MTW Pocket Mod: Units, Buildings and Unit Stats

Wikipedia I wouldn't trust entirely, as it can be publically edited. I've seen some glaring errors in Wikipedia articles in the past. The Osprey books are also just picture books of soldiery throughout history AFAIW, I'm not sure how accurate they are. I'll have to look into it some more. The key question is when did the pavise orginate, and did it actually originate in pavia, or was it merely perfected there and more common. Parts of Milan and Genoa were well known for crossbow mercenaries after all. The French hired Genoese crossbows for deployment at Agincort. It may be that Pavises were starting to appear around the late 1100's but were not commonly used until the 1200's. In view of this I am thinking the high period for Pavises, Early for Crossbows themselves and Late For Arbalests.

-Edit: I've made the changes to the Nubian Spearmen and the Abysinnian Guards. I've also halved the value of trade goods. This will address the trade glut problem that some have no doubt noticed. I hadn't implimented this before as I had wanted to see how the AI handled trade after making ships and ports cheaper. It still handles it poorly of course, though there is more shipping. I want trade to work as a bonus income that gives a faction the edge, not as the mainstay.

I've also reduced Byzantine Infantry to normal sized sword infantry units. Now that the Byzantine have Armoured Spearmen they no longer need those oversized Byantine Infantry (which are a fantasy unit anyway btw). From the Early period the Byzantine are getting economically bloated. The developers seemed to know this and gave them the provinces that they controlled historically but with no buildings. I have just been facing off against them as the Italians (in the end it got boring so I gave up). Their armies consisted mainly of Treb Archers, Archers, UM, Spearmen, Slav Warriors and The Kat princes of course. They had stormed south against the Egytians and Turks and westwards against the Hungarians, Poles and Germans, using only those types of troops. An occasional unit of Pronoiai Allagion, Byz Lancers or Byz Infantry turned up, but not in large numbers. Again the problem is the high command royalty. I may edit these next. I may also make Armenia a low loyalty province, to symbolise it's historic independence and place more rebel units there at the start of the early period. If necessary I may also bring the technology level in Constantinople down slighlty while placing some other buildngs in some of the other provinces.

-Edit2: No point posting again and bumping this thread it would seem. Anyway, now that I've halved the trade goods value, my trade bloating days are over. The 50% import tax means I can make a little more out of the AI's trade than I used to, and the AI is reaping the same benefits, but overall trade income is slashed. The days of bloat are over, it's now a big struggle to make ends meet. In my current Almoravid campaign, I'm having to farm and mine to squeeze out what income I can while building ships to extend my trading network further. At present it stretches from Sahara to Genoa. Portugal is not yet ready, though I've been upgrading it. Castile and Egypt are in a similar condition only having been recently taken. Despite this I would normally be making a decent living, with the halved income it's pretty poor. Certainly more challenging though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caravel

1) Nubian Spearmen could be unassigned from the Almoravid/Almohad/Marinid faction and they would keep the Al-Muwahhidun Infantry as their one and only spear unit (except square shield spearmen) throughout the campaign. The Moorish dynasties had pretty much nothing to do with Nubia historically so Nubian Spearmen belong moreso to the Egyptians anyway. The Nubians would have been only trainable in Egypt, though for gameplay reasons they could be also available in Cyrenacia and the Sinai. I feel that the Nubians should in fact be a hybrid spear/javelin unit. I'm not entirely sure how to do this however, as it involves changing their animations. I'm not sure if the sprite used for the abyssinnians and nubians has the javelin throwing animation frames, I doubt it.

---

You can do two things.

a) Add javelins and leave it as is, as the game will just leave them in a stationary animation by default if there are no other defined animations.
Or
b) Open the ActionPage folder (in Textures\Men) and open the NegroSpearmen file and copy the "charge" values renaming "charge" as "standing_shoot". It does not make it look ungainly as when they charge they hold their spears above their heads anyhow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rythmic

You can do two things.

a) Add javelins and leave it as is, as the game will just leave them in a stationary animation by default if there are no other defined animations.
Or
b) Open the ActionPage folder (in Textures\Men) and open the NegroSpearmen file and copy the "charge" values renaming "charge" as "standing_shoot". It does not make it look ungainly as when they charge they hold their spears above their heads anyhow.

---

Thanks Rythmic I'll definitely try that and see how it looks. :2thumbsup:

-Edit: Working fine. The animation is ok for the job. If you get very close up and study it you can see it's not right, but from a normal distance it's hardly noticable. Thanks again. :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caravel

Thanks Rythmic I'll definitely try that and see how it looks. :2thumbsup:

-Edit: Working fine. The animation is ok for the job. If you get very close up and study it you can see it's not right, but from a normal distance it's hardly noticable. Thanks again. :2thumbsup:

---

Glad to help.

Hi
i got a question
5) Byzantine Infantry reduced to normal sized sword infantry units (60 men on the normal unit size, 100 on the large unit size and 120 on the Huge unit size)
how do i change the unit size?
and wich one most i download to play this mod mate? the 1.0.3.beta?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by axel

Hi
i got a question

how do i change the unit size?
and wich one most i download to play this mod mate? the 1.0.3.beta?

---

Go to options, performance, unit size and increase or decrease it using the slider.

Download the 1.04-beta version.

To install, extract to the "Total War" folder, not the default location as it won't work.


Update:-

I've made some stat changes to the Ottoman Sipahi. Historically elite cavalry, and mounted counterparts to the Janissary corps, in the game they are absolutely pathetic. The changes are as follows:

Training cost 300 florins
Elite
Disciplined
Armed with bows
Dismount to Ottoman Infantry
Charge +2 (6)
Melee +1 (3)
Defence +0 (3)
Armour +0 (4)
Honour +2 (4)

I've also made changes to the Ottoman Sipahis of the Porte to bring them in line the others:

Dismount to Ottoman Infantry
Charge +2 (6)
Melee +0 (3)
Defence +0 (6)
Armour +0 (7)
Honour +0 (6)

These will be in the next release.[/QUOTE]

I play with a Spanish version of MTW and then I suspect this is the cause of the error. Could you send me via e-mail an original English version of the Loc/Eng folder?

I like the javelin armed Nubian Spearmen but from my point of view you could obtain a better result if you use the fight action coordinates to simulate the shoot animation. I'll try to summarize the method here:

1. Go into the Textures/Men/ActionsPage directory and open the NegroSpearmen.txt file. You will see a sequence of coordinates for each action of the unit (walk, run, stand, die, fight, charge). Scrool down and write standing_shoot, then copy the coordinates of the fight action and paste it bellow the standing_shoot entry.

2. Go into the Textures/Men/Items/Shield1/NegroSpearmen directory. You will see several text files which contain the movement coordinates of the shield for each action. Copy and paste the fight.txt file and rename it as sshoot.

3. Go into the Textures/Men/Items/Weapon1/NegroSpearmen directory. You will see several text files which contain the movement coordinates of the weapon for each action. Copy and paste the fight.txt file and rename it as sshoot.

There are other javelin armed units in the game like the Jobbagys or the Almughavars which don't have a bif animation for the standing_shoot action. You could follow this method to give them an improvised shoot animation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Belisario

I play with a Spanish version of MTW and then I suspect this is the cause of the error. Could you send me via e-mail an original English version of the Loc/Eng folder?

---

I'll try and get it hosted for you as a zip tomorrow failing that I'll email it you. PM me with your address. :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Belisario

I like the javelin armed Nubian Spearmen but from my point of view you could obtain a better result if you use the fight action coordinates to simulate the shoot animation. I'll try to summarize the method here:

1. Go into the Textures/Men/ActionsPage directory and open the NegroSpearmen.txt file. You will see a sequence of coordinates for each action of the unit (walk, run, stand, die, fight, charge). Scrool down and write standing_shoot, then copy the coordinates of the fight action and paste it bellow the standing_shoot entry.

2. Go into the Textures/Men/Items/Shield1/NegroSpearmen directory. You will see several text files which contain the movement coordinates of the shield for each action. Copy and paste the fight.txt file and rename it as sshoot.

3. Go into the Textures/Men/Items/Weapon1/NegroSpearmen directory. You will see several text files which contain the movement coordinates of the weapon for each action. Copy and paste the fight.txt file and rename it as sshoot.

There are other javelin armed units in the game like the Jobbagys or the Almughavars which don't have a bif animation for the standing_shoot action. You could follow this method to give them an improvised shoot animation.

---

Many thanks for the info, I'll try and get that in to the next release. I've just finalised the latest release now, so I won't get it into this one, it'll be the next one.

Regards

Caravel

:bow:

Some ideas from another thread and some notes:

The Grand Mosque as the Prerequisite for jihads.

Upping the cost and build times of jihads

The ribat used as a prerequisite for "fanatical" troops such as the Nizari Fedayeen, Nizari Foot Soldiers and Ghazi Infantry instead of the Mosque and Grand Mosque. Other dependencies adjusted accordingly.

The Royal Court removed from Muslim factions (redundant).

Increasing the build time and cost for crusades.

Also the chapter house to form the prerequisite for knightly orders such as the Teutonics, Templars, Hospitallers, Santiago and Order foot soldiers in provinces where the orders were based historically.

Units such as the order knights, foot soldiers and fanatics modded to determine how likely they are to appear in crusades, to give slightly stronger crusades.

Other possibilities needing more input:

Removing the unique status of the Grand Mosques and Cathedrals. As the GM will no longer be a prerequisite for either the Military Academy or the Nizari Foot Soldiers, it would make sense to allow multiples to be built. The cost and build time could also be slightly reduced. The Cathedral could also be modded in this way.

