
That would be like using standard heavy cavalry to defeat France, or using bowmen to outmatch english longbowmen. It is better to use your strong points, like good infantry or pikes, accompanied with artillery.
It wouldn't be any fun if every faction had the same units, now would it :laugh4:
Fisherking,
The Roman Empire (Byzantium). Did have handgunners, and had Culiverns before 1420AD.
Read up on the Seige of constantinople, 1422AD. They destoryed most of the turkish artillery with the long range Culivern guns.
Turks had mainly falconets. Which is a shorter type of Gun.
And at the game start in real life, Both Scotland and Wales are vassels of England. There actually polictical standing is that of English Provinces.
At the start of William I, reign, Both scotland and wales paid homage and recognised William as their lord King, so in essence shouldn't be individual factions in game.
I think this is why they have a limited development line.
But I do agree that, if the faction is in game, then the faction should have the ability to develop to the level of other factions, if they so survive.
As for Handgunners, there are reliable records of their use in the 1200's. As with Cannons.
As for guns and cannons, we know that the English used cannons against the french in the late 1200's, and that the French would buy cannons from england.
It was also about this time the Board of Ordance was setup to equipment organise and manufacture gun powder weapons. Which was not abolished until 1857AD, or sometime around that date.
Now saying all this, please remember, this is not a historical game, it is only loosely based on history.
PS: I noticed in your previous post on the subject, you quoted internet related sources as an authority.
These are hardly worthy of any historical relavence, let alone an Authority.
For the Late Roman Empire.
See Warren Treadgold studies on this period. Considered quite an Authority on the Late Roman Empire.
Or, there are some very good Italian treatise on the defenses of constantinople in regards to the period of 1390 to 1434AD.
For earlier periods, See Prof Dawson of New England University.
Also Studies from Cambridge and Imperial College.
For England, Scotland and wales, See the National Archives at http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk for contact information concerning research information requests.
Sincerely
fenir
justifying the denial of personal firearms with their pikes is a bit awkward when pikes in the game are such a long way from their real-world historical effectiveness.
really, all the western european powers should have the same access to firearms.
Pikemen are not effective in the game, because they switch to their secondary weapons too soon. I wonder, if CA managed to make phalanx, which work perfectly with pikes and switch to swords only in most needed cases in RTW, why couldn't they do the same with pikes in medieval2?
Regarding to Scotland and guns, it is strange why they get no firearms in medieval2 and also in kingdoms expansion. Maybe, firearms, used along with their noble pikemen and highlanders would make them too powerful:inquisitive:
Pikes are still a sign of soon death for any light or heavy cavalry.
I never heard this? Where did you get this from?Quote:
And at the game start in real life, Both Scotland and Wales are vassels of England. There actually polictical standing is that of English Provinces.
At the start of William I, reign, Both scotland and wales paid homage and recognised William as their lord King, so in essence shouldn't be individual factions in game.
Scotland was an independent nation until 1707.
Wales wasn't conquered by England until the late 13th century.
Where did you find that?Quote:
Originally Posted by fenir
Making guns safe enough to use in smaller size was dificult and the casting system just was not good enough to do that at that early date.
That is so that it can be read or gathered that I just didn't make it up from whole cloth. Some of the books and references might not be readily available so quoting them is of little value. (that and a number of my references are unavailable to me at this time and seeing as how I am in Germany it is a little difficult to gather too many from the local library.)Quote:
Originally Posted by fenir
Most early reference to hand guns are often discounted and suspect as to date. As I said before they were even deliberately omitted in some cases as ignoble.
Unfortunately within the game Scotland is left with units that are mostly broken. Pike, two-handed Highland Nobles along with second rate archers. They are not given much depth. This could have been a coast saving measure by the developers of course. You can win the game with any faction but depth and diversity bring a lot to any faction.
Scotland was not an English territory in 1080. They paid homage to the English King, but so did many rebel regions in the game (eg Flanders to France) and they do not begin under the factions direct control.
Also, if the game is not historical leeway should be allowed due to the fact history will no doubt be different in the campaign than from in real life. If Scotland conquered Britain, it would probably have adopted guns pretty early.
I don't think it unbalances the game too much though. The English don't get gunmen either do they? Just hire the mercs anyway, the get an extra +5 armour over normal arquebusiers.