MTW2Kingdoms - Expansion? Mod? Joke?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

Real plate armour is different from sheet metal of course.:P

The point is that it could penetrate. If the archers could shoot the horses out from under the men, there was a good chance that they would die. There are a lot of weak spots between armour (and places where armour didn't cover) that the arrows could hit. I think what won Angincourt is the archers taking carefull aim, while the stakes and infantrymen held the horses off. While the archers couldn't defeat the French by themselves of course, they, nevertheless, no doubt inflicted most of the casualties. If archers could own by themselves with no one to hold the enemy back, there would have only been archers.
My point was that archers inflicted a LOT more casualties than is generally believed, and (if used correctly) could turn the course of a battle.

Vuk

---

Well, I agree partially but see post 56 above for other factors that I believe significant.

And I dont think archers take 'careful aim'...yes of course they aim but I doubt they are aiming for the neck for example, the distances would be too great. Volume of fire and area saturation is what is gonna win it for the longbow.

I still think you are over subscribing to the power of the long bow...dont get me wrong- as an Englishman, I found it very hard to believe that the longbow was not England's saviour but other factors (or combination thereof) but there is a strong case for it.

Put another way, if Agincourt was fought on an open plain with different weather conditions I would suspect a very different result- longbow or no.

Lol, this topic became a discussion about longbows and their use.

Yesterday i decided to pick Kingdoms from the street ( it was there 2 days and noone took it from the ground ) and try again. So, i defended Town with 3 units of peasant archers and 2 order spearmen vs 20 units of lithuanians. Guess who won? Guess who killed 19 from 20 units? Right, peasant archers ( not prussian, peasant with attack +5 ).

"You need heavy knights because no unit can match their charge. Light cavalry even flanking aren't going to do much, whereas heavy knights can deliver a heavy punch that can devestate units." ( Lusted )

They can? Really? Is it written in description? To be fair, they even cannot catch prisoners now. They are rich bastards, wanting peasant archers to do their job.

I dont care how called special kind of elite archers ( longbowmen, dismounted dvor or something else ). Rules of game describe to us, that peasant units cannot be reliable at the field of battle, and knightly units can. And I want the game to prove it.

May be i have to change difficulty from VH to H or M? This can change something in this problem for me? I like to have 3-4 archers units in my army, but i liked balanced army in MTW2 and dont want to play archer dominated army now. May be all things are well balanced in Kingdoms, but archers are just TOO STRONG? May be. You say, the problem is unarmored horses? Try to put 1 Prussian archer vs lancers or gothic knights. You will see, that ALL armor is fiction for them.

Need to say, that i like enemy AI in Kingdoms much more than in MTW2. They are agressive, making good army composition and acting better on battlefield. And i would like to play Kingdoms with old balance rules. But i am " whiner " and deserve electric chair.

Well, the AI is generally not very good at winning town battles, and bottlenecking the streets with excellent spearmen while archers rain down on the attackers would give you a victory in vanilla M2TW 9 times out of 10 as well.

Each of the 4 campaigns is balanced differently, and each faction plays out differently. I actually got beaten up pretty badly by the Teutonic Order while playing as Lithuania because my archers were not killing enough of their heavily armoured spearmen, and my foot troops were no match unless I outnumbered them and could flank.

But it's all a matter of opinion - I'm sorry you don't like the game and feel you've not got your money's worth. I am happy with the new challenges the game has brought, and am enjoying it immensely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lancelot

Well, I agree partially but see post 56 above for other factors that I believe significant.

And I dont think archers take 'careful aim'...yes of course they aim but I doubt they are aiming for the neck for example, the distances would be too great. Volume of fire and area saturation is what is gonna win it for the longbow.

I still think you are over subscribing to the power of the long bow...dont get me wrong- as an Englishman, I found it very hard to believe that the longbow was not England's saviour but other factors (or combination thereof) but there is a strong case for it.

Put another way, if Agincourt was fought on an open plain with different weather conditions I would suspect a very different result- longbow or no.