Another idea

Revise the look of the Ghulam Bodyguards:

-EarlyGhulamBGs: remove the kite shield and give them the wooden round shield which remains unused in the MailHCav.bif

-HighGhulamBGs: don't need changes, they have a nice Muslim look :2thumbsup:

-LateGhulamBGs: really need a urgent change, a Muslim cavalryman (and horse) with a Gothic armour?! I propose the same look of the HighGhulamBGs but with mail horse armour (the same horse armour of the Khwarazmians or the Kataphraktoi; I don't remember its bif's name). The golden round shield of the Faris also would be nice. And for the Unit Icons you could use the Khwarazmians icons.

PD: The correct spelling of archers in Greek is Toxotai.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Belisario

Another idea

Revise the look of the Ghulam Bodyguards:

-EarlyGhulamBGs: remove the kite shield and give them the wooden round shield which remains unused in the MailHCav.bif

-HighGhulamBGs: don't need changes, they have a nice Muslim look :2thumbsup:

-LateGhulamBGs: really need a urgent change, a Muslim cavalryman (and horse) with a Gothic armour?! I propose the same look of the HighGhulamBGs but with mail horse armour (the same horse armour of the Khwarazmians or the Kataphraktoi; I don't remember its bif's name). The golden round shield of the Faris also would be nice. And for the Unit Icons you could use the Khwarazmians icons.

---

Superb ideas, I agree completely. :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Belisario

PD: The correct spelling of archers in Greek is Toxotai.

---

Thanks for spotting that one. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caravel

Some ideas from another thread and some notes:

The Grand Mosque as the Prerequisite for jihads.

Upping the cost and build times of jihads

The ribat used as a prerequisite for "fanatical" troops such as the Nizari Fedayeen, Nizari Foot Soldiers and Ghazi Infantry instead of the Mosque and Grand Mosque. Other dependencies adjusted accordingly.

The Royal Court removed from Muslim factions (redundant).

Increasing the build time and cost for crusades.

Also the chapter house to form the prerequisite for knightly orders such as the Teutonics, Templars, Hospitallers, Santiago and Order foot soldiers in provinces where the orders were based historically.

Units such as the order knights, foot soldiers and fanatics modded to determine how likely they are to appear in crusades, to give slightly stronger crusades.

---

Of course I support you on these changes, although again I urge caution with upping the costs of Jihads -- we don't want to overdo it! That said, the rest sounds splendid. :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caravel

Removing the unique status of the Grand Mosques and Cathedrals. As the GM will no longer be a prerequisite for either the Military Academy or the Nizari Foot Soldiers, it would make sense to allow multiples to be built. The cost and build time could also be slightly reduced. The Cathedral could also be modded in this way.

---

I concur with removing their unique status. I'm not sure about reducing their costs/build times, however. Not that they're cheap or anything, but I do think they should be kept expensive enough so that one isn't tempted to spam them in every available province.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martok

Of course I support you on these changes, although again I urge caution with upping the costs of Jihads -- we don't want to overdo it! That said, the rest sounds splendid. :2thumbsup:

---

Upping the costs of jihads would only be a small increase. The main increase I want is in the build time. That should be about 4 years. I want to ensure that a Jihad cannot be used as a quick way to break a short siege. Crusades would have to be about 6 years build time, I'm thinking. Anything more than that would effect the AI taking advantage of "the pope has called for a crusade against" offers, as by the time it had built the crusade and got going, the situation may have changed entirely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martok

I concur with removing their unique status. I'm not sure about reducing their costs/build times, however. Not that they're cheap or anything, but I do think they should be kept expensive enough so that one isn't tempted to spam them in every available province.

---

I was thinking of trimming off only 2 years. I haven't decided on the cost yet, I may just leave them as they are. I'm thinking strongly that having them as non unique is bonus enough, one might say that making them more expensive and take longer to build would be more reasonable, and more historical.

About jihads: could their "base units" be switched as well? I mean, crusades get crusader knights, which makes sense. Whereas jihads start with... lots of siege weapons?

Methinks they should start with Ghazi fanatical troops and the like. Maybe ghulam cavalry, or something

I have been looking into this. Ghazis, Fedayeen and Nizaris are all units I'd like to see making up the bulk of a jihad, not siege equipment archers* and peasants.

Another possibility I've been looking into is another "muslim fanatic" mujahidin unit possibly based on the muslim peasants unit, which at present only appears in jihads and revolts. Peasants have a place in feudal european society where they may appear as part of a revolt or may join a crusade in large numbers, eager for some looting. In muslim society there would not be this kind of peasant presence, due to that society not really being a wholly peasant farming society and due to religious and cultural differences. The general masses of the mujahidin would have been equipped with rudimentary weaponry, not hay forks.

The Western European Archer unit is also completely wrong for the Muslims and Byzantines, one solution would be homelands, though this would be a very long list of provinces covering much of Europe and would probably cause a crash, as it has in the past.

Another possibility would be to utilise the Desert Archers, as universal archers for all of the muslim factions, because they are much more true, as regards the type of bow and apparel, to those factions. This way the Catholics, Russians and Novgorods would have the European archers, the Byzantines would have their own Toxotai, and the Almohads and Egyptians would have exclusively the Desert Archer, with the vanilla MTW homelands removed so that it could be trained anywhere on the map. For the Turks I would simply use the Turcoman Foot soldier, which are almost similar to Desert Archers, the main difference being, IIRC, armour. For such an average unit (I'm not giving them a slating, here. They are easily one of my favourite units) as far as stats go, they require alot of teching up. Depriving the Turks of both Desert Archers and Archers would leave them with nothing whatsoever in the way of hybrid units or archers. The Futuwwa are obtainable but take some more teching up and have already been restricted to only Syria (their proper place), and the Janissaries and Ottoman Infantry won't be along until the late era. This is why the Turcoman Foot need to take place of the basic Turkish archer unit for the early era. They should be available with only the bowyer instead of the bowers guild which is far too steep a requirement.

Another thing that needs looking at is dismounts. Some units can only dismount before sieges. I feel that heavy knights need to be restricted from dismounting before battle, as it took a crane to get them into the saddle in the first place. Other types of moderately and lightly armoured, as well as unarmoured cavalry should probably always be able to dismount. This adds a bit to the tactical decisions and positioning before a battle. Dismount or not?

Perhaps desert archers could get a bonus in the appropriate terrain and normal archers a bonus in temperate terrain so that both become a unit more valuable in their home areas (which is probably realistic). At the moment I can see no reason to build non-desert archers anyway - I only get them through Jihads.

Unfortunately, I'm almost 90% certain that can't be done. Bedoiun camels fight at a penalty in lush environments, and I'm sure that's hardcoded, and something to do with the camel mount type. What you say is true, no one would train vanilla archers if you've got Desert Archers. Turcoman Foot Soldiers are a better armoured, more defensive version of desert archers with 1 point less honour, apart from that they are very similar with reagards to melee and charge. Turcoman Foot cost more to build though their support costs are lower. Both can run and charge faster than Vanilla Archers.

I would improve the stats of Desert Archers to bring them slightly more in line. I would give them a 1 point morale bonus (previously 0), and raise their melee bonus to 0 (from -1).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caravel

Another thing that needs looking at is dismounts. Some units can only dismount before sieges. I feel that heavy knights need to be restricted from dismounting before battle, as it took a crane to get them into the saddle in the first place. Other types of moderately and lightly armoured, as well as unarmoured cavalry should probably always be able to dismount. This adds a bit to the tactical decisions and positioning before a battle. Dismount or not?

---

You must be mistaking jousting armor (which was indeed too heavy for normal mobility) for battle armor. No one in his right mind would go into combat wearing panoply so heavy they couldn't get up from a fall, or get back up on a horse.

A good friend of mine makes full suits of armor for re-enactors, SCA members, etc. His personal full plate regalia (made from heavier than normal gauge material, to hold up under multiple seasons of live-steel demonstrations) weights 90 lbs. He does repeated cartwheels / backflips in the course of his act, and has no trouble mounting a horse unassisted.

A well-designed suit of combat armor has the weight distributed evenly over the body, and doesn't encumber any more than obesity would. Do you think overweight people (provided they're otherwise in good shape) can't get up on a horse? At worst mounting/dismounting might benefit from having an assistant (i.e., a Page) around - but for game purposes, I wouldn't limit Knights from fighting afoot.

Very good points Geezer57, and I'm thinking that you're right of course. I would probably be a good idea to let all mounted units dismount before battle. I've never seen any reason why not, and it does beat making fuedal foot knights and chivalric foot knights as trainable units as others have done.

I'm just glad you're doing this mod - I'm looking forward to spending quite a bit of time with it! :2thumbsup:

FYI, here's a link to some the the videos with my friend's "armored antics": https://www.youtube.com/results?sear...&search=Search

They're pretty active for carrying all that metal around. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caravel

Upping the costs of jihads would only be a small increase. The main increase I want is in the build time. That should be about 4 years. I want to ensure that a Jihad cannot be used as a quick way to break a short siege. Crusades would have to be about 6 years build time, I'm thinking. Anything more than that would effect the AI taking advantage of "the pope has called for a crusade against" offers, as by the time it had built the crusade and got going, the situation may have changed entirely.

---

Ah, I see. Yeah, I think I like that. In addition to the points you've just made, it would also help cut down on the temptation to have mutiple Crusade/Jihad markers "on standby", ready to be unleashed at a moment's notice. (Not that *I've* ever done that.... [whistles innocently]) ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caravel

I'm thinking strongly that having them as non unique is bonus enough, one might say that making them more expensive and take longer to build would be more reasonable, and more historical.

---

That's actually what I was thinking. Cathedrals and Grand Mosques provide enough of a bonus to their respective provinces that I don't think it would be necessary to reduce their cost/build times -- not if we're removing their unique status, anyway. I agree it would be far more realistic if their build times were longer, but I also agree that simply wouldn't be practical (or more importantly, fun).

In regards to the ideas for the archers (Europeans, Muslims, and Byz each get their own), I definitely like it. :2thumbsup: I have a question, however: Did the Novs/Russians really have more traditional European archers? While I'm definitely not an expert on their military traditions, I would've thought their missile units would be closer to those of the steppe peoples (who usually used the compound bow). Am I completely off-base in thinking this?

Not that my opinion will be the clincher here, but I'm in agreement with Geezer on this one. I remember reading a book about armour, and it had a bit about a knights training. One part said that a knight in full armour was able to leap from the ground into the saddle in one swift motion. He did something with his hands in there as well, maybe on the saddlehorn or horses hindquarters. I read it a very long time ago, as a kid fascinated on the subject of knights so the above should be taken with a grain of salt. Also the above was definately not meant as a historical hijack either. I am not a historian, I'm just giving Caravel my own take on the matter.

I think 90lbs of gear would put a knight at the same weight as the gear that their modern day counterpart would carry.

Not to mean it as a comparison, but in the past I would mod the Feudal Knights (I can't remember if there is more, as my current install wasn't tweaked) to dismount at any time.

I downloaded 1.0.4about 2 seconds before you released 1.0.5 so I think I'm gonna wait a little longer before I take a crack at it. Never fear sooner or later you will be seeing some story of mine that starts out ...So I was playing the (insert faction here) TD, Expert, PocketMod when those backstabbers the (insert evil factione here) attacked... well you get the point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martok

In regards to the ideas for the archers (Europeans, Muslims, and Byz each get their own), I definitely like it. :2thumbsup: I have a question, however: Did the Novs/Russians really have more traditional European archers? While I'm definitely not an expert on their military traditions, I would've thought their missile units would be closer to those of the steppe peoples (who usually used the compound bow). Am I completely off-base in thinking this?

---

The Russians and Novgorod need a different archer infopic, the bulgarian brigand one would probably do the job, but it's just cosmetic really. I'm not entirely sure about the use of foot archers among the those factions, I'm pretty sure the mounted archers would have been much more common.

I've just run almost every change so far for 1.0.6 . This is going to be a big one, but it's not ready yet. The only thing left to do for the changes suggested so far is to change the Ghulam Bodyguard's shields around.
:2thumbsup:

-Edit: @Sensei Warrior: I have made all cavalry dismountable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martok

In regards to the ideas for the archers (Europeans, Muslims, and Byz each get their own), I definitely like it. :2thumbsup: I have a question, however: Did the Novs/Russians really have more traditional European archers? While I'm definitely not an expert on their military traditions, I would've thought their missile units would be closer to those of the steppe peoples (who usually used the compound bow). Am I completely off-base in thinking this?

---

Alot of steppe nomad people migrated through their territories. The Hungarians (or Magyars) improved on the design of a compound bow used by the Huns, so the idea isn't completely unrealistic.

Caravels idea about a bulgarian brigand looking archer would fit the bill even if it was only cosmetic. The Mongolian Foot Warrior is also something similar looking. You could be evil and give them the longbow as their missile weapon, a good number of bows in that area of the world were able to pierce armour. The English just managed to get all the good press.

Not that CA is an authority but they do give them the Vanilla Archers, so maybe an Archer type unit isn't totally off base. You could also be equally cruel and make it their only foot unit (no xbows, arbs or pavise of any kind). Just a thought.

EDIT:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caravel

-Edit: @Sensei Warrior: I have made all cavalry dismountable.

---

Cool. A wise decision. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sensei Warrior

Caravels idea about a bulgarian brigand looking archer would fit the bill even if it was only cosmetic. The Mongolian Foot Warrior is also something similar looking. You could be evil and give them the longbow as their missile weapon, a good number of bows in that area of the world were able to pierce armour. The English just managed to get all the good press.

---

Renaming the brigands and using them as an archer unit for the russians, poles, hungarians and novgorod may make more sense. As they are, they're not alot of use. I'm not sure of a name as yet. The Mongol "warriors" would be fine as Steppe Archers, though I would only make them available through dismount. There isn't any real need for these as there are no real steppe factions, such as the Volga Bulgars, in the game only the mongols - the rest are all rebels - so it is probably pointless.

(Methinks compound bows should be armor piercing, too -agreeing with SW)

Was going to comment, a bug I discovered in the previous version (not the last one): The harem woman gives your princes the "incest" point.

Another thing, about the desert archers/regular archers change: while it´s not much trouble for byzantium, it would be for the muslim factions, as they wouldn´t be able to rise horse archers outside the desert, and both Turkey and (specially) the Almohads have or can have potentially a lot of non-desert provinces. In the latter case, you can even lose all your desert provinces and survive (and flourish) keeping Spain. You´d limit almohad unit building in Spain to urban milita, spearmen, and Andalusian Militia that way.

Another suggestion: since France does not get any unique unit barring the shared hobbilar, maybe they should get gothic knights along with Germany and Italy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Unknown Guy

(Methinks compound bows should be armor piercing, too -agreeing with SW)

---

Good point, maybe with not as long a range as the longbow though? I'll need some more input on this one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Unknown Guy

Was going to comment, a bug I discovered in the previous version (not the last one): The harem woman gives your princes the "incest" point.

---

I know about that one. It will always be there as it's hardcoded. I can change the wording to make it a generic "improper or scandalous relationship" vice ("He is having an improper relationship with a commoner, servant, courtesan or family member" etc etc etc), but they will always get the vice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Unknown Guy

Another thing, about the desert archers/regular archers change: while it´s not much trouble for byzantium, it would be for the muslim factions, as they wouldn´t be able to rise horse archers outside the desert, and both Turkey and (specially) the Almohads have or can have potentially a lot of non-desert provinces. In the latter case, you can even lose all your desert provinces and survive (and flourish) keeping Spain. You´d limit almohad unit building in Spain to urban milita, spearmen, and Andalusian Militia that way.

---

The vanilla horse archers can be raised in any provinces. I don't think I've set any homelands for them? They probably should be restricted to the desert near east, steppes and eastern europe though. This is one that I need to set the boundaries for. The desert archers, as I've said could be modded as trainable in any provinces. Personally I don't see it as a problem. I do think that if in some provinces where cultural differences are very defined levy spearmen and militias should be the only units available. Archers take a lot of training and cannot be obtained easily by the invader.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Unknown Guy

Another suggestion: since France does not get any unique unit barring the shared hobbilar, maybe they should get gothic knights along with Germany and Italy?

---

Well, gothic armour originated in southern germany. The Italians would have used Milanese armour, but these types of armour would have come into use in the 16th century, outside the timeframe covered by the game, so in reality they shouldn't be there at all. Still, if they are going to be there it makes sense to allow the French to train them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caravel

Well, gothic armour originated in southern germany. The Italians would have used Milanese armour, but these types of armour would have come into use in the 16th century, outside the timeframe covered by the game, so in reality they shouldn't be there at all. Still, if they are going to be there it makes sense to allow the French to train them.

---

I would think some kind of unique knights unit would be more àppropriate - possibly with cheaper support or more soldiers than a traditional unit to reflect their increased access to armoured knights (rather than having better armoured knights).

Hi Caravel, these are the instructions to change the look of the Ghulam Bodyguards:

-Early Ghulam Bodyguards; at present this unit uses a typical 12th century European kite-shaped shield like the Early Royal Knights and the Feudal Knights. You could replace this shield for a round wooden shield. It’s very simple:

1.Go into the Textures/Men/MailHCav directory and open the EarlyRoyalGhulamKnights_S text file. Delete the number 4 and write the number 2, save the file.
2.Go into the Textures/Men/Items/Shield4 directory and cut the EarlyRoyalGhulamKnights folder, then go into the Textures/Men/Items/Shield2 directory and paste it.
3.Go into the Textures/Men/Items/Shield1 directory, open the ArmenianHeavyCavalry folder and copy all the text files. Return to the Textures/Men/Items/Shield2 directory, open the EarlyRoyalGhulamKnights folder and replace all the files.

-Late Ghulam Bodyguards; from my point of view this unit need a total conversion. At present they use late European 14th century-15th century armour (both the cavalryman and the horse). My proposal would be: SMailCav for the cavalryman, EHorse for the horse, a heavy spear, and the round shield of the Faris.

1.Go into the Textures/Men/SMailCav directory, copy and paste the HighRoyalGhulamKnights_W and the Faris_S text files, and rename them as LateRoyalGhulamKnights_W and LateRoyalGhulamKnights_S respectively.
2.Go into the Textures/Men/ActionsPage directory, delete the LateRoyalGhulamKnights file, copy and paste the HighRoyalGhulamKnights file and rename it as LateRoyalGhulamKnights.
3.Go into the Textures/Men/Items/Weapon4 directory, copy and paste the HighRoyalGhulamKnights folder and rename it as LateRoyalGhulamKnights.
4.Go into the Textures/Men/Items/Shield3 directory and copy the HighRoyalGhulamKnights folder; paste it into the Textures/Men/Items/Shield4 directory and rename it as LateRoyalGhulamKnights.
5.Open the Crusaders_unit_prod11 file with the GnomeEditor, go to the LateRoyalGhulamKnights line (102) and scroll to the column 48. Substitute the entry "LAKNIGHT, YES, YES, ArmHorse" for "SMAILCAV, YES, YES, EHorse"; save the file.

Good luck and regards.

I suppose new projectile types can be added, right? After all, the Viking Invasion expansion did that, AFAIK...