---

But Agincourt wasn't fought on an open plain and nor where Crecy or Poitiers. There was a good reason for this. In each case, the English found themselves a position which would work to their strengths and against those of the French. The French could have avoided battle in such circumstances but neglected to do so (in the years following Agincourt, they smartened up on this considerably).

So the battle was fought on terrain that worked to the advantage of the English. Specifically, the French weren't able to utilise their cavalry advantage and were forced approach the English in a fashion that made them more susceptible to longbow fire. The longbow was the basis of the English victory at Agincourt because it was the basis of their strategy throughout this period.

Arguing that the longbow wasn't decisive would be like arguing that the German panzers weren't decisive in the early stages of Operation Barbarossa - the flat, treeless plains of Eastern Europe were. Simple fact of the matter is that the Germans chose to use those weapons in those circumstances because it gave them a tactical advantage. They used different weapons in other circumstances.

Same with the English in the Hundred Years War. Whilst the French had a cavalry advantage, the English didn't fight them on the open plain; whilst the English had a missile advantage, they tried to force battles in circumstances that exaggerated the strengths of their archery.

Just because your victories owe something to an ounce of tactical nous, it doesn't mean they owe nothing to your choice/use of weapons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zatoichi

Well, the AI is generally not very good at winning town battles, and bottlenecking the streets with excellent spearmen while archers rain down on the attackers would give you a victory in vanilla M2TW 9 times out of 10 as well.

---

Sorry, never. Never 3 peasant archers with no experience, which i trained by mistake, was thinking i train prussian ones, will have enougth ammo to kill 20 units. In MTW2 if you put peasant archer vs peasants, they will have ammo to kill 1-2 units max. And Lithuanians had many strong axemen units, together with heavy cav. I placed Order spearmen in normal formation near gates, 2 units, one near another, and placed archers on walls, and they managed to shot all enemy units before Order spearmens was killed ( 10-15 men left in each unit ).

Well, the wall towers were firing too, right? The AI bunches up and makes archery kills more likely when attacking cities/castles.

Try that battle again on an open field and you should lose unless the AI gets it spectacularly wrong - and hey, much as I like M2TW, we all know that can happen.

You can pick and chose your evidence to back up your opinion that something is wrong, and so can I.

It all boils down to opinion. In yours there is a problem. In mine there isn't.

Zatoichi, i forgot to tell, that at same time, while Order spearmen was near the gates, 2 units with ladders attacked the walls, and peasant archers managed to fight at same time and make attackers run away. I have nothing against peasants, i know, in time of peace they drink bad alcohol and growing pigs, sometimes they fight each other in a Tavern with bottles in their hands, and " their bows are weak and of simple construction ". The only decision can be made, that " their wifes are witches and gave them some local mushrooms and seeds, which make them invulnerable to charges, their bows become powerful instruments, their muscles become iron, and their eyes can see the holes in/between armor ".

OK, well again, wall defenders get bonuses in Kingdoms, just like they did in the original.

This one battle you fought is not representative of combat in the whole Teutonic campaign, and this again is only one campaign out of 4 offered in the expansion.

But hey, I'll shut up about it now - I'm obviously not going to change your mind.

I do like your style though!

@ zaher

how big were your walls?
what seige equipemt did the lithuanians have?
what wall upgrads did u have?
was it the passice AI bug?

personally i dont beleive you.

i could never defend a city without canons with such small forces and unless the AI came without a general and did something really stupid.

how many of the kills where the archers and how many from the city defences?

you seem to just creaste situations wich the AI will mess up to prove your point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diotavelli

The longbow was the basis of the English victory at Agincourt because it was the basis of their strategy throughout this period.

---

So the heavy use of longbowmen was by choice alone? Do you really think that if the English could have fielded as many heavy knights as France that would not have in favour of the bow?...perhaps but I doubt it.