@Belisario: Working and looking very good! :bow:

@The Unknown Guy: New projectile types can be added yes. A projectile as close to the arrow fired from a compound can be created, I just need some more input, as to it's velocity and range when compared to the longbow.

The next thing to do is change the early and late Ghulam Bodyguard review panel and battle icon pics which are really equivalent to feudal knights and gothic knights. The high era Ghulam Bodyguards review panel pic looks much the same as the one for Ghulam Cavalry viewed from a different angle. I suppose that one can be left alone. The other two simply need to go. The late Ghulams will need o have their info pic replaced with for example the one for Avar Nobles (that shouldn't be in the game anyway). I should be able to modify the mongol helm. As to the first one I'm not sure, a modified and mirrored version of AHC perhaps? The info pics for Ghulam bodyguards I'm going to leave as they are.

The old Early Ghulam Bodyguards one is going to be used for Early Royal Knights and the old Royal Knights one I'm going to pass on to the Militia Cavalry. They are all the same, except that they are viewed from differing angles.

More about Archers. I am pretty sure that MTW/VI has a set amount of bows. IIRC its ShortBow, Longbow, MtdShortbow, Crossbow, Arbalest, and Shuriken. Don't quote me, as I'm not much of a modder but I don't think the list can be expanded. If thats the case then you might have to make certain sacrifices to make it work close to the way you want it to.

Never fear as the solution is in the slot for Shuriken. Since it is a throwback from STW and not implemented in the game, you can tinker with it to make a new bow, point it to more suitable Medieval graphic images, attach it to the appropriate units, and voila, you're in business.

I remember this from a post somewhere but I can't find it. If I flubbed it then my apologies in advance. Anyways food for thought.

I'm sure I can add a new projectile in the same way that I can add a new unit, otherwise the shuriken can be used like you say. I think that was used for the battlefield ninja but can't say for sure because I can't remember ever using any.

-Edit: I've been looking at cavalry speeds. I've noticed, among other things that Gothic Knights run as fast as Muwahid Foot Soldiers!? Is that horse pulling a trailer? ("Gothic Knight and Cart"??). They also have masses of armour and defence and decent melee. This seems to be very un knightly indeed. If I'm deploying these on the field I want them to hit the enemy like a ton of bricks then back off for another charge, not slowly crawl up to the enemy hit them half heartedly then sit their meleeing. Geezer57 has all ready pointed out that the weight of gothic armour is largely myth, and they were not hoisted into the saddle as I suggested earlier, this is also a myth. I remember reading somewhere that not even jousting armour was that heavy, but was simply too awkward and cumbersome for battle. In view of this I would certainly impose a minimum gallop speed of 16 (currently 12) and a minimum cavalry charge speed of 18. (this excludes camels and infantry). This would make units like Kataphraktoi and Gothic Knights much more mobile, and realistic.

Gothic Knights also have a very poor charge bonus for their class. The charge bonus needs to be upped to 8, the same as Kataphraktoi. They should be the most powerful cavalry on the battlefield. The cost and amount of teching up needed certainly warrants this. I would also have to tweak some of their other stats to give them the edge over lancers which are currently better in every respect.

This brings us back to Kataphraktoi and Khwarazmian Cavalry. The latter essentially the former with half the charge bonus and almost twice the speed. Again, you want these types of units to charge and be effective at it, if they are horse archers a lesser charge is somewhat acceptable, but as pure heavy cavalry it is not. I would propose reducing the speed of khwarazmian down to the minimum gallop and cavalry charge level stated in the first paragraph. I would then increase the charge bonus to 8 (from 4), and then tweak the other stats to put them at a slight disadvantage to the Kataphraktoi.

The Templar Knights also have a charge bonus of just 4, which I would double to bring it in line with all other knights of the same type.

The Templer charge bonus has always been ridiculous - every other knightly order is equal so why not these guys? Make playing as the crusaders irritating as foreign crusaders ge better knights than you do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Esteban

The Templer charge bonus has always been ridiculous - every other knightly order is equal so why not these guys? Make playing as the crusaders irritating as foreign crusaders ge better knights than you do.

---

It has to be an error, that has never been patched. I can see no valid reason as to why they are like that. All of the heavy cav need the 8 charge bonus, and the heavy cav archers need the 6 bonus, no less. The other stats can be variable within reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caravel

I'm sure I can add a new projectile in the same way that I can add a new unit, otherwise the shuriken can be used like you say. I think that was used for the battlefield ninja but can't say for sure because I can't remember ever using any.

-Edit: I've been looking at cavalry speeds. I've noticed, among other things that Gothic Knights run as fast as Muwahid Foot Soldiers!? Is that horse pulling a trailer? ("Gothic Knight and Cart"??). They also have masses of armour and defence and decent melee. This seems to be very un knightly indeed. If I'm deploying these on the field I want them to hit the enemy like a ton of bricks then back off for another charge, not slowly crawl up to the enemy hit them half heartedly then sit their meleeing. Geezer57 has all ready pointed out that the weight of gothic armour is largely myth, and they were not hoisted into the saddle as I suggested earlier, this is also a myth. I remember reading somewhere that not even jousting armour was that heavy, but was simply too awkward and cumbersome for battle. In view of this I would certainly impose a minimum gallop speed of 16 (currently 12) and a minimum cavalry charge speed of 18. (this excludes camels and infantry). This would make units like Kataphraktoi and Gothic Knights much more mobile, and realistic.

Gothic Knights also have a very poor charge bonus for their class. The charge bonus needs to be upped to 8, the same as Kataphraktoi. They should be the most powerful cavalry on the battlefield. The cost and amount of teching up needed certainly warrants this. I would also have to tweak some of their other stats to give them the edge over lancers which are currently better in every respect.

This brings us back to Kataphraktoi and Khwarazmian Cavalry. The latter essentially the former with half the charge bonus and almost twice the speed. Again, you want these types of units to charge and be effective at it, if they are horse archers a lesser charge is somewhat acceptable, but as pure heavy cavalry it is not. I would propose reducing the speed of khwarazmian down to the minimum gallop and cavalry charge level stated in the first paragraph. I would then increase the charge bonus to 8 (from 4), and then tweak the other stats to put them at a slight disadvantage to the Kataphraktoi.

The Templar Knights also have a charge bonus of just 4, which I would double to bring it in line with all other knights of the same type.

---

I have followed your pocket mod, hats off it looks very good.

I am adding my 2 cents at this point because in your post you seem to lean toward giving heavy cavalry more speed. While you might have historical precedence to back this I strongly urge you to test this in game.

A lot of the heavy horse units are heir units, and often (byzantines especially) benefit from the command value of the heir. If we add more speed to these units were really upping the anty for thier value. My main concern is the byzantines, while not impossible, thier heavy horse units are not easily defeated, with more speed added in now they can not only wipe out your melee units (via the command/jedi bonus) but when they are done with that run away from them.

Additionally I urge observation on AI behaviors with increased speed on heavy horse units (particularly heirs). Often if the AI is numerically superior the command unit will lead the frontal assault, make them faster and they arrive at your front before thier support inf units.

I wont haggle over the historical accuracy as more educated people then I can attest to it, but game balance should be considered.

my 2 cents....

Odin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caravel

-Edit: I've been looking at cavalry speeds. I've noticed, among other things that Gothic Knights run as fast as Muwahid Foot Soldiers!? Is that horse pulling a trailer? ("Gothic Knight and Cart"??). They also have masses of armour and defence and decent melee. This seems to be very un knightly indeed. If I'm deploying these on the field I want them to hit the enemy like a ton of bricks then back off for another charge, not slowly crawl up to the enemy hit them half heartedly then sit their meleeing. Geezer57 has all ready pointed out that the weight of gothic armour is largely myth, and they were not hoisted into the saddle as I suggested earlier, this is also a myth. I remember reading somewhere that not even jousting armour was that heavy, but was simply too awkward and cumbersome for battle. In view of this I would certainly impose a minimum gallop speed of 16 (currently 12) and a minimum cavalry charge speed of 18. (this excludes camels and infantry). This would make units like Kataphraktoi and Gothic Knights much more mobile, and realistic.

Gothic Knights also have a very poor charge bonus for their class. The charge bonus needs to be upped to 8, the same as Kataphraktoi. They should be the most powerful cavalry on the battlefield. The cost and amount of teching up needed certainly warrants this. I would also have to tweak some of their other stats to give them the edge over lancers which are currently better in every respect.

---

I whole-heartedly support this. Not that I use GK's that much, but I use the Katanks all the time in my Byz campaigns. Giving them improved speed and a higher charge value would really help keep them from becoming obsolete so quickly. (And I'm certain our HRE fans would appreciate this as well.) :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caravel

This brings us back to Kataphraktoi and Khwarazmian Cavalry. The latter essentially the former with half the charge bonus and almost twice the speed. Again, you want these types of units to charge and be effective at it, if they are horse archers a lesser charge is somewhat acceptable, but as pure heavy cavalry it is not. I would propose reducing the speed of khwarazmian down to the minimum gallop and cavalry charge level stated in the first paragraph. I would then increase the charge bonus to 8 (from 4), and then tweak the other stats to put them at a slight disadvantage to the Kataphraktoi.

---

Sounds good, Caravel. Speaking of the Khwarazmians, did you lower their build requirements? (I haven't progressed very far enough in my current Fatamid campaign yet to tell.) I know you were going to tweak their stats a bit, but I can't remember what - if anything - we'd decided about their build requirements (other than to agree they were rather high for their mediocre abilities).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caravel

The Templar Knights also have a charge bonus of just 4, which I would double to bring it in line with all other knights of the same type.

---

You're right; that's pretty odd, especially since they were generally considered to be the best of the Crusading orders. :inquisitive: Glad to see you're correcting this! :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

I have followed your pocket mod, hats off it looks very good.

---

:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

I am adding my 2 cents at this point because in your post you seem to lean toward giving heavy cavalry more speed. While you might have historical precedence to back this I strongly urge you to test this in game.

---

The whole idea of this mod that at present, in the beta stage, it gets playtested. Changes are introduced and tested by those contributing. If it is found that Kataphraktoi and Gothic Knights have become too fast then they will be adjusted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

A lot of the heavy horse units are heir units, and often (byzantines especially) benefit from the command value of the heir. If we add more speed to these units were really upping the anty for thier value. My main concern is the byzantines, while not impossible, thier heavy horse units are not easily defeated, with more speed added in now they can not only wipe out your melee units (via the command/jedi bonus) but when they are done with that run away from them.

---

The only bodyguard heavy cavalry that I will be modding are the Kataphraktoi. They will be slightly faster and nothing more, still no where near as fast as ghulam bodyguards or chivalric knights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

Additionally I urge observation on AI behaviors with increased speed on heavy horse units (particularly heirs). Often if the AI is numerically superior the command unit will lead the frontal assault, make them faster and they arrive at your front before thier support inf units.

---

Ghulam Bodyguards are always faster anyway than all supporting units. The modded Kataphraktoi won't be any faster than them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

I wont haggle over the historical accuracy as more educated people then I can attest to it, but game balance should be considered.

---

Indeed. This mod always takes balance into consideration, as well as historical accuracy. Gameplay is also an issue.
:2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martok

I whole-heartedly support this. Not that I use GK's that much, but I use the Katanks all the time in my Byz campaigns. Giving them improved speed and a higher charge value would really help keep them from becoming obsolete so quickly. (And I'm certain our HRE fans would appreciate this as well.) :2thumbsup:

---

Kataphraktoi already have the maximum charge value. The only thing that needs changing is their run and charge speeds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martok

Sounds good, Caravel. Speaking of the Khwarazmians, did you lower their build requirements? (I haven't progressed very far enough in my current Fatamid campaign yet to tell.) I know you were going to tweak their stats a bit, but I can't remember what - if anything - we'd decided about their build requirements (other than to agree they were rather high for their mediocre abilities).

---

The Fatimids can no longer train Khwarazmian Cavalry, only the Turks and Mongols. I haven't changed the build requirements at all. The only stat change is that they are disciplined. They will have their charge increased from 4 to 6 and will be slowed down to the same new speed as Kataphraktoi and Gothic Knights

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martok

You're right; that's pretty odd, especially since they were generally considered to be the best of the Crusading orders. :inquisitive: Glad to see you're correcting this! :2thumbsup:

---

:2thumbsup:

Edit: It is important to remember that, at present even with the proposed stat changes there is no reason to train Gothic Knights as all factions can already produce Lancers which are statistically better. Gothic Knights will need to surpass Lancers to be feasible. Alternatively Lancers could be removed from the HRE and Italians forcing them to tech up to Gothic Knights?? Difficult one.

Here are some stats (modified):

Chivalric and Order Knights:
Charge: 8
Melee: 5
Defense: 5
Armour: 7
Honour: 8

*Gothic Knights:
Charge: 6 (+2)
Melee: 6 (+2)
Defense: 7
Armour: 9
Honour: 8

Lancers:
Charge: 8
Melee: 5
Defense: 7
Armour: 9
Honour: 8

*Kataphraktoi:
Charge: 8
Melee: 3
Defense: 5
Armour: 7
Honour: 4

*Khwarazmian Cavaly:
Charge: 6
Melee: 4 (+1)
Defense: 5
Armour: 7
Honour: 4

*run/charge = 16/18

All others run/charge = 20/22

Lancers are better, faster and take less teching up than Gothic Knights. Lancers cost more to train and support but that's it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caravel

Kataphraktoi already have the maximum charge value. The only thing that needs changing is their run and charge speeds.

The Fatimids can no longer train Khwarazmian Cavalry, only the Turks and Mongols. I haven't changed the build requirements at all. The only stat change is that they are disciplined.

---

Doh! I forgot about that. My bad. :dunce:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caravel

Edit: It is important to remember that, at present even with the proposed stat changes there is no reason to train Gothic Knights as all factions can already produce Lancers which are statistically better. Gothic Knights will need to surpass Lancers to be feasible. Alternatively Lancers could be removed from the HRE and Italians forcing them to tech up to Gothic Knights?? Difficult one.

[snip]

Lancers are better, faster and take less teching up than Gothic Knights. Lancers cost more to train and support but that's it.

---

Hmm. That is a quandary. I like the idea of removing Lancers for the HRE and Italians, but you're right in that the GK's will then have to equalized with Lancers somehow. Perhaps increase the build requirements for Lancers, and further lower the cost of Gothic Knights? I'm not sure. :shrug:

Just one minor almost picky thing. MTW says that the reason why GKs charge is so low is because they don't charge with lances, all they have is Maces or Morning Stars or some type of AP melee weapon.

I guess my question is are they going to be charging with Lances or are you just upping the charge modifier?

Like I said it was rather picky, but I was just curious, in the end I don't think it'll matter either way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sensei Warrior

Just one minor almost picky thing. MTW says that the reason why GKs charge is so low is because they don't charge with lances, all they have is Maces or Morning Stars or some type of AP melee weapon.

I guess my question is are they going to be charging with Lances or are you just upping the charge modifier?

Like I said it was rather picky, but I was just curious, in the end I don't think it'll matter either way.

---

That's actually a good point...

Well, as long as I am on a roll ...

Now that I'm thinking about it, I think the Cav that have low charge values are because they aren't equipped with a lance. They attack with swords and the what not. This is especially true with mounted missile units, when they charge into melee, they typically are charging with swords drawn not Lances levelled. I can think of the Jinettes as an example of that sort of thing.

Of course you were talking about the Knightly units, but I threw the thing about the Missile Units as more of a comparison.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sensei Warrior

Well, as long as I am on a roll ...

Now that I'm thinking about it, I think the Cav that have low charge values are because they aren't equipped with a lance. They attack with swords and the what not. This is especially true with mounted missile units, when they charge into melee, they typically are charging with swords drawn not Lances levelled. I can think of the Jinettes as an example of that sort of thing.

Of course you were talking about the Knightly units, but I threw the thing about the Missile Units as more of a comparison.

---

Very true. The gothic Knights lack the high charge of Kataphraktoi and others due to their not wielding a lance. The problem is that historically they would have charged with lances, then switched to maces, swords or hammers for melee. In MTW there are no secondary weapons (bows are not secondary weapons, the bow is part of the unit animation, when bowmen charge and engage in melee their swords appear, once they're standing or walking, running or shooting the swords disappear and their bows are visibile again.) so there's not alot we can do about it. The horse archers are the exception. They wouldn't have charged with lances, so their charge should always be about 4. With the Gothic Knights we either assume they're equipped with lances and give them an 8 charge bonus, reduce their charge back to 4, making them pointless IMHO, or up it to 6 and increase some of their other stats. I will have to look at their dependencies and those of Lancers. I am also thinking of creating another Gothic Knights type of unit using the Late Ghulam Bodyguards unit icons (Knight in Gothic Armour). These could be Milanese Knights and allocated to the italians instead of the GKs, too late for the MTW timeframe, but then Gothic Knights are probably also too late.

Another change I've made is that Byzantine Toxotai are now clothed as Ottoman Infantry and Bulgarian Brigands instead of the old Western European Peasant Tunic Archer unit.

I've settled on these stats for Gothic Knights for now:

Gothic Knights:
Charge: 6 (+2)
Melee: 6 (+2)
Defense: 7
Armour: 9
Honour: 8

I have only increased their charge by 2 to take the lack of a lance into account. The melee I've increased to give them an edge over Lancers in that respect.

Sounds good to me. :thumbsup: . Keep up the good work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caravel

I've settled on these stats for Gothic Knights for now:

Gothic Knights:
Charge: 6 (+2)
Melee: 6 (+2)
Defense: 7
Armour: 9
Honour: 8

I have only increased their charge by 2 to take the lack of a lance into account. The melee I've increased to give them an edge over Lancers in that respect.

---

Cool. :2thumbsup: What about their build requirements? Are you going to leave them as is for now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martok

Cool. :2thumbsup: What about their build requirements? Are you going to leave them as is for now?

---

They'll be left as is for the present.

I've just finished modding Vanilla Horse archers, the result is that they no longer exist. Vanilla Horse Archers are now replaced with Desert Horse Archers (generic Berber/Arab/Saharan Horse Archer unit) and Steppe Horse Archers. Both have exactly the same stats as the old vanilla horse archers.

Desert Horse Archers are recruited in any of the desert provinces on the map from Edessa, Syria and Antioch southwards, and westwards as far as Sahara and Morocco. They can be trained by the Turks, Almohads and Egyptians. Desert Horse Archers dismount to Desert Archers.

Steppe Horse Archers can be recruited in the same provinces as Steppe Cavalry and Steppe Heavy Cavalry. They can be trained by the Mongols, Russians, Novgorod, Byzantines, Turks and Hungarians. Steppe Horse Archers dismount to Archers.

Both units have visually changed with Desert Horse Archers looking the part, and Steppe Horse Archers looking much like Steppe Cavalry but with bows of course. The info pics now suit the units perfectly.

I thought I'd make a quick pop in regarding possible new bow types. I know you are probably not thinking about it now, but when you do:

In the repository, in the projectile stats thread, pg. 2, there is a post from GilJaySmith (one of the guys from CA) saying that you can't extend the file to add new types.

Clicky to the thread

Here's a link if you want the reference in context. The thread is a pretty good read, as long as you skip over the references to tactical nukes ~;) .

Anyways that's it for now. If I'm being a bother tell me to bugger off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sensei Warrior

I thought I'd make a quick pop in regarding possible new bow types. I know you are probably not thinking about it now, but when you do:

In the repository, in the projectile stats thread, pg. 2, there is a post from GilJaySmith (one of the guys from CA) saying that you can't extend the file to add new types.

Clicky to the thread

Here's a link if you want the reference in context. The thread is a pretty good read, as long as you skip over the references to tactical nukes ~;) .

Anyways that's it for now. If I'm being a bother tell me to bugger off.

---

So it's hardcoded then... I will modify the ninja star if possible. I'm still lost as to what type of stats are needed for this projectile?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caravel

Very true. The gothic Knights lack the high charge of Kataphraktoi and others due to their not wielding a lance. The problem is that historically they would have charged with lances, then switched to maces, swords or hammers for melee. In MTW there are no secondary weapons (bows are not secondary weapons, the bow is part of the unit animation, when bowmen charge and engage in melee their swords appear, once they're standing or walking, running or shooting the swords disappear and their bows are visibile again.) so there's not alot we can do about it.

---

It's true that MTW don't use secondary weapons, but this aspect can be easily moddified. The key is in the Unit_W.txt file and in the Items folder.
In the Unit_W.txt file is defined the weapon of the unit and you can add a secondary weapon here in the same way that the javelin-armed units (Jinetes, Kerns...). But you want see the secondary weapon when the unit fight in close combat. Then you need make some changes in the Items folder. On one hand suppose that our unit uses the number 4 for its first weapon, a lance. Open the Weapon4 folder and search our unit folder, open it and delete the fight.txt file. On the other hand suppose that the unit uses the number 2 for his secondary weapon, for example a sword. Open the Weapon2 folder and make a new folder with our unit name. Into this folder will be the fight.txt file of our unit based in the fight.txt file of a unit that uses the same bif but bear a melee weapon. It's very simple with the Hospitallers, Santiago Knights, Teutonics and High Royal Knights because we have the Templars for the new fight.txt file. Excuse me for my complicated explanation

Good progress being made here, (more than I can say for myself). Great Work Caravel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caravel

So it's hardcoded then... I will modify the ninja star if possible. I'm still lost as to what type of stats are needed for this projectile?

---

Do you mean what types of stats you need for a new bow type? Thats up to you. You could look at the other entries to get a rough idea on how the file is set up. I suggest GnomeEditor, the file os ugly like the unit file.

If your looking for suggestions for what the stats should be, there are probably better people to ask than me, I promise.

If I missed what your asking altogether then I am confused and you'll have to clarify.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sensei Warrior

Do you mean what types of stats you need for a new bow type? Thats up to you. You could look at the other entries to get a rough idea on how the file is set up. I suggest GnomeEditor, the file os ugly like the unit file.

If your looking for suggestions for what the stats should be, there are probably better people to ask than me, I promise.

If I missed what your asking altogether then I am confused and you'll have to clarify.

---

That is what I would wondering. In relation to a shortbow, crossbow, longbow or arbalest how would it stand?

@Belisario: That looks to be a good idea. I may try it. It would be good to have most knights charge with a lance then switch to a mace or pole arm in melee.
:2thumbsup:

@Rythmic: It's hard going at times, but we're getting there slowly but surely. I have just changed the probability of siege equipment appearing revolts again after seeing a loyalist revolt in Wallachia consisting of one catapult. The AI training influences are working better in that that the pope has stopped building armies of ballistas and has instead opted for Militias. These modifications take up a lot more time than many people realise. Adding a new units for example is an absolute chore. It's not difficult once you're used to it, but you can so easily forget something. Then even if you remember it all you've got to ensure that every needed file gets into the distribution. :dizzy2:

One annoying point I'm working on at the moment is the unit icons for the Ghulam Bodyguards. I've done them all but I'm not happy with them so I'll have to do them over again.
:wall:

It's most annoying, I get constant CTDs. Like in my first attempt. I guess that's the problem of adding an entirely new unit list.

I know what you mean. You only have to make one omission, get distracted or forget something, and you end up with Byzantine Toxotai that hold their swords by the point rather than the hilt, as I had a few days ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caravel

I know what you mean. You only have to make one omission, get distracted or forget something, and you end up with Byzantine Toxotai that hold their swords by the point rather than the hilt, as I had a few days ago.

---

I confess that conjured up quite the amusing image in my head. :laugh4:

In all seriousness, though, I applaud what you guys (Caravel & Rythmic) have done -- indeed, *all* modders deserve our praise and appreciation. I know modding isn't exactly a walk in the park, and your efforts are definitely to be commended. :bow:

Incidentally, I'm greatly enjoying my Fatamid campaign -- I've finally crushed the Turks, and the Byzantines are next on my list. :thumbsup:

I'm in the middle of a Byzantine Campaign myself. Of course I'm playing with what will be v1.0.6, which still needs some more fine tuning. Another gripe I have is the armoured spearmen. They look far too "viking" for the Byzantines...

You'll have to redo their localisation name, otherwise it will change their appearance in VI too, (but you would already know that so this becomes a redundant statement :laugh4:).

Yes, I'd take Armoured Spearmen from the Byzantine altogether. There needs to be a separate Byzantine Spearmen unit. I'm wondering whether it may be better to mod Byzantine Infantry into Spearnmen... to do this would involve taking the ahistorical Saracen Infantry from the Turks and Egyptians and giving them to the Byzantines as spearmen, and renaming them as Byzantine Infantry. The original Byzantine swordsmen would then be removed. Alternatively they could be renamed as Byzantine Spearmen reassigned to the Byzantines and the Byzantine infantry retained. The next stage then would be to reduce the starting command stars of the Byzantine royalty, and weaken their position in the early era.

A new spear unit would need to be devised for the Turks and Egyptians, based around Feudal Sergeants and not chivalric sergeants. Alternatively the Turks and Egyptians could be left to rely on the basic spearmen only, which would be more accurate than giving them a unit that is equal to Chivalric Sergeants.

I will try to get organized enough to download and install this weekend (not that I expect my input to be even remotely insightful, I just figure the more feedback you get, the merrier)....

What I have read thus far is hugely impressive - I am really looking forward to having a tinker with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bamff

I will try to get organized enough to download and install this weekend (not that I expect my input to be even remotely insightful, I just figure the more feedback you get, the merrier)....

---

Any feedback, whether positive or negative, would be greatly appreciated. I'm pretty clueless about many aspects, especially the types of units that were used by factions during certain periods. That sort of information would be greatly appreciated. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bamff

What I have read thus far is hugely impressive - I am really looking forward to having a tinker with it.

---

:2thumbsup:

I have been looking at the Saracen Infantry again and can't work them out? Going purely on the info pic, what are they supposed to be? They look more so late medieval Ottoman than early Seljuk or anything from the Fatimid or Ayyubid dynasties, though I'm not 100% sure of course. I need to get them sorted one way or the other.

The Byzantine Spearmen issue also needs resolving. I will have to give them a unit that looks like Byzantine Infantry (on the field, not the info pic) except with a spear, and with stats similar to Feudal Sergeants. What I want to avoid is giving the eastern factions any spearmen of Chivalric Sergeants Calibre. The Turks in particular need to be much more cavalry based.

The Vanilla Vikings, now known as the Drangar have had a facelift. Their units now looks much the same as Tegnar (the old Landsmenn) except with a smaller shield (the ones used by the armoured spearmen). They now look more in keeping with the rest. (they previously used the peasant unit animations).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caravel

A new spear unit would need to be devised for the Turks and Egyptians, based around Feudal Sergeants and not chivalric sergeants. Alternatively the Turks and Egyptians could be left to rely on the basic spearmen only, which would be more accurate than giving them a unit that is equal to Chivalric Sergeants.

---

Limiting the Eggies and Turks to vanilla spearmen is probably not a good idea, even if it would be historically accurate. Doing so would simply put them at too much of a disadvantage, unless you were going to completely nerf Katanks. I understand not wanting the Muslim factions to have the equivalent of CS, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caravel

Any feedback, whether positive or negative, would be greatly appreciated. I'm pretty clueless about many aspects, especially the types of units that were used by factions during certain periods. That sort of information would be greatly appreciated. :bow:

---

Think I mentioned it earlier in this thread or in the other thread about this mod, but would it be possible to add some sort of Scandinavian peasant unit? Like less effective crossbowmen with high charge and armour-piercing stats but pretty bad defence? This could be a really interesting unit as it could first be used to shoot up the enemy, then work like Woodsmen or Militia Sergeants (although perhaps with better stats). Trainable by the Danes in High/Late and in Norway, Sweden and Finland. Another interesting aspect could be added; the recruit cost should be really low, while the upkeep is rather (or very) high so that they can't be used extensively, and to simulate their unwillingness to stay in service for very long.
The in-game pic could be crossbowmen and for the info-pic one could recycle the Woodsmen unit.

Historically, these units would be very accurate as the swedish peasants - a very misleading word as swedish "peasants" generally had a lot more rights than in the rest of Europe - levy was a dominant part of the army, particularly during the unstabile 15th century. In fact it could be taken even further, so that there's one form of unit in High and another one that works in the same way although better (Swedish peasant armies in the 15th century were really quite professional and well-equipped thanks to the many conflicts), just like the upgrade from FS to CS.
Anyway, I don't want to put too much work on you, and it's merely a suggestion. You've done some great work with the viking units already!:2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martok

Limiting the Eggies and Turks to vanilla spearmen is probably not a good idea, even if it would be historically accurate. Doing so would simply put them at too much of a disadvantage, unless you were going to completely nerf Katanks. I understand not wanting the Muslim factions to have the equivalent of CS, though.