Quote:

---

Arguing that the longbow wasn't decisive would be like arguing that the German panzers weren't decisive in the early stages of Operation Barbarossa - the flat, treeless plains of Eastern Europe were. Simple fact of the matter is that the Germans chose to use those weapons in those circumstances because it gave them a tactical advantage. They used different weapons in other circumstances.

---

Well considering the panzer divisions were down to half strength in actual machines within a few weeks I wouldnt shout too loud about their decisiveness.

In fact you are helping to support my point- the germans did well not just because of the equipment but because of a multitude of other factors- leadership, terrain, doctrine etc etc. Same as it was in france- one can hardly shout about german equipment when most of their tanks did not even have sufficient firepower to destroy enemy tanks- yet they prevailed... ergo- its not just about the weapon system- which was my point to begin with...

Quote:

---

Just because your victories owe something to an ounce of tactical nous, it doesn't mean they owe nothing to your choice/use of weapons.

---

I was far from suggesting that the weapon system had no measure in the outcome, my point all along was to not over-estimate the significance of the weapon when there is ample evidence to suggest that other factors were just as important.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lancelot

So the heavy use of longbowmen was by choice alone? Do you really think that if the English could have fielded as many heavy knights as France that would not have in favour of the bow?...perhaps but I doubt it.

---

The Platagenets encouraged escutage amongst many of their feudal liegemen. The nobles would have served as heavy knights. The troops retained using the return from escutage were primarily foot troops, with an emphasis on longbowmen. It's not that I believe the English deliberately focused on longbowmen: I don't see how anyone could seriously doubt it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lancelot

Well considering the panzer divisions were down to half strength in actual machines within a few weeks I wouldnt shout too loud about their decisiveness.

---

And within a few weeks, the Germans were in control of vast tracts of Soviet territory. The sheer speed of the German advance had stretched supply lines and pushed the tanks to their technical limit. The panzers were decisive in the success of the advance - if not them, then what else? Yes, the Soviets were badly led and ill-equipped but the Germans knew they had an advantage in their tanks, knew tanks would be decisive on the steppe and planned accordingly. Tanks break down in battle, same as archers run out of arrows: they can still be the decisive weapon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lancelot

In fact you are helping to support my point- the germans did well not just because of the equipment but because of a multitude of other factors- leadership, terrain, doctrine etc etc. Same as it was in france- one can hardly shout about german equipment when most of their tanks did not even have sufficient firepower to destroy enemy tanks- yet they prevailed... ergo- its not just about the weapon system- which was my point to begin with...

---

I am not supporting your point, I'm disproving it. If the Germans had not known that their tank superiority would be decisive on the steppe, they would have adopted different tactics (as they did elsewhere). The Germans knew their strengths and adopted tactics to suit - and the short term victories they achieved were due to the effectiveness of their tanks. The other factors were not as important. The terrain came as a surprise to no one. Russian leadership was poor but, without equipment or tactics that could match the Germans, better generals would still have struggled.

Your example of France is a bad one. The German advance was not based largely upon their tank superiority, as was the case in the East. The two are not comparable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lancelot

I was far from suggesting that the weapon system had no measure in the outcome, my point all along was to not over-estimate the significance of the weapon when there is ample evidence to suggest that other factors were just as important.

---

But there isn't "ample evidence to suggest that other factors were just as important". The terrain was important but was chosen by the English on the basis of their missile supremacy. The weather was important but the French fought the English in dry weather and lost in the same way: the constant was the longbow, not the weather, but the outcome was the same - hence the only sensible conclusion is that the longbow was more decisive than the weather. The French adopted poor tactics but they lost because of the longbow. Given the terrain and troops at their disposal, the French shouldn't have fought at Agincourt - because the circumstances were always likely to make the longbow decisive.

I'm not suggesting that a given weapon is decisive in all battles. For instance, if the French had won at Agincourt, then another factor would have been decisive, as the circumstances were such that the longbow was always likely to win the battle. Similarly, if the English had fought the French on an open plain and won, it would have been down to factors other than weapons, as the French should always have won such a battle due to their superiority in heavy cavalry.