---

I'm thinking vanilla spearmen would be a disaster also. This is why I wanted to give armoured spearmen to the byzantines in the first place. I think a purpose build byzantine spear unit is needed. As to the Saracens I'm still not sure. Something needs to be done though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Innocentius

Think I mentioned it earlier in this thread or in the other thread about this mod, but would it be possible to add some sort of Scandinavian peasant unit? Like less effective crossbowmen with high charge and armour-piercing stats but pretty bad defence? This could be a really interesting unit as it could first be used to shoot up the enemy, then work like Woodsmen or Militia Sergeants (although perhaps with better stats). Trainable by the Danes in High/Late and in Norway, Sweden and Finland. Another interesting aspect could be added; the recruit cost should be really low, while the upkeep is rather (or very) high so that they can't be used extensively, and to simulate their unwillingness to stay in service for very long.
The in-game pic could be crossbowmen and for the info-pic one could recycle the Woodsmen unit.

Historically, these units would be very accurate as the swedish peasants - a very misleading word as swedish "peasants" generally had a lot more rights than in the rest of Europe - levy was a dominant part of the army, particularly during the unstabile 15th century. In fact it could be taken even further, so that there's one form of unit in High and another one that works in the same way although better (Swedish peasant armies in the 15th century were really quite professional and well-equipped thanks to the many conflicts), just like the upgrade from FS to CS.
Anyway, I don't want to put too much work on you, and it's merely a suggestion. You've done some great work with the viking units already!:2thumbsup:

---

I remember this. A militia sergeants/crossbow hybrid using the pictish crossbows info pic??? This should be easy but they'll have to use the militia sergeants/crossbowmen unit graphics. The crossbowman already attacks with an axe in melee. If you look closely you'll see it. The instant they attack the crossbow switches to an axe. It would be a simple matter of using this unit as it is and modifying it's stats to give it a true armour piercing weapon. Something like Ghazis though more extreme perhaps. Hopeless fighting in melee though with a woodsmen like charge and other stats?

:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caravel

I remember this. A militia sergeants/crossbow hybrid using the pictish crossbows info pic??? This should be easy but they'll have to use the militia sergeants/crossbowmen unit graphics. The crossbowman already attacks with an axe in melee. If you look closely you'll see it. The instant they attack the crossbow switches to an axe. It would be a simple matter of using this unit as it is and modifying it's stats to give it a true armour piercing weapon. Something like Ghazis though more extreme perhaps. Hopeless fighting in melee though with a woodsmen like charge and other stats?

---

Didn't know that about crossbowmen and axes:book:

Hmm...I wouldn't say hopeless melee, rather just below average. I'm not quite sure how all the stats work (although I've modded a few units on my own in the GnomEditor), but their defence should be very low, so that they can't take any charges or be used as clog units etc. It really would be easier if split up into two units:

High unit: Toned-down crossbow as range attack. High charge, bad melee and hopeless defense. High honour and slightly below normal armour.

Late unit: Toned-down crossbow as range attack. Very high charge, decent melee and bad defence. Very high honour and slightly below normal armour.

The units could still look the same as the MS is actually wearing a chest plate, despite being recruitable in Early. One of MTWs few downsides.

Edit: the building dependancy though is a tough one. Really all it should require is a fort, but that'd make them way too easy to reach.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Innocentius

Didn't know that about crossbowmen and axes:book:

Hmm...I wouldn't say hopeless melee, rather just below average. I'm not quite sure how all the stats work (although I've modded a few units on my own in the GnomEditor), but their defence should be very low, so that they can't take any charges or be used as clog units etc. It really would be easier if split up into two units:

High unit: Toned-down crossbow as range attack. High charge, bad melee and hopeless defense. High honour and slightly below normal armour.

Late unit: Toned-down crossbow as range attack. Very high charge, decent melee and bad defence. Very high honour and slightly below normal armour.

The units could still look the same as the MS is actually wearing a chest plate, despite being recruitable in Early. One of MTWs few downsides.

Edit: the building dependancy though is a tough one. Really all it should require is a fort, but that'd make them way too easy to reach.

---

So would it be available from the high period only? A post-Viking unit?

The toned down crossbow would be a problem as it would involve a new projectile type. It would have to be the standard crossbow. Personally I have no problem with that as it's not exactly overpowered anyway. The only other way to tone it down would be to reduce the number of bolts they carry?

I would have to disagree somewhat over some of the stats, though. I think it would be better to have the high unit as slightly better morale than the later unit, but give the late unit a bit more armour and better overall stats.

I need to do an experiment with these also. I've just remembered this (an experienced modder may know better on this issue). It appears that if two or more units have the same name in the language file and the same building dependencies they may support "updating" from one to the other in different eras. This works with the Royal Knights and is based solely on their language file name in names.txt as far as I can tell. It may be hard coded to the bodyguard units only, but it could possibly work for any unit. I've never tested it! :dizzy2: I know this is the case for Royal Knights because the player is able to update "Royal Knights" (known internally as "EarlyRoyalKnights", "HighRoyalKnights" and "LateRoyalKnights".) from one era to the next when they were called "Royal Knights" in names.txt, but once renamed as e.g. "Not So Royal Knights" they would no longer update. If the game only checks the text string name in the language file when upgrading, then many units could be updated from one to the next when the new era begins and they expire. This would be a brilliant feature but I somehow doubt it would work. :thumbsdown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caravel

I have been looking at the Saracen Infantry again and can't work them out? Going purely on the info pic, what are they supposed to be? They look more so late medieval Ottoman than early Seljuk or anything from the Fatimid or Ayyubid dynasties, though I'm not 100% sure of course. I need to get them sorted one way or the other.

The Byzantine Spearmen issue also needs resolving. I will have to give them a unit that looks like Byzantine Infantry (on the field, not the info pic) except with a spear, and with stats similar to Feudal Sergeants. What I want to avoid is giving the eastern factions any spearmen of Chivalric Sergeants Calibre. The Turks in particular need to be much more cavalry based.

---

Like many units in MTW the Saracen Infantry info pic is based on an illustration from an Osprey book (Saladin and the Saracens by David Nicolle, if I remember rightly) that represents a 13th century Anatolian infantryman from the Seljuq Sultanate of Rum or Iconium. A possible alternative could be reduce it to a 60 men unit and on the other hand increase the Turk and Egyptian light cavalry -especially the horse-archers- to 60 men units.

I've made a new unit icon for the Late Ghulam Bodyguards, but I have some problems when I try convert it to Bif and Lbm files. I've asked for help in the Alchemist forum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caravel

So would it be available from the high period only? A post-Viking unit?

---

Well, as this was a predominantly Swedish thing (Danish peasants had the same "rights" as most of Western Europe) and Sweden didn't exist by 1087 I'd say yes. Of course there were peasant levies before, but they would be more interested in keeping the king away than serving him. Generally, Swedish peasants revolted (although often under the command of or by request from the nobility) against the king if he wasn't fit or they weren't happy with him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caravel

The toned down crossbow would be a problem as it would involve a new projectile type. It would have to be the standard crossbow. Personally I have no problem with that as it's not exactly overpowered anyway. The only other way to tone it down would be to reduce the number of bolts they carry?

---

Can't it just be edited in the projectilestats-file? If it can't I agree that lowering the ammo to say...24 (what a peasant was required to carry with him in times of war actually) would be a good idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caravel

I would have to disagree somewhat over some of the stats, though. I think it would be better to have the high unit as slightly better morale than the later unit, but give the late unit a bit more armour and better overall stats.

---

If for balance reason then I completely agree, but really the morale of the levies had increased by the 15th century as they were becoming more and more aware of their capability of defeating professional armies (although using their own rather sneaky tactics).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Belisario

I've made a new unit icon for the Late Ghulam Bodyguards, but I have some problems when I try convert it to Bif and Lbm files. I've asked for help in the Alchemist forum.

---

I'm sure I can help with this, and if I can't Ras will be able to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Innocentius

Well, as this was a predominantly Swedish thing (Danish peasants had the same "rights" as most of Western Europe) and Sweden didn't exist by 1087 I'd say yes. Of course there were peasant levies before, but they would be more interested in keeping the king away than serving him. Generally, Swedish peasants revolted (although often under the command of or by request from the nobility) against the king if he wasn't fit or they weren't happy with him.

---

High an late periods it is then. Only trainable in Sweden, and often present in revolts there?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Innocentius

Can't it just be edited in the projectilestats-file? If it can't I agree that lowering the ammo to say...24 (what a peasant was required to carry with him in times of war actually) would be a good idea.

---

Unfortunately new projectiles can't be added to that file. I would have to mod the unused projectile. To be honest though I would use the crossbow as it is. Toning it down may make it virtually useless. The ammo can be decreased. At present it is at 28, and could easily lowered to 24.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Innocentius

If for balance reason then I completely agree, but really the morale of the levies had increased by the 15th century as they were becoming more and more aware of their capability of defeating professional armies (although using their own rather sneaky tactics).

---

In view of that I would suggest a modest increase in armour, a good increase in morale and few other changes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Belisario

Like many units in MTW the Saracen Infantry info pic is based on an illustration from an Osprey book (Saladin and the Saracens by David Nicolle, if I remember rightly) that represents a 13th century Anatolian infantryman from the Seljuq Sultanate of Rum or Iconium. A possible alternative could be reduce it to a 60 men unit and on the other hand increase the Turk and Egyptian light cavalry -especially the horse-archers- to 60 men units.

---

Now, that is a very good idea. It has never occurred to me to increase unit sizes for horse archers, but it makes perfect sense! :wall: The Turcoman, horse, Ottoman Sipahi (horse archers in this mod), Faris, Mamluk Horse Archers and Desert/Steppe Horse Archers could all be increased to 60 man units.

For the Saracen Infantry a renaming to Seljuk Infantry would be in order and reassigning them to the Seljuks/Ottomans only. They would also have to be available from the high to late periods and not in early.

For the Byzantines it's either a conversion of Byzantine Infantry into spearmen or the creation of a separate unit of Byzantine Spearmen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Belisario

I've made a new unit icon for the Late Ghulam Bodyguards, but I have some problems when I try convert it to Bif and Lbm files. I've asked for help in the Alchemist forum.

---

I'll get over there. I've been having problems with LBMs myself and have been meaning to ask for a while. I find that though paintshop pro supports them it saves the file much larger than the original. also enabling the compression makes a mess of the image. The biggest problem I have with that program is that it doesn't preserve palettes properly either. With the bifs there is always the black spot editing annoyance a far as I know. I don't know any way around this.

I had thought a while ago on suggesting "Byzantine Sergeants" instead of armored spearmen, as a unit for Byzantium.

Also: how about tweaking the Varangian Guard to have two versions? If you check the description file, there´s one that lists them as "A place where many a viking king won his throne" and another that lists them as a "sometimes ceremonial unit"

So how about Varangian Guard Early and High with good stats and Varangian Guard late with diminished stats?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Unknown Guy

I had thought a while ago on suggesting "Byzantine Sergeants" instead of armored spearmen, as a unit for Byzantium.

---

They would be perhaps equal to Sergeants but would not be Sergeants if that makes sense? "Sergeants" are a medieval western european thing, not really a Byzantine troops type IIRC. They would have to be called Byzantine Spearmen or Byzantine Infantry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Unknown Guy

Also: how about tweaking the Varangian Guard to have two versions? If you check the description file, there´s one that lists them as "A place where many a viking king won his throne" and another that lists them as a "sometimes ceremonial unit"

---

This is possible. There is an early Varangian unit in existence, but it was never used in the game. THey could be used for the early era and the regular ones for the high era (their own equipment would have been almost completely replaced by Byzantine equipment by then).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Unknown Guy

So how about Varangian Guard Early and High with good stats and Varangian Guard late with diminished stats?

---

I'm still unsure as to whether to place them in the late era. This is a very overpowered unit as it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caravel

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Unknown Guy

So how about Varangian Guard Early and High with good stats and Varangian Guard late with diminished stats?

---

I'm still unsure as to whether to place them in the late era. This is a very overpowered unit as it is.

---

Aside from Caravel's valid point about VG being rather overpowered, I would also object to Varangians being included in the Late period for historical reasons. By the 12th century, the traditional "Vikings" had already begun passing away into memory, and the ranks of the Guards had largely been replaced by Anglo-Saxons instead of Rus & Norsemen. After the Fourth Crusade sacked Constantinople in 1204, the Varangians - for all intents and puroposes - appears to have ceased as an operational military unit.

While I do think the Byz could stand to have a decent heavy infantry unit available in the High & Late period (for the sake of game balance, if nothing else), I don't think they should be Varangians. Instead, I would suggest something like what VikingHorde did in his XL mod, which was to give the Byzantines Latin Auxillaries. Not that they necessarily should be called that, though.

Frankish Mercenaries, perhaps? Men from western Europe - often times young nobles who had no inheritance of their own and seeking fortune/fame - did serve in later Imperial armies. I don't know if it was really that common, but at least there's *some* historical precedence to include them as a unit. :shrug: It might not be the greatest idea, but it would allow the Byz to have heavy infantry available in the High & Late periods.

During the siege of Constantinople by Mehmed II, the byzantines received military and economical assistance from the venetians and the genovese, so it would have base. Maybe enable halberdiers for Byzantium in late?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Unknown Guy

During the siege of Constantinople by Mehmed II, the byzantines received military and economical assistance from the venetians and the genovese, so it would have base. Maybe enable halberdiers for Byzantium in late?

---

That had occurred to me as well, except that I'm under the impression their military aid was primarily in the form of a navy, not soldiers. Still, you might have a point. :book:

according to this: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...&postcount=567
and assuming that the quote is real, there were genovese and venetian soldiers in the garrison.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caravel

They would be perhaps equal to Sergeants but would not be Sergeants if that makes sense? "Sergeants" are a medieval western european thing, not really a Byzantine troops type IIRC. They would have to be called Byzantine Spearmen or Byzantine Infantry.

---

i think they should be called scutati (or skutatoi in a more "hellenised" spelling).

Scutum, was refering to their shield (a left over term from roman times). They were good quality rank and file (spear) infantry evlolved from the commitanses.

http://www.answers.com/topic/byzantine-battle-tactics

http://www.freewebs.com/hv-wargamers...Battleline.jpg

@excetchzebe1: Scutatoi would be fine, but if I'm going to go down that route, which I might as well, I'll need the same sort of names for Byz infantry, Byz lancers and Byz cavalry. :thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Caravel

@excetchzebe1: Scutatoi would be fine, but if I'm going to go down that route, which I might as well, I'll need the same sort of names for Byz infantry, Byz lancers and Byz cavalry.

---

Hmmm, then you'll be too close to the medmod that has chosen that exactly (that is not necessarily good neither necessarily bad, i guess). The respective names in the medmod are:

Byz infantry (swordsmen): vestiaritai
Byz lancers (medium cavalry with lances): stradiotai (or stratiotai, meaning "soldiers" in greek)
Byz Cavalry (medium cavalry + swords + bows): Vardariotai (vardariots)
(Trebizond) Archers: psiloi (meaning "thin" in greek, obviously refering to the fact that they were lightly armoured skirmishers)

None of these is "exactly" accurate (as there isn't such a thing anyway).

Alternative names for the spearmen would be Kontaratoi ("those bearing spears - kontarion") and for the skirmishers/archers toxotai ("archers").

The swords the Byzantines used were the "spatha" (or "spathi" - longsword) as well as the "paramerion" (sort of a scimitar sword that i guess makes for the inspiration on the unit info). A name along the lines of "spathatoi" (those bearing swords) would be probably acceptable, i guess, for a sword unit.

The byzantine infantry (swords) and the byzantine spearmen were most likely one and the same unit that occupied different positions in the formation (spears front ranks - swords behind). The same is possibly true for the "kataphraktoi" and the "clibanophoroi" - horsemen whithin the same unit with different functions.

Good luck with it - it seems you enjoy it very much :beam:

By the way:

This is a reconstructed kataphract of the 12th century. The style was "adapted" to a slightly western style by (of course) Manuel Comnenos who was ...suspiciously excited about chivalry for a byzantine emperor (he was organising jousts too!).

http://www.levantia.com.au/military/kataphraktos.html

Some notes about Turkish units

Sipahis of the Porte: I think this unit could be renamed as Kapikulu Sipahis. The Kapikulu (“slaves of the court”) were the elite corps of the Ottoman army, and its infantry units or Janissaries (yeni çeri, “new troops”) are well known to us. However the Kapikulu cavalry was militarily more important and had higher prestige than the Janissary infantry. Its members are sometimes confused with feudal, provincial, fief-holding cavalry as both were known as “sipahis”. The Kapikulu cavalry formed six “Bölükat” or regiments under the rulers immediate command. Most are again called sipahis, though this was also the title of one specific regiment, the “Sipahi Oglan” (sipahi children), an elite bodyguard created by Mehmet I early in the 15th century. The others were the “Silahdars” (ruler’s weapon holders; an early bodyguard), the Left and Right “Gureba” (non-Ottoman Muslims), and the Left and Right “Ulufeciyan” (salaried men). Their numbers were small –a few hundred in each regiment- but they were superbly equipped and heavily armoured. The Kapikulu cavalry was the battle-winning element in a classic Ottoman army, so the game could reflect this fact. I suggest make them a shock cavalry armed with lance and sword or mace to close combat.

Ottoman Sipahis: I think this unit could be renamed as Timarli Sipahis. By the late 14th century the provincial forces maintained and provided by the “timar” (an Ottoman form of “fief”) holders constituted the bulk of Ottoman cavalry and often were called sipahis like the elite palace regiments. The quality of a timarli cavalryman’s weaponry reflected the sized of his fief, though most were lightly equipped compared to the Kapikulu cavalry. Ordinary timar fiefs supported one horseman, while the holders of higher valued timars were also expected to equip mounted retainers, but all mustered and fought beneath the banner of their “Sancak Beg” (a governor of a military province).

In Anatolia the Ottomans incorporated existing sipahis and their timars. At first the process was similar in Christian Rumelia (the Balkan portion of the Ottoman state). Many Balkan “pronoia” fiefs were converted into timars and thus a large proportion of Balkan or Rumeli timarli cavalry were still Christian, being members of existing warrior aristocracies which had accepted Ottoman rule. In short I think another possibility could be make two types of provincial, fief-holding, sipahis:

-Anatolian Timarli Sipahis: equipped as horse archers with some armour and decent melee stats in a typical Turkish fashion and only trainable in the Anatolian provinces (Nicaea, Anatolia, Rum, Trebizond).
-Rumelian Timarli Sipahis: equipped as heavy cavalry in a typical Balkan fashion (I suggest a look similar to the Byzantine Pronoiai Allagion) and only trainable in the Balkan provinces (Bulgaria, Greece, Serbia, Constantinople).

Sources:
-Armies of the Ottoman Turks 1300-1774 by David Nicolle, Osprey MAA 140.
-Nicopolis 1396 by David Nicolle, Osprey Campaign 64.

Will be continued…