Your arguments seem to be based on one man's tests on one TV programme (if not, my apologies - please post your sources). He could well have been wrong. Most other researchers disagree with his findings.

Think of it like this. The English adopted the tactics they did because of the longbow. The French adopted the tactics they did because of the longbow. Both sides put the English victory down to the longbow (the French changed their tactics when facing longbows following Agincourt). Maybe, just maybe, they were right. They were there, after all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crpcarrot

@ zaher

how big were your walls?
what seige equipemt did the lithuanians have?
what wall upgrads did u have?
was it the passice AI bug?

personally i dont beleive you.

i could never defend a city without canons with such small forces and unless the AI came without a general and did something really stupid.

how many of the kills where the archers and how many from the city defences?

you seem to just creaste situations wich the AI will mess up to prove your point.

---

Beleve me or not, it was stone castle ( 2400 flo ) without any upgrades, it was turn 25 in my SP campaign on VH/VH difficulty. Lithuanians had 2 ladders and 2 siege rams, they moved with 1 ram and 2 ladders first, broke the gates pretty fast, and then rushed as usual with all their army througth the gates ( except 2 units of infantry which attacked walls with ladders. Yes, something was shoting from non- upgraded towers , but you know, when army reach the gates, it stop to shot. Sorry, i dont have screenshots of it , but if i will play a little more, i will post something like that. Just 5 min ago in my game, in almost same situation, 2 units of sword brethren and 3 units of peasant archers defended a bridge vs whole stack of lithuanians and won. 2 units of brethren near bridge, and 3 units of peasant archers behind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zaher

Beleve me or not, it was stone castle ( 2400 flo ) without any upgrades, it was turn 25 in my SP campaign on VH/VH difficulty. Lithuanians had 2 ladders and 2 siege rams, they moved with 1 ram and 2 ladders first, broke the gates pretty fast, and then rushed as usual with all their army througth the gates ( except 2 units of infantry which attacked walls with ladders. Yes, something was shoting from non- upgraded towers , but you know, when army reach the gates, it stop to shot. Sorry, i dont have screenshots of it , but if i will play a little more, i will post something like that. Just 5 min ago in my game, in almost same situation, 2 units of sword brethren and 3 units of peasant archers defended a bridge vs whole stack of lithuanians and won. 2 units of brethren near bridge, and 3 units of peasant archers behind.

---

well i dont kow if your actually experienceing these results maybe someting worng with yur game i dont seem to experience these sorts of results. specially with peasant archers.

i dont have kingdoms but play LTC 3.1

I've found that playing as Lithuana that my archers were ineffective against Order spearmen, unless I could fire into the flank or rear as they advanced against my line. It surprised me as I was sure I would win easily. Once I adjusted my tactics, I did much better.

Seiging cities now requires me to bring 3 times as much artillery as before. The first seige I did, I brought two catapults. I had a full stack with ladders and rams. I thought I would destroy the towers before I ordered an advance. The stupid catapults only destroyed one tower before running out of ammo. Yes if I had used them to knock down the walls I could have just rushed in but I was trying not to damage too much of the city. I still won but it was not until I got gunpower units that I was able to effective knock all the towers around the gate down.


I have seen regular towers shooting, it looked to me like they were shooting arrows instead of ballista projectiles.

Seiging , at least to me, now requires the "standard" two to one ratio to succeed without heavy losses.

Exactly how much credit the longbow deserves for the english victories, and how powerful it was, will always be hotly debated.

However we know that the armor worn by knights was fairly effective at preventing arrows from killing the knights. A mounted charge would still find it very hard to proceed through a hail of arrows, because some men would go down, wounded, and horses would go down, and then the path of the ones behind would be blocked. If it was a muddy day with limited maneuverability, your charge would basically be halted, even if there were very few outright kills on knights caused by the arrows.

Longbowmen were a lot more devastating against run of the mill infantry and archers than against knights: the scottish absolutely loathed longbowmen.

We also know that none of those 3 battles were won by archers alone, there were other factors such as the terrain and weather. However, I doubt that the english would have won without their archers. They played a very important role. As did England's men at arms, once the french reached the english lines.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nameless

Actually it's better this way.

Now people can't simply just "charge" cavalry full frontal and instant win. They have to focus on flanking and hitting the rear.

---

I want armored sgts and pavise spearmen to wreck my cavalry charge. That is their purpose.

I don't want Bob the candlestick maker's son slaughtering my 1500 lbs of high speed armored fury because he tied ma's kitchen knife to a stick.

I want their to be a difference between hardened soldiers trained to stop a charge with their spears and militia who are armed with spears because they are cheap to make.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noir

Heavy cavalry was never supposed to take on any opponent head on historically...
Noir

---

I am sorry but that is exactly what they were meant to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IvarrWolfsong

I am sorry but that is exactly what they were meant to do.

---

:yes:

I think people here confuse the fact that it was expensive to train and mantain heavy cavalry, then the fact they were extra powerful. At this rate soon war elephants will not be able to disrupt and trample enemy units since they were rarely used...

I remember destroying/routing 2 full stacks of greek hoplites with 2 units of general's bodyguards in RTW, it sort of ruined it for me after that. Now i can't send a unit of mailed cav head on against archers if they are armor piercing but then again why should I, to be realistic they are too slow for that and even light cav should be deployed ONLY when the archers are moving as not to get a nasty surprise. You actually get missile duels now or the losses might be big if you try to bum-rush the archers. That again calls for smarter generalship which according to me is good gameplay. Game just got little harder. L2Play or buy a Wii...

Edit Oh and Ivar your sig doesn't tell the whole truth the pope overturned the verdict and they got fried allright.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gaius Terentius Varro

I remember destroying/routing 2 full stacks of greek hoplites with 2 units of general's bodyguards in RTW, it sort of ruined it for me after that. Now i can't send a unit of mailed cav head on against archers if they are armor piercing but then again why should I, to be realistic they are too slow for that and even light cav should be deployed ONLY when the archers are moving as not to get a nasty surprise. You actually get missile duels now or the losses might be big if you try to bum-rush the archers. That again calls for smarter generalship which according to me is good gameplay. Game just got little harder. L2Play or buy a Wii...

---

You mean no more scirmishing, just duels? Noone will dare to scirmish because they will be killed on their way? I saw term " archers harrasment" somewhere... In MTW pavise crossbow duels was most annoing part of MP.... The fact that 2 Livonian auxilaries ( pavise crossbowmens ) in your army make AI army full of archers rush at you isnt normal in my opinion.

I beleved in myth CA developed and now its looking like toy with repleaceble parts. Ok then. Now i know that units are digits and I dont want to become the object of such experiments in future.

It is a game i play every day. If it stayed exactly the same in every incarnation i'd find something else to do. I see the new rebalance as a challenge iI intend to try out. Problem with your thread is if you go back to the first post i thought you were talking about the Archers:
"I decided it when i noticed that most profitable units in Teutonic campaign are prussian archers, and i dont need to build nothing to win the game." not the Xbowmen which i found disturbing since i can't see them killing anything of value due to short range. So now my archers own the horse archers big deal I hate the twats that play HA only armies online anyways. It's still a glorious game series and at the end of the day it's a game: not happy? mod it or wait till someone does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gaius Terentius Varro

Edit Oh and Ivar your sig doesn't tell the whole truth the pope overturned the verdict and they got fried allright.

---

Doh! BTW what is your source for that? I was under the impression that by the time the pope reversed it and ordered them re-tried, the vast majority of them had gone to Teutonic Knights.

I'll try to dig it up, read teh book together with another about the Cathar extermination in France (Albigensian Crusade) about 20 years ago. Or was it in Indiana Jones hmmm